We found 1167 results that contain "online learning"
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Teaching & Learning Conference Day 2: Thursday–Virtual day with online sessions (all day)
Spring CTLI Conference Landing Page Content
Graphics if needed
CTLI Spring Teaching and Learning Conference
The Return of MSU's 2023 Spring Conference on Teaching & Learning: Community, Conversation, and Classroom Experience, organized by the Center for Teaching & Learning Innovation (CTLI).
A conference where MSU educators gather to share approaches, tools, and techniques that support teaching and learning.
May 10-11, 2023
Wednesday Day 1: In-person in the STEM Teaching and Learning Facility (all day)
Thursday Day 2: Virtual day with online sessions (all day)
Keynote Speakers:
Stephen Thomas, (Associate Director, CISGS; Assistant Dean for STEM Education Teaching and Learning in the Office of the APUE)
Dr. Kris Renn (Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education and serves as Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies for Student Success Research)
Conference Registration
Registration for the event is open! Please submit your information into the form below. We will reach out with more information on sessions and schedule closer to the event.
***insert registration form button***
Interested in Submitting a Presentation Proposal?
We are extending an invitation for presentation proposals on select teaching and learning topics across a wide array of presentation formats, including synchronous digital sessions on May 11th to accommodate virtual attendees. The deadline for submissions is February 17th.
Proposal Learning Topics and Formats
Please refer to the descriptions below for details regarding formats and topics. At least one presenter per session should be an educator at MSU.
Teaching and Learning Topics:
The conference committee welcomes presentations on post-secondary education that address one or more of these core topics:
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Assessment and Evaluation
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Learning Technologies
Proposal formats
Presentations may be in-person or virtual.
Paper Presentation: individual papers authored by one or more people, delivered in 15-to-20 minutes. Individual papers will be grouped according to topic and delivered in a multi-paper session that includes a 15-minute question period.
Workshop: this format will include participatory exercises where attendees will learn about a select educational topic or practice from an expert practitioner. These sessions will run for 50-to-60 minutes and include a 15-minute question period.
Welcome to my Classroom: these 50-to-60-minute sessions will feature a short overview of a teaching and learning theory or practice followed by a demonstration of active pedagogy. The audience will be positioned as learners, according to the educational and disciplinary context, and observe the presenter’s demonstration of actual classroom exercises and practices. The sessions will conclude with a 15-to-20-minute discussion or question period.
Learning Technology Demonstration: these 15-to-20-minute demonstrations of learning technologies will be grouped according to topic and delivered in a multi-presentation session that concludes with a 15-minute question period.
***insert proposal form button***
Contact the Center
If you are interested in hearing more about the conference, would like to submit a proposal or have any questions, please contact the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation.
Graphics if needed
CTLI Spring Teaching and Learning Conference
The Return of MSU's 2023 Spring Conference on Teaching & Learning: Community, Conversation, and Classroom Experience, organized by the Center for Teaching & Learning Innovation (CTLI).
A conference where MSU educators gather to share approaches, tools, and techniques that support teaching and learning.
May 10-11, 2023
Wednesday Day 1: In-person in the STEM Teaching and Learning Facility (all day)
Thursday Day 2: Virtual day with online sessions (all day)
Keynote Speakers:
Stephen Thomas, (Associate Director, CISGS; Assistant Dean for STEM Education Teaching and Learning in the Office of the APUE)
Dr. Kris Renn (Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education and serves as Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies for Student Success Research)
Conference Registration
Registration for the event is open! Please submit your information into the form below. We will reach out with more information on sessions and schedule closer to the event.
***insert registration form button***
Interested in Submitting a Presentation Proposal?
We are extending an invitation for presentation proposals on select teaching and learning topics across a wide array of presentation formats, including synchronous digital sessions on May 11th to accommodate virtual attendees. The deadline for submissions is February 17th.
Proposal Learning Topics and Formats
Please refer to the descriptions below for details regarding formats and topics. At least one presenter per session should be an educator at MSU.
Teaching and Learning Topics:
The conference committee welcomes presentations on post-secondary education that address one or more of these core topics:
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Assessment and Evaluation
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Learning Technologies
Proposal formats
Presentations may be in-person or virtual.
Paper Presentation: individual papers authored by one or more people, delivered in 15-to-20 minutes. Individual papers will be grouped according to topic and delivered in a multi-paper session that includes a 15-minute question period.
Workshop: this format will include participatory exercises where attendees will learn about a select educational topic or practice from an expert practitioner. These sessions will run for 50-to-60 minutes and include a 15-minute question period.
