We found 122 results that contain "pedagogy"

Learning Communities provide safe and supportive spaces for complicated conversations about 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.
Learning Communities at MSU are free to select their own topics and determine the structures that best support their inquiries. Accordingly, communities tend to vary greatly in their practices, interests, and agendas. 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.
Learning Communities run from September to April. Call for 2021-22 proposals goes out on May 17th with a due date of June 11th. If you are interested in joining or proposing a community, please look to the links at the right for more information.Review the MSU Learning Community Guidelines
Please propose ideas using this online formProposals are due by June 11, 2021.
Discover more about learning Communities
See past topics.

This week, we are featuring Makena Neal (she/them), PhD, one of the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation's educational developers! Makena was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator initiative) regularly!
Read more about Makena’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses! 


You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?  
Praxis 
What does this word/quality looks like in your practice? Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so how?
When I think about being an educator, I also think of being a lifelong learner. I really like the word “praxis” because it can describe so many things when it comes to teaching and learning. As an educator, I see my role as designing and facilitating learning experiences in ways that engage participants in reflection and meaning making. Praxis for me is moving beyond content, to the application of that new content in one's everyday life. Because each learner’s positionality and experiences are unique, the ways they could practically employ new information in their life is also unique. My role as an educator is to intentionally build space and opportunities for learners to engage in this practice. 
Praxis also connects directly to my on-going growth and development as an educator. As I seek out opportunities to learn new skills and information, interact with new individuals in the Educator Network, and collaborate across new spaces… I too must engage in a practice of reflection and meaning making. My own praxis as an educational developer means intentionally connecting new knowledge with what I already know, and using that knowledge collectively to engage in the practice of educator development. 
Here are some definitions of/ideas about praxis from other scholars that resonate with me:

Paulo Freire (1972, p. 52) described praxis as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it”.
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt (2001, p.15) defines praxis as “The interdependence and integration – not separation – of theory and practice, research and development, thought and action.”
Five assumptions about knowledge and knowing that underpins praxis (White, 2007):

Knowledge/knowing is inherently social and collective
Knowledge/knowing is always highly contextual
Singular forms of knowledge/knowing (e.g. empirical or experiential) are insufficient for informing complex, holistic practices like [youth, family work and community work)
Different knowledges/ways of knowing are equally valid in particular contexts
Knowledge is made, not discovered. (p. 226)


My ideas around who “counts” as an educator and a knower, what teaching and learning is and where it can [and does] happen, have all shifted drastically over my years at MSU. I credit my learning and experiences in MSU’s Liberty Hyde Bailey Scholars Program (both as an undergraduate and a graduate fellow) as a catalyst for the changes in my perspectives. Followed by my doctoral research in the Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education program at MSU (specifically the mentorship of my committee- Drs. Marilyn Amey, John Drikx, Steve Weiland, and Diane Doberneck) I am very proud of the work I now do to advocate for and serve a broadly defined and intentionally inclusive community of educators in my role. 
Tell us more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (AKA, where do you work?)
I am an educational developer with MSU’s Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI). I focus on efforts and initiatives that recenter teaching and learning for Spartans by advancing MSU’s culture toward recognition and support for all educators. I take a hands-on approach to collaboration, and enjoy working across a variety of units on campus. A lot of really wonderful educator work happens at MSU, and I am dedicated to advancing aligned educator development in our decentralized spaces by cultivating and continually engaging in MSU Educator Network.

Director of CTLI’s Graduate Fellowship experience with Dr. Ellie Louson
#iteachmsu Commons Champion and Coach
Founder of the Thank an Educator initiative
Lead on CTLI’s Affiliates program
Author of the Educator Development Competency Framework with Maddie Shellgren

What is a challenge you experience in your educator role?
There are two challenges that I’ve experienced as an educator, regardless of my formal role. 

Ground-level buy-in to the broad definition of educator… we can intentionally build offerings and lead experiences for an inclusive group of folx at MSU, but if people don’t identify with the “educator” nomenclature, they won’t show up.
Capacity… I always want to do more, but need to navigate my own professional development, my life’s other roles and responsibilities, and the scope of CTLI. 

Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this? What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
Working with individuals to highlight their impacts on the teaching and learning, outreach, and/or student success missions of the university WHILE engaging positional leadership in similar efforts can help. This is one of the reasons I’m very proud of the Thank an Educator Initiative, and connected #iteachmsu Educator Awards. We established the Thank an Educator initiative and are recognizing those individuals with the #iteachmsu Educator Awards to:1. help demonstrate the diversity of educators across roles on campus2. celebrate the amazing individuals we have shaping the learning experiences and success of students on our campus. 3. help individuals associate their name/work with “educator” and embrace their educator identity
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU?
I am always looking for ways to integrate core teaching & learning best practices into the ways we design and facilitate offerings and experiences. One example of this would be to not limit ourselves to “one-off” programs on diversity, equity, inclusion, justice and  belonging (DEIJB)- but to integrate DEIJB into all our work and model some ways educators can think, apply, reflect DEIJB in their contexts. 
I would also encourage educators to use the iteach.msu.edu platform as a way to engage in on-going dialogue about your practices. The functionality of the platform exists to support educators in sharing ideas and resources, connecting across roles, and growing in their practice. It is a space built for educators, by educators- theoretically this is awesome, but practically this means the site can only be what people make it; can only serve as a place for resources and ideas if educators share their resources and ideas. What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
The 2023-24 academic year will be the first full year with a fully established CTLI. I’m very excited to be moving into a year of fully articulated core offerings and experiences with my colleagues. All of this along with a new CTLI Director and a physical space in the MSU Library!
References:
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin.
White, J. (2007). Knowing, Doing and Being in Context: A Praxis-oriented Approach to Child and Youth Care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 36(5), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-007-9043-1  
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: paradigm, praxis and programs. In S. Sankara, B. Dick, & R. Passfield (Eds.), Effective change management through action research and action learning: Concepts, perspectives, processes and applications (pp. 1-20). Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, Australia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/23a6/89ad465ddfe212d08e4db3becca58bdbf784.pdf  

Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature! 

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

MSU is a big place where a lot of individuals have unique experiences and perspectives. Our idea with the #iteachmsu Ask Me Anything is to create an asynchronous opportunity for educators to be in conversation with their colleagues. We'll be utilizing the #iteachmsu Commons Feed as the space for AMAs!note: the Feed is publicly visible, but only users who have logged in with their MSU netID can reply/comment.The Schedule:The following are confirmed #iteachmsu AMA Hosts, their topics, and the date they'll be answering questions! This list will be continually updated as more Hosts are confirmed.

September 27, 2021 - Susan Kendall, Copyright for Instructors
September 28, 2021 - Brittany Dillman, Teaching Online: pedagogy, assessment & instructor presence
September 29, 2021 - Summer Issawi & Erica Venton, Did you know? Connection is critical - find people and information.

Whether you are a new educator or a seasoned contributor there is always something to discover at MSU. Chat with us about resources, groups, ways to connect, and things to explore. Share your own helpful information or ask for ideas.


October 5, 2021 - Anne Baker, Designing eLearning Modules
October 15, 2021 - Megan Mikhail, Supporting Student Mental Health and Wellness
October 22, 2021 - Dustin De Felice, Ideas for Hyflex Classrooms

"Hyflex" = online & F2F classes running concurrently


November 1, 2021 - Julie Taylor, Incorporating technologies at the MSU Libraries from book design to 3D printers

How does it work: On the day of an AMA, the AMA Host will post an introduction in the Feed by 10am Eastern. If you have a question for the host, related to the topic they've outlined, you can share your questions by commenting on their post. Hosts will share their responses to your questions via the reply to comment function throughout the day. There is no registration required to participate in the #iteachmsu AMAs, and educators are engaged to join as often as they can! “Topics” can be any general activity, area of expertise, or theme that Hosts feel they can speak to.  Remember, Hosts aren't asked to be the be-all-end-all expert. We’re just hoping this will be a new way of having conversations and building connections.In the example below, you can see an introductory post shared by Dustin De Felice, one of our #iteachmsu AMA Hosts last year. The comment button (depicted as a speech bubble) is emphasized with a red box. You'll click that button to share your questions with the Host!
If you're an MSU educator, interested in joining us as an AMA Host, you can sign up via this form. 

