We found 108 results that contain "international"

Teaching and Effective Classroom Practices for any Educator
2022-23 Graduate Teaching Assistant Preparation
The Graduate School Teaching Development Unit offers all international, new, and returning graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) an orientation and preparation program to get familiar with teaching in the U.S. as well as learn about important policies and their implementation, about supporting student success, being culturally responsive and communicate effectively and set healthy boundaries. In addition, accomplished educators deliver pedagogy workshop for educators.
This year, the Pedagogy Workshops and Best Practices in Teaching Sessions are offered in person at the STEM Teaching & Learning Facility (642 Cedar Rd.). Any educator can register and participate. Find the link to register for any of the workshops underneath the table with all workshop titles.




Workshops Round 1 (Select one)




Time (all ET)


Workshop Title 




  9:00 – 10:30 am
  Room 2130


Preparing for Your First Day of Teaching & Cultivating Student Learning (Presenters: Stefanie Baier and Ellen Searle)




  9:00 – 10:30 am
  Room 2202


Promoting Student Engagement in Large Lecture-Based Courses
(Presenter: Kirstin Parkin)




10:30 – 11:00 am


BREAK




Workshops Round 2 (Select one)




11:00 – 12:30 pm
Room 2130


“What’s in Your Syllabus?”: Creating and Using Syllabi for Successful Teaching and Learning
(Presenter: Mary-Beth Heeder)




11:00 – 12:30 pm
Room 2202


Developing a Plan for Effective Grading: Technology, Communication, and Time-Management (Presenters: Seth Hunt and Chase Bruggeman)




12:30 – 1:00 pm


BREAK




Workshops Round 3 (Select one)




 1:00 – 2:30 pm
 Room 2130


Scientific Teaching and Assessing What’s Important in STEM Learning (Presenter: Diane Ebert May)




 1:00 – 2:30 pm
 Room 2202


Navigating Challenges: How to Be a Trauma-Informed Educator 
(Presenter: Hima Rawal)




 Register for your Workshops HERE   
For more information about Graduate Student Teaching Professional Development Opportunities, go to https://grad.msu.edu/gtap and check the Graduate School calendar for sessions throughout the year.

On March 22, 2024, MSU's Religious Observance Policy Implementation Committee, the College of Arts and Letters, the Office for Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, James Madison College, the College of Social Science, the Residential College of Arts and Humanities, International Studies and Programs, and the Asian Studies Center sponsored the "Webinar for MSU Faculty: Accommodations During Passover and Ramadan"The virtual discussion included insights on how students can/should be accommodated during Ramadan and Passover (including final exams on the first two days of Passover). The group also shared key information about the practices and significance of Passover and Ramadan more broadly. Associate Dean Sonja Fritzsche, Professor Yael Aronoff, Professor Mohammad Khalil, Professor Morgan Shipley, and Professor Laura Yares lead the discussion (the full recording is below). 



Here are some "quick facts" from the presentation:

The [Gregorian Calendar] dates that both Ramadan and Passover fall on, shift from year to year. Their occurrences are instead based on the Lunar Calendar (with Solar adjustments for Judaism).
Ramadan Kareem is a common greeting during Ramadan that means "may you have a generous Ramadan". You may also hear "Ramadan Mubarak" which means "may you have a blessed Ramadan". 
 Eid al-Fitr (festival of breaking the fast) is a special day Muslims, celebrated this year on April 10 (+/- one day).
Different demoninations of Judiasim celebrate Passover in different ways - one person's observance is one person's observance. never assume, let them tell you how they observe. 
The first observences of Passover start at Sundown on Monday April 22. The first two days and last two days (Chag/Yom Tov) have special rules related to doing labor or work... This includes things like checking email and utilizing public transportation, SO if you have important information for student, please be sure to communicate prior to sundown on April 22 or after sundown on April 24 AND prior to sundown on April 28 or after sundown on April 30

Be proactive to let students know you won't be emailing during this period so they don't feel conflicted between their MSU responsibilities and their religious observances.


Student may have to travel farther to access kosher foods during this time.
Large community and family celebrations are inherently times of heightened stress, without the added pressure of academic finals.

Remember, "Observences are always going to be somewhat idiosyncratic due to the customs of individuals, communities, and families." For more information on these holidays and MSU's Religious Observances guidance check out the items below:

MSU Religious Observance Policy
MSU general Religious Observance resources
Religious Observance FAQs
Fostering Inclusive Learning: MSU's Approach to Religious Accommodations
Ramadan at MSU: A Brief Guide for 2024
MSU Hillel Passover 2024
Eat at State: Passover Dining Options

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

 
Citing Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) in Higher Education Scholarship, Teaching, and Professional Writing
As generative AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic settings—for teaching support, scholarly writing, and even faculty development—it's important to adopt citation practices that are centerend on ethics and that ensure clarity, transparency, and academic integrity. Below are structured guidelines across major citation styles (APA, MLA, Chicago), tailored to the needs of university instructors, researchers, and students. A final section also offers examples of less formal disclosures appropriate for drafts, instructional materials, and academic development work. 
 
Note that as large language models continue to develop, it will become increasingly important to cite the specific model or agent that was used to generate or modify content. It will also be important to regularly revisit citation guidelines, as these, too, are rapidly evolving to meet the demands of the ever-changing AI landscape. 
APA (7th ed.) Style
Official Guidance:APA Style Blog: How to Cite ChatGPT
Reference Entry Template:Author. (Year). Title of AI model (Version date) [Description]. Source URL
Example Reference:OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (May 24 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
In-text citation:(OpenAI, 2023)
Higher Education Example:When asked to summarize Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy for use in an introductory education course, ChatGPT stated that “self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments” (OpenAI, 2023).
MLA (9th ed.) Style
Official Guidance:MLA Style Center: Citing Generative AI
Works Cited Template:“[Prompt text]” prompt. ChatGPT, Version Date, OpenAI, Access Date, chat.openai.com.
Example Entry:“Summarize Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy” prompt. ChatGPT, 24 May version, OpenAI, 26 May 2023, chat.openai.com.
In-text citation:("Summarize Bandura’s concept")
Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.)
Official Guidance:Chicago recommends citing AI-generated text via footnote only, not in the bibliography.
Footnote Example:


Text generated by ChatGPT, May 24, 2023, OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com.


Higher Education Example:


Used in a teaching statement to describe inclusive pedagogy practices. ChatGPT, response to “Give an example of inclusive teaching in STEM,” May 24, 2023, https://chat.openai.com.


 
Less Formal Disclosures for Transparency
In many instructional or professional academic contexts—such as teaching statements, reflective memos, informal reports, or early-stage drafts—it may be more appropriate to disclose use of generative AI tools in a narrative or parenthetical style rather than a formal citation format. Below are examples of how this can be done responsibly and transparently:
Examples of Less Formal Attribution:


“This draft was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT, which helped generate an outline based on course goals I provided. All final content was authored and reviewed by me.”


