Category: active learning

Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus
A group of 38 nurses, seven Lego building block kits, and 45 minutes was all our nursing professional development team needed to improve staff communication and patient safety. Game-based learning (GBL) via Lego® building is a well-received training modality with a review of literature showing the potential to increase teamwork, communication, and comprehension (Warburton et al., 2022).

Lego® Serious Play®, a specific form of GBL, is a “facilitated, communication and problem-solving teaching technique using Lego® building blocks to use the concept of ‘hand knowledge’ to teach cognitive concepts” (Lego®, 2025). GBL is a frequent training modality our nurse education department uses for the quarterly skills day. Our quarterly skills days are training days dedicated to vital training requirements. We have used escape rooms, team Jeopardy, and role-plays, but our staff asked for something different. Our team held a brainstorming session, during which we decided to utilize Legos® to teach triage and communication skills.

The Idea for Lego® GBL

The idea for Lego® GBL in our facility was based on a critical incident tabletop exercise attended by nursing residents. Our nurse residents needed to complete and experience a mass casualty incident triage, but we were unable to involve them in the actual training exercise. I considered recreating the critical incident using a Lego® hospital and emergency department model. We used Lego® minifigures as our key players and victims: we had an ambulance, a stretcher, and an overturned truck.

The use of Lego® GBL learning addresses key elements of communication required for highly functioning teams.
- Staff Engagement. The training energized the staff, prompting them to run the scenario multiple times.
- Team Effort. The physical nature of the building blocks fosters a strong working environment that revolves around a shared mental model.
- Critical thinking. The team makes key decisions on triage using limited information, following the triage guidelines, and relying on clear communication.
Lego® GBL and Communication Training

Our team was seeking an innovative approach to teaching communication skills beyond a traditional code team exercise. I instantly thought back to how successful the Lego® critical incident tabletop exercise went and told the team we should consider using this for all our learners.

I then conducted research and found three articles outlining how to create an educational exercise and its proven efficacy (Bethel et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023; Warburton et al., 2022). We began our design by creating a timed building scenario that involved 13 bricks and eight distractor bricks, which are not required to complete the build. We then decided we wanted to have three distinct roles in our building team:
- Staff Nurse or Builder. This person was the only person who could see the build and touch the Lego® building blocks. The builder was behind a blinder and could not see the written instructions from their team members. The builder can only create the build based on verbal instructions from the runner.
- Relief Nurse or Runner: This person was responsible for verbal communication between the staff and charge nurses. They could not see the build instructions or the build itself, and they could not physically interact with the Lego® build.
- Charge Nurse or Diagram Holder: This person was responsible for being the only person who could see the build instructions. They passed on the verbal instructions to the runner. The charge nurse was behind a blind and cannot leave their workstation.
Projected Outcomes of Training

In developing this opportunity, I initially thought of what our outcomes would be. First, I wanted the learners to be engaged and to have data to support the need for future training. Second, I wanted the teams to verbalize that they improved communication in their teams. Third, I aimed to teach the principles of High Reliability Organization (HRO) communication to enhance patient safety. Finally, I briefly touched on the importance of rapid process improvement and the use of standardization documents (Standard Work and Standard Operating Procedures) to make work more consistent and safe.

Build Time: Everything is Awesome!

Our team facilitated the training, consisting of seven skills days, with an average of 15-24 participants per group. We introduced the guidelines for the activity and divided the teams into three groups. After the initial build, we conducted debriefings and reviewed the builds. All the builds were within 50% accuracy of the template, and no team finished before the five-minute time limit.

Next, I provided a brief 15-minute learning on (1) communication theory, (2) running a rapid process improvement, and (3) teamwork building. The teams had five minutes to do a team huddle. The purpose of the team huddle is to communicate a shared mental model of a task to ensure all members of the team have understanding. They identified that they wanted to make changes: (1) removing the blinders, (2) providing all team members with the build instructions, and (3) allowing all team members to touch the Legos®. The team employed more effective communication techniques during the second build. All teams utilized the 3 Cs of high-quality communication (clear, concise, and complete). Most teams finished within two minutes, with all teams achieving 100% accuracy with the template model.

Next Steps in Facility Lego® GBL

I plan to present this project to our nursing evidence-based council for further review and consideration. In the meantime, five additional units have requested this training by word-of-mouth advertising. In response to these requests, I have revised the instructions so that I could train other facilitators to run a 45-minute session. Our HRO and quality staff have expressed interest in formalizing this as part of our Pathway to Excellence drive.

Conclusion

Educators can use block learning as a tactile approach for learners to witness the outcomes of their “soft skills” training, which focuses on communication and teamwork. Lego® GBL provides a fun, engaging, and novel way for healthcare workers to experience competency training. Lego® GBL and Lego® Serious Play® offer ways for teams to interact in a manner that reduces stress by removing the high stakes of traditional simulation-based education.

Michael Brakel, RN-BC, is a Registered Nurse (RN) serving with the Veterans Affairs-Northern California Health Care System (VA-NCHCS) as a Nurse Educator. He has worked with the VA-NCHCS in various capacities, including Utilization Management RN, Utilization Review RN, Community Care RN, Affiliate Professor, and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) RN Care Coordinator. Additionally, he has worked as a Nurse Consultant with the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), serving as a hotline team member and team lead. Mr. Brakel holds advanced degrees in management and psychology. He graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in nursing. Mike is certified in Managed Care Nursing, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing, Nursing Professional Development, and Nursing Case Management. He holds certifications as a Certified Professional of Patient Safety and a Certified Professional in Healthcare Quality in addition to his nursing credentials. Resilience, compassion fatigue, nurse retention, and the application of measurement-based screening in mental health care are his main research topics. Before coming to the VA, Mr. Brakel retired after 25 years in the United States Air Force Nursing Corps, specializing in Behavioral Health. Mike served as a nurse, charge nurse, and education specialist serving on inpatient units at Travis Air Force Base, California, and the San Antonio Military Medical Center. His last roles in the Air Force were serving as the Air Force lead Mental Health Nursing Educator and as the Deputy to the Air Force Consultant to the Surgeon General for Mental Health Nursing.