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.
 

The Collaborative Learning Center supports student success in a variety of ways. Some examples are through our academic success skills workshops, where we teach students how to use the "six strategies of effective learning" in their studies, and through our peer educator training program, where we help peer educators develop more comprehensive techniques to support students both in and out of the classroom. This poster describes the various CLC programs that support student success.

To access a PDF of the "How the Collaborative Learning Center Supports Student Success" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster
HOW THE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING CENTER SUPPORTS STUDENT SUCCESS 
Sam Drake, Jessica Deforest, Sara Morales, Ariel Arnold 
Academic Success Skills Workshops 
Through a variety of workshops and structured study sessions, the CLC can help you get on the path to academic success. Students will learn to set goals, use their time more efficiently, and become better learners. Additionally, students will expand their range of study strategies and learn to analyze course content and assessments in order not just to improve grades, but also to heighten understanding, intellectual development, and long term retention. 
Comments From Students 
“I would recommend this resource to a fellow colleague because I personally came back with a lot of helpful tips that I feel will help me succeed and why wouldn’t I want that for a friend.” – UGS 110 Student 
“I would recommend this resource to a friend because it helped me realize the actual extent of my procrastination, and how that is affecting me. Even now I am getting this worksheet done very quickly after the session and not waiting until later, having to struggle to figure out what was said in the presentation.” – UGS 110 Student 
I would recommend this resource to anyone who is struggling in note taking strategies and processing information in lectures. This was extremely helpful for me, and I think that it would be great for anyone to take! I do not think that there is an instance where I would not recommend this to a friend, because even if you like the note taking strategies that you use, this workshop 
Peer Educator Training  
The CLC provides training and professional development opportunities that are developed to enhance Peer Educators’ skills in supporting their fellow students. Training and professional development opportunities are grounded in research and best practices. Sessions include pedagogy, socio-emotional skills, and university policy and procedures. 
Comments from Students 
I thought this was a great session that should be presented to a wider audience! I think empathy is something that everyone could use a little practice with from time to time – Peer Educator Training Participant 
I really liked the chat back feature. It seems more effective in articulating a response than being asked the same question in person. I liked that the presentation included engaging videos. The polls really helped to express our opinions. The content of the presentation was clear, and I learned a lot. – Peer Educator Training Participant 
Student Interests and Support Survey (SISS) 
The Spartan Interests and Support Survey (SISS) is a university-wide initiative designed to assess how we can best support incoming students. This assessment measures several "non-academic" factors that have been proven to connect to college success. Scores from the assessment will be used to proactively refer students to campus resources and to help us as a university understand what we can do in the future to best support our students. Variables measured are .Positive Self-Concept – Realistic Self-Appraisal, Long Range Goals, Availability Of A Strong Support Person, Non-Traditional Learning, Demonstrated Community Service, Strong Leadership Experience, Navigating the System of Racism (or other “isms”) 
1 in 4: The number of students who indicated that they would most like a job that involves working with people 
15%  The percentage of incoming students who indicated that they did not have a clear plan for their future. 
 
 
This diagram shows the 3 areas in which the CLC supports student success: Academic Success Skills workshops, Students Success Assessment, and Peer Educator Training.  

This week, we are featuring Dr. Eleanor (Ellie) Louson, one of the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation's educational developers! Ellie earned her bachelor’s degrees from Bishop’s University, her master’s degree in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Toronto, and her Ph.D. in Science & Technology Studies at York University. She has a joint-appointment as an educator in Lyman Briggs College, MSU, where she teaches courses in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science. Her research interests include wildlife films’ representation of animal behavior and interdisciplinary, experiential teaching and learning. Her teaching, research, and learning design backgrounds have taught her the value of interdisciplinarity, storytelling, and engagement for higher education. Ellie is originally from the Montreal area and plays in a rock band. Ellie has also been a recipient of the #iteachmsu Educator Award!
Read more about Dr. Louson’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by her responses! 


