We found 48 results that contain "theory"

This workshop guides GTAs in developing strategies for supporting student motivation in any modality and apply motivation theory to support student success in any learning environment. In addition, workshop participants will identify potential barriers to student motivation and use tools to address these.
By the end of this session, GTAs will be able to: 

Develop strategies for supporting student motivation in their role and modality 
Apply motivation theory to support student success in a variety of modalities (e.g., face-to-face, hybrid, online asynchronous) and subject areas  
Identify and troubleshoot potential barriers to supporting student motivation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Problem-Based Learning/Project-Based Learning 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning Objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection; Reflection as Assessment

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

Introduces characteristics of critical reflection and the DEAL model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of Experiential Education & Interdisciplinary Learning 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Online Experiential Education and Innovative Online Teaching & Course Structures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from LubosHouska from Pixabay

As a member of the SEISMIC Collaboration, MSU employees have the opportunity join the conversation surrounding DEI in STEM. These conversations are open to all. Upcoming events include:
 
Using Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education (ReCCEE) to Create a More Inclusive and Effective Scientific Community
Wednesday, October 14, at 12 p.m.
Speaker: Elizabeth Barnes, Middle Tennessee State University
 
While the majority of people in the world are religious, the majority of scientists are not, and this difference can cause culturally based barriers to effective science education. For instance, despite decades of evolution education research in the United States, almost one-third of introductory college biology students still do not think life shares a common ancestor and this is often due to a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. In my studies, I find that college science instructors report not knowing how to address religious beliefs when teaching evolution and religious students report that science instructors have negative attitudes towards religion which is a barrier for their learning of evolution. I will describe how we as science educators can use Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education (ReCCEE) to reduce students’ perceived conflict between religion and evolution and create more inclusive evolution education for religious students. Further, I will discuss how such efforts may disproportionately benefit students of color and women, who affiliate with religion at higher rates than white men.
Zoom Link: https://umich.zoom.us/j/93300696091
 
But is it really ‘just’ science? Engaging critical race theory to unpack racial oppression with implications for Black student science engagement
Wednesday, October 21, at 12 p.m.
Speakers: Terrell Morton, University of Missouri
 
Disseminated through the culture of science (i.e., norms, values, beliefs, and practices), is the underlying message that there is but one “universal truth” regarding what is or what counts as scientific knowledge, research, and general practice. This culture and subsequent message have implications for who is recognized as being a scientist, or a validated member of the scientific community, and the process by which one gains such recognition. In noting the distinct, racialized experiences of Black students in science, this seminar introduces Critical Race Theory as a framework for attending to the prevalence, permeance, and impact of structural racism embedded within and manifesting through the culture of science, while also detailing the implications of structural racism in and through science on Black student science engagement. 
Zoom Link: http://asu.zoom.us/j/92158713296
 
Are you interested in giving at talk related to DEI in STEM? If so, please reach out to Ryan Sweeder (sweeder@msu.edu) to be added to the potential speaker list.
 

A central part of the student experience as a music major in a school or department of music is the studio. Studios are essentially a home-away-from-home for students and is where some of the most fruitful learning and social opportunities can occur. One could equate studios with working in a research lab in the sciences. With this in mind, the culture and atmosphere of studios and how studios interact with others are central to the culture and effectiveness of the larger school or department.
 
Music students often enter higher education with a fairly high standard of what classroom culture looks like. Ensemble music courses that music students likely took in high school, such as band, choir, and orchestra, foster a high-level classroom culture and community by the nature of the activity. This creates an expectation that music education, at any level and in any situation, will have that same sort of cooperation and community. The ensemble nature of large group instruction fosters a strong sense of shared identity and a culture that defines everything from day-to-day classroom routine to learner outcomes. University music programs (departments, schools, colleges, or conservatories) are structured in order to teach, perform, and experience music in a variety of ways. While the large ensemble (band, choir, orchestra, opera, etc) is a significant part of the school – and perhaps the most visible to the general public – learning also occurs in traditional classrooms and labs where foundational knowledge such as music theory, music history, music technology, music education, and aural skills are taught.
 
The core of a college or university music program or conservatory, however, is the studio. Each area of performance is organized by a studio and led by an applied teacher. At Michigan State, for example, within the College of Music there are areas of study for composition, conducting, jazz, voice, brass, woodwinds, percussion, strings and piano. Each of these areas consist of studios led by artist-teachers. The woodwind area, for example, consists of studios for flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone and an applied teacher for each of those studios. For many students, especially graduate students, they elect to come to certain school to specifically study with that applied teacher. While students participate in ensembles, take classroom courses, and are educated through several avenues, the studio teacher is their major professor and advisor, and typically has the most contact time and influence on that student.
 
Studios in schools of music, however, can sometimes seem isolated from each other. This can occur for several valid reasons and not the fault of any one student or faculty member. Unlike large ensembles, where cooperation and a mutual understanding of each member’s role is an essential aspect to music-making, studios often focus on specific pedagogical goals based around the expertise of the individual teacher. And studios can have very specific ideas of what they want their “sound” or approach to playing to be. This can sometimes lead to issues in understanding the priorities of other studios and creates a divide in the school where philosophical conflicts may arise between teaching goals and strategies. This conflict is not the fault of the teachers, and usually is not caused or perpetuated by faculty. Faculty typically understand this dynamic because they have a vision of what they want their studio to be and each understands that other faculty may have different goals. While it is possible they may disagree with certain choices in other studios, each teacher comes to the job with their own unique set of skills and priorities. As long as students are choosing to come to the school, being successful within the school, and being productive musicians contributing to the field after school – the teacher’s work is often judged as a success.
 
Sometimes the breakdown occurs with how students perceive the work of other studios. Learning does not occur in a vacuum. While the studio is often the hub of the learning, much of a student’s time is spent in performing ensembles. It is in cooperative spaces like this that the breakdown can come to a head. Teachers have different priorities and students have different goals. When one person’s goal rubs against another’s goal, conflict can arise. Each instrument has inherent attributes that make them unique and different from others – and therefore difficult to compare. Oboist have to learn to make reeds, tubists may also need to learn euphonium, violinists sometimes also learn viola, trombonists may need to learn to read tenor clef, and saxophonists are always stretching their skills with extended performance techniques. Every instrument has its own challenge, and the fundamental knowledge necessary before moving onto the next step of learning varies considerably between all of them. Furthermore, every student focuses their study in order to be competitive for differing jobs following graduation. Students seeking college teaching positions may need to study theory pedagogy in addition to learning to play their instrument well, while other students may focus on obtaining an orchestral playing position – which has very specific skills you need to perfect.  These are facts often overlooked in the frustration that occurs when goals do not align in rehearsal. Understanding where students are coming from and the different paths and pacing each needs to take to meet different goals is something that my colleague and fellow DMA student Evan Harger calls “vocational empathy.” These unique and varied paths sometimes create a flawed perception of what really is progress.
 
Large ensembles are led by conductors who guide the direction, philosophy, and culture of the learning environment. Conductors navigate through the web of individual philosophies of each studio and performer to create an ensemble experience that proves to be a successful composite of a variety of pedagogical approaches. In addition to large ensembles, another significant performance opportunity for students are chamber ensembles. In these small groups, students have more autonomy and sometimes conflict can arise between contrasting ideologies and rehearsal priorities. It is not uncommon in chamber ensembles, where there is little faculty input and the music-making is purely student-led, to have differing approaches to the ensemble experience. Everything from rehearsal strategies and what components of the music needs addressing to ideas about performance practice and interpretation can differ and pose potential conflicts. While these are issues and topics to consider in any ensemble opportunity, even in the professional ranks, academia sometimes creates environments where students develop tunnel vision to their own learning biases and objectives.
 
In order to create healthier ensemble experiences, understanding and developing positive studio culture allows students to not only feel comfortable and foster deeper learning within their studios but also allows for more meaningful cross-studio learning. By allowing students the opportunity to understand the focus and approaches of other studios, students are able to more easily collaborate with those who might approach the same musical issue from an entirely different angle. This awareness of multiple ways to view the same idea, or even being presented with new ideas entirely, creates an environment where cooperation happens more deeply, naturally, and genuinely. This allows for the development of stronger ensemble skills in rehearsal and contributes to more authentic performances. Additionally, this awareness of why certain studios focus on particular aspects allows for students to be better colleagues in future professional, academic, and business environments. We approach conflict and problem-solving through a lens developed in rehearsal and through conversations in the studios. For future teachers and professors, we have a deeper toolbox of instructional strategies to pick from to use in our own future classrooms and studios. This shared knowledge combats the issue of tunnel-vision-learning that limits our capacity for performance as well as the capacity for understanding, cooperation, and growth. 
 
An awareness of vocational empathy creates an avenue where students can share what they value in their studios and as individual learners in order to better understand the values of others. To be a successful 21st century musician, a wide variety of skills are necessary. But what we focus on, the degree to which one does, and the end goal of that study is something that cannot be compared. Richard Floyd, a noted music educator and State Director of Music Emeritus for Texas, calls this space where students are engaged and seeking to learn in a variety of ways a “happy workshop.” And within this workshop, there are a lot of people doing a lot of different jobs in a lot of different ways that all work together to teach and learn from each other. This healthy culture knocks on the door of Paulo Freire’s view that teaching and learning are interchangeable and that the student and teacher do both.
 
Through working with the Graduate School as a Leadership Development Fellow, I was able to dig into what defines a successful studio culture and how we can best connect these cultures to foster a positive and productive learning environment within the entire College of Music. This past year served as essentially a fact-finding year: defining, through research and student voice, what a productive studio culture looks like and where conflict can arise and how to work through conflict. Higher education music rarely defines this awareness and implications of how studio culture effects an entire school. By and large, music studios look very similar today as they did twenty-five or even fifty years ago. Generally, many teachers still teach the way they were taught. MSU is fortunate that we have many innovative and progressive educators, but the notion of still teaching as we were taught is all too common in academia.
 
To define best practices in studio culture and to compare the music field to other fields, I looked for defining qualities in classroom culture in higher education. Some of the most relevant ideas of studio culture came from architecture. The American Institute of Architecture Students In-StudioBlog travels to architecture studios across the country, asking many of the same questions that we are asking in the College of Music.
 

Describe your studio culture.
Give one tip that helped you succeed in studio.
What motivated you to work hard in studio?
What aspect of your studio experience do you think will help you get a job?
What can professors do to create a helpful and supportive studio culture?
What should a high school student understand about studio at my university?
What can the College do to help improve your studio experience?
What would be your ideal studio care package?
I love my studio because….

 
Schools of architecture have a fairly well-thought out approach to what culture looks like in their studios. The Princeton University School of Architecture has a detailed “Studio Culture Policy” which aligns well with similar concerns in a music studio. From speaking with students in the College of Music, topics raised in these architecture policies are similar to concerns shared here – and I would venture to say any classroom can benefit from tough conversations about culture and productive, cooperative learning environments. These same conversations can apply to other close learning environments in the arts such as dance studios and theater programs; but they are equally relevant and impactful in scientific research labs.
 
Through the Graduate School’s Leadership Development Fellowship, we’ve created a forum where music students can share what makes their studio’s unique, what brought them to study at MSU, and also concerns or suggestions they have to improve our College. In an open environment where all can share ideas, we not only create a space where cooperation and understanding are built, but also allow ourselves to deepen our own toolbox that can be used in the professional world and in future classrooms and studios. An initial meeting of this forum quickly veered away from talking about our own studios and personal interests, but to larger questions in the discipline of music: ideas about music and its role in global citizenship, entrepreneurial skills in the performing arts, repertoire selection and variety, and diversity and representation. These are important topics beyond the scope of studio culture, but agreement exists that each studio can make a significant difference in these areas. Studios can be the start of grassroot change in tackling bigger issues in music and music education. When we come together to talk about these significant issues and how each studio confronts them, we are making positive change – not only in our studios and the College of Music – but in music and music-making at large. This year we just barely scratched the surface of the impact that we can have on understanding and developing the culture in our studios. From the initial research and student conversations, it is apparent that these ideas make a meaningful difference on our learning environment in real ways that will have impacts far beyond the walls of the College of Music.

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.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some upcoming talks that might be of potential interest. They are organized by the SEISMIC collaboration, of which MSU is member. The talks are open to all.  You can find the full list of fall SEISMIC talks here.
 
Wed. 9/30
1 pm EDT
Hosted by SEISMIC
 
“Fundamentals of Data Storytelling”
Speaker: Jennifer Nulty, Pivot Data Design
Today, data is everywhere. Clients often have access to massive amounts of data about participants, service administration, and program effectiveness. Extracting useful takeaway messages and next steps can be challenging. Traditionally, data is communicated using dry reports, stuck in boring tables and charts. We have the power and opportunity to transform data reporting into deliverables that engage our clients, funders, and community partners. Harnessing the power of our data by using effective storytelling and visualization techniques gives staff the potential to better communicate program outcomes. Together, we will review three fundamentals of data storytelling that will help members create effective visuals. Grounded in visual processing theory, the principles discussed in this keynote will enhance attendees’ ability to communicate more effectively with colleagues and university stakeholders through a focus on the proper use of color, arrangement, graphics, and text.
 
Zoom Link: https://umich.zoom.us/j/98821252693

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.