We found 11 results that contain "flc"
Posted on: #iteachmsu
James Bender
Title: Instructional DesignerDepartment: Instructional Technology & Development TeamBio: James has been at Michigan State University for years working in the Educational Technology area of IT Services. Before working for MSU, James completed 25 Years of Service in Hire Education, working in many different roles from Manager to Director. James has been an Instructional Designer since 2003. James is also a Graduate Level Instructor for the United State Army, teaching for the Command & Staff College. He has over 38 years of Military service. James likes to be called “Bender”. Bender is currently the Team Lead for the Digital Accessibility group within ED Tech. Bender joined the Accessibility group in 2016 at MSU. Bender enjoys learning new skills and developing new abilities that allow him to become a more well-rounded individual. He is an SOP person, (Standard Operating Procedures) and gains a sort of satisfaction from checking things off his to-do list. In his free time, Bender enjoys spending time with his family and exploring with technology.
LinkedIn Profile
Hybrid Classroom
Podcast Interview A11Y Discussion
FLC Digging Deeper with Discussions
LinkedIn Profile
Hybrid Classroom
Podcast Interview A11Y Discussion
FLC Digging Deeper with Discussions
Authored by: Educator Seminars
Navigating Context
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Staff BIO -James Bender
Title
Instructional Designer, Instructional Technology & Development Team
Education
Michigan Virtual University Master Trainer online certification
Command and Staff College, Instructor Training (5KW)
General Associate, Lansing Community College
Bachelor’s in Liberal Arts, Western Michigan University
Master’s in Business Administration, North Central University
Master’s in Public Administration, Western Michigan University
PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS ATTENDED: Michigan Virtual University online Instructor’s course. Web design, Online Teaching Strategies, DACUM training, WIDS coach trainer, Blackboard system administer, Angel CMS, Classroom Management Techniques.
Work Experience
James has been at Michigan State University for years working in the Educational Technology area of IT Services. Before working for MSU, James completed 25 Years of Service in Hire Education, working in many different roles from Manager to Director. James has been an Instructional Designer since 2003. James is also a Graduate Level Instructor for the United State Army, teaching for the Command & Staff College. He has over 38 years of Military service. James likes to be called “Bender”. Bender is currently the Team Lead for the Digital Accessibility group within ED Tech. Bender joined the Accessibility group in 2016 at MSU. Bender enjoys learning new skills and developing new abilities that allow him to become a more well-rounded individual. He is an SOP person, (Standard Operating Procedures) and gains a sort of satisfaction from checking things off his to-do list. In his free time, Bender enjoys spending time with his family and exploring with technology.
Links
LinkedIn Profile
Hybrid Classroom
Podcast Interview A11Y Discussion
FLC Digging Deeper with Discussions
Instructional Designer, Instructional Technology & Development Team
Education
Michigan Virtual University Master Trainer online certification
Command and Staff College, Instructor Training (5KW)
General Associate, Lansing Community College
Bachelor’s in Liberal Arts, Western Michigan University
Master’s in Business Administration, North Central University
Master’s in Public Administration, Western Michigan University
PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS ATTENDED: Michigan Virtual University online Instructor’s course. Web design, Online Teaching Strategies, DACUM training, WIDS coach trainer, Blackboard system administer, Angel CMS, Classroom Management Techniques.
Work Experience
James has been at Michigan State University for years working in the Educational Technology area of IT Services. Before working for MSU, James completed 25 Years of Service in Hire Education, working in many different roles from Manager to Director. James has been an Instructional Designer since 2003. James is also a Graduate Level Instructor for the United State Army, teaching for the Command & Staff College. He has over 38 years of Military service. James likes to be called “Bender”. Bender is currently the Team Lead for the Digital Accessibility group within ED Tech. Bender joined the Accessibility group in 2016 at MSU. Bender enjoys learning new skills and developing new abilities that allow him to become a more well-rounded individual. He is an SOP person, (Standard Operating Procedures) and gains a sort of satisfaction from checking things off his to-do list. In his free time, Bender enjoys spending time with his family and exploring with technology.
Links
LinkedIn Profile
Hybrid Classroom
Podcast Interview A11Y Discussion
FLC Digging Deeper with Discussions
Posted by: James Bender
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Example Generative AI Syllabus Statements from Current Educators
This collection of example statements are a compilation from a variety of sources including Faculty Learning Community (FLC) at Cleveland State University, Ohio University’s AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning, and some of Michigan State University’s own educators! (If you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.edu). NOTE: making your own course-level determination of "ban", "restrict", "permit", or "require" and using the sample language is the best, first place to start!
“AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
“While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc
“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct. The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course. Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving. We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently. We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious.
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics"The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the interior design program is permitted with certain tasks and with attribution: You can choose to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. For example, AI-generated concepts can serve as a starting point for exploration but must be substantially transformed and personalized by the student. When you submit your assignment or project, you must clearly attribute what text or images were generated by any form of AI content generator. You must save and submit to the instructor draft assignments or sketches that document your progress and originality. Final papers, projects, and design submissions must reflect the student's original work, ideas, and expression. By adhering to these guidelines, students will develop a balanced understanding of AI's potential in interior design while maintaining the integrity of their individual creativity and expression. Any misuse or misrepresentation of AI-generated content as one's own work will be considered a violation of academic integrity. Violations will be subject to disciplinary actions as outlined by MSU’s academic integrity policies. If you are unsure about whether something may be plagiarism or academic dishonesty, it is your responsibility to ask your instructor for clarification or assistance. This policy is subject to change based on the instructor's discretion. Any updates will be communicated to students through course announcements." -Linda Nubani & the Interior Design Faculty at MSU School of Planning, Design & ConstructionIf you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.eduPhoto by Alessandro Bianchi on Unsplash
“AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
“While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc
“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct. The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course. Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving. We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently. We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious.
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics"The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the interior design program is permitted with certain tasks and with attribution: You can choose to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. For example, AI-generated concepts can serve as a starting point for exploration but must be substantially transformed and personalized by the student. When you submit your assignment or project, you must clearly attribute what text or images were generated by any form of AI content generator. You must save and submit to the instructor draft assignments or sketches that document your progress and originality. Final papers, projects, and design submissions must reflect the student's original work, ideas, and expression. By adhering to these guidelines, students will develop a balanced understanding of AI's potential in interior design while maintaining the integrity of their individual creativity and expression. Any misuse or misrepresentation of AI-generated content as one's own work will be considered a violation of academic integrity. Violations will be subject to disciplinary actions as outlined by MSU’s academic integrity policies. If you are unsure about whether something may be plagiarism or academic dishonesty, it is your responsibility to ask your instructor for clarification or assistance. This policy is subject to change based on the instructor's discretion. Any updates will be communicated to students through course announcements." -Linda Nubani & the Interior Design Faculty at MSU School of Planning, Design & ConstructionIf you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.eduPhoto by Alessandro Bianchi on Unsplash
Posted by: Makena Neal
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: The MSU Graduate Le...