“In preparing this teaching philosophy, I used ChatGPT to help articulate distinctions between formative and summative assessment. The generated content was edited and integrated with my personal teaching experiences.”


“Some of the examples included in this workshop description were drafted with the help of ChatGPT (May 2023 version). I adapted the AI-generated responses to better align with our institutional context.”


“This syllabus language on academic integrity was initially drafted using a prompt in ChatGPT. The AI output was revised significantly to reflect course-specific values and policies.”


(Used in slide footnotes or speaking notes): “Initial ideas for this section were generated using ChatGPT and reviewed for accuracy and alignment with our campus policy.”


When to Use Informal Attribution:


Internal memos or reports


Course or assignment drafts


Teaching statements or portfolios


Slide decks or workshop materials


Informal educational publications (e.g., blog posts, teaching commons)


Best Practices for Academic Use in Higher Education


Transparency is key. Whether using a formal citation style or a narrative disclosure, always clearly communicate how AI tools were used.


Human review is essential. AI-generated content should always be edited for accuracy, nuance, inclusivity, and disciplinary alignment.


Tailor to context. Use formal citation when required (e.g., published research); use informal attribution for pedagogical artifacts or collaborative drafts.

So you’ve collected your mid-semester feedback data. What do you do next? Select a method for sharing and responding to student feedback that works for you. Will you share a summary in D2L? Maybe you’ll provide an overview with a few slides at the next synchronous class. No matter what mode you choose, identify some patterns and touch base with your students promptly! Be sure to thank students for their comments. According to Cornell’s Center for Teaching Excellence (2012) your learners appreciate knowing you care what they have to say.
Critically reflect on the student's comments. Some feedback you get may be positive, while other feedback could be negative. In fact, almost all instructors receive negative feedback at some point in their careers. Give yourself space to acknowledge the hurt or anger you may feel. Then think about how you could continue to grow and develop your educator practice. You can also check out “How to make the best of bad course evaluations” in The Chronicle.
If you’ve identified the trends and utilized the articles in the other sections of this playlist but are still not sure about what changes to make, start by talking with a mentor and/or a peer group. MSU Interim Associate Provost for Faculty and Academic Staff Development and facilitator of the Academic Advancement Network, Dr. Marilyn Amey, shared “If I know someone is a good teacher, I might just reach out to them directly.” When prompted, “what if an instructor doesn’t know who has been successful at teaching in the past”, Dr. Amey brought up two of MSU’s educator cohort programs as resources for “people connections”.
Lilly Fellows: The Lilly Teaching Fellows Program began in 1991 and has served as “an opportunity to engage in a year-long exploration of the robust scholarship on effective practices in University teaching.” The Lilly Fellows Program has supported Fellows to become future faculty leaders and to inspire a broad range of faculty to pursue excellence in teaching. After two years of redesigns of the original Lilly Program, the 2020-2021 version of the program will focus explicitly on leadership development for those educators who see teaching and learning as core to their path toward leadership.
See if any of the past Lilly Fellows are in your network!
Adams Academy: The program brings together a cross-disciplinary group of faculty and academic staff for a year-long fellowship focused on teaching and learning. Adams Academy Fellows explore the literature on effective university teaching and learning practices and consider how this robust body of research can be used to guide instructional decisions in the courses they teach. Participants learn from and contribute to a community of teacher-scholars committed to excellence in teaching and learning.
See if any of the past Adams Academy Fellows are in your network!  
According to Dr. Ellie Louson, Instructor in Lyman Briggs College and Learning Experience Designer at the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology, in this Medium Article on Mentorship, “The university is a setting for many types of mentorship. A more senior student can mentor someone more junior, faculty or staff members mentor students, and colleagues mentor each other (near-peers with different skills to teach and learn, or a more senior person to someone more junior).” 
You can plug into existing groups and ask questions. If you don’t know of a group, check in with the units you identify with. For example, the Academic Advancement Network is hosting a regular gathering of new educators in “Starting an Academic Career in Unusual Times” community discussions. MSU’s Office of Postdoctoral Affairs (OPA) hosts a regular writing group and monthly orientations. The Academic Specialist Advisory Committee (ASAC) provides the governance structure for the academic specialist community providing advice to university leaders and offering Table Talks and community gatherings throughout the year. 
Ultimately, don’t feel like you have to go it alone. Research has shown that reviewing student feedback in consultation with someone else is more likely to result in positive modifications in teaching/course design which can later influence future evaluations.
 
Source: Murray, H. (1997). Does evaluation of teaching lead to improvement of teaching? International Journal for Academic Development, 2(1), 8-23
 

Instructional Guidance Is Key to Promoting Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses Written by: Jay Loftus Ed.D. (MSU / CTLI) & Michele Jacobsen, Ph.D. (Werklund School of Education - University of Calgary)
Abstract - Active learning strategies tend to originate from one of two dominant philosophical perspectives. The first position is active learning as an instructional philosophy, whereby inquiry-based and discovery learning are primary modalities for acquiring new information. The second perspective considers active learning a strategy to supplement the use of more structured forms of instruction, such as direct instruction. From the latter perspective, active learning is employed to reinforce conceptual learning following the presentation of factual or foundational knowledge. This review focuses on the second perspective and uses of active learning as a strategy. We highlight the need and often overlooked requirement for including instructional guidance to ensure active learning, which can be effective and efficient for learning and learners.
Keywords - Active learning, instructional guidance, design strategy, cognitive load, efficiency, online and blended courses
 
Introduction
Learner engagement in online courses has been a central theme in educational research for several years (Martin, Sun and Westing, 2020). As we consider the academic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 and started to subside in 2022, it is essential to reflect on the importance of course quality (Cavanaugh, Jacquemin and Junker, 2023) and learner experience in online courses (Gherghel, Yasuda and Kita, 2023). Rebounding from our collected experience, learner engagement continues to be an important element of course design and delivery. This fact was highlighted in 2021, when the United States Department of Education (DOE) set forth new standards for institutions offering online courses. To be eligible for Title IV funding, new standards require non-correspondence courses to ensure regular and substantive interactions (RSI) between instructors and students (Downs, 2021). This requirement necessitates the need to find ways to engage students allowing instructors the ability to maximize their interactions. One possible solution is to use active learning techniques that have been shown to increase student engagement and learning outcomes (Ashiabi & O’ Neal, 2008; Cavanaugh et al., 2023).
Active learning is an important instructional strategy and pedagogical philosophy used to design quality learning experiences and foster engaging and interactive learning environments. However, this is not a novel perspective. Many years ago in their seminal work, Chickering and Gamson (1987) discussed the issue of interaction between instructors and students, suggesting that this was an essential practice for quality undergraduate education. The newfound focus on active learning strategies has become more pronounced following an examination of instructional practices from 2020 to 2022. For example, Tan, Chng, Chonardo, Ng  and Fung (2020) examined how chemistry instructors incorporated active learning into their instruction to achieve equivalent learning experiences in pre-pandemic classrooms. Similarly, Misra and Mazelfi (2021) described the need to incorporate group work or active learning activities into remote courses to: ‘increase students’ learning motivation, enforce mutual respect for friends’ opinions, foster excitement’ (p. 228). Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara (2021) found that gamification as a form of active learning, ‘helped to motivate students to participate actively and improved their academic performance, in a setting where the mode of instruction was remote, synchronous, and online’ (p.43). Further, the implementation of active learning, particularly gamification, was found to be helpful for promoting a more humanizing learning experience (Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara, 2021).
This review examines the use of active learning and presents instructional guidance as an often-overlooked element that must be included to make active learning useful and effective. The omission of explicit and direct instructional guidance when using active learning can be inefficient, resulting in an extraneous cognitive burden on learners (Lange, Gorbunova, Shcheglova and Costley, 2022). We hope to outline our justification through a review of active learning and offer strategies to ensure that the implementation of active learning is effective.
Active Learning as an Instructional Philosophy
Active learning is inherently a ‘student-centered’ instructional paradigm that is derived from a constructivist epistemological perspective (Krahenbuhl, 2016; Schunk, 2012). Constructivism theorizes that individuals construct their understanding through interactions and engagements, whereby the refinement of skills and knowledge results over time (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Through inquiry, students produce experiences and make connections that lead to logical and conceptual growth (Bada & Olusegun, 2015). Engaging learners in activities, tasks, and planned experiences is an overarching premise of active learning as an instructional philosophy. As an overarching instructional philosophy, the role of instructional guidance can be minimized. As Hammer (1997) pointed out many years ago, the role of the instructor in these environments is to provide content and materials, and students are left make ‘discoveries’ through inquiry.
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is an instructional practice that falls under the general category of ‘active learning’. The tenets of IBL adhere to a constructivist learning philosophy (de Jong et al., 2023) and can be characterized by the following six elements (Duncan & Chinn, 2021). Students will:

Generate knowledge through investigation of a novel issue or problem.
Work ‘actively’ to discover new findings.
Use of evidence to derive conclusions.
Take responsibility for their own learning through ‘epistemological agency’ (Chinn & Iordanou, 2023) and share their learning with a community of learners.
Use problem-solving and reasoning for complex tasks.
Collaborate, share ideas, and derive solutions with peers.

Historically, inquiry-based learning as a form of active learning was adopted as an overall instructional paradigm in disciplines such as medicine and was closely aligned with problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1996). Proponents of PBL advocate its use because of its emphasis on the development of skills such as communication, collaboration, and critical thinking (Dring, 2019). Critics of these constructivist approaches to instruction highlight the absence of a structure and any form of instructional guidance (Zhang & Cobern, 2021). Instead, they advocate a more explicit form of instruction such as direct instruction (Zhang, Kirschner, Corben and Sweller, 2022).
The view that a hybrid of IBL coupled with direct instruction is the optimal approach to implementing active learning has been highlighted in the recent academic literature (de Jong et al., 2023). The authors suggest that the selection of direct instruction or active learning strategies, such as IBL, should be guided by the desired outcomes of instruction. If the goal of instruction is the acquisition of more foundational or factual information, direct instruction is the preferred strategy. Conversely, IBL strategies are more appropriate ‘for the promotion of deep understanding and transferrable conceptual understanding of topics that are open-ended or susceptible to misconceptions’ (de Jong et al., 2023 p. 7).
The recommendation to use both direct instruction and approaches like IBL has reframed active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching pedagogical philosophy. Active learning should be viewed as a technique or strategy coupled with direct instructional approaches (de Jong et al., 2023).
Active Learning as an Instructional Strategy
Approaching active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching instructional philosophy helps clarify and address the varying perspectives found in the literature. Zhang et al. (2022) suggested that there is a push to emphasize exploration-based pedagogy. This includes instructional approaches deemed to be predicated on inquiry, discovery, or problem-based approaches. This emphasis has resulted in changes to curricular policies that mandate the incorporation of these instructional philosophies. Zhang et al. (2022) discussed how active learning approaches can be incorporated into science education policy to emphasize ‘inquiry’ approaches, despite adequate evidence for effectiveness.  Zhang et al. (2022) stated that the ‘disjoint between policy documents and research evidence is exacerbated by the tendency to ignore categories of research that do not provide the favored research outcomes that support teaching science through inquiry and investigations’ (p. 1162). Instead, Zhang et al. (2022) advocate for direct instruction as the primary mode of instruction in science education with active learning or ‘inquiry’ learning incorporated as a strategy, arguing that conceptual or foundational understanding ‘should not be ‘traded off’ by prioritizing other learning outcomes’ (p. 1172).
In response to Zhang et al. ’s (2022) critique, de Jong et al. (2023) argued that research evidence supports the use of inquiry-based instruction for the acquisition of conceptual understanding in science education. They asserted that both inquiry-based (or active learning approaches) and direct instruction serve specific learning needs. Direct instruction may be superior for foundational or factual learning, while inquiry-based or active learning may be better for conceptual understanding and reinforcement. The conclusion of de Jong et al. ’s (2023) argument suggests the use of a hybrid of direct instruction and active learning techniques, such as inquiry-based designs, depending on the stated learning objectives of the course or the desired outcomes.
This hybrid approach to instructional practice can help ensure that intended learning outcomes are matched with effective instructional strategies. Furthermore, a hybrid approach can help maintain efficiency in learning rather than leaving the acquisition of stated learning outcomes to discovery or happenstance (Slocum & Rolf, 2021).  This notion was supported by Nerantzi's (2020) suggestion that ‘students learn best when they are active and immersed in the learning process, when their curiosity is stimulated, when they can ask questions and debate in and outside the classroom, when they are supported in this process and feel part of a learning community’ (p. 187). Emphasis on learner engagement may support the belief that active learning strategies combined with direct instruction may provide an optimal environment for learning. Active learning strategies can be used to reinforce the direct or explicit presentation of concepts and principles (Lapitan Jr, Tiangco, Sumalinog, Sabarillo and  Diaz, 2021).
Recently, Zhang (2022) examined the importance of integrating direct instruction with hands-on investigation as an instructional model in high school physics classes. Zhang (2022) determined that ‘students benefit more when they develop a thorough theoretical foundation about science ideas before hands-on investigations’ (p. 111). This supports the earlier research in post-secondary STEM disciplines as reported by Freeman, Eddy, McDonough and Wenderoth (2014), where the authors suggested that active learning strategies help to improve student performance. The authors further predicted that active learning interventions would show more significant learning gains when combined with ‘required exercises that are completed outside of formal class sessions’ (p. 8413).
Active Learning Strategies
Active learning is characterized by activities, tasks, and learner interactions. Several characteristics of active learning have been identified, including interaction, peer learning, and instructor presence (Nerantzi, 2020). Technology affords students learning opportunities to connect pre-, during-, and post-formal learning sessions (Zou & Xie, 2019; Nerantzi, 2020). The interactions or techniques that instructors use help determine the types of interactions and outcomes that will result. Instructors may be ‘present’ or active in the process but may not provide adequate instructional guidance for techniques to be efficient or effective (Cooper, Schinske and Tanner, 2021; Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller. 2001). To highlight this gap, we first consider the widely used technique of think-pair-share, an active learning strategy first introduced by Lyman (1981). This active learning strategy was introduced to provide all students equitable opportunities to think and discuss ideas with their peers. The steps involved in this technique were recently summarized (Cooper et al., 2021): i) provide a prompt or question to students, (ii) give students a chance to think about the question or prompt independently, (iii) have students share their initial answers/responses with a neighbor in a pair or a small group, and (iv) invite a few groups a chance to share their responses with the whole class.
Instructional guidance outlines the structure and actions associated with a task. This includes identifying the goals and subgoals, and suggesting strategies or algorithms to complete the task (Kalyuga et al., 2001). Employing the strategy of think-pair-sharing requires more instructional guidance than instructors may consider. The title of the strategy foreshadows what students will ‘do’ to complete the activity. However, instructional guidance is essential to help students focus on the outcome, rather than merely enacting the process of the activity. Furthermore, instructional guidance or instructions given to students when employing think-pair-sharing can help make this activity more equitable. Cooper et al. (2021) point out that equity is an important consideration when employing think-pair-share. Often, think-pair-share activities are not equitable during the pair or share portion of the exercise, and can be dominated by more vocal or boisterous students. Instructional guidance can help ensure that the activity is more equitable by providing more explicit instructions on expectations for sharing. For example, the instructions for a think-pair-share activity may include those that require each student to compose and then share ideas on a digital whiteboard or on a slide within a larger shared slide deck. The opportunity for equitable learning must be built into the instructions given to students. Otherwise, the learning experience could be meaningless or lack the contribution of students who are timid or find comfort in a passive role during group learning.
Further considerations for instructional guidance are necessary since we now use various forms of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to promote active learning strategies. Web conferencing tools, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, were used frequently during the height of required remote or hybrid teaching (Ahshan, 2021). Activities that separated students into smaller work groups via breakout rooms or unique discussion threads often included instructions on what students were to accomplish in these smaller collaborative groups. However, the communication of expectations or explicit guidance to help direct students in these groups were often not explicit or were not accessible once the students had been arranged into their isolated workspaces. These active learning exercises would have benefited from clear guidance and instructions on how to ‘call for help’ once separated from the larger group meetings. For example, Li, Xu, He, He, Pribesh, Watson and Major, (2021) described an activity for pair programming that uses zoom breakout rooms. In their description, the authors outlined the steps learners were expected to follow to successfully complete the active learning activity, as well as the mechanisms students used to ask for assistance once isolated from the larger Zoom session that contained the entire class. The description by Li et al. (2021) provided an effective approach to instructional guidance for active learning using Zoom.  Often, instructions are verbalized or difficult to refer to once individuals are removed from the general or common room. The lack of explicit instructional guidance in these activities can result in inefficiency (Kalyuga et al., 2001) and often inequity (Cooper et al., 2021).
The final active learning approach considered here was a case study analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. To extend engagement with course content, students were assigned a case study to discuss in a group discussion forum. The group is invited to apply course concepts and respond to questions as they analyze the case and prepare recommendations and a solution (Hartwell et al., 2021). Findings indicate that case study analysis in discussion forums as an active learning strategy “encouraged collaborative learning and contributed to improvement in cognitive learning” (Seethamraju, 2014, p. 9). While this active learning strategy can engage students with course materials to apply these concepts in new situations, it can also result in a high-volume-low-yield set of responses and posts without sufficient instructional guidance and clear expectations for engagement and deliverables. Hartwell, Anderson, Hanlon, and Brown (2021) offer guidance on the effective use of online discussion forums for case study analysis, such as clear expectations for student work in teams (e.g., a team contract), ongoing teamwork support through regular check-ins and assessment criteria, clear timelines and tasks for individual analysis, combined group discussion and cross-case comparison, review of posted solutions, and requirements for clear connections between case analysis and course concepts.
Active Learning & Cognitive Load Theory
In a recent review of current policy and educational standards within STEM disciplines, Zhang et al. (2022) argued that structured instructional approaches such as direct instruction align more closely with cognitive-based learning theories. These theories are better at predicting learning gains and identifying how learning occurs. Cognitive load theory is one such theory based on three main assumptions. First, humans have the capacity to obtain novel information through problem-solving or from other people. Obtaining information from other individuals is more efficient than generating solutions themselves. Second, acquired information is confronted by an individual’s limited capacity to first store information in working memory and then transfer it to unlimited long-term memory for later use. Problem-solving imposes a heavy burden on limited working memory. Thus, learners often rely on the information obtained from others. Finally, information stored in long-term memory can be transferred back to working memory to deal with familiar situations (Sweller, 2020). The recall of information from long-term memory to working memory is not bound by the limits of the initial acquisition of information in working memory (Zhang et al., 2022).
Zhang et al. (2022) state that ‘there never is a justification for engaging in inquiry-based learning or any other pedagogically identical approaches when students need to acquire complex, novel information’ (p. 1170). This is clearly a one-sided argument that focuses on the acquisition of information rather than the application of acquired information. This also presents an obvious issue related to the efficiency of acquiring novel information. However, Zhang et al. (2022) did not argue against the use of active learning or inquiry learning strategies to help reinforce concepts, or the use of the same to support direct instruction.
The combination of active learning strategies with direct instruction can be modified using assumptions of cognitive load, which highlights the need to include instructional guidance with active learning strategies. The inclusion of clear and precise instructions or instructional guidance is critical for effective active learning strategies (Murphy, 2023). As de Jong et al. (2023) suggest, ‘guidance is (initially) needed to make inquiry learning successful' (p.9). We cannot assume that instructional guidance is implied through the name of the activity or can be determined from the previous learning experiences of students. Assumptions lead to ambiguous learning environments that lack instructional guidance, force learners to infer expectations, and rely on prior and/or potentially limited active learning experiences. In the following section, we offer suggestions for improving the use of active learning strategies in online and blended learning environments by adding instructional guidance.
Suggestions for Improving the Use of Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses
The successful implementation of active learning depends on several factors. One of the most critical barriers to the adoption of active learning is student participation. As Finelli et al. (2018) highlighted, students may be reluctant to participate demonstrating behaviors such as, ‘not participating when asked to engage in an in-class activity, distracting other students, performing the required task with minimal effort, complaining, or giving lower course evaluations’ (p. 81). These behaviors are reminiscent of petulant adolescents, often discouraging instructors from implementing active learning in the future. To overcome this, the authors suggested that providing a clear explanation of the purpose of the active learning exercise would help curb resistance to participation. More recently, de Jong et al. (2023) stated a similar perspective that ‘a key issue in interpreting the impact of inquiry-based instruction is the role of guidance’ (p. 5). The inclusion of clear and explicit steps for completing an active learning exercise is a necessary design strategy. This aspect of instructional guidance is relatively easy to achieve with the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools used to support instructors. As Crompton and Burke (2024) pointed out in their recent review, ‘ChatGPT can assist teachers in the creation of content, lesson plans, and learning activities’ (p.384). More specifically, Crompton and Burke (2024) suggested that generative AI could be used to provide step-by-step instructions for students. To illustrate this point, we entered the following prompt into the generative AI tool, goblin.tools (https://goblin.tools/) ‘Provide instructions given to students for a carousel activity in a college class.’ The output is shown in Fig. 1. This tool is used to break down tasks into steps, and if needed, it can further break down each step into a more discrete sequence of steps.

Figure 1 . Goblin.tools instructions for carousel active learning exercises.
The omission of explicit steps or direct instructional guidance in an active learning exercise can potentially increase extraneous cognitive load (Klepsch & Seufert, 2020; Sweller, 2020). This pernicious impact on cognitive load is the result of the diversion of one’s limited capacity to reconcile problems (Zhang, 2022). Furthermore, the complexity of active learning within an online or blended course is exacerbated by the inclusion of technologies used for instructional purposes. Instructional guidance should include requisite guidance for tools used in active learning. Again, generative AI tools, such as goblin.tools, may help mitigate the potential burden on cognitive load. For example, the use of webconferencing tools, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, has been pervasive in higher education. Anyone who uses these tools can relate to situations in which larger groups are segmented into smaller groups in isolated breakout rooms. Once participant relocation has occurred, there is often confusion regarding the intended purpose or goals of the breakout room. Newer features, such as collaborative whiteboards, exacerbate confusion and the potential for excessive extraneous load. Generative AI instructions (see Figure 2) could be created and offered to mitigate confusion and cognitive load burden.

Figure 2. Zoom collaborative whiteboard instructions produced by goblin.tools
 
Generative AI has the potential to help outline the steps in active learning exercises. This can be used to minimize confusion and serve as a reference for students. However, instruction alone is often insufficient to make active learning effective. As Finelli et al. (2018) suggest, the inclusion of a rationale for implementing active learning is an effective mechanism to encourage student participation. To this end, we suggest the adoption of what  Bereiter (2014) called Principled Practical Knowledge (PPK) which consists of the combination of ‘know-how’ with ‘know why’ (Bereiter, 2014). This perspective develops out of learners’ efforts to solve practical problems. It is a combination of knowledge that extends beyond simply addressing the task at hand. There is an investment of effort to provide a rationale or justification to address the ‘know why’ portion of PPK (Bereiter, 2014). Creating conditions for learners to develop ‘know-how’ is critical when incorporating active learning strategies in online and blended courses. Instructional guidance can reduce ambiguity and extraneous load and can also increase efficiency and potentially equity.
What is typically not included in the instructional guidance offered to students is comprehensive knowledge that outlines the requirements for technology that is often employed in active learning strategies. Ahshan (2021) suggests that technology skill competency is essential for the instructors and learners to implement the activities smoothly. Therefore, knowledge should include the tools employed in active learning. Instructors cannot assume that learners have a universal baseline of technological competency and thus need to be aware of this diversity when providing instructional guidance.
An often-overlooked element of instructional guidance connected to PPK is the ‘know-why’ component. Learners are often prescribed learning tasks without a rationale or justification for their utility. The underlying assumption for implementing active learning strategies is the benefits of collaboration, communication, and collective problem-solving are clear to learners (Dring, 2019; Hartikainen et al., 2019). However, these perceived benefits or rationales are often not provided explicitly to learners; instead, they are implied through use.
When implementing active learning techniques or strategies in a blended or online course one needs to consider not only the ‘know-how,’ but also the ‘know-why.’ Table 1 helps to identify the scope of instructional guidance that should be provided to students.
 
Table 1. Recommended Type of Instructional Guidance for Active Learning




 


Know How


Know Why




Activity


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Technology


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Outcomes / Products


Completion


Goals




 
The purpose of providing clear and explicit instructional guidance to learners is to ensure efficiency, equity, and value in incorporating active learning strategies into online and blended learning environments. Along with our argument for “know-why” (Bereiter, 2012), we draw upon Murphy (2023) who highlights the importance of “know-how’ by stating, ‘if students do not understand how a particular learning design helps them arrive at a particular outcome, they tend to be less invested in a course’ (n.p.).
Clear instructional guidance does not diminish the authenticity of various active learning strategies such as problem-based or inquiry-based techniques. In contrast, guidance serves to scaffold the activity and clearly outline learner expectations. Design standards organizations, such as Quality Matters, suggest the inclusion of statements that indicate a plan for how instructors will engage with learners, as well as the requirements for learner engagement in active learning. These statements regarding instructor engagement could be extended to include more transparency in the selection of instructional strategies. Murphy (2023) suggested that instructors should ‘pull back the curtain’ and take a few minutes to share the rationale and research that informs their decision to use strategies such as active learning. Opening a dialogue about the design process with students helps to manage expectations and anxieties that students might have in relation to the ‘What?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ for the active learning exercises.
Implications for Future Research
We contend that a blend of direct instruction and active learning strategies is optimized by instructional guidance, which provides explicit know-how and know-why for students to engage in learning tasks and activities. The present discussion does not intend to evaluate the utility of active learning as an instructional strategy. The efficacy of active learning is a recurring theme in the academic literature, and the justification for efficacy is largely anecdotal or based on self-reporting data from students (Hartikainen, Rintala, Pylväs and Nokelainen, 2019). Regardless, the process of incorporating active learning strategies with direct instruction appears to be beneficial for learning (Ahshan, 2021; Christie & De Graaff, 2017; Mintzes, 2020), and more likely, the learning experience can be harder to quantify. Our argument relates to the necessary inclusion of instructions and guidance that make the goals of active learning more efficient and effective (de Jong et al., 2023). Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) stated earlier that knowledge about dominates traditional educational practice. It is the stuff of textbooks, curriculum guidelines, subject-matter tests, and typical school “projects” and “research” papers. Knowledge would be the product of active learning. In contrast, knowledge of, ‘suffers massive neglect’ (p. 101).  Knowledge enables learners to do something and allows them to actively participate in an activity. Knowledge comprises both procedural and declarative knowledge.  It is activated when the need for it is encountered in the action. Instructional guidance can help facilitate knowledge of, making the use of active learning techniques more efficient and effective.
Research is needed on the impact of instructional guidance on active learning strategies, especially when considering the incorporation of more sophisticated technologies and authentic problems (Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guardia and Koole 2021; Varvara, Bernardi, Bianchi, Sinjari and Piattelli, 2021). Recently, Lee (2020) examined the impact of instructor engagement on learning outcomes in an online course and determined that increased instructor engagement correlated with enhanced discussion board posts and student performance. A similar examination of the relationship between the instructional guidance provided and student learning outcomes would be a valuable next step. It could offer more explicit guidance and recommendations for the design and use of active learning strategies in online or blended courses.
Conclusion
Education was disrupted out of necessity for at least two years. This experience forced us to examine our practices in online and blended learning, as our sample size for evaluation grew dramatically. The outcome of our analysis is that effective design and inclusion of student engagement and interactions with instructors are critical for quality learning experiences (Rapanta et al., 2021; Sutarto, Sari and Fathurrochman, 2020; Varvara et al., 2021). Active learning appeals to many students (Christie & De Graaff, 2017) and instructors as it can help achieve many of the desired and required outcomes of our courses and programs. Our review and discussion highlighted the need to provide clear and explicit guidance to help minimize cognitive load and guide students through an invaluable learning experience. Further, instructors and designers who include explicit guidance participate in a metacognitive process, while they outline the purpose and sequence of steps required for the completion of active learning exercises. Creating instructions and providing a rationale for the use of active learning in a course gives instructors and designers an opportunity to reflect on the process and ensure that it aligns with the intended purpose or stated goals of the course. This reflective act makes active learning more intentional in use rather than employing it to ensure that students are present within the learning space.
 
