We found 42 results that contain "interdisciplinary"

During the 2020 Fall Semester, three workshops will be offered about providing feedback to students (full series recordings below). This series of workshops aims to provide educators with an interdisciplinary space and community to consider ways of providing effective and meaningful feedback to students. The professional development provided in these workshops will offer peer-to-peer interaction with information and discussion that considers feedback strategies and tools across disciplines. Participants will have the opportunity to learn about strategies and tools for providing feedback to students, exchange ideas about feedback, and practice and implement ideas about feedback for course design, pedagogy, and practice.
 
By participating in all three workshops, participants will be able to:

Identify characteristics of meaningful feedback and its importance for student learning
Reflect on ways we already use feedback in our classrooms
Consider opportunities and challenges for feedback in our classrooms
Generate ideas with colleagues on how to implement feedback in the classroom (both small and large classrooms) 
Develop and revise ideas for implementing feedback in the classroom, based on workshop discussions and peer feedback
Create short- and long-term goals for implementing ideas into the classroom
Connect with educators across campus to build community and conversation

The Friday Feedback Series took place via zoom:
Foundations of Feedback: Developing meaningful feedback for studentsSynchronously Facilitated: Friday, October 23, 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. ESTView recording here
View workshop slides here
During the first workshop, facilitators talked about research-based strategies for feedback and why providing feedback to students is important for their learning experiences. Participants had time to discuss opportunities and challenges related to student feedback and worked together to brainstorm ideas for implementing feedback strategies in their classrooms. The first workshop of this series provided a foundation for subsequent workshops while providing information about and modeling the use of feedback strategies and tools. 
 
Make a Plan: Identify tools and strategies you’ll use to provide student feedback
Synchronously Facilitated: Friday, November 6, 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST
View recording here
View workshop slides and other resources here
During the second workshop, participants brought back developed ideas for providing feedback in their classrooms. Participants worked together to plan ways in which meaningful feedback can be provided to students in their classrooms.  Participants were asked to consider the benefits and constraints of student feedback and developed research-based, manageable plans to use feedback strategies and tools in the classroom. Feedback plans were tailored to the needs of participants and their classrooms. 
 
Practice and Implementation of Feedback Tools and Strategies
Synchronously Facilitated: Friday, November 20, 12 p.m.-1:00 p.m. EST 
View recording here
View workshop slides and other resources here
The final session of the Friday Feedback Series was structured so that participants could receive feedback from fellow participants and facilitators to develop and refine their plan for implementing feedback in the classroom. Participants engaged in large-group discussion and one-on-one time to practice and plan for implementation of using feedback strategies and tools in their classrooms. Before we ended the session, we talked about how to stay connected and continue learning about and implementing strategies for student feedback. 
 
For more information, contact Ann Burke at burkean1@msu.edu 
 

"Being a part of the Learning Communities at MSU has been a wonderful experience. Within our community we have had the opportunity to share ideas, brainstorm solutions to challenges commonly faced, and expand our thinking with individuals from a wide variety of departments. I have deeply appreciated being a part of this new campus-wide community and having a space to connect with faculty and academic staff in similar positions to my own. Seeing what the other Learning Communities are doing has helped with inspiration for our own progress," said Mary-Anne Reid co-facilitator of the Sharing Process Improvement Tools in Undergraduate Internships and Experiential Education Learning Community. 
Learning Communities are self-organized, safe, and supportive spaces for faculty and academic staff to address complicated questions of curriculum and pedagogy. Michigan State University has supported these initiatives since 2004 and continues to do so through a funding program administered by the Academic Advancement Network in collaboration with the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology.
See what Learning Communities are available
 
Different Aims, Different Practices
Dr. Michael Lockett, the program Director, is quick to point out that the word “safe” is crucial to that statement of purpose, as it conveys the agency members and facilitators of Learning Communities enjoy. 
“Once a community is funded, our interventions in their work only take place at the most basic administrative level,” says Lockett. “It’s a space we designed to maximize autonomy and academic freedom.”
Learning Communities at MSU are free to propose their own topics and determine the structures that best support their interests. Accordingly, communities tend to vary greatly in their practices and topics. All communities, however, share three things in common: they meet at least eight times across the academic year, explore important educational themes, and welcome all members of MSU’s instructional staff, regardless of rank or discipline.
“We have approximately thirty communities running. That means approximately three hundred faculty members are contributing to and benefitting from the program.  Given that scale, there’s tremendous diversity in terms of topics and methods,” says Lockett. “Broadly defined, the conversations all connect back to ideas of education, teaching, and learning, but not necessarily in a formalized curricular context. We don’t limit their purview to credit-bearing courses at MSU and some communities are invested in educational topics that transcend this campus, or this country, or even this era.”
 