Welcome to my Classroom: these 50-to-60-minute sessions will feature a short overview of a teaching and learning theory or practice followed by a demonstration of active pedagogy. The audience will be positioned as learners, according to the educational and disciplinary context, and observe the presenter’s demonstration of actual classroom exercises and practices. The sessions will conclude with a 15-to-20-minute discussion or question period.
Learning Technology Demonstration: these 15-to-20-minute demonstrations of learning technologies will be grouped according to topic and delivered in a multi-presentation session that concludes with a 15-minute question period.
***insert proposal form button***
Contact the Center
If you are interested in hearing more about the conference, would like to submit a proposal or have any questions, please contact the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation.
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Online Community Building
In this playlist you will:
Differentiate synchronous and asynchronous environments.
Identify different kinds of online interaction.
Explore opportunities for building communities online.
Differentiate synchronous and asynchronous environments.
Identify different kinds of online interaction.
Explore opportunities for building communities online.
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: #iteachmsu
MSU Online Assessment Training
This is a collection of resources on assessments that was a part of a workshop offering in the Summer of 2020. This workshop was designed and delivered by Amy Lockwood, Andrea Bierema, Becky Matz, Casey Henley, Dave Goodrich, Julie Libarkin, Michael Lockett, Nicola Imbracsio, Stephen Thomas, and Sue Halick.
ASSESSING LEARNING
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Online Technology Quick Start
This playlist is a collaborative effort by academic departments and central IT, and offers a collection of getting started information to help you prepare your online course quickly.
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Using AI in Teaching & Learning
Resources for exploring the use of AI, and specifically large language models similar to ChatGPT, in teaching and learning. This is inclusive of its uses for instructors (e.g., lesson planning, rubric generation, etc.) and for students (e.g., writing assignments, comparison exercises, etc.)
Posted on: Online Faculty Peer...
Introductory Resources for Teaching Online
The articles that constitute this playlist were pulled together as a very BASIC overview of considerations for online instruction. If you're interested in more articles like the ones here, please visit the "MSU Remote Teaching" group (where there are additional posts, articles, and playlists)!
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Global Learning
A compilation of resources pertaining to the Spartan Global Learning Initiative
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Getting Started Teaching & Learning Now and Through the Semester
Getting Started with Teaching and Learning is offered to bring together educators new to MSU from across campus to explore and exchange ideas about quality and inclusive teaching, as well as find community among the large group of people who are engaged in the important work of creating the best learning environments possible for our students. The focus is to assist educators in developing practical materials that are needed for immediate use in their teaching and to best prepare them for their courses and work with students.
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: New Technologies
Flipgrid: Bringing Conversation to Online Learning
If you are looking for ways to bring some life back into your remote or blended instruction, Flipgrid may be the tool for you. At its core it is a video conversation tool, but in practice it is something much more. So let me point out some of the features that I think you will like about Flipgrid.
Free Educational Accounts: That's right! Since MSU is on Office365, all MSU faculty, staff, and students have Outlook accounts; which are recognized as Microsoft accounts. Therefore, you can use MSU email to setup your free flipgrid account
Classroom Structrure: Flipgrid uses the term "Grid" to refer to a community space. For educational purposes, think of the Grid as a representation of your classroom. In each Grid, you can create collection of topics. Think of the "Topics" as your class assignments.
Rich Posting Features: By default, video posts are 1:30, but you can make them longer or shorter. This helps to make every student post an equal length ; and encourages students to organize their thoughts ahead of time. Here are some features related to posting that make it fun:
Abilty to add text and sticky notes to your video posts
Apply different color themes, backgrounds, pixelate faces, etc
Students can also add emojis
Detailed Feedback: Instructor can provide feedback on student videos. Students can provide feedback on other student videos. Rubric can be applied to the prompt. Students can see how many views there videos are getting.
Topic Repository: Lastly, there is a content library filled with discipline specifc content created by educators in the Flipgrid community that instructors can use in their own student Topics (assignments). These can be filtered by Audience, Subject, and Keyword. Each of these Topics contain information about the usage and the engagment scores.
These are just some the cool features that I have come across on flip grid. If you would like a thorough overview of the tool, check out this tutorial by the New EdTech Classroom:
Free Educational Accounts: That's right! Since MSU is on Office365, all MSU faculty, staff, and students have Outlook accounts; which are recognized as Microsoft accounts. Therefore, you can use MSU email to setup your free flipgrid account
Classroom Structrure: Flipgrid uses the term "Grid" to refer to a community space. For educational purposes, think of the Grid as a representation of your classroom. In each Grid, you can create collection of topics. Think of the "Topics" as your class assignments.
