Category: student learning

The Final Stretch: Designing a Meaningful Course Ending – Faculty Focus

As the term draws to a close, students are not the only ones counting the weeks left. Instructors, too, often feel a mix of relief and fatigue. However, while the finish line may be in sight, what happens in those final weeks can be some of the most impactful moments of the entire course. Far too often, the end of a course is treated as an administrative period, marked by the collection of assignments, preparation for tests, and course evaluations. However, research and teaching practice suggest that this stretch can—and should—be much more. The final weeks are an opportunity to consolidate learning, deepen reflection, and help students leave the course with a sense of accomplishment and continuity.

Ending a course well helps students understand what they have learned, use it in other situations, and feel a sense of closure. It also gives instructors a chance to reflect on and improve the course for the next time (Stone, Powell, and McGuire 2020).

Revisit Learning Outcomes to Reinforce Understanding

One of the best ways to structure this final phase is by revisiting the learning outcomes. At this point in the course, students have encountered significant themes and concepts, but they may not yet see how they all fit together. You can facilitate this by asking students to engage in a learning outcome reflection activity—matching each course objective with a specific assignment, concept, or experience. This encourages students to internalize the course structure and reflect on their growth. Annotating earlier assignments or revisiting early reflections with newly acquired knowledge can reinforce their sense of progress. These metacognitive strategies have been shown to improve both retention and student satisfaction (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik 1991).

Help Students Reach Cognitive Closure

As the end approaches, it can be tempting to try to “cover more” or introduce one last complex theory. However, research shows that introducing too much new material late in the term can lead to cognitive overload (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). Instead, focus on helping students reach cognitive closure. This involves creating space for them to synthesize what they have learned. One approach is to host a “big ideas” class discussion where students collectively identify and explore the three or four most critical takeaways. This could be done in groups, using concept maps or visual timelines, or through creative synthesis activities—such as summarizing the course in 280 characters, designing a graphic, or teaching a core idea to someone outside the field. These methods encourage active processing of material and can support different learning styles.

Another effective way to create momentum in the final stretch is to engage students in peer teaching and joint review. This taps into the benefits of social learning, supporting students’ learning while promoting a sense of community. Peer-led review sessions can involve students taking turns explaining key topics, preparing review materials, or facilitating study groups. In online settings, students might create narrated slides or post video explanations. (Topping 2005) emphasizes that peer teaching promotes engagement, motivation, and a deeper understanding of concepts. A collaborative study guide, built as a shared document or Padlet board, enables students to crowdsource notes, identify knowledge gaps, and co-construct meaning from the course content.

Flexible and Creative Assessments

Final assessments naturally dominate the end of the term, but they do not have to be high-stress hurdles. In fact, they can be designed as culminating experiences that invite students to integrate and apply their knowledge and skills. Whether your final assignment is a paper, presentation, portfolio, or exam, distinctly expressing your anticipations and helping students throughout the process is essential. Offering rubrics, example answers, and chances to ask questions can ease student stress and boost their confidence (Olson and Krysiak 2021). A rubric allows for reliability, validity, and transparency in grading student work (Schwartz and Bransford 1998).

In some courses, alternative or flexible assessment options can be meaningful, allowing students to select how they demonstrate their learning. This might include multimedia projects, reflective essays, or real-world application tasks. Offering a “project lab” class where students can brainstorm ideas, seek feedback, or work in groups can also reduce isolation and improve the quality of final submissions.

Gather Reflection and Feedback for Continuous Improvement

Reflection is one of the most overlooked yet most powerful tools available to instructors. The last few weeks offer a prime opportunity to gather feedback, not just for your improvement, but to help students reflect on their learning. Creating a simple “course wrap-up survey” with questions like “What helped you learn the most?” or “What would you do differently if you retook the course?” promotes self-awareness. Some instructors even include short reflection elements in their final assignments, encouraging students to describe their process, challenges, and learning outcomes. Reflection also helps foster a sense of closure, which is essential for learning and emotional processing.