Dialogues Characterized by Freedom and Safety
Although many Learning Communities do not discuss fraught topics, some do.  “Because some groups explore topics related to critical pedagogy, they may require particular community structures,” says Lockett. “Which is to say the community is not closed but carefully defined.  All communities are inclusive. But the facilitators (those members responsible for the administration and protocol within the Community) determine the structure and it’s fair for them to ask their membership to commit to certain protocols.”
Some Communities only meet the required eight times during the academic year and encourage members to drop in or out at their discretion. Other Communities are working on highly complex questions of critical pedagogy, and require regular attendance, as the associated dialogues must be sustained and reflected upon. Ultimately, the facilitators decide the protocols for each Community. 
The conversations held in the Learning Communities might also involve very personal pedagogical experiences; those kinds of conversations require time, trust, and a sense of open inquiry to make the dialogue supportive and generative. The AAN strives to provide that atmosphere by respecting the autonomy of the facilitators and working diligently behind the scenes to design flexible administrative structures that can support diverse methods. Lockett says, “although it’s not necessarily their primary role, Learning Communities can be therapeutic spaces. There’s an emotional dimension to teaching, particularly in high-pressure contexts. These communities can become a place where people find support, where they can share and hopefully resolve some of the challenges they’re encountering, teacher-to-teacher.”
 
Why Learning Communities?
Variations on the Learning Communities program exist on many campuses. “Questions of curriculum and pedagogy are always complicated and often best addressed face-to-face,” says Lockett. “You can do a lot of important work through dialogue.  When colleagues get together to discuss curriculum and pedagogy, their conversations become nuanced and empathetic and situated in a way they can’t through other discursive forms.  They can also be highly creative and generative places where good ideas disseminate swiftly.”
 
Getting Involved
The Learning Communities at MSU grew over 150% last year, from 12 to 30 groups. Lockett credits the passion of the facilitators and the leadership of Drs. Grabill and Austin (Associate Provost for Teaching, Learning, and Technology, and Interim Associate Provost for Academic Staff Development, respectively).  He also applauds the work of his predecessor, Dr. Patricia Stewart, who advocated for the program’s continued existence and provided a vision of success. “We wouldn’t be seeing this level of engagement and success without Patti’s leadership and dedication to the program,” he says.
A full list of Learning Communities and the contact information of their facilitators is available below and on the Academic Advancement Network website, in addition to information on proposing new communities.
"As a co-facilitator of the ANS TLC the past few years, I have been impressed with our cohort’s desire to continue to become better educators. Our learning community focuses on presenting and supplying tools to our members that address their reported concerns of education, including but limited to instruction, assessment, and student engagement. Since the pandemic has rendered our instruction to be “survival mode”, the ANS TLC has reached out to provide tips and tricks to its members for better classroom experiences, in whatever platform is being used. We look forward to hosting monthly “Chitter-chatter What’s the Matter” discussions alongside our continual scaffolding of the ANS curriculum for the Fall 2020 semester." said Tasia Taxis, co-facilitator of the Department of Animal Science Teaching and Learning Community (ANS TLC) Learning Community.
 

Interested faculty members can partner with us to create interdisciplinary, experiential courses as part of the Spartan Studios project within the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology
Are you interested in:

Invigorating your teaching?
Collaborating with colleagues in other disciplines?
Creating a course that tackles a real problem?
Learning high-impact teaching practices?
Making experiential learning accessible to more MSU undergrads?
Giving your students workplace-relevant skills in high demand from employers?
Exploring new areas for your research? 
Engaging with the local community or forming partnerships with local or international stakeholders? 

