Blog

  • Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    In Jarek Janio’s Inside Higher Ed opinion column, “Beyond ‘Grit’ and ‘Growth Mindsets,’” Janio argues that, to promote better student learning, college instructors should ignore questions about student motivation and focus solely on changing student behavior. He focuses on two ideas from the motivation field—grit and growth mindset—as examples of “traits” that have weak associations with student learning. Instead of focusing on what goes on “inside the student’s head,” he argues we should instead focus on “what’s happening in the environment and change that instead.”

    As educational psychology researchers, we are also interested in how to get students to engage in effective learning behaviors. We fully agree with—and our research supports—the idea that it is important for instructors to structure learning environments to support student learning, such as by offering opportunities for students to revise their work and providing clear, well-defined feedback. However, it is a mistake to ignore what is going on inside students’ heads. In doing so, we miss a very crucial piece of the puzzle.

    Students Are Unique Individuals

    As anyone who has taught a college class knows, students are not robots. There are vast differences between them. Take the example of offering your students an opportunity to revise and resubmit their work, after receiving feedback, for a higher grade. Just because you provide this opportunity does not mean that all your students will take it. Some students will enthusiastically revisit their work, dig into the feedback provided, seek additional feedback and deepen their learning. Others will half-heartedly look over the feedback and make shallow attempts to revise. Still others will not glance at the feedback at all and will not turn in a revision.

    These differences are, in part, due to more stable traits that students may have, such as their conscientiousness, their perfectionism and—yes—their grit. However, these differences may also be a function of other individual differences that are less stable. Take growth mindset, for example. Those of us who study growth mindset tend to think about it as a belief rather than a trait. It is something that can change based on the context.

    Imagine a student who has been told by their statistics instructor that statistics is something that anyone can learn—you just need the right strategies. Their art professor, on the other hand, has told them that you need a special, innate talent to be good at art—you either have it or you don’t. These factors can shape students’ beliefs, and in turn, their behaviors. For example, this student may be much more likely to engage in revising and resubmitting their work in their statistics class (where they have stronger growth-mindset beliefs) than their art class (where they have stronger fixed-mindset beliefs). This pattern is also true for when students feel confident about their abilities or have a desire for learning. Such students seek out help more proactively, and they engage with feedback more constructively.

    Beyond Grit and Growth Mindset

    Although grit and growth mindset are perhaps the most well-known (and have some legitimate weaknesses), researchers in the educational psychology and motivation fields study many other factors that impact student engagement and learning. These include students’ interests, values, goals, needs, emotions, beliefs and perceptions of the instructor and their classroom—all things that are going on inside the student’s head but that are critically important to understanding their behavior.

    Theories of motivation articulate the processes through which students’ beliefs, values, needs and goals shape their engagement, behaviors and choices. Researchers have created and tested effective tools to observe, measure and assess these different factors. Decades of research have given us robust understandings of how these factors are both shaped by and interact with the environment to predict students’ behavior and learning. These aspects of the individual student matter.

    The Student and the Environment Are Both Important

    It is important to focus both on what is going on in students’ heads and what is going on in the environment. Instructors have the power to shape their classroom environment in different ways that can influence student behavior.

    We do not disagree with the strategies Janio proposed instructors should focus on. Instead, we want to emphasize that these strategies are effective because of how they are motivationally supportive. For instance, incorporating a revision process into course assignments is based on mastery goal structures, or the environments instructors can nurture so that students focus on their improvement and growth. Normalizing failure is a growth mindset–teaching practice that helps students see the effort they put into the learning process as being something of value. Providing feedback is an important way to inform a student’s self-confidence and show them how they can be more competent in the future.

    Motivation is the central mechanism through which these strategies can help students persist through learning challenges. By understanding student motivation, these teaching strategies and approaches can be fine-tuned and adapted to differently motivated students to maximize student learning. That is exactly what motivation scientists in education have been investigating for decades. Simply discarding learner motivation is dismantling the science that undergirds motivationally supportive teaching.

