Tag: Faculty

The Role of Microlearning and Andragogy in Enhancing Online Student Engagement – Faculty Focus
The shift to virtual learning, accelerated by the global pandemic, has fundamentally transformed the way education is delivered. As a result, the lasting impact of this transition, along with the necessary adaptations, continues to reshape how education is offered to its target market. With the growing demand for contemporary online education, it is crucial to analyze instructional design – a systematic process that applies psychological principles of human learning to develop effective instructional solutions. This involves evaluating the most effective methods and learning environments to engage students and enhance their achievement of desired learning outcomes.

In this light, designing and facilitating online discussions to increase student engagement, peer connection, and idea exchange, as well as creating a cohesive online learning community for knowledge creation, is far more important for the success of online education. However, delivering online education is crucial in this circumstance as it is really challenging to effectively engage students in the learning process. As students and educators adapt to digital platforms, student engagement has emerged as a key concern in online learning. Traditional classroom techniques often fall short in this new landscape, requiring educators to explore innovative instructional strategies. Two such approaches—microlearning and andragogy—offer promising solutions to enhance student engagement and knowledge retention.

In the traditional learning environment, student engagement levels varied, and educators could easily gauge participation where, in online platforms, the lack of physical presence and direct interaction makes it difficult to assess student engagement. The challenge is further compounded by students balancing their studies with household chores which can lead to decreased motivation if adequate support is not provided by the instructor. Therefore, it is evident that online learning presents a unique set of challenges. Thus, the students who study online must be self-motivated and disciplined enough to work alone as the lack of face-to-face accountability makes it easier for them to drop out without being noticed.

As a result, in today’s competitive lifelong learning landscape, an online course that simply gives information is no better than any other. Hence, instructors should differentiate themselves by offering innovative and interactive online courses that engage, connect, and transform students, enabling them to learn efficiently and effectively from anywhere, converting learning into an enjoyable experience. Consequently, the role of instructors becomes more crucial in designing effective online learning experiences that foster active student participation. Thus, in this turbulent environment, the social, economic, and technical developments elicit new learning concepts and practices, leading to transformations in the way education is delivered to meet the high expectations of the corporate sector. Therefore, the role played by microlearning and andragogy in enhancing online student engagement is crucial in the current context.

Microlearning: Small Bites, Big Impact

Microlearning delivers content in small, focused segments, allowing learners to absorb and retain information more effectively. Research has shown that this approach enables students to process and recall course materials in a more manageable way. Giurgiu (2017) describes that microlearning consists of “bite-sized” educational chunks, usually lasting only a few minutes and designed to cater to the learner’s individual needs. Moreover, microlearning’s approach to delivering short, fine-grained, interconnected and loosely coupled learning activities emphasizes individual learning needs (Singh, 2014). Thus, microlearning fits within the constraints of human cognitive capacity by aligning with how working memory functions. Research highlights that short, structured learning modules enhance engagement and reduce cognitive overload. Hence, in contrast to traditional lengthy lectures, microlearning helps move information from working memory to long-term memory more effectively. In this way, microlearning has become so demanding in current online education.

Another advantage of microlearning is that it addresses the forgetting curve, which predicts that memory retention will deteriorate over time if not reinforced. The forgetting curve illustrates how humans have a tendency to lose nearly half of newly learned information within days or weeks unless they consciously review the learned information. Further, the forgetting curve supports one of the seven types of memory failures: transience which refers to the natural process of forgetting as time passes.

Spaced repetition techniques used in microlearning counteract this decline by reinforcing knowledge retention at periodic intervals. This method involves recalling the same material multiple times over a period, helping to solidify the information in long-term memory with each recall.

Another point where microlearning enhances online student engagement is that it enables students to be entirely focused on and more engaged in learning by allowing them to complete lessons according to their own schedule rather than on someone else’s schedule. Further, in online education as learning takes place outside of the classroom, it has a greater potential for application than typical classroom learning by integrating learning with experience. In this arena, microlearning allows for location-based learning, which can be quite beneficial in increasing students’ engagement in online learning platforms.

Another method of incorporating microlearning to boost online student engagement is to simply include specific sorts of micro lessons within the course itself which can more-or-less run parallel to the course. Microlearning can be integrated into online education using digital tools like Kahoot, GoSoapBox, and Padlet, as well as interactive quizzes ensuring a more interactive and engaging learning experience. Furthermore, designing course materials in concise, digestible formats allows students to integrate learning into their daily schedules more effectively. In this way, microlearning not only brings education back to its original format in some sense but also enhances online student engagement in numerous ways.

Andragogy: Engaging Adult Learners

As the demographics of online learners shift toward older and more diverse groups, understanding how adults learn is essential. Knowles’ andragogical principles emphasize self-directed learning, real-world application, and experiential learning, which are particularly relevant in virtual educational settings. Unlike younger students, adult learners tend to be goal-oriented, seeking education that directly contributes to their career or personal development. They benefit from problem-centered learning and contextual applications, making real-world examples, discussion forums, and interactive activities essential components of online education. Thus, for effective engagement of adult learners in online education, educators must incorporate techniques such as:
- encouraging self-paced learning with embedded resources for independent study
- facilitating peer discussions and collaborative problem-solving exercises and
- utilizing real-world case studies to link theoretical concepts with practical applications.
In practice, andragogy works best when it is tailored to the characteristics of the learners and the learning circumstance.

Combining Microlearning and Andragogy for Optimal Engagement

Recent changes in the macro environment, in the form of advancements in technology and natural transitions, shifted education from traditional platforms to virtual platforms where student engagement is crucial for the success of the learning process. Thus, blending microlearning with andragogical principles creates an effective learning framework that accommodates both cognitive and experiential learning styles. While microlearning breaks down complex topics into smaller units for better retention, andragogy ensures that these units are meaningful and applicable in real-life scenarios. Thus, educators can implement this blended approach by:
- structuring courses into short, interactive modules aligned with real-world applications
- incorporating multimedia elements, such as videos, infographics, and gamified content to enhance engagement
- encouraging student-led discussions and collaborative learning environments
- providing frequent, low-stakes assessments that reinforce learning without adding stress
Addressing Online Learning Challenges

Despite its advantages, online learning presents distinct challenges. Unlike face-to-face settings where instructors can monitor student behavior and adjust teaching methods accordingly, online educators must rely on different strategies to enhance student engagement. Many students struggle with motivation and time management, often due to external distractions. Additionally, the absence of direct supervision can lead to passive learning behaviors, where students disengage without accountability. Thus, to combat these issues, instructors must take a proactive approach in designing online courses. Therefore, ensuring frequent interaction between educators and students, integrating real-world problem-solving activities, and leveraging technological tools can enhance student engagement. Furthermore, the use of formative assessments and timely feedback creates an environment where students feel supported and encouraged.

Conclusion

As online education continues to evolve, educators must adopt innovative strategies to maintain student engagement and improve learning outcomes with microlearning and andragogy provide a structured approach in achieving this goal. Microlearning, as a natural extension of traditional learning, leverages the potential of mobile technology to deliver short, focused lessons that enhance retention while andragogical principles ensure that learning is relevant and applicable to real-life situations. By integrating both approaches, educators can create a dynamic, engaging, and effective online learning experience for learners of all ages. Moreover, the success of online education hinges on its ability to keep learners motivated and actively engaged. Thus, by utilizing a proper combination of traditional and modern instructional strategies, instructors can foster an environment where students not only absorb knowledge but also apply it effectively in their academic and professional journeys.

