We found 347 results that contain "instructors"

This week, we are featuring Dr. Stephen Thomas who wears many hats here at MSU. He is the Digital Curriculum Coordinator in the College of Natural Science, the Assistant Dean for STEM Education, Teaching and Learning, and he is also the Associate Director for the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science. Stephen was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator initiative) regularly!
I’m Dave Goodrich and I help design engaging learning experiences with educators like Stephen here at MSU. I’ve had the privilege of getting to work and learn from Stephen over the years and was glad to get to be able to interview him for this series. This is a longer conversation than typical educator stories, but we could have talked even longer, I’m sure. In fact, from this conversation, I’d love to have follow-up conversations with Stephen on some of the things that came up here, but for now, read more about Stephen's perspectives and experiences below:
--
Dave  
I thought we could begin our conversation by having you give a glimpse into how you became an educator and your path to becoming an educator. We also usually start this with a challenging question: In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?
Stephen  
I would say I am really focused on connection. So usually I'm dealing with populations who are studying things that are unfamiliar to them. So usually I'm teaching non-majors or done some work and informal science education, and, you know, some work with majors. But I feel like in general, I'm usually talking to a naive or inexperienced population, and I'm trying to help them to see themselves in the content that they're studying. And then I think over time, I've realized that there's a large piece of having a connection with the individual in order to help them then make a connection with the content. And so you know, and sometimes it's even like, how are you connecting them to each other, in order to help support them, like peers and their fellow students? I think there's a lot of that element in how I go about probably in the educational endeavor. So it's a lot of like, how do we engage people and get them to see themselves in the content that they're working with?
Dave  
Yeah, absolutely. So I love talking to educators, like you, who inspire me. It's educators like you who helped me decide to go into education, because of how they kind of poured themselves into it and really cared for their students like how you're describing. I'm curious, I don't know if I've ever, ever asked you before, was there a moment in your life where you were like, yes, this is what I want to do. How did you enter the world of education?
Stephen  
So I come from a long line of educators and lawyers. I was never going to choose law. I find it fascinating, but it just wasn't for me. And it just seemed like a very natural fit. So I think what's interesting, though, is that the piece that I've really resonated with is not necessarily the teacher part, it's actually the curriculum part. To go to the law piece, you have trial lawyers, and then you have the lawyers who are like, in the background, like, you know, getting everything together. I really like the background piece. I like thinking about what you are trying to do and how does it play out? And what kind of challenges might you face? And what kind of background materials can you prepare someone with? And so I think over time, I've realized, it's not the actual performance piece that I enjoy, although sometimes that can be really nice. I actually just really enjoy the preparation and the thought exercise that's involved in it. Sometimes the production of curriculum, like I sometimes dip my toe into, like the artistic side of the world. I feel like curriculum development is like artwork where you produce something and it's like, here's the tangible evidence of my labor, as opposed to the kind of experiential part that goes on in the classroom.
Dave  
Oh, man, you're speaking my language now. That's interesting to hear, because, I mean, I see you as being one of the most interesting educators in that regard. You really seem to be excellent at the delivery, the performance, and the curriculum design also. If your experience is like mine, it can be a challenge to work both those hats at the same time.
Stephen  
Honestly, I find the performance piece difficult. So for me, it took a long time to resolve being like a gay man in front of a class. That identity piece was really hard, and I didn't want it involved at all in my teaching. There was a lot of mental effort about how I just portray myself as an individual that people would connect with, but also that they wouldn't necessarily have difficulty with me being gay. So, I feel like there was a lot of performance in that it made it an extra cognitive piece of how am I portraying myself. Simultaneously, I'm trying to make sure that they're learning, you know, the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, and it's just like, there's a lot going on in those two things that made it just not as pleasurable as some people find it. After like a decade of that tension is part of why I didn't necessarily go towards the performance piece of teaching as much.
Dave  
That's fascinating. I'd love to talk to you more about that. That's interesting, like how identity I mean, shapes, obviously, who we are as an educator, but how different identities intersect with the role of an educator. 
Stephen  
Right, like, women and minorities. I feel like with mine, it could be like a hidden component, but we hear lots of studies looking at women and minorities in front of a classroom and the extra difficulties they face. I feel like that's just this unfortunate overlap with the fact that they have to deal with his added difficulties. At the same time, they're trying to manage student learning. We also talk about the benefit of having diverse audiences in front of students. I think those are, you know, some things that are kind of woven into the situation of having diverse faculty teaching or instructors teaching.
Dave  
Yeah, you mentioned “connection” as this key keyword for you in your teaching. Could you share what connection looks like for you in your practice?
Stephen  
So one of the things in teaching science to non-scientists, I feel like one of the things I tackled earlier on was this idea of subject anxiety. And so I was getting a lot of feedback from students about when they were coming into the class that they were scared. They wouldn't say scared, they would say that they were anxious. Like, ‘science isn't my forte or that ‘I've never really done well in science courses.’ And so I feel like there's a potential barrier between the instructor and the students because they're anxious about how they're going to perform and whether or not they're capable of succeeding. That has been shown to impact their ability to succeed. I've always been asking how to reduce that kind of subject anxiety. I’ve looked at things like how do you incorporate comics as a way of softening the subject matter so that people are more engaged by it? I did a whole video series of me in weird places where it was all green screen. The idea is if your instructor is willing to do that, then surely it's not difficult to ask them questions, right? There's no barrier to them in that, ‘Oh, he's a scientist, and I'm going to look stupid in front of him.’ Instead, he's looking stupid in front of me. So like, I don't have to worry about it being something that I can't do. Right. So I've always tried to figure out, like, how do you make connections with people. It facilitates the ability to ask for help. And to take risks in trying to convey what you understand, right? 
Because I feel that part of participating in the conversation is how you help grow as an intellectual, I would say, maybe that's one of my tendencies. Personally, when I'm learning something, I like to talk about it, get corrected, and then have a discussion and dialogue. And if you're afraid of showing your ignorance, then it's really difficult because it still remains hidden, right? And so to me, it is about how do you create an environment where they do feel connected, where they can feel connected with each other? When you confront that misconception, that's really where some significant learning can occur.
Dave  
Yeah, absolutely. It almost sounds like you're talking a bit about modeling vulnerability as a posture toward learning itself.
Stephen  
Right. I would say that I definitely did not have that terminology or that thought process at the time. But I feel like some of the conversations that have gone on with authors like Brene Brown, and, you know, thinking about allowing yourself to be vulnerable and connect to students has helped me to think about it maybe in similar terms.
Dave  
Yeah. Vulnerability is probably not generally a scientist’s favorite word?
Stephen  
Well, we have thought about having some workshops on that. But I think we sometimes talk about it with regards to how you have difficult conversations in the classroom, right? But it really does boil down to some of that being about vulnerability. That's also around kind of the intellectual components of being able to be wrong, and how you grow from that. So there are concepts of failing forward or failing fast or growth mindsets, right? And how do you help people to realize that it's not a condition of being either good in math or not good in math or good in science or not good at science? It's how do you grow what you have to be better? 
