We found 64 results that contain "religious observance"

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

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

The primary differences between these two are:

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

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

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

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



Topic


Crowdmark


Advantage


Gradescope




Accessing Tools


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



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




Creating Assessments


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



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




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



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




Assigning & Distributing Assessments


Can assign assessments to a section rather than entire course



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




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



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




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



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




Submitting Assessments


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



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




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



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




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



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




Grading Assignments


Must wait until due date to begin grading remote assessments



Online assignments can be graded immediately




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



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




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



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




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



Grades sent to D2L automatically but must create grade item first




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


 

Crowdmark


Gradescope




Courses


322


292




Students


25,322


14,398




Assessments


3,308


4,494




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

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

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

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

How can a first-year writing course help to create 21st century STEM students with foundations for interdisciplinary inquiry? Could such as curriculum engage STEM students in knowledge production in ways that help to acculturate them as collaborative, ethical, and empathetic learners? Bringing together insights from writing pedagogy, work on critical science literacy, and science studies, this round-table is hosted by the collaborative team leading an effort to rethink the first year writing course required of all students at Lyman Briggs College, MSU's residential college for STEM students. A major goal of the curriculum redesign is to develop science studies-inspired writing assignments that foster reflective experiential learning about the nature of science. The purpose of this approach is not only to demonstrate the value of inquiry in science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science) to STEM students as they pursue their careers, but to foster diverse inclusion in science by demystifying key aspects of scientific culture and its hidden curriculum for membership. Following the guidance of critical pedagogy (e.g. bell hooks), we aim to use the context of first-year writing instruction as an opportunity for critical reflection and empowerment. The roundtable describes how the instructional team designed the first-year curriculum and adapted it to teaching online during the pandemic, and shares data on lessons learned by both the instructor team and our students. We invite participants to think with us as we continue to iteratively develop and assess the curriculum.To access a PDF version of the "Reimagining First-Year Writing for STEM Undergraduates as Inquiry-Based Learning in Science Studies" poster, click here. Description of Poster:
Reimagining First-Year Writing for STEM Undergraduates as Inquiry-Based Learning in Science Studies  
Marisa Brandt, HPS Lyman Briggs College & June Oh, English 
Project Overview: Reimagining LB 133 
Lyman Briggs College aims to provide a high quality science education to diverse students by teaching science in social, human, and global contexts. LB 133: Science & Culture fulfills the Tier 1 writing requirement for 80-85% of LBC students. Starting in F19, we implemented a new, collaboratively developed and taught cohort model of the LB 133 curriculum in order to take advantage of opportunity to foster a community of inquiry, inclusion, and curiosity.  
First year college writing and literacy courses aim to give students skills to communicate and evaluate information in their own fields and beyond. While teaching important writing skills, LB 133 focuses on developing students’ science literacy by encouraging them to enact a subject position of a socially engaged science professional in training. LB 133 was designed based on ideas of HPS. 
History, Philosophy, and Sociology (HPS) or “science studies” is an interdisciplinary field that studies science in context, often extended to include medicine, technology, and other sites of knowledge-production. LB 133 centers inquiry into relations of science and culture. One way HPS can help students succeed in STEM is by fostering inclusion. In LB 133, this occurs through demystifying scientific culture and hidden curriculum through authentic, project-based inquiry.  
Like WRAC 110, LB 133 is organized around five writing projects. Each project entails a method of inquiry into science as a social, human practice and teaches them to write first as a form of sense-making about their data. (Column 2) Then, students develop writing projects to communicate what they have learned to non-scientific audiences.  
Research Questions:  


How did their conceptions of science change?[Text Wrapping Break] 2. Did their writing improve?[Text Wrapping Break] 3. What did they see as the most important ideas and skills they would take from the course?[Text Wrapping Break] 4. Did they want more HPS at LBC?  


Data Collection:  
[Text Wrapping Break]1. Analysis of the beginning and end of course Personal Writing assessments. [Text Wrapping Break]2. End of term survey. [Text Wrapping Break]3. Answers to course reflection questions.  
Selected Results: See Column 3. 
Conclusions: The new model seems successful! Students reported finding 133 surprisingly enjoyable and educational, for many reasons. Many felt motivated to write about science specifically, saw communication as valuable scientific skill. Most felt their writing improved and learned more than anticipated. Most learned and valued key HPS concepts and wanted to learn more about diversity in scientific cultures, and wanted to continue HPS education in LBC to do so. 
Column 2 - Course Structure: Science & Culture 




Assessment 


Science Studies Content[Text Wrapping Break]Learning Goals 


Literacy & Writing Skills Learning Goals 




Part 1 - Cultures of Science 




Personal Writing 1: Personal Statement [STEM Ed Op-ed][Text Wrapping Break]Short form writing from scientific subject position.  


Reflect on evolving identity, role, and responsibilities in scientific culture.   


Diagnostic for answering questions, supporting a claim, providing evidence, structure, and clear writing. 




Scientific Sites Portfolio[Text Wrapping Break]Collaborative investigation of how a local lab produces knowledge.   


Understand scientific practice, reasoning, and communication in its diverse social, material, and cultural contexts. Demystify labs and humanize scientists. 


Making observational field notes. Reading scientific papers.  
Peer review. Claim, evidence, reasoning. Writing analytical essays based on observation.   