N.K.L. Silva

Ms. Nilanthige Kaushalya Lakmali Silva is a Lecturer at the Department of Accountancy, University of Kelaniya. She teaches Management, Economics, Human Resource Management, Marketing Management, Strategic Management and Information Management. Ms. Silva holds a B.B.Mgt. (Special) Degree in Accountancy with a First-Class Honours and an M.Sc. in Management with a Merit. Her research interests include major areas of Accounting and Finance, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka’s Capital Markets, Micro and Macro Economic Environment, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Fraud. She has published several research papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She is a CMA Sri Lanka Passed Finalist and has completed the Diploma in Banking and Finance at the Institute of Bankers of Sri Lanka.

N. P. K. Ekanayake

Ms. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) and an MSc in Management (Specialized in Finance) and is a CIMA passed finalist.

References

Bustillo-booth, M. (2019). Applying Andragogy to Online Course Design to Increase Student Engagement and Success. Magna Publications Inc., 1–26.

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

Giurgiu, L. (2017). Microlearning an Evolving Elearning Trend. Scientific Bulletin, 22(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/bsaft-2017-0003

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F. & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.

Orlando, J. (2021). Using Microlearning to Improve Student Understanding of Course Content. Magna Publications Inc., 1–18.

Palis, A. G., & Quiros, P. A. (2014). Adult Learning Principles and Presentation Pearls. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology, 21(2), 114–122.

Zheng, M. S. (2016). How to Design and Facilitate Online Discussions that Improve Student Learning and Engagement. Magna Publications Inc., 1–18.
Source link
April 16, 2025
5 Strategies to Create Inclusive Learning Environments for International Students – Faculty Focus

The United States (U.S.) remains a top choice for international students pursuing higher education, with approximately six percent of the student population consisting of international students (Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange, 2024). This data underscores their integral role in higher education. One of the major challenges international students faces is adapting to a new educational system and culture while striving to integrate seamlessly into their new environment. Many international students bring deeply ingrained learning experiences from their home countries, which may differ significantly from those in the U.S. These differences profoundly shape their approach to education, influencing their self-esteem and academic success. This article explores these experiences, offering insights for educators on how to foster supportive and inclusive learning environments, particularly from an Asian perspective.

Personal Experience

I was an international student myself, so I can empathize with the challenges faced by the current generation of international students. While platforms like the internet and American media provide some understanding of American culture, nuances are often missed. I vividly recall the sense of isolation in the classrooms and at conferences, where engaging in conversations felt daunting. Introducing and joining conversations with others was challenging; the most I could do was to wave and acknowledge my presence. These experiences highlight the importance of creating environments where international students feel safe, supported, and included.

1. Cultural Perspectives on Authority

International students often approach interactions with educators with profound reverence, influenced by cultures that value authority and rules. This reverence may lead to reserved behavior in the classroom, hindering active participation. Rather than engaging in active discourse, they tend to listen attentively to their educators and accept their viewpoints unquestioningly, even if they conflict with their knowledge and understanding. This deference to authority may manifest as reticence, timidity, or reluctance to participate in class activities and discussions (Wan, 2021). For international students, this act of showing respect is vital, as they fear failure in the course if their communication style is perceived as disrespectful. Consequently, they do not advocate for themselves in academic settings and function best when following rules set by a person of authority.

To address this, educators can empower international students to express themselves more freely, by adopting strategies that foster a supportive and less intimidating learning environment. One approach is to adjust the tone of communication to be less stern or serious, creating a more welcoming atmosphere for dialogue. Additionally, providing alternative avenues for communication, such as writing on sticky notes or offering anonymous feedback options, can offer students a sense of safety and anonymity when expressing their thoughts. Furthermore, educators can encourage peer support by allowing students to bring a classmate along when seeking clarification or discussing concerns with educators. This approach can help alleviate feelings of intimidation and apprehension, as students may feel more comfortable and supported when engaging with professors alongside a peer. By acknowledging and accommodating cultural perspectives on authority, educators can promote inclusivity and empower international students to participate actively in their academic journey.

2. Adapting to Autonomy in the Classroom

Cultural backgrounds and language barriers contribute to international students’ hesitance to participate vocally in class. Students who come from educational backgrounds where autonomy in the classroom was not encouraged may struggle to adapt to the interactive and participatory learning environments often found in Western educational settings. Additionally, if English is not spoken as their first language, these students fear that their foreign accent may impede understanding. They quickly become sensitive to others’ evaluations and doubt their ability to communicate clearly, leading them to feel uncomfortable when speaking up in class (Hsu & Huang, 2017). Consequently, they may prefer to take on a passive observer role rather than participating actively. Moreover, international students may not perceive their personal views and experiences as significant, fearing that they may not align with the local context in the US.

Creating a safe space in the classroom for international students is crucial. These students must feel valued and have their dignity upheld. Educators must provide clear guidelines to foster participation, encouraging active engagement and the sharing of diverse perspectives. Turn-taking may not occur naturally for international students, so assigning specific roles to each group member to present their ideas can be effective. Appoint a leader who will ensure each group member’s voice is heard. Educators must also be cautious when addressing incorrect answers to prevent students from being discouraged from taking risks in responding in the future. A face-saving act plays an important role for international students when their answers are off- tangent.

3. Feedback and Revising

International students may not be familiar with the process of feedback and revising their work. These students have often been taught to get it right the first time and may not be accustomed to opportunities for revision. In some cases, they may not even receive feedback and might not understand what constructive feedback looks like.

Educators should familiarize students with feedback processes and create a supportive environment for revising work based on feedback. Help these students become accustomed to the various forms of feedback they may receive in your classroom. Emphasize that feedback is a way to help them improve their work and is not a personal attack.

4. Peer Support

International students often fear being judged by their educators if they ask questions that reveal their lack of understanding or knowledge. Additionally, there is a cultural perception among some international students that questioning authority, such as educators, may be viewed negatively. Therefore, seeking assistance from peers can feel less intimidating as peers may be perceived as more approachable and understanding of their struggles. Educators should view this reliance on peer support as a natural part of the adjustment process for international students. Allowing them time to acclimate to unfamiliar academic expectations and social dynamics will help them feel confident enough to engage directly with educators. Be accessible and supportive. Let the students know that you are approachable and happy to answer any questions no matter how simple or complex.

5. Creating a Sense of Belonging

International students often experience isolation in classrooms, making it crucial for educators to foster a sense of belonging. Cultural differences, such as the U.S. emphasis on independence versus the collectivistic nature of many Asian cultures, can make classroom interactions challenging. This unfamiliarity can lead to disengagement and alienation.

Despite appearing integrated, international students may struggle to form meaningful connections with American peers, leading to self-isolation. They often gravitate toward friends from their home country, limiting engagement in classroom discussions and peer support networks. This lack of engagement with local students can hinder their ability to form meaningful personal connections, access peer support, and fully participate in classroom discussions, all of which are essential for academic and social success.

Educators can help by designating peer mentors or teaching assistants to offer guidance. Assigning clear roles in group activities ensures inclusivity, while providing instructions and exemplars in advance helps international students prepare and participate more confidently. Allowing students to preview tasks before class gives them time to seek clarification, fostering comfort and engagement. These strategies create a more inclusive learning environment, enhancing both academic success and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

Creating a safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environment is essential for all students, including international students. Since international students may encounter cultural differences in their new learning environment, educators must implement culturally responsive support strategies. These strategies help foster an inclusive setting, enabling all students to succeed both academically and personally. By adopting these five inclusive practices in the classroom, educational experiences can be enriched for both international and domestic students, promoting a sense of belonging for everyone.