Dr. Julia VanderMolen is a Professor for the Public Health program at Grand Valley State University and a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor with the University of the Pacific, School of Health Sciences. Her research examines the benefits of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities in public health. She serves as a board member of the Disability Advocates of Kent County and is an active member of the Disability Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Her current research focuses on exploring the health and medical services available to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

References

Bethel, E. C., Marchetti, K. A., Hecklinski, T. M., Daignault-Newton, M. S., Kraft, K. H., Hamilton, B. D., Faerber, G. J., & Ambani, S. N. (2021). The LEGO™ exercise: An assessment of core competencies in urology residency interviews. Journal of Surgical Education, 78(6), 2063-2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.011

Lambert, N. J., Luo, X., & Ola, A. (2023). Knowing me, knowing you: Self-reflection and understanding diversity for effective teamwork Lego® building activity. Management Teaching Review, 10(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981231190589

Warburton, T., Brown, J., & Sandars, J. (2022). The use of Lego® Serious Play® within nurse education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 188(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105528
Source link
November 24, 2025
Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus
A group of 38 nurses, seven Lego building block kits, and 45 minutes was all our nursing professional development team needed to improve staff communication and patient safety. Game-based learning (GBL) via Lego® building is a well-received training modality with a review of literature showing the potential to increase teamwork, communication, and comprehension (Warburton et al., 2022).

Lego® Serious Play®, a specific form of GBL, is a “facilitated, communication and problem-solving teaching technique using Lego® building blocks to use the concept of ‘hand knowledge’ to teach cognitive concepts” (Lego®, 2025). GBL is a frequent training modality our nurse education department uses for the quarterly skills day. Our quarterly skills days are training days dedicated to vital training requirements. We have used escape rooms, team Jeopardy, and role-plays, but our staff asked for something different. Our team held a brainstorming session, during which we decided to utilize Legos® to teach triage and communication skills.

The Idea for Lego® GBL

The idea for Lego® GBL in our facility was based on a critical incident tabletop exercise attended by nursing residents. Our nurse residents needed to complete and experience a mass casualty incident triage, but we were unable to involve them in the actual training exercise. I considered recreating the critical incident using a Lego® hospital and emergency department model. We used Lego® minifigures as our key players and victims: we had an ambulance, a stretcher, and an overturned truck.

The use of Lego® GBL learning addresses key elements of communication required for highly functioning teams.
- Staff Engagement. The training energized the staff, prompting them to run the scenario multiple times.
- Team Effort. The physical nature of the building blocks fosters a strong working environment that revolves around a shared mental model.
- Critical thinking. The team makes key decisions on triage using limited information, following the triage guidelines, and relying on clear communication.
Lego® GBL and Communication Training

Our team was seeking an innovative approach to teaching communication skills beyond a traditional code team exercise. I instantly thought back to how successful the Lego® critical incident tabletop exercise went and told the team we should consider using this for all our learners.

I then conducted research and found three articles outlining how to create an educational exercise and its proven efficacy (Bethel et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023; Warburton et al., 2022). We began our design by creating a timed building scenario that involved 13 bricks and eight distractor bricks, which are not required to complete the build. We then decided we wanted to have three distinct roles in our building team:
- Staff Nurse or Builder. This person was the only person who could see the build and touch the Lego® building blocks. The builder was behind a blinder and could not see the written instructions from their team members. The builder can only create the build based on verbal instructions from the runner.
- Relief Nurse or Runner: This person was responsible for verbal communication between the staff and charge nurses. They could not see the build instructions or the build itself, and they could not physically interact with the Lego® build.
- Charge Nurse or Diagram Holder: This person was responsible for being the only person who could see the build instructions. They passed on the verbal instructions to the runner. The charge nurse was behind a blind and cannot leave their workstation.
Projected Outcomes of Training

In developing this opportunity, I initially thought of what our outcomes would be. First, I wanted the learners to be engaged and to have data to support the need for future training. Second, I wanted the teams to verbalize that they improved communication in their teams. Third, I aimed to teach the principles of High Reliability Organization (HRO) communication to enhance patient safety. Finally, I briefly touched on the importance of rapid process improvement and the use of standardization documents (Standard Work and Standard Operating Procedures) to make work more consistent and safe.

Build Time: Everything is Awesome!

Our team facilitated the training, consisting of seven skills days, with an average of 15-24 participants per group. We introduced the guidelines for the activity and divided the teams into three groups. After the initial build, we conducted debriefings and reviewed the builds. All the builds were within 50% accuracy of the template, and no team finished before the five-minute time limit.

Next, I provided a brief 15-minute learning on (1) communication theory, (2) running a rapid process improvement, and (3) teamwork building. The teams had five minutes to do a team huddle. The purpose of the team huddle is to communicate a shared mental model of a task to ensure all members of the team have understanding. They identified that they wanted to make changes: (1) removing the blinders, (2) providing all team members with the build instructions, and (3) allowing all team members to touch the Legos®. The team employed more effective communication techniques during the second build. All teams utilized the 3 Cs of high-quality communication (clear, concise, and complete). Most teams finished within two minutes, with all teams achieving 100% accuracy with the template model.

Next Steps in Facility Lego® GBL

I plan to present this project to our nursing evidence-based council for further review and consideration. In the meantime, five additional units have requested this training by word-of-mouth advertising. In response to these requests, I have revised the instructions so that I could train other facilitators to run a 45-minute session. Our HRO and quality staff have expressed interest in formalizing this as part of our Pathway to Excellence drive.

Conclusion

Educators can use block learning as a tactile approach for learners to witness the outcomes of their “soft skills” training, which focuses on communication and teamwork. Lego® GBL provides a fun, engaging, and novel way for healthcare workers to experience competency training. Lego® GBL and Lego® Serious Play® offer ways for teams to interact in a manner that reduces stress by removing the high stakes of traditional simulation-based education.

Michael Brakel, RN-BC, is a Registered Nurse (RN) serving with the Veterans Affairs-Northern California Health Care System (VA-NCHCS) as a Nurse Educator. He has worked with the VA-NCHCS in various capacities, including Utilization Management RN, Utilization Review RN, Community Care RN, Affiliate Professor, and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) RN Care Coordinator. Additionally, he has worked as a Nurse Consultant with the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), serving as a hotline team member and team lead. Mr. Brakel holds advanced degrees in management and psychology. He graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in nursing. Mike is certified in Managed Care Nursing, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing, Nursing Professional Development, and Nursing Case Management. He holds certifications as a Certified Professional of Patient Safety and a Certified Professional in Healthcare Quality in addition to his nursing credentials. Resilience, compassion fatigue, nurse retention, and the application of measurement-based screening in mental health care are his main research topics. Before coming to the VA, Mr. Brakel retired after 25 years in the United States Air Force Nursing Corps, specializing in Behavioral Health. Mike served as a nurse, charge nurse, and education specialist serving on inpatient units at Travis Air Force Base, California, and the San Antonio Military Medical Center. His last roles in the Air Force were serving as the Air Force lead Mental Health Nursing Educator and as the Deputy to the Air Force Consultant to the Surgeon General for Mental Health Nursing.