In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?  
My one word is “care” but it’s more care-as-doing than the emotional dimension of caring. As a teacher, I want to support my students being able to thrive in our class and in their broader lives. I do many things before and during class to support them, including a pre-course survey to learn about their tech and accessibility needs, as well as anything relevant to their situation during the pandemic. I design my classes with lots of flexibility and many assignments are open format. I use an Annotated Syllabus activity so that students can ask questions and make suggestions before I finalize it.
What does this word/quality looks like in your practice? Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so how?
I check in with students in lots of ways. At certain points in the semester, I check in to make sure they understand their progress towards the learning goals and flag any missing assignments. I also start each class with a check-in to give them a mindful moment to reflect on how they’re doing in 3 words, and I turn those check-ins into a word cloud to visualize patterns and to help me be responsive to the class’ energy levels. [Here’s an example word cloud. I use www.wordclouds.com to generate them]
 

I don’t have late penalties, but weekly assignments are spread throughout the syllabus as a marker of the expected pace of work. Students have full lives beyond the course and sometimes it’s reasonable for them to focus on other things. But I also care about their learning. I build in tutorials and extra office hours leading up to major assignments to make sure they can get the help they need. Those assignments also have a draft stage where I give feedback on their in-progress work. And they can revise assignments to improve their grades. I hope this contributes to a climate where it’s ok to try things and fail.
Tell us more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (AKA, where do you work?)
I work as an educational developer in the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation, MSU’s new teaching center, which launched this fall. My colleagues and I work to support and connect MSU’s educators. Before that, I was part of the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology. I’m also one of the teaching faculty in Lyman Briggs College, where I teach courses in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science to mainly STEM undergrads. I’m also fortunate to be a director of the CTLI Grad Fellowship, alongside my colleague Makena Neal.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role? Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this? 
One challenge for me is that I’m too eager to say “yes” to opportunities that improve academic communities. I like to help, and I know the value of academic service work, so I’m glad to be able to contribute my design or communications skills to a project. But if I take on too many commitments, I am less able to be useful to those efforts. Another downside is that I get overwhelmed! By having stronger boundaries around my downtime and waiting 24 hours before taking on any new commitments, I can better protect my time and energy and make more of a positive difference for the things I deliberately take on..
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I learned a lot during the pivot to online teaching about building effective and engaging online courses, and many of those things translate to hybrid and in-person courses as well. I try to give students clarity about expectations, assignments, and the cadence of the class. I think I feel most successful when I share practices that work for me and then fellow educators tell me that they tried them in their own courses and that it helped. I write (and co-author) pedagogy articles for my HPS disciplinary newsletter that I hope help people in my discipline improve their teaching or meet the challenge of online learning. My favorite so far is called “You Can Teach Online! Designing effective and engaging online courses.”
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU?
I love iteach.msu as a space for educators to connect and share our ideas and teaching practices. I like learning about new tools and teaching tips on the platform. And I’ve had great experiences sharing resources on iteach.msu. I’ve had MSU educators connect with me after they discovered our playlist for the Spartan Studios Playkit, which is a set of resources for interdisciplinary, experiential teaching based on a pilot project of courses. It’s also really useful that #iteachmsu articles can have audiences beyond MSU. For example, when I present the Spartan Studios project at external conferences, I can share links with the audience and the content is accessible.
I’m interested in learning more about ungrading, both because I think ungrading practices give students more ownership into their own learning and metacognitive reflection, and (probably more selfishly) because I want less grading to do.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) this semester?
I’m teaching a Science and the Environment course for Lyman Briggs, and one of the major assignments has students researching conservation initiatives. They also vote (as well as decide on a voting process) to make a real donation to one of the initiatives. It can be a conservation charity, awareness campaign, research institute; any organization that is focused on conservation research or practice. In the past this activity really engaged the students because they end up advocating for the groups, they think are the most impactful or need our donation the most. Since it’s “real” in a way that many academic assignments aren’t, they seem to care about how we make the decision. They also learn about the economics of conservation, and last year a few students got really interested in ranked-choice voting processes. I’m looking forward to improving the assignment based on feedback from last year and learning more about how to teach students to build effective presentations, because communicating in a variety of formats is a key learning objective for the course.
 
Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. Submitted educators recieve a message of gratitude from #iteachmsu and are recognized annually with the Provost's #iteachmsu Educator Award. Submissions are also used to select educators to appear in our Educator Stories features! 