In addition to reflection, feedforward focuses on providing students with prior exposure to and practice with assessment, enabling them to develop a clear sense of expectations and standards that they can apply to future work (Carless, 2007; Boud & Molloy, 2013). Feedforward involves helping students connect course content to future learning or real-world applications. You might conclude your course with a brief discussion of the next steps, including which electives complement the course, what career paths align with the content, or what reading and media resources can support continued growth. A simple handout or post in your learning management system featuring recommended resources, articles, and tools can go a long way. This also reinforces the idea that the course is not a self-contained experience but part of a broader learning journey.

Create Emotional and Social Closure

Another critical but often neglected aspect of course endings is the emotional and social closure. The last day of class should not feel like a transaction—it should feel like a moment of celebration. This does not require balloons or big productions. It might be a unique reflection from the instructor on what made this cohort special, a slide deck of class highlights, or a casual roundtable where each student shares a takeaway. Even small rituals can have a significant impact. In online classes, you might broadcast a farewell video, host a “virtual hallway chat,” or invite students to contribute thank-you notes or final reflections in a shared document. These moments help build relationships and strengthen students’ sense of belonging, which research shows is essential for keeping students engaged and satisfied with their learning experience.

Extend Learning Beyond the Final Grade

To maintain learning beyond the final grade, instructors can help students see how their new knowledge relates to continued growth. For instance, creating a “course toolbox” that students can download, complete with templates, key readings, and glossaries, is a small gesture that adds long-term value. You could also offer to stay connected on LinkedIn, particularly for senior students or those enrolled in capstone courses. For students primarily interested in the topic, consider recommending follow-up courses, podcasts, or co-curricular opportunities such as research projects or student groups. This type of support represents trust in their continued growth and allows bridge the often-short end of the term.

In conclusion, the final stretch of a course is more than just a wrap-up period. It is a time to reinforce learning, acknowledge growth, reduce anxiety, and build lasting takeaways.

By thoughtfully planning the last few weeks, instructors can ensure that students not only complete the course but also leave it with a sense of clarity, confidence, and closure. Reconnecting with learning outcomes, avoiding last-minute content overload, encouraging peer collaboration, designing culminating assessments, and incorporating reflection and celebration can all contribute to a stronger course ending. Rather than coasting to the finish line, walk beside your students and make the end of your course as meaningful as the beginning.

Dr. Amena Shahid is a dedicated educator with over 15 years of university-level teaching experience in Human Resources and Management. She has designed and delivered a wide range of courses including leadership, strategic management, organizational behavior, marketing, and cross-cultural communication. Her teaching philosophy centers on student engagement, inclusive practices, and real-world application, with a strong emphasis on experiential and reflective learning.

In addition to her teaching, Amena has held academic leadership roles supporting faculty development, program planning, and student success initiatives. She holds a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) in Management-Leadership, an MBA, and a BA. Amena is committed to fostering meaningful learning experiences that empower students to think critically, lead ethically, and succeed in diverse professional environments.

References

Bangert-Drowns, Robert L., James A. Kulik, and Chen-Lin C. Kulik. 1991. “Effects of Frequent Classroom Testing.” The Journal of Educational Research 85 (2): 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1991.10702818.

Boud, David, and Elizabeth Molloy. 2013. “Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38: 698–712.

Carless, David. 2007. “Learning-Oriented Assessment: Conceptual Bases and Practical Implications.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44: 57–66.

Olson, Jacqueline, and Rebecca Krysiak. 2021. “Rubrics as Tools for Effective Assessment of Student Learning and Program Quality.” In Curriculum Development and Online Instruction for the 21st Century, edited by Jacqueline Olson, 158–175. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7653-3.ch010.

Schwartz, Daniel L., and John D. Bransford. 1998. “A Time for Telling.” Cognition and Instruction 16 (4): 475–522.

Stone, Garrett A., Gwynn M. Powell, and Francis A. McGuire. 2020. “‘Beginners Are Many But Enders Are Few’: How to End a Course Well and Why It Matters.” SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education 37 (3): 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2020.1760745.

Topping, Keith J. 2005. “Trends in Peer Learning.” Educational Psychology 25 (6): 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172.