Dr. Julia VanderMolen is a Professor for the Public Health program at Grand Valley State University and a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor with the University of the Pacific, School of Health Sciences. Her research examines the benefits of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities in public health. She serves as a board member of the Disability Advocates of Kent County and is an active member of the Disability Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Her current research focuses on exploring the health and medical services available to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

References

Bethel, E. C., Marchetti, K. A., Hecklinski, T. M., Daignault-Newton, M. S., Kraft, K. H., Hamilton, B. D., Faerber, G. J., & Ambani, S. N. (2021). The LEGO™ exercise: An assessment of core competencies in urology residency interviews. Journal of Surgical Education, 78(6), 2063-2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.011

Lambert, N. J., Luo, X., & Ola, A. (2023). Knowing me, knowing you: Self-reflection and understanding diversity for effective teamwork Lego® building activity. Management Teaching Review, 10(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981231190589

Warburton, T., Brown, J., & Sandars, J. (2022). The use of Lego® Serious Play® within nurse education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 188(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105528
Source link
November 24, 2025
6 Effective Ways to Build Attention and Boost Student Participation – Faculty Focus
Any educator can attest to the mounting challenge of maintaining student attention in the classroom. Students’ exposure to digital media from a very young age has both diminished their capacity to pay attention and led them to crave interactions with devices during times when their use is not essential.

Yet, engagement matters. Students’ capacity to participate in activities and “be present” serves as a powerful indicator of how they will fare in engagement with people and academics. Here are a few ways to foster that engagement, despite the challenges:
Source link
November 19, 2025
The AI Teammate: Three Roles to Build Student AI Fluency – Faculty Focus
AI is now embedded in teaching and learning. As educators, how do we help students benefit from AI without slipping into dependency, surface-level work, or ethical misconduct? I’ve found a helpful way to clarify conversations with students (and with myself) by thinking of AI as a teammate (or teammates) with clearly defined roles: the Tasker, the Draftsmith, and the Facilitator.

Imagine a meeting of a team of people: someone handles logistics, someone sketches ideas, someone pushes discussion. Framing AI this way has made it easier to talk about students remaining responsible for how and to what purposes they use AI. My approach draws on recent scholarship about AI reshaping how teams work (Dell’Acqua et al., 2025).

The AI Teammates

The Tasker

The Tasker deals with repetitive or procedural work such as managing our calendars, formatting citations, or cleaning datasets. These tasks often are tedious but essential and using AI frees time that can be focused on deeper thinking. To use a Tasker, we can set up a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with AI, use embedded AI tools such as Copilot in MS:Word or Claude in MS:Excel or Google sheets, or create what is currently referred to as an LLM “Agent.” As Farri & Rosani (2025) describe in their HBR guide to generative AI for managers, we can use AI to lighten the load on procedural chores, affording us the time and energy to engage more with deeper thinking and learning.

Because AI output may contain mistakes, students must learn to identify the levels of risks they believe are acceptable for the given task before turning to AI and must validate its output. The level of validation required may depend on the risk level, needed accuracy and quality, and current knowledge of the tool’s metrics.

We approach the Tasker differently than we do the Draftsmith and Facilitator: we can set our RPA or Agent up to run and only involve ourselves in its applications until we’re sure it can work independently and accurately, or we can trigger the Tasker each time we need it. Students must learn to set aside sufficient validation time before designing a Tasker.

The Draftsmith

The Draftsmith can spot passive voice in students’ writing and explain why it’s problematic, convert an outline into a draft of a PowerPoint, and produce study tools such as multiple choice or essay questions, podcasts, and videos from their course notes. My engineering students have prompted their Draftsmiths using a prompt library I created specifically for them to help them convert their design clients’ stated needs into project requirements. Bussgang (2025) has pointed out how small steps like these can dramatically boost productivity without sacrificing learning.

While AI may generate text or ideas, the final product must be the student’s own (Duffy, 2025). I teach my students that, much to their dismay, they must develop their own writers’ voice before using AI and that this process can take years and many writing efforts! Our writer’s voice presents us to our bosses, colleagues, and clients given that much of our communication at work is through emails. College is the best time to invest in this effort because it’s rare to get opportunities later to do so.

From students’ comments, I believe they use AI in the Draftsmith role more frequently than the other two roles. Few realize the Draftsmith increases cognitive load when they use it correctly and decreases their learning when they use it incorrectly!

It increases the load because they must provide the AI with significant context for it to provide anything other than banal, common prose that flattens their own voice (Purohit, 2025) or “creative” prose that is meaningless. AI use decreases their learning when they use it to write first and second drafts because writing sharpens our thinking and embeds learned concepts into our long-term memory.

The Facilitator

Instead of using AI to generate content (the Draftsmith), the Facilitator is a use of AI as a thinking partner (Solis, 2024 and HBSP’s ManageMentor course 2025). A student might ask AI to play devil’s advocate, suggest counterarguments, or pose probing questions when their paper’s argument needs strengthening. AI might help simulate a stakeholder’s perspective with whom the student role plays to prepare for a meeting or consider how their ideas might land with their student group peers. My students have used AI in the Facilitator role to pressure test their design ideas, review their research plans, and prepare to give presentations. When students use the Facilitator, they’re reflecting (Harbridge, 2025) and thereby deepening their learning.

To get the best value from AI as a Facilitator, the student must approach it with the expectation that it will take considerable time. The Facilitator provides meaningful interaction only when the student gives it their full attention, asks probing questions, provides significant context, and is patient. They may need to iterate, restating their prompts or providing more information, and to ask the LLM to be candid and critical. They may need to step away from the LLM, perhaps try a different one or come back on another day, when it goes off in the wrong direction.

We have become too used to scanning an LLM’s output. Just as I would not expect a student who came to me for career advice to start scrolling on their phone while I’m talking, I must teach them to give their full attention to the Facilitator.

What I’m suggesting here is not a list of use cases. Instead, I’m providing students with an approach to using AI where they plan before typing into the chat box, see its best use as a Facilitator that partners with them in learning and development, and recognize that validation and reading output will be time and cognitively intensive.