Instructing students during the Covid 19 pandemic has created many new challenges and upended normative pedagogical practices in learning spaces. Teaching in the arts, a traditionally hands-on process, represents a particularly unique set of challenges. Studio art faculty have long been asked to perform with limited resources, particularly those in the domestic arts where practitioners are largely women, people of color, and folks from marginalized populations. In this poster presentation, I will discuss how historically, in times of war, and now a pandemic, domestic work or matriculture, is revisited by societies at large. One needs only to look at the proliferation of bread making advice across social platforms; an intense return to cooking, and the sharing of recipes for meals that are comforting; renewed interest in growing plants and gardening to recognize the need to prioritize domestic activities as high priorities during this time. It is noteworthy to acknowledge that these same domestic activities function as productive distractions from trauma, and offer meditative practices, while providing individuals and their families with activities and outcomes that commonly bring about feelings of comfort, and security. Accordingly, I will discuss how these domestic skills can be applied to experimental learning and how students can draw on these practices with rigor for more personal resilience, innovation and imagination in their studio arts practice.To access a PDF of the "Matricultural Practices in Studio Art Courses" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
Matricultural Practices in Studio Art Courses 
Rebecca E. Schuiling Apparel and Textile Design Art, Art, History and Design Michigan State University 
Introduction 
Studio environment, now that we are online, happens in the home. Students are making studios of their kitchen table, twin bed, and basement floors. Creative projects that would have been executed on industry standard machines and equipment are now being created from discarded items in the family garage, recycle bin, and the junk drawer. While creative spaces, commonly known professionally as studios, have always had direct connections to matricultural underpinnings, at this time, studio practices and matricultural practices commingle.  
Students and professors alike take for granted the matricultural items and spaces around them, because they commonly exist in patriarchal spaces such as drawing studios with rigid standing tables, fluorescent lighting, cell structure classrooms with concrete floors. The pandemic forced them to examine their surroundings with a critical eye to discover new approaches and materials for creative outcomes. This returned everyone to a matricultural ethos, where materials and approaches reflect the Hestian sphere. Materials that were readily available commonly were found in the natural environment and in the home, which lead to a new appreciation for  sustainable media and materials readily available when viewed through a lens of multiplicity. 
In my studio courses; Knitwear, Advanced Knitwear, and Explorations in Apparel and Textile Design, I employ matricultural pedagogical strategies. The following are a few highlights as to the use and success of Matriculture as a pedagogy. 
Matriculture as Pedagogy 
In the introduction to her book, Cassandra Speaks 2020, Elizabeth Lesser notes that the stories a culture tells, become the culture. Stories with terms coded as feminine, “the home, the hearth, the “womanly arts” of empathy and care” are erased in favor of stories of warriors and violence (Lesser 2020:11). In this way, matriculture embraces practices commonly considered domestic arts, crafts, and even women’s work, because it offers sustainable practices and compassionate community based outcomes. 
In ReMembering Matricultures: Historiography of Subjugated Knowledges, Irene Wiens-Friesen Wolfstone imagines a future where curricula and syllabi are developed through the conceptual and theoretical framework of Matricultures. Her working definition of Matriculture is mother-centered societies founded on maternal values of care-taking and meeting needs, which become ethical principles for men and women, mothers and not-mothers. Matricultures are socially egalitarian and governed by consensus (2018: 5)  
During the Coronavirus pandemic, many returned to matricultural spaces, materials, and approaches for creative studios without fully realizing the connection. Given these factors, professors commonly asked students to use what is around them for creative outcomes in their studios, such as garden mud and dough used for ceramics; a pile of pots and pans for still life drawing; and onions and beets used for fabric dyes.  
Matriculture Pedagogical Case Study Examples 
Students were asked to be highly resourceful for space and materials while taking creative studios online. Closets of parents and peers were raided so as to locate appropriate materials that can be upcycled or repurposed. Furry family companions and stuffed animals within the home, are now models for knitted items such as scarves, blankets, mittens and hand warmers. 
Reconnecting with Matricutural Relationships 