Rich Posting Features: By default, video posts are 1:30, but you can make them longer or shorter. This helps to make every student post an equal length ; and encourages students to organize their thoughts ahead of time. Here are some features related to posting that make it fun:
Abilty to add text and sticky notes to your video posts
Apply different color themes, backgrounds, pixelate faces, etc
Students can also add emojis
Detailed Feedback: Instructor can provide feedback on student videos. Students can provide feedback on other student videos. Rubric can be applied to the prompt. Students can see how many views there videos are getting.
Topic Repository: Lastly, there is a content library filled with discipline specifc content created by educators in the Flipgrid community that instructors can use in their own student Topics (assignments). These can be filtered by Audience, Subject, and Keyword. Each of these Topics contain information about the usage and the engagment scores.
These are just some the cool features that I have come across on flip grid. If you would like a thorough overview of the tool, check out this tutorial by the New EdTech Classroom:
Authored by: Rashad Muhammad
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Online Learning: Moving Forward after Tragedy and Trauma
This article is a component of the Resources for Teaching After Crisis playlist. Trauma Informed Distance Learning: A Conversation with Alex Shevrin Venet
Lunch & learn webinar hosted by the University of Vermont’s Tarrant Institute for Innovative Education where Alex Shevrin Venet responds to questions submitted by attendees. [55 minute video and full transcript]
Trauma-informed recommendations for how educators can support students, prioritizing predictability, flexibility, connection, and empowerment. Advice for admins, teachers, educator self-care and boundaries, equitable course practices, and importance of connecting to colleagues. Context is synchronous online pandemic distance learning (2020).
Lunch & learn webinar hosted by the University of Vermont’s Tarrant Institute for Innovative Education where Alex Shevrin Venet responds to questions submitted by attendees. [55 minute video and full transcript]
Trauma-informed recommendations for how educators can support students, prioritizing predictability, flexibility, connection, and empowerment. Advice for admins, teachers, educator self-care and boundaries, equitable course practices, and importance of connecting to colleagues. Context is synchronous online pandemic distance learning (2020).
Authored by: Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation
Navigating Context
Posted on: Graduate Teaching A...
D2L Pedagogies: Designing for Engaging and Inclusive Online Learning Experiences
This workshop is designed to help you prepare for your teaching roles by strengthening your pedagogical understandings of D2L. For us, this means understanding how to implement thoughtful, intentional, and inclusive practices. We will introduce GTAs to foundational skills and strategies necessary to create well-structured, engaging, accessible online learning experiences.
Upon completing this session, GTAs will be able to:
Identify key components and goals of the learner experience through design thinking exercises.
Consider factors that may impact learners’ ability to fully participate in various modes of online learning, and develop strategies to gain a sense of learners’ digital learning contexts.
Evaluate opportunities for asynchronous and synchronous connection, community-building, interaction, and engagement.
Discuss and explore features for enhancing learning and improving accessibility.
Identify resources and supports for technical aspects of D2L.
Upon completing this session, GTAs will be able to:
Identify key components and goals of the learner experience through design thinking exercises.
Consider factors that may impact learners’ ability to fully participate in various modes of online learning, and develop strategies to gain a sense of learners’ digital learning contexts.
Evaluate opportunities for asynchronous and synchronous connection, community-building, interaction, and engagement.
Discuss and explore features for enhancing learning and improving accessibility.
Identify resources and supports for technical aspects of D2L.
Posted by: Kenneth Gene Herrema
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup
This poster outlines approximately 20 suggestions to help students navigate online courses more successfully. Even with careful planning and development, the normalization of remote learning has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses. Besides worrying about a stable internet connection, students must confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs notwithstanding, and despite our carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and the like, students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the brave new world of the virtual. The reduction of course material by instructors to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them as they make the shift to online learning. But there are a number of fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth this rocky road over which students must now travel. The tips I share have emerged and been developed further as part of my own ongoing process to minimize confusion, frustration, and improve levels of engagement, while simultaneously imparting more agency to the students enrolled in my IAH courses here at Michigan State University.To access a PDF of the "Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster
Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup
Stokes Schwartz, Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts and Humanities
College of Arts and Letters, Michigan State University
Abstract
The normalization of remote learning during 2020-2021 has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses. Besides worrying about stable internet connections, they must also confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Even with instructor participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs, carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and etc., students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the virtual. Our reduction of course material to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates via Zoom or Teams do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them either in the shift to online learning. But there are a few fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth the rocky road over which students must travel. The tips and suggestions I share in this poster presentation have emerged as part of my own ongoing process to minimize student confusion, frustration, and improve engagement, while simultaneously impart greater agency and opportunity for success to the young adults populating my asynchronous online IAH courses here at MSU during the 2020-2021 academic year.