Part 2 - Science in Culture 




Unpacking a Fact Poster 
Partner project assessing validity of a public scientific claim. 


Understand the mediation of science and how to evaluate scientific claims. Identify popular conceptions of science and contrast these with scientists’ practices. 


Following sources upstream. Comparing sources.  
APA citation style.  
Visual display of info on a poster. 




Perspectives Portfolio[Text Wrapping Break]Collaborative investigation of a debate concerning science in Michigan. 


Identify and analyze how diverse stakeholders are included in and/or excluded from science. Recognize value of diverse perspective. 


Find, use, and correctly cite primary and scholarly secondary sources from different stakeholder perspectives. 
Learn communicating to a broader audience in an online platform. 




Personal Writing 2: Letter + PS Revision[Text Wrapping Break]Sharing a course takeaway with someone. 


Reflect again on evolving identity, role, and responsibilities in scientific culture.   


Final assessment of answering questions, supporting a claim, providing evidence, structure, and clear writing. 




Weekly Formative Assessments 




Discussion Activities Pre-meeting writing about the readings 


Reflect on prompted aspects of science and culture 


Writing as critical inquiry. 
Note-taking. 
Preparation for discussion. 




Curiosity Colloquium responses 
200 words reflecting on weekly speaker series 


Exposure to college, campus, and academic guests—including diverse science professionals— who share their curiosity and career story.  


Writing as reflection on presentations and their personal value. 
Some presenters share research and writing skills. 




Column 3 - Results  
Results from Personal Writing 
Fall 19: There were largely six themes the op-ed assignments discussed. Majority of students chose to talk about the value of science in terms of its ubiquity, problem-solving skills and critical thinking skills, and the way it prompts technological innovation. 
Fall 21: Students largely focused on 1. the nature of science as a product of human labor research embedded with many cultural issues, and 2. science as a communication and how scientists can gain public trust (e.g., transparency, collaboration, sharing failure.)  
F19 & S20 Selected Survey Results 
 108 students responding.The full report here.  


92.5% reported their overall college writing skills improved somewhat or a lot. 


76% reported their writing skills improved somewhat or a lot more than they expected. 


89% reported planning to say in LBC. 


Selected Course Reflection Comments 
The most impactful things students report learning at end of semester. 
Science and Culture: Quotes: “how scientific knowledge is produced” “science is inherently social” “how different perspectives . . . impact science” “writing is integral to the scientific community as a method of sharing and documenting scientific research and discoveries” 
Writing: Quotes: “a thesis must be specific and debatable” “claim, evidence, and reasoning” “it takes a long time to perfect.” Frequently mentioned skills: Thesis, research skill (citation, finding articles and proper sources), argument (evidence), structure and organization skills, writing as a (often long and arduous) process, using a mentor text, confidence. 
What do you want to learn more about after this course? 
“How culture(s) and science coexist, and . . . how different cultures view science” 
“Gender and minority disparities in STEM” “minority groups in science and how their cultures impact how they conduct science” “different cultures in science instead of just the United States” “how to write scientific essays”  
 

November is here and with this time of year, we often see an increase in messaging around gratitude, appreciation, and giving thanks. Gratitude is something I’ve always found great value in, and touted anecdotal benefits of. In 2015, I wrote ‘Tis the season of giving thanks: Why gratitude is important in leadership for MSU Extension. Then later, in 2018, I founded MSU’s Thank an Educator Initiative. I saw the invaluable work that people across roles were doing to support students and MSU’s teaching and learning goals. Not only did I see important work, I saw educators making huge impacts on learners' lives and experiences. Simultaneously, I noticed the sheer size (and let’s face it- siloing) at MSU as huge barriers to a) educators being celebrated for their work, and b) educators being about to learn with and from one another. So I started the “Thank an Educator” initiative. 
Thanking an educator is super simple. Any Spartan can visit the Thank an Educator page on the #iteachmsu Commons. At the page, folx will see a brief form where they enter the information on the educator they’d like the thank, and then a short story/sentiment of thanks. That’s it! #iteachmsu does the rest. Every person who is recognized will receive a personalized message via email thanking them for their important work (the submitted story is included here). Then at the end of the academic year, all of the educators submitted for Thank an Educator are also recognized by the Provost with a #iteachmsu Educator Award. Since its initial conception, the Thank an Educator initiative has recognized educators over 550 times! We care about and are committed to celebrating and elevating the work of educators, and know that these efforts make an impact.
In January of 2020, when my son was born, I stopped working in person as a Graduate Assistant on the #iteachmsu Commons. During this parental leave I also moved to the west side of Michigan. The plan was to be remote for the remainder of my GA contract after returning from leave in March. Little did I know, I wouldn’t be alone. I returned to work (and continued as a Postdoc and now Academic Specialist) to meet all my colleagues online! Then reality hits (and continues to keep throwing punches). I couldn't access daycares for my infant because they were shut down. My partner’s business- the one we moved for- also shut down. My family unit’s makeup and health history made us high risk for infection; so ultimately we were first time parents, in a new place, in a vacuum. The isolation was terrible and both my partner and I struggled with the impacts of anxiety and depression. During this same time, I watched as colleagues and fellow educators at Michigan State (while dealing with many, if not all and more, of the same challenges as myself) rose to the occasion. Instructors switched to teaching online. Advisors innovated the ways they held appointments. Graduate students began co-working virtually via zoom. Administrators made extra efforts to transparently share the goings on of the university in personal ways that built community. New programs and training were created to support educators. Events were hosted completely online. In the 13+ years I’ve been at Michigan State, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more glaring example of “Who will? Spartans Will.”
We're still "in it". The circumstances have continued to change, but educators are still constantly being kept on their toes, challenged to dodge, dive, and duck around barriers; all the while still supporting student success, still serving the teaching and learning mission of the university, still prioritizing health and safety… I’ve observed the toll this constantly changing, uncertain, and sometimes downright scary time has taken on myself and my colleagues. People seem to be yearning for personal connection, time to really see one another, but packed schedules and increasing demands on capacity make it feel challenging to take that time. 
Now, maybe even more than ever, you all - MSU’s educators- deserve to be recognized for the phenomenal work you continue to do, despite extremely challenging circumstances. I know time is in short supply. I know people are burnt out. But please… submit someone to Thank an Educator. The process takes only a handful of minutes (I timed myself and it literally took me 5 minutes) but makes a huge impact. Every single day, I interact with individuals who are doing high impact work to support MSU’s teaching and learning, student success, and outreach mission. I’d guess you do too. Thank them. 
If you need even more convincing, consider the research on practicing gratitude:

Emmons and McCullough (2003) showed that counting your blessings seems to be a much more effective way of enhancing your quality of life than counting your burdens.
Bartlett and DeSteno (2006) found that small acts of gratitude can cause ripple effects that reach farther than you would imagine.
Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2007), found the regular practice of gratitude and/or positive visualization can lead to a higher quality of life, measured by affect.

Looking for even more? Check out the Greater Good Science Center (UC-Berkley) and all their tools, resources, research, and more!

Sources:
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84, 377-389. 
Bartlett, M. & Desteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior helping when it costs you. Psychological Science. 17. 319-25. 
Sheldon, K.M. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006) How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1:2, 73-82

This week, we are featuring Dr. Dustin De Felice, Associate Professor and Director of MSU’s English Language Center. Dr. De Felice 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 form) regularly!
Read more about Dustin’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? 
One word = Language. I added my CV and resume into a WordCloud generator (https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/) and both generations put that word in the center. I believe that it reflects my focus in my teaching, learning, and supporting. 



What does this word/quality look like in your practice? Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so, how?
I believe I can best assess student understanding through the use of a variety of classroom tasks and assignments that build from and into each other. I rely very heavily on projects that give students the chance to engage in conversations, observations or interactions with language learning situations and language learners. I also believe in autonomous learning and the benefits students receive from working through material at their own pace. As such, I have been offering my courses in hybrid forms with some interactions in the classroom balanced with other interactions asynchronously. Within my classroom, I shy away from lecturing for more than twenty minutes and within those twenty minute blocks, I incorporate video, audio, or other multimedia files along with practical examples that I will ask the students to complete in small groups. I like to design packets of activities that encourage my students to learn the material while demonstrating their current level of understanding at the same time.
All of this direction comes from my earliest experiences with languages and language teaching. I remember being drawn to the English language from an early age. I was fascinated by dialects and accents, and I was especially taken by comedians, rappers and great orators and their abilities to make the English language entertain, inspire and provoke. However, it didn’t take me too long to realize I wasn’t drawn to the English language per se, but to all languages. I began taking courses in linguistics, education, humanities and sociology to help me better understand the world-at-large. Early in my career, I started teaching English as Second Language in Chicago, and I found the experience exhilarating. There I was midway through my B.A. and I was teaching three hour classes every morning and every night four times a week. I worked in a rundown building with no A/C in the summer and half-working space heaters in the winter. The classes were full of immigrants from all over Latin America and most of my classes had 35-55 students in them. Of course there were no textbooks, no curriculum or even a plan for that matter, but I loved the challenge. I loved every moment of trying to help these motivated adults learn something about English, about the city and about the U.S. I think that the challenge is what keeps me going. I sincerely enjoying working with students on succeeding at whatever tasks they have in front of them, and I especially enjoy doing so when it involves language of all kinds.
Tell me 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?)
My educational setting includes the English Language Center as my primary home with multiple affiliations in or with graduate programs, undergraduate courses, service-oriented centers, and student-centered activities. I have a much smaller teaching load than I used to now that I spend most of my time in administration, but I specifically asked to maintain a teaching load because of how much I draw from my teaching. In fact, I don’t know how I would get through each semester without having the opportunity to work alongside students and their learning. 
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?
MSU is a big and sometimes confusing place. I see opportunities in my teaching as a way of making MSU a place where students can succeed. I strive to provide my students with a welcoming environment whereby their learning becomes one of many ways of helping them reach their long-term goals. I try to provide opportunities through my courses and daily interactions to educational experiences that will help shape students’ futures. I also strive to be someone the students are very comfortable approaching with questions and/or advice. This approach includes ensuring I am accessible and open for meetings as needed. Within my courses, I work to conscientiously provide my students with an interesting variety of tasks to help keep them curious, satisfied, and motivated.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I am very interested in student success, so I often utilize a 2-week module schedule, which helps make tasks more manageable and less stressful than a 1-week module format. Many students have told me the additional week gives them enough time to understand readings and complete tasks without rushing, which leads to better quality submissions. I believe student success requires creativity and flexibility, so I design classes that give lots of new ways to integrate ideas into students’ lives. I intentionally design course activities and readings with a focus on practicality. I also strive to be very responsive and available to answer questions/concerns from students. Many students have told me that my timely comments and grading are very helpful to them. In my courses, I seek out extra resources based on student interest and need. That kind of searching often leads to flexibility in applying the course content to best serve the students. Because communication is a key component of the practices that help me feel successful, many students have commented on how they really enjoy the open communication between the students and me.  I hope to let everyone focus on their interests and pull out what will be useful for them in their personal and professional lives. Part of that hope includes taking the time to get to know my students’ interests. Lastly, I always have modules up ahead of time, which really helps students plan their time. 
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? 
It has been a difficult few years with so many national and international events that I would like to hear more about keeping or reinvigorating the joy and passion in our teaching and learning. I often meet with students and faculty 1-to-1, and I have to say there are so many good ideas and perspectives to inspire and share.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
Now that my role is more administration than teaching, I look forward to learning more about what the faculty around me are doing in their classrooms. Of course, I get the pleasure of supporting their teaching, and I’m constantly amazed at the creativity I see in the faculty around me. I suppose the main reason I so enjoy learning about what the faculty are doing in their courses is because that level of creativity just brings out the best in our students. Watching our students learn, grow, and get closer to any and all their goals is just a rewarding endeavor.  



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!

The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities. An off-campus, flipped section of ANTR 350 has been offered in Grand Rapids during the summer since 2017. When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms.
Groups were assigned and reconfigured for each unit. The instructor provided recommendations for working effectively in a group and students received feedback after the first and third units regarding their teamwork skills and class performance. Unit exams were two-stage examinations, consisting of an individual exam followed immediately by a group exam. These examinations were timed and proctored over Zoom by faculty and staff.
Students and faculty faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. However, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and flexibility. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous iterations of the course. The instructor observed improved group work skills, which was mirrored by student feedback. Overall, we were able to retain the flipped approach and emphasis on group work by using Zoom breakout rooms to simulate a collaborative learning environment comparable to that of the in-person experience.

To access a PDF of the "Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course 
Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Department of Radiology, Division of Human Anatomy, College of Human Medicine
Alexis Amos, Michigan State University, Psychology Major, Senior 
ANTR 350 Goes Virtual 
ANTR 350, Human Gross Anatomy for Pre-Health Professionalsis an undergraduate course traditionally offered as large, in-person lecture sections on main campus and as a flipped, in-person section in Grand Rapids during summer semesters. 
When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms. The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities in terms of creating a collaborative learning environment.  
An online preparatory assignment was due at start of each class 


Readings interspersed with videos, interactive models, and questions 


Guided by specific learning objectives 


Variable number of questions but each assignment worth 2pts (total 11.2% of grade) 


Image: screenshot of a portion of a Top Hat Assignment titled "Preparatory Reading June 9". Some of the learning objectives and headings are shown. 
During class, students primarily collaborated in Zoom breakout rooms to review and apply the content covered in the preparatory assignment. The instructor moved between rooms to check on group progress and answer questions. Most in-class activities utilized Google docs or Top Hat, so the instructor could also observe group progress in real time. For most activities, keys were available during class so that groups did not end up stuck on any questions.  
10:00-10:03 Application prompt while people logged in, answers entered in zoom chat 
10:04-10:15 Synchronous, Top Hat-based Readiness Quiz, 5 questions 
10:15-11:45 Groupwork and mini-lectures* 
11:45-11:50 Post-class survey soliciting feedback on activities & overall session
Image: screenshot of example application exercise using Google Docs. A CT is shown on the right side of the image and a series of questions is shown on the left. Students answers to the questions are shown in blue. 
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment 
The importance of developing teamwork skills was emphasized in the syllabus and during the course overview presentation. Students were given descriptions of five different group roles (leader, learner, time-keeper, recorder, and summarizer) and asked to try moving between the roles. Students were asked to read and agree to expectations for student interactions, including keeping camera on when possible, actively engaging with the group, agreeing not to take screenshots or record the session, and guidelines about private chats. The instructor acknowledged the awkwardness of working with strangers over zoom and asked all students to be generous of spirit with each other.  
A brief ice-breaker activity was assigned at the start of each unit to give students an opportunity to develop their collaborative learning relationships. After each unit, students were asked to give honest feedback to the instructor about each of their groupmates’ collaborative learning skills. Students received feedback summaries and recommendations about how to improve their collaborative skills at the end of units 1 and 3. Groups were also asked to set ground rules and group goals at the start of units 2 and 3. 
Image: screenshot of June 9 Top Hat In-Class Page. Activity 1 is an ice breaker for new groups. Activity 2 is an axial muscles google doc groupwork exercise. Activity 3 is the review of that google doc as a whole class and Activity 4 is setting Unit 2 goals. 
The importance of collaborative learning was emphasized by the inclusion of collaborative testing. Unit exams consisted of an individual exam followed immediately by the same exam taken in their groups. The group exam contributed 16.67% to each unit exam score.  
Student feedback was collected in SIRS, post-class, and post-course surveys 
Student Feedback 
Image: bar chart showing responses to "How many of your classmates that you did not know previously did you communicate with outside of class during the semester?" 