Thilagha Jagaiah is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Education Department at the University of Hartford. She prepares pre-service teachers to develop essential teaching and assessment skills, equipping them to become highly effective licensed educators for PreK-12 students. Her research focuses on enhancing the teaching and learning of writing, with a specific emphasis on how sophisticated sentence structures can improve writing quality and how optimal trunk support can enhance engagement for students with trunk deficits in inclusive classrooms.

References

Hsu, C.-F. (Sandy), & Huang, I.-T. (Joyce). (2017). Are international students quiet in class? The influence of teacher confirmation on classroom apprehension and willingness to talk in class. Journal of International Students, 7(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i1.244

International Students Enrollment Trends, 1948/49 – 2023/24. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.opendoorsdata.org

Wan, Y. W. (2021). Why are they so quiet? Exploring reticent and passive East Asian ESL students in the U.S. classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 942-954. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.116073

Source link

April 14, 2025
Harvard Faculty, AAUP Challenge Trump Administration’s $8.7 Billion Funding Threat

In what legal experts are calling a landmark case for academic freedom, Harvard faculty and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging unconstitutional attempts to control campus speech and governance through threatened funding cuts.

The legal action, filed Friday, seeks to block the administration from withholding $8.7 billion in federal funding for Harvard University and its affiliated hospitals after demands that the university implement specific policy changes and restructure its operations.

According to court documents, the administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued a demand letter on April 3 outlining “immediate next steps” Harvard must take to maintain its “financial relationship with the United States government.” These demands reportedly extend far beyond addressing antisemitism, including new speech restrictions, elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and mandatory cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security.

“The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like,” said Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach, and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants.”

The lawsuit comes after the task force chair announced on Fox News in March that “the academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists,” and threatened to “bankrupt these universities” by removing federal funding.

Harvard professors involved in the lawsuit claim the administration’s threats have already begun to impact academic freedom on campus.

“The research and teaching of Harvard faculty have already been chilled by the Trump administration’s attempt to coerce the university into changing its curriculum and governing structure,” said Dr. Kirsten Weld, professor of History and president of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “If Trump can threaten to withhold billions of dollars from our colleagues unless we stop teaching about diversity and inclusion, he can make the same threat to try and stop us from teaching about science, his critics, or anything else.”

The plaintiffs have requested an immediate temporary restraining order to prevent any funding cuts while the case proceeds.

The AAUP warns that allowing such governmental intrusion at Harvard could set a dangerous precedent for institutions nationwide.

“Our students and faculty members across the nation are terrified,” said Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel. “If the administration’s lawless and unconstitutional attempts to control speech and governance at Harvard are allowed to proceed, then any one of our institutions could be next.”

Dr. Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, characterized the administration’s actions as “an attack on democracy and economic mobility” with harms that “will be so irreparable that they will last generations.”

At the heart of the case is whether the federal government can legally condition billions in funding on compliance with policy demands that appear to target specific viewpoints and academic content.

Nikolas Bowie, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard and secretary-treasurer of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, argues there is no legal basis for the administration’s actions.

“No law in this country permits President Trump to suspend billions of dollars from universities like Penn, Princeton, or Harvard simply because he doesn’t like their policies on transgender athletes, their research on climate change, or the constitutionally protected speech of their students and faculty.”

Legal experts note that the case could potentially reach the United States Supreme Court, given its significant First Amendment and separation of powers implications.

Source link

April 13, 2025
Faculty salaries grow but still lag pre-pandemic era

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Full-time faculty salaries rose for the second year in a row, even after adjusting for inflation, according to preliminary compensation data from the American Association of University Professors.

Fall 2024 salaries rose an average of 3.8% year over year, though inflation brought that growth down to an increase of 0.9%, according to the study.

Even with two years of gains, faculty compensation has not fully recovered from the pandemic period, which brought a 7.5% effective drop in salaries from 2019 to 2022, AAUP said.

Faculty’s inflation-adjusted salaries are still climbing out of their pandemic dip

Year over year growth in nominal and real salaries from academic years 2017-18 to 2024-25.

During an era of constrained budgets for many institutions — with job and program cuts making headlines — institutions are under a countervailing pressure to invest in their people and infrastructure after years of belt-tightening. Some colleges have given employees raises even as they make budget cuts in other areas.

Preliminary data from AAUP’s latest faculty study shows salaries making some headway even in an era of slashed budgets. Fall’s salary increases for full-time faculty followed an inflation-adjusted 0.4% increase in 2023.

Those of course are averages, and figures varied across rank and job types. Associate professors’ salaries, for example, typically grew at a faster clip in the 2024-25 academic year than professors or assistant professors — while lecturers’ salaries rose faster than all of those positions, with growth over 6% at the doctoral and master’s level institutions, according to AAUP’s study.

The survey also found continued gender disparities for professor compensation, with men earning nearly $26,000 more than women at doctoral institutions and about $8,000 more at master’s institutions.

College and university presidents typically made around four times or more than the average faculty member across most institution types, according to the study.

Part-time faculty made an average of $4,093 per class section in the 2023-24 academic year. But their compensation “varied widely” depending on where they worked, AAUP said.

At private nonprofits, a part-time faculty member could make an average of $1,950 per section teaching at associate-granting institutions compared to $6,481 at bachelor’s-degree colleges.

Maximum payments could run into the tens of thousands of dollars across institution types. Meanwhile, some part-time faculty could earn as little as $700 per section teaching at a public university.

Just over one-third of colleges, 34.4%, made retirement plan contributions for at least some part-time faculty, and fewer than one-third, 32.5%, contributed to insurance premiums for at least some part-timers.

The AAUP analysis is based on surveys of more than 800 U.S. institutions, with data on roughly 370,000 full-time and 90,000 part-time faculty members.

CUPA-HR also found annual salary growth across much of the sector in the 2024-25 academic year.

After factoring in inflation of 2.7%, salaries went up 1.2% for administrators, 1% for professional staff, 1.1% for general staff and 0.5% for nontenure-track faculty, according to CUPA-HR. Real salaries for tenure-track faculty fell 0.1%.

As with AAUP, CUPA-HR noted that higher education salaries still fell short of pre-pandemic levels despite growth. The largest gaps are in salaries for tenure-track faculty — paid 10.2% less than in the pre-pandemic era after adjusting for inflation — and non-tenure-track teaching faculty, who are paid 7.6% less.

Source link

April 11, 2025
Designing College Curricula for Student Success – Faculty Focus
Efforts to expand access to higher education have resulted in higher enrollment rates and degree attainment rates making higher education an option that is open to more students than ever before. The greater the access to higher education, the more dynamic a curriculum must be to effectively and equitably educate and elevate the learning experiences of all students. Postsecondary education in America has historically been committed to “inventing courses of study, educational programs, or even whole institutions dedicated to the needs and expectations of its society, peoples, and cultures” (Community Colleges, n.d.). However, much of the emphasis has been placed on access rather than preparation. National policy has neglected to focus on the development of rigorous and integrated curricula that can prepare students for success (Kirst & Usdan, 2009).

Two Forms of Curriculum in Higher Education

There are two forms of curriculum in higher education. The first “is about defining or proposing which courses or subjects should be taken by students of a particular academic program” (Khan & Law, 2015). The second type of curriculum consists of the set of plans made for guiding learning, which includes the learning experiences and interactions that students have with the content, materials, resources and the process for evaluating mastery of the objectives (Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead & Boschee, 2019). A changing economic, social and political landscape requires complementary changes to curriculum. Costs of higher education degrees are rising and earning a degree is becoming more essential for personal and professional success (Bordelon, 2012). From a theoretical perspective, curriculum is much more than a set of plans or a program of study but instead represents the access to a particular way of life serving to “prepare students for dominant or subordinate positions in the existing society” (McLaren, 2002). Curriculum must be created in a way that promotes access and diversity, but also provides students with learning experiences relevant to the 21st century and beyond, and prepares them to be successful in a changing globalized society.

Need for Effective Curriculum Design in Higher Ed

Most class or instructional level curriculum is designed by professors, however, most professors have not received formal training in teaching or designing courses. In fact, “teaching is where professors receive the least training, if any at all” (Fertig, 2012). Support is sometimes available from veteran professors, faculty development offices and workshops or training to assist professors in the challenging work of course and curriculum development and implementation.

Many professors may not be familiar with, A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning, a resource designed to do just what it says.

The Integrated Course Design Model

Fink (2003) acknowledges that a professor’s ability to design courses is usually a limiting factor due to the fact that many professors have not been properly trained to do so. From this, Fink developed a model known as integrated course design which consists of three phases: the initial, intermediate and final design phases. The basic components of integrated course design include:
- analyzing situational factors,
- formulating learning goals,
- designing feedback and assessment,
- and selecting learning activities.
What distinguishes this model from other similar models is that the components are arranged “in a way that reveals and emphasizes their inter-relatedness” (Fink, 2003). The act of designing an integrated course should be done in a systematic way where each step is completed before the next, with the later steps building on the previous ones. This is similar to the structure-oriented theories of curriculum and the system approach to designing instruction consistent with the work of Bloom, Tyler and Mager (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). It is an ongoing, cyclical process based on flexibility, repeated reflection and transformation which corresponds with Taba’s modification of Tyler’s theory (Pina et al., 1995).

Initial Design Phase: Gathering Situational Factors

In the initial design phase, the first step is to gather information about the situational factors including possible constraints and opportunities. It is important that situational factors be identified as a key component to make planning decisions “since retrofitting one’s instructional design, delivery or assessment only after one finds out who is being instructed, are not effective use of faculty time, effort or university resources” (Schreiner, Rothernberger and Scoltz, 2013). Proactive focus on situational factors is preferable, as stated by Burgstahler, which is used in the Universal Design for Instruction model (Schreiner, Rothernberger and Scoltz, 2013). There are several important situational factors that Fink suggests can affect course design. The general categories of situational factors are: specific context of the teaching/learning situation, general context of the learning situation, nature of the subject, characteristics of the learners and characteristics of the teacher. Fink states that specific contextual factors are always important while other factors are sometimes important, but it is always useful to examine all factors when developing a course.

The Role of Student Interest and Prior Knowledge

Student interest and prior knowledge are valuable to consider because of the considerable impact they have on the student learning experience. Students bring pre-existing attitudes, beliefs and interests into the classroom, but situational factors can influence whether or not students develop interest in new material that is presented to them in an educational context (Durik, 2003). Course design must address “the basic proposition that knowledge cannot be divorced from human interest” (Macdonald, 1975). Professors can support the development of interest with characteristics of course design and delivery (Durik, 2003). Students’ prior knowledge and initial understanding must be engaged because learning transfer can depend on the orientation of prior knowledge (Smith, 2012). Learning activities that build on prior knowledge are so valuable because “ideas which are related tend to be remembered longer as compared to isolated factual information” (Smith, 2012).

Fink’s Worksheet for Identifying Situational Factors

Fink developed a worksheet for situational factors to be identified for each category starting with, of course, the factor he identifies as being the most important, the specific context of the teaching and learning situation.

After the first step of gathering and analyzing situational factors the second step is to decide the learning goals. This is what you want students to get out of the course, what you think is important for them to retain two to three years after they complete the course, what kind of thinking or application abilities you want them to develop, and how you want their learning to continue after the course is completed (Fink, 2003). For this step, Fink suggests the backward design model that starts at the end of the learning process and works backwards. Fink suggests avoiding an overemphasis on rote learning and focusing more on a learner centered approach which leads to more meaningful and significant learning, aligning with the holistic theory of education (Glatthorn et al., 2019). Fink proposes a taxonomy of significant learning that consists of six major types. The six types of significant learning are: foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring and learning how to learn.

Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning

Fink’s taxonomy is unique because each type of learning is interactive, which means that each type of learning can inspire other types of learning.

Foundational Knowledge: Understanding and remembering information and ideas.

Application: Critical, creative, and practical thinking, as well as managing projects and demonstrating skills.

Integration: Connecting ideas, people, and realms of life.

Human Dimension: Learning about oneself and others.

Caring: Developing new feelings, interests, and values.

Learning How to Learn: Self-directed learning and becoming a better student through inquiry.

Fink recognizes that it may be intimidating to include all six types of significant learning but states that the more you try to include, the more the learning goals will support each other and the more valuable the learning experience for the students (Smith, 2012). Fink developed a worksheet for formulating significant learning goals that includes key questions to ask about each of the six types of learning.

The third step in the initial design phase is to think about and plan the feedback and assessment procedures. Traditional courses consist of midterm and final exams, but a learning-centered course requires a more sophisticated approach (Fink, 2003). Educative assessments enhance the quality of learning and go beyond “audit-ive-type assessment” that is generally used for the sole purpose of awarding a grade (Fink, 2003). Educative assessment should be future oriented to improve student learning and have an impact on the student experience beyond the life of the course. To achieve this, an instructor must look ahead to a future where students will be able to apply their knowledge or showcase their skills, and then the professor creates a question or problem that recreates the real-life context as closely as possible in an open-ended format without being too rigid or pre-structured (Fink, 2003).

Students must be informed of the evaluative criteria being used to assess their performance. Brain research indicates that students are more engaged when they understand how and why they are being asked to perform or present what they have learned (Schreiner et al.,2013). The teacher’s standards must be clear and assessment must be practical. Student self-assessment is important because in the real-world students will have to assess their own performance. Research about learning shows the need for students to develop metacognition in order to “self-assess, understand, and appreciate their strengths and differences” (Smith, 2012). There are ways that instruction and assessment can encourage metacognition and promote student ownership of the learning process. An integral part of assessment is feedback and high-quality feedback includes the characteristics of “FIDeLity,” feedback which is frequent, immediate, discriminating and loving. Fink developed a worksheet to establish what he refers to as procedures for educative assessment.

“Traditional lectures are still the dominant form of undergraduate instruction in most first- and second-year college courses” however, more recently there has been research to support the need for providing more effective forms of active learning that can prepare students with the critical thinking skills that they will need to be successful for a wide range of professions (LoPresto & Slater, 2016). Step four in Fink’s guide consists of the teaching and learning activities, which in order to create significant learning opportunities, must incorporate active learning. Active learning, as defined by Bonwell and Eison (1991), is learning that goes beyond just listening to a lecture and includes engagement on the part of the student through reading, writing, discussion and problem solving. Active learning thus includes the act of students “doing things” which requires experiential opportunities and reflective dialogue.

Creating learning experiences has been described by Tyler (1975) as even more of an artistic endeavor than the selection of learning objectives. Not all curriculum developers or instructors know how to create new and effective learning activities. Fink suggests using a holistic view of active learning that includes activities from each of the three components of active learning: information and ideas, rich learning experiences and reflective dialogue. Rich learning experiences are those that stimulate several types of significant learning simultaneously and can be done in or out of class. Richness refers to the depth of the curriculum, the layers of meaning, and its multiple interpretations or possibilities (Doll, 1993).These experiences should be both experiential and reflective to assist students to develop new ways of thinking and feeling that can be implemented in various ways in real life situations (Schaffarzick & Hampson, 1975).

