We found 47 results that contain "textbook affordability"

Topic Area: Student Success
Presented By: Jon Stoltzfus, Katie Krueger, Kirstin Parkin, Mike Wiser, George Mias
Abstract:
The switch to online learning provided fourteen instructors the opportunity to collaborate and develop an evidence-based synchronous online course that enrolled over 2000 BS161 students during the 20-21 academic year. Here we present lessons learned as we worked collaboratively to create a course that focused on science practices, core ideas, and cross-cutting concepts using a highly structured format based on the flipped classroom model. In this course, students complete guided notes using a short, recorded lecture and the textbook and take a formative pre-class quiz before attending the synchronous session. During the synchronous session, small groups of students meet in Zoom breakout rooms and complete a scaffolded activity. The activity requires construction of scientific arguments to support claims and predictions leveraging reasoning and the core ideas from their notes. Groups are formed using CATME software to increase the chances of creating productive group-learning environments. Each week students complete a low-stakes summative review and integration quiz that includes construction of a scientific argument like those created during the in-class activity but focused on a slightly different biological phenomenon or process. The review and integration quizzes are formatted and timed like the exams, helping students become familiar with the on-line exam format. The number of students who did not earn credit for BS161 in FS20 was 7.2% as compared to 10.4%, 8.1%, and 6.6% the previous three fall semesters. This indicates that the course supported student success as well as or better than previous face-to-face versions of the course.
Session Resources: Supporting 3-D Learning and Student Success (PowerPoint)

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.
 

Tips
 
What is Formative Assessment?
Formative assessment allows educators to engage in their students’ learning process in order to assess whether they need to modify teaching strategies in order to ensure student learning and content attainment.
 
The Notecard
At the completion of some/all classes or content areas, hand out one notecard to each student and ask them to write on one side something they learned and on the backside, one question they still have about the content.
 
Review each Notecard
Through your review, assess whether students accurately understood the content they needed to learn. If not, plan to reteach areas students are struggling within a different way (a project, handout, guided notes, etc.).
 
Appropriate Courses to Consider this Activity
This activity may be best used with small to medium size class loads. It may be cumbersome to review all the notecards of an extremely large class. Consider making the notecards anonymous because this is about the educator assessing their teaching of the students (formative), but not assessing the students’ knowledge (summative assessment).
 
Resources and Tools
 
You can also use Entry Cards
Not necessary for this activity, but you can also have students complete a card at the beginning of class with a prompt from their readings.
 
Helpful Links
These educators discuss similar formative uses of exit cards:

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/formative-assessment-exit-slip-rebecca-alber
https://www.nwea.org/blog/2012/classroom-techniques-formative-assessment-idea-number-two/

 
Additional Ways to Use the Notecard
You are not limited to just having students write what they learned on one side of the card and questions they have on the other. You can also pose a question or a short writing prompt to the students at the end of the class and have the students write their answers on the notecard. Students turn in the card and then are allowed to leave the room. The cards are still used for formative, not summative assessment.
 
Feedback to Students
If you do have students put their names on the cards, you can write comments on the card or page numbers from the textbook to review in order to ensure they know where to correct inaccuracies or answers to their questions.