    Concluding Thoughts

    A return to behaviorism essentially disregards the last 50 years of psychological research emphasizing the important role students’ cognition, emotion and motivation plays in the classroom. It is critical to understand these psychological processes that have been rigorously tested across many studies. Students are also agentic and complex in their thinking and motivations, so a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. By harnessing students’ motivation, instructors can better adapt their teaching approaches to match students’ interests and goals in addition to creating motivationally supportive environments that promote persistence and deeper learning. When instructors understand their students’ motivation, it can unlock the type of engagement and behaviors meaningful for learning.

    Katie Muenks is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Carlton J. Fong is an associate professor of postsecondary student success at Texas State University.

    Source link

  • ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    Arizona State University ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled.

    yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Arizona State University typically welcomes over 17,900 international students to its four campuses each year, but this fall, due to a variety of complications, the university expects only 14,600 international students will attend this fall—an 18 percent drop.

    If the projection holds, international students will account for 7.5 percent of ASU’s 194,000 students this fall, according to an Aug. 11 news release. In comparison, during the 2023–24 academic year, ASU hosted 18,400 international students, with a total enrollment of 183,000, or more than 10 percent.

    The change is in part due a drop in master’s applications from international students, but primarily driven by challenges to visa appointments, according to a university spokesperson.

    ASU’s president, Michael Crow, told Bloomberg that as of early August, 1,000 of the university’s incoming international students (a third of the new cohort of 3,313 students) were still waiting on their visas. The university is providing several pathways for students unable to make it to campus, including online programs, study abroad, starting later in the semester or enrolling in a partner institution overseas, the spokesperson said.

    “We anticipate that our enrollment of international students will continue to grow throughout the year,” said Matt López, deputy vice president of academic enterprise enrollment, said in the university news release. “When students have their visa in hand, we will welcome them with open arms and the classes they need to continue their degree without delay.”

    ASU has the largest share of international students in Arizona, providing $545.1 million in revenue to the state and supporting 5,279 jobs, according to data from NAFSA, the association of international educators.

    ASU also ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled, according to 2023–24 OpenDoors data, behind New York University, Northeastern University and Columbia University.

    Nationally, international student enrollment is projected to decline by about 15 percent this fall due to federal changes to visa issuance and other actions against international students.

    Source link

  • Higher education misunderstands neurodivergence | Wonkhe

    Higher education misunderstands neurodivergence | Wonkhe

    The term “resilience” is everywhere in higher education.

    It shows up in strategic plans, wellbeing frameworks and graduate attribute profiles.

    Universities want students who cope well with pressure, bounce back from problems, and adapt quickly to change.

    But this obsession with using resilience as the cure all is quietly doing damage – particularly to neurodivergent students, and risks perpetuating a culture that conflates survival with success.

    Resilience, as it is often used in policy or wellbeing guidance, makes assumptions about a universal baseline.

    All students (and staff) are under pressure to “cope” with the demands of higher education, including anything from deadlines, group work, feedback, through to accommodation moves. It is as though everyone is starting from the same place, with the same resources.

    But neurodivergent students often come into higher education already managing complex internal landscapes – sensory overwhelm, executive dysfunction, rigid routines (or lack of), social anxiety, rejection sensitivity dysphoria, and demand avoidance, to name but a few.

    These are not just barriers to learning in an abstract sense but are, in fact, daily realities.

    And when we talk about resilience without consideration of this as a baseline for some, we begin to measure students by how well they endure suffering, not how well they are supported.

    A lack of adaptation becomes lack of success.

    Surviving is not thriving

    Neurodivergent students often go to extraordinary lengths to meet the expectations of higher education.

    They may appear to be coping, attending lectures, submitting assignments, and even achieving high grades.

    But this superficial success can be very misleading. What is often interpreted as resilience is, in many cases, a form of masking, a conscious or unconscious effort to suppress traits, needs, or behaviours to fit in.

    This is not a sign of thriving – it is a survival strategy.