Once the strong primary components are developed in the initial phase, step five is where the course developer integrates the previous steps. Fink provides another worksheet to assess the quality of the course design using specific criteria as specified in steps one through four, which are then integrated and assembled into a coherent whole. Assembling the components is done in the intermediate design phase which are steps six through eight. To create a course structure the semester must be divided into four to seven segments that focus on the key concepts, issues or topics that make up the course. The topics must be arranged into a logical sequence and the course developer has to determine how many class sessions to assign to each one. This helps to promote the creation of assignments that gradually become more challenging.

There is a difference between an instructional strategy and a teaching technique. A teaching technique is a specific teaching activity while an instructional strategy is a set of learning activities arranged in a way that “energy for learning increases and accumulates as students go through the sequence” (Fink, 2003). Instructional strategy is designed in step seven with the goal of creating a sequence of activities that build on each other. Learning experiences that “are organized so that each subsequent experience builds on what has been learned in earlier ones and so that the student can perceive the connection” have greater impact and enhance learning (Schaffarzick & Hampson, 1975). Activities that are generated must also prepare students for their future work in the course. The structure and sequence of the activities must allow for time to practice what it is the students are expected to learn and students must be provided with prompt feedback. The quality of their work and performance must be assessed while also providing time for students to reflect on their own learning.

The course structure and the instructional strategy for the whole course must be integrated in step eight. Fink suggests creating a diagram of both the course structure and instructional strategy and recommends taking the time to find ways to enhance how both components can work together. Such a diagram would allow the course developer to reflect on two very important aspects of the course, differentiation and the integration. At the conclusion of step eight, one should be able to produce a week-by-week schedule of activities for the entire semester. Fink provides a worksheet for creating this schedule. At the end of this step there should be an integrated set of components that combine to form a cohesive course and the developer is ready for the final design phase.

The final design phase includes the four remaining steps to complete the design of the course. Step nine is deciding on a grading system which should incorporate a full range of the learning goals and activities, but not necessarily grading everything. The weight of each graded item should mirror the importance of the activity. Prompts provided include, “What will be the relative weight of the grade components? Are you going to determine that yourself, or will you involve the class in this process?” (Fink,2003). This is an opportunity to engage students in the design process using a dialogical model (Macdonald, 1975).

It is unlikely that any course design will be without faults or possible issues. It is in step ten that Fink suggests looking for what could go wrong. At this point the course design is really just a first draft and this step is included so that the designer can edit that first draft by checking for possible problems and discovering ways to solve those problems. After what Fink calls “de-bugging” the course, step eleven is to create a syllabus which is the way the professor shares the course plans with the students. As expected the syllabus contains traditional items such as general information, goals for the course, the structure and sequence of class activities including major due dates, required texts/materials, grading procedures and course policies.

The final step of designing a course for significant learning is planning how one will evaluate the course and how to evaluate one’s own teaching. It is through these evaluations that the course developer can gather the necessary insight to determine how to improve the course and how to improve pedagogy over time. Fink suggests collecting feedback throughout the course and upon completion of the course. A variety of sources of information are suggested such as video/audio, student ratings, student interviews/questionnaires, outside observer and test results. Questions to ask oneself include, were the goals of the course achieved and to what degree? What was the effectiveness of the learning activities? How effective was the instructor’s ability to interact with students?

After finishing steps one through twelve the course design is complete. Fink provides two caveats for consideration. The first is to stay flexible. Once the plan is complete it is still only a plan and should remain flexible and subject to change as needed throughout implementation.

The second caveat is that when trying to improve the design of the course, focus on only a few changes so as not to get overwhelmed. Start with making some changes in each of the three phases because each one impacts and strengthens the others. Each time teaching takes place there is an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the plan and to make changes, as time goes on more ambitious changes can be implemented.

Fink’s guide provides a pragmatic approach to course design and redesign so that when implemented, it can gradually improve the user as a course designer. Commitment to designing courses for significant learning increases one’s “power and effectiveness as someone responsible for the quality of other people’s learning experience” (Fink, 2003).

Fink’s guide can be used by new professors to create courses that engage students and prioritize active learning. This model can also be used by seasoned and veteran professors to assess their courses and reconstruct them to “create subjects better able to negotiate the complexities of emergent forms of everyday life, labor and culture” (Kellner, 2003).

Being responsible for the learning experiences of others is one of great reward but if not taken seriously and executed with integrity and fidelity it can also have grave implications such as injustice, trauma, and cultural domination which is why higher education curriculum and course design should be a priority at every institution of higher learning.

Alana Sejdic, EdD is a special education administrator with East Hartford public schools. She is currently in a certification program for the Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) model developed by Dr. Ross Greene. She is a trainer in the Sexual Health & Relationships Education (SHARE) curriculum certified through Among Friends in Oregon. She recently published her book “When Spoons are Low”, a picture book about disability, written in verse for readers young and old. Her previous administrative experiences include residential and therapeutic education, juvenile justice education, and leading postsecondary disability services in private and public institutions of higher education. Dr. Sejdic is also a member of the Board of Directors for the CT Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC). Her most important role is being a mother to her two sons.

References

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.

Bordelon, D. (2012). Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going? The Evolution of American Higher Education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, (C), 100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257716851_Where_Have_We_Been_Where_Are_We_Going_The_Evolution_of_American_Higher_Education

Community Colleges The History of Community Colleges, The junior college and the research university, The Community College Mission. Retrieved from https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1873/Community-Colleges.html

Doll Jr, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. Teachers College Press. Durik, A. M. (2003). Personal and situational factors involved in the development of interest. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316052742_A_Post-Modern_Perspective_on_Curriculum

Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27(11).

How Do Professors Learn to Teach (or Do They)? MAR 29, 2012 Jason Fertig

Kellner, D. (2003). Toward a critical theory of education. Democracy & Nature, 9(1), 51-64.

Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2009). The historical context of the divide between K-12 and higher education. PM Callan, States, Schools and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination between Schools and Colleges, NCPPHE (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education), San Jose, 5.

LoPresto, M. C., & Slater, T. F. (2016). A new comparison of active learning strategies to traditional lectures for teaching college astronomy. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 3(1), 59-76.

Macdonald, J. B. (1975). Curriculum and human interests. Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists, 283-294.

McLaren, P. (2002). Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts.

Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses (Vol. 17). Peter Lang.

Schaffarzick, J., & Hampson, D. H. (1975). Strategies for Curriculum Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED114936

Schreiner, M. B., Rothenberger, C. D., & Sholtz, A. (2013). Using Brain Research to Drive College Teaching: Innovations in Universal Course Design. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(3).
Source link
April 11, 2025
Designing College Curricula for Student Success – Faculty Focus
Efforts to expand access to higher education have resulted in higher enrollment rates and degree attainment rates making higher education an option that is open to more students than ever before. The greater the access to higher education, the more dynamic a curriculum must be to effectively and equitably educate and elevate the learning experiences of all students. Postsecondary education in America has historically been committed to “inventing courses of study, educational programs, or even whole institutions dedicated to the needs and expectations of its society, peoples, and cultures” (Community Colleges, n.d.). However, much of the emphasis has been placed on access rather than preparation. National policy has neglected to focus on the development of rigorous and integrated curricula that can prepare students for success (Kirst & Usdan, 2009).