Background
In mid-March 2020, school pupils, university students, and educators everywhere were thrown into disarray by the mass onset of the Covid-19 virus, related lockdowns, and interruptions to normal student-instructor interactions.
At Michigan State University, we scrambled throughout the summer to prepare for the 2020-2021AY and reconfigure existing courses for online delivery.
Yet reasonably well developed and presented online courses alone have not enough for students to succeed. Even in the face of MSU’s push for empathy and understanding, students have demonstrated that they require additional help making the leap from traditional face-to-face to online learning.
Instructors are well-placed to assist students in an ongoing way as they make this challenging transition.
Without much additional work, we can support and encourage our students with weekly reminders that exhibit kind words, cues, prompts, signposts pointing the way forward, and calls to action.
We can foster improved student engagement, learning, and success despite the challenging, new environment in which we operate.
We can guide students through their many weekly activities with roadmaps to help them navigate course intricacies more easily
We can provide students with ample opportunity for new ways of learning, thinking, knowing, and the acquisition of 21st century skills.
In short, faculty teaching online courses occupy an ideal position to prepare students to operate more efficiently and productively in the real world after graduation since remote work and collaboration online is expected to increase markedly as society speeds further along into the 21st century.
Develop Supporting Communications
Beside online syllabi, course modules with seem to be clear directions, etc. students need reminders to keep an asynchronous online general education course in mind, on the rails, and moving forward.
Routine, consistent supporting communications to students from the instructor help to minimize student confusion.
Send reminders on the same day each week for the coming week.
Include headers in all course documents, and email signatures, listing a few ‘how to succeed in this course’ tips.
Share same supporting communication to weekly modules in LMS.
Students benefit from supporting communication that guide them through the activities for a given week during the semester.
When students see supporting communications routinely and predictably, they are more likely to remember and act on it.
Provide Weekly Guidelines
Through supporting communication, provide additional prompts, directions, clarifications, and reminders to students. Let’s call these weekly reminders “guidelines.”.
Emphasize steps students can take to achieve success in the course.
Keep guidelines fairly short and to the point to avoid information overload.
Include the week, your name, course name, and number at top of guidelines as both an advance organizer and to help guidelines standout in students’ email inboxes.
Provide students with concise ‘roadmaps’ in these guidelines making it easy to plan and carry out their coursework each week.
Conclude guidelines with a call to action for students to complete course-related activities, much like a TV or online commercial, or an old fashioned print ad.
Think of weekly guidelines as marketing communications that have a higher purpose than just promotion however.
Share same guidelines at top of weekly online modules in LMS, so students can access them in more than one place.
Include Key Course Policy Reminders
Students will not remember all course policies, and expectations outlined in our syllabi. Some might conveniently “forget.”
Provide gentle reminders from week to week.
Assist students by including important course information as part of the guidelines sent each week.
Remind students of key course policies, expectations, and their responsibilities as members of the course.
One possible segue way might be, “For students who have chosen to remain in this course, the expectation is. . .”
Remind students that we are in a university setting, they are adults, and to avoid letting themselves fall through the cracks.
Invite students to seek help or clarification from the instructor if they or their student learning team need it.
Foster Civil Interaction
We have asked students to make a huge leap into uncharted waters. They are frustrated and possibly fearful.
Many are not used to online learning, self-reflection, thinking on their feet, problem solving, or working cohesively with others.
Many already exhibit an entitled, customer service mindset.
Make expectations for civil interaction clear with a concise statement in online syllabi, modules, and weekly guidelines.
Model civility with polite decorum and kindness to reduce potential problems with disgruntled students.
Be respectful and civil in your synchronous, asynchronous, or email interaction with students. Listen without interrupting.
Avoid terse replies, even to naïve questions!
Use the student’s name in verbal or email replies.
Reduce the potential for unpleasant episodes by opening all email replies with “Thank you for your email,” and conclude them with “Best/Kind Regards. . .”
Be the adult in the room and show patience, patience, patience!