Dave  
Yeah, oh, that would be an interesting conversation to have around the scientific process itself. Some might argue this is based around an intellectual humility, of understanding that we don't understand and know that we don't know and constantly trying to engage the unknowing with things that we do know, to try, to build on that with solid evidence.
Stephen  
There's an article that is basically on stupidity in science. It's a one-page description of regrets of a professional who was talking about his experience in grad school and realized that the ability to handle your own ignorance allows you to be successful in science. So it was talking about why some people make it and some people don't. And this was one of the aspects of the ability to be okay with realizing that you don't know the answer. Being willing to push that boundary is what allows you to be successful. So it's just, I think, an interesting take for students to realize that successful scientists recognize that they don't know and be okay with it.
Dave  
How have your ideas about these things changed over time?
Stephen  
Well, like what the identity piece, I feel like, there's definitely a component of feeling like it was just information, but they didn't really need to know me and to know aspects about who I am. And I feel like that's, you know, more especially in an online environment. I feel like there was a time when I wondered how you most interestingly convey this content, and you can totally do it divorced from identity and the connection piece is the part that helps to bridge those who are not already passionate about the topic. That's what's going to get them to connect with it. And so just figuring out how we humanize the digital experience is, that's been one progression, I would say.
One of the other ones I would say is my thinking about educator development because a lot of my work is working with faculty about how to improve their practice. I feel like that progression has been one of being rooted in a kind of best practice, or being very prescriptive, to actually having conversations with faculty about what it is that they value, and then figuring out how that ties into the primary literature or into and to various literature's, in general. There are times when you want to know just like, what are some of the things that people have learned that are best that have been shown in the literature with regards to having discussions in class. But it's really different. When thinking about life as an individual, I'm interested in having discussions with students, and identifying that as actually a pedagogical approach that you want to expand because that's what you're actually rooted in. That's what you're going to put the time in. That's what's going to define your actual classroom experience. So instead of someone coming in and being like, actually, you need to use whiteboards more. Yes, whiteboards can be effective, but you actually have to figure out what your identity is as an instructor, and then go from there. I just feel like that's so much more powerful. 
Dave  
That's really quite profound because they do seem to have eager tentativeness to “best practices.” It reminds me of one of my favorite authors, Parker Palmer, he has a book called “The Courage to Teach.” And he talks a lot about how a lot of and how we as educators, essentially, teach from who we are, as you're talking about that very thing, starting with the heart of the individual educator first and what their goals are and then building technological support.
Stephen  
I totally remember having conversations with other educators, then pushing back on the best practices. And, like, I feel like this comes from a place of being in the sciences for, you know, so long of like, what, like, you measure things and we find out what is more effective. That's how we improve. And just disregarding this aspect of what would nurture a faculty member. I mean, like when we think about, like, how much time faculty spend on improving their teaching like they're balancing out research and service and all of these other components. And so like, in order for them to really grow, it has to be the thing that you're super passionate about. This is how I actually connect with people. And so I feel like the discussions or arguments we had about best practices and whether or not that's a valuable framework to go from is actually just moving in a different direction from this conversation of like, why would you just not focus on the thing that people are passionate about? Right? So it's not that it's incorrect, it's just not really looking at it from the same perspective. And so, it is, you know, sometimes a little painful to be like, oh, yeah, I think I said something like that. You know, like, a few years ago, and yeah, so it has been interesting.
Dave  
Yeah, absolutely. And I certainly then, early on, in my work in instructional design, I was a strong proponent of best practices. I’m critical of that, lately, myself also. So, could you tell us a little bit more about your settings? I think when you were at first MSU, you were primarily teaching and an instructor and now you do a lot of educator development. I guess we could say, and you also do a lot of design and curricular work, and also some teaching, I believe, or
Stephen  
…up until this last summer,
Dave  
okay. Okay, gotcha. Okay. So could you tell us a little bit about your, your setting in which you're in, and then these different hats that you're wearing now?
Stephen  
Part of my role is in the Center for Integrative Studies in general science. So that's the Gen Ed Science course for non-scientists. And a lot of my work in the last few years has been focused on curriculum reform. And I have to say, that's probably some of the most rewarding work that I've done. Because it's, I just love it. The idea of so thinking about, if you have a three-class sequence, like how do students progress between those classes? And then like, how do you resolve to have different faculty and their identity and their topic? And so it's just been, I feel fascinating about like, how do you first off physically map the curriculum? How do you get faculty buy-in for various curricular reforms? How do you build a community around curriculum, like, I'm interested in those, those ideas, and so that work has been really, really rewarding? And then I'd say in college, that setting is looking at how technology is a filter or a lever for impacting student learning. And so I get a lot of help from faculty to think about technology tools that they could use in order to facilitate things like discussions online. But a lot of that work has also been focused on accessibility. 
I feel like that has been an incredible lens that also had a lot of unique challenges about how you get people to buy into doing extra labor for, for accessibility, for widening their impact on their curriculum. And so like, we had gone through many different lenses of like, oh, well, accessibility is about compliance, and then looking at how that impacted faculty buy-in. And, you know, how it was limiting their participation, because as a concept, it's not very engaging, and then, you know, shifting over to more of a social justice piece, or going even into an equity viability piece, I feel has really allowed people to, to think about that, and see how that is actually aligned with their beliefs, and how that type of work is important. 
I feel like there's, you know so that accessibility work was like, how do we make sure that all the digital pieces that we're making are accessible to, so there ADA, so Americans with Disabilities Act, so it responds to that? But also, you know, what we've found is that those accommodations helped all students. And so, you know, it kind of broadened to this idea of going from an idea of compliance to really how do we impact a larger number of students. So that's kind of that work. And then my new role, as the assistant dean, it's focused on STEM teaching and learning. It's really focused on the STEM building, and then figuring out how a single location can bring faculty and disciplines from across the STEM disciplines and even outside of STEM, to talk with each other and to learn from each other, and to better use the physical spaces in their pedagogical approach. 
So, you know, when you have small groups of people, how do you foster discussion in that and then build ways of reporting out to a larger community is the, you know, is what we're working on. And so the STEM building has lots of innovative approaches to their classroom design. And so figuring out how do we train faculty to do that is, you know, is, again, you can see a hopefully the parallel between what's going on in the center for, you know, building a community around curriculum, and then in the college about how do we as a community, figure out what are the standards for the curriculum that we're creating? And then the STEM building is how do we have conversations in typically siloed communities that can help us to improve our practice. So there's a lot about communication. And probably a parallel, you know, connection. Right? 
How do we have connections between faculty members from diverse groups? 
How do we connect it to the technologies that we use? 
And how do we make better impacts with the students that we're serving?
--
Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. 