What This Means for Teaching

I’ve found that when I teach these roles to students before assigning homework, they make better choices regarding when and how to use AI. Here are some tactics I’ve tried that have netted positive results:
- Design assignments that invite different roles. For example, ask students to begin with AI as a Tasker (perhaps organizing sources or cleaning a dataset), then shift to using the Draftsmith to help them find passive voice or other syntax issues in a paper, and finally draw on the Facilitator to find the holes in their arguments before submitting a final paper. Intentionally stating the role each assignment calls for and requiring them to state when they’re using the Tasker, Draftsmith, or Facilitator solidifies their understanding that their approach to AI differs by role.
- Be clear about where AI helps and where it doesn’t. AI can help with structure, suggestions, and ideation, but it cannot replace revision, critical thinking, or the development of one’s own voice. This must be intentionally taught by including questions requiring students to reflect on what worked and where the AI led them astray in any assignments allowing AI use.
- Encourage disclosure. I talk extensively about “Total AI Transparency”, ensuring students that I will note any use of AI in my communications with them and I expect the same from them. Trust has broken down as both students and instructors believe the other is using AI when they’re not and failing to recognize when they are. Owning up to my own use and being clear on why I used AI for that task encourages students to do the same.
Closing Thoughts

We need to steer students away from extremes of either refusing to use AI at all or letting it rob them of learning. By distinguishing the roles of Tasker, Draftsmith, and Facilitator, we clarify our expectations of students. More importantly, we help them become more deliberate in their approach, preparing them to be AI-fluent.

Illysa Izenberg is an Associate Teaching Professor for the Center for Leadership Education in the Whiting School of Engineering at The Johns Hopkins University. She has been teaching management and business ethics to graduate and undergraduate students via Face-to-Face, online, and blended courses since 2006. Izenberg earned her MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business and is the winner of both the Alumni and Pond Excellence in Teaching Awards (2016 and 2020 respectively).

References

Bussgang, J. (2025, May 20). 3 small steps to 10x your productivity with AI this week. The Experimentation Machine. https://experimentationmachine.com/p/10x-this-week

Duffy, A. (2025, April 11). Your CEO just said ‘Use AI or else.’ Here’s what to do next. Every. https://every.to/p/your-ceo-just-said-use-ai-or-else-here-s-what-to-do-next

Farri, E., & Rosani, G. (2025). HBR guide to generative AI for managers. Harvard Business Review Press.

Gross, A. (2025). AI Crash Course [Online course]. SectionAI. https://www.sectionschool.com/courses/ai-crash-course-workshop

Harbridge, R. (2025). AI for Team Leaders [Online course]. SectionAI.

Harvard Business Publishing. (2025). Help your team harness generative AI (Lesson 1). In Leading with generative AI [Online course]. Harvard ManageMentor.

Purohit, R. (Host). (2025, June 18). The man inside the minds of the people building AGI [Audio podcast episode]. In AI & I. Every.

Solis, B. (2024, November). Train your brain to work creatively with Gen AI. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Source link
November 17, 2025
The AI Teammate: Three Roles to Build Student AI Fluency – Faculty Focus
AI is now embedded in teaching and learning. As educators, how do we help students benefit from AI without slipping into dependency, surface-level work, or ethical misconduct? I’ve found a helpful way to clarify conversations with students (and with myself) by thinking of AI as a teammate (or teammates) with clearly defined roles: the Tasker, the Draftsmith, and the Facilitator.

Imagine a meeting of a team of people: someone handles logistics, someone sketches ideas, someone pushes discussion. Framing AI this way has made it easier to talk about students remaining responsible for how and to what purposes they use AI. My approach draws on recent scholarship about AI reshaping how teams work (Dell’Acqua et al., 2025).

The AI Teammates

The Tasker

The Tasker deals with repetitive or procedural work such as managing our calendars, formatting citations, or cleaning datasets. These tasks often are tedious but essential and using AI frees time that can be focused on deeper thinking. To use a Tasker, we can set up a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with AI, use embedded AI tools such as Copilot in MS:Word or Claude in MS:Excel or Google sheets, or create what is currently referred to as an LLM “Agent.” As Farri & Rosani (2025) describe in their HBR guide to generative AI for managers, we can use AI to lighten the load on procedural chores, affording us the time and energy to engage more with deeper thinking and learning.

Because AI output may contain mistakes, students must learn to identify the levels of risks they believe are acceptable for the given task before turning to AI and must validate its output. The level of validation required may depend on the risk level, needed accuracy and quality, and current knowledge of the tool’s metrics.

We approach the Tasker differently than we do the Draftsmith and Facilitator: we can set our RPA or Agent up to run and only involve ourselves in its applications until we’re sure it can work independently and accurately, or we can trigger the Tasker each time we need it. Students must learn to set aside sufficient validation time before designing a Tasker.

The Draftsmith

The Draftsmith can spot passive voice in students’ writing and explain why it’s problematic, convert an outline into a draft of a PowerPoint, and produce study tools such as multiple choice or essay questions, podcasts, and videos from their course notes. My engineering students have prompted their Draftsmiths using a prompt library I created specifically for them to help them convert their design clients’ stated needs into project requirements. Bussgang (2025) has pointed out how small steps like these can dramatically boost productivity without sacrificing learning.

While AI may generate text or ideas, the final product must be the student’s own (Duffy, 2025). I teach my students that, much to their dismay, they must develop their own writers’ voice before using AI and that this process can take years and many writing efforts! Our writer’s voice presents us to our bosses, colleagues, and clients given that much of our communication at work is through emails. College is the best time to invest in this effort because it’s rare to get opportunities later to do so.

From students’ comments, I believe they use AI in the Draftsmith role more frequently than the other two roles. Few realize the Draftsmith increases cognitive load when they use it correctly and decreases their learning when they use it incorrectly!

It increases the load because they must provide the AI with significant context for it to provide anything other than banal, common prose that flattens their own voice (Purohit, 2025) or “creative” prose that is meaningless. AI use decreases their learning when they use it to write first and second drafts because writing sharpens our thinking and embeds learned concepts into our long-term memory.

The Facilitator

Instead of using AI to generate content (the Draftsmith), the Facilitator is a use of AI as a thinking partner (Solis, 2024 and HBSP’s ManageMentor course 2025). A student might ask AI to play devil’s advocate, suggest counterarguments, or pose probing questions when their paper’s argument needs strengthening. AI might help simulate a stakeholder’s perspective with whom the student role plays to prepare for a meeting or consider how their ideas might land with their student group peers. My students have used AI in the Facilitator role to pressure test their design ideas, review their research plans, and prepare to give presentations. When students use the Facilitator, they’re reflecting (Harbridge, 2025) and thereby deepening their learning.

To get the best value from AI as a Facilitator, the student must approach it with the expectation that it will take considerable time. The Facilitator provides meaningful interaction only when the student gives it their full attention, asks probing questions, provides significant context, and is patient. They may need to iterate, restating their prompts or providing more information, and to ask the LLM to be candid and critical. They may need to step away from the LLM, perhaps try a different one or come back on another day, when it goes off in the wrong direction.

We have become too used to scanning an LLM’s output. Just as I would not expect a student who came to me for career advice to start scrolling on their phone while I’m talking, I must teach them to give their full attention to the Facilitator.

What I’m suggesting here is not a list of use cases. Instead, I’m providing students with an approach to using AI where they plan before typing into the chat box, see its best use as a Facilitator that partners with them in learning and development, and recognize that validation and reading output will be time and cognitively intensive.

What This Means for Teaching

I’ve found that when I teach these roles to students before assigning homework, they make better choices regarding when and how to use AI. Here are some tactics I’ve tried that have netted positive results:
- Design assignments that invite different roles. For example, ask students to begin with AI as a Tasker (perhaps organizing sources or cleaning a dataset), then shift to using the Draftsmith to help them find passive voice or other syntax issues in a paper, and finally draw on the Facilitator to find the holes in their arguments before submitting a final paper. Intentionally stating the role each assignment calls for and requiring them to state when they’re using the Tasker, Draftsmith, or Facilitator solidifies their understanding that their approach to AI differs by role.
- Be clear about where AI helps and where it doesn’t. AI can help with structure, suggestions, and ideation, but it cannot replace revision, critical thinking, or the development of one’s own voice. This must be intentionally taught by including questions requiring students to reflect on what worked and where the AI led them astray in any assignments allowing AI use.
- Encourage disclosure. I talk extensively about “Total AI Transparency”, ensuring students that I will note any use of AI in my communications with them and I expect the same from them. Trust has broken down as both students and instructors believe the other is using AI when they’re not and failing to recognize when they are. Owning up to my own use and being clear on why I used AI for that task encourages students to do the same.
Closing Thoughts

We need to steer students away from extremes of either refusing to use AI at all or letting it rob them of learning. By distinguishing the roles of Tasker, Draftsmith, and Facilitator, we clarify our expectations of students. More importantly, we help them become more deliberate in their approach, preparing them to be AI-fluent.

Illysa Izenberg is an Associate Teaching Professor for the Center for Leadership Education in the Whiting School of Engineering at The Johns Hopkins University. She has been teaching management and business ethics to graduate and undergraduate students via Face-to-Face, online, and blended courses since 2006. Izenberg earned her MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business and is the winner of both the Alumni and Pond Excellence in Teaching Awards (2016 and 2020 respectively).

References

Bussgang, J. (2025, May 20). 3 small steps to 10x your productivity with AI this week. The Experimentation Machine. https://experimentationmachine.com/p/10x-this-week

Duffy, A. (2025, April 11). Your CEO just said ‘Use AI or else.’ Here’s what to do next. Every. https://every.to/p/your-ceo-just-said-use-ai-or-else-here-s-what-to-do-next

Farri, E., & Rosani, G. (2025). HBR guide to generative AI for managers. Harvard Business Review Press.

Gross, A. (2025). AI Crash Course [Online course]. SectionAI. https://www.sectionschool.com/courses/ai-crash-course-workshop

Harbridge, R. (2025). AI for Team Leaders [Online course]. SectionAI.

Harvard Business Publishing. (2025). Help your team harness generative AI (Lesson 1). In Leading with generative AI [Online course]. Harvard ManageMentor.

Purohit, R. (Host). (2025, June 18). The man inside the minds of the people building AGI [Audio podcast episode]. In AI & I. Every.

Solis, B. (2024, November). Train your brain to work creatively with Gen AI. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Source link
November 17, 2025
How I Used the Parking Lot to Turn Quiet Rooms into Engaged Classrooms – Faculty Focus
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.

The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.

This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.

One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”

Discovering the Parking Lot

The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.

I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.

I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.

A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.

As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.

During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.

Bringing the Parking Lot to Life

On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.

I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.

The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.

Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.

This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.

Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes

It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.

This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.

The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.

I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.

I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.

Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.

I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.

I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.

This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.

Lessons Learned

In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
- Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
- Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
- Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
- Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
- Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
- Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection

This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.

A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.

Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.

Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.

What You Can Do Tomorrow

Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.

Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.

J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
Source link
November 3, 2025
How I Used the Parking Lot to Turn Quiet Rooms into Engaged Classrooms – Faculty Focus
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.

The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.

This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.

One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”

Discovering the Parking Lot

The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.

I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.

I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.

A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.

As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.

During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.

Bringing the Parking Lot to Life

On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.

I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.

The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.

Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.

This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.

Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes

It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.

This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.

The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.

I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.

I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.

Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.

I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.

I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.

This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.

Lessons Learned

In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
- Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
- Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
- Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
- Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
- Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
- Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection

This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.

A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.

Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.

Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.

What You Can Do Tomorrow

Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.

Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.

J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
Source link
November 3, 2025
From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

College students are mastering the art of “doing school” – but far too few are actually learning (Geddes et al., 2018; Stevens & Ramey, 2020; Weinstein et al., 2018). The widespread use of artificial intelligence tools among students complicates the learning process by blurring the line between genuine understanding and task completion (Gawande et al., 2020; Jie & Kamrozzaman, 2024). It is incumbent on faculty to design learning experiences that prevent students from mistaking a passing grade for a genuine education.

This hourglass paradigm, created by Western Kentucky University education faculty, outlines key stages of effective learning and aligns with current understanding of how the brain processes and retains information (Mahan & Stein, 2014). It functions as a conceptual guide, helping students contextualize instructional content within a broader framework of cognitive engagement. The hourglass shape represents the complexity and intellectual rigor inherent in genuine learning – an endeavor that far exceeds the passive acts of listening, reading, and rote repetition. Many students, shaped by their P–12 educational experiences, have developed habits that emphasize completing tasks over engaging deeply with the learning process. In high school, success often comes from passive methods like re-reading notes or even something as simple as listening attentively in class (Gurung & Dunlosky, 2023). These habits often persist into college, where students may misplace effort on checking boxes rather than meaningful engagement with the content. While this approach may yield favorable academic outcomes in the short term, it infrequently results in deep understanding.

Figure 1 – The Reading and Learning Hourglass
Note. This figure was created by the authors.

Top Half of the Hourglass

The top half represents what students are expected to do when first exposed to novel material – either in lecture or when reading.

Step #1 – Establish a Purpose

This requires students orient themselves toward finding specific information. What specific information are they expected to discern while listening or reading? What are they supposed to do with the information they find? Purpose establishes reason for attention – a key component in encoding the visual/auditory stimuli (Dubinsky & Hamid, 2024). Good teaching provides purpose and directs attention to the most important information.

Practical Application for Instructors

Clearly communicate the purpose of each lecture, reading, or activity. Assign reading surgically – not whole chapters at once. Frame lessons with guiding questions or objectives that help students focus their attention and recognize what they are expected to learn and apply.