    Masking is emotionally and physically exhausting. It can manifest as mimicked social behaviours, hiding sensory issues, or continuing despite major executive dysfunction. Over time, this leads to chronic stress, anxiety, and burnout.

    The student may be praised for their work, but inside they are struggling to maintain the illusion. The cost of appearing resilient is often invisible to staff and friends, yet it can be devastating.

    This is where the resilience narrative becomes dangerous. It rewards students for enduring environments that are not designed for them, rather than prompting institutions to question why those environments are so difficult to navigate in the first place.

    A student who seems to be “doing well” may be on the brink of collapse. Without understanding the hidden labour behind this apparent success, we risk reinforcing a system that values endurance over wellbeing.

    Support as self-blame

    While the rhetoric of resilience is often framed as empowerment, in practice it can move responsibility away from universities and onto students, especially neurodivergent students.

    Support services may focus on coping strategies, stress management, or time management techniques. These can be helpful, but when offered in isolation, they imply the problem is that the student cannot adapt satisfactorily, rather than with the system’s failure to accommodate.

    This framing can lead to a harmful cycle of self-blame. When students struggle, with rigid timetables, inaccessible assessments, or overstimulating environments, they are told to be more resilient. But resilience, in this context, becomes a term for tolerance of unsuitable conditions.

    When students inevitably reach their limits, they may internalise this as personal failure, that they didn’t try hard enough or put enough effort in.

    The reality is that the burden of adaptation is not equally shared. Institutional structures can be inflexible, and staff may lack the training or resources to provide robust accommodations.

    This creates a scenario where neurodivergent students are expected to conform to a model of academic success that was never designed with them in mind. When they can’t, they disengage, not because they lack resilience, but because the system has failed to support them.

    This creates a vicious cycle. The student struggles. They perseverate on that as personal failure. And yet, ultimately, they are encouraged to be more resilient. And when that doesn’t work, as masking and self-management have reached their limit, this is when neurodivergent students disengage or drop out.

    Whilst national statistics are not readily available due to underreporting and also confusion around definitions, research does point to these issues. The British Psychological Society (2022) reports that due to an over-reliance on self-disclosure, as well as inconsistent support systems,

    ND students face a disproportionate amount of challenges in higher education. Furthermore, the Office for National Statistics (2021) report that only 21.7 per cent of autistic adults were employed in 2020, demonstrating systemic barriers which students may face when transitioning to work.

    They will blame themselves.

    Rethinking resilience

    That is not to say resilience is inherently bad. The ability to manage setbacks and adapt to change is fundamental but, for neurodivergents, that can only be when it is coupled with appropriate support, inclusive systems and compassionate pedagogy.

    In its current format, the discussion around resilience become a deflection. It reframes structural exclusion, such as inaccessible or rigid assessment methods, inflexible teaching patterns, and overstimulating spaces, as personal challenges that they must overcome.

    An example of this may be that many universities still require in-person attendance for some assessments. For a student with sensory or processing issues, this could effectively provoke masking, which could lead to overwhelm and/or burn-out. Despite us having the power to change it, we instead expect students to improve at surviving the experience.

    A solid example of where this has been integrated, in terms of flexibility, is the University of Oxford’s (2024) NESTL toolkit, which demonstrates how applications of moving adaptations throughout the programme can, in the first instance, support ND students, but actually could have implications for all students in terms of authentic assessment and individualised learning.

    From resilience to responsibility

    If universities are serious about supporting neurodivergent students, they must start by reframing resilience not as an individual concept but as a systemic responsibility. Rather than asking students to become more resilient, the more important question is how institutions can reduce the need for resilience in the first place.

    This begins with designing systems that are accessible from the outset. Instead of relying on individual adjustments, universities should embed flexibility into their base structures, with adaptable deadlines, varied assessment formats, and alternative ways for students to engage with learning. These changes not only support neurodivergent students but enhance the experience for all learners.