Source link

December 1, 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
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
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
From the Classroom to the Career Office: Why Career Readiness Belongs in Every Discipline – Faculty Focus

Wrapping up a recent course, one of my students approached and asked to talk. It turns out she wasn’t there to review an assignment or clarify a grade. Instead, she was seeking my advice on her future career: what were my thoughts on job prospects for her major; what professional pathways made sense, given our rapidly changing world.

As the conversation touched on search strategies, market forces, and even the shifting nature of work itself, I was struck by how the moment represented a growing phenomenon in higher education: helping students succeed beyond the academic setting is a shared responsibility, particularly as the call for post-academic success continues to grow.

Dedicated career centers lead the way for student success beyond campus, but when students seek guidance on their future professional roles, chances are it will be an instructor to whom they turn. That’s good news for those of us committed to academic success. When students reach out to faculty for career advice, it’s an opportunity to deepen trust and strengthen learner confidence–principles that correlate with learning success. It also allows us to link learning with purpose, while helping us more deeply understand the evolution of our disciplines.

Integrating career readiness into our courses benefits us all. Here are some simple steps to get started:

Instructors Are Career Influencers—Whether We Know It or Not

Classroom instructors are the most consistent professional mentors that students encounter throughout their college years. A passing comment about your own career trajectory, or a few minutes spent discussing potential paths in your field, can expand a student’s sense of what’s possible, particularly for those whose backgrounds lack the types of professional networks that can impact professional success. Inviting professionals into the classroom–whether through alumni networks, or local industry—is an opportunity to provide students with professional roadmaps. Sharing examples of the different ways your discipline shows up in the world can likewise orient students towards a meaningful future in which they will likely change careers multiple times. To help guide conversations, invite students to explore so-called “clusters” of careers using tools such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network which provides data on growing fields and industries.

Relevance Drives Engagement

When students understand how their academic work connects to real-world applications, their engagement deepens. They’re more likely to push through a complex assignment when they see how it builds toward the type of skills they can apply to future employment. Not every lesson needs to turn into a job training session but connecting the “what” of our teaching to the “why” that students are so often seeking strengthens outcomes and can also improve student satisfaction. Studies indicate that students gain motivation when they can see how the skills they’re developing serve a purpose beyond the classroom, so canvassing students about their future career goals and integrating conversations and activities that help them map content to careers can be highly effective.

Every Discipline Includes Transferable Skills

Supporting students with future career goals means guiding them to recognize key competencies that develop across disciplines and that are prioritized across professional fields. Key among these are the skills of critical thinking, communication, teamwork, cultural fluency, and ethical decision-making. Students won’t always recognize these as in-demand skills unless we name them, so consistently referencing their utility is an impactful step. That might mean pointing out that a history paper builds research skills; a biology lab fosters analytical reasoning; and a group project in any discipline develops collaboration and leadership skills that are prized in the workplaces of today. By drawing attention to these connections, we help students value the breadth of what they’re learning while helping them understand how to showcase these skills to future employers.

Hybrid Skills Define the Modern Workforce

Today’s employers seek graduates who bring both depth and versatility, meaning team members who know the specifics of their field, but can also communicate, adapt, and think creatively. These hybrid profiles are in demand across sectors and instructors can support their students by embedding assignments that mirror real-world demands. Case studies, presentations, simulations, along with reflective writing, all offer chances to practice skills that matter in professional life. When we give students opportunities to apply knowledge in dynamic ways, we prepare them not only for jobs, but for the type of lifelong learning these professional positions will demand.

Helping students prepare for their careers doesn’t dilute academic rigor; it strengthens it by affirming that education matters in the world beyond academics. That day in the classroom, as I listened to my student’s questions about her future, I realized she wasn’t looking for certainty, but rather the opportunity to engage in the very skills we’ve always valued in teaching: critical questioning, reflection, and the ability to envision new ways to advance. Faculty are in a unique position to offer this type of guidance. Embracing and integrating career readiness into our teaching supports the pedagogical goals of the classroom while helping students succeed well beyond them.