As students encounter information meeting the established purpose, they deliberately document (extract) the evidence. This, too, is an important part of the encoding process. It focuses attention, moving students from a passive state during which the mind is prone to wander to an active state of responsibility requiring productivity.

Practical Application for Instructors

Assign students a specific task during lectures or readings (e.g., identifying key arguments, examples, or terms) and require them to record and reflect on these findings. This encourages active engagement and accountability during knowledge acquisition.

Step #3 – Make Sense

Sense and meaning are both necessary for long-term learning, but they are different constructs. Sense means that something is readily comprehensible and consistently applied (Sousa, 2011). After students have extracted the evidence, do they comprehend the material? This is a stopping point if the answer is “No.” They should either revert to the material to try to make sense of it or ask questions of the instructor/classmates (or even generative AI, as permitted) to ensure comprehension.

Practical Application for Instructors

Pause periodically to ask comprehension questions or pose simple checks for understanding. Encourage students to identify confusing parts and model how to work through confusion by thinking aloud or unpacking difficult concepts together.

Step #4 – Form Meaning

Meaning is about connections and relevancy. Once the information has been extracted and is comprehensible, the next step is determining how it connects to other information. To what other concepts is it related in the subject/discipline? How does it connect to something the student knows personally? Formation of meaning and sense making are both crucial steps in the process of consolidation – the second step in the formation of long-term memory/learning.

Practical Application for Instructors

Help students connect new content to prior knowledge by explicitly referencing past lessons or real-world examples. Use prompts such as “How does this relate to what we learned last week?” or “Where have you seen this concept applied outside of class?”

Bottom Half of the Hourglass

With the passage of time comes opportunity to study the information. Studying requires consolidation, retrieval, and active production. If students are simply re-reading information or listening again to recorded lectures, they are still in the top half of the hourglass and are not yet studying – they are simply revisiting the knowledge event. Sometimes review is necessary to ensure sense and meaning. However, students need to understand that unless they are producing something new through active retrieval, they are not studying.

Step #5 – Integrate Knowledge

After students have read multiple assignments and listened to numerous lectures, the resulting notes must be integrated into a cohesive body of knowledge. Students must synthesize this information rather than treating each reading or lecture as a discrete element – a process that supports deeper consolidation over time (Squire et al., 2015).

Practical Application for Instructors

Design cumulative tasks that require students to synthesize information into thematic essays, comparative analyses, or concept maps. Encourage students to revisit and reorganize their notes periodically to build coherence across topics.

Step #6 – Reproduce Knowledge

The best way to study to facilitate long-term learning requires active retrieval (Karpicke, 2012; Sosa et al., 2018). This process strengthens neural connections by repeatedly firing related pathways, leading to long-term potentiation – essentially, learning. Crucially, retrieval typically involves unaided recall; the value lies in the act of retrieval itself, not the product it creates. Reflection and verbal production counts as retrieval even though the product is intangible.

Practical Application for Instructors

Design assignments that require students to produce something from memory (e.g., timed short-answer questions, practice exams, or unprompted written explanations). Encourage use of retrieval-based study tools and de-emphasize passive review.

Step #7 – Share Knowledge

Students often do not know when to stop studying. Many are surprised when asked when studying should stop – the answer feels obvious: “When the test is on my desk!” In reality, studying ends when one can teach the material to someone else. As the final step of the process, the reproduction of knowledge should be so comprehensive and fluent that the students can teach the material to a peer or another individual unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Practical Application for Instructors

Create opportunities for students to teach each other. Incorporate peer instruction, study partnerships, or group teaching assignments where students must explain key ideas to classmates or create short instructional videos.

In a time when grades are often mistaken for understanding and AI tools tempt students to outsource cognitive effort, we must reclaim the purpose of education. The hourglass paradigm reframes learning as an active, metacognitive process – one that challenges students to move beyond passive habits and toward lasting intellectual growth. By designing instruction that aligns with how the brain learns best, we as faculty can help students learn how to learn and not just how to pass. This is not just a pedagogical preference; it is a professional obligation.

Dr. Daniel Super is a Clinical Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Barbara and Kelly Burch Institute for Transformative Practices in Higher Education at Western Kentucky University.

Dr. Jeremy Logsdon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Center for Literacy at Western Kentucky University.

References

Dubinsky, J. M., & Hamid, A. A. (2024). The neuroscience of active learning and direct instruction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 163, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105737

Gawande, V., Al Badi, H., & Al Makharoumi, K. (2020). An empirical study on emerging trends in artificial intelligence and its impact on higher education. International Journal of Computer Applications, 175(12), 43-47.

Geddes, B. C., Cannon, H. M., & Cannon, J. N. (2018, March). Addressing the crisis in higher education: An experiential analysis. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference (Vol. 45). Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/3188/3106

Gurung, R. A. R., & Dunlosky, J. (2023). Study like a champ. American Psychological Association.

Jie, A. L. X., & Kamrozzaman, N. A. (2024). The challenges of higher education students face in using artificial intelligence (AI) against their learning experiences. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(10), 362-387. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.1210025

Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552

Mahan, J. D., & Stein, D. S. (2014). Teaching adults – Best practices that leverage the emerging understanding of the neurobiology of learning. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 44(6), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.003

Sosa, P. M., Gonçalves, R., & Carpes, F. P. (2018). Active memory reactivation improves learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(2), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00077.2017

Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns. Corwin.

Squire, L. R., Genzel, L., Wixted, J. T., & Morris, R.G. (2015). Memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7(8), 1-21. https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/8/a021766.full.pdf

Stevens, R., & Ramey, K. (2020, January). What kind of place is school to learn? A comparative perspective from students on the question. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences.

Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual guide. Routledge.

Source link

October 27, 2025
From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

College students are mastering the art of “doing school” – but far too few are actually learning (Geddes et al., 2018; Stevens & Ramey, 2020; Weinstein et al., 2018). The widespread use of artificial intelligence tools among students complicates the learning process by blurring the line between genuine understanding and task completion (Gawande et al., 2020; Jie & Kamrozzaman, 2024). It is incumbent on faculty to design learning experiences that prevent students from mistaking a passing grade for a genuine education.