    Creating a culture of safety is vital. Disclosure should not trigger a bureaucratic process but should be met with empathy, understanding, and timely support. It would be a bonus if staff training could go beyond basic awareness and involve critical reflection on how teaching practices can embody inclusion and empower educators to make meaningful changes.

    Finally, institutions must place ND students in the centre throughout the design and review of policies, curricula, and spaces. Lived experience should not be treated as an optional perspective but as a foundation. Only by shifting from a format of individual endurance to one of collective responsibility can we begin to challenge the structural barriers that resilience discourse too often obscures.

    The myth of the resilient student is appealing and offers a neat solution to complex challenges. But it also permits institutions to bypass important discussions about structural exclusion, academic tradition and the limitations of current support models. We have to rethink the system from the ground up, and not just ask students to endure it.

    Source link

  • Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    This blog was kindly authored by Lauren Amdor, who graduated from LSE with a BSc in History and International Relations and has recently finished her post as the Activities and Communities Sabbatical Officer at LSE’s Students’ Union.

    The 2023 Higher Education (HE) Freedom of Speech Act (the Act) has long been one to watch, especially after Labour paused its implementation last July. As an LSE Students’ Union (LSESU) Sabbatical Officer, the Act raised broader questions around how students’ education would be affected, which I explored in the research project Power to Speak and subsequent focus groups.

    With 592 responses across LSE Departments, modes of study and domiciles, students were asked nine quantitative questions in the Power to Speak survey measured on a Likert scale which found that:

    • One-in-four respondents did not feel comfortable speaking up in class.
    • 75% of respondents agreed that the teacher defines what speech is accepted in the classroom.
    • 45% of respondents felt ill-equipped to encounter/respond to ‘damaging speech’ protected by free speech laws.
    • Half of the respondents agreed that campus lacked opportunities for groups with opposing views to engage in dialogue.

    The tenth qualitative question asked students what they thought ‘promoting freedom of speech should look like’, given the upcoming duty on universities to promote this under the Act.

    Student responses were coded into five thematic categories:

    • A safe environment to express or not express views (26.8%)
    • Freedom to express views without retaliation or consequences (23.6%)
    • Promoting and welcoming free speech (22.2%)
    • Students’ rights to protest (15.3%)
    • A zero tolerance to hate speech and violence (12.1%)

    Two key points emerged, which universities and students’ unions should pay particular attention to:

    1. Why did students report feeling unable to express their views?
    2. Where do students think the line is with free (but offensive) speech, and why?

    Institutional ramifications, not strictly legal ones, recurred throughout responses. This included fearing academic repercussions for articulating a converging perspective to their teachers, visa revocation and the social consequences of adopting minority viewpoints including being ‘judged’, ‘ostracised’ or ‘persecuted’. The most cited fear, however, was disciplinary action against students by the University which was also central in the Right to Protest theme. Here, students specifically referenced disciplinaries against those protesting for Palestine across higher education institutions. These various fears contributed to what students considered as ‘a chilling effect on free speech’ despite the high legal threshold for unlawful speech.

    Inadequate tools and support systems to engage with conflicting perspectives was a significant issue. Students highlighted difficulties navigating emotionally charged topics, especially as university was the first time many had encountered diametrically opposing views. Shying away from these discussions was partly down to ‘the fear of the first time’ and accidentally causing offense, particularly appearing Islamophobic or Antisemitic. Limited experience in having these conversations exacerbated the individual burden felt and reported by students, as universities had seemingly not supported necessary skill development. Fluctuating stress across the academic year also elevated anxiety around difficult conversations or debates, further reducing the capacity to cope adequately. The demographic breakdown of Question 27 of the National Student Survey (NSS) suggested that minority-group students felt less free to express their views during their studies. A focus group discussing Faith in the Classroom further explored this trend, finding that practising students wanted to avoid dealing with possible arguments around personal beliefs. Departmental colleagues additionally identified how cultural norms regarding debate contributed to an uneven baseline from which students engage (discussed in the case of Chinese international students). Universities should be aware that certain student groups feel less equipped to navigate free speech and should therefore take a tailored approach to upholding it.