Social Science Leadership Fellows
Leadership Fellows
2016-2019: Jacob Bradburn
2019-2020: Courtney Bryant & Tatiana Bustos
2020-2021: Kionna Henderson & Jaleah Rutledge
2021-2022: Cordelia Martin-Ipke & Jessie Pink
2021-2023: Qi Huang
Jacob Bradburn (2016-2019)Jacob Bradburn constructed a thorough and thoughtful approach to building the Social Science graduate student community as the first Fellow for the college. He began by surveying the college’s landscape in order to gather information on departmental procedures, college structure, and identify possible intervention points in which to enhance the graduate student experience. He created an organizational chart mapping the graduate departments and degree programs and a supplementary Excel spreadsheet with information on each of the departments, programs, and graduate student organizations (GSOs). Jacob took his research further by analyzing the survey results from two specific departments, Psychology and Social Work, and presenting his findings to department leadership. Jacob also advocated for graduate student representation on the College of Social Science Dean’s Student Advisory Council, which consisted of only undergraduates at the time. He worked with GSOs to help register them with the university and to facilitate outreach through his organizational chart.
Jacob was a key author in the Leadership Institute’s 2019 grant proposal to the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives CIEG. He worked closely with then-Coordinators, Madeline Shallgren and Makena Neal, and former Coordinator, Megumi Moore, to outline the Institute’s vision, purpose, and leadership development curriculum. This document is an important reflection of the Institute’s ethos during a time of past leadership and helps us understand how the Institute has grown since. In short, Jacob was a key player that went outside the bounds of his Fellowship responsibilities to support the Institute’s development and lay a strong foundation for future Social Science Leadership Fellows.Courtney Bryant & Tatiana Bustos (2019-2020)Courtney Bryant and Tatiana Bustos leveraged Jacob’s leadership network to build a strong relationship with the Assistant Dean and gather connections within the College to inform their multi-tier support system for underrepresented graduate students. Their project specifically focused on diversity and inclusion within the College and utilized a needs assessment survey to help define the different tiers within the support system. Example initiatives they considered included getting a physical space in the college, creating a section on the website including diversity and inclusion resources, and implementing a program to teach multicultural mentoring to faculty. As they were faced with the time-consuming and difficult challenges brought on by graduate student life amidst the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Courtney and Tatiana were unable to see these initiatives through. However, their work brought awareness to unequal graduate student representation in the College and they built an incredible network of connections and data that will inform future graduate student diversity and inclusion initiatives.Kionna Henderson & Jaleah Rutledge (2020-2021)Kionna Henderson and Jaleah Rutledge’s project, All About Academic Entrepreneurship, consisted of a four-part series that introduced graduate students to academic entrepreneurship. With the understanding that graduate students possess a variety of skills and talents that can be applied to a wide range of fields, this series aimed to help graduate students turn these skills into for profit business opportunities. The series covered an introduction to academic entrepreneurship, marketing and building your brand, finding the right partners and financial resources, as well as a panel of academic entrepreneurs. Speakers included Dr. Jasmine Abrams, Dr. Paul Elam, and Christine Beamer. The panelists included Jen Fry, Dr. Tatiana Bustos, Dr. Sederick Rice, and Dr. Valencia Moses. Kionna and Jaleah worked closely with the Director of Graduate Student Life and Wellbeing, Dr. Megumi Moore, and Social Science Deans Mary Finn and Anna Maria Santiago. Their series was received extremely well by their audience, with many remarking that it exceeded their expectations and provided valuable and inspiring content.Cordelia Martin-Ipke (2021-2022)Cordelia began the year by looking at how to recruit more underrepresented minorities into the Geography Department. She worked to strengthen the Advancing Geography Through Diversity Program and community building among underrepresented minority groups in the geography field. She worked with her department chair as well as director, and established a network to create a recruitment pipeline from Chicago State, which does not have a Geography PhD program and is a minority serving institution. Cordelia has been exploring the sustainability of this program.Jessie Pink (2021-2022)Jesse’s project addressed environmental justice and racism. He used an interdisciplinary approach that tied environmental justice with health inequities. Jesse has been working to highlight the importance of activism and community engagement in solving environmental health issues in vulnerable communities.Qi Huang (2021-2023)Qi worked with CAL Fellow, Hima Rawal, to address international students’ use of mental health services on campus. They hope to build bridges to increase access to and decrease stigma of mental health services. They collaborated with the Office of International Students & Scholars, Counseling and Psychiatric Services, the Trauma Services Training Network, and more to learn more about how these offices support international students. They also interviewed over a dozen international students to deepen their understanding of the concerns and barriers international students have concerning mental health. Using this data and their partnerships, Qi and Hima hope to create a Wellness Ambassador program where selected international students are trained to reach out to other international students to help them learn about mental health services on campus.
2016-2019: Jacob Bradburn
2019-2020: Courtney Bryant & Tatiana Bustos
2020-2021: Kionna Henderson & Jaleah Rutledge
2021-2022: Cordelia Martin-Ipke & Jessie Pink
2021-2023: Qi Huang
Jacob Bradburn (2016-2019)Jacob Bradburn constructed a thorough and thoughtful approach to building the Social Science graduate student community as the first Fellow for the college. He began by surveying the college’s landscape in order to gather information on departmental procedures, college structure, and identify possible intervention points in which to enhance the graduate student experience. He created an organizational chart mapping the graduate departments and degree programs and a supplementary Excel spreadsheet with information on each of the departments, programs, and graduate student organizations (GSOs). Jacob took his research further by analyzing the survey results from two specific departments, Psychology and Social Work, and presenting his findings to department leadership. Jacob also advocated for graduate student representation on the College of Social Science Dean’s Student Advisory Council, which consisted of only undergraduates at the time. He worked with GSOs to help register them with the university and to facilitate outreach through his organizational chart.
Jacob was a key author in the Leadership Institute’s 2019 grant proposal to the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives CIEG. He worked closely with then-Coordinators, Madeline Shallgren and Makena Neal, and former Coordinator, Megumi Moore, to outline the Institute’s vision, purpose, and leadership development curriculum. This document is an important reflection of the Institute’s ethos during a time of past leadership and helps us understand how the Institute has grown since. In short, Jacob was a key player that went outside the bounds of his Fellowship responsibilities to support the Institute’s development and lay a strong foundation for future Social Science Leadership Fellows.Courtney Bryant & Tatiana Bustos (2019-2020)Courtney Bryant and Tatiana Bustos leveraged Jacob’s leadership network to build a strong relationship with the Assistant Dean and gather connections within the College to inform their multi-tier support system for underrepresented graduate students. Their project specifically focused on diversity and inclusion within the College and utilized a needs assessment survey to help define the different tiers within the support system. Example initiatives they considered included getting a physical space in the college, creating a section on the website including diversity and inclusion resources, and implementing a program to teach multicultural mentoring to faculty. As they were faced with the time-consuming and difficult challenges brought on by graduate student life amidst the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Courtney and Tatiana were unable to see these initiatives through. However, their work brought awareness to unequal graduate student representation in the College and they built an incredible network of connections and data that will inform future graduate student diversity and inclusion initiatives.Kionna Henderson & Jaleah Rutledge (2020-2021)Kionna Henderson and Jaleah Rutledge’s project, All About Academic Entrepreneurship, consisted of a four-part series that introduced graduate students to academic entrepreneurship. With the understanding that graduate students possess a variety of skills and talents that can be applied to a wide range of fields, this series aimed to help graduate students turn these skills into for profit business opportunities. The series covered an introduction to academic entrepreneurship, marketing and building your brand, finding the right partners and financial resources, as well as a panel of academic entrepreneurs. Speakers included Dr. Jasmine Abrams, Dr. Paul Elam, and Christine Beamer. The panelists included Jen Fry, Dr. Tatiana Bustos, Dr. Sederick Rice, and Dr. Valencia Moses. Kionna and Jaleah worked closely with the Director of Graduate Student Life and Wellbeing, Dr. Megumi Moore, and Social Science Deans Mary Finn and Anna Maria Santiago. Their series was received extremely well by their audience, with many remarking that it exceeded their expectations and provided valuable and inspiring content.Cordelia Martin-Ipke (2021-2022)Cordelia began the year by looking at how to recruit more underrepresented minorities into the Geography Department. She worked to strengthen the Advancing Geography Through Diversity Program and community building among underrepresented minority groups in the geography field. She worked with her department chair as well as director, and established a network to create a recruitment pipeline from Chicago State, which does not have a Geography PhD program and is a minority serving institution. Cordelia has been exploring the sustainability of this program.Jessie Pink (2021-2022)Jesse’s project addressed environmental justice and racism. He used an interdisciplinary approach that tied environmental justice with health inequities. Jesse has been working to highlight the importance of activism and community engagement in solving environmental health issues in vulnerable communities.Qi Huang (2021-2023)Qi worked with CAL Fellow, Hima Rawal, to address international students’ use of mental health services on campus. They hope to build bridges to increase access to and decrease stigma of mental health services. They collaborated with the Office of International Students & Scholars, Counseling and Psychiatric Services, the Trauma Services Training Network, and more to learn more about how these offices support international students. They also interviewed over a dozen international students to deepen their understanding of the concerns and barriers international students have concerning mental health. Using this data and their partnerships, Qi and Hima hope to create a Wellness Ambassador program where selected international students are trained to reach out to other international students to help them learn about mental health services on campus.