Here are vital teachable moments that allow us to help shape students for collegial and productive working lives following graduation.
Civil interaction is challenging given the various pressures and constraints under which all of us, faculty and students, must operate, but it is an important part of facilitating continued student engagement and success in our online courses.
Remind Students of the Skills They Cultivate
Besides the specific subject matter of the course, remind students in weekly guidelines that they are also cultivating real world expertise.
‘21st century skills, ’ a term used by Christopher J. Dede, John Richards and others in The 60-Year Curriculum: New Models for Lifelong Learning in the Digital Economy (2020), enable a smooth transition into the globalized digital economy after graduation.
Remind students that they are refining relevant skills in:
Deeper (critical) thinking
Collaboration and collegiality
Personal and agency and proactive engagement.
Effective planning and organization
Time management.
Intellectually openness and mental agility.
Learning from mistakes.
Accountability and ownership
Self-Awareness
Attention to detail
Timely and Frequent Communication with Your Team
Creative problem-solving
Development of high quality work
Consistency
On-time delivery of assignments and projects.
Self-regulation
Frequent practice of skills like these during weekly course-related activities better prepares students for long term employability through an anticipated six decades of working life in a rapidly changing world.
Establish Consistent Guideline Format
Below is a possible format for the weekly guidelines I propose:
A recurring header in your weekly that lists easy steps students can take to ensure their own success in course.
Begin with an advance organizer that identifies right away the week, semester, and dates the guidelines are for.
Follow with a friendly greeting and focusing statement in a brief paragraph.
Highlight any due dates in yellow below the greeting below greeting and focusing statement.
Include two-three concise paragraphs that enumerate and outline individual assignments or team projects for the week.
Provide brief directions for how (and when) to ask questions or seek clarification.
Furnish technical assistance contact information for students who experience challenges uploading assignments or team projects.
Remind students gently about the collaborative course design and expectations for students enrolled in the course.
Mention to students of the need to keep course policies and expectations in mind as they complete their work.
Highlight the big picture skills students practice each week besides the specific subject matter of the course, and how those skills are relevant to their lives after graduation.
Finish with a closing salutation that is a bit less formal and includes good wishes for students’ continued safety and well-being.
Conclusion
The approach outlined here has emerged, crystalized, and evolved over two semesters in the interest of ensuring student success in asynchronous online IAH courses.
While these observations are preliminary at this point, most students in the six courses taught during 2020-2021 have met the challenges facing them, completed their individual and collaborative coursework, and met or exceeded rubric expectations.
Anticipated student problems and drama either have not materialized, or have been minimal.
Early impressions suggest that supporting communications like these are helpful to students when it comes to navigating online courses more easily and completing related tasks.
Weekly supporting communications, presented as brief guidelines, might also be useful in the context in synchronous online, hybrid, and hy-flex as well as traditional face-to-face courses when it comes to helping students navigate and complete coursework in less confused, more systematic way.
Future plans include refining the weekly guidelines further and possibly assessing their effectiveness through a small study.
Description of the Poster
Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup
Stokes Schwartz, Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts and Humanities
College of Arts and Letters, Michigan State University
Abstract
The normalization of remote learning during 2020-2021 has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses. Besides worrying about stable internet connections, they must also confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Even with instructor participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs, carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and etc., students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the virtual. Our reduction of course material to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates via Zoom or Teams do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them either in the shift to online learning. But there are a few fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth the rocky road over which students must travel. The tips and suggestions I share in this poster presentation have emerged as part of my own ongoing process to minimize student confusion, frustration, and improve engagement, while simultaneously impart greater agency and opportunity for success to the young adults populating my asynchronous online IAH courses here at MSU during the 2020-2021 academic year.
Background
In mid-March 2020, school pupils, university students, and educators everywhere were thrown into disarray by the mass onset of the Covid-19 virus, related lockdowns, and interruptions to normal student-instructor interactions.
At Michigan State University, we scrambled throughout the summer to prepare for the 2020-2021AY and reconfigure existing courses for online delivery.
Yet reasonably well developed and presented online courses alone have not enough for students to succeed. Even in the face of MSU’s push for empathy and understanding, students have demonstrated that they require additional help making the leap from traditional face-to-face to online learning.
Instructors are well-placed to assist students in an ongoing way as they make this challenging transition.
Without much additional work, we can support and encourage our students with weekly reminders that exhibit kind words, cues, prompts, signposts pointing the way forward, and calls to action.
We can foster improved student engagement, learning, and success despite the challenging, new environment in which we operate.