    Although academic freedom laws ensure academic staff can express their views as they choose, this was considered a barrier to students participating in debate. Students consistently maintained that teachers should not necessarily ‘engineer neutrality for the sake of it’ but should be trained to foster a culture of academic disagreement without discrimination and manage conflicting views constructively and skilfully. Building trust and a positive rapport between students and academics was significant in empowering students to contest presented arguments and approach academic staff to discuss related issues.

    Students expressed concern around speech which might harm and negatively impact minority student groups, and how a hostile campus environment impacted their overall education. How potentially harmful (but legal) views were presented was of equal concern, with most students accepting such speech if it was respectful and considerate to diverse and underrepresented experiences. This is effectively the debate around balancing free speech rights with the right to privacy and protection from discrimination under the European Commission of Human Rights. While institutions consult the OfS guidance on interpreting the Act and related questions, institutions also contend with the apparent lack of clarity amongst students, reiterated by consistent calls to draw a clear line and articulate ‘what free speech is not’.

    Recommendations Arising from the Research Findings

    • Clarify how free speech, rights against discrimination and to privacy are practically balanced, and what speech or action might result in institutional disciplinaries, in an understandable way for students.
    • Create a baseline level of soft skills for respectful disagreement and debate as part of a university education, regardless of a student’s course of study.
    • Facilitate dialogue spaces ‘across religious, ethnic and ideological boundaries’, to counter polarisation, model respectful discussion of ‘controversial issues’ and assist students with this responsibility.
    • Equip teachers to facilitate debate across challenging topics while upholding Academic Freedom.

    Where Do Students’ Unions Sit?

    Students’ Unions (SU) are uniquely positioned to support students and institutions with the realities of the Act. As a student-led organisation, there is a clear opportunity to create student-led dialogue spaces for interested students, as the LSESU Campus Relations Group has done. Working with individual student societies additionally offers a chance to carve out pockets of safety for those encountering especially difficult perspectives at university. As a key liaison between institutions and students, SUs have an explanatory role to ensure students understand their rights related to the Act and university policy. And finally, as an acknowledged student voice mechanism, SUs can lobby their institutions on issues pertaining to students’ free speech or work with larger organising bodies (e.g. the National Union of Students) to lead national policy change.

    Source link

  • AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus

    AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus

    AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Academic bullied to “near suicide,” inquiry hears – Campus Review

    Academic bullied to “near suicide,” inquiry hears – Campus Review

    This article contains information related to suicide some may find distressing.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Peak bodies criticise red tape in sector – Campus Review

    Peak bodies criticise red tape in sector – Campus Review

    Peak higher education bodies have warned a Senate inquiry against counterproductive over-regulation and towards proper university funding ahead of the government’s productivity roundtable.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Productivity Commission to push RPL – Campus Review

    Productivity Commission to push RPL – Campus Review

    The Productivity Commission (PC) has urged the federal government to focus on recognition of prior learning ahead of the Treasurer’s economic roundtable.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Weaving digital citizenship into edtech innovation

    Weaving digital citizenship into edtech innovation

    Key points:

    What happens when over 100 passionate educators converge in Chicago to celebrate two decades of educational innovation? A few weeks ago, I had the thrilling opportunity to immerse myself in the 20th anniversary of the Discovery Educator Network (the DEN), a week-long journey that reignited my passion for transforming classrooms.

    From sunrise to past sunset, my days at Loyola University were a whirlwind of learning, laughter, and relentless exploration. Living the dorm life, forging new connections, and rekindling old friendships, we collectively dove deep into the future of learning, creating experiences that went far beyond the typical professional development.

    As an inaugural DEN member, the professional learning community supported by Discovery Education, I was incredibly excited to return 20 years after its founding to guide a small group of educators through the bountiful innovations of the DEN Summer Institute (DENSI). Think scavenger hunts, enlightening workshops, and collaborative creations–every moment was packed with cutting-edge ideas and practical strategies for weaving technology seamlessly into our teaching, ensuring our students are truly future-ready.