Posted by: Megumi Moore
Navigating Context
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Complete Guide to Incorporating Generative AI in Your Syllabus
(Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash )
You can also access the Generative AI Syllabus Guide Playlist with this content broken down into the following sections. Table of Contents:
MSU Guidance and [Non]Permitted Uses
Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course
Design For Generative AI (restrict, permit, require)
Design Around Generative AI (ban)
Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI
Beyond Syllabi Language
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
References
The following MSU-specifics should be used to inform your decisions...
Overall guidance: We collectively share the responsibility to uphold intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity. These are core principles that may be compromised by the misuse of GenAI tools, particularly when GenAI-generated content is presented as original, human-created work.
Permitted uses in Teaching & Learning: Instructors are expected to establish a course-specific guidance that defines the appropriate and inappropriate use of GenAI tools.
Students may only use GenAI tools to support their coursework in ways explicitly permitted by the instructor.
Non-permissible uses:
Do not Use GenAI to deliberately fabricate, falsify, impersonate, or mislead, unless explicitly approved for instruction or research in a controlled environment.
Do not Record or process sensitive, confidential, or regulated information withnon-MSU GenAI tools.
Do not Enter FERPA-protected student records, PII, PHI, financial, or HR data into unapproved tools; comply with MSU’s data policy and all regulations.
Do not Use export-controlled data or CUI with GenAI tools unless approved for MSU’s Regulated Research Enclave (RRE).
Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy
A well-prepared course should be designed for ("restrict", "permit" or "require") or designed around ("ban") generative AI. Courses designed for AI should detail the ways and degrees to which generative AI use will be incorporated into activities and assessments. Courses designed for AI may incorporate AI for some activities and not others and depending on course AI may be explicitly excluded or included at different stages. Courses designed around AI may discuss impacts of generative AI as a topic but expectations are that students will not use these types of tools, and the course should be intentionally designed such that the use of generative AI would either not be conducive to the completion of assessments and activities, or such that the attempt to do so would prove overly cumbersome.
Regardless of your approach, communicating your expectations and rationale to learners is imperative.
Set clear expectations. Be clear in your syllabus about your policies for when, where, and how students should be using generative AI tools, and how to appropriately acknowledge (e.g., cite, reference) when they do use generative AI tools. If you are requiring students to use generative AI tools, these expectations should also be communicated in the syllabus and if students are incurring costs, these should be detailed in the course description on the Registrar’s website.
Regardless of your approach, you might include time for ethics discussions. Add time into your course to discuss the ethical implications of chatGPT and forthcoming AI systems. Talk with students about the ethics of using generative AI tools in your course, at your university, and within your discipline or profession. Don’t be afraid to discuss the gray areas where we do not yet have clear guidance or answers; gray areas are often the places where learning becomes most engaging.
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course
There is no “one size fits all policy” for AI uses in higher education. Much like attendance/participation policies, GenAI course-level rules and statements will be determined by individual instructors, departments, and programs. The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on the use of generative AI tools in your course, within MSU's guideline. Please adjust these examples to fit your particular context. Remember communication of your course generative AI policies should not only be listed in your syllabus, but also explicitly included in assignment descriptions where AI use is allowed or disallowed.
It is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course-level rule. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects broader use in the unit and discipline. If you have specific questions about writing your course rules, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation.
Design For Generative AI
Restrict [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing the use of AI tools for certain purposes, but not for others. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
Example1:
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities:
[insert permitted your course activities here*]
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the following activities:
[insert not permitted your course activities here*]
You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Example2: Taken, with slight modification, from Temple University’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching to demonstrate the kinds of permitted/restricted activity an instructor could denote.
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities:
Brainstorming and refining your ideas;
Fine tuning your research questions;
Finding information on your topic;
Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts; and
Checking grammar and style.
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the following activities:
Impersonating you in classroom contexts, such as by using the tool to compose discussion board prompts assigned to you or content that you put into a Zoom chat.
Completing group work that your group has assigned to you, unless it is mutually agreed within your group and in alignment with course policy that you may utilize the tool.
Writing a draft of a writing assignment.
Writing entire sentences, paragraphs or papers to complete class assignments.
You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge. For example, [Insert citation style for your discipline. See these resources for APA guidance, and for other citation formats.]. Any assignment that is found to have used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways [insert the penalty here*]. When in doubt about permitted usage, please ask for clarification.
Use permitted [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing, and perhaps encouraging, broad use of generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use in your course. The following is an example.]
Example:
You are welcome to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with here*]. You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Use required [This syllabus statement is useful when you have certain assignments that will require that students use generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
Example:
You will be expected to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with]. Our class will make use of the [insert name of tool(s) here*] tool, and you can gain access to it by [insert instructions for accessing tool(s) here*]. You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Design Around Generative AI
Ban [This syllabus statement is useful when you are forbidding all use of generative AI tools for any purpose in your class. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
The use of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc.) is not permitted in this class; therefore, any use of AI tools for work in this class may be considered a violation of Michigan State University’s policy on academic integrity, the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge andStudent Rights and Responsibilities, since the work is not your own. The use of unauthorized AI tools will result in [insert the penalty here*].
CONCERN: The ubiquity of generative AI tools, including their integration into Google search results and MS Office products, means that an outright generative AI ban is implausible for any activity that makes use of the Internet or MS Office Suite.
* It is highly recommended that you have conversations in your department about the appropriate penalties for unauthorized use of an AI. It is important to think about the appropriate level of penalty for first-time offenders and those who repeatedly violate your policies on the use of AI.
Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
This collection of example statements are a compilation from a variety of sources including Faculty Learning Community (FLC) at Cleveland State University, Ohio University’s AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning, and some of Michigan State University’s own educators! (If you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.edu) NOTE: making your own course-level determination of "ban", "restrict", "permit", or "require" and using the sample language is the best, first place to start!
“AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
“While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc
“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct. The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course. Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving. We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently. We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious.
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI
Taken, with slight modification, from “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins, Professor of Educational Technology Leadership, and Human-Technology Collaboration at George Washington University in Washington DC (2022), via Medium.