Monica Mills, the Engagement Assessment Development Specialist at Michigan State University’s Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation [CTLI], brings a unique blend of psychology, cognitive science, and educational expertise to her role. Her journey into this field wasn’t a straight path but rather a series of explorations that shaped her deep understanding of how people learn and how they can be better engaged in the classroom.
Growing up in Central Florida, Monica’s early interests ranged from becoming a high school teacher to an animal behaviorist. It wasn’t until she encountered the field of psychology at the University of Central Florida that she found her true calling. “Cognition and behavior can be analyzed and changed was very interesting to me,” Monica shared, reflecting on her fascination with cognitive psychology. Her curiosity led her to pursue graduate education in psychology at the University of Nebraska, where she delved into the nuances of human attention, perception  and environmental factors that shape thinking.
Monica’s transition from academia to instructional design was driven by a desire to apply her knowledge of cognitive psychology from the research lab to real-world educational challenges. Now, with her experience in research, teaching, and instructional design, she is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Her role at CTLI allows her to make a significant impact on the way education is delivered, particularly in fostering student engagement and enhancing instructional practices.
In her role at CTLI, Monica draws upon her diverse experience to foster meaningful engagement in the classroom. Her time as an adjunct professor at Alma College provided her with invaluable insights into the challenges instructors face. “You can say to instructors all day long what the textbook says you need to do, but unless you’ve felt those pushbacks in the classroom, you don’t have a leg to stand on,” she explained. This hands-on experience has been instrumental in her ability to relate to professors and offer practical, empathetic advice.
One of Monica’s most memorable projects, a research project that spanned three years, involved experimenting with different instructional approaches to improve student engagement. “Does giving autonomy and choice to students improve engagement?” was the research question Monica sought to answer. The results were clear: small changes can have significant impacts. This experience solidified her belief in the power of experimentation and the importance of giving students a voice in their own learning journey.
At the heart of Monica’s work is a commitment to transparency and inclusivity. She believes that no student should be left in the dark about how they are being assessed. Her dedication to creating equitable learning environments is evident in her advocacy for ‘Transparent Assignment Design’, where she explains a framework that provides clear expectations and support for students.“It’s about making clear the expectations in how students are being assessed ,” Monica emphasized, underscoring her belief in the importance of student-centered education.
Looking ahead, Monica remains passionate about innovation in education. Whether it’s experimenting with new assessment techniques or exploring the potential of educational technology, she is constantly “tinkering” with ways to improve the learning experience. For Monica, success in higher education is not about reaching a final destination but about the journey of continuous improvement and discovery.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
In How to Build an Online Learning Community (In 2020)
https://www.learnworlds.com/build-online-learning-community/ via @learnworlds
"Asynchronous discussion allows time for reflection and encourages more careful consideration of the answers given.
Learners can reflect and think about their responses rather than having to respond immediately.
The shaping of discussions takes some proper forethought.
A discussion based on specific readings in the textbook, coupled with your guideline questions, will likely be more productive.
One way of promoting meaningful dialogue and questioning is to provide a set of rubrics of the kinds of questions students may want to ask each other:

Your point about…is not clear to me. Can you state it another way, or provide an example?


Do you have any additional evidence to support your thinking about…?


You describe how your thinking has changed. What influenced that change?


What assumptions are you making about…? How would your statements change with different assumptions?


What are the implications of your statement?


What evidence is there to support your point of view? Does anyone want to dispute or verify that?

 
Tips for great asynchronous conversation:

Start the significant topic threads yourself. It’s a good idea for the instructor to start all considerable topic threads unless you have designated a forum for learner presentation.
Address learners by name and encourage them to signal topics and clarify responses.
Mention the learner’s name in response to their message.
Clarify the portion of the message to which you are responding through the copying of the statement.
Engage yourself actively. When they see that an instructor rarely participates, learners are discouraged from posing questions and comments and may even not buy another course from you.
Contribute comments which summarize what learners have posted, as well as follow-up questions that stimulate further discussions. In some cases, it might be appropriate to invite learner’s responses to their classmates’ ideas:


Anyone else want to comment on Jill’s observation?


Did anyone reach a different conclusion about this issue?


Provide follow- up responses that ask for more information or more in-depth consideration.
Prepare a strategy for potentially controversial discussions. Especially in asynchronous discussions, it is more likely to see a broader range of learners posting."

Putting it into Practice

Microsoft Teams is a great tool for Asynchronous conversation because it's easy to access without accessing the D2L. The tool also allows for synchronous live meetings, links, and files that were shared are retained in the chat threads.

How to use Microsoft Teams for Remote and Online Learning
D2L to Microsoft Teams Integration


D2L Discussion Forums:

Navigate Brightspace Learning Environment - Engage in Discussions - Learner
Discussions - Create a Forum - Instructor
Discussions - Create a Discussion Topic - Instructor
Discussions - Discussion Statistics - Instructor


Piazza is a free platform for faculty to efficiently manage class Q&A.

Integrating Piazza into D2L

Offering assessments in a remote setting will require some planning. For remote delivery, the primary concern should be assessing how well students have achieved the key learning objectives and determining what objectives are still unmet. It may be necessary to modify the nature of the assessment to allow for the more limited affordances of the remote environment.
 