This hourglass paradigm, created by Western Kentucky University education faculty, outlines key stages of effective learning and aligns with current understanding of how the brain processes and retains information (Mahan & Stein, 2014). It functions as a conceptual guide, helping students contextualize instructional content within a broader framework of cognitive engagement. The hourglass shape represents the complexity and intellectual rigor inherent in genuine learning – an endeavor that far exceeds the passive acts of listening, reading, and rote repetition. Many students, shaped by their P–12 educational experiences, have developed habits that emphasize completing tasks over engaging deeply with the learning process. In high school, success often comes from passive methods like re-reading notes or even something as simple as listening attentively in class (Gurung & Dunlosky, 2023). These habits often persist into college, where students may misplace effort on checking boxes rather than meaningful engagement with the content. While this approach may yield favorable academic outcomes in the short term, it infrequently results in deep understanding.

Figure 1 – The Reading and Learning Hourglass
Note. This figure was created by the authors.

Top Half of the Hourglass

The top half represents what students are expected to do when first exposed to novel material – either in lecture or when reading.

Step #1 – Establish a Purpose

This requires students orient themselves toward finding specific information. What specific information are they expected to discern while listening or reading? What are they supposed to do with the information they find? Purpose establishes reason for attention – a key component in encoding the visual/auditory stimuli (Dubinsky & Hamid, 2024). Good teaching provides purpose and directs attention to the most important information.

Practical Application for Instructors

Clearly communicate the purpose of each lecture, reading, or activity. Assign reading surgically – not whole chapters at once. Frame lessons with guiding questions or objectives that help students focus their attention and recognize what they are expected to learn and apply.

As students encounter information meeting the established purpose, they deliberately document (extract) the evidence. This, too, is an important part of the encoding process. It focuses attention, moving students from a passive state during which the mind is prone to wander to an active state of responsibility requiring productivity.

Practical Application for Instructors

Assign students a specific task during lectures or readings (e.g., identifying key arguments, examples, or terms) and require them to record and reflect on these findings. This encourages active engagement and accountability during knowledge acquisition.

Step #3 – Make Sense

Sense and meaning are both necessary for long-term learning, but they are different constructs. Sense means that something is readily comprehensible and consistently applied (Sousa, 2011). After students have extracted the evidence, do they comprehend the material? This is a stopping point if the answer is “No.” They should either revert to the material to try to make sense of it or ask questions of the instructor/classmates (or even generative AI, as permitted) to ensure comprehension.

Practical Application for Instructors

Pause periodically to ask comprehension questions or pose simple checks for understanding. Encourage students to identify confusing parts and model how to work through confusion by thinking aloud or unpacking difficult concepts together.

Step #4 – Form Meaning

Meaning is about connections and relevancy. Once the information has been extracted and is comprehensible, the next step is determining how it connects to other information. To what other concepts is it related in the subject/discipline? How does it connect to something the student knows personally? Formation of meaning and sense making are both crucial steps in the process of consolidation – the second step in the formation of long-term memory/learning.

Practical Application for Instructors

Help students connect new content to prior knowledge by explicitly referencing past lessons or real-world examples. Use prompts such as “How does this relate to what we learned last week?” or “Where have you seen this concept applied outside of class?”

Bottom Half of the Hourglass

With the passage of time comes opportunity to study the information. Studying requires consolidation, retrieval, and active production. If students are simply re-reading information or listening again to recorded lectures, they are still in the top half of the hourglass and are not yet studying – they are simply revisiting the knowledge event. Sometimes review is necessary to ensure sense and meaning. However, students need to understand that unless they are producing something new through active retrieval, they are not studying.

Step #5 – Integrate Knowledge

After students have read multiple assignments and listened to numerous lectures, the resulting notes must be integrated into a cohesive body of knowledge. Students must synthesize this information rather than treating each reading or lecture as a discrete element – a process that supports deeper consolidation over time (Squire et al., 2015).

Practical Application for Instructors

Design cumulative tasks that require students to synthesize information into thematic essays, comparative analyses, or concept maps. Encourage students to revisit and reorganize their notes periodically to build coherence across topics.

Step #6 – Reproduce Knowledge

The best way to study to facilitate long-term learning requires active retrieval (Karpicke, 2012; Sosa et al., 2018). This process strengthens neural connections by repeatedly firing related pathways, leading to long-term potentiation – essentially, learning. Crucially, retrieval typically involves unaided recall; the value lies in the act of retrieval itself, not the product it creates. Reflection and verbal production counts as retrieval even though the product is intangible.

Practical Application for Instructors

Design assignments that require students to produce something from memory (e.g., timed short-answer questions, practice exams, or unprompted written explanations). Encourage use of retrieval-based study tools and de-emphasize passive review.

Step #7 – Share Knowledge

Students often do not know when to stop studying. Many are surprised when asked when studying should stop – the answer feels obvious: “When the test is on my desk!” In reality, studying ends when one can teach the material to someone else. As the final step of the process, the reproduction of knowledge should be so comprehensive and fluent that the students can teach the material to a peer or another individual unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Practical Application for Instructors

Create opportunities for students to teach each other. Incorporate peer instruction, study partnerships, or group teaching assignments where students must explain key ideas to classmates or create short instructional videos.

In a time when grades are often mistaken for understanding and AI tools tempt students to outsource cognitive effort, we must reclaim the purpose of education. The hourglass paradigm reframes learning as an active, metacognitive process – one that challenges students to move beyond passive habits and toward lasting intellectual growth. By designing instruction that aligns with how the brain learns best, we as faculty can help students learn how to learn and not just how to pass. This is not just a pedagogical preference; it is a professional obligation.

Dr. Daniel Super is a Clinical Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Barbara and Kelly Burch Institute for Transformative Practices in Higher Education at Western Kentucky University.

Dr. Jeremy Logsdon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Center for Literacy at Western Kentucky University.

References

Dubinsky, J. M., & Hamid, A. A. (2024). The neuroscience of active learning and direct instruction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 163, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105737

Gawande, V., Al Badi, H., & Al Makharoumi, K. (2020). An empirical study on emerging trends in artificial intelligence and its impact on higher education. International Journal of Computer Applications, 175(12), 43-47.

Geddes, B. C., Cannon, H. M., & Cannon, J. N. (2018, March). Addressing the crisis in higher education: An experiential analysis. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference (Vol. 45). Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/3188/3106

Gurung, R. A. R., & Dunlosky, J. (2023). Study like a champ. American Psychological Association.

Jie, A. L. X., & Kamrozzaman, N. A. (2024). The challenges of higher education students face in using artificial intelligence (AI) against their learning experiences. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(10), 362-387. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.1210025

Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552

Mahan, J. D., & Stein, D. S. (2014). Teaching adults – Best practices that leverage the emerging understanding of the neurobiology of learning. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 44(6), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.003

Sosa, P. M., Gonçalves, R., & Carpes, F. P. (2018). Active memory reactivation improves learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(2), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00077.2017

Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns. Corwin.