Juli S. Charkes, EdD, is a former Director of a Center for Teaching and Learning where she led faculty development across 100 academic programs. She has been a classroom instructor for the past 14 years, teaching organizational leadership, communications, and media studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

References

Universities Address Workforce and career readiness. (n.d.-c). https://kaplan.com/about/trends-insights/universities-address-workforce-and-career-readiness

Pleschová, G., Sutherland, K. A., Felten, P., Forsyth, R., & Wright, M. C. (2025). Trust-building as inherent to academic development practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2454704

The future of work is non-linear (or why you’ll have more than one career in your lifetime). World Economic Forum. (n.d.). https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/05/workers-multiple-careers-jobs-skills/

Fish, N., Bertone, S., & van Gramberg, B. (2025). Improving student engagement in employability development: recognising and reducing affective and behavioural barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2461271

Bauer-Wolf, J. (2023, November 30). Employers value a college degree but think students lack some skills, survey says. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/employers-value-a-college-degree-but-think-students-lack-some-skills-surve/701051/

Mashek, D. (2022, June 23). Collaboration is a key skill. so why aren’t we teaching it? MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/collaboration-is-a-key-skill-so-why-arent-we-teaching-it/

Source link

November 7, 2025
From the Classroom to the Career Office: Why Career Readiness Belongs in Every Discipline – Faculty Focus

Wrapping up a recent course, one of my students approached and asked to talk. It turns out she wasn’t there to review an assignment or clarify a grade. Instead, she was seeking my advice on her future career: what were my thoughts on job prospects for her major; what professional pathways made sense, given our rapidly changing world.

As the conversation touched on search strategies, market forces, and even the shifting nature of work itself, I was struck by how the moment represented a growing phenomenon in higher education: helping students succeed beyond the academic setting is a shared responsibility, particularly as the call for post-academic success continues to grow.

Dedicated career centers lead the way for student success beyond campus, but when students seek guidance on their future professional roles, chances are it will be an instructor to whom they turn. That’s good news for those of us committed to academic success. When students reach out to faculty for career advice, it’s an opportunity to deepen trust and strengthen learner confidence–principles that correlate with learning success. It also allows us to link learning with purpose, while helping us more deeply understand the evolution of our disciplines.

Integrating career readiness into our courses benefits us all. Here are some simple steps to get started:

Instructors Are Career Influencers—Whether We Know It or Not

Classroom instructors are the most consistent professional mentors that students encounter throughout their college years. A passing comment about your own career trajectory, or a few minutes spent discussing potential paths in your field, can expand a student’s sense of what’s possible, particularly for those whose backgrounds lack the types of professional networks that can impact professional success. Inviting professionals into the classroom–whether through alumni networks, or local industry—is an opportunity to provide students with professional roadmaps. Sharing examples of the different ways your discipline shows up in the world can likewise orient students towards a meaningful future in which they will likely change careers multiple times. To help guide conversations, invite students to explore so-called “clusters” of careers using tools such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network which provides data on growing fields and industries.

Relevance Drives Engagement

When students understand how their academic work connects to real-world applications, their engagement deepens. They’re more likely to push through a complex assignment when they see how it builds toward the type of skills they can apply to future employment. Not every lesson needs to turn into a job training session but connecting the “what” of our teaching to the “why” that students are so often seeking strengthens outcomes and can also improve student satisfaction. Studies indicate that students gain motivation when they can see how the skills they’re developing serve a purpose beyond the classroom, so canvassing students about their future career goals and integrating conversations and activities that help them map content to careers can be highly effective.

Every Discipline Includes Transferable Skills

Supporting students with future career goals means guiding them to recognize key competencies that develop across disciplines and that are prioritized across professional fields. Key among these are the skills of critical thinking, communication, teamwork, cultural fluency, and ethical decision-making. Students won’t always recognize these as in-demand skills unless we name them, so consistently referencing their utility is an impactful step. That might mean pointing out that a history paper builds research skills; a biology lab fosters analytical reasoning; and a group project in any discipline develops collaboration and leadership skills that are prized in the workplaces of today. By drawing attention to these connections, we help students value the breadth of what they’re learning while helping them understand how to showcase these skills to future employers.