References
Ahshan, R. (2021). A Framework of Implementing Strategies for Active Student Engagement in Remote/Online Teaching and Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090483
Ashiabi, G. S., & O’neal, K. K. (2008). A Framework for Understanding the Association Between Food Insecurity and Children’s Developmental Outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 71–77.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2023). Variation in student perceptions of higher education course quality and difficulty as a result of widespread implementation of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1787–1802.
Chinn, C. A., & Iordanou, K. (2023). Theories of Learning. Handbook of Research on Science Education: Volume III.
Christie, M., & De Graaff, E. (2017). The philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 5–16.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a think–pair–share: Emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), fe1.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2024). The Educational Affordances and Challenges of ChatGPT: State of the Field. TechTrends, 1–13.
de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence–The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 100536.
Dring, J. C. (2019). Problem-Based Learning – Experiencing and understanding the prominence during Medical School: Perspective. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 47, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.09.004
Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2021). International handbook of inquiry and learning. Routledge.
Finelli, C. J., Nguyen, K., DeMonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Husman, J., Henderson, C., Shekhar, P., & Waters, C. K. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5).
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485–529.
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Hartwell, A., Anderson, M., Hanlon, P., & Brown, B. (2021). Asynchronous discussion forums: Five learning designs.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 5–23.
Klepsch, M., & Seufert, T. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science, 48(1), Article 1.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Lange, C., Gorbunova, A., Shcheglova, I., & Costley, J. (2022). Direct instruction, worked examples and problem solving: The impact of instructional strategies on cognitive load. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–13.
Lapitan Jr, L. D., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz, J. M. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 116–131.
Lee, J. W. (2020). The roles of online instructional facilitators and student performance of online class activity. Lee, Jung Wan (2020). The Roles of Online Instructional Facilitators and Student Performance of Online Class Activity. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(8), 723–733.
Li, L., Xu, L. D., He, Y., He, W., Pribesh, S., Watson, S. M., & Major, D. A. (2021). Facilitating online learning via zoom breakout room technology: A case of pair programming involving students with learning disabilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 12.
Lyman, F. (1981). Strategies for Reading Comprehension Think Pair Share. Unpublished Paper. University of Maryland Paper. Http://Www. Roe13. K12. Il.
Mintzes, J. J. (2020). From constructivism to active learning in college science. Active Learning in College Science: The Case for Evidence-Based Practice, 3–12.
Misra, F., & Mazelfi, I. (2021). Long-distance online learning during pandemic: The role of communication, working in group, and self-directed learning in developing student’s confidence. 225–234.
Murphy, J. T. (2023). Advice | 5 Ways to Ease Students Off the Lecture and Into Active Learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-ways-to-ease-students-off-the-lecture-and-onto-active-learning
Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(2), 184–195.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742.
Rincon-Flores, E. G., & Santos-Guevara, B. N. (2021). Gamification during Covid-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7157
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. The Cambridge.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Pearson Education, Inc.
Seethamraju, R. (2014). Effectiveness of using online discussion forum for case study analysis. Education Research International, 2014.
Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of direct instruction: Content analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775–784.
Sutarto, S., Sari, D. P., & Fathurrochman, I. (2020). Teacher strategies in online learning to increase students’ interest in learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Jurnal Konseling Dan Pendidikan, 8(3), 129–137.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.
Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T., & Fung, F. M. (2020). How chemists achieve active learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to support remote teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2512–2518.
Varvara, G., Bernardi, S., Bianchi, S., Sinjari, B., & Piattelli, M. (2021). Dental Education Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Italy: Undergraduate Student Feedback, Future Perspectives, and the Needs of Teaching Strategies for Professional Development. Healthcare, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040454
Zhang, L. (2022). Guidance differs between teaching modes: Practical challenges in integrating hands-on investigations with direct instruction. Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 96–115.
Zhang, L., & Cobern, W. W. (2021). Confusions on “guidance” in inquiry-based science teaching: A response to Aditomo and Klieme (2020). Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 207–212.
Zhang, L., Kirschner, P. A., Cobern, W. W., & Sweller, J. (2022). There is an evidence crisis in science educational policy. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 1157–1176.
Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142.
 

Although there is no simple solution to responding to a tragedy, the ways that we interact with our students in the next few weeks will be essential to rebuilding our community and moving forward.  Below is a compilation of resources to employ as you return to the classroom.  It is important to attend to the social and emotional needs of both you and your students after this campus tragedy.  Once classes resume, it is important to recognize that while some students will be relieved for the return to a schedule, others may struggle to get back into the academic routine.  Some students are not sleeping, some are experiencing extreme grief and anxiety, and many will have a hard time focusing on academics. Everyone will experience the campus tragedy differently, and it will be important to be flexible as the university moves forward. Below are recommendations for how to engage in “better” practices during this time. 
Move slowly 
You will need to acknowledge that learning will be more challenging since students and instructors have experienced a traumatic event: 

Adjust your weekly in-class activities to be a quarter to a half of what they were.  
Make more space for processing and reflecting on course content both in class and in the time between assignments, readings, etc.  
Consider ending class early each week if students are tired mentally and emotionally. 
Give more short breaks in long classes (consider two short breaks on the hour, vs. one longer break in the middle). 