Beyond Syllabi Language
Communicate your perspective about AI use. In addition to syllabus statements, consider talking with your students about AI tools like ChatGPT. Regardless of your orientation to generative AI use, it is important that you clearly communicate your expectations with the introduction of each assignment/assessment.
Different levels of familiarity: As an emerging technology, students will have differing levels of familiarity with these tools. For instance, while ChatGPT can write a grammatically correct paper or appear to solve a math problem, it may be unreliable and limited in scope. Discuss with students the uses and limitations of AI tools more broadly in addition to your perspective on their use in your class.
Connect to critical thinking skills: AI tools have many implications beyond the classroom. Consider talking with students about how to be engaged-consumers of AI content (e.g., how to identify trusted sources, reading critically, privacy concerns). Discuss how you and colleagues use AI in your own work.
Adapt assessments. AI tools are emerging and it can be incredibly difficult to make any assessment completely free from AI interference. Beyond a syllabus statement, you may also consider adapting your assessments to help reduce the usefulness of AI products. However before revising any assignment, it’s helpful to reflect on what exactly you want students to get out of the experience and share your expectations with your students. Is it just the end product, or does the process of creating the product play a significant role?
Create assessments that allow students to develop ideas over time. Depending on your class size, consider scaffolding assessments to be completed in small components (e.g., proposal, annotated bibliography, outline, first draft, revised drafts).
Ask students to connect their writing to specific course materials or current events. Students can draw from the course textbook, additional readings on Moodle or Blackboard, and even class discussion boards or in-class discussions.
Incorporate personal experiences and reflections. Provide students with opportunities to connect what they are learning to their own lives and experiences—stories unique to each individual.
Incorporate Multimedia Assessments. Consider developing or adapting assessments to include multimedia submissions (e.g., audio or video components). Also, consider peer-review and social annotation tools like Eli Review or Google Docs for students to use when responding to assigned readings or other materials.
Use class time. Ask students to complete writing assignments during class time (e.g. complete reading reflections at the beginning of class, or use exit tickets). Asking students to organize their ideas by writing during class may also support student engagement in other class activities such as discussions and group work.
Get Creative With Your Assignments: Visit “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins (Medium article) for 10 ideas for creative assignments adapted for a classroom with chatGPT. You can mitigate the risk of students using chatGPT to cheat, and at the same time improve their knowledge and skills for appropriately using new AI technologies inside and outside the classroom.
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
Expand your options. Consider your repertoire of instructional strategies. Atsusi Hirumi offers a guide to research-grounded strategies for any classroom. These are not, however, “a la carte” menus; you must use all of the steps of any strategy to gain the evidence-based benefits.
Reflect on your values. As Tyler Cowen pointed out, there will be those who gain and those that lose with the emergence of chatGPT and other generative AI tools. This is as true for students as it is for faculty and instructors. Be ready to openly discuss the ethical implications of generative AI tools with your students, along with the value of what you are teaching and why learning these are important to their futures.
Consider time. As discussed during Bryan Alexander’s webinar, chatGPT and other generative AI tools offer a short-cut to individuals who are short on time. Examine your course schedule to determine if you are unknowingly pushing students to take short-cuts. Some instructors try to cover too much content in their courses already.
Remember, AI is not human. Be careful not to anthropomorphize chatGPT and other generative AI tools. ChatGPT is a language model, and if we anthropomorphize these technologies, then it will be much harder to understand their promise and perils. Murray Shanahan suggests that we avoid statements such as, “chatGPT knows…”, or “ChatGPT thinks…”; instead, use “According to chatGPT…” or “ChatGPT’s output…”.
Again, AI is likely to be a part of your students’ life to some extent this semester, so plan accordingly. Critically considering your course design in the context of generative AI is an important educator practice. Following the Provost’s call, MSU instructors are encouraged to 1) develop a course-level generative AI use policy and actively discuss with students about expectations for generative AI use in the work for your class, 2) promote equitable and inclusive use of the technology, and 3) work with colleagues across campus to determine ethical and scholarly applications of generative AI for preparing students to succeed in an evolving digital landscape. MSU does not currently have a university-wide policy on AI in the classroom, so it is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course policy. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects that in the discipline.
References
This resource is collated from multiple sites, publications, and authors with some modification for MSU context and links to MSU specific resources. Educators should always defer to University policy and guidelines.
MSU Office of Student Support & Accountability Faculty Resources, including Academic Dishonesty Report form.
Watkins, R. (2022) Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT. Educational Technology Leadership, The George Washington University via Medium: https://medium.com/@rwatkins_7167/updating-your-course-syllabus-for-chatgpt-965f4b57b003
Center for the Advancement of Teaching (2023). Sample Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course. Temple University
Center for Teaching & Learning (2023) How Do I Consider the Impact of AI Tools like ChatGPT in My Courses?. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://www.umass.edu/ctl/how-do-i-consider-impact-ai-tools-chatgpt-my-courses
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment (2023). AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning. Ohio University. https://www.ohio.edu/center-teaching-learning/instructor-resources/chat-gpt
Office of Teaching, Learning, and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Tools and Teaching. Iowa University. https://teach.its.uiowa.edu/artificial-intelligence-tools-and-teaching
Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (2023). Chat GPT and Artificial Intelligence Tools. Georgetown University. https://cndls.georgetown.edu/ai-composition-tools/#privacy-and-data-collection
Office for Faculty Excellence (2023). Practical Responses to ChatGPT. Montclair State University. https://www.montclair.edu/faculty-excellence/practical-responses-to-chat-gpt/
Teaching and Learning at Cleveland State University by Center for Faculty Excellence is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
You can also access the Generative AI Syllabus Guide Playlist with this content broken down into the following sections. Table of Contents:
MSU Guidance and [Non]Permitted Uses
Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course
Design For Generative AI (restrict, permit, require)
Design Around Generative AI (ban)
Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI
Beyond Syllabi Language
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
References
The following MSU-specifics should be used to inform your decisions...
Overall guidance: We collectively share the responsibility to uphold intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity. These are core principles that may be compromised by the misuse of GenAI tools, particularly when GenAI-generated content is presented as original, human-created work.
Permitted uses in Teaching & Learning: Instructors are expected to establish a course-specific guidance that defines the appropriate and inappropriate use of GenAI tools.
Students may only use GenAI tools to support their coursework in ways explicitly permitted by the instructor.
Non-permissible uses:
Do not Use GenAI to deliberately fabricate, falsify, impersonate, or mislead, unless explicitly approved for instruction or research in a controlled environment.
Do not Record or process sensitive, confidential, or regulated information withnon-MSU GenAI tools.
Do not Enter FERPA-protected student records, PII, PHI, financial, or HR data into unapproved tools; comply with MSU’s data policy and all regulations.
Do not Use export-controlled data or CUI with GenAI tools unless approved for MSU’s Regulated Research Enclave (RRE).
Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy
A well-prepared course should be designed for ("restrict", "permit" or "require") or designed around ("ban") generative AI. Courses designed for AI should detail the ways and degrees to which generative AI use will be incorporated into activities and assessments. Courses designed for AI may incorporate AI for some activities and not others and depending on course AI may be explicitly excluded or included at different stages. Courses designed around AI may discuss impacts of generative AI as a topic but expectations are that students will not use these types of tools, and the course should be intentionally designed such that the use of generative AI would either not be conducive to the completion of assessments and activities, or such that the attempt to do so would prove overly cumbersome.
Regardless of your approach, communicating your expectations and rationale to learners is imperative.
Set clear expectations. Be clear in your syllabus about your policies for when, where, and how students should be using generative AI tools, and how to appropriately acknowledge (e.g., cite, reference) when they do use generative AI tools. If you are requiring students to use generative AI tools, these expectations should also be communicated in the syllabus and if students are incurring costs, these should be detailed in the course description on the Registrar’s website.
Regardless of your approach, you might include time for ethics discussions. Add time into your course to discuss the ethical implications of chatGPT and forthcoming AI systems. Talk with students about the ethics of using generative AI tools in your course, at your university, and within your discipline or profession. Don’t be afraid to discuss the gray areas where we do not yet have clear guidance or answers; gray areas are often the places where learning becomes most engaging.
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course
There is no “one size fits all policy” for AI uses in higher education. Much like attendance/participation policies, GenAI course-level rules and statements will be determined by individual instructors, departments, and programs. The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on the use of generative AI tools in your course, within MSU's guideline. Please adjust these examples to fit your particular context. Remember communication of your course generative AI policies should not only be listed in your syllabus, but also explicitly included in assignment descriptions where AI use is allowed or disallowed.
It is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course-level rule. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects broader use in the unit and discipline. If you have specific questions about writing your course rules, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation.
Design For Generative AI
Restrict [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing the use of AI tools for certain purposes, but not for others. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
Example1:
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities:
[insert permitted your course activities here*]
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the following activities:
[insert not permitted your course activities here*]
You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Example2: Taken, with slight modification, from Temple University’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching to demonstrate the kinds of permitted/restricted activity an instructor could denote.
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities:
Brainstorming and refining your ideas;
Fine tuning your research questions;
Finding information on your topic;
Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts; and
Checking grammar and style.
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the following activities:
Impersonating you in classroom contexts, such as by using the tool to compose discussion board prompts assigned to you or content that you put into a Zoom chat.
Completing group work that your group has assigned to you, unless it is mutually agreed within your group and in alignment with course policy that you may utilize the tool.
Writing a draft of a writing assignment.
Writing entire sentences, paragraphs or papers to complete class assignments.
You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge. For example, [Insert citation style for your discipline. See these resources for APA guidance, and for other citation formats.]. Any assignment that is found to have used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways [insert the penalty here*]. When in doubt about permitted usage, please ask for clarification.
Use permitted [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing, and perhaps encouraging, broad use of generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use in your course. The following is an example.]
Example:
You are welcome to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with here*]. You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Use required [This syllabus statement is useful when you have certain assignments that will require that students use generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
Example:
You will be expected to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with]. Our class will make use of the [insert name of tool(s) here*] tool, and you can gain access to it by [insert instructions for accessing tool(s) here*]. You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within university policies on academic integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Design Around Generative AI
Ban [This syllabus statement is useful when you are forbidding all use of generative AI tools for any purpose in your class. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.]
The use of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc.) is not permitted in this class; therefore, any use of AI tools for work in this class may be considered a violation of Michigan State University’s policy on academic integrity, the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge andStudent Rights and Responsibilities, since the work is not your own. The use of unauthorized AI tools will result in [insert the penalty here*].
CONCERN: The ubiquity of generative AI tools, including their integration into Google search results and MS Office products, means that an outright generative AI ban is implausible for any activity that makes use of the Internet or MS Office Suite.
* It is highly recommended that you have conversations in your department about the appropriate penalties for unauthorized use of an AI. It is important to think about the appropriate level of penalty for first-time offenders and those who repeatedly violate your policies on the use of AI.
Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
This collection of example statements are a compilation from a variety of sources including Faculty Learning Community (FLC) at Cleveland State University, Ohio University’s AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning, and some of Michigan State University’s own educators! (If you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.edu) NOTE: making your own course-level determination of "ban", "restrict", "permit", or "require" and using the sample language is the best, first place to start!
“AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
“While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc
“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct. The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course. Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving. We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently. We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious.
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI
Taken, with slight modification, from “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins, Professor of Educational Technology Leadership, and Human-Technology Collaboration at George Washington University in Washington DC (2022), via Medium.
Beyond Syllabi Language
Communicate your perspective about AI use. In addition to syllabus statements, consider talking with your students about AI tools like ChatGPT. Regardless of your orientation to generative AI use, it is important that you clearly communicate your expectations with the introduction of each assignment/assessment.
Different levels of familiarity: As an emerging technology, students will have differing levels of familiarity with these tools. For instance, while ChatGPT can write a grammatically correct paper or appear to solve a math problem, it may be unreliable and limited in scope. Discuss with students the uses and limitations of AI tools more broadly in addition to your perspective on their use in your class.
Connect to critical thinking skills: AI tools have many implications beyond the classroom. Consider talking with students about how to be engaged-consumers of AI content (e.g., how to identify trusted sources, reading critically, privacy concerns). Discuss how you and colleagues use AI in your own work.
Adapt assessments. AI tools are emerging and it can be incredibly difficult to make any assessment completely free from AI interference. Beyond a syllabus statement, you may also consider adapting your assessments to help reduce the usefulness of AI products. However before revising any assignment, it’s helpful to reflect on what exactly you want students to get out of the experience and share your expectations with your students. Is it just the end product, or does the process of creating the product play a significant role?
Create assessments that allow students to develop ideas over time. Depending on your class size, consider scaffolding assessments to be completed in small components (e.g., proposal, annotated bibliography, outline, first draft, revised drafts).
Ask students to connect their writing to specific course materials or current events. Students can draw from the course textbook, additional readings on Moodle or Blackboard, and even class discussion boards or in-class discussions.
Incorporate personal experiences and reflections. Provide students with opportunities to connect what they are learning to their own lives and experiences—stories unique to each individual.
Incorporate Multimedia Assessments. Consider developing or adapting assessments to include multimedia submissions (e.g., audio or video components). Also, consider peer-review and social annotation tools like Eli Review or Google Docs for students to use when responding to assigned readings or other materials.
Use class time. Ask students to complete writing assignments during class time (e.g. complete reading reflections at the beginning of class, or use exit tickets). Asking students to organize their ideas by writing during class may also support student engagement in other class activities such as discussions and group work.
Get Creative With Your Assignments: Visit “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins (Medium article) for 10 ideas for creative assignments adapted for a classroom with chatGPT. You can mitigate the risk of students using chatGPT to cheat, and at the same time improve their knowledge and skills for appropriately using new AI technologies inside and outside the classroom.
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
Expand your options. Consider your repertoire of instructional strategies. Atsusi Hirumi offers a guide to research-grounded strategies for any classroom. These are not, however, “a la carte” menus; you must use all of the steps of any strategy to gain the evidence-based benefits.
Reflect on your values. As Tyler Cowen pointed out, there will be those who gain and those that lose with the emergence of chatGPT and other generative AI tools. This is as true for students as it is for faculty and instructors. Be ready to openly discuss the ethical implications of generative AI tools with your students, along with the value of what you are teaching and why learning these are important to their futures.
Consider time. As discussed during Bryan Alexander’s webinar, chatGPT and other generative AI tools offer a short-cut to individuals who are short on time. Examine your course schedule to determine if you are unknowingly pushing students to take short-cuts. Some instructors try to cover too much content in their courses already.
Remember, AI is not human. Be careful not to anthropomorphize chatGPT and other generative AI tools. ChatGPT is a language model, and if we anthropomorphize these technologies, then it will be much harder to understand their promise and perils. Murray Shanahan suggests that we avoid statements such as, “chatGPT knows…”, or “ChatGPT thinks…”; instead, use “According to chatGPT…” or “ChatGPT’s output…”.
Again, AI is likely to be a part of your students’ life to some extent this semester, so plan accordingly. Critically considering your course design in the context of generative AI is an important educator practice. Following the Provost’s call, MSU instructors are encouraged to 1) develop a course-level generative AI use policy and actively discuss with students about expectations for generative AI use in the work for your class, 2) promote equitable and inclusive use of the technology, and 3) work with colleagues across campus to determine ethical and scholarly applications of generative AI for preparing students to succeed in an evolving digital landscape. MSU does not currently have a university-wide policy on AI in the classroom, so it is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course policy. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects that in the discipline.
References
This resource is collated from multiple sites, publications, and authors with some modification for MSU context and links to MSU specific resources. Educators should always defer to University policy and guidelines.
MSU Office of Student Support & Accountability Faculty Resources, including Academic Dishonesty Report form.
Watkins, R. (2022) Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT. Educational Technology Leadership, The George Washington University via Medium: https://medium.com/@rwatkins_7167/updating-your-course-syllabus-for-chatgpt-965f4b57b003
Center for the Advancement of Teaching (2023). Sample Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course. Temple University
Center for Teaching & Learning (2023) How Do I Consider the Impact of AI Tools like ChatGPT in My Courses?. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://www.umass.edu/ctl/how-do-i-consider-impact-ai-tools-chatgpt-my-courses
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment (2023). AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning. Ohio University. https://www.ohio.edu/center-teaching-learning/instructor-resources/chat-gpt
Office of Teaching, Learning, and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Tools and Teaching. Iowa University. https://teach.its.uiowa.edu/artificial-intelligence-tools-and-teaching
Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (2023). Chat GPT and Artificial Intelligence Tools. Georgetown University. https://cndls.georgetown.edu/ai-composition-tools/#privacy-and-data-collection
Office for Faculty Excellence (2023). Practical Responses to ChatGPT. Montclair State University. https://www.montclair.edu/faculty-excellence/practical-responses-to-chat-gpt/
Teaching and Learning at Cleveland State University by Center for Faculty Excellence is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Posted by: Makena Neal
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
The Assessment Triangle
Sometimes when we hear the word "assessment," we think of students silently completing a multiple-choice exam during class. But, there are a variety of ways to assess learning, and how we assess it depends on which skills and ideas we are interested in finding out what students can do.
Assessment Triangle
The assessment triangle helps us think about how we should assess because it connects what we want students to know and do with how we plan to observe what they know and can do. There are three points on the assessment triangle: cognition, observation, and interpretation (National Research Council, 2001).
Cognition
Which concepts and skills do students need to know and do?There are likely some concepts that students need to memorize. There might, though, also be skills that we are interested in students being able to do. For instance, maybe students need to be able to create something, such as a research question for a study and applicable methods. Maybe they need to solve problems and interpret data. What are you looking to assess?
Observation
What types of tasks will illustrate student knowledge and skills?What you have students do for the assessment will be determined by what you want them to know and do. There are a variety of ways to assess, such as (and these are just a few examples):
Multiple choice exam
Essay exam
Group exam
Project
Research investigation
Case study (real life or fictitious)
Poster
Research paper
Infographic
Presentation
Interpretation
How will the tasks determine student knowledge and skills?Once students complete the assessment, how will understanding be identified? That is, how will the assessment be scored? Scoring or grading rubrics can be a helpful start in identifying your expectations of how a student might approach an assessment and how accurate each approach is (or how many points each one is). Rubrics can either have everything graded on a single scale or can be broken down into separate criteria, culminating into one grade for the task. There are many guides available online for creating rubrics, such as from UC Berkeley's Center for Teaching and Learning.
Try it for Yourself
Draw a triangle on a piece of paper. Label each corner: cognition, observation, and interpretation. Choose a few cognitive aspects that you teach together in a single lesson or unit, identify how you might observe understanding of those cognitive aspects, and how you might interpret your observations.
Reference
National Research Council. 2001. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019.
Additional Resources
For assessment examples, view the Assessment Workshop videos, one on assessment options beyond the exam (which includes a description of the assessment triangle a few minutes into the video) and another on exam design.
Although designed for GTAs, this #iteachmsu article on assessment of student learning provides a nice overview, including formative and summative assessment.
This #iteachmsu article on experiential learning describes a more holistic approach to assessment.
Assessment Triangle
The assessment triangle helps us think about how we should assess because it connects what we want students to know and do with how we plan to observe what they know and can do. There are three points on the assessment triangle: cognition, observation, and interpretation (National Research Council, 2001).
Cognition
Which concepts and skills do students need to know and do?There are likely some concepts that students need to memorize. There might, though, also be skills that we are interested in students being able to do. For instance, maybe students need to be able to create something, such as a research question for a study and applicable methods. Maybe they need to solve problems and interpret data. What are you looking to assess?
Observation
What types of tasks will illustrate student knowledge and skills?What you have students do for the assessment will be determined by what you want them to know and do. There are a variety of ways to assess, such as (and these are just a few examples):
Multiple choice exam
Essay exam
Group exam
Project
Research investigation
Case study (real life or fictitious)
Poster
Research paper
Infographic
Presentation
Interpretation
How will the tasks determine student knowledge and skills?Once students complete the assessment, how will understanding be identified? That is, how will the assessment be scored? Scoring or grading rubrics can be a helpful start in identifying your expectations of how a student might approach an assessment and how accurate each approach is (or how many points each one is). Rubrics can either have everything graded on a single scale or can be broken down into separate criteria, culminating into one grade for the task. There are many guides available online for creating rubrics, such as from UC Berkeley's Center for Teaching and Learning.
Try it for Yourself
Draw a triangle on a piece of paper. Label each corner: cognition, observation, and interpretation. Choose a few cognitive aspects that you teach together in a single lesson or unit, identify how you might observe understanding of those cognitive aspects, and how you might interpret your observations.
Reference
National Research Council. 2001. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019.
Additional Resources
For assessment examples, view the Assessment Workshop videos, one on assessment options beyond the exam (which includes a description of the assessment triangle a few minutes into the video) and another on exam design.
Although designed for GTAs, this #iteachmsu article on assessment of student learning provides a nice overview, including formative and summative assessment.
This #iteachmsu article on experiential learning describes a more holistic approach to assessment.
Authored by: Andrea Bierema
Assessing Learning
Posted on: Educator Stories
Educator Stories: Ken Szymusiak
This week, we are featuring Ken Szymusiak, Managing Director – Academic Programs, within the Burgess Institute for Entrepreneurship & Innovation at MSU. Ken was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator initiative) regularly!
Read more about Ken’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!
You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?
Trust
Share with me what this word/quality looks like in your practice?
I feel like students have entrusted me with their time and I want to make sure they leave my classroom feeling that they gained something useful for the adventures that lie ahead.
Tell me more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (Aka, where do you work?)
I have a really unique setting. Although my home base for teaching is within the Management department in the Broad College of Business my classes are open campus wide. One of the hallmark qualities of the Burgess Institute’s programming is that it is open to all students from the Minor in Entrepreneurship & Innovation, to our New Venture Creation Programs, to our Innovate Speaker series, and many more. Entrepreneurship and innovation thrive on diversity and creativity and I love that MSU has fully embraced this mission.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role?
I think the biggest challenge as an educator is empowering students to participate in the path the class takes. The best learning happens when students feel like they are co-creating and not just being “lectured to.”
Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this?