At this point, most educators have likely heard about “inclusive classrooms.” We want you to consider an alternative perspective about how you can make classrooms places where all students feel seen and heard. This perspective – that of “anti-oppression” – rather than inclusivity or diversity – will help you understand the role instructors play in creating classroom environments in which some students are oppressed and others are privileged. We recommend this lens because it focuses on the systems in which oppression operates rather than on differences themselves. Individuals differences can too often be used by educators (consciously or unconsciously) to privilege or oppress those they are teaching. Anti-oppression in the classroom begins with you. 
 
What is an Anti-Oppressive Classroom?
Anti-oppressive classrooms are those in which all forms of oppression are actively and intentionally challenged. Anti-oppressive classrooms attempt to directly address issues of power toward the fullest recognition of all individuals. As instructors, we have considerable power/influence over the classroom environment. How we assume that role and use that power will determine the boundaries and expectations for a non-oppressive classroom. As the instructor, you set the parameters. Your students will either be empowered or oppressed as a result of how you employ your identity in the classroom. This is why it’s important to begin the process towards an anti-oppressive classroom by reflecting on elements of your own identity.
 
Authentic self-reflection may not be easy, but is required if you commit to a non-oppressive classroom. This is a process…it involves steps. We can only start from who and where we are. To help you start your journey, we provide four questions to engage you in intentional thought towards becoming mindful of your identity.
 
Four Questions to Begin the Journey
 

Are you aware of your identity statuses: sex, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, age, ability, religion, socioeconomic status, national status, language, etc.?

Answering this question is the first step toward a non-oppressive classroom in that you become aware of your identity statuses so that you can understand their meaning and how they intersect. (For instance, you’re not only Latino or White …you’re a [Latino or White], heterosexual, cisgender (insert other identity statuses here) male.)
 

Have you acknowledged/do you understand what those identities mean to you? For instance, do you know what it means to be white racially if you identify as racially white? Answering this question allows you to understand who you are, so that you can begin to address the privileges (or lack thereof) associated with your identity statuses.

 

Have you accepted the privileges (or lack thereof) that comes with your identity? Have you internalized why this matters? Answering this question allows you to deal with reactions you may have while accepting your identity statuses (such as defensiveness, guilt, powerlessness, responsibility, ownership), so that you can embody your identity in a true and authentic way.

 

Do you actively engage your identity within your teaching? How do you situate or position yourself in the classroom? Now that you have become aware of, acknowledged and accepted your identity statuses, you must critically consider what actions you can take to address your privilege (or lack thereof) in the classroom.

Introduction
A Tale of Two Tests:
Imagine that you are a student and you have to take two tests for different classes.
Test 1: For this test, you will be given a typical multiple choice question exam.  You can take the test home, fill it out, and give it back to your instructor the next day. The exam will determine your entire grade for the course, so the instructor tells you not to look at other materials.
Test 2: For this test you are asked to name the seven dwarfs of Snow White, but to do this, you have to install special software, show your id to prove your identity, document your environment to show you have no outside help, find a specific location for your computer that is level, quiet, and where you will not be interrupted. You will only have 2 minutes to answer this question, and this will determine 1% of your grade in this course.
From these examples, hopefully you can see that neither one makes sense in that there is a mismatch among factors such as the importance of the exam, its integrity, and burden placed on the learner.  
To create better testing experiences than these examples, we hope that in this lesson, you will be able 


to weigh multiple considerations to decide whether or not to have your digital assessment proctored and 


to identify some approaches you might use to better prepare your students.  


It should be noted from the onset, that no practical system of assessment prevents 100% of academic dishonesty.  The goal for this document is to make recommendations that will help you to choose reasonable options for your context.  As these will differ from course to course, you should explain to students what is allowed during exams with regards to collaboration and the use of information sources.  It is not necessarily intuitive especially given new modalities of course delivery.


Be clear about the expectations of what students can and cannot do for exams based on the technology and pedagogy you are implementing.


Background information 
At MSU, we have 3 main methods that faculty are using to increase the academic integrity of their multiple choice question (MCQ) exams:

using features that are built into D2L (without video proctoring) vs.

Click this link to see considerations for D2L Quiz settings


implementing Respondus Lockdown Browser and Monitor (video proctoring) or

Click here for a short overview video of Respondus


using Zoom and student’s iphones (video proctoring)

Click here for a panel discussion of Texas A&M faculty about how to use Zoom for proctoring



In making a determination of what to use, there are four main considerations that you might take into account before choosing an approach:


The anxiety induced by the testing environment you create


The importance of the exam


The technology available to students, and resources available to instructors


The privacy of your students


Test Anxiety
Increases in anxiety affect student performance on exams.  At lower levels anxiety can increase student performance, but at higher levels it can impact both cognitive and academic performance.  Anxiety can be caused by the actual exam and course content, but if we look at just the components of a test environment there are factors that can increase anxiety, they can include:


Finding and maintaining a quiet, uninterrupted space, with adequate internet bandwidth


Increased technology complexity needed to complete tasks


Being observed 


Students feeling they must limit normal physical behaviors that might be seen as academically dishonest (e.g. looking off screen) when in reality it may be a behavior used for processing information or to reduce stress.






Allow students to take the test at times that they are able to find that best meets their lifestyle and context (e.g. after kids are put to bed or when there are not multiple people using the internet),

Offer students the opportunity to try out proctoring technology to make sure it works on their system and to familiarize them with the software interface, and
Work with students to accommodate their test taking behaviors and not jumping to conclusions about observed behaviors representing academic dishonest.



For more on this read
Kolski, Tammi, and Jennifer Weible. "Examining the relationship between student test anxiety and webcam based exam proctoring." Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 21.3 (2018).
Exam Stakes
The test itself can generate anxiety, again at low levels increasing student preparedness for an exam, but at higher levels it can be demotivating as well impacting cognitive ability.  As a test has higher stakes (i.e. becomes more important for the student as a gatekeeper to success either in the class or future career) the more likely you will see academic dishonesty.  
Similarly, the more a test is not an authentic task to what is being trained, the more likely you will have academic dishonesty.  For example, MCQ exams rarely match performance expectations in a job (i.e. you rarely take quizzes or MCQ exams to get hired or a raise, although exceptions to this exist).  To improve authenticity of exams, please review the other section of this site: Approach 1: Assessment Options Beyond the Exam: High-impact Assessment Design.



Offer multiple lower stakes exams that are delivered in less stringent environments.  It can reduce the stress and prepare students for larger stakes exams where proctoring might be used.



Technology and Resources Available
Technology available to students is one potential barrier to plans for using video proctors. Even though proctoring is free for faculty to implement, students may lack the needed equipment or environment. In a recent survey asking about students household environment, 


43% said they did not have a quiet, safe space to study


And 7% said they lived in a different time zone than East Lansing.


 
In looking at students’ technology capabilities


14% lacked a reliable internet connection


6% lacked a reliable smartphone


11% lacked a webcam for their computer 


All of these factors could impact a students’ ability to participate effectively in an online proctored exam. Click here to see the full report.


Have an alternative approach for your assessment delivery and 
Use a practice exam and have students test their hardware, this can lower students anxiety of the technology and help you identify students who may need to take advantage of your alternate approach. 


Privacy
There are many reasons for why students may not want to turn on their webcam to participate in classroom discussions.  Some of those reasons may revolve around showing their home environments to others or giving over control of their computer's recording devices and some information to an entity not of their choosing. 
These concerns may impact their ability and willingness to take exams.  Even though the University is providing options for proctoring, you should consider whether or not the benefits outweigh a student's concern for privacy. Of our three methods, D2L quiz settings do not impact privacy, Respondus Monitor only reveals student environments to course staff but collects data on students, and Zoom proctoring does not collect student data but may reveal student environments to both course staff as well as other students.
The recordings that are captured by Respondus and/or Zoom are considered academic records and will need to handled according to FERPA requirements.  Be transparent with students about who will see these recordings and how those records will be handled.  Sample syllabus language and additional points can be found in the Overview of FERPA concerns link below.


Click here to see an overview of FERPA concerns with video recordings at MSU
Click here to see Respondus' data privacy policy


Technology Comparison





Approach


Description


Pros


Cons




D2L Quiz features


Use D2L settings such as limit number of questions per page, randomize questions/answers, use pool of questions, etc.



Can be done asynchronously.
Does not impact privacy.
Lower environment anxiety.




Hard to limit collaboration on exams or referencing outside material





Respondus Lockdown Browser and Monitor

Used in conjunction with D2L Quizzes the system uses students' webcams and video analytics to record student identities and "flag" potential cheating incidents.


Can be done asynchronously.
Does not reveal student environment to other students.
Automatically records student ID, environment, and flags potential incidents of academic dishonesty.




Higher environment anxiety
Some student data is collected by company.
You need review flagged videos and student ID which may increase time





Zoom Proctoring

Using Zoom on student phones or other devices,  instructors and/or TAs will monitor a group of students.  May be used in conjunction with a students computer.


Can be used with a myriad of software, not just D2L.
Students and faculty are familiar with the software.
No data collected on students.




Higher environment anxiety.
Students have to share their environment with others.
Requires students have both computer and cell phone or other device
Has to be done synchronously.






Weighing these concerns, what proctoring method will you choose?  How can you prepare students to succeed on your assessments?

Hello Everyone, 
It’s me, Nick Noel, your friendly neighborhood instructional designer and technologist. I’d like to take a minute to talk about Eli Review. We’ve had this technology on campus for about seven years Since then, we’ve gone through many changes, so I think it’s time to talk about it again.  
What is it? 
Eli Review is a web-based peer review application. It provides an easy platform for students to review each other's work and provide feedback. Instructors set up the writing assignments, focusing on small, targeted assessments, that can lead to larger, more complicated, works.  
How is it helpful?  
The philosophy behind Eli Review is that “feedback is the engine of writing improvement”. For students to develop as writers, they need meaningful feedback on their work. The act of providing feedback, is also beneficial for students learning. By providing a method for instructors to direct peer feedback, and interact with it, Eli review assists in creating a community of learning within the course. So that students and instructors are all actively engaged in the learning process, and are con tributing the success of the class.  
Where can I find more information?  
There is a great deal of documentation on Eli Review’s website. You can sign-up and gain access to the application by going here: Eli Review Website 
There are also numerous resources on how to get started: 

How Eli Review Works 
Navigating Eli Review as an Instructor 
Bill Hart-Davidson talks about how data shaped his teaching during the live classroom activity 

Topic Area: Online Teaching & Learning
Presented by: Andrew Krause, Tsveta Sendova
Abstract:
We are excited to share the redesigned departmental teaching structure that we implemented during pandemic-forced online teaching. Our department has realigned our teaching efforts into cohesive course-teams, in lieu of traditional independent (coordinated) teaching roles. No longer are individual instructors responsible for specific sections, but instead instructors have a role on a larger team that shares the instructional load. For example, 24 instructors for MTH 132: Calculus 1 worked together in a variety of roles to deliver a cohesive course to 1400 students.
This configuration has important advantages, the three most important being: flexibility, support, and adaptability.
Flexibility: With diverse roles available, each instructor can contribute with their strength -- leading online webinars, small group tutoring, assessment design, video creation, etc.
Support: The large team can support instructors who experience challenges that disrupt their ability to teach (health, family, etc.). It is easy to substitute one or a few teaching roles, rather than an entire ""teacher"".
Adaptability: Having a cohesive ""backbone"" of the course (D2L, materials for students, etc.) makes it possible to rapidly adjust to changing scenarios, such as changing guidance on in-person meetings. It is easy to plug in additional face-to-face meetings as alternatives or enhancements to the online structure.

Thinking about Assessment
The focus of our Febuary workshops is assessments, whether formative or summative and exams, essays, or projects. We are hosting three workshops for faculty and two open "tech support" Q&A webinars for students. The faculty workshops will each be offered once. The recordings shared by email to all registrants and also posted to either the D2L Instructor Self-Directed Training site or the MSU Tools and Technology site, as noted in the workshop description.
 
Building and Conducting Exams in D2L (Desire2Learn) 
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 90-minute workshop, we will provide detailed demonstrations of how to build an exam in the D2L Quizzes tool, show how to customize submission views, and briefly touch on exam security measures. The workshop recording will be posted to the MSU Instructor Self-Directed Training site (link below).

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAod-qprTMoEt3tlcNQUPDO1wdKGG1ZD2O- 


For a more immediate how-to resource, please refer to the MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L, which has a module with step-by-step walkthrough videos on how to use the D2L Quizzes tool. 

 
Strategies and Tools for Formative Essays and Projects
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 1 p.m. 
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss strategies and technologies for formative assessments, including D2L rubrics, TurnItIn, and Eli Review. We will have faculty speakers share their experiences and philosophies regarding when & why they use formative assessment and what they have found valuable about it, then engage in peer discussion within smaller groups. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies "course".

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwodO2gqD8jHtN5cK8TNCsIaL83HST_vbGv 


For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following: 




MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies. 
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop 
The MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L has a module on using the D2L Rubrics Tool 



 
Tools for Grading Summative Essays & Projects
Tuesday February 9, 2021, starting at 10 a.m. 
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss when and why to use Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk to administer and grade summative, non-exam assessments such as essays and projects. This workshop will include brief presentations by faculty who have used these technologies in their courses, followed by informal peer discussion. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies course. 

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwscuqhqjMsGtX7S0Quya3mLxYhPG7sTse7 


For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following: 




MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies. 
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop 
This iTeach article with a feature comparison of Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk 



 
Technology Q&A for Students
Friday February 12, 2021 and Monday February 15, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
These 90-minute webinars are open tech support time for students, especially for any concerns about upcoming online exams or assessments. Students can submit questions through their registration form, anonymously in the webinar Q&A area, and in the webinar chat area. 

Registration link for Friday Feb 12, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Vk-kFbZZQ4W7zUs8gkkZRw 
Registration link for Monday Feb 15, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zNhhPU0qQq2e9dZDjbS2HA 

 
 
 

Join us for the 2023 MSU Educational Technology Summit Monday, June 5 through Friday, June 9. 
Click the link to enroll: https://apps.d2l.msu.edu/selfenroll/course/1898946
This week-long virtual event will highlight the technologies that enhance teaching and learning and promote student success. In addition to demos from partner vendors, MSU instructors, instructional designers, and support staff will present and discuss the use of educational technology available at MSU.
Presentations will cover a variety of topics including:

Leveraging AI
Classroom technology
Record and share lectures easily 
Streamline content delivery 
Develop better feedback strategies
Effectively use D2L
Utilize interactive classroom response systems
Scale online discussion among students
Boost engagement in any modality
Accessibility

Visit the D2L learning community to enroll and visit the course home page to find the complete schedule. Sessions will take place each day in the morning and afternoon. Attend and engage in as many sessions as you wish. Participating vendors scheduled to present include Zoom, D2L Brightspace, Qualtrics, Camtasia, PackBack, iClicker and many more.
Hosted by MSU IT’s Educational Technology department, the MSU Educational Technology Summit is open to the MSU community for the purposes of increasing awareness of supported educational technologies, promoting IT services available to our MSU communities, and sharing useful strategies for using these technologies._______________________________
Schedule:
Monday, June 5th
8:30 A.M. - Boosting Course Engagement: Easy Tactics and Tools to Connect in any Modality
Presented by: Ellie Louson, MSU CTLI and Lyman Briggs College & Makena Neal, MSU CTLI
Description: This interactive session will lead participants through several easy ways to boost engagement in courses of any modality (synchronous in-person, blended, hybrid; asynchronous). Using various tools, we will focus on low-barrier ways to build connections in hybrid or online classrooms. No prior experience with these technologies is required.
9:45 A.M. -  How to Develop Engaging Feedback Cycles with Eli Review  
Presented by: Casey McArdle, MSU WRAC
Description: This presentation will showcase how to use Eli Review to help faculty develop better feedback strategies in their courses. It will model effective feedback frameworks and showcase how Eli Review works to model inclusive and engaging feedback points.
 
11:00 A.M. - Let Your Goal Lead Your Tool
Presented by: Ha-Neul Kim, MSU School of Social Work
Description: The appropriateness of the tool used should start with solid learning goals. No matter how fancy the tool is, the importance of ‘learning’ is dependent on clear goals and having students facilitate the tool to achieve them. 
 
1:00 P.M. - TextHelp: Creating Digital and Accessible STEM Content with Equatio
Presented by: Rachel Kruzel, TextHelp
Description: Creating digital STEM content is a challenge. Making sure it is accessible is just as important. This session will focus on Texthelp’s digital and accessible STEM creation tool, Equatio. Built on Universal Design for Learning principles and guidelines, Equatio is beneficial to users across campus. Student users can easily respond to assignments and assessments through a variety of functions. Educators can support the remediation of course content into accessible formats and create content accessibly from the start.
 
2:15 P.M. - D2L Brightspace: Core Technology and Engagement
Presented by: Randolph Streich, D2L Senior Solution Engineer
Description: Dive deep into the core tools and interfaces of Brightspace. This presentation will look at common workflows and the tools that make online learning instruction easier. There will be a focus on automation and alerts and the use of video for crafting strong messages and engagement.
 
3:30 P.M. - Insert More Stuff…With Kaltura Video!
Presented by: Suzanne Rees, Kaltura - North American EDU Customer Success & JaBari Scott, Kaltura - Senior Solutions Engineer
Description: Kaltura will showcase opportunities for faculty & instructional designers to develop engaging video content on any subject matter and enhance them for a more robust student experience.
 
Tuesday, June 6th
8:30 A.M. - Accessible Technologies for Educational Access: Demonstrations and Discussions
Presented by: Tyler Smeltekop, MSU RCPD
Description: This session will highlight some of the most-implemented assistive technologies among our students. Learn about software such as Read & Write, auto-captions and CART, screen readers, and speech-to-text transcription. Live demonstrations will accompany discussion about how students utilize these assistive technologies and how faculty can support students using them.
 
9:45 A.M. - Using ChatGPT and AI in Developing Course Materials
Presented by: Caitlin Kirby, MSU Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative & Min Zhang, MSU Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative
Description: An overview of how ChatGPT and other large language models work. Hear ideas for how ChatGPT can be used in developing curriculum plans, various types of assessments, and rubrics for instructors to work with in their courses. This includes discussion on how students might use ChatGPT and ethical considerations. Other AI tools that instructors might consider using will also be discussed.
 
11:00 A.M. - Qualtrics: Experience Management for Higher Education
Presented by: Lara Davis, Qualtrics, Josh Sine, Qualtrics - VP of Higher Education Strategy, Steve Sartori, Qualtrics - AVP Higher Education Enterprise Accounts & Lara Davis, Qualtrics - Enterprise Account Executive
Description: A discussion of strategies and best practices for accelerating student retention, reducing faculty workload through automation, designing education experiences that deliver, and capturing and improving the student experiences that drive retention.
 
1:00 P.M. - Making Space for Makerspaces in the Classroom
Presented by: Isaac Record, MSU Lyman Briggs College
Description: This discussion is for anyone interested in assignments in which students make something, from a sculpture or a podcast to a model or a board game. We will talk through some of the challenges around this kind of assignment, including how to welcome students into an unfamiliar space that may include intimidating equipment like 3D printers, how to scaffold assignments for students with little experience, and how to assess assignments that involve skills well outside the central learning objectives for a course.
 
2:15 P.M. - Crowdmark: How to Grade Faster with Richer Feedback using Crowdmark
Presented by: Virginia Woodall, Crowdmark
Description: Crowdmark is a grading and assessment solution that enables educators to grade paper-based and digital exams and assignments 3X faster than traditional workflows. Instructors can give richer, more formative feedback by leaving comments, annotations, links, and points directly on the student answer. This supports students' understanding of errors while reducing regrade requests. Join us for this informational session for an intro and demo of Crowdmark.
 
3:30 P.M. -  iClicker: Classroom Engagement Enhanced Via Technology
Presented by: David Maltby, iClicker
Description: Become more familiar with iClicker, a tool for student engagement, formative assessment, attendance, quizzing, and polling. Recently launching new mobile-device usage options, question types, and D2L Brightspace integrations, this demo will cover the basics of the iClicker Cloud instructor software and the iClicker student mobile app. Participants will experience iClicker as a student and learn how it can improve performance in a spectrum of situations.
 
Wednesday, June 7th
8:30 A.M. - Use Brief Explainer Animations and Podcast Episodes to Cultivate Inclusive Practices in IAH Courses
Presented by: Stokes Schwartz, MSU Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts and Humanities (IAH)
Description: Learn how to facilitate digital and face-to-face collaborative activities while teaching inclusive principles. Collaborative learning builds on the idea that learning is a social activity, which takes place when learners interact with their social environment. The approach is a general expression for group learning in which students share the workload equitably as they progress towards intended learning outcomes.
  
9:45 A.M. - Creating a Connected Classroom with MSU Commons
Presented by: Larissa Babak, MSU Humanities Commons, College of Arts & Letters
Description: MSU Commons is a multipurpose platform where users can develop a digital profile, join collaborative groups, build WordPress websites, and add materials to an open access repository. MSU Commons is available to all current faculty, staff, and students, as well as retired faculty and staff. With many different functionalities built into the platform, MSU Commons is an ideal place for developing an online, scholarly presence. In this session, participants will learn how MSU Commons can be used within courses at MSU.
 
11:00 A.M. - Spartan 365 Overview
Presented by: Laura Nagy, MSU IT Training
Description: This class will introduce learners to the suite of software collaboration tools that will help users store data, collaborate, and work efficiently. Spartan 365 has powerful tools that allows users to get more done with Microsoft apps like OneDrive, Forms, OneNote, Teams, and Outlook.
 
1:00 P.M.  - Piazza: Collaborative Learning with Piazza Q&A
Presented by: TJ Kidd, Piazza Technologies
Description: A demo and overview of Piazza to create learning environments that allows students to collaborate with their peers and instructors any time, especially in virtual classes. Wiki-style formatting enables collaboration, anonymous posting encourages participation, and detailed statistics help track student engagement.
 
2:15 P.M. - Turnitin: Advance Academic Integrity & Innovate Assessments
Presented by: Megan DeArmit, Turnitin
Description: Instructors are spending more time grading and less time providing actionable feedback and use assessment insights on student learning to improve teaching. Without this valuable time and flexibility, student outcomes are at risk. Learn how Turnitin can make informed decisions about originality in submitted student work through our new AI writing detection feature in Turnitin Feedback Studio. And how Gradescope can be used by both administrators and faculty to deliver assessments with pedagogical flexibility, better insights, and fairness.
 
3:30 P.M. - PackBack: Revitalizing Classroom Discussion: Leveraging AI Technology for Active Learning
Presented by: Amanda Wickham, PackBack & Kathryn Stegman, PackBack
Description: Facilitating discussion (online or in-person) doesn’t have to be complicated, time-consuming, or difficult to grade. Using Packback Questions within classroom can build community and facilitate deeper learning. Packback Questions is an online discussion forum that integrates directly into D2L. Students receive real-time feedback from instructional AI; which coaches students to ask high-quality, open-ended questions and encourages actual discussion. Attendees of this workshop will see live examples of Packback communities and how it is course agnostic and successfully supports all modalities and course sizes.
 
Thursday, June 8th
8:30 A.M. - ELI Review - Focusing on Review & Revision in the Era of AI Writing
Presented by: Bill Hart-Davidson, MSU College of Arts and Letters
Description: With more AI applications making drafting fast and easy, it is more important than ever that we prepare students to be good reviewers and revisers. Eli Review provides a service that makes practice in criterion-referenced review and revision planning easy to set up and integrate into a course. Facilitate in person, hybrid, hyflex, and online courses that are synchronous and asynchronous. Help students develop two of the most valuable leadership skills in any discipline or career: the ability to give great feedback and the ability to use feedback to make improvements.
 
9:45 A.M. - Let’s Talk About CATME Smarter Teamwork
Presented by: Andrea Bierema, MSU Center for Integrative Studies in General Science and Department of Integrative Biology
Description: CATME is a program used to create teams and evaluate team members. This session will consist of a presentation about how I have used CATME for several years in face-to-face and online sections comprised of 100 to 200 students. I will discuss how I create teams, have students practice rating team members, evaluate their peers, and most recently, metacognitively reflect on their own teamwork skills. Instructions for students and grading rubrics will be provided. An open discussion will include attendees describing how they use or would like to use CATME.
 
11:00 A.M. - Collaborative Tools to Support Language Classroom Development and Community Involvement
Presented by: Dustin De Felice, MSU English Language Center & Debra M. Hardison, MSU Department of Linguistics, Languages, and Cultures
Description: We run a teaching practicum each year that attracts students, scholars, and community members to participate in a six-week program focused on the development of oral communication skills for adult nonnative speakers. While this program was in-person for years, we were forced to turn this experience into an online, synchronous modality in 2020. Over the last few spring semesters, we have had to run an all-virtual experience where we tried to replicate the in-person experience from registration to classes through a variety of tools. We will highlight the current structure, provide the pros and cons for the various tools, and discuss the possible directions for future iterations.
 
1:00 P.M. - Zoom: Driving Student Engagement in Zoom Classes
Presented by: Elysha Gellerman, Zoom & Janice Adamonis, Customer Success Manager with Zoom's Higher Education team
Description: This session will review best practices for driving student engagement and increasing retention in a virtual class setting. Tools reviewed will include, but not be limited to polls, breakout sessions, virtual backgrounds, spotlighting, and transcription. This session will be didactic and participants will leave the session with the ability to confidently conduct these functions as needed.
 
2:15 P.M. - Assessment Using LON-CAPA
Presented by: Stuart Raeburn, MSU Department of Physics & Astronomy
Description: The LON-CAPA Course Management System (CMS) features a powerful and flexible assessment engine. It can be used to deliver individualized homework, quizzes, and exams, either online or offline, as PDFs for printing, or for use with bubblesheets (which can be scanned by the MSU Scoring Office, and then uploaded into LON-CAPA for grading). Creation of assessment items using some of the 46 available templates will be demonstrated. Set-up of a deep linked LON-CAPA assessment for access from within a D2L course will also be shown.
 
3:30 P.M. - DigitalDesk Learning Suite: A Comprehensive Approach to Class Management
Presented by: Robert Gomm, DigitalDesk, Inc
Description: Learn to manage all aspects of class management in a unified platform:

Grading instruments to include paper/pencil and online exams andassignments.
Monitor student success in real-time.
Integrated remote proctoring.
Collaboration integration with Zoom and instant messaging

 
Friday, June 9th
9:45 A.M. - MSU’s Immersive Visualization Ecosystem
Presented by: Denice Blair, MSU Museum, Shannon Schmoll, MSU Abrams Planetarium, Amanda Tickner, MSU Libraries & Carrie Wicker, MSU Museum 
Description: This presentation showcases MSU's “ecosystem” of immersive visualization technologies for applications in teaching, learning, and research. This ecosystem includes the Abrams Planetarium Sky Theater, MSU Libraries Digital Scholarship Lab’s 360 Room, and the MSU Museum’s Science on a Sphere. These technologies are rich in possibility for multi-media engagement and custom content creation by members of the MSU community. Learn about using the displays, content creation processes, and how the displays are suited for different types of visual representation. Explore practical examples of how the technologies are used by people on campus for research, teaching, and artistic work. You will be inspired to think about how one or all of these technologies can support your work. 
 
11:00 A.M. - TechSmith: Camtasia & Snagit for Education
Presented by: Casey Seiter, Techsmith
Description: Join for a walkthrough of both Snagit and Camtasia. Casey will conduct a live demo showcasing start to finish production of still image and video production using the TechSmith suite of tools.
 