Hybrid Skills Define the Modern Workforce

Today’s employers seek graduates who bring both depth and versatility, meaning team members who know the specifics of their field, but can also communicate, adapt, and think creatively. These hybrid profiles are in demand across sectors and instructors can support their students by embedding assignments that mirror real-world demands. Case studies, presentations, simulations, along with reflective writing, all offer chances to practice skills that matter in professional life. When we give students opportunities to apply knowledge in dynamic ways, we prepare them not only for jobs, but for the type of lifelong learning these professional positions will demand.

Helping students prepare for their careers doesn’t dilute academic rigor; it strengthens it by affirming that education matters in the world beyond academics. That day in the classroom, as I listened to my student’s questions about her future, I realized she wasn’t looking for certainty, but rather the opportunity to engage in the very skills we’ve always valued in teaching: critical questioning, reflection, and the ability to envision new ways to advance. Faculty are in a unique position to offer this type of guidance. Embracing and integrating career readiness into our teaching supports the pedagogical goals of the classroom while helping students succeed well beyond them.

Juli S. Charkes, EdD, is a former Director of a Center for Teaching and Learning where she led faculty development across 100 academic programs. She has been a classroom instructor for the past 14 years, teaching organizational leadership, communications, and media studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

References

Universities Address Workforce and career readiness. (n.d.-c). https://kaplan.com/about/trends-insights/universities-address-workforce-and-career-readiness

Pleschová, G., Sutherland, K. A., Felten, P., Forsyth, R., & Wright, M. C. (2025). Trust-building as inherent to academic development practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2454704

The future of work is non-linear (or why you’ll have more than one career in your lifetime). World Economic Forum. (n.d.). https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/05/workers-multiple-careers-jobs-skills/

Fish, N., Bertone, S., & van Gramberg, B. (2025). Improving student engagement in employability development: recognising and reducing affective and behavioural barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2461271

Bauer-Wolf, J. (2023, November 30). Employers value a college degree but think students lack some skills, survey says. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/employers-value-a-college-degree-but-think-students-lack-some-skills-surve/701051/

Mashek, D. (2022, June 23). Collaboration is a key skill. so why aren’t we teaching it? MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/collaboration-is-a-key-skill-so-why-arent-we-teaching-it/

Source link

November 7, 2025
Teaching with AI: From Prohibition to Partnership for Critical Thinking – Faculty Focus
What if the AI tools we are trying to limit and caution against were actually essential (or beneficial) to enhancing the critical thinking skills we are afraid of losing? Since the 2023 proliferation of generative AI, faculty have been inundated with warnings that human intelligence is being eroded by AI. As a result, some faculty have adopted policies banning or severely limiting AI use driven by concerns of academic integrity and the fear of students bypassing essential learning.

However, banning AI will not prevent students from using it, whether for nefarious or appropriate purposes. Instead, it may deny students a chance to practice and engage with AI in an educational setting where they and faculty can explore its full potential collaboratively. This kind of restrictive thinking is based on two flawed assumptions: that AI cannot support student thinking and that students will only use AI to cheat. The challenge is not to police every use, but to reframe our approach from one of prohibition to one of collaborative partnership.

This shift in perspective allows faculty to systematically integrate AI into courses in a developmentally appropriate manner. By centering policies on learning, we can encourage students to take an active, self-regulated approach to their education. This reframes the focus from dishonesty to autonomous learning, emphasizing academic values while scaffolding meaningful assignments that challenge student thinking.

Integrating AI into the curriculum requires a developmental approach, much like teaching toddlers. Expecting a first-year student to rely on AI for essential skills development is like asking a toddler to color within the lines—it’s developmentally inappropriate. Instead, our policies should align with a student’s progression. In lower-level courses, the focus must be on foundational skill-building including learning how to use AI. For upper-level and graduate students, we can empower them to autonomously evaluate AI’s role in their learning and whether or not AI is developing or replacing learning. Meanwhile, mid-level courses can provide a scaffolded transition, with specific instructions on how and when to use AI.