A student in my Advanced Knitwear class could not afford new yarn or notions for the class. She reached out to her family, and her grandmother was gifted her a stash of materials including yarns. Her grandmother was thrilled that her granddaughter was learning to knit and that the materials she had collected over the years would finally be utilized for a creative outcome. The student had lots of materials for her projects that would not impinge on her affording other supplies. (Studio majors commonly spend more than $500 per course per semester). 
Reconnecting to Matricultural Spaces 
Due to the fact that many students are working in tiny spaces, as they are sharing their homes with extended family members, or are limited to small apartments or dorm rooms. Space is at a premium in the pandemic, especially for students. Students negotiate with family or roommates for space at the kitchen table or for a bedroom to become a studio for the semester. Storing supplies requires communication and innovative thinking to prevent children or pets from inadvertently ruining paints, markers, fabrics, and other creative materials. In return, the students will offer gifts of their time to make roommates dinner or even some of their creative outcomes. 
Reconnecting to Matricultural Resources 
Students in fashion illustration courses are using tea or coffee to paint their croquis figures. Orange peels and strawberry hulls now build the silhouettes to create texture and line for garment illustrations. Collage items are created as students forage around the house collecting and collating mail, paper goods, and other household items. Everyday household objects take on a new life in still lifes created in the home, frequently with family members critiquing and contributing. 
Analysis 
Wolfstone notes that Foucault’s methodology of historiography exposes how knowledge construction is influenced by colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism. Wolfstone posits that this is a useful framework “for exploring questions such as: How did we get to this place where patriarchy is presented as the only viable social order? How can we remember the subjugated knowledge of matricultures?” ((Wolfstone 2018: 7). In a patriarchal society, crafts are coded as feminine and amateur. They do not carry hegemonic institutional accreditations. Furthermore, crafting is often discounted as medium as it is typically associated with clothing and, therefore, considered superficial or surface. The Covid-19 Pandemic has forced a societal reckoning with this prioritization. The anxiety, fear, and unknown of living through a contagion, coupled with societal and economic unrest and institutionalized disparities; has led us back to the familiar; to home; to matriculture. To the domestic work that sustains life. 
By employing Matriculture as a pedagogical method in my creative studios, students are encouraged through their studio practice and design processes to simultaneously reconnect to family, reconnect to resources, and reconnecting to spaces in their own lives and creative practices. Thus, moving away from a traditional patriarchal lens of institutionalized learning to an authentic, sustainable, and community based matricultural practice. 
Summary 
In times of crisis, the domestic or matriculture is revisited. In my studio pedagogy, I employed matricultural practices, materials, and approaches because many students were isolated in home environments, where they were also engaged with domestic activities that were applicable to experiential learning and creative outcomes. Students reconnected with family, the home, and resources found in the home. Students draw on these practices with rigor for more personal resilience, innovation, and imagination in their studio practice and creative outcomes. 
Bibliography 
Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader (pp. 76-100). New York: Pantheon Books. 
Kimmerer, R. W. (2015). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions. 
Lesser, E. (2020). Cassandra Speaks. Harper Wave. 
Wolfstone I.W.F (2018).  ReMembering Matricultures: Historiography of Subjugated Knowledges. Accessed April 19, 2021: https://www.academia.edu/37336416/ReMembering_Matricultures_Historiography_of_Subjugated_Knowledges 
In her book, Robin Wall Kimmerer notes that “cosmologies are a source of identity and orientation to the world. They tell us who we are. We are inevitably shaped by them no matter how distant they may be from our consciousness…..On one side of the world were people whose relationship with the living world was shaped by Skywoman, who created a garden for the well-being of all. On the other side was another woman with a garden and a tree. But for tasting its fruit, she was banished. And then they met- the offspring of Skywoman and the children of Eve- and the land bears the scars of that meeting, the echoes of their stories” (Kimmerer 2015: 6-7).  
Wolfstone continues, “Matricultures do not presume the subordination of men, and thus are not the reverse of patriarchy. Matricultures assume a reciprocal relationality between land and culture” 
My research is an exploration of the material culture of dress and appearances, specifically knitted dress. I draw from disciplines including but not limited to Dress, Cultural Studies, Sociology, and Visual Culture in order to build qualitative methodological frameworks, studies, and analyses that allow for better understanding of the rituals of craft. My research and scholarship reveal how crafting practices and rituals of handcraft are vehicles of empowerment.