Resource for Course Policy Modifications After a Crisis Practical Strategies for Returning to Class. This resource contains examples of policies and adaptations you may consider. These are not meant to be read as recommendations that every instructor should adopt, but rather as possibilities that instructors can individually assess and adapt to their own teaching context. 
Focus on Mastery Learning 
A focus on mastery learning can help with an academic disruption. It is important to be mindful of the cognitive load. The goal of mastery learning is to ensure students learn content, not just perform on assessments. Mastery learning offers students multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they know. This is especially helpful when students’ cognition is overwhelmed by trauma. Ideas for implementation include:  

Offer re-takes, re-writes and general revision of work 
Offer a variety of formative and summative assessments including performance-based, written response, or oral communication  
Offer students the opportunity to review  
Organize student review sessions throughout the rest of the semester 
Scaffold prior learning and continue to explicitly build content—any review is helpful 

Resources for mastery learning (K12 resources are relevant) 

What is Mastery Learning. https://research.com/education/what-is-mastery-learning A brief overview of the key elements of mastery learning. 
Mastery Learning. https://tea.dtei.uci.edu/resources/mastery-learning/ A brief overview of mastery learning in the STEM field. 
Grade Expectations. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/05/grade-expectations. A brief overview of alternatives to high stakes grading. 

Less is more 
Adjust your activities and assignments to potentially be a quarter to a half of what they were. This requires that you focus on the absolute core content of the course. While it is interesting to extend learning around a topic, this is a time to get down to the basics of the content. These prompts might be able to help you make revisions to your syllabus and teaching practices:  

Are there plans that no longer seem realistic?  
Are there activities that you as an instructor do not have the capacity to assess?  
Are there assignments you can take out all together?  
Are there readings that can be on a “to-read” list after the semester rather than required for each week?  
Can students meet in synchronous discussion groups in lieu of writing a discussion board? 

If you’ve responded yes to any of these questions, adjust your syllabus and notify your students. 
Managing evaluation 
After an academic disruption due to a crisis, it can be challenging to adapt your semester plan. Students (and you) will likely have limited cognitive capacity and will need flexibility in learning and assessments. While you should still have high expectations for students, you may need to revise your pedagogy and curriculum. It will be important to consider your curriculum and ask yourself: 

Can some units be combined? 
Are there extended learning elements that can be taken out to focus on core concepts? 
Can assessments (quizzes, tests) be revised slightly to focus on core concepts? 
Instead of a lecture, can you create student focused, small group activities 
What are other ways students can demonstrate knowledge: voice memos and voice to text, mind map, projects (Zines, podcasts, artwork, presentations, etc.)? 

If you’ve responded yes to any of these questions, adjust your syllabus and notify your students. 
Student Autonomy 
One way to support students who experience trauma is to ensure that students have choices about how to manage their own behavior. While there are tasks students need to accomplish to earn a grade, to learn content, and move forward, they do need some cognitive flexibility. At the same time, some students will need direction with firm deadlines. Here are some recommendations for supporting student success: 

Give students an option for when they take exams (day, time, etc.) 
Offer options for the order of the work when able 
Offer deadline flexibility/negotiation for those who need it, and firm deadlines for those who need the structure 
Offer written and verbal options 

Responding to Student Experience 
When classes resume, it is important to acknowledge the campus tragedy with students. You do not need to be a licensed counselor to pause and explicitly state that you recognize the community has been harmed and that you are able to direct students to university resources meant to help them. It is also imperative to recognize our BIPOC, LGBTQIA2S+ , and international student population may experience this trauma differently, as the threat of violence connects directly to their social identity experiences. You can say: 

I recognize that we have been through a tragedy as a campus 
This is a hard time for everyone, and I am happy to listen, and there will be no easy fix 
Please know that there are many resources available to you 
I am happy to refer you to resources that support you during this time 
We will all get through this challenging time together 

Resources with ideas of how you can respond 

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/crisis/ 
https://ctl.wustl.edu/resources/strategies-for-supporting-students-through-tragedy/ 
Students’ Perceptions of Helpful Faculty Actions Following a Collective Tragedy. This article investigates the most common instructor responses following a tragedy and which of those responses students find most helpful. 
What to say 

Leading Class Discussions  
Acknowledging the collective experience after a campus tragedy is essential. This is why it is important for everyone to respond to the student experience, as described on the first day back resource. You do not have to lead a classroom discussion about the events. For some students, having conversations about the crisis makes them feel less safe. If you do choose to have a discussion, it will be important to inform the class ahead of time that you will be giving time in class to discuss and give students the option to arrive late to class. This is also true with “check-ins”. If you plan to give space each class period to discuss the crisis, be sure to inform students ahead of time and give them the option to arrive 10 minutes late to class.  
Resources for leading a class discussion  

https://www.niu.edu/citl/_pdf/leadingclassdiscussions.pdf 
After A Campus Incident: General Talking Points and Conversation Guide 

Taking Care of Yourself  
Faculty and staff from other universities who experienced a campus crisis have said the most important factor in university recovery was ensuring their own rest and wellness. Examples: 

Talk about it with people in your family and work network 
Strive for balance in perspective 
Turn off media and take a break, even briefly 
Honor your feelings 
Help others or do something productive 
Take care of your physical health  

  Resources for caring for yourself after a tragedy 

How to Respond in the Classroom: Moving Forward after Tragedy and Trauma 
https://www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/coping-in-the-aftermath-of-a-shooting 
Tips for College and University Students: Managing Your Distress in the Aftermath 

These resources have been shared by a wide range of MSU faculty and staff, as well as colleagues from other institutions. 

The Zoom meeting size limit is 300 students, and webinar licenses are maxed out at 500 but in some cases MSU has courses that have more students enrolled than that. So, while each person has access to both a 300 student space and a 500 student space, that may not always be enough. This article provides alternatives to synchronous Zoom classes that may help not only solve the license challenges, but also help you navigate teaching a large course fully online. 
Berry (2009) notes that teaching a large course online “requires a shift in focus from teaching to learning (p. 176).” While 2009 was a full 11 years ago and the technologies driving online course delivery have advanced greatly, this fundamental idea remains as true today as it was then. Lynch & Pappas (2017) highlight the challenge that faculty-student interaction presents in large-enrollment courses, whether they be fully online or completely face-to-face. How can a single faculty member effectively communicate with 600 students? In this case, technological affordances are our friend – and Zoom is not necessarily the answer. 
Some Non-Zoom Solutions 
MediaSpace or Camtasia videos and D2L Discussion Forums 
I know this may not seem like the most exciting solution, but it can be an effective and efficient one. Picture this: 

Record a 20-minute video discussing your insights on the week’s content, focusing on what students won’t necessarily glean for themselves in their own review. 
Did you know you can request free captioning services from MSU IT on videos 20 minutes or less?

Click here for more information on getting started with the MSU Crowd Sourced Closed Captioning Program. 