Fall 2019 (in-person section): Average of 1.3125 


Spring 2020 (Fall 2019 (in-person section until COVID moved asynchronous): Average of 1.2181 


Summer 2020 (sychronous zoom) 1.5625 


Fall 2020 (asynchronous online) 0.8082 


Image: bar chart showing response to "Overall, did you have someone you could reach out to if you struggled with content during this course?" 
Fall 2019 (in-person):  
Yes for all units 79.2% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 12.5% 
No, I never really did 8.3% 
Spring 2020 (mostly in-person) 
Yes for all units 67.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.3% 
No, I never really did 10.9% 
Summer 2020 (synchronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 81.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 6.2% 
No, I never really did 12.5% 
Fall 2020 (asychronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 60.8% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 14.9% 
No, I never really did 18.9% 
Spring 2021 (asychronous, current course) 
Yes for all units 54.7% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 4.7% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.1% 
No, I never really did 24.5% 
Image: 100% Stacked Column Chart showing student responses to "How comfortable did you feel reaching out to a  course instructor if you struggled with content?" 
Fall 2019 
Extremely Comfortable 54% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 8% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 4% 
Spring 2020 
Extremely Comfortable 36% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 20% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 15% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Summer 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 87% 
Somewhat comfortable 0% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 13% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 0% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Fall 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 39% 
Somewhat comfortable 32% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 18% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 8% 
Extremely uncomfortable 3% 
Spring 2021  
Extremely Comfortable 35% 
Somewhat comfortable 30% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 30% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 2% 
Image: Pie Chart Titled "Overall, how supported did you feel during this course compared to other courses you have taken?” (Summer 2020) 
Far above average is shown as 81%, Somewhat above average is shown as 13%, Average is shown as 6%. Somewhat below average and far below average are listed in the legend but not represented in the chart as they are 0% 
Conclusions 
Summer 2020 was a hard semester for everyone. We all faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. Despite these challenges, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and we were able to create a collaborative learning environment using Zoom breakout rooms. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous Summer iterations of the course. In addition, students felt more connected compared to the asynchronous Fall sections. 
Image: Table “Student Performance” 
Number of students enrolled in course:  
Summer 2019: 22 
Spring 2020: 338 
Summer 2020: 52 
Number of students withdrawn from course: 
Summer 2019: 0 
Spring 2020: 1 
Summer 2020: 0 
Mean percent score overall: 
Summer 2019: 82.85% 
Spring 2020: 90.19% 
Summer 2020: 89.03% 
Number of students with passing scores (2.0 or higher): 
Summer 2019: 20 
Spring 2020: 332 
Summer 2020: 50 
Number of students with failing scores (1.5 of lower): 
Summer 2019: 2 
Spring 2020: 4 
Summer 2020: 2 
Percentage of students with failing scores: 
Summer 2019: 9% 
Spring 2020: 1% 
Summer 2020: 3.8% 
Image: Results of MSU Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS)  
Summer 2019 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 44.4% 
Average 22.2% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Summer 2020 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 70.9% 
Above Average 19.3% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 3.22% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 77.4% 
Above Average 16.1% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 54.8% 
Above Average 38.7% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
References 
Gaillard, Frank. “Acute Maxillary Sinusitis: Radiology Case.” Radiopaedia Blog RSS, radiopaedia.org/cases/acute-maxillary-sinusitis?lang=us.  
ANTR 350 Top Hat Course. www.tophat.com  
Acknowledgments  
A giant thank you to the ANTR 350 Summer Class of 2020!  
 
 

This poster outlines approximately 20 suggestions to help students navigate online courses more successfully. Even with careful planning and development, the normalization of remote learning has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses. Besides worrying about a stable internet connection, students must confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs notwithstanding, and despite our carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and the like, students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the brave new world of the virtual. The reduction of course material by instructors to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them as they make the shift to online learning. But there are a number of fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth this rocky road over which students must now travel. The tips I share have emerged and been developed further as part of my own ongoing process to minimize confusion, frustration, and improve levels of engagement, while simultaneously imparting more agency to the students enrolled in my IAH courses here at Michigan State University.To access a PDF of the "Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup 
Stokes Schwartz, Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts and Humanities 
College of Arts and Letters, Michigan State University 
Abstract 
The normalization of remote learning during 2020-2021 has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses.  Besides worrying about stable internet connections, they must also confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Even with instructor participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs, carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and etc., students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the virtual. Our reduction of course material to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates via Zoom or Teams do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them either in the shift to online learning.  But there are a few fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth the rocky road over which students must travel. The tips and suggestions I share in this poster presentation have emerged as part of my own ongoing process to minimize student confusion, frustration, and improve engagement, while simultaneously impart greater agency and opportunity for success to the young adults populating my asynchronous online IAH courses here at MSU during the 2020-2021 academic year. 
Background 

In mid-March 2020, school pupils, university students, and educators everywhere were thrown into disarray by the mass onset of the Covid-19 virus, related lockdowns, and interruptions to normal student-instructor interactions. 
At Michigan State University, we scrambled throughout the summer to prepare for the 2020-2021AY and reconfigure existing courses for online delivery.  
Yet reasonably well developed and presented online courses alone have not enough for students to succeed.  Even in the face of MSU’s push for empathy and understanding, students have demonstrated that they require additional help making the leap from traditional face-to-face to online learning. 
Instructors are well-placed to assist students in an ongoing way as they make this challenging transition.   
Without much additional work, we can support and encourage our students with weekly reminders that exhibit kind words, cues, prompts, signposts pointing the way forward, and calls to action. 
We can foster improved student engagement, learning, and success despite the challenging, new environment in which we operate. 
We can guide students through their many weekly activities with roadmaps to help them navigate course intricacies more easily 
We can provide students with ample opportunity for new ways of learning, thinking, knowing, and the acquisition of 21st century skills. 
In short, faculty teaching online courses occupy an ideal position to prepare students to operate more efficiently and productively in the real world after graduation since remote work and collaboration online is expected to increase markedly as society speeds further along into the 21st century. 