The University Policy on Grief Absence can be found in the Spartan LIfe, as well as in Academic Programs.
"The faculty and staff should be sensitive to and accommodate the bereavement process of a student who has lost a family member or who is experiencing emotional distress from a similar tragedy so that the student is not academically disadvantaged in their classes or other academic work (e.g. research)... It is the responsibility of the instructor to work with the student to make reasonable accommodations and to include appropriate language describing such accommodations in their course syllabus, so that the student is not penalized due to a verified grief absence."
(excerpt from MSU Registrars Office)
Here is an example statement from PSL 475L: Capstone Laboratory in Physiology syllabus (FS23)
Grief Absence Policy:http://splife.studentlife.msu.edu/regulations/student-group-regulations-administrative-rulings-alluniversity-policies-and-selected-ordinances/grief-absence-policyThe goal of this policy is to provide a mechanism to standardize, monitor, and accommodate students who request temporary absence from a course, or special accommodations for a quiz or an exam because of loss or serious injury of a family member (parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, or child). Students are directed to notify the Assoc Dean of their college and document the reason for the grief absence, and the Assoc Dean in turn is charged with notifying the student’s instructors that the bereavement event has been verified. It is the student’s responsibility to make up any missed work. 
The MSU College of Social Science has a college-wide policy that can be referenced in individual course syllabi:
Grief Absence PolicyThe College of Social Science follows the official MSU (Michigan State University) grief absence policy, which can be found here. Students will need to complete the grief absence form in their StuInfo portal, and email supporting documentation to SSC.GriefAbsence@msu.edu.Students may request a grief absence to support their academic success when faced with a significant interpersonal loss that may require time away from the classroom to attend to matters related to the loss and to afford time for grieving. Examples of losses include the death or grave illness of a family member or close loved one. Documentation is requested so that the absence's timing can be determined and provided to instructional faculty. Requests for grief absences to address other serious stressors will also be considered, with approval dependent upon the circumstances and the suitability of the grief absence mechanism for addressing the impacts of the stressor on academic progress.For requests related to interpersonal losses, documentation can include official notification of a death (e.g., funeral home verification, published obituary, funeral program). For other types of requests, students may submit other forms of documentation pertinent to the circumstances that prompted the request. Documentation should be emailed to SSC.GriefAbsence@msu.edu.Most grief absences are valid for a few days, with the maximum approval being two academic weeks (that is, 10 business days). Shorter absences typically support maintaining academic progress; therefore, shorter absences are recommended unless the circumstances do not make a shorter duration feasible. Absences requested for more than 5 business days must be supported by the rationale and documentation provided by the student. Duration determination will consider circumstances such as whether extended travel is required, if the student has documented responsibilities created by the loss, and other relevant considerations. The timing of the absence must be consistent with the documentation and rationale provided. For example, if travel is involved, the timing of the absence should include the dates of travel. If you anticipate needing 10 business days away from your coursework, you may need to consider a longer term pause on or change to your academic program, such as a withdrawal or drop of one or all courses. If this is possible, please contact your academic advisor to discuss the requirements and consequences of these different options.Students must submit the request for a grief absence as close as possible to the date of the absence, typically within 2 days of the student learning of the circumstances that prompted the request for the absence. Except under extenuating circumstances, students should submit their request prior to being absent; retroactive grief absences are not guaranteed approval. The rationale for this is that after-the-fact requests complicate the process of working with instructors to manage the impact of the absence on academic work. Absences will be denied if the College requests additional documentation and the student fails to provide it.When grief absences are granted, the College will contact the student’s instructors informing them that the student has been approved for an absence and its length. The student will be copied on the emails so they can follow up directly with their instructors. Students are responsible for making direct contact with each instructor to work out the details of the absence as it impacts any assignments or assessments that are scheduled during the period of the approved absence. Different forms of accommodation may be appropriate for different classes depending on the course. It is within the instructor’s right to suggest accommodations that fit with their course. Instructors are expected to adjust due dates for assignments and/or exams that fall within the approved absence period but are not expected to eliminate any exams or assignments. Timely contact by students allows for students and instructors to come to a mutual understanding of how exams, assignments, and other class matters will be handled. Students undergoing a significant loss or stressor should review additional support on campus that might also be useful. Working with advisors to identify and connect with these support systems is highly recommended. The Associate Dean’s Office for Undergraduate Studies can also meet with students to help navigate this process.If the student needs any assistance with their request or has questions, they can call (517) 432-3598 or email SSC.GriefAbsence@msu.edPhoto by Kristina Tripkovic on Unsplash