We are looking for educators interested in trying a new way of teaching.
Spartan Studios courses can be:

Experiential: students learn through and reflect on their experiences
Interdisciplinary: co-taught by multiple faculty members from different disciplinary backgrounds and/or departments across campus. Students are exposed to approaches/methods not normally part of their major and work with other students from different majors
Project-based: teams of students work to design their own solutions. They plan, produce, receive feedback, and iterate their projects. It’s ok to fail.
Impactful: courses can work with community partners to create relevant, local solutions
Accessible: these high-impact educational experiences are accessible to more students than study abroad programs or unpaid internships 
Transformative: Research suggests that this type of course can lead to positive outcomes for students and faculty members
In-person or online

We help faculty members identify the combination of features that best fit their course, topic, and goals.
The Spartan Studios project helps faculty members develop experiential interdisciplinary courses at MSU where students respond to real life situations or wicked problems and design solutions in partnership with local stakeholders. We have been facilitating prototype courses since 2018, supporting faculty members who developed experiential courses including Snares to Wares, Wildlife Sanctuary, the Food Waste Challenge, and Songwriting.
We can facilitate your teaching goals through consultations, our Playkit resource for faculty, and a limited number of stipends for 2021-22.
If you are interested in creating novel and transformative student experiences at MSU, connect with the Hub to learn how to plan and teach your own compelling Spartan Studios course.Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Michigan State University was an early leader adopter of an integrative studies approach to undergraduate general education. Unfortunately, this program has experienced structural changes that resulted in a significant increase in class sizes for ISS classes in particular. As a result, instruction in these classes has become largely didactic, and in many classes, student assessment is primarily measured through high-stakes, multiple-choice exams. For so many MSU students, this passive pedagogical approach leaves them disengaged and disinterested. The question remains: How can ISS faculty facilitate engaged and project-based interdisciplinary curriculum with the current scale of their large-format classes? It is in this context and around these challenges that this project takes shape, and with the support of a Hub Faculty Fellowship in 2020-2021, we set out to bring innovation to ISS. Over the course of three semesters and amidst mandated remote online learning, our instructional team designed and implemented a meaningful, engaged, interdisciplinary, and team-based research project into an ISS general education course (with enrollments of 300 students) on the broad topic of Material Culture Studies. For the course project, students were required to explore a complex integrative research topic of their choice related to Material Culture Studies. Their research developed within weekly benchmark steps and culminated in the production of a short documentary film over their chosen topic. All student films were then showcased in an end-of-semester virtual student film festival. The course project design and the student outcomes and experiences with this project are the focus of our presentation. Our research proposal team includes the ISS professor of the class, two teaching assistants (both who completed the film project as students in SS20), and three participant students (all who created films in FS20). Together with our various positionalities, we propose to present the findings of this innovative ISS pedagogical research in the form of an academic poster—a common format to present preliminary findings of a research project that is still in progress. Additionally, we will embed into our poster a link to our team-produced short film that documents this guiding course project in engaged digital storytelling within an ISS general education course. We hope this film will demonstrate that we are pedagogically practicing what we preach to our students.To access a PDF of the "ISS Innovation: Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education" poster, click here. Please note: This poster contains embedded videos that are accessible via the PDF or below. 
The title of this poster is:  ISS Innovation:  Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education. 
This poster contains several sections. The first section outlines the research problem and purpose and provides a brief literature review on the topic. This section ends with the articulation of the guiding research question. 
The second section is a table that describes the research methods and data collection choices for the project. This is followed by the third section that provides a detailed iconic logic model of the data analysis scheme for the research project. 
The fourth section presents selected findings from the project. There are three major findings presented, and accompanying each of the findings is a short YouTube video/film that was produced by the research team to give the viewers a comprehensive picture of the guiding course ISS project that this pedagogical research investigates.  
ISS Innovation: Active and Engaged Learning
Culturally Responsive CurriculumMotivating Creative Risk Taking
There are links to the associated film festival that showcases the documentary films that MSU students in the ISS class produced as their guiding course projects. The poster has a brief conclusion section and a references section. 

Topic Area: DEI
Presented By: Nicole McCleese
Abstract:
In 2020 feminists have theorized the pandemic in two public feminism examples of note. First, in an MLA webinar, “Medicine, Narrative, Pandemic, Power,” where Paula Krebs facilitated a discussion between Rita Charon and Aakritii Pandita about narrative medicine as an anti-racist praxis for recalibrating the power relationship between minority patient and doctor. They discussed current impediments to health disparities, and Charon stressed the importance in graduate school humanities education and medical students training in Narrative Medicine and Social Medicine for interdisciplinary events to changing health disparities. Similarly, the feminist theory journal, Signs, responded with “COVID-19 and the Language of Racism.” As an Adams Academy Fellow and NICE Fellow in 2020, I responded to health disparities concerns through the lens of black feminist scholarship on health studies to develop an upper-level feminist theory course in literary studies using crip methods for literary and cultural analysis, “Crip Narrative Medicine.” Course modules include: “Revisiting Charon’s Narrative Medicine with Crip Theory in COVID-19,” “Bodies in Short Fiction Crip Theory,” “Dementia and Supercip Narratives,” “Embodying NYC and Detroit” and “Crip Indigeneity.” This informative panel, positioned at the intersections of anti-ableist and anti-racist pedagogy, features inclusive English undergraduate student presentations as part of an interdisciplinary public feminism course project on “Black, Feminist, Queer, Crip Narrative Medicine.” By bringing together black feminist scholarship on medicine and disability, through the course learning objective on crip methodologies, students will share research on new media, film, literature, and critical theory.