Save the video to Mediaspace and share it with your students in D2L. Give them a few questions to think about while they watch it. 
Guide students to the D2L discussion forum where discussions will happen. Configure the discussion forum to require that they post their response before they can see the responses of others. 
Learn more about ways to configure your discussion forum here 
Grade the discussion forum using the D2L Quick Discussion Grader tool. 
Learn how to use the D2L Quick Discussion Grader tool here 

Half on, half off 
You can split your course in half. What if you had two smaller large courses? Consider inviting half of your students to Zoom, while the others engage in an asynchronous assignment such as a discussion forum or a low-stakes knowledge-testing quiz that’s automatically graded by D2L. Then, use your Zoom time together to discuss what students can only get from you – instructor-student interaction! 

Asynchronous activity idea: Try setting up a discussion forum and have your students work on an applied case together based on the content. 
Asynchronous activity idea: Ask students to collaboratively build a study guide for the exam based on the week’s content. 

Peer Review using Eli Review 
Eli Review is a peer review tool that is free for faculty and students at Michigan State University. Here, you can configure peer review writing exercises, automatically sort students into groups, and provide them with a clear series of writing, review, and revision tasks. You can see analytics for completion, helpfulness, and more.  
As stated on the tech.msu.edu page for Eli Review, "many writing instructors have found using Eli for small assignments (i.e., a thesis statement, annotated bibliography) works better than for entire papers. Smaller assignments make it easier to focus on one specific set of criteria and goals. Students stay more engaged with a small task and can move forward in an assignment when the core elements are properly set up." 
Since Eli Review is an online platform, students can use it any time, allowing instructors flexibility in assigning reviews. Eli has a feature to accept or decline late work, so students are responsible for the online homework just as in-class homework. 
Need more help? 
Hopefully some of the ideas shared here have helped you think about some alternatives to pursue should Zoom not be an option for your courses. The instructional technology and development team in MSU IT is happy to consult with you on how you can leverage academic technologies to make your large course experience feel smaller. We can help you think about how to live without Zoom and embrace the asynchronous teaching life if you choose.
 
MSU IT offers a number of valuable tools and services that can help you create an experience that facilitates student success regardless of bandwidth, time zones, or class size. To make an appointment with an instructional technologist, fill out the appointment form located at https://tech.msu.edu/service-catalog/teaching/instructional-design-development/ or e-mail the MSU IT Service Desk at ithelp@msu.edu and request a consultation with Instructional Technology and Development. If you prefer the phone, you can also contact them at (517)432-6200. 
References 
Berry, R. W. (2009). Meeting the challenges of teaching large online classes: Shifting to a learner-focus. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 176-182. 
Boettcher, J. (2011). Ten best practices for teaching online. Quick Guide for New Online faculty. 
Lynch, R. P., & Pappas, E. (2017). A Model for Teaching Large Classes: Facilitating a" Small Class Feel". International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 199-212. 

Want to improve your teaching? Participating in a peer observation process is a great way to create a space for you to reflect upon your own teaching and open up a dialogue related to best practices in teaching. It is very important to note that peer observations are NOT evaluative and are NOT tied to performance review. They are a training and development tool to facilitate reflection and personal growth.A peer observation process can:

create a culture that values best practices in teaching and facilitation; 
provide learning opportunities for employees to reflect upon their own teaching and facilitative leadership skills and learn from their peers; and 
build capacity in teacher training, observation feedback, and general pedagogy within the organization. 

The MSU Extension Peer Observation Process is based on the following premises.
Premise #1: Peer observation is helpful for teachers, especially for the one observing.

Faculty in higher education report that peer observation is useful (83%) and a majority (74%) feel it should be required (Divall, M. et al. 2019).
In peer observation, the true learner is the one who is observing (Richardson, 2000; Hendry & Oliver, 2012). Watching another teach is useful and instructive and allows teachers to discover new resources and ways of teaching, supports career-long learning in teaching, and provides a forum for teachers to discuss what good teaching is (Richardson, 2000).

Premise #2: Evaluative observation can be invalid and potentially destructive.

In evaluative observation, staff doing the observing may lack the motivation or knowledge to make good recommendations. It is also possible that that observer’s critique may damage the self-efficacy of the teacher being observed as a result of feedback that is not delivered in an appropriate way (Hendry & Oliver, 2012).
The validity of evaluative observations for measuring teacher efficacy is troublesome. Strong et al. (2011) looked at observations of teachers who were classified as “effective” or “ineffective” based on student achievement data, and then had observers with different levels of expertise watch recordings of those teachers teach and classify the teachers as “effective” or “ineffective.” Although judges were in high agreement (rater reliability), they demonstrated a low ability to identify effective teachers. Administrators and teacher educators were accurate only about one-third of the time. In other words, observers are unable to identify effective teachers from ineffective teachers.
To explore the conundrum of why evaluative observation isn’t accurate, I recommend reading Dr. Robert Coe’s blog post “Classroom observation: It’s hard than you think” (2014), published by the Centre for Evaluation & Monitoring at Durham University.

Premise 3#: Peer observation processes align to adult learning theory.

Theories of experiential learning, the teaching model used in 4-H, align to our proposed peer observation process. Experiential learning includes doing, reflecting, and applying. In the proposed peer observation process, the educators involved “do” by teaching or observing, “reflect” through post-observation reflection forms and structured conversations, and then “apply” by integrating new ideas and concepts into their own teaching.
The peer observation process aligns with social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) which posits that personal, behavioral, and environmental influences interact in learning. Concepts of self-efficacy, the belief that we can take actions to improve performance, is supported through the peer observation process.

Learn more about the MSU Extension Peer Observation Process.
References:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.  London: W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd.
Coe, R. (2014, January 9). Classroom observation: it’s harder than you think. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cem.org/blog/414/.
DiVall, M., PharmD., Barr, Judith,M.Ed, ScD., Gonyeau, M., PharmD., Matthews, S. J., Van Amburgh, J., PharmD, Qualters, D., PhD., & Trujillo, J., PharmD. (2012). Follow-up assessment of a faculty peer observation and evaluation program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4), 1-61. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1160465084?accountid=12598
J., Van Amburgh, J., PharmD, Qualters, D., PhD., & Trujillo, J., PharmD. (2012). Follow-up assessment of a faculty peer observation and evaluation program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4), 1-61. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1160465084?accountid=12598
Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. R. (2012). Seeing is believing: The benefits of peer observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1037909669?accountid=12598
Richardson, M. O. (2000). Peer observation: Learning from one another. Thought & Action, 16(1), 9-20. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/62336021?accountid=12598
Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazlioğlu, Ö. (2011). Do We Know a Successful Teacher When We See One? Experiments in the Identification of Effective Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110390221
Weller, S. (2009). What does "peer" mean in teaching observation for the professional development of higher education lecturers? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 25-35. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/757171496?accountid=12598