1:00 P.M. - Respondus: Protect the Integrity of Brightspace Quizzes with LockDown Browser + Respondus Monitor
Presented by: Arie Sowers, Respondus, Rebecca Schkade, Trainer, Respondus & Stephanie Ploof, Senior Account Manager, Respondus
Description: LockDown Browser is a custom browser that prevents digital cheating during an online exam. Respondus Monitor is a companion product for LockDown Browser that deters cheating when students take online exams in non-proctored environments. Students use their own computers with a standard webcam to record assessment sessions. Learn how to use these tools to protect exam integrity and confirm student identity.
 

Executive Summary 
This analysis presents a review and comparison of two instructional technologies for administering and digitally grading online and in-person assessments: Crowdmark and Gradescope. We tested both instructor and student workflows for creating, submitting, and grading assessments using Crowdmark and Gradescope integrated with a test course in D2L. Our evaluation criteria included ease of use, features available, accessibility, and flexibility. We found some key similarities:

Remote and in person assessments are supported, with multiple question types.
Grading is done by question rather than by student for more consistency.
Multiple graders can grade assignments, such as co-instructors and teaching assistants.
Grades are synced automatically with the gradebook in D2L Brightspace.

The primary differences between these two are:

Crowdmark can assign assessments according to sections and a drag and drop functionality is available for rubric comments.
Crowdmark emails students when assessments become available and can accept more file types as well as rotate files more easily.
Gradescope allows for time extensions at the course level as well as for each assessment and allows for grading the assessments before the due date.

Based on these findings, we recommend continuing with Crowdmark, the more established and familiar tool. Although Gradescope includes some extra functionalities over Crowdmark, such as programming assessments, these functions are already handled by other tools or have not been used often or at all by faculty (e.g., CSE 231 Introduction to Programming uses Mimir for programming assignments). Crowdmark also offers fast grade sync with the D2L gradebook and the scanning and matching capabilities are more robust for in person assessments.
"The second-best way to grade exams" by ilmungo is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Methods
We tested both instructor and student workflows for creating and submitting assessments using Crowdmark and Gradescope integrated with a test course in D2L. Sample assignments were created for the remote assessments that included all of the available question types (i.e., upload file, enter text, multiple choice, etc.). Using separate accounts, we assigned the assessments as an instructor, submitted the assessments as a student, then returned to the instructor account to grade the assessments and sync the grades to our D2L test course. 
Findings
Key Similarities:
Both Crowdmark and Gradescope offer keyboard shortcuts for faster grading; allow late submissions, group submissions, and enforced time limits; and allow for grading by question instead of by student as well as multiple graders such as teaching assistants. Assignment submissions can include pdf or image upload, free response/short answer in a text box, or multiple choice/multi select type questions (with bubble sheets) for online assessments. For both tools, students can upload one PDF and then drag and drop each page to match each question for remote assessments, while instructors can scan and upload student submissions in batches for in person assessments. Both tools will also attempt to split a batch PDF into individual student submissions.
Key Differences:
Accessing Tools
Students have to login to Crowdmark through the Crowdmark website. This link can be added to D2L Brightspace and opened in a new, external web page. The Crowdmark sign-in prompts students to select their institution and then uses students’ Brightspace login. Gradescope can be added to D2L Brightspace as an External Tool in a D2L content module. This allows students to access Gradescope within D2L as an embedded website within the D2L page, instead of as an external page, and does not require any additional login.
Creating Assessments
When creating assessments in Crowdmark, instructors choose between administered (in person) assessments that instructors will upload or assigned (remote) assessments that students will upload (Figure 1). Administered assessments can include bubble sheets for multiple choice questions. Assigned remote assessments can include file upload, text entry responses, or multiple-choice questions (which are automatically graded).When creating an assignment in Gradescope, the assignment type must be chosen first. Then, for the first three assignment types, the submission type is designated as either the instructor or the students (Figure 2). Although Exam/Quiz and Homework/Problem Set are offered as two different choices, they actually have the same options and essential functions. There are no further options if the instructor will be uploading the assessments, but other options are available if students will be uploading. Submissions can be variable length, where students submit any number of pages and indicate the pages where their question responses are, or fixed length where students submit work where answers are in fixed locations (like worksheets). Instructors can also allow students to view and download the assessment template if desired. Multiple choice assignments can be created with printable bubble sheets that either instructors or students can upload. Programming assignments are available, which Crowdmark does not support, and they can be automatically or manually graded.
Figure 1: Assessment types available in Crowdmark.

Figure 2: Assessment types available in Gradescope.
Both tools have the ability for students to take online quizzes. Both have multiple choice and multi select that are auto-graded, and both have free response and file upload that are NOT auto-graded. Gradescope supports short answer questions which are auto-graded, but Crowdmark only has free response questions.For assignments that students will upload, instructors must input text or upload a document for each individual question in Crowdmark. It is possible for an instructor to upload one document in the instructions field which contains all of the assignment questions and then simply enter numbers in the text boxes for each question, rather than the text of each question. Gradescope only requires one document to be uploaded. Each question is then identified by dragging a box around each question area on the page and a question title must be entered.
Assigning & Distributing Assessments
For courses with several sections, Crowdmark allows assessments to be assigned to specific sections rather than the entire course. To approximate this feature in Gradescope, an instructor would have to create separate Gradescope courses or duplicate assignments and direct students to the appropriate version for their section.Both tools allow instructors to set individual accommodations for each assignment to customize due date, lateness penalty, or time to complete. However, Gradescope also allows course-wide extensions for students, where extensions can be added for all assignments to customize time limits (multiply time by x or add x minutes) and due dates. Crowdmark requires accommodations to be made in the submission area for each assignment. It does not support course-wide accommodations.When an assessment is assigned and released to students, Crowdmark sends a notification email to students, where Gradescope only sends an in-platform notification. Gradescope does send a confirmation email when students successfully submit an assignment. Both tools give instructors the option to send a notification email when returning student work.
Submitting Assessments
For in-person assessments, Crowdmark can include a QR code on assignments to ensure that every page of student work is correctly matched to the appropriate student for grading. The QR code can be manually scanned and matched to each student using an app as the assignment is turned in, or instructors can use automated matching (beta) to include a form field where students write their name and ID number for automated character recognition to identify the student and match them to that assignment’s QR code. Gradescope is developing a feature to create a unique label for each copy of an assignment and add that label to each page, but this is not currently available.Submitted file types are more flexible in Crowdmark, which can support PDF, JPEG, PNG, and iPhone photos, any of which can be rotated after submission. Gradescope accepts only PDFs or JPEGs and only PDF pages can be rotated. This means that Crowdmark offers much more flexibility in scanning software and orientation. Gradescope does have a built-in PDF scanner for iOS devices to circumvent format issues and allow seamless upload. Both tools assume that image submissions are of work associated with a single question. All work can be scanned into a single PDF for upload and each page then manually associated with each question in the assignment. In both tools, the student selects which question(s) are associated with each page(s), where multiple questions may be on a single page or multiple pages may be associated with a single question.Crowdmark allows for group submissions when either the instructor or the students scan and upload the assessments. This ability to match multiple students to one assessment allows for two-stage exams, collaborative lab reports, or other group assignments. Gradescope only allows group submissions when students scan and upload assessments, although online assignments also allow group submissions.
Grading Assessments
Assignments can be graded immediately after students have submitted them in Gradescope. Crowdmark does not allow grading to be done until the due date has passed.In Crowdmark, all feedback comments created for each question are stored in a comment library which can be reordered easily by dragging a comment to the desired location. There is no limit on the number of comments that can be dragged and dropped onto each student’s submission. Crowdmark comments can have positive or negative points attached to them, but specifying points is not required. Gradescope does not allow for dragging and dropping multiple comments; however, text annotations are saved for each question and several can be applied to each submission. The separate rubric comments must be associated with positive or negative points for each question. The rubric type can be either negative scoring, where the points are subtracted from 1.0, or positive scoring, where the points are added to 0. Score bounds can also be set, with a maximum of 1.0 and a minimum of 0. While it is possible to select more than one rubric comment, only one comment can be added as part of a “submission specific adjustment” which can include an additional point adjustment.Crowdmark sends grades to D2L and automatically creates the grade item in the gradebook. Gradescope requires that the grade item be created first, then associated with an assignment, before sending grades is possible.
Table 1: Feature Comparison between Crowdmark and Gradescope.