The Graduate School and the Center for Teaching & Learning Innovation (CTLI) at Michigan State University invites applicants for the 2024-2025 graduate fellowship cohort. Applications will be accepted until May 15, 2024. Fellows can expect to join a welcoming community to learn with us, influence the future of higher education, and further develop as leaders and public scholars by becoming a Graduate School/MSU CTLI Fellow.
Graduate fellows will explore spaces where educators come to learn and think differently about teaching and learning, while building and exercising skills in design, facilitation, and collaboration. The CTLI Grad Fellowship is one of the MSU Graduate School’s teaching cohort fellowships but is not a conventional teaching or research fellowship, meaning its end goal is not solely the production of an academic peer-reviewed research product. CTLI Fellows’ work contributes to real outcomes that impact campus. Being a CTLI Grad Fellow means joining a diverse team of interdisciplinary experts to improve MSU as a teaching and learning institution.
Any PhD student interested in learning more is invited to check out the recording from fellowship co-directors, Drs. Makena Neal and Ellie Louson, and current CTLI Grad Fellow Nicole (Nic) Macon-McKendree below. 



Individuals logged in to Google Drive with their MSU credentials have access to view this session's slides. More details about who should apply, expectations and compensation, and more can be found at the CTLI Grad Fellows webpage. 

AppendixThis is the ninth and final article in our iTeach.MSU playlist for the Spartan Studios Playkit.This appendix includes categories related to different elements of interdisciplinary, experiential teaching and course design, and includes what we hope are useful annotations.
Research from the Spartan Studios project

Heinrich, W. F., Louson, E., Blommel, C., & Green, A. R. (2021). Who Coaches the Coaches? The Development of a Coaching Model for Experiential Learning. Innov High Educ 46, 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09537-3 

This paper is an overview of the Spartan Studios project and our results for students and faculty who ran prototype courses. It outlines the GORP model as well as the benefits and challenges of this approach to teaching and course planning.

Heinrich, W. F., Lauren, B., & Logan, S. (2020). Interdisciplinary teaching, learning and power in an experiential classroom. Submitted to Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education.

This paper [under review] describes the first iteration of what became the Studios pattern at MSU and introduces the GORP framework.

Research from the James Madison University X-Labs, our colleagues in Virginia working in a similar course model

McCarthy, S., Barnes, A., Briggs, F., Giovanetti, K., Ludwig, P., Robinson, K., & Swayne, N. (Fall 2016). Undergraduate Social Entrepreneurship Education and Communication Design. SIGDOC 2015 Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/2987592.2987625 

This report describes some communication strategies within the X-Labs’ drones course, how students documented and presented their works and how faculty plan to iterate the course.

Ludwig, P. M., Lewis, E. J., Nagel, J. K. (2017). Student learning outcomes from a pilot medical innovations course with nursing, engineering and biology undergraduate students. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(33) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0095-y 

Describes an X-Labs multidisciplinary course on medical innovations and its assessment using qualitative content analysis about students’ attitudes and perceptions of different occupations.

McCarthy, S., Barnes, A., Holland, S. K., Lewis, E., Ludwig, P., & Swayne, N. (2018). Making It: Institutionalizing Collaborative Innovation in Public Higher Education. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’18) 1,549–1,557. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAD18.2018.8560  

A descriptive case study of the academic maker space in the JMU X-Labs, both describing specific courses and how X-Labs is administered. Offers this model as applicable elsewhere in higher ed.

Kishbaugh, A. (2018). An Exploratory Case Study of Cross-Disciplinary Project-Based (i.e. Maker) Curricula as a Catalyst for Entrepreneurship. International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces. https://jmuxlabs.org/app/uploads/2018/10/ISAM_2018_akish_v6.pdf 

Describes cross-disciplinary courses as promoting entrepreneurship and innovation, by looking at startups coming from these courses. Offers a framework based on multidisciplinary problem-solving, Design Thinking approaches, and a lean startup methodology.