    During my time at DENSI, I learned a lot of new tips and tricks that I will pass on to the educators I collaborate with. From AI’s potential to the various new ways to work together online, participants in this unique event learned a number of ways to weave digital citizenship into edtech innovation. I’ve narrowed them down to five core concepts; each a powerful step toward building future-ready classrooms and fostering truly responsible digital citizens.

    Use of artificial intelligence

    Technology integration: When modeling responsible AI use, key technology tools could include generative platforms like Gemini, NotebookLM, Magic School AI, and Brisk, acting as ‘thought partners’ for brainstorming, summarizing, and drafting. Integration also covers AI grammar/spell-checkers, data visualization tools, and feedback tools for refining writing, presenting information, and self-assessment, enhancing digital content interaction and production.

    Learning & application: Teaching students to ethically use AI is key. This involves modeling critical evaluation of AI content for bias and inaccuracies. For instance, providing students with an AI summary of a historical event to fact-check with credible sources. Students learn to apply AI as a thought partner, boosting creativity and collaboration, not replacing their own thinking. Fact-checking and integrating their unique voices are essential. An English class could use AI to brainstorm plot ideas, but students develop characters and write the narrative. Application includes using AI for writing refinement and data exploration, fostering understanding of AI’s academic capabilities and limitations.

    Connection to digital citizenship: This example predominantly connects to digital citizenship. Teaching responsible AI use promotes intellectual honesty and information literacy. Students can grasp ethical considerations like plagiarism and proper attribution. The “red, yellow, green” stoplight method provides a framework for AI use, teaching students when to use AI as a collaborator, editor, or thought partner–or not at all.This approach cultivates critical thinking and empowers students to navigate the digital landscape with integrity, preparing them as responsible digital citizens understanding AI’s implications.

    Digital communication

    Technology integration: Creating digital communication norms should focus on clarity with visuals like infographics, screenshots, and video clips. Canva is a key tool for a visual “Digital Communication Agreement” defining online interaction expectations. Include student voice by the integration and use of pictures and graphics to illustrate behaviors and potentially collaborative presentation / polling tools for student involvement in norm-setting.

    Learning & application: Establishing clear online interaction norms is the focus of digital communication. Applying clear principles teaches the importance of visuals and setting communication goals. Creating a visual “Digital Communication Agreement” with Canva is a practical application where students define respectful online language and netiquette. An elementary class might design a virtual classroom rules poster, showing chat emojis and explaining “think before you post.” Using screenshots and “SMART goals” for online discussions reinforces learning, teaching constructive feedback and respectful debate. In a middle school science discussion board, the teacher could model a respectful response like “I understand your point, but I’m wondering if…” This helps students apply effective digital communication principles.

    Connection to digital citizenship: This example fosters respectful communication, empathy, and understanding of online social norms. By creating and adhering to a “Digital Communication Agreement,” students develop responsibility for online interactions. Emphasizing respectful language and netiquette cultivates empathy and awareness of their words’ impact. This prepares them as considerate digital citizens, contributing positively to inclusive online communities.

    Content curation

    Technology integration: For understanding digital footprints, one primary tool is Google Drive when used as a digital folder to curate students’ content. The “Tech Toolbox” concept implies interaction with various digital platforms where online presence exists. Use of many tools to curate content allows students to leave traces on a range of technologies forming their collective digital footprint.

    Learning & application: This centers on educating students about their online presence’s permanence and nature. Teaching them to curate digital content in a structured way, like using a Google Drive folder, is key. A student could create a “Digital Portfolio” in Google Drive with online projects, proud social media posts, and reflections on their public identity. By collecting and reviewing online artifacts, students visualize their current “digital footprint.” The classroom “listening tour” encourages critical self-reflection, prompting students to think about why they share online and how to be intentional about their online identity. This might involve students reviewing anonymized social media profiles, discussing the impression given to future employers.