We can guide students through their many weekly activities with roadmaps to help them navigate course intricacies more easily
We can provide students with ample opportunity for new ways of learning, thinking, knowing, and the acquisition of 21st century skills.
In short, faculty teaching online courses occupy an ideal position to prepare students to operate more efficiently and productively in the real world after graduation since remote work and collaboration online is expected to increase markedly as society speeds further along into the 21st century.
Develop Supporting Communications
Beside online syllabi, course modules with seem to be clear directions, etc. students need reminders to keep an asynchronous online general education course in mind, on the rails, and moving forward.
Routine, consistent supporting communications to students from the instructor help to minimize student confusion.
Send reminders on the same day each week for the coming week.
Include headers in all course documents, and email signatures, listing a few ‘how to succeed in this course’ tips.
Share same supporting communication to weekly modules in LMS.
Students benefit from supporting communication that guide them through the activities for a given week during the semester.
When students see supporting communications routinely and predictably, they are more likely to remember and act on it.
Provide Weekly Guidelines
Through supporting communication, provide additional prompts, directions, clarifications, and reminders to students. Let’s call these weekly reminders “guidelines.”.
Emphasize steps students can take to achieve success in the course.
Keep guidelines fairly short and to the point to avoid information overload.
Include the week, your name, course name, and number at top of guidelines as both an advance organizer and to help guidelines standout in students’ email inboxes.
Provide students with concise ‘roadmaps’ in these guidelines making it easy to plan and carry out their coursework each week.
Conclude guidelines with a call to action for students to complete course-related activities, much like a TV or online commercial, or an old fashioned print ad.
Think of weekly guidelines as marketing communications that have a higher purpose than just promotion however.
Share same guidelines at top of weekly online modules in LMS, so students can access them in more than one place.
Include Key Course Policy Reminders
Students will not remember all course policies, and expectations outlined in our syllabi. Some might conveniently “forget.”
Provide gentle reminders from week to week.
Assist students by including important course information as part of the guidelines sent each week.
Remind students of key course policies, expectations, and their responsibilities as members of the course.
One possible segue way might be, “For students who have chosen to remain in this course, the expectation is. . .”
Remind students that we are in a university setting, they are adults, and to avoid letting themselves fall through the cracks.
Invite students to seek help or clarification from the instructor if they or their student learning team need it.
Foster Civil Interaction
We have asked students to make a huge leap into uncharted waters. They are frustrated and possibly fearful.
Many are not used to online learning, self-reflection, thinking on their feet, problem solving, or working cohesively with others.
Many already exhibit an entitled, customer service mindset.
Make expectations for civil interaction clear with a concise statement in online syllabi, modules, and weekly guidelines.
Model civility with polite decorum and kindness to reduce potential problems with disgruntled students.
Be respectful and civil in your synchronous, asynchronous, or email interaction with students. Listen without interrupting.
Avoid terse replies, even to naïve questions!
Use the student’s name in verbal or email replies.
Reduce the potential for unpleasant episodes by opening all email replies with “Thank you for your email,” and conclude them with “Best/Kind Regards. . .”
Be the adult in the room and show patience, patience, patience!
Here are vital teachable moments that allow us to help shape students for collegial and productive working lives following graduation.
Civil interaction is challenging given the various pressures and constraints under which all of us, faculty and students, must operate, but it is an important part of facilitating continued student engagement and success in our online courses.
Remind Students of the Skills They Cultivate
Besides the specific subject matter of the course, remind students in weekly guidelines that they are also cultivating real world expertise.
‘21st century skills, ’ a term used by Christopher J. Dede, John Richards and others in The 60-Year Curriculum: New Models for Lifelong Learning in the Digital Economy (2020), enable a smooth transition into the globalized digital economy after graduation.
Remind students that they are refining relevant skills in:
Deeper (critical) thinking
Collaboration and collegiality
Personal and agency and proactive engagement.
Effective planning and organization
Time management.
Intellectually openness and mental agility.
Learning from mistakes.
Accountability and ownership
Self-Awareness
Attention to detail
Timely and Frequent Communication with Your Team
Creative problem-solving
Development of high quality work
Consistency
On-time delivery of assignments and projects.
Self-regulation
Frequent practice of skills like these during weekly course-related activities better prepares students for long term employability through an anticipated six decades of working life in a rapidly changing world.
Establish Consistent Guideline Format
Below is a possible format for the weekly guidelines I propose:
A recurring header in your weekly that lists easy steps students can take to ensure their own success in course.