Selznick, B. S., Mayhew, M. J., & Swayne, N. (2018, November 20). Stop Blaming Innovation. (Correspondence from Chronicle readers). The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/stop-blaming-innovation/ 

A rebuttal to an argument that higher ed’s emphasis on innovation is misguided. Argues that innovation has positive student outcomes, is different from entrepreneurship, and that their interventions are effective.

Swayne, N., McCarthy, S., Selznick, B. S., & Fisher, K. A. (2019). Breaking up I/E: Consciously Uncoupling Innovation and Entrepreneurship to Improve Undergraduate Learning. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.651  

Describes the X-Labs as evidence for uncoupling entrepreneurship and innovation, and argues that conceptually they are separate; teaching innovation needs to precede teaching entrepreneurship

Lewis, E. J., Ludwig, P. M., Nagel, J., & Ames, A. (2019). Student ethical reasoning confidence pre/post an innovative makerspace course: A survey of ethical reasoning. Nurse Education Today, 75, 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.01.011 

Describes gains to ethical reasoning after the Medical Innovations X-Labs course.

El-Tawab, S., Sprague, N. & Stewart, M. (2020). Teaching Innovation in Higher Education: A Multidisciplinary Class. In D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 8-13). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/215725/. 

Describes a case of the X-Labs autonomous vehicles course, its support of students’ technical and soft skills, and its reproducibility.

McMurtrie, B. (2019) No Textbooks, No Lectures, and No Right Answers. Is This What Higher Education Needs? Chronicle of Higher Education 10 Feb.  https://www.chronicle.com/article/no-textbooks-no-lectures-and-no-right-answers-is-this-what-higher-education-needs/  

Chronicle of Higher Education story about the JMU X-Labs course model.
Interdisciplinarity

Harden, R. M. (2000) The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Medical Education, 34(7), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00697.x 

Offers a framework for thinking about different disciplinary connections, from disciplines being isolated/siloed from each other through transdisciplinarity.

Carmicheal, T. & LaPierre, Y. (2014). Interdisciplinary Learning Works: The Results of a Comprehensive Assessment of Students and Student Learning Outcomes in an Integrative Learning Community. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 32(3), 53–78. http://hdl.handle.net/10323/6647 

Evidence-based assessment of student learning outcomes and academic growth metrics as a result of participation in a first-year integrative learning community. The author outlines the interdisciplinary learning goals and processes of the program, and shows that students that participated in the program consistently outperformed students outside of the program in both short term and long term learning and academic growth benchmarks. 

Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984 

A review of expected benefits, learning outcomes, and processes (and potential roadblocks) of interdisciplinary education. Review applied to an interdisciplinary discussion based course. The authors claim that interdisciplinary learning can significantly contribute to intellectual maturity and cognitive development of students, and provide a framework of milestones that students may hit in the process of cognitive development through interdisciplinary ed. 

Kezar, A. & Elrod, S. (2012). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Learning: Lessons from Project Kaleidoscope. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 16–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.635999 

This magazine article argues for the benefits of interdisciplinary education for both students and institutions, and provides ways to encourage interdisciplinary education on a systemic level. The authors give key strategies and tips for facilitating interdisciplinary learning and creating student experiences. The barriers to interdisciplinary learning/education are recognized (specifically institutional) and potential solutions are given as well. 

Stentoft D. (2017) From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer? Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1). 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693510

Author argues that PBL is an effective strategy to facilitate interdisciplinary learning and vice versa. The author also acknowledges three barriers to effective interdisciplinary education: curriculum organization, student competencies to navigate interdisciplinary problems, and instructor competency - and proposes how to address these barriers.  

Imafuku, R., Kataoka, R., Mayahara, M., Suzuki, H., & Saiki, T. (2014). Students’ Experiences in Interdisciplinary Problem-based Learning: A Discourse Analysis of Group Interaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1388 
Kruck, S. E. and Teer, Faye P. (2009). Interdisciplinary Student Teams Projects: A Case Study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 325–330. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jise/vol20/iss3/7  


Problem-Based Learning/Project-Based Learning 

Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL Implementation Hurdle: Supporting the Efforts of K–12 Teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005

While focused on problem based learning at the K-12 level, this paper covers topics relevant to higher education instruction, including implementation challenges, creating collaborative classroom culture, teachers adjusting to changing roles, scaffolding student learning, initiating student inquiry, maintaining student engagement, aiding conceptual integration, and promoting reflective thinking

Fukuzawa, S., Boyd, C., & Cahn, J. (2017). Student motivation in response to problem-based learning. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 175-188. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4748

Study of student perceptions of problem-based learning in an anthropology course found that students with more subject matter experience didn’t necessarily have greater intrinsic motivation about the course. Also includes strategies for transitioning students to PBL when they are used to traditional lectures.

Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586

A review of literature around project based learning that includes 76 papers. Topics covered in the review include cognitive outcomes of PjBL including knowledge and cognitive strategies, affective outcomes including perceptions of the benefits of PjBL and perceptions of the experience of PBL, and behavior outcomes including skills and engagement

Lee, J. S., Blackwell, S., Drake, J., & Moran, K. A. (2014). Taking a leap of faith: redefining teaching and learning in higher education through project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1426

Study of instructors who implemented PjBL that focused around their challenges and successes with community partnerships, student engagement, and assessment

Moro, C., & McLean, M. (2017). Supporting students’ transition to university and problem-based learning. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0384-6   

15 strategies for scaffolding learning and supporting students in PBL programs includes using a phased approach to PBL, getting student feedback in the first few weeks of the program, and develop learner’s reflective skills before self-assessment

Pepper C. (2010). ‘There’s a lot of learning going on but NOT much teaching!’: Student perceptions of problem‐based learning in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 693-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501073 

Overview of student responses to problem based learning at an Australian university. Developed a continuum of how students react to problem based learning that includes missing the point, working in groups, splitting the workload, completing the task, assessing the task, learning new information, sharing ideas, and being self directed learners

Perrault, E. K., & Albert, C. A. (2018). Utilizing project-based learning to increase sustainability attitudes among students. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 17(2), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2017.1366882 

While PjBL is often concerned with knowledge gain, this study suggests that PBL can also shift student attitudes around the topic. For this study, students designed a communications campaign for an office of sustainability. The students themselves were found to have more favorable views around sustainability by the end of the course

Boston University Center for Teaching & Learning. (n.d.). Project-based learning: teaching guide. http://www.bu.edu/ctl/guides/project-based-learning/

Brief overview of what project based learning is and four key steps to implementing it (defining the problem, generating ideas, prototyping solutions, and testing)

Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046  

Combines the results of many meta-analyses around PBL over the last few decades to compare PBL to traditional classroom learning. The study finds that PBL results in more satisfaction among students and faculty, leads to better long term retention of knowledge (traditional was better for short-term), and better skill development

Vogler, J. S., Thompson, P., Davis, D. W., Mayfield, B. E., Finley, P. M., & Yasseri, D. (2018). The hard work of soft skills: augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9438-9 

Two-year study of an interdisciplinary problem based learning task and student outcomes. Study used student feedback during each year to understand how students were feeling about the course. The instructors learned that students felt the instructors had inconsistent and unclear expectations and hence, experienced anxiety about grades. The instructors took this to mean that they needed to do a better job of articulating the learning outcomes and end of course goal. The instructors also learned that students often do not know how to collaborate interdisciplinary and decided to add scaffolding to the course

Learning Objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy 

Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Overview of the original 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and the 6 levels of the Revised Taxonomy: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Includes the four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.

Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center. (n.d.). Design & Teach a Course. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html

Strategies and tips for articulating and writing learning objectives including that learning objectives should be student-centered, break down the task and focus on specific cognitive processes, use action verbs, and be measurable.

Ferguson, C. (2002). Using the revised taxonomy to plan and deliver team-taught, integrated, thematic units. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 238-243. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_6 

Example of an interdisciplinary high school course (English & social studies) where the two instructors used a taxonomy table to map their learning objectives onto the 6 levels of the Revised Taxonomy and 4 types of knowledge. Such a table may be useful for thinking about the learning objectives in your course

Kidwell, L. A., Fisher, D. G., Braun, R. L., & Swanson, D. L. (2013). Developing learning objectives for accounting ethics using Bloom's taxonomy. Accounting Education, 22(1), 44-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.698478 

An example of using Bloom’s Taxonomy in accounting ethics to create learning objectives. For each larger course theme, the authors list examples how learning objectives could be created from each level of the Taxonomy.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4 

Includes 19 processes/action verbs, how they map to the 6 levels of the Revised Taxonomy, and simple examples of what a task for students to do might look like. Examples of included verbs are “compare,” “implement,” “organize,” “critique,” and “generate”

Tyran, C. K. (2010). Designing the spreadsheet-based decision support systems course: an application of Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.009 

An example of using Bloom’s taxonomy to map course activities to ensure students have the prerequisite knowledge to complete the assignments 

Reflection; Reflection as Assessment

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Learning through critical reflection: A tutorial for service-learning students. Ash, Clayton & Moses.