Squire, L. R., Genzel, L., Wixted, J. T., & Morris, R.G. (2015). Memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7(8), 1-21. https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/8/a021766.full.pdf

Stevens, R., & Ramey, K. (2020, January). What kind of place is school to learn? A comparative perspective from students on the question. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences.

Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual guide. Routledge.

Source link

October 27, 2025
There Are No “Shy Students”, Only Poor Learning Environments – Faculty Focus
As we learn more about how to improve classrooms in higher education, the concept of the “shy student” is a recurring one that serves as a convenient shorthand for describing students who don’t speak up. As a result, some faculty members may be frustrated with students who are less vocal in group activities and conclude that it’s part of a student’s personality.

But what if the problem is not with the student but the classroom itself? Insights in educational sciences suggest that engagement in the classroom isn’t just about a student’s innate disposition. In fact, it’s more likely to be a result of poor instructional practices or a failure to understand differences in context or culture. We can create more equitable spaces that value a broader range of student voices by rethinking how we define engagement and redesigning our learning environments.

The Research on Participation and Personality

Popular writing on the topic of education styles sometimes reinforces the idea of a “shy student”. It’s common when referring to students who are more forthcoming with answers or discussion that we use the words “extroverted” or “introverted”. However, although these traits can sometimes be visible in the actions of students, research suggests that this isn’t in fact an obstacle for all students to participate in meaningful and mutually beneficial interactions. Traditional classroom settings have often rewarded more rapid and spontaneous verbal responses, but this can unintentionally privilege extroverted communication styles.

Susan Cain’s well-known work on introversion explains how, although some students seem reserved, their presence in the classroom can complement more outgoing students. This is particularly true when conversations between the two veer between the lighthearted and the serious. “Extroverts need to know that introverts…may be only too happy to be tugged along to a more lighthearted place,” Cain writes about the variety in classroom conversations, adding that quieter students “should know that they make it safe for others to get serious.”

Analyses in educational psychology suggest that classroom participation is less about innate personality and more about whether students feel psychologically safe and intellectually respected to speak out.

Research by scholars such as Mary-Ann Winkelmes on transparency in learning and teaching (known as the TILT framework) boosts students’ motivation by showing them the purpose behind their work. Students that understand the reason and method of a given task and connect it to their learning are more inclined to invest in it fully and participate more actively.

Similarly, the concept of “academic behavioral confidence” (or ABC), explored by researchers like Paul Sander suggests that confidence in higher education is malleable and responsive to classroom environments. Rather than assuming students are shy, we must ask whether we’ve fostered a learning environment in which students feel secure in sharing their thoughts.

The Role of the Classroom Environment

The design of a classroom plays a crucial role in shaping student participation. Lecture halls at traditional universities, with imposing tiered seating, can sometimes reinforce passivity. We all remember the time when lecturers would insist on the Socratic method and ask us questions point-blank as a means to illustrate knowledge! On the other hand, an active learning environment encourages dynamic learning spaces, smaller group discussions, and alternative forms of communication (through text or anonymous participation, for example).

The use of calling on students in the lecture room can inadvertently silence students who need more time to process. Inclusive teaching practices, such as think-pair-share, anonymous polling, or discussion boards, provide multiple modalities for students to contribute.

To this end, Cognitive Psychologist Stanislas Dehaene’s four pillars of learning—attention, active engagement, error feedback, and consolidation—can help articulate the design of a better higher education classroom. By fostering environments that capture students’ attention, be it through interactive or varied teaching methods, educators can cater to diverse learning styles.

Getting students to actively engage can be encouraged through collaborative activities or real-time responses. This ensures that all students participate and learn at their own pace. Providing immediate and constructive feedback on errors will additionally bolster students in their understanding of a topic.

Lastly, creating opportunities for consolidation, such as through spaced repetition or reflection sessions, allows all learners to reinforce and retain knowledge. This makes learning accessible and effective for everyone. Educators can scaffold this participation by providing low-risk entry points into discussion, validating diverse contributions, and offering constructive feedback that encourages further exploration.

Strategies for More Engaging Classrooms

Fostering participation among students who choose not to speak up requires careful planning and collaboration within higher education departments. As Head of Learning Innovation at Wooclap, here are several strategies that I’ve seen in action to help promote more engagement in the classroom:
1. Redefine Participation: Expand the definition of participation to include active listening, written reflections, online discussion posts, as well as creative endeavors. Make these forms of engagement visible and valued when grading a student.
1. Use Diverse Modalities: Offer students different ways to contribute. This can be done verbally, in writing, through technology, or in small groups. Digital Tools that allow for non-verbal or anonymous engagement can be leveraged to make quieter voices more audible.
1. Set Clear Expectations: Use transparent teaching methods to clarify what participation looks like and why it matters. Share examples and model respectful discourse to encourage more engaging discussions.
1. Create Psychological Safety: Cultivate an environment where students feel comfortable taking risks. This can include normalizing uncertainty, encouraging questions, and quickly intervening against microaggressions or dominance in discussions.
1. Solicit Feedback and Adapt: Regularly check in on students to see how classroom structures are working for them. Use anonymous surveys to gauge comfort levels and adjust practices accordingly.
Designing for All Voices

Higher education instructors shouldn’t be quick to judge students who are less vocal during class. In many cases, choosing not to speak up might be a rational response to a classroom design that is overbearing or limiting in its structure for more thoughtful and reflective judgment.

Designing great learning environments that adhere to the four pillars of education, as articulated by Stanislas Dehaene, can help educators support all students and not just those who are the quickest to speak. By doing so, we can shift the narrative away from having “shy students” to fixing the systems that fail to engage them. We can improve on these systems by reimagining participation, embracing diverse communication styles, and prioritizing inclusion in our pedagogy.

Arlène Botokro has a decade of experience at the crossroads of pedagogy and digital transformation, working internationally. She has played a pivotal role in shaping Wooclap’s impact in higher education since joining the company in 2020. As Senior Manager of Education Partnerships and Innovation Projects Lead, she built strategic collaborations with leading universities, ensuring Wooclap’s solutions align with research-driven best practices. Her international experience spans the U.S., France, and Ghana with projects across multiple countries, including previous roles at Sciences Po and consulting in innovation for the publishing sector. This diverse background has given her a deep understanding of how digital learning practices can be adapted across different educational and corporate environments. Arlène continues to expand her knowledge in neuroeducation through coursework at Harvard University, reinforcing her commitment to integrating cutting-edge research into EdTech solutions.

References

Susan Cain, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, (Penguin Books, 2012).
Source link
October 3, 2025