Develop Supporting Communications 

Beside online syllabi, course modules with seem to be clear directions, etc. students need reminders to keep an asynchronous online general education course in mind, on the rails, and moving forward.   
Routine, consistent supporting communications to students from the instructor help to minimize student confusion. 
Send reminders on the same day each week for the coming week. 
Include headers in all course documents, and email signatures, listing a few ‘how to succeed in this course’ tips. 
Share same supporting communication to weekly modules in LMS.  
Students benefit from supporting communication that guide them through the activities for a given week during the semester. 
When students see supporting communications routinely and predictably, they are more likely to remember and act on it. 

Provide Weekly Guidelines 

Through supporting communication, provide additional prompts, directions, clarifications, and reminders to students.  Let’s call these weekly reminders “guidelines.”. 
Emphasize steps students can take to achieve success in the course.  
Keep guidelines fairly short and to the point to avoid information overload. 
Include the week, your name, course name, and number at top of guidelines as both an advance organizer and to help guidelines standout in students’ email inboxes. 
Provide students with concise ‘roadmaps’ in these guidelines making it easy to plan and carry out their coursework each week. 
Conclude guidelines with a call to action for students to complete course-related activities, much like a TV or online commercial, or an old fashioned print ad. 
Think of weekly guidelines as marketing communications that have a higher purpose than just promotion however.  
Share same guidelines at top of weekly online modules in LMS, so students can access them in more than one place.  

Include Key Course Policy Reminders 

Students will not remember all course policies, and expectations outlined in our syllabi.  Some might conveniently “forget.”   
Provide gentle reminders from week to week.  
Assist students by including important course information as part of the guidelines sent each week.  
Remind students of key course policies, expectations, and their responsibilities as members of the course. 
One possible segue way might be,  “For students who have chosen to remain in this course, the expectation is. . .” 
Remind students that we are in a university setting, they are adults, and to avoid letting themselves fall through the cracks. 
Invite students to seek help or clarification from the instructor if they or their student learning team need it. 

Foster Civil Interaction 

We have asked students to make a huge leap into uncharted waters.  They are frustrated and possibly fearful. 
Many are not used to online learning, self-reflection, thinking on their feet, problem solving, or working cohesively with others.  
Many already exhibit an entitled, customer service mindset. 
Make expectations for civil interaction clear with a concise statement in online syllabi, modules, and weekly guidelines.   
Model civility with polite decorum and kindness to reduce potential problems with disgruntled students. 
Be respectful and civil in your synchronous, asynchronous, or email interaction with students.  Listen without interrupting. 
Avoid terse replies, even to naïve questions! 
Use the student’s name in verbal or email replies. 
Reduce the potential for unpleasant episodes by opening all email replies with “Thank you for your email,” and conclude them with “Best/Kind Regards. . .”   
Be the adult in the room and show patience, patience, patience! 
Here are vital teachable moments that allow us to help shape students for collegial and productive working lives following graduation. 
Civil interaction is challenging given the various pressures and constraints under which all of us, faculty and students, must operate, but it is an important part of facilitating continued student engagement and success in our online courses.  

Remind Students of the Skills They Cultivate 

Besides the specific subject matter of the course, remind students in weekly guidelines that they are also cultivating real world expertise.   
‘21st century skills, ’ a term used by Christopher J. Dede, John Richards  and others in The 60-Year Curriculum: New Models for Lifelong Learning in the Digital Economy (2020), enable a smooth transition into the globalized digital economy after graduation.   
Remind students that they are refining relevant skills in:  
Deeper (critical) thinking  
Collaboration and collegiality  
Personal and agency and proactive engagement.  
Effective planning and organization  
Time management.   
Intellectually openness and mental agility.   
Learning from mistakes.   
Accountability and ownership 
Self-Awareness  
Attention to detail  
Timely and Frequent Communication with Your Team  
Creative problem-solving  
Development of high quality work 
Consistency  
On-time delivery of assignments and projects. 
Self-regulation 
Frequent practice of skills like these during weekly course-related activities better prepares students for long term employability through an anticipated six decades of working life in a rapidly changing world. 

Establish Consistent Guideline Format 
Below is a possible format for the weekly guidelines I propose: 

A recurring header in your weekly that lists easy steps students can take to ensure their own success in course.  
Begin with an advance organizer that identifies right away the week, semester, and dates the guidelines are for. 
Follow with a friendly greeting and focusing statement in a brief paragraph. 
Highlight any due dates in yellow below the greeting below greeting and focusing statement. 
Include two-three concise paragraphs that enumerate and outline individual assignments or team projects for the week. 
Provide brief directions for how (and when) to ask questions or seek clarification. 
Furnish technical assistance contact information for students who experience challenges uploading assignments or team projects. 
Remind students gently about the collaborative course design and expectations for students enrolled in the course. 
Mention to students of the need to keep course policies and expectations in mind as they complete their work. 
Highlight the big picture skills students practice each week besides the specific subject matter of the course, and how those skills are relevant to their lives after graduation. 
Finish with a closing salutation that is a bit less formal and includes good wishes for students’ continued safety and well-being. 