Two Forms of Curriculum in Higher Education

There are two forms of curriculum in higher education. The first “is about defining or proposing which courses or subjects should be taken by students of a particular academic program” (Khan & Law, 2015). The second type of curriculum consists of the set of plans made for guiding learning, which includes the learning experiences and interactions that students have with the content, materials, resources and the process for evaluating mastery of the objectives (Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead & Boschee, 2019). A changing economic, social and political landscape requires complementary changes to curriculum. Costs of higher education degrees are rising and earning a degree is becoming more essential for personal and professional success (Bordelon, 2012). From a theoretical perspective, curriculum is much more than a set of plans or a program of study but instead represents the access to a particular way of life serving to “prepare students for dominant or subordinate positions in the existing society” (McLaren, 2002). Curriculum must be created in a way that promotes access and diversity, but also provides students with learning experiences relevant to the 21st century and beyond, and prepares them to be successful in a changing globalized society.

Need for Effective Curriculum Design in Higher Ed

Most class or instructional level curriculum is designed by professors, however, most professors have not received formal training in teaching or designing courses. In fact, “teaching is where professors receive the least training, if any at all” (Fertig, 2012). Support is sometimes available from veteran professors, faculty development offices and workshops or training to assist professors in the challenging work of course and curriculum development and implementation.

Many professors may not be familiar with, A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning, a resource designed to do just what it says.

The Integrated Course Design Model

Fink (2003) acknowledges that a professor’s ability to design courses is usually a limiting factor due to the fact that many professors have not been properly trained to do so. From this, Fink developed a model known as integrated course design which consists of three phases: the initial, intermediate and final design phases. The basic components of integrated course design include:
- analyzing situational factors,
- formulating learning goals,
- designing feedback and assessment,
- and selecting learning activities.
What distinguishes this model from other similar models is that the components are arranged “in a way that reveals and emphasizes their inter-relatedness” (Fink, 2003). The act of designing an integrated course should be done in a systematic way where each step is completed before the next, with the later steps building on the previous ones. This is similar to the structure-oriented theories of curriculum and the system approach to designing instruction consistent with the work of Bloom, Tyler and Mager (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). It is an ongoing, cyclical process based on flexibility, repeated reflection and transformation which corresponds with Taba’s modification of Tyler’s theory (Pina et al., 1995).

Initial Design Phase: Gathering Situational Factors

In the initial design phase, the first step is to gather information about the situational factors including possible constraints and opportunities. It is important that situational factors be identified as a key component to make planning decisions “since retrofitting one’s instructional design, delivery or assessment only after one finds out who is being instructed, are not effective use of faculty time, effort or university resources” (Schreiner, Rothernberger and Scoltz, 2013). Proactive focus on situational factors is preferable, as stated by Burgstahler, which is used in the Universal Design for Instruction model (Schreiner, Rothernberger and Scoltz, 2013). There are several important situational factors that Fink suggests can affect course design. The general categories of situational factors are: specific context of the teaching/learning situation, general context of the learning situation, nature of the subject, characteristics of the learners and characteristics of the teacher. Fink states that specific contextual factors are always important while other factors are sometimes important, but it is always useful to examine all factors when developing a course.

The Role of Student Interest and Prior Knowledge

Student interest and prior knowledge are valuable to consider because of the considerable impact they have on the student learning experience. Students bring pre-existing attitudes, beliefs and interests into the classroom, but situational factors can influence whether or not students develop interest in new material that is presented to them in an educational context (Durik, 2003). Course design must address “the basic proposition that knowledge cannot be divorced from human interest” (Macdonald, 1975). Professors can support the development of interest with characteristics of course design and delivery (Durik, 2003). Students’ prior knowledge and initial understanding must be engaged because learning transfer can depend on the orientation of prior knowledge (Smith, 2012). Learning activities that build on prior knowledge are so valuable because “ideas which are related tend to be remembered longer as compared to isolated factual information” (Smith, 2012).

Fink’s Worksheet for Identifying Situational Factors

Fink developed a worksheet for situational factors to be identified for each category starting with, of course, the factor he identifies as being the most important, the specific context of the teaching and learning situation.

After the first step of gathering and analyzing situational factors the second step is to decide the learning goals. This is what you want students to get out of the course, what you think is important for them to retain two to three years after they complete the course, what kind of thinking or application abilities you want them to develop, and how you want their learning to continue after the course is completed (Fink, 2003). For this step, Fink suggests the backward design model that starts at the end of the learning process and works backwards. Fink suggests avoiding an overemphasis on rote learning and focusing more on a learner centered approach which leads to more meaningful and significant learning, aligning with the holistic theory of education (Glatthorn et al., 2019). Fink proposes a taxonomy of significant learning that consists of six major types. The six types of significant learning are: foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring and learning how to learn.

Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning

Fink’s taxonomy is unique because each type of learning is interactive, which means that each type of learning can inspire other types of learning.

Foundational Knowledge: Understanding and remembering information and ideas.

Application: Critical, creative, and practical thinking, as well as managing projects and demonstrating skills.

Integration: Connecting ideas, people, and realms of life.

Human Dimension: Learning about oneself and others.

Caring: Developing new feelings, interests, and values.

Learning How to Learn: Self-directed learning and becoming a better student through inquiry.

Fink recognizes that it may be intimidating to include all six types of significant learning but states that the more you try to include, the more the learning goals will support each other and the more valuable the learning experience for the students (Smith, 2012). Fink developed a worksheet for formulating significant learning goals that includes key questions to ask about each of the six types of learning.

The third step in the initial design phase is to think about and plan the feedback and assessment procedures. Traditional courses consist of midterm and final exams, but a learning-centered course requires a more sophisticated approach (Fink, 2003). Educative assessments enhance the quality of learning and go beyond “audit-ive-type assessment” that is generally used for the sole purpose of awarding a grade (Fink, 2003). Educative assessment should be future oriented to improve student learning and have an impact on the student experience beyond the life of the course. To achieve this, an instructor must look ahead to a future where students will be able to apply their knowledge or showcase their skills, and then the professor creates a question or problem that recreates the real-life context as closely as possible in an open-ended format without being too rigid or pre-structured (Fink, 2003).

Students must be informed of the evaluative criteria being used to assess their performance. Brain research indicates that students are more engaged when they understand how and why they are being asked to perform or present what they have learned (Schreiner et al.,2013). The teacher’s standards must be clear and assessment must be practical. Student self-assessment is important because in the real-world students will have to assess their own performance. Research about learning shows the need for students to develop metacognition in order to “self-assess, understand, and appreciate their strengths and differences” (Smith, 2012). There are ways that instruction and assessment can encourage metacognition and promote student ownership of the learning process. An integral part of assessment is feedback and high-quality feedback includes the characteristics of “FIDeLity,” feedback which is frequent, immediate, discriminating and loving. Fink developed a worksheet to establish what he refers to as procedures for educative assessment.

“Traditional lectures are still the dominant form of undergraduate instruction in most first- and second-year college courses” however, more recently there has been research to support the need for providing more effective forms of active learning that can prepare students with the critical thinking skills that they will need to be successful for a wide range of professions (LoPresto & Slater, 2016). Step four in Fink’s guide consists of the teaching and learning activities, which in order to create significant learning opportunities, must incorporate active learning. Active learning, as defined by Bonwell and Eison (1991), is learning that goes beyond just listening to a lecture and includes engagement on the part of the student through reading, writing, discussion and problem solving. Active learning thus includes the act of students “doing things” which requires experiential opportunities and reflective dialogue.