Introduces characteristics of critical reflection and the DEAL model.

Eyler, J., Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., & Schmeide, A. (1996). A practitioner's guide to reflection in service-learning: Student voices & reflections. Vanderbilt University.

Argues that successful reflection is continuous, challenging, connected, and contextualized.

Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd edition). Corwin Press.

Especially chapter 10, Using Assessment for Reflection and Self-Regulation

Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and assessment to capture and improve student learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 49-60. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0011.204 

Sees coupled reflection and assessment as mutually informing and reinforcing for students in service learning. Describes tools to guide reflective writing processes. Focus on both individual student learning and reflection as part of program-wide approaches to reflection.

Assessment of Experiential Education & Interdisciplinary Learning 

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1981). National assessment of experiential education: Summary and implications. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(2), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382598100400202  

A summary of the research of the Evaluation of Experiential Learning project which sought to (1) assess the impact of experiential learning on secondary school students and (2) use that data to identify the elements of the EE programs that contributed the most to such student development.

Field, M., Lee, R., & Field, M. L. (1994). Assessing interdisciplinary learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(58), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219945806 

In-depth discussion of assessment techniques for interdisciplinary study in higher education

Heinrich, W. F., Habron, G. B., Johnson, H. L., & Goralnik, L. (2015). Critical thinking assessment across four sustainability-related experiential learning settings. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(4), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915592890  

Implications of critical thinking coupled with engaged citizenry within experiential education courses.

Mansilla, V. B., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Target assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11780874  

Introduction of a framework for targeted assessment of interdisciplinary student work. Also a good review of relevant literature of assessment and interdisciplinary learning in higher education.

Yates, T., Wilson, J., & Purton, K. (2015). Surveying assessment in experiential learning: A single campus study. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.4  

Exploration of experiential assessment within a Canadian University. Exploration intended for the use in identifying common methods and facilitating development of best assessment practices for higher education, specifically experiential higher education.

You, H. S., Marshall, J. A., & Delgado, C. (2019). Toward interdisciplinary learning: Development and validation of an assessment for interdisciplinary understanding of global carbon cycling. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9836-x  

Development and validation of an assessment which measured the understanding of the carbon cycle for high school and undergraduate students.
Building and Managing Student Teams & Team Dynamics 

Burke, A. (2011) Group Work:  How to Use Groups Effectively. Journal of Effective Teaching, 11(2), 87-95. https://uncw.edu/jet/articles/vol11_2/burke.pdf 
Cano, J. L., Lidon, I., Rebollar, R., Roman, P., & Saenz, M. J. (2006). Student groups solving real-life projects. A case study of experiential learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(6), 1252-1260. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol22-6/16_IJEE1811.pdf 
Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Yoke Eng, T. (2012). Using student group work in higher education to emulate professional communities of practice. Education + Training, 54(2/3), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210233  
Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 570–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906286713   
Furman, R., Bender, K., & Rowan, D. (2014). An experiential approach to group work. Oxford University Press.
Smith, G. G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A. J., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. D. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005  
Hassanien, A. (2006). Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/j172v06n01_02  
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105279012  
Napier, N. P. & Johnson, R. D. (2007). Technical Projects: Understanding Teamwork Satisfaction In an Introductory IS Course. Journal of Information Systems Education. 18(1), 39-48. http://www.jise.org/volume18/n1/JISEv18n1p39.html 
Winsett, C., Foster, C., Dearing, J., & Burch, G. (2016). The impact of group experiential learning on student engagement. Academy of Business Research Journal. 3, 7-17. 


Online Experiential Education and Innovative Online Teaching & Course Structures

Bolan, C. M. (2003). Incorporating the experiential learning theory into the instructional design of online courses. Nurse Educator, 28(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006223-200301000-00006  

Provides insights on how to implement an experiential learning framework into an already developed online course.

Christian, D. D., McCarty, D. L., & Brown, C. L. (2020). Experiential education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A reflective process. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1813666  

Provides insight on how experiential learning can occur in an online format which acknowledges the new normal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes case studies.  