Begin with an advance organizer that identifies right away the week, semester, and dates the guidelines are for.
Follow with a friendly greeting and focusing statement in a brief paragraph.
Highlight any due dates in yellow below the greeting below greeting and focusing statement.
Include two-three concise paragraphs that enumerate and outline individual assignments or team projects for the week.
Provide brief directions for how (and when) to ask questions or seek clarification.
Furnish technical assistance contact information for students who experience challenges uploading assignments or team projects.
Remind students gently about the collaborative course design and expectations for students enrolled in the course.
Mention to students of the need to keep course policies and expectations in mind as they complete their work.
Highlight the big picture skills students practice each week besides the specific subject matter of the course, and how those skills are relevant to their lives after graduation.
Finish with a closing salutation that is a bit less formal and includes good wishes for students’ continued safety and well-being.
Conclusion
The approach outlined here has emerged, crystalized, and evolved over two semesters in the interest of ensuring student success in asynchronous online IAH courses.
While these observations are preliminary at this point, most students in the six courses taught during 2020-2021 have met the challenges facing them, completed their individual and collaborative coursework, and met or exceeded rubric expectations.
Anticipated student problems and drama either have not materialized, or have been minimal.
Early impressions suggest that supporting communications like these are helpful to students when it comes to navigating online courses more easily and completing related tasks.
Weekly supporting communications, presented as brief guidelines, might also be useful in the context in synchronous online, hybrid, and hy-flex as well as traditional face-to-face courses when it comes to helping students navigate and complete coursework in less confused, more systematic way.
Future plans include refining the weekly guidelines further and possibly assessing their effectiveness through a small study.
Authored by: Stokes Schwartz
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Building Online Chinese Learning Community Inside and Outside the Classroom
Topic Area: Pandemic Pivot
Presented By: Xuefei Hao
Abstract:
During the pandemic, students have been facing many challenges including but not limited to health, financial, academic, and emotional issues, which often results in poor attitudes, low motivation, and corresponding weak grades. In this presentation, I will discuss several efficient ways to stimulate students’ language interest and increase their engagement and motivation based on my Chinese language courses’ practices from March 2020 to 2021 spring semester. Through building a Chinese learning community inside and outside the classroom, students can use the target language in practical communication and feel connected and supported.
Presented By: Xuefei Hao
Abstract:
During the pandemic, students have been facing many challenges including but not limited to health, financial, academic, and emotional issues, which often results in poor attitudes, low motivation, and corresponding weak grades. In this presentation, I will discuss several efficient ways to stimulate students’ language interest and increase their engagement and motivation based on my Chinese language courses’ practices from March 2020 to 2021 spring semester. Through building a Chinese learning community inside and outside the classroom, students can use the target language in practical communication and feel connected and supported.
Authored by: Xuefei Hao
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: MSU Online & Remote...
Intentionally Creating an Inclusive and Welcoming Climate in Online Learning Classroom
Thanks to Philip Strong, who is an assistant dean in Lyman Briggs College (overseeing undergraduate academics, student affairs, and student support) as well as the leader of the East Neighborhood Engagement Center, which is the hub for the pilot of MSU’s Neighborhoods initiative, for sharing this resource from Sarah Marshall and her collaborators at Central Michigan University.
Authored by: J.P. Humiston, S. M. Marshall, N. L. Hacker, L. M. Cantu
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
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.
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: MSU Academic Advising
Free Online Courses
Explore a list of FREE online courses on a range of topics below:American Sign Language I – Oklahoma School for the DeafAmerican Sign Language II – Oklahoma School for the DeafIntroduction to Computer Science and Programming Using Python – MITxMachine Learning with Python: From Linear Models to Deep Learning – MITxSupply Chain Analytics – MITxUnderstanding the World Through Data – MITxBecoming an Entrepreneur - MITXFoundations of Modern Finance I - MITxIntroduction to Biology: The Secret to Life - MITxProbability: The Science of Uncertainty and Data - MITx
Posted by: Katie Peterson
Disciplinary Content
Posted on: Online & Hybrid Lea...
Please join us for the next meeting of the Online Faculty Learning Community.
Tuesday, December 10 from 9-11 a.m.
East Fee Hall - Patenge Room (C-102)
Thomas Jeitschko, Dean of MSU Graduate School will be with us to discuss the future of online learning at MSU.
Tuesday, December 10 from 9-11 a.m.
East Fee Hall - Patenge Room (C-102)
Thomas Jeitschko, Dean of MSU Graduate School will be with us to discuss the future of online learning at MSU.