I think the key to unlocking student engagement is really getting to know what their interests are and trying to provide them with relevant and realistic examples of how the material is being applied in fields that really excite them.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I don’t know if I have any particular practices, but I really love when students reach out after they had my class for more information or resources which show genuine curiosity. I also really enjoy it when students refer a friend to take one of my classes…there’s no greater compliment.
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU?
I think we have a unique opportunity with the current generation of students to reimagine the value of higher education. I get a sense that there is quite a bit of anxiousness and cynicism amongst this group of students. I think it should be our mission to transform the college experience so that every student feels as if they truly get their monies worth regardless of major. I think all ideas should be on the table to reimagine the college experience.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
Seeing people...haha
But in all seriousness, I think the big lesson from 2020 was not to take anything for granted. I wonder if this will affect how we engage with students and how they engage with us. I’m most curious to see if there are any cultural changes on this front
Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature! Follow the MSU Hub Twitter account to see other great content from the #iteachmsu Commons as well as educators featured every week during #ThankfulThursdays.
Read more about Ken’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!
You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?
Trust
Share with me what this word/quality looks like in your practice?
I feel like students have entrusted me with their time and I want to make sure they leave my classroom feeling that they gained something useful for the adventures that lie ahead.
Tell me more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (Aka, where do you work?)
I have a really unique setting. Although my home base for teaching is within the Management department in the Broad College of Business my classes are open campus wide. One of the hallmark qualities of the Burgess Institute’s programming is that it is open to all students from the Minor in Entrepreneurship & Innovation, to our New Venture Creation Programs, to our Innovate Speaker series, and many more. Entrepreneurship and innovation thrive on diversity and creativity and I love that MSU has fully embraced this mission.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role?
I think the biggest challenge as an educator is empowering students to participate in the path the class takes. The best learning happens when students feel like they are co-creating and not just being “lectured to.”
Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this?
I think the key to unlocking student engagement is really getting to know what their interests are and trying to provide them with relevant and realistic examples of how the material is being applied in fields that really excite them.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I don’t know if I have any particular practices, but I really love when students reach out after they had my class for more information or resources which show genuine curiosity. I also really enjoy it when students refer a friend to take one of my classes…there’s no greater compliment.
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU?
I think we have a unique opportunity with the current generation of students to reimagine the value of higher education. I get a sense that there is quite a bit of anxiousness and cynicism amongst this group of students. I think it should be our mission to transform the college experience so that every student feels as if they truly get their monies worth regardless of major. I think all ideas should be on the table to reimagine the college experience.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
Seeing people...haha
But in all seriousness, I think the big lesson from 2020 was not to take anything for granted. I wonder if this will affect how we engage with students and how they engage with us. I’m most curious to see if there are any cultural changes on this front
Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature! Follow the MSU Hub Twitter account to see other great content from the #iteachmsu Commons as well as educators featured every week during #ThankfulThursdays.
Posted by: Makena Neal
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Learning in the Time of COVID-19
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan State University, like many universities, closed its on-campus offerings and hastily moved to remote learning in March 2020. In addition to moving all classes online, students were asked to leave on-campus housing if possible. As COVID-19 cases continued to increase through the summer, plans to reopen in the fall were halted and most institutions announced they would continue offering instruction through remote learning. At the start of the spring 2020 semester, we collected data from MSU students enrolled in introductory economics courses about their grade expectations and views of economics as a major. In order to understand how students responded to the disruption generated by the pandemic, we began collecting additional data about the direct effects of the pandemic on their learning environment, including changes to living arrangements, internet access, studying behavior, and general well-being. Survey data were collected at the beginning and end of the spring, summer, and fall terms of 2020. Supplementing this survey data with administrative data on demographic characteristics and actual grade outcomes, we investigate how the pandemic affects students and how students' final grades in their economics course relate to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning. We find the effects vary with student background characteristics (including race, gender, GPA, and first-generation college status) and final grades are related to internet connectivity, stress, and anxiety. These unique data allow us to provide a descriptive analysis of students' reactions to an unprecedented disruption to their educational environment.
To access a PDF of the "Learning in the Time of COVID-19" poster, click here.Description of the Poster
Learning in the Time of COVID-19
Andrea Chambers, Stacy Dickert-Conlin, Steven J. Haider, and Scott A. Imberman
Introduction
This study provides a snapshot of how students were experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic in the month following the abrupt shift to online instruction and how students have adapted to the experience of remote learning more long term. It contributes to the concerns that the mental well-being and academic performance of students has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
Research Questions
What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation?
How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning?
Methodology
Surveyed students enrolled in introductory economics courses from one large, public research university during three semesters (Spring, Summer, and Fall) of 2020.
Students completed surveys at the beginning and end of the semester.
Supplemented these data with administrative data on demographic characteristics and actual grade outcomes.
Conducted multiple regression analyses of student characteristics on student perceptions and final semester grades.
Survey
The Two Surveys:
Initial Survey – General information and grade students expected to earn in the class
Final Survey – Students’ reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote learning
Response Rate:
Of the 6,665 eligible students, 3,445 students (52%) answered at least one of the COVID-related questions.
COVID-Related Statements:
My internet connectivity is sufficient to complete my economics coursework.
My final grade in my economics course will be unaffected.
My overall semester GPA will be unaffected.
My time available for studying has increased.
My ability to focus on my studies has declined.
My anxiety about my studies has increased.
My financial situation has worsened.
Sample Descriptives
Female: 47.3%, Male: 52.7%
White: 71.5%, Black: 4.2%, Hispanic/Latinx: 4.7%, Asian: 6.6%, 2 or more Races: 2.7%, Other or Not Reported: 1.5%, International: 8.7%
1st Year at MSU: 37.5%, 2nd year at MSU: 38.5%, 3rd Year at MSU: 16.5%, 4th Year or Later at MSU: 7.6%
First-Generation College Student: 18.5%
Results
Image: A stacked bar chart detailing the percent of students who strongly agree and agreed with each COVID-related statement on displayed on top of the percent of students who strongly disagreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with each COVID-related statement.
Title: Figure 1. Responses to COVID-Related Questions for Spring, Summer, and Fall 2020
Details of image:
My internet connectivity is sufficient: 83.3% strongly agree/agree and 16.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My econ course final grade will be unaffected: 36.0% strongly agree/agree and 64.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My overall semester GPA will be unaffected: 31.2% strongly agree/agree and 68.8% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My time available for studying has increased: 46.9% strongly agree/agree and 53.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My ability to focus on my studies has declined: 69.0% strongly agree/agree and 31.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My anxiety about my studies has increased: 74.0% strongly agree/agree and 26.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My financial situation has worsened: 36.3% strongly agree/agree and 63.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
Research Question 1: What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation?
Empirical Strategy: where is an indicator for whether the student agrees or strongly agrees with the statement.
Ability to Focus
April 2020: 83% of students report their ability to focus on their studies has declined.
December 2020: 61.5% of students state feeling their ability to focus has declined.
During the initial reaction to the pandemic and remote instruction, we do not see statistically significant differences across student characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, or first-generation college status. However, when we look at the continued response in the summer and fall semesters, female students are more likely to state their ability to focus on their studies has declined relative to their male peers by 9 percentage points.
Anxiety about Studies
Over 70% of students in the sample report an increase in anxiety about their studies in April 2020 and through Summer and Fall 2020.
Female students are more likely to report an increase in anxiety relative to their male peers of around 8 percentage points in the Spring 2020 and 16 percentage points during Summer and Fall 2020.