Sharoff, L. (2019). Creative and innovative online teaching strategies: Facilitation for active participation. The Journal of Educators Online, 16. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.2.9  

Piece on how to keep students thoughtfully engaged with online courses.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Bricklemyer, J. (2019, April 29). DEI online course supplemental checklist. https://codl.ku.edu/sites/codl.ku.edu/files/docs/DEI%20Online%20Course%20Supplemental%20Checklist%2029Apr19.pdf

A set of five principles around designing a course for inclusion geared specifically toward online courses. Also includes links to other resources for more in-depth resources 

Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734  

Students in classes where the instructor believed that student potential was fixed earned lower grades than in courses where the instructor believed student potential changed over time. In addition, the difference in grades between students from underrepresented racial groups and white/Asian students was larger in the classes with instructors who thought mindset was fixed. 

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

A set of broad guidelines for ensuring that all learners can engage in learning, regardless of culture, language, or disability status. Each guideline includes practical examples of how it could be implemented in a course and the research supporting the guideline. 

Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-01-0021  

Guide that covers why instructors need to develop self-awareness and empathy for students and consider classroom climate before pedagogical choices for inclusivity. Also includes an interactive webpage about inclusive teaching with literature citations and a checklist for instructors. 

MyPronouns.org Resources on Personal Pronouns. (n.d.). https://www.mypronouns.org/ 

A guide about personal pronouns and best practices for using them: include your pronouns when introducing yourself, avoid using “preferred” in front of pronouns, and using “go by” instead of “uses” when introducing pronouns. E.g. My name is Sparty and I go by him/his pronouns. 

University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. Inclusive Strategies Reflection. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK3HFQv-3qMDNjvt0fFPbts38ApOL7ghpPE0iSYJ1Z8/edit?usp=sharing

A self-reflection tool for instructors about their teaching practices measured along five dimensions: critical engagement of difference, academic belonging, transparency, structured interactions, and flexibility. Each dimension includes ideas for instructors to add to their own courses 

Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning.(n.d.) Inclusive Teaching Strategies. https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/InclusiveTeachingStrategies 

Includes 9 recommendations instructors can take to create a more inclusive classroom including incorporating diversity into the curriculum, examining implicit biases, adding a diversity statement to the syllabus, and soliciting student feedback 

Guide for Inclusive Teaching at Columbia https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/inclusive-teaching-guide/

Photo from LubosHouska from Pixabay

Introduction to Spartan StudiosThis is the first article in our iTeach.MSU playlist for the Spartan Studios Playkit.
Spartan Studios are experiential interdisciplinary courses at Michigan State University where students respond to real life situations or wicked problems and design solutions in partnership with local stakeholders. Faculty members design and plan these courses with support from the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology, and we want to expand the number of experiential course offerings across campus. By experiential, we mean that students learn through experience as well as reflecting on their experiences. Studios experiences support student success by providing more accessible high-impact educational practices. Interdisciplinary courses are co-taught by multiple faculty members coming from different disciplinary backgrounds and/or departments across campus, exposing students to approaches/methods not normally part of their major. These courses are a response to the problem of the siloed university and complement students’ developing disciplinary training.
About the Playkit
This playkit, a combination of playbook and toolkit, is a resource for faculty interested in developing their own Spartan Studios course or expanding aspects of their interdisciplinary, experiential teaching. This resource was developed by the Spartan Studios project over 2020-21 with extensive feedback from MSU faculty members, external partners, and consultations with experiential education programs at other institutions. You will find descriptions of: 
▶️Plays: our best practices for planning, implementation, assessment, and evaluating your experiential course.
🔧Tools: resources for developing elements of your own experiential interdisciplinary course
How to Use this Playkit
We encourage you to approach this Playkit in a spirit of experimentation and to play with these suggestions as you think through your own potential Studio course and reflect on how these components could inform your teaching and impact your students. Our research suggests that the arrangement of components we present here following the Studios model can lead to transformative student outcomes, and we’ve compiled an Appendix of emerging scholarship on these benefits. We’ve also observed that faculty members who incorporate a few or only one of these evidence-based practices can still generate benefits to student outcomes. If designing an entirely new experiential course is too much, you have the option to treat these as à la carte suggestions for experiences that students tell us matter to their learning and growth beyond MSU. 
The Hub runs yearly workshops on experiential, interdisciplinary teaching and how to plan and teach your own Studio course. You are welcome to connect with the Hub if you have questions about elements of the Playkit or how to apply them in your own teaching.Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash