We found 14 results that contain "olc"

People
profile-img
profile-img
Articles
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
Free OLC Accelerate Registrations Available for Educators
MSU IT is offering all MSU Educators the opportunity to attend the 2021 OLC Accelerate conference and will cover the registration fee.
No cost registrations are available to attend this year’s virtual conference held from September 20 through September 24, 2021. Registration will also give you access to live broadcasts of the on-site conference held from October 5 through October 8, 2021.
Educators interested in attending the conference may do so for free by requesting to register via the OLC Accelerate registration form. Please be sure to use your MSU email address when regeistering for the conference. That is how the system will recognize that your registration fees are covered by MSU IT.
OLC Accelerate is one of the nation’s leading conferences for online, blended, and digital learning. This conference will offer seminars and workshops across multiple topics involving education and technology. Please visit the OLC Accelerate program schedule for more information.
Even if you can only attend certain sessions of the conference, or none at all, please consider registering as an attendee. Recordings of each session will be available to all registered attendees for up to one year.
The deadline for requests to attend the conference is September 17, 2021. For more information about OLC Accelerate, please visit the official OLC Accelerate website for a variety of information and details.
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to Nick Noel at lepeschk@msu.edu.
Authored by: MSU IT
Disciplinary Content
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
OLC Innovate 2021 Virtual Conference - Campus Pass for MSU Faculty, Staff, Students
OLC Innovate™
(Virtual Conference)
Education Reimagined
March 15-19, 2021 
PLUS, 1-year of on-demand access!
 
MSU IT and MSU’s Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology are pleased to offer MSU Faculty, Staff, and Students an opportunity to participate in virtual-to-virtual presentations and the recorded session package for the OLC Innovate 2021 virtual conference. (Do not register here, use the link below.)
Group Registration Package Instructions
This link is unique to register MSU group members, and participants should register only with their organization-affiliated email address.
MSU has an Unlimited Group Full Virtual Pass for OLC Innovate 2021 which provides access to the OLC Innovate virtual conference; including virtual presenter to virtual audience presentations plus asynchronous Discovery and Exposition Foundry Sessions (estimated to be 150+ sessions in total). PLUS, access to live and on-demand recordings for one (1) year post-conference.
What this means:

Any time throughout the year following Innovate 2021, you can "register" to access the 2021 programming/materials.

If you learn about OLC Innovate and MSU's Unlimited Group Pass on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 (during the live virtual conference)- you can still register using the link above and participate.
If you learn about MSU's Unlimited Group Pass for OLC Innovate 2021 in July, November, or even January 2022, you can still register using your MSU e-mail at the link above. 


If you're registered and plan to participate live March 15-19, 2021 but are disappointed that some of the many sessions you are excited to attend overlap - no worries, log back into the conference platform at any time to engage with the programming you missed!

REMEMBER: Register with your MSU email address (at any time in the next year) to access OLC Innovate 2021 content using the MSU Unlimited Group Pass link (not the OLC website).
Authored by: Brendan Guenther
Incorporating Technologies
Posted on: The MSU Graduate Le...
Article preview image
Fostering Healthy Community and Culture in the Music Studio and Large Ensemble
Project DescriptionThe past year I have considered aspects of what makes a healthy music studio through fostering community and culture. How we engage with each other interpersonally informs our professional life and our musical understanding (rehearsal, performance, interpretation, etc). When the COVID-19 pandemic limited these activities, I applied these concepts to the large ensemble. 
Hunter's Reflection on Creating & Strengthening Collaborations in the Graduate Student CommunityRealizing the role that social, cultural, and emotional surroundings play in creating art, I seek to explore how one’s artistic community can shape performance. With support from the Graduate School’s Leadership Development Fellowship, I looked at the role creating community plays in fostering healthy culture in music studios. Acknowledging there is a correlation between social and interpersonal environment and musical performance, I work to consider how we can create an atmosphere more conducive to learning and ultimately sharing. As a conductor, I am especially aware of how culture informs ensemble performance. In chamber music, interpersonal relationship is essential and creating bonds between studios and their cultures allows more opportunity for fruitful chamber ensemble performances. 
This fellowship allowed me to connect with individuals from across campus in order to work together in a community that seeks to make MSU the best institution it can be for all of us. Through the networking, brainstorming, and access to resources provided by this fellowship, I was able to connect ideas across campus and get insight from a variety of perspectives. Academia is often siloed into our individual colleges and areas of research. This fellowship allows us to connect and share for the common good: improving ourselves while improving our colleges, all of which improves MSU.  
While the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted our modus operandi, the College of Music had to consider new ways to connect and engage with audiences, stakeholders, students, faculty, and within studios. If nothing else, it proved how valuable live, real-time music-making is. My goals of this fellowship: to explore and consider how to improve studio culture, have not changed. The past year, however, has allowed me to consider other ways that culture plays a role in musical ensembles and how we can build culture in a healthy and productive way.  
Unable to engage directly with our studios due to COVID limitations and protocols, I used the time and resources available to refocus research to culture in the large ensemble. Through the fellowship, I’ve been able to connect many of the perspectives I’ve gathered and ideas I’ve formed into ways to connect our curriculum (what we teach and perform), our community (studios, ensembles, schools, and region), and our creativity (unique application and expression of ideas) to building culture. This has led to two conference presentations and is currently being composed in an article format. The resources, opportunity, and support provided through this fellowship has been essential to the traction gained in these areas. I’m excited to see this continue in my personal exploration of studio and ensemble culture, and the work continuing through the College of Music being represented in this fellowship.  
Authored by: Hunter Kopczynski
Navigating Context
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
Instructional Guidance Is Key to Promoting Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses
Instructional Guidance Is Key to Promoting Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses Written by: Jay Loftus Ed.D. (MSU / CTLI) & Michele Jacobsen, Ph.D. (Werklund School of Education - University of Calgary)
Abstract - Active learning strategies tend to originate from one of two dominant philosophical perspectives. The first position is active learning as an instructional philosophy, whereby inquiry-based and discovery learning are primary modalities for acquiring new information. The second perspective considers active learning a strategy to supplement the use of more structured forms of instruction, such as direct instruction. From the latter perspective, active learning is employed to reinforce conceptual learning following the presentation of factual or foundational knowledge. This review focuses on the second perspective and uses of active learning as a strategy. We highlight the need and often overlooked requirement for including instructional guidance to ensure active learning, which can be effective and efficient for learning and learners.
Keywords - Active learning, instructional guidance, design strategy, cognitive load, efficiency, online and blended courses
 
Introduction
Learner engagement in online courses has been a central theme in educational research for several years (Martin, Sun and Westing, 2020). As we consider the academic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 and started to subside in 2022, it is essential to reflect on the importance of course quality (Cavanaugh, Jacquemin and Junker, 2023) and learner experience in online courses (Gherghel, Yasuda and Kita, 2023). Rebounding from our collected experience, learner engagement continues to be an important element of course design and delivery. This fact was highlighted in 2021, when the United States Department of Education (DOE) set forth new standards for institutions offering online courses. To be eligible for Title IV funding, new standards require non-correspondence courses to ensure regular and substantive interactions (RSI) between instructors and students (Downs, 2021). This requirement necessitates the need to find ways to engage students allowing instructors the ability to maximize their interactions. One possible solution is to use active learning techniques that have been shown to increase student engagement and learning outcomes (Ashiabi & O’ Neal, 2008; Cavanaugh et al., 2023).
Active learning is an important instructional strategy and pedagogical philosophy used to design quality learning experiences and foster engaging and interactive learning environments. However, this is not a novel perspective. Many years ago in their seminal work, Chickering and Gamson (1987) discussed the issue of interaction between instructors and students, suggesting that this was an essential practice for quality undergraduate education. The newfound focus on active learning strategies has become more pronounced following an examination of instructional practices from 2020 to 2022. For example, Tan, Chng, Chonardo, Ng  and Fung (2020) examined how chemistry instructors incorporated active learning into their instruction to achieve equivalent learning experiences in pre-pandemic classrooms. Similarly, Misra and Mazelfi (2021) described the need to incorporate group work or active learning activities into remote courses to: ‘increase students’ learning motivation, enforce mutual respect for friends’ opinions, foster excitement’ (p. 228). Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara (2021) found that gamification as a form of active learning, ‘helped to motivate students to participate actively and improved their academic performance, in a setting where the mode of instruction was remote, synchronous, and online’ (p.43). Further, the implementation of active learning, particularly gamification, was found to be helpful for promoting a more humanizing learning experience (Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara, 2021).
This review examines the use of active learning and presents instructional guidance as an often-overlooked element that must be included to make active learning useful and effective. The omission of explicit and direct instructional guidance when using active learning can be inefficient, resulting in an extraneous cognitive burden on learners (Lange, Gorbunova, Shcheglova and Costley, 2022). We hope to outline our justification through a review of active learning and offer strategies to ensure that the implementation of active learning is effective.
Active Learning as an Instructional Philosophy
Active learning is inherently a ‘student-centered’ instructional paradigm that is derived from a constructivist epistemological perspective (Krahenbuhl, 2016; Schunk, 2012). Constructivism theorizes that individuals construct their understanding through interactions and engagements, whereby the refinement of skills and knowledge results over time (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Through inquiry, students produce experiences and make connections that lead to logical and conceptual growth (Bada & Olusegun, 2015). Engaging learners in activities, tasks, and planned experiences is an overarching premise of active learning as an instructional philosophy. As an overarching instructional philosophy, the role of instructional guidance can be minimized. As Hammer (1997) pointed out many years ago, the role of the instructor in these environments is to provide content and materials, and students are left make ‘discoveries’ through inquiry.
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is an instructional practice that falls under the general category of ‘active learning’. The tenets of IBL adhere to a constructivist learning philosophy (de Jong et al., 2023) and can be characterized by the following six elements (Duncan & Chinn, 2021). Students will:

Generate knowledge through investigation of a novel issue or problem.
Work ‘actively’ to discover new findings.
Use of evidence to derive conclusions.
Take responsibility for their own learning through ‘epistemological agency’ (Chinn & Iordanou, 2023) and share their learning with a community of learners.
Use problem-solving and reasoning for complex tasks.
Collaborate, share ideas, and derive solutions with peers.

Historically, inquiry-based learning as a form of active learning was adopted as an overall instructional paradigm in disciplines such as medicine and was closely aligned with problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1996). Proponents of PBL advocate its use because of its emphasis on the development of skills such as communication, collaboration, and critical thinking (Dring, 2019). Critics of these constructivist approaches to instruction highlight the absence of a structure and any form of instructional guidance (Zhang & Cobern, 2021). Instead, they advocate a more explicit form of instruction such as direct instruction (Zhang, Kirschner, Corben and Sweller, 2022).
The view that a hybrid of IBL coupled with direct instruction is the optimal approach to implementing active learning has been highlighted in the recent academic literature (de Jong et al., 2023). The authors suggest that the selection of direct instruction or active learning strategies, such as IBL, should be guided by the desired outcomes of instruction. If the goal of instruction is the acquisition of more foundational or factual information, direct instruction is the preferred strategy. Conversely, IBL strategies are more appropriate ‘for the promotion of deep understanding and transferrable conceptual understanding of topics that are open-ended or susceptible to misconceptions’ (de Jong et al., 2023 p. 7).
The recommendation to use both direct instruction and approaches like IBL has reframed active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching pedagogical philosophy. Active learning should be viewed as a technique or strategy coupled with direct instructional approaches (de Jong et al., 2023).
Active Learning as an Instructional Strategy
Approaching active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching instructional philosophy helps clarify and address the varying perspectives found in the literature. Zhang et al. (2022) suggested that there is a push to emphasize exploration-based pedagogy. This includes instructional approaches deemed to be predicated on inquiry, discovery, or problem-based approaches. This emphasis has resulted in changes to curricular policies that mandate the incorporation of these instructional philosophies. Zhang et al. (2022) discussed how active learning approaches can be incorporated into science education policy to emphasize ‘inquiry’ approaches, despite adequate evidence for effectiveness.  Zhang et al. (2022) stated that the ‘disjoint between policy documents and research evidence is exacerbated by the tendency to ignore categories of research that do not provide the favored research outcomes that support teaching science through inquiry and investigations’ (p. 1162). Instead, Zhang et al. (2022) advocate for direct instruction as the primary mode of instruction in science education with active learning or ‘inquiry’ learning incorporated as a strategy, arguing that conceptual or foundational understanding ‘should not be ‘traded off’ by prioritizing other learning outcomes’ (p. 1172).
In response to Zhang et al. ’s (2022) critique, de Jong et al. (2023) argued that research evidence supports the use of inquiry-based instruction for the acquisition of conceptual understanding in science education. They asserted that both inquiry-based (or active learning approaches) and direct instruction serve specific learning needs. Direct instruction may be superior for foundational or factual learning, while inquiry-based or active learning may be better for conceptual understanding and reinforcement. The conclusion of de Jong et al. ’s (2023) argument suggests the use of a hybrid of direct instruction and active learning techniques, such as inquiry-based designs, depending on the stated learning objectives of the course or the desired outcomes.
This hybrid approach to instructional practice can help ensure that intended learning outcomes are matched with effective instructional strategies. Furthermore, a hybrid approach can help maintain efficiency in learning rather than leaving the acquisition of stated learning outcomes to discovery or happenstance (Slocum & Rolf, 2021).  This notion was supported by Nerantzi's (2020) suggestion that ‘students learn best when they are active and immersed in the learning process, when their curiosity is stimulated, when they can ask questions and debate in and outside the classroom, when they are supported in this process and feel part of a learning community’ (p. 187). Emphasis on learner engagement may support the belief that active learning strategies combined with direct instruction may provide an optimal environment for learning. Active learning strategies can be used to reinforce the direct or explicit presentation of concepts and principles (Lapitan Jr, Tiangco, Sumalinog, Sabarillo and  Diaz, 2021).
Recently, Zhang (2022) examined the importance of integrating direct instruction with hands-on investigation as an instructional model in high school physics classes. Zhang (2022) determined that ‘students benefit more when they develop a thorough theoretical foundation about science ideas before hands-on investigations’ (p. 111). This supports the earlier research in post-secondary STEM disciplines as reported by Freeman, Eddy, McDonough and Wenderoth (2014), where the authors suggested that active learning strategies help to improve student performance. The authors further predicted that active learning interventions would show more significant learning gains when combined with ‘required exercises that are completed outside of formal class sessions’ (p. 8413).
Active Learning Strategies
Active learning is characterized by activities, tasks, and learner interactions. Several characteristics of active learning have been identified, including interaction, peer learning, and instructor presence (Nerantzi, 2020). Technology affords students learning opportunities to connect pre-, during-, and post-formal learning sessions (Zou & Xie, 2019; Nerantzi, 2020). The interactions or techniques that instructors use help determine the types of interactions and outcomes that will result. Instructors may be ‘present’ or active in the process but may not provide adequate instructional guidance for techniques to be efficient or effective (Cooper, Schinske and Tanner, 2021; Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller. 2001). To highlight this gap, we first consider the widely used technique of think-pair-share, an active learning strategy first introduced by Lyman (1981). This active learning strategy was introduced to provide all students equitable opportunities to think and discuss ideas with their peers. The steps involved in this technique were recently summarized (Cooper et al., 2021): i) provide a prompt or question to students, (ii) give students a chance to think about the question or prompt independently, (iii) have students share their initial answers/responses with a neighbor in a pair or a small group, and (iv) invite a few groups a chance to share their responses with the whole class.
Instructional guidance outlines the structure and actions associated with a task. This includes identifying the goals and subgoals, and suggesting strategies or algorithms to complete the task (Kalyuga et al., 2001). Employing the strategy of think-pair-sharing requires more instructional guidance than instructors may consider. The title of the strategy foreshadows what students will ‘do’ to complete the activity. However, instructional guidance is essential to help students focus on the outcome, rather than merely enacting the process of the activity. Furthermore, instructional guidance or instructions given to students when employing think-pair-sharing can help make this activity more equitable. Cooper et al. (2021) point out that equity is an important consideration when employing think-pair-share. Often, think-pair-share activities are not equitable during the pair or share portion of the exercise, and can be dominated by more vocal or boisterous students. Instructional guidance can help ensure that the activity is more equitable by providing more explicit instructions on expectations for sharing. For example, the instructions for a think-pair-share activity may include those that require each student to compose and then share ideas on a digital whiteboard or on a slide within a larger shared slide deck. The opportunity for equitable learning must be built into the instructions given to students. Otherwise, the learning experience could be meaningless or lack the contribution of students who are timid or find comfort in a passive role during group learning.
Further considerations for instructional guidance are necessary since we now use various forms of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to promote active learning strategies. Web conferencing tools, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, were used frequently during the height of required remote or hybrid teaching (Ahshan, 2021). Activities that separated students into smaller work groups via breakout rooms or unique discussion threads often included instructions on what students were to accomplish in these smaller collaborative groups. However, the communication of expectations or explicit guidance to help direct students in these groups were often not explicit or were not accessible once the students had been arranged into their isolated workspaces. These active learning exercises would have benefited from clear guidance and instructions on how to ‘call for help’ once separated from the larger group meetings. For example, Li, Xu, He, He, Pribesh, Watson and Major, (2021) described an activity for pair programming that uses zoom breakout rooms. In their description, the authors outlined the steps learners were expected to follow to successfully complete the active learning activity, as well as the mechanisms students used to ask for assistance once isolated from the larger Zoom session that contained the entire class. The description by Li et al. (2021) provided an effective approach to instructional guidance for active learning using Zoom.  Often, instructions are verbalized or difficult to refer to once individuals are removed from the general or common room. The lack of explicit instructional guidance in these activities can result in inefficiency (Kalyuga et al., 2001) and often inequity (Cooper et al., 2021).
The final active learning approach considered here was a case study analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. To extend engagement with course content, students were assigned a case study to discuss in a group discussion forum. The group is invited to apply course concepts and respond to questions as they analyze the case and prepare recommendations and a solution (Hartwell et al., 2021). Findings indicate that case study analysis in discussion forums as an active learning strategy “encouraged collaborative learning and contributed to improvement in cognitive learning” (Seethamraju, 2014, p. 9). While this active learning strategy can engage students with course materials to apply these concepts in new situations, it can also result in a high-volume-low-yield set of responses and posts without sufficient instructional guidance and clear expectations for engagement and deliverables. Hartwell, Anderson, Hanlon, and Brown (2021) offer guidance on the effective use of online discussion forums for case study analysis, such as clear expectations for student work in teams (e.g., a team contract), ongoing teamwork support through regular check-ins and assessment criteria, clear timelines and tasks for individual analysis, combined group discussion and cross-case comparison, review of posted solutions, and requirements for clear connections between case analysis and course concepts.
Active Learning & Cognitive Load Theory
In a recent review of current policy and educational standards within STEM disciplines, Zhang et al. (2022) argued that structured instructional approaches such as direct instruction align more closely with cognitive-based learning theories. These theories are better at predicting learning gains and identifying how learning occurs. Cognitive load theory is one such theory based on three main assumptions. First, humans have the capacity to obtain novel information through problem-solving or from other people. Obtaining information from other individuals is more efficient than generating solutions themselves. Second, acquired information is confronted by an individual’s limited capacity to first store information in working memory and then transfer it to unlimited long-term memory for later use. Problem-solving imposes a heavy burden on limited working memory. Thus, learners often rely on the information obtained from others. Finally, information stored in long-term memory can be transferred back to working memory to deal with familiar situations (Sweller, 2020). The recall of information from long-term memory to working memory is not bound by the limits of the initial acquisition of information in working memory (Zhang et al., 2022).
Zhang et al. (2022) state that ‘there never is a justification for engaging in inquiry-based learning or any other pedagogically identical approaches when students need to acquire complex, novel information’ (p. 1170). This is clearly a one-sided argument that focuses on the acquisition of information rather than the application of acquired information. This also presents an obvious issue related to the efficiency of acquiring novel information. However, Zhang et al. (2022) did not argue against the use of active learning or inquiry learning strategies to help reinforce concepts, or the use of the same to support direct instruction.
The combination of active learning strategies with direct instruction can be modified using assumptions of cognitive load, which highlights the need to include instructional guidance with active learning strategies. The inclusion of clear and precise instructions or instructional guidance is critical for effective active learning strategies (Murphy, 2023). As de Jong et al. (2023) suggest, ‘guidance is (initially) needed to make inquiry learning successful' (p.9). We cannot assume that instructional guidance is implied through the name of the activity or can be determined from the previous learning experiences of students. Assumptions lead to ambiguous learning environments that lack instructional guidance, force learners to infer expectations, and rely on prior and/or potentially limited active learning experiences. In the following section, we offer suggestions for improving the use of active learning strategies in online and blended learning environments by adding instructional guidance.
Suggestions for Improving the Use of Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses
The successful implementation of active learning depends on several factors. One of the most critical barriers to the adoption of active learning is student participation. As Finelli et al. (2018) highlighted, students may be reluctant to participate demonstrating behaviors such as, ‘not participating when asked to engage in an in-class activity, distracting other students, performing the required task with minimal effort, complaining, or giving lower course evaluations’ (p. 81). These behaviors are reminiscent of petulant adolescents, often discouraging instructors from implementing active learning in the future. To overcome this, the authors suggested that providing a clear explanation of the purpose of the active learning exercise would help curb resistance to participation. More recently, de Jong et al. (2023) stated a similar perspective that ‘a key issue in interpreting the impact of inquiry-based instruction is the role of guidance’ (p. 5). The inclusion of clear and explicit steps for completing an active learning exercise is a necessary design strategy. This aspect of instructional guidance is relatively easy to achieve with the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools used to support instructors. As Crompton and Burke (2024) pointed out in their recent review, ‘ChatGPT can assist teachers in the creation of content, lesson plans, and learning activities’ (p.384). More specifically, Crompton and Burke (2024) suggested that generative AI could be used to provide step-by-step instructions for students. To illustrate this point, we entered the following prompt into the generative AI tool, goblin.tools (https://goblin.tools/) ‘Provide instructions given to students for a carousel activity in a college class.’ The output is shown in Fig. 1. This tool is used to break down tasks into steps, and if needed, it can further break down each step into a more discrete sequence of steps.

Figure 1 . Goblin.tools instructions for carousel active learning exercises.
The omission of explicit steps or direct instructional guidance in an active learning exercise can potentially increase extraneous cognitive load (Klepsch & Seufert, 2020; Sweller, 2020). This pernicious impact on cognitive load is the result of the diversion of one’s limited capacity to reconcile problems (Zhang, 2022). Furthermore, the complexity of active learning within an online or blended course is exacerbated by the inclusion of technologies used for instructional purposes. Instructional guidance should include requisite guidance for tools used in active learning. Again, generative AI tools, such as goblin.tools, may help mitigate the potential burden on cognitive load. For example, the use of webconferencing tools, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, has been pervasive in higher education. Anyone who uses these tools can relate to situations in which larger groups are segmented into smaller groups in isolated breakout rooms. Once participant relocation has occurred, there is often confusion regarding the intended purpose or goals of the breakout room. Newer features, such as collaborative whiteboards, exacerbate confusion and the potential for excessive extraneous load. Generative AI instructions (see Figure 2) could be created and offered to mitigate confusion and cognitive load burden.

Figure 2. Zoom collaborative whiteboard instructions produced by goblin.tools
 
Generative AI has the potential to help outline the steps in active learning exercises. This can be used to minimize confusion and serve as a reference for students. However, instruction alone is often insufficient to make active learning effective. As Finelli et al. (2018) suggest, the inclusion of a rationale for implementing active learning is an effective mechanism to encourage student participation. To this end, we suggest the adoption of what  Bereiter (2014) called Principled Practical Knowledge (PPK) which consists of the combination of ‘know-how’ with ‘know why’ (Bereiter, 2014). This perspective develops out of learners’ efforts to solve practical problems. It is a combination of knowledge that extends beyond simply addressing the task at hand. There is an investment of effort to provide a rationale or justification to address the ‘know why’ portion of PPK (Bereiter, 2014). Creating conditions for learners to develop ‘know-how’ is critical when incorporating active learning strategies in online and blended courses. Instructional guidance can reduce ambiguity and extraneous load and can also increase efficiency and potentially equity.
What is typically not included in the instructional guidance offered to students is comprehensive knowledge that outlines the requirements for technology that is often employed in active learning strategies. Ahshan (2021) suggests that technology skill competency is essential for the instructors and learners to implement the activities smoothly. Therefore, knowledge should include the tools employed in active learning. Instructors cannot assume that learners have a universal baseline of technological competency and thus need to be aware of this diversity when providing instructional guidance.
An often-overlooked element of instructional guidance connected to PPK is the ‘know-why’ component. Learners are often prescribed learning tasks without a rationale or justification for their utility. The underlying assumption for implementing active learning strategies is the benefits of collaboration, communication, and collective problem-solving are clear to learners (Dring, 2019; Hartikainen et al., 2019). However, these perceived benefits or rationales are often not provided explicitly to learners; instead, they are implied through use.
When implementing active learning techniques or strategies in a blended or online course one needs to consider not only the ‘know-how,’ but also the ‘know-why.’ Table 1 helps to identify the scope of instructional guidance that should be provided to students.
 
Table 1. Recommended Type of Instructional Guidance for Active Learning




 


Know How


Know Why




Activity


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Technology


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Outcomes / Products


Completion


Goals




 
The purpose of providing clear and explicit instructional guidance to learners is to ensure efficiency, equity, and value in incorporating active learning strategies into online and blended learning environments. Along with our argument for “know-why” (Bereiter, 2012), we draw upon Murphy (2023) who highlights the importance of “know-how’ by stating, ‘if students do not understand how a particular learning design helps them arrive at a particular outcome, they tend to be less invested in a course’ (n.p.).
Clear instructional guidance does not diminish the authenticity of various active learning strategies such as problem-based or inquiry-based techniques. In contrast, guidance serves to scaffold the activity and clearly outline learner expectations. Design standards organizations, such as Quality Matters, suggest the inclusion of statements that indicate a plan for how instructors will engage with learners, as well as the requirements for learner engagement in active learning. These statements regarding instructor engagement could be extended to include more transparency in the selection of instructional strategies. Murphy (2023) suggested that instructors should ‘pull back the curtain’ and take a few minutes to share the rationale and research that informs their decision to use strategies such as active learning. Opening a dialogue about the design process with students helps to manage expectations and anxieties that students might have in relation to the ‘What?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ for the active learning exercises.
Implications for Future Research
We contend that a blend of direct instruction and active learning strategies is optimized by instructional guidance, which provides explicit know-how and know-why for students to engage in learning tasks and activities. The present discussion does not intend to evaluate the utility of active learning as an instructional strategy. The efficacy of active learning is a recurring theme in the academic literature, and the justification for efficacy is largely anecdotal or based on self-reporting data from students (Hartikainen, Rintala, Pylväs and Nokelainen, 2019). Regardless, the process of incorporating active learning strategies with direct instruction appears to be beneficial for learning (Ahshan, 2021; Christie & De Graaff, 2017; Mintzes, 2020), and more likely, the learning experience can be harder to quantify. Our argument relates to the necessary inclusion of instructions and guidance that make the goals of active learning more efficient and effective (de Jong et al., 2023). Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) stated earlier that knowledge about dominates traditional educational practice. It is the stuff of textbooks, curriculum guidelines, subject-matter tests, and typical school “projects” and “research” papers. Knowledge would be the product of active learning. In contrast, knowledge of, ‘suffers massive neglect’ (p. 101).  Knowledge enables learners to do something and allows them to actively participate in an activity. Knowledge comprises both procedural and declarative knowledge.  It is activated when the need for it is encountered in the action. Instructional guidance can help facilitate knowledge of, making the use of active learning techniques more efficient and effective.
Research is needed on the impact of instructional guidance on active learning strategies, especially when considering the incorporation of more sophisticated technologies and authentic problems (Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guardia and Koole 2021; Varvara, Bernardi, Bianchi, Sinjari and Piattelli, 2021). Recently, Lee (2020) examined the impact of instructor engagement on learning outcomes in an online course and determined that increased instructor engagement correlated with enhanced discussion board posts and student performance. A similar examination of the relationship between the instructional guidance provided and student learning outcomes would be a valuable next step. It could offer more explicit guidance and recommendations for the design and use of active learning strategies in online or blended courses.
Conclusion
Education was disrupted out of necessity for at least two years. This experience forced us to examine our practices in online and blended learning, as our sample size for evaluation grew dramatically. The outcome of our analysis is that effective design and inclusion of student engagement and interactions with instructors are critical for quality learning experiences (Rapanta et al., 2021; Sutarto, Sari and Fathurrochman, 2020; Varvara et al., 2021). Active learning appeals to many students (Christie & De Graaff, 2017) and instructors as it can help achieve many of the desired and required outcomes of our courses and programs. Our review and discussion highlighted the need to provide clear and explicit guidance to help minimize cognitive load and guide students through an invaluable learning experience. Further, instructors and designers who include explicit guidance participate in a metacognitive process, while they outline the purpose and sequence of steps required for the completion of active learning exercises. Creating instructions and providing a rationale for the use of active learning in a course gives instructors and designers an opportunity to reflect on the process and ensure that it aligns with the intended purpose or stated goals of the course. This reflective act makes active learning more intentional in use rather than employing it to ensure that students are present within the learning space.
 
References
Ahshan, R. (2021). A Framework of Implementing Strategies for Active Student Engagement in Remote/Online Teaching and Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090483
Ashiabi, G. S., & O’neal, K. K. (2008). A Framework for Understanding the Association Between Food Insecurity and Children’s Developmental Outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 71–77.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2023). Variation in student perceptions of higher education course quality and difficulty as a result of widespread implementation of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1787–1802.
Chinn, C. A., & Iordanou, K. (2023). Theories of Learning. Handbook of Research on Science Education: Volume III.
Christie, M., & De Graaff, E. (2017). The philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 5–16.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a think–pair–share: Emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), fe1.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2024). The Educational Affordances and Challenges of ChatGPT: State of the Field. TechTrends, 1–13.
de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence–The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 100536.
Dring, J. C. (2019). Problem-Based Learning – Experiencing and understanding the prominence during Medical School: Perspective. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 47, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.09.004
Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2021). International handbook of inquiry and learning. Routledge.
Finelli, C. J., Nguyen, K., DeMonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Husman, J., Henderson, C., Shekhar, P., & Waters, C. K. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5).
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485–529.
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Hartwell, A., Anderson, M., Hanlon, P., & Brown, B. (2021). Asynchronous discussion forums: Five learning designs.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 5–23.
Klepsch, M., & Seufert, T. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science, 48(1), Article 1.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Lange, C., Gorbunova, A., Shcheglova, I., & Costley, J. (2022). Direct instruction, worked examples and problem solving: The impact of instructional strategies on cognitive load. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–13.
Lapitan Jr, L. D., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz, J. M. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 116–131.
Lee, J. W. (2020). The roles of online instructional facilitators and student performance of online class activity. Lee, Jung Wan (2020). The Roles of Online Instructional Facilitators and Student Performance of Online Class Activity. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(8), 723–733.
Li, L., Xu, L. D., He, Y., He, W., Pribesh, S., Watson, S. M., & Major, D. A. (2021). Facilitating online learning via zoom breakout room technology: A case of pair programming involving students with learning disabilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 12.
Lyman, F. (1981). Strategies for Reading Comprehension Think Pair Share. Unpublished Paper. University of Maryland Paper. Http://Www. Roe13. K12. Il.
Mintzes, J. J. (2020). From constructivism to active learning in college science. Active Learning in College Science: The Case for Evidence-Based Practice, 3–12.
Misra, F., & Mazelfi, I. (2021). Long-distance online learning during pandemic: The role of communication, working in group, and self-directed learning in developing student’s confidence. 225–234.
Murphy, J. T. (2023). Advice | 5 Ways to Ease Students Off the Lecture and Into Active Learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-ways-to-ease-students-off-the-lecture-and-onto-active-learning
Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(2), 184–195.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742.
Rincon-Flores, E. G., & Santos-Guevara, B. N. (2021). Gamification during Covid-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7157
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. The Cambridge.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Pearson Education, Inc.
Seethamraju, R. (2014). Effectiveness of using online discussion forum for case study analysis. Education Research International, 2014.
Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of direct instruction: Content analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775–784.
Sutarto, S., Sari, D. P., & Fathurrochman, I. (2020). Teacher strategies in online learning to increase students’ interest in learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Jurnal Konseling Dan Pendidikan, 8(3), 129–137.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.
Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T., & Fung, F. M. (2020). How chemists achieve active learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to support remote teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2512–2518.
Varvara, G., Bernardi, S., Bianchi, S., Sinjari, B., & Piattelli, M. (2021). Dental Education Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Italy: Undergraduate Student Feedback, Future Perspectives, and the Needs of Teaching Strategies for Professional Development. Healthcare, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040454
Zhang, L. (2022). Guidance differs between teaching modes: Practical challenges in integrating hands-on investigations with direct instruction. Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 96–115.
Zhang, L., & Cobern, W. W. (2021). Confusions on “guidance” in inquiry-based science teaching: A response to Aditomo and Klieme (2020). Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 207–212.
Zhang, L., Kirschner, P. A., Cobern, W. W., & Sweller, J. (2022). There is an evidence crisis in science educational policy. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 1157–1176.
Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142.
 
Authored by: Jay Loftus
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
How Video Length Affects Student Learning – The Shorter, The Better!
In-Person Lectures vs. Online Instruction
Actively engaging students in the learning process is important for both in-person lectures and for online instruction. The ways in which students engage with the instructor, their peers, and the course materials will vary based on the setting. In-person courses are often confined by the fact that instruction needs to be squeezed into a specific time period, which can result in there being a limited amount of time for students to perform group work or to actively think about the concepts they are learning. Alternatively, with online instruction, there is often more freedom (especially for an asynchronous course) on how you can present materials and structure the learning environment.
Currently, many instructors are faced with the challenge of adapting their in-person courses into an online format. How course materials are adapted into an online format are going to differ from course to course – however, a common practice shared across courses is to create lecture recordings or videos for students to watch. The format and length of these videos play an important role in the learning experience students have within a course. The ways in which students engage with a longer video recording is going to be much different than how students engage with multiple shorter videos. Below are some of the important reasons why shorter videos can enhance student learning when compared to longer videos.
 
More Opportunities for Students to Actively Engage with the Material
Decades of research on how people learn has shown that active learning (in comparison to more passive approaches, such as direct instruction or a traditional lecture) enhances student performance (Freeman et. al., 2014). While “active learning” can often be a nebulous phrase that has different meanings, active learning can be broadly thought of as any activity in which a learner is metacognitively thinking about and applying knowledge to accomplish some goal or task. Providing multiple opportunities for students to engage in these types of activities can help foster a more meaningful and inclusive learning environment for students. This is especially important for online instruction as students may feel isolated or have a difficult time navigating their learning within a virtual environment.
One of the biggest benefits of creating a series of shorter videos compared to creating one long video is that active learning techniques and activities can be more easily utilized and interspersed throughout a lesson. For example, if you were to record a video of a traditional lecture period, your video would be nearly an hour in length, and it would likely cover multiple important topics within that time period. Creating opportunities to actively engage students throughout an hour-long video is difficult and can result in students feeling overwhelmed.
Conversely, one of the affordances of online instruction is that lectures can be broken down into a series of smaller video lessons and activities. By having shorter videos with corresponding activities, students are going to spend more time actively thinking about and applying their understanding of concepts throughout a lesson. This in turn can promote metacognition by getting students to think about their thinking after each short video rather than at the end of a long video that covers multiple topics.
Additionally, concepts often build upon one another, and it is critical that students develop a solid foundation of prior knowledge before moving onto more complex topics. When you create multiple short videos and activities, it can be easier to get a snapshot of how students conceptualize different topics as they are learning it. This information can help both you as an instructor and your students become better aware of when they are having difficulties so that issues can be addressed before moving onto more complex topics. With longer videos, students may be confused on concepts discussed at the beginning of the video, which can then make it difficult for them to understand subsequent concepts.
Overall, chunking a longer video into multiple shorter videos is a simple technique you can use to create more meaningful learning opportunities in a virtual setting. Short videos, coupled with corresponding activities, is a powerful pedagogical approach to enhance student learning.
 
Reducing Cognitive Load
Another major benefit of having multiple shorter videos instead of one longer video is that it can reduce the cognitive load that students experience when engaging with the content. Learning is a process that requires the brain to adapt, develop, and ultimately form new neural connections in response to stimuli (National Academies of Sciences, 2018). If a video is long and packed with content, developing a meaningful understanding of concepts can be quite difficult. Even if the content is explained in detail (which many people think of as “good instruction”), students simply do not have enough time to process and critically think about the content they are learning. When taking in various stimuli and trying to comprehend multiple concepts, this can result in students feeling anxious and overwhelmed. Having time to self-reflect is one of the most important factors to promoting a deeper, more meaningful learning experience. Unfortunately, long video lectures provide few opportunities (even when done well!) for students to engage in these types of thinking and doing.
Additionally, an unintended drawback of long videos is that the listener can be lulled into a false sense of understanding. For example, have you ever watched a live lecture or an educational video where you followed along and felt like you understood the material, but then after when you went to apply this knowledge, you realized that you forgot or did not understand the content as well as you thought? Everyone has experienced this phenomenon in some form or another. As students watch long video lectures, especially lectures that have clear explanations of the content, they may get a false sense of how well they understand the material. This can result in students overestimating their ability and grasp of foundational ideas, which in turn, can make future learning more difficult as subsequent knowledge will be built upon a faulty base.
Long lecture videos are also more prone to having extraneous information or tangential discussions throughout. This additional information may cause students to shift their cognitive resources away from the core course content, resulting in a less meaningful learning experience (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Breaking a long video into multiple shorter videos can reduce the cognitive load students may experience and it can create more opportunities for them to self-reflect on what they are learning. 
 
More Engaging for Students
Another important factor to think about is how video length affects student engagement. A study by Guo, Kim, and Rubin (2014) looked at how different forms of video production affected student engagement when watching videos. Two of their main findings were that (1) shorter videos improve student engagement, and that (2) recordings of traditional lectures are less engaging compared to digital tablet drawing or PowerPoint slide presentations. These findings show how it is not only important to record shorter videos, but that simply recording a traditional lecture and splicing it into smaller videos will not result in the most engaging experience for students.
When distilling a traditional lecture into a series of shorter videos, it is important to think about the pedagogical techniques you would normally use in the classroom and how these approaches might translate to an online setting. Identifying how these approaches might be adapted into a video recording can help create a more engaging experience for students in your course.
Overall, the length of lecture videos and the ways in which they are structured directly impacts how students learn in a virtual setting. Recording short, interactive videos, as opposed to long lecture videos, is a powerful technique you can use to enhance student learning and engagement.
 
References
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 41-50).
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
Authored by: Christopher J. Minter
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
Street Teams: Team Resilience on the Street
“I want to learn. I want to help.” We regularly hear this from students. How do we design environments that empower positive failures and spark innovation? We created Street Teams, student-run collaborations. We partner with nonprofits to solve challenges in media communication. Students have real-world learning experiences while giving back to the community.To access a PDF of the "Street Teams: Team Resilience on the Street" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
STREET TEAMS: TEAM  RESILIENCE ON THE STREET 
solution-based learning and resilience 
Street Teams are student-run, creative collaborations. They partner with nonprofits and assist them with media projects. Teams learn while giving back to the community. 

COLLABORATION 

We are stronger together  

Teams consist of students from various majors, backgrounds and skillsets. Their collective diversity amplifies the work of the whole team.  


Strategic focus on group culture and dynamics  

First semester = team building 
Second semester = content creation 
In 2020-21, we did this all through Zoom!  


Holistic approach to solving challenges  

Projects are based on a combination of non-profit requests and student-driven assessment Together, they create sustainable solutions  




MULTI-LAYERED MENTORING 

Faculty mentor students 
Alumni give feedback on student work  
Nonprofit partner-related professional development opportunities 
Student leaders (Producers) mentor teammates 
Street Team Coordinator hosts weekly Producer meetings and trainings  
Teammates mentor each other 


 IMPACT 

Throughout our history: 

131 students involved*  
20 majors represented**  
37 nonprofits served  
550+ products delivered  *At least 1/3 of students return for more than one year **Some are dual majors  




QUOTE FROM A PARTICIPANT

"(Street Teams) make me feel like I belong to a place. Thank you ... for the opportunity you give all of us to connect with the community." - Manuel Pérez Salas 
Authored by: Jeana-Dee Allen, Katie Schroeder, Jon Whiting
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: Educator Stories
Article preview image
Dustin De Felice's Educator Story
This week, we are featuring Dr. Dustin De Felice, Associate Professor and Director of MSU’s English Language Center. Dr. De Felice was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator form) regularly!
Read more about Dustin’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!

You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you? 
One word = Language. I added my CV and resume into a WordCloud generator (https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/) and both generations put that word in the center. I believe that it reflects my focus in my teaching, learning, and supporting. 



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



Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature!
Posted by: Makena Neal
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
What is the Activities Profile of our Fall 2021 First-Year Class?
For years, the Office of Admissions has provided our campus with an academic profile of each incoming class. Admissions is now positioned to provide a similar profile of admitted students' co-curricular activities. The data-informed profile provides opportunities to assess how many such activities were tied to areas such as athletics or find more narrow measures, such as the scale of first-year Lyman Briggs College student involvement within the fine arts. Additionally, our institution can identify involvements in areas such as research activity, with such involvements potentially providing students with a foundation for future involvement in high-impact experiences at the undergraduate level.To access a PDF of the "What is the Activities Profile of our Fall 2021 First-Year Class?" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
 
What is the Activities Profile of our Fall 2021 First-Year Class? 
Terence Brown 
Abstract 
For years, the Office of Admissions has provided our campus with an academic profile of each incoming class. Admissions is now positioned to provide a similar profile of admitted students’ cocurricular activities. The data-informed profile provides opportunities to assess how many such activities were tied to areas such as athletics or find more narrow measures, such as the scale of first-year Lyman Briggs College student involvement within the fine arts. Additionally, our institution can identify involvements in areas such as research activity, with such involvements potentially providing students with a foundation for future involvement in high-impact practices at the undergraduate level.  [The abstract is accompanied by word cloud that forms a two-dimensional Spartan helmet from the Common Application’s categories for student co-curriculars.]  
Introduction 
MSU’s adoption of the Common Application, now allows Admissions for to collect descriptive information for applicants’ cocurricular activities. The additional information includes applicant descriptions of their high school cocurriculars, categories assigned to each activity and whether a student wishes to continue participation in the activity during their collegiate years. Currently, approximately 71% of first-year students apply to MSU via the Common Application.    This assessment fundamentally asks two questions: 

What does the profile look in the aggregate and by college? 
Can the profile information support our institution’s efforts in the realm of offering high-impact practices (Kuh et al., 2008; AACU, 2018) to our students? 

Results 
In assessing the 204,672 admitted student activity entries as of April 19, 2021, there were a few general findings. First was that students wished to continue with approximately 66% percent of these activities. Second was that the leading activity categories were athletics, community service and work. The collective of academic activities was ranked fourth, with the category having been in the top three in the two preceding years. The test case of Lyman Briggs majors with fine arts experiences was a significant (378 total) but small 5.5%. A full review of results across colleges is pending, but early findings only showed occasional reordering of the established top four categories.   This data must be viewed with the understanding that many applications are completed by the parents of applicants (Jaschik, 2017). However, the data still provides a good foundation for identifying activities that can serve as a gateway to high-impact practices at MSU. There were lower rankings for high school activities categories covering involvements that would most-readily prepare students for Internships, Diversity/Global Understanding and Research.  [The “results” section includes an Excel chart that lists the total activities reported by category, the Common Application’s activity categories, high impact experience categories and MSU Student Activities categories for student organizations.]  
Methods 
During the three most-recent admissions cycles, an iterative process has been used to collect and organized the cocurricular data from applications submitted via the Common Application platform. The Common Application is one of three platforms available to students, but was used by the majority of applicants in each of the last three admission cycles.   Summary data was compiled and applied to a matrix that incorporates all 30 Common Application categories for activities, five of the 11 high-impact practice categories and 12 of MSU’s Student Activities Office’s applicable student organization categories. Additional keywork searches were conducted, identifying student involvement in popular activities such as DECA and rare research areas such as CRISPR, but the activity profile’s assessment mainly focused on the broader categories.  [This section includes seven small, unconnected circles that are collectively placed in an array that forms a larger circle. Each circle includes text that describes a different step in the process used to gather, compile and share the data used in this poster presentation.]  
Conclusions 
The dominant application categories have largely held steady for three admission cycles. There was a notable change with the emergence of work moving into the top three. Incidentally, the top three categories have slightly varied in previous comparisons between MSU college cohorts. A similar assessment will be made after the closing of our MSU’s deposit deadline.  Future work in this area can be supported through use of the Educational Development Plan which Michigan schools maintain starting in middle school. To determine whether a particular high school activity helps prepare for high-impact involvement, the assessment portion of the EDP (Michigan Department of Education) could be used to identify traits that George Kuh associates with high-impact practices. Were the EDP to identify activities that provide students with sustained involvement, advisor involvement or a relevant coaching philosophy, such data could be inputted into the Slate CRM, and shared with appropriate campus partners prior to admitted student matriculation.  
Citations 

Association of American Colleges & Universities (2018). High-impact educational practices. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/node/4084 
Jaschik, S. (July 26, 2017). Survey: Parents finishing parts of college applications. From Inside Higher Education 
Kuh, G. D., Schneider, C. G., & Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities 
Michigan Department of Education (n.d.). The Educational Development Plan, p. 3. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/EDP_Fundamentals_ADA2017_570694_7.pdf 
Authored by: Terence Brown
Navigating Context
Posts
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Article preview image
MSU purchased a campus-wide pass, so all MSU Faculty, Staff and Students can attend next week's OLC Innovate virtual conference free of charge.

Registration instructions: https://iteach.msu.edu/iteachmsu/groups/iteachmsu/stories/1557

Sponsored by MSU IT and MSU Hub.
Posted by: Brendan Guenther
Incorporating Technologies