Financial Situation
April 2020: 48.6% state that their financial situation has worsened.
This condition was felt more by first-generation college students, women, and lower performing students compared to their respective peers.
December 2020: 30% state their financial situation has worsened and first-generation college students during Summer and Fall 2020 are still more likely to experience a worsened condition.
Research Question 2: How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning?
Empirical Strategy:
where is a vector of COVID-related questions and are the student background characteristics, year in college, GPA, and expected grade at the start of the semester.
Internet Connectivity: Students who did not have sufficient internet connection earned lower final grades.
COVID-Related Stress: In April 2020, students who strongly agree their ability to focus has decreased and students across all semesters who strongly agree their anxiety has increased earned lower final grades.
Financial: Students who state their financial situation has worsened earned lower final grades in the summer and fall semesters.
Discussion & Conclusions
As many students in this study report feeling their ability to focus has declined and anxiety has increased, findings suggest women, first-generation college students, and lower performing students may be particularly vulnerable to these feelings and experiences.
Survey results suggest financial situations worsened for first-generation college students, which could lead to food or housing insecurity for these students, issues which could lead to increased stress and anxiety, lower grades, and possibly prevent students from persisting in higher education.
Requiring access to instruction via online learning has showcased the need for quality internet access.
The coronavirus pandemic has raised a lot of questions about the future of online education, it is important to keep in mind the ways in which students are impacted by such a move.
To access a PDF of the "Learning in the Time of COVID-19" poster, click here.Description of the Poster
Learning in the Time of COVID-19
Andrea Chambers, Stacy Dickert-Conlin, Steven J. Haider, and Scott A. Imberman
Introduction
This study provides a snapshot of how students were experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic in the month following the abrupt shift to online instruction and how students have adapted to the experience of remote learning more long term. It contributes to the concerns that the mental well-being and academic performance of students has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
Research Questions
What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation?
How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning?
Methodology
Surveyed students enrolled in introductory economics courses from one large, public research university during three semesters (Spring, Summer, and Fall) of 2020.
Students completed surveys at the beginning and end of the semester.
Supplemented these data with administrative data on demographic characteristics and actual grade outcomes.
Conducted multiple regression analyses of student characteristics on student perceptions and final semester grades.
Survey
The Two Surveys:
Initial Survey – General information and grade students expected to earn in the class
Final Survey – Students’ reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote learning
Response Rate:
Of the 6,665 eligible students, 3,445 students (52%) answered at least one of the COVID-related questions.
COVID-Related Statements:
My internet connectivity is sufficient to complete my economics coursework.
My final grade in my economics course will be unaffected.
My overall semester GPA will be unaffected.
My time available for studying has increased.
My ability to focus on my studies has declined.
My anxiety about my studies has increased.
My financial situation has worsened.
Sample Descriptives
Female: 47.3%, Male: 52.7%
White: 71.5%, Black: 4.2%, Hispanic/Latinx: 4.7%, Asian: 6.6%, 2 or more Races: 2.7%, Other or Not Reported: 1.5%, International: 8.7%
1st Year at MSU: 37.5%, 2nd year at MSU: 38.5%, 3rd Year at MSU: 16.5%, 4th Year or Later at MSU: 7.6%
First-Generation College Student: 18.5%
Results
Image: A stacked bar chart detailing the percent of students who strongly agree and agreed with each COVID-related statement on displayed on top of the percent of students who strongly disagreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with each COVID-related statement.
Title: Figure 1. Responses to COVID-Related Questions for Spring, Summer, and Fall 2020
Details of image:
My internet connectivity is sufficient: 83.3% strongly agree/agree and 16.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My econ course final grade will be unaffected: 36.0% strongly agree/agree and 64.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My overall semester GPA will be unaffected: 31.2% strongly agree/agree and 68.8% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My time available for studying has increased: 46.9% strongly agree/agree and 53.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My ability to focus on my studies has declined: 69.0% strongly agree/agree and 31.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My anxiety about my studies has increased: 74.0% strongly agree/agree and 26.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
My financial situation has worsened: 36.3% strongly agree/agree and 63.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed.
Research Question 1: What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation?
Empirical Strategy: where is an indicator for whether the student agrees or strongly agrees with the statement.
Ability to Focus
April 2020: 83% of students report their ability to focus on their studies has declined.
December 2020: 61.5% of students state feeling their ability to focus has declined.
During the initial reaction to the pandemic and remote instruction, we do not see statistically significant differences across student characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, or first-generation college status. However, when we look at the continued response in the summer and fall semesters, female students are more likely to state their ability to focus on their studies has declined relative to their male peers by 9 percentage points.
Anxiety about Studies
Over 70% of students in the sample report an increase in anxiety about their studies in April 2020 and through Summer and Fall 2020.
Female students are more likely to report an increase in anxiety relative to their male peers of around 8 percentage points in the Spring 2020 and 16 percentage points during Summer and Fall 2020.
Financial Situation
April 2020: 48.6% state that their financial situation has worsened.
This condition was felt more by first-generation college students, women, and lower performing students compared to their respective peers.
December 2020: 30% state their financial situation has worsened and first-generation college students during Summer and Fall 2020 are still more likely to experience a worsened condition.
Research Question 2: How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning?
Empirical Strategy:
where is a vector of COVID-related questions and are the student background characteristics, year in college, GPA, and expected grade at the start of the semester.
Internet Connectivity: Students who did not have sufficient internet connection earned lower final grades.
COVID-Related Stress: In April 2020, students who strongly agree their ability to focus has decreased and students across all semesters who strongly agree their anxiety has increased earned lower final grades.
Financial: Students who state their financial situation has worsened earned lower final grades in the summer and fall semesters.
Discussion & Conclusions
As many students in this study report feeling their ability to focus has declined and anxiety has increased, findings suggest women, first-generation college students, and lower performing students may be particularly vulnerable to these feelings and experiences.
Survey results suggest financial situations worsened for first-generation college students, which could lead to food or housing insecurity for these students, issues which could lead to increased stress and anxiety, lower grades, and possibly prevent students from persisting in higher education.
Requiring access to instruction via online learning has showcased the need for quality internet access.
The coronavirus pandemic has raised a lot of questions about the future of online education, it is important to keep in mind the ways in which students are impacted by such a move.
Authored by: Andrea Chambers
Navigating Context
Posted on: Innovators and ODBaLLs
Digital Collaborative Learning 2.0 - Faculty Learning Community 2023-24
This FLC has a group on #iteachmsu and meets about every three weeks. https://iteach.msu.edu/groups/digital-collaborative-learning-for-the-21st-century-2022-2023-learning-community/feeds
The organizers, Stokes Schwartz in CAL-IAH and Marohang Limbu in CAL-WRAC, are editing a special issue of the Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies. Great list of resources on the page announcing the special issue.
https://jogltep.com/duplicated-published-issues-61/digital-collaborative-learning-initiatives-dei-critical-thinking-and-cultivation-of-next-generation-skills/
This FLC has a group on #iteachmsu and meets about every three weeks. https://iteach.msu.edu/groups/digital-collaborative-learning-for-the-21st-century-2022-2023-learning-community/feeds
The organizers, Stokes Schwartz in CAL-IAH and Marohang Limbu in CAL-WRAC, are editing a special issue of the Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies. Great list of resources on the page announcing the special issue.
https://jogltep.com/duplicated-published-issues-61/digital-collaborative-learning-initiatives-dei-critical-thinking-and-cultivation-of-next-generation-skills/
Posted by: Amanda Lanier