Topic


Crowdmark


Advantage


Gradescope




Accessing Tools


Must access through separate website; sign in to Crowdmark via Brightspace



Can add External Tool to D2L module and it can be accessed within D2L (embedded website into page)




Creating Assessments


Upload PDF and designate where questions are for administered assessments that instructors upload (drag question number to location on page)



Upload PDF and designate where questions are by dragging boxes on the page for fixed length exam/homework that students upload or an administered exam/homework that instructors upload




Must input or upload individual questions manually when creating remote assessments that students upload (but instructor can upload PDF in directions area and just enter Q1, Q2, etc. in text boxes)



Must input question titles separately for variable length submissions that students upload, but questions are designated by dragging box over location on page (no need to enter text of question in Gradescope)




Assigning & Distributing Assessments


Can assign assessments to a section rather than entire course



Cannot assign assessments to a section; must create separate course or duplicate assignments and instruct students which one to submit




Add time for accommodations for each assessment only (customize due date, lateness penalty, or time to complete)



Add extensions at course level and/or for each assessment (multiply time by x or add x minutes)




Students always receive email when new assignments are ready to be completed



Students are not notified when new assignments are ready; but students do receive email when they have submitted an assignment, and instructor has option to send email once the assignment is graded




Submitting Assessments


QR codes on printed work for in person administered assessments (can also use app to match assessments to students when scanning)



Create printouts (beta) for in person assessments; give each student a copy of the assignment with a unique label on each page (this tool is NOT yet available)




iPhone photos supported; can accept PDF, JPG, or PNG (and can rotate any file) for remote assignments submitted by students



iPhone photos not supported; accepts PDF or JPG only (can only rotate PDFs) for remote assignments submitted by students; multiple files and any file type accepted for online assignments




Allows for group submissions whether students or instructors are uploading assessments (i.e. match multiple students to one assessment)



Allows for group submissions only if students are uploading assessments, but also available for online assignments




Grading Assignments


Must wait until due date to begin grading remote assessments



Online assignments can be graded immediately




Drag and drop any number of comments from comment library for each question



Can apply one previously used comment for each submission separate from rubric; cannot select or drag and drop multiple comments, but can add multiple previously used text annotations for each question




Comments can have positive or negative points attached to them, but specifying points is not required



Comments must have associated points (positive, negative, or 0) for each question; can change rubric type from negative scoring (points subtracted from 1.0) to positive scoring (points added to 0) as well as enable/disable score bounds (max of 1.0 and min of 0)




Grades sent to D2L automatically with no need to create grade item first



Grades sent to D2L automatically but must create grade item first




 
MSU Usage Data
We explored the usage of each tool at MSU to determine if there was a perceptible trend towards one tool over the other. The total number of courses created in each tool is fairly similar (Table 2). Interestingly, the total number of students enrolled in those courses is much higher in Crowdmark, while the number of assessments administered is higher in Gradescope.
Table 2. Tool usage in courses with at least one student and at least one assessment.


 

Crowdmark


Gradescope




Courses


322


292




Students


25,322


14,398




Assessments


3,308


4,494




Crowdmark has been used by MSU instructors since 2016. Gradescope has been used since 2018. More courses were created in Crowdmark until the 2020 calendar year (Figure 3). Usage of both tools spiked in 2020, presumably due to the COVID-19 induced shift to remote teaching, and was fairly equivalent that year. For the Spring 2021 semester, more courses have been created in Gradescope. It will be interesting to observe whether this trend towards Gradescope usage continues as 2021 progresses or if Crowdmark usage picks back up.Given the disparity between number of students vs. number of classes & assessments, we explored the frequency of class sizes between the two tools (Figure 4). Both tools have been used for classes of all sizes, though the median class size is 37 for Gradescope and 63 for Crowdmark. We also explored the frequency of assessment numbers between the tools (Figure 5). We found that all but one course had 1-60 assessments created, with both tools most frequently having 2-20 assessments. Gradescope showed an interesting secondary peak of courses having 35-45 assessments. We do not have detailed information for either tool on what kinds of assessments were created or whether all of those assessments were actually used, not just created in the course for practice, or duplicates (e.g., available later, more accessible, or different versions for different class sections in Gradescope).
Figure 3. Number of courses created in each tool that had at least one student and at least one assessment for each calendar year since 2016.

Figure 4. Number of courses having a given class size and at least one assessment.

Figure 5. Number of classes having a given number of assessments and at least one student.

Discussion:
Our analysis showed significant functional overlap between Crowdmark and Gradescope, where either tool could be chosen with little to no impact on instructor capability. However, there are a few advantages to the way that Crowdmark handles assignment tracking, submission, and grade syncing to D2L. In particular, Crowdmark already offers a fast QR-code method for matching every page of in-person assessments to the appropriate student enrolled in the course when scanning the assessments in batches. We expect this feature will become a strong asset in the Fall 2021 semester as more classes will be on campus. If we were to choose between Crowdmark and Gradescope for continued support, we would recommend Crowdmark. Gradescope is a competitive technology, but it is still developing and refining capabilities that are already available through Crowdmark or D2L. If an instructor were to need to switch from Gradescope to Crowdmark, they should refer to the D2L self-enroll course “MSU Tools and Technologies” for detailed information and resources on using Crowdmark at MSU and closely review Table 1 to understand the key differences they may encounter. The Assessment Services team and/or Instructional Technology & Development team in the IT department are also available for one-on-one consultation on using either technology (request a consultation via the MSU Help Desk).