Creating learning experiences has been described by Tyler (1975) as even more of an artistic endeavor than the selection of learning objectives. Not all curriculum developers or instructors know how to create new and effective learning activities. Fink suggests using a holistic view of active learning that includes activities from each of the three components of active learning: information and ideas, rich learning experiences and reflective dialogue. Rich learning experiences are those that stimulate several types of significant learning simultaneously and can be done in or out of class. Richness refers to the depth of the curriculum, the layers of meaning, and its multiple interpretations or possibilities (Doll, 1993).These experiences should be both experiential and reflective to assist students to develop new ways of thinking and feeling that can be implemented in various ways in real life situations (Schaffarzick & Hampson, 1975).

Once the strong primary components are developed in the initial phase, step five is where the course developer integrates the previous steps. Fink provides another worksheet to assess the quality of the course design using specific criteria as specified in steps one through four, which are then integrated and assembled into a coherent whole. Assembling the components is done in the intermediate design phase which are steps six through eight. To create a course structure the semester must be divided into four to seven segments that focus on the key concepts, issues or topics that make up the course. The topics must be arranged into a logical sequence and the course developer has to determine how many class sessions to assign to each one. This helps to promote the creation of assignments that gradually become more challenging.

There is a difference between an instructional strategy and a teaching technique. A teaching technique is a specific teaching activity while an instructional strategy is a set of learning activities arranged in a way that “energy for learning increases and accumulates as students go through the sequence” (Fink, 2003). Instructional strategy is designed in step seven with the goal of creating a sequence of activities that build on each other. Learning experiences that “are organized so that each subsequent experience builds on what has been learned in earlier ones and so that the student can perceive the connection” have greater impact and enhance learning (Schaffarzick & Hampson, 1975). Activities that are generated must also prepare students for their future work in the course. The structure and sequence of the activities must allow for time to practice what it is the students are expected to learn and students must be provided with prompt feedback. The quality of their work and performance must be assessed while also providing time for students to reflect on their own learning.

The course structure and the instructional strategy for the whole course must be integrated in step eight. Fink suggests creating a diagram of both the course structure and instructional strategy and recommends taking the time to find ways to enhance how both components can work together. Such a diagram would allow the course developer to reflect on two very important aspects of the course, differentiation and the integration. At the conclusion of step eight, one should be able to produce a week-by-week schedule of activities for the entire semester. Fink provides a worksheet for creating this schedule. At the end of this step there should be an integrated set of components that combine to form a cohesive course and the developer is ready for the final design phase.

The final design phase includes the four remaining steps to complete the design of the course. Step nine is deciding on a grading system which should incorporate a full range of the learning goals and activities, but not necessarily grading everything. The weight of each graded item should mirror the importance of the activity. Prompts provided include, “What will be the relative weight of the grade components? Are you going to determine that yourself, or will you involve the class in this process?” (Fink,2003). This is an opportunity to engage students in the design process using a dialogical model (Macdonald, 1975).

It is unlikely that any course design will be without faults or possible issues. It is in step ten that Fink suggests looking for what could go wrong. At this point the course design is really just a first draft and this step is included so that the designer can edit that first draft by checking for possible problems and discovering ways to solve those problems. After what Fink calls “de-bugging” the course, step eleven is to create a syllabus which is the way the professor shares the course plans with the students. As expected the syllabus contains traditional items such as general information, goals for the course, the structure and sequence of class activities including major due dates, required texts/materials, grading procedures and course policies.

The final step of designing a course for significant learning is planning how one will evaluate the course and how to evaluate one’s own teaching. It is through these evaluations that the course developer can gather the necessary insight to determine how to improve the course and how to improve pedagogy over time. Fink suggests collecting feedback throughout the course and upon completion of the course. A variety of sources of information are suggested such as video/audio, student ratings, student interviews/questionnaires, outside observer and test results. Questions to ask oneself include, were the goals of the course achieved and to what degree? What was the effectiveness of the learning activities? How effective was the instructor’s ability to interact with students?

After finishing steps one through twelve the course design is complete. Fink provides two caveats for consideration. The first is to stay flexible. Once the plan is complete it is still only a plan and should remain flexible and subject to change as needed throughout implementation.

The second caveat is that when trying to improve the design of the course, focus on only a few changes so as not to get overwhelmed. Start with making some changes in each of the three phases because each one impacts and strengthens the others. Each time teaching takes place there is an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the plan and to make changes, as time goes on more ambitious changes can be implemented.

Fink’s guide provides a pragmatic approach to course design and redesign so that when implemented, it can gradually improve the user as a course designer. Commitment to designing courses for significant learning increases one’s “power and effectiveness as someone responsible for the quality of other people’s learning experience” (Fink, 2003).

Fink’s guide can be used by new professors to create courses that engage students and prioritize active learning. This model can also be used by seasoned and veteran professors to assess their courses and reconstruct them to “create subjects better able to negotiate the complexities of emergent forms of everyday life, labor and culture” (Kellner, 2003).

Being responsible for the learning experiences of others is one of great reward but if not taken seriously and executed with integrity and fidelity it can also have grave implications such as injustice, trauma, and cultural domination which is why higher education curriculum and course design should be a priority at every institution of higher learning.

Alana Sejdic, EdD is a special education administrator with East Hartford public schools. She is currently in a certification program for the Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) model developed by Dr. Ross Greene. She is a trainer in the Sexual Health & Relationships Education (SHARE) curriculum certified through Among Friends in Oregon. She recently published her book “When Spoons are Low”, a picture book about disability, written in verse for readers young and old. Her previous administrative experiences include residential and therapeutic education, juvenile justice education, and leading postsecondary disability services in private and public institutions of higher education. Dr. Sejdic is also a member of the Board of Directors for the CT Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC). Her most important role is being a mother to her two sons.

References

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.

Bordelon, D. (2012). Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going? The Evolution of American Higher Education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, (C), 100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257716851_Where_Have_We_Been_Where_Are_We_Going_The_Evolution_of_American_Higher_Education

Community Colleges The History of Community Colleges, The junior college and the research university, The Community College Mission. Retrieved from https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1873/Community-Colleges.html

Doll Jr, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. Teachers College Press. Durik, A. M. (2003). Personal and situational factors involved in the development of interest. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316052742_A_Post-Modern_Perspective_on_Curriculum

Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27(11).

How Do Professors Learn to Teach (or Do They)? MAR 29, 2012 Jason Fertig

Kellner, D. (2003). Toward a critical theory of education. Democracy & Nature, 9(1), 51-64.

Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2009). The historical context of the divide between K-12 and higher education. PM Callan, States, Schools and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination between Schools and Colleges, NCPPHE (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education), San Jose, 5.

LoPresto, M. C., & Slater, T. F. (2016). A new comparison of active learning strategies to traditional lectures for teaching college astronomy. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 3(1), 59-76.

Macdonald, J. B. (1975). Curriculum and human interests. Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists, 283-294.

McLaren, P. (2002). Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts.

Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses (Vol. 17). Peter Lang.

Schaffarzick, J., & Hampson, D. H. (1975). Strategies for Curriculum Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED114936

Schreiner, M. B., Rothenberger, C. D., & Sholtz, A. (2013). Using Brain Research to Drive College Teaching: Innovations in Universal Course Design. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(3).
Source link
April 11, 2025

Promoting AI-Enhanced Performance in the Online Classroom – Faculty Focus

With the release of AI on a broad scale and the evolving procedural policies for policing and supporting its use in online higher education classrooms, instructor hesitancy to implement AI in ethical and effectual ways is shared by many. To emphasize, research indicates that curriculum designers and university stakeholders need to provide best-practice examples of how to utilize AI tools to effectively and positively promote the use of AI for students’ advantage (Deroncle-Acosta et al. 2024, 9). Clearly, AI offers many benefits as it can drive efficiency, creativity, and innovation. AI comes in various forms from generative AI to gamification to chatbots to adaptive learning platforms amidst other formats. Due to the sheer volume of AI options, pairing high-impact AI tools with highly desirable outcomes aids in the promotion and implementation of such usage in the online classroom.