    Connection to digital citizenship: This example cultivates awareness of online permanence, privacy, responsible self-presentation, and reputation management. Understanding lasting digital traces empowers students to make informed decisions. The reflection process encourages the consideration of their footprint’s impact, fostering ownership and accountability for online behavior. This helps them become mindful, capable digital citizens.

    Promoting media literacy

    Technology integration: One way to promote media literacy is by using “Paperslides” for engaging content creation, leveraging cameras and simple video recording. This concept gained popularity at the beginning of the DEN through Dr. Lodge McCammon. Dr. Lodge’s popular 1-Take Paperslide Video strategy is to “hit record, present your material, then hit stop, and your product is done” style of video creation is something that anyone can start using tomorrow. Integration uses real-life examples (likely digital media) to share a variety of topics for any audience. Additionally, to apply “Pay Full Attention” in a digital context implies online viewing platforms and communication tools for modeling digital eye contact and verbal cues.

    Learning & application: Integrating critical media consumption with engaging content creation is the focus. Students learn to leverage “Paperslides” or another video creation method to explain topics or present research, moving beyond passive consumption. For a history project, students could create “Paperslides” explaining World War II causes, sourcing information and depicting events. Learning involves using real-life examples to discern credible online sources, understanding misinformation and bias. A lesson might show a satirical news article, guiding students to verify sources and claims through their storyboard portion. Applying “Pay Full Attention” teaches active, critical viewing, minimizing distractions. During a class viewing of an educational video, students could pause to discuss presenter credentials or unsupported claims, mimicking active listening. This fosters practical media literacy in creating and consuming digital content.

    Connection to digital citizenship: This example enhances media literacy, critical online information evaluation, and understanding persuasive techniques. Learning to create and critically consume content makes students informed, responsible digital participants. They identify and question sources, essential for navigating a digital information-saturated world. This empowers them as discerning digital citizens, contributing thoughtfully to online content.

    Collaborative problem-solving

    Technology integration: For practicing digital empathy and support, key tools are collaborative online documents like Google Docs and Google Slides. Integration extends to online discussion forums (Google Classroom, Flip) for empathetic dialogue, and project management tools (Trello, Asana) for transparent organization. 

    Learning & application: This focuses on developing effective collaborative skills and empathetic communication in digital spaces. Students learn to work together on shared documents, applying a “Co-Teacher or Model Lessons” approach where they “co-teach” each other new tools or concepts. In a group science experiment, students might use a shared Google Doc to plan methodology, with one “co-teaching” data table insertion from Google Sheets. They practice constructive feedback and model active listening in digital settings, using chat for clarification or emojis for feelings. The “red, yellow, green” policy provides a clear framework for online group work, teaching when to seek help, proceed cautiously, or move forward confidently. For a research project, “red” means needing a group huddle, “yellow” is proceeding with caution, and “green” is ready for review.

    Connection to digital citizenship: This example is central to digital citizenship, developing empathy, respectful collaboration, and responsible problem-solving in digital environments. Structured online group work teaches how to navigate disagreements and offers supportive feedback. Emphasis on active listening and empathetic responses helps internalize civility, preparing students as considerate digital citizens contributing positively to online communities.

    These examples offer a powerful roadmap for cultivating essential digital citizenship skills and preparing all learners to be future-ready. The collective impact of thoughtfully utilizing these or similar approaches , or even grab and go resources from programs such as Discovery Education’s Digital Citizenship Initiative, can provide the foundation for a strong academic and empathetic school year, empowering educators and students alike to navigate the digital world with confidence, integrity, and a deep understanding of their role as responsible digital citizens.

    In addition, this event reminded me of the power of professional learning communities.  Every educator needs and deserves a supportive community that will share ideas, push their thinking, and support their professional development. One of my long-standing communities is the Discovery Educator Network (which is currently accepting applications for membership). 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link