Conclusion 

The approach outlined here has emerged, crystalized, and evolved over two semesters in the interest of ensuring student success in asynchronous online IAH courses. 
While these observations are preliminary at this point, most students in the six courses taught during 2020-2021 have met the challenges facing them, completed their individual and collaborative coursework, and met or exceeded rubric expectations.  
 Anticipated student problems and drama either have not materialized, or have been minimal. 
Early impressions suggest that supporting communications like these are helpful to students when it comes to navigating online courses more easily and completing related tasks. 
Weekly supporting communications, presented as brief guidelines, might also be useful in the context in synchronous online, hybrid, and hy-flex as well as traditional face-to-face courses when it comes to helping students navigate and complete coursework in less confused, more systematic way. 
Future plans include refining the weekly guidelines further and possibly assessing their effectiveness through a small study. 

Formative assessments can provide crucial data to help instructors evaluate pedagogical effectiveness and address students' learning needs. The shift to online instruction and learning in the past year emphasized the need for innovative ways to administer assessments that support student learning and success. Faculty often use multiple-choice (MC) assessments due to ease of use, time and other resource constraints. While grading these assessments can be quick, the closed-ended nature of the questions often does not align with real scientific practices and can limit the instructor's ability to evaluate the heterogeneity of student thinking. Students often have mixed understanding that include scientific and non-scientific ideas. Open-ended or Constructed Response (CR) assessment questions, which allow students to construct scientific explanations in their own words, have the potential to reveal student thinking in a way MC questions do not. The results of such assessments can help instructors make decisions about effective pedagogical content and approaches. We present a case study of how results from administration of a CR question via a free-to-use constructed response classifier (CRC) assessment tool led to changes in classroom instruction. The question was used in an introductory biology course and focuses on genetic information flow. Results from the CRC assessment tool revealed unexpected information about student thinking, including naïve ideas. For example, a significant fraction of students initially demonstrated mixed understanding of the process of DNA replication. We will highlight how these results influenced change in pedagogy and content, and as a result improved student understanding.To access a PDF of the "Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM 
Jenifer N. Saldanha, Juli D. Uhl, Mark Urban-Lurain, Kevin Haudek 
Automated Analysis of Constructed Response (AACR) research group 
CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University 
Email: jenifers@msu.edu 
Website: beyondmultiplechoice.org  
QR code (for website):  
 
Key highlights: 

Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions. 


The Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) Tool (free to use: beyondmultiplechoice.org) can be used to assess student learning gains 

In an introductory biology classroom: 

Analyses by the CRC tool revealed gaps in student understanding and non-normative ideas. 
The instructor incorporated short term pedagogical changes and recorded some positive outcomes on a summative assessment. 
Additional pedagogical changes incorporated the next semester led to even more positive outcomes related to student learning (this semester included the pivot to online instruction). 

The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Constructed Response Questions as Formative Assessments 

Formative assessments allow instructors to explore nuances of student thinking and evaluate student performance.  
Student understanding often includes scientific and non-scientific ideas [1,2].  


Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions [3,4]. 

Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool 

A formative assessment tool that automatically predicts ratings of student explanations.  
This Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool generates a report that includes: 


categorization of student ideas from writing related to conceptual understanding. 
web diagrams depicting the frequency and co-occurrence rates of the most used ideas and relevant terms. 

CRC Questions in the Introductory Biology Classroom :  
A Case study 
Students were taught about DNA replication and the central dogma of Biology. 
Question was administered as online homework, completion credit provided. Responses collected were analyzed by the CRC tool. 
CRC question: 
The following DNA sequence occurs near the middle of the coding region of a gene.  DNA   5'  A A T G A A T G G* G A G C C T G A A G G A  3'     
There is a G to A base change at the position marked with an asterisk. Consequently, a codon normally encoding an amino acid becomes a stop codon.  How will this alteration influence DNA replication? 

Part 1 of the CRC question used to detect student confusion between the central dogma processes.  
Related to the Vision & Change core concept 3 “Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage" [5], adapted from the Genetics Concept Assessment [6,7]. 

Insight on Instructional Efficacy from CRC Tool 
Table 1: Report score summary revealed that only a small fraction of students provided correct responses post instruction. (N = 48 students). 




Student responses 


Spring 2019 




Incorrect 


45% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


32% 




Correct 


23% 




 
Sample incorrect responses:  
Though both incorrect, the first response below demonstrates understanding of a type of mutation and the second one uses the context of gene expression. 

“This is a nonsense mutation and will end the DNA replication process prematurely leaving a shorter DNA strand” (spellchecked) 


“It will stop the DNA replication… This mutation will cause a gene to not be expressed” 

CRC report provided: 

Response score summaries 
Web diagrams of important terms 
Term usage and association maps 

The instructor Identified scientific and non-scientific ideas in student thinking  
This led to: 
Short term pedagogical changes, same semester  

During end of semester material review, incorporated: 


Small group discussions about the central dogma.  
Discussions about differences between DNA replication, and transcription and translation. 


Worksheets with questions on transcribing and translating sequences. 