Elevating Engagement

Engagement is an important factor driving retention in online classrooms; furthermore, dynamic environments capture the attention of students, ensuring greater dedication to learning. AI can considerably improve engagement in the classroom (A. Huang et al. 2023, 11). One way that online instructors can use AI in the classroom is to become a digital master and use generative AI, such as ChatGPT, to develop deeper content ideas or analyze student contributions within discussion (Mora and Semingson 2023, 57). Such tailored discussions add depth and rigor to courses, captivating students and bringing forth relevant and dynamic topics.

Furthermore, a second way to further improve engagement is through the development of AI developed feedback for formative assessments (Perry 2023, 78). Timely and personalized feedback plays an essential role in engaging students and motivating them (Wang and Lehman 2021, 571); AI can aid in streamlining and fast-tracking feedback. In deeply engaging students in an immersive and individualized way, students are more motivated to learn and more satisfied with educational outcomes.

Finally, while generative AI can offer just-in-time support to students, it also simulates a social presence, which is a “crucial component in technology-rich learning environments” (X. Huang et al. 2023, 396). Considered as a study companion, generative AI provides direct and immediate assistance and support, reducing anxiety and improving student motivation and psychological and personal contentment (Luan et al. 2024, 6). Ultimately, AI as a guide to both instructors and students can aid in boosting wholesale engagement in the online classroom.

Prompting Productivity

Another satisfactory outcome regarding the use of AI involves student productivity. Research notes, “By leveraging AI-driven solutions, students can streamline mundane tasks, optimize time management, and achieve higher levels of performance and academic excellence” (Capinding and Dumayas 2024, 647). With AI readily available to aid in the completion of so many activities, it behooves instructors to promote the ethical and practical use of applicable AI tools. For instance, a productivity tool for aiding in the completion of schoolwork is Quillbot, an AI tool on steroids; this one-stop-shop program paraphrases, translates, corrects grammar, and generates citations. Such a tool also ensures more accuracy in terms of performance.

Additionally, an entertaining and useful tool in maximizing time management is the gamified timer app called Forest. With this app, you grow a digital and real-tree forest based on the ability to focus on one’s work for extended clocked times, thus avoiding the distractions of one’s phone. While this may seem like a novel suggestion, its need for implementation is real and underused. In one study based on 106 college students with ADHD, achievement was negatively associated with the sound mode of cell phone; turning off the phone substantially improved accuracy and achievement in quantifiable ways (Albert et al 2023, 1192). Used wisely, AI can boost productivity for students, allowing students to earn higher grades while leaving them more time for the creativity and critical thinking required of top-performing students.

Incorporating Inclusivity

A final desired outcome associated with AI tools is the promotion of inclusivity and accessibility in the online classroom. More than 1 billion people across the world have disabilities and AI optimizes accessibility, inclusion, and equity, thus ensuring fairer access to educational information of all types (Nacheva 2025, 137). A top AI tool for accessibility is Otterai; this transcription service provides captions for recordings and videos. Transcriptions ease and enable learning for many students with disabilities. Likewise, translation AI tools, such as Quillbot or Google Translate, aid English Language Learner (ELL) students. Similarly, Seeing AI from Microsoft is a free app that identifies currency, objects, text, and people for people with visual impairments. Not only is AI valuable for students with disabilities, facilitators can also use it to enhance instruction regarding accessibility. For instance, AI can be used to create visuals for students. Canva has a Dream Lab feature that will generate images. Meeting the dual coding needs of students with audio-visual processing requirements can also improve accessibility while adding depth and engagement to one’s classroom. Using and offering ethical ways to use AI tools benefits student experiences while increasing the impact of instructors.

Conclusion

As instructors, we are curators of learning resources, and AI tools can aid student engagement, productivity, and accessibility. In promoting AI-driven options that enrich and improve student learning, we position students for success and teach them empowering ways to support their autonomous educational growth. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, but with the right implementation, it can also stand for Adds Insight; Accelerates Improvements, and Assists Instruction.

AI Tool	Description	Application
ChatGPT	Generative AI that uses natural language processing technology	Human-like conversational assistant helpful in supplying assistance, generating ideas, and organizing content
Quillbot	Multipurpose writing tool: grammar editor, citation generator, paraphraser, translator, AI detector, and plagiarism checker	Task assistant and support system helpful in completing academic tasks
Forest	Gamified timer app	Assists in helping users stay task-focused and avoid chronic phone addiction
Otterai	Transcription service	Supplies transcriptions and captions, aiding students with hearing impairments or processing needs
Google Translate	Multilingual neural machine translation service	Aids in translating languages through both inserted text and images; helpful for ELL students
Seeing AI	Camera world setting narrator	Helpful for people with vision impairments in describing the world as seen through the camera lens
Canva – Dream Lab	Image generator	Creates visual aids

Amy Winger is an online instructor for the University of Phoenix and American InterContinental University. She holds a BA in English from the University of Iowa and a MEd in English Education from the University of Minnesota. For over 19 years, she has taught English and general education courses and enjoys pioneering the use of tech tools. Prior to that, she taught English at the secondary level. Her academic research primarily focuses on retention strategies, technology tools, and social media implementation in the online classroom. She is also a freelance fiction writer.

References

Albert, Gila, Shimon Fridkin, and Or Delevski. 2023. “Mobile Phone Distraction and Its Effects on Academic Performance of Israeli College Students.” Israel Affairs 29 (6): 1181–99. doi:10.1080/13537121.2023.2257472.

Capinding, Andie Tangonan and Franklin Tubeje Dumayas. 2024. “Transformative Pedagogy in the Digital Age: Unraveling the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Higher Education Students.” Problems of Education in the 21st Century 82 (5): 630–57. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=c8d24236-63fc-3796-b8c5-bc4134816fad.

Deroncele-Acosta, Angel, Omar Bellido-Valdiviezo, María de los Ángeles Sánchez-Trujillo, Madeleine Lourdes Palacios-Núñez, Hernán Rueda-Garcés, and José Gregorio Brito-Garcías. 2024. “Ten Essential Pillars in Artificial Intelligence for University Science Education: A Scoping Review.” SAGE Open 14 (3). https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=2ab6bfc4-e5ec-33d7-a5d5-d7a6f9747bfb.

Huang, Anna Y.Q., Owen H.T. Lu, and Stephen J.H. Yang. 2023. “Effects of Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Personalized Recommendations on Learners’ Learning Engagement, Motivation, and Outcomes in a Flipped Classroom.” Computers & Education 194 (March): N.PAG. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684.

Huang, Xiaoshan, Alejandra Ruiz-Segura, Chengyi Tan, Tingting Wang, Robin Sharma, and Susanne P. Lajoie. 2023. “Social Presence in Technology-Rich Learning Environments: How Real We Are Feeling Connected and How Does It Matter for Learning?” Information & Learning Science 124 (11/12): 396–424. doi:10.1108/ILS-04-2023-0034.

Luan, Lingfei, Xi Lin, Yan Dai, Shu Hu, and Qianlu Sun. 2024. “