Posted by: Gerald S Rhead
Posted on: #iteachmsu
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.
Registration instructions: https://iteach.msu.edu/iteachmsu/groups/iteachmsu/stories/1557
Sponsored by MSU IT and MSU Hub.
Posted by: Brendan Guenther
Posted on: #iteachmsu
How to Build an Online Learning Community (In 2020) https://www.learnworlds.com/build-online-learning-community/ via @learnworlds
Posted by: Rashad Muhammad
Posted on: Online & Hybrid Lea...
Welcome Packet for online/hybrid graduate students has been added to the Graduate School Admissions site. https://grad.msu.edu/admissions
Posted by: Alicia Jenner
Navigating Context
Posted on: Online & Hybrid Lea...
UPDATE: Free Access has been extended to 12/31/20!!
MSU is leveraging our Coursera Partnership and their offer to provide free access to nearly 4,000 online learning experiences during the Coronavirus pandemic. Any MSU faculty, staff or student is eligible; however, you must have a msu.edu email and use this email when signing up for the program. You can access and sign up on the Coursera-4-Campus platform by using the URL below: https://www.coursera.org/programs/michigan-state-university-on-coursera-207nw Please note the following when signing up: You must sign up with your msu.edu e-mail Please follow the prompts and complete the corresponding information requested in order to gain access. Free access is available through 12/31/20. If you intend to complete courses and earn the corresponding credentials, you must meet all course requirements and secure your credential by 12/31/20.
MSU is leveraging our Coursera Partnership and their offer to provide free access to nearly 4,000 online learning experiences during the Coronavirus pandemic. Any MSU faculty, staff or student is eligible; however, you must have a msu.edu email and use this email when signing up for the program. You can access and sign up on the Coursera-4-Campus platform by using the URL below: https://www.coursera.org/programs/michigan-state-university-on-coursera-207nw Please note the following when signing up: You must sign up with your msu.edu e-mail Please follow the prompts and complete the corresponding information requested in order to gain access. Free access is available through 12/31/20. If you intend to complete courses and earn the corresponding credentials, you must meet all course requirements and secure your credential by 12/31/20.
Posted by: Gerald S Rhead
Posted on: #iteachmsu
After attending a learning community yesterday afternoon (and looking at MSU's online guidelines) on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I took a stab at putting together a two-minute Doodly video on the subject but pitched to the students in my courses. I've embedded it within the Week Six module of each course since part of student teamwork next week will be assessing their team dynamic, habits, and processes in the completion of Project #1, which teams are turning in on Friday, October 1st. Invariably, there will be a few teams who had interpersonal and/or work habit problems due to procrastination, poor planning, or weak organization. I've tried to use very basic DEI guidelines/definitions as a way to help teams think about their approach and improve collaboration for the latter 2/3 of the semester. See what you think. I hope I am not missing the point somehow. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDX61xCHN74
Posted by: Stokes Schwartz
Pedagogical Design
Host: MSU Libraries
3D Terrain Elevation Models for 3D Printing (Online)
Learn how to produce a 3D model of terrain elevation for printing on a 3D printer. We will learn about 3D models for 3D printing, digital elevation models (DEMs), where to find DEM data to create our printable export, and then use a plug in DEMto3D in the open source software QGIS to create a model. If time allows, basic tools for 3D model editing in Meshmixer or slicing software will be demonstrated.
Navigating Context
Host: MSU Libraries
Learn QGIS: Making a color shaded map in QGIS (Online)
Learn the basics of QGIS, the free open-source geospatial software—this workshop will demonstrate how to make a choropleth (color shaded) map and place graduated symbols representing data on it, load shape-files and .csv table files into QGIS, join data to spatial information and edit features. No experience with QGIS or Geographic Information Systems is required.
Navigating Context
Host: MSU Libraries
Zotero Workshop (Online)
An introduction to the free open source citation management program Zotero. In this workshop, participants will learn how to:
Download references from MSU's article databases and websites
Format citations and bibliographies in a Word document
Create groups and share references with other users
Registration for this event is required.
You will receive a link to join a Zoom meeting before the workshop. Please install the Zotero software and Zotero browser connector on your computer before the session begins. More information is available from https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/zotero/setup.
Questions or need more information? Contact the MSU Libraries Zotero training team at lib.dl.zotero@msu.edu.
To schedule a separate session for your class or research group, please contact the Zotero team at lib.dl.zotero@msu.edu.
Navigating Context