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities 
Source MSU Faculty Handbook (Last updated: 7/27/1984)
IV. ACADEMIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES (Cont.)
The following policy was approved by the Board of Trustees on July 27, 1984.
The Bylaws of the Michigan State University Board of Trustees state that "the Constitution (of the State of Michigan) confers upon the Board of Trustees the freedom, power, and responsibility to develop a free and distinguished university and to promote the welfare of mankind through teaching, research, and public service." 1,2,3
As the primary functions of an academic community, learning, teaching, scholarship, and public service must be characterized by a fundamental commitment to academic freedom and maintained through reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect and openness to constructive criticism and change. Faculty members, as central to this community, serve as scholars pursuing the search for knowledge and its free expression, as teachers instructing students, and as professionals and citizens contributing special knowledge and skills through public service and community participation. In the performance of all these functions faculty members are held accountable to the University, in accordance with established policies and procedures, by the Board of Trustees which, as an elected body, is responsible to the people of the State of Michigan. 4
In order to carry out the mission of the University, faculty members, as members of both the academic and the broader public community, have the right to a clear statement of academic freedom, tenure, and other fundamental faculty rights and responsibilities. The purpose of this document is to acknowledge these fundamental rights and responsibilities. 5
Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Michigan State University endorses academic freedom and responsibility as essential to attainment of the University's goal of the unfettered search for knowledge and its free exposition. Academic freedom and responsibility are fundamental characteristics of the University environment and are always closely interwoven and at times indistinguishable. Academic freedom and responsibility are the twin guardians of the integrity and quality of universities. The University looks to its faculty members to exercise their rights responsibly and to meet their obligations fully as professionals. Faculty acceptance of their responsibilities to students, colleagues, the scholarly community, and the public explains in great part why society historically has accepted the concept of academic freedom and has afforded its protection through the institution of academic tenure.
For faculty members, the principal elements of academic freedom include:


The right, as teachers, to discuss in the classroom any material which has a significant relationship to the subject matter as defined in the approved course description;
The right to determine course content, grading, and classroom procedures in the courses they teach;
The right to conduct research and to engage in creative endeavors;
The right to publish or present research findings and creative works;
The right to engage in public service activities; and
The right to seek changes in institutional policy through established University procedures and by lawful and peaceful means.

Academic freedom carries with it responsibilities. For faculty members, the principal elements include:

The responsibility to carry out assigned teaching, research, and public service duties in a professional manner and in keeping with University policy;
The responsibility, as teachers, to refrain from introducing matters which are not consistent with their teaching duties and professional competence and which have no significant bearing on the subject matter of the course as approved under University procedures;
The responsibility to pursue excellence and intellectual honesty in teaching, research, and other creative endeavors and in public service activities; and in publishing or presenting research findings and creative works;
The responsibility to encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry; and to evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis;
The responsibility to work in a collegial manner with appropriate individuals and bodies to encourage the free search for knowledge; its free exposition, and the University's continuing quest for excellence; and
The responsibility to differentiate carefully their official activities as faculty members from their personal activities as citizens and, when the situation warrants, to make it clear that, when speaking as private citizens, they do not speak for the University.

The above list provides a summary outline of the principal elements of academic freedom and responsibility. More detailed and explicit definitional statements applicable to specific faculty rights and responsibilities are set forth below under the following headings: Academic Tenure, Academic Governance, Teaching, Research and Creative Activity, Public Service, Relations with Colleagues, Relation to the University and the Community, and Resolution of Conflicts.
Footnotes:
1  The terms, "faculty" or "faculty members," as used in this document, apply to individuals appointed in the tenure system with the rank of instructor through professor. (However, as applicable in the context of assigned duties and responsibilities, the provisions of this policy apply to all faculty and academic staff).
2  Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, as amended January 24-25, 1980, Preamble, page 1.
3  "The Board of Trustees, the administration, and the faculty carry out their respective responsibilities not as isolated entities, but as major and primary constituents of the total University organization and structure which remain mutually independent and must be supportive of each other's purposes, functions, and obligations. It is within this context that the rights and responsibilities of the faculty are to be construed" (Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, as amended January 24-25, 1980, Article 7, page 7.)
4  "The Board of Trustees, elected by the voters of the State and responsible to all the people of Michigan, exercises the final authority in the government of the University, within the limits fixed by the State Constitution. In exercising its responsibility, the Board delegates to the President of the University and through the President to the faculty, appropriate authority and jurisdiction over matters for which they are held accountable by the Board. These matters include educational policy and the development of a strong and efficient organization with which to accomplish the objectives of the University." (Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, as amended January 24-25, 1980, Preamble, page l.)
5  Some faculty rights and responsibilities referred to in this document are stated elsewhere (see Appendix A).