It is important to consider students’ prior knowledge of AI as well. While many are comfortable using technology and AI, they may lack metacognitive awareness of how their use affects learning. Understanding students’ technology usage is crucial when designing courses. Ultimately, use your best judgment—some graduate courses may require a cautious approach, while entry-level courses might benefit from a more permissive policy, especially since students within the same course can have a wide range of AI abilities.

How to Integrate AI Developmentally into Your Courses
- Lower-Level Courses: Focus on building foundational skills, which includes guided instruction on how to use AI responsibly. This moves the strategy beyond mere prohibition.
- Mid-Level Courses: Use AI as a scaffold where faculty provide specific guidelines on when and how to use the tool, preparing students for greater independence.
- Upper-Level/Graduate Courses: Empower students to evaluate AI’s role in their learning. This enables them to become self-regulated learners who make informed decisions about their tools.
- Balanced Approach: Make decisions about AI use based on the content being learned and students’ developmental needs.
Now that you have a framework for how to conceptualize including AI into your courses here are a few ideas on scaffolding AI to allow students to practice using technology and develop cognitive skills.

To introduce AI into your course, create a prompt that asks students to have a conversation with an AI about a concept you will be discussing. This anticipatory set can prime student thinking and encourage them to use AI in a conversational manner, moving beyond simply asking for answers. You can then discuss the AI’s responses—exploring bias, hallucinations, and the depth of its answers—which naturally leads to a conversation about crafting better prompts. This simple, ungraded exercise allows all students to participate, provides valuable practice, and serves a clear learning purpose.

Another example of a nongraded, purposeful use of AI is for providing feedback on learning. When students are writing papers, you can create custom AI agents to provide feedback on different parts of the writing process, from idea development to final submission. These agents can be designed to follow assignment criteria without writing any portion of the work. If students choose to use the agent, you can ask them to share their feedback conversations to assess the quality of the feedback and to write about how they incorporated it to develop their ideas—adding a crucial element of metacognition.

This method is also ideal for reinforcing and mastering skill development. For example, in a counseling course, students can practice articulating confidentiality and its limits to a fictional client created by AI. Once this foundational skill is mastered, the agent can be instructed to demonstrate signs of self-harm, allowing the student to practice assessing client safety and deciding whether to break confidentiality. As with the other examples, you can ask students to share their conversations for your feedback, have them critique their own performance, and provide a rationale for their approach. The agent itself can even provide feedback at the end of the session.

Finally, a higher level of AI integration is to have students create their own custom learning AI agent. By this point, students will have had multiple chances to improve their prompt writing, practice using AI for learning (not bypassing skills), and evaluate how AI supports their development. Creating a personalized study agent would be an ideal way for students to be active in their learning and assess the areas they need to develop. Faculty could provide guidelines and ask students to share how they are using AI positively.

How to Scaffold AI into Your Courses
- Start with low-stakes, ungraded activities.
- Then use AI to provide meaningful, real-time feedback.
- Create opportunities for skill reinforcement and mastery.
- Finally, empower students to become creators, not just users.
To truly prepare students for life after graduation, institutions and faculty must be willing to provide training on new technologies with a lens of learning. Faculty must move beyond fear and prohibition and engage directly with these tools. By exploring AI’s potential faculty can transform their teaching from a place of restriction to one of collaborative partnership.

By taking a development and scaffolded approach to AI implementation students can benefit from its potential. If this approach is embraced, the question is no longer “Should we allow AI in the classroom?” The more productive question becomes “How can we teach our students to become discerning and effective creators of a world shaped by AI?”

Michael Kiener, PhD, CRC, is a professor at Maryville University of St. Louis in their Clinical Mental Health Counseling program. For the past 10 years he has coordinated their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Program, where faculty participate in a yearlong program with a goal of improved student learning. In 2012 and 2024 he received the Outstanding Faculty Award for faculty who best demonstrate excellence in the integration of teaching, scholarship and/or service. He has over thirty publications including a co-authored book on strength-based counseling and journal articles on career decision making, action research, counseling pedagogy, and active and dynamic learning strategies.
Source link
November 5, 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