Figure one: 
The figure depicts an improvement in student performance observed in the final summative assessment.  
Percentage of students who scored more than 95% on a related question: 
In the unit exam = 71% 
Final summative exam = 79% 
Pedagogical Changes Incorporated in the Subsequent Semester 
CR questions: 

Explain the central dogma. 


List similarities and differences between the processes involved. 
Facilitated small group discussions for students to explain their responses. 

 
Worksheets and homework:  
Transcribe and translate DNA sequences, including ones with deletions/additions.  
Students encouraged to create their own sequences for practice.  
Revisited DNA replication via clicker questions and discussions, while students were learning about transcription and translation. 
Table 2: 68% of students in the new cohort provided correct responses to the CRC question post instruction. (N = 47 students). 




Student Responses 


Spring 2020 




Incorrect 


19% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


13% 




Correct 


68% 




Conclusions 
The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Future Directions 

Use the analytic rubric feature in the CRC tool to obtain further insight into normative and non-normative student thinking. 
Use the clicker-based case study available at CourseSource about the processes in the central dogma [8]. 


Incorporate additional CRC tool questions in each course unit. 

Questions currently available in a variety of disciplines: 
Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Physiology, and Statistics 
Visit our website beyondmultiplechoice.org and sign up for a free account 
References: 

Ha, M., Nehm, R. H., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. E. (2011).  CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 379-393. 


Sripathi, K. N., Moscarella, R. A., et al., (2019). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar37. 


Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar26. 


Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385-395. 


 "Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action." American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC (2011). 


Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 422-430. 


Prevost, L. B., Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2016). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar65. 


Pelletreau, K. N., Andrews, T., Armstrong, N., et al., (2016). CourseSource. 

Acknowledgments.  
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (DUE grant 1323162). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies. 

Dr. Crystal Eustice (Department of Community Sustainability Studies Assistant Professor of Practice, Academic Advisor, Internship Coordinator) & Jackie Martin (MSU Extension Leadership & Civic Engagement Educator, 4-H Program Supervisor)
 
The Thank an Educator Initiative was born out of the #iteachmsu Commons project, an effort to recognize the great practices of individuals on campus who contribute to student success by supporting MSU’s teaching and learning mission. On such a large decentralized campus, it can be difficult to fully recognize and leverage the expertise of educators. The #iteachmsu Commons' current focus has been to develop and launch a web platform for educators across campus to share their expertise and experience, connect with others, and grow in their practice.
 
You’ll notice that we’ve specifically chosen to denote the audience of this platform as “educators” which the #iteachmsu Commons’ founding units (the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology, the Academic Advancement Network, and the Graduate School) define in the broadest sense – anyone who contributes to MSU’s teaching and learning mission. This includes but is not limited to faculty, academic advisors, librarians, coaches, graduate teaching assistants, undergraduate learning assistants, infrastructure planning and facilities, learning designers, IT, planning and budget, staff, etc.
 
We (the #iteachmsu Commons team) have had unwavering enthusiasm for the platform, which is now live at iteach.msu.edu, but we weren’t sure that the Spartan community would identify with the goals of the project (despite the platform’s for educators – by educators development). As a part of my 2018-19 Hub Graduate Student Fellowship, I was able to further observe and investigate how individuals on our campus qualified their work (as it related to the mission and vision) and how they identified with the role of educator. While I found overwhelming support for the type of platform we were building, many of the individuals I spoke with did not personally identify as an educator despite their work contributing to teaching and learning at State. Thus Thank an Educator was born.
 
I designed and launched the inaugural year of Thank and Educator as a part of my Hub fellowship last year as a way to celebrate all the individuals who contribute every day to helping MSU be the institution of higher learning that it is today. By intentionally launching the initiative across the MSU community and asking for individuals to share stories of the positive impacts made by MSU educators, we were able to not only recognize the great efforts of invaluable Spartan community members but also showcase the diverse roles and ways in which people take up being educators on our campus. 80 Educators were nominated by fellow Spartans and were recognized at the first annual #iteachmsu Educator Awards during last year’s Spring Conference on Student Learning and Success. This initiative wouldn’t be possible without the support of Dr. Jeff Grabill (Associate Provost for Teaching, Learning, and Technology) and the Provost’s office, and I am excited to say that it is continuing in this 2019-20 academic year.
 
I have been at Michigan State for the entirety of my postsecondary experience. I came here in 2008 for my B.S., finished a M.S., and plan to complete my doctoral degree by the end of this academic year. Throughout my time as a Spartan, I have encountered countless individuals who were invaluable to my experience but weren’t limited to those who stood at the front of my classes. Thank an Educator gives me the opportunity to recognize those people who made a difference in my MSU experience (as both a learner and a colleague), and for that I am thrilled. I have received correspondence from individuals directly, saw posts featuring educator awards on Twitter, and have even seen award certificates hanging in offices or by desks. I am deeply honored by the idea that I have played a small part in amplifying the work educators do at MSU, and reinforcing the value of that work through this initiative and community.
 
Anyone can recognize a Spartan educator who has made an impact in their lives by clicking “Thank an Educator” in the left panel of this site! You can also read about educators who have been recognized in our "Featured Educator" posts!
 

Vivek Vellanki (College of Education Doctoral Student) & Terry Edwards (Assistant to the Chair, Department of Teacher Education)
 
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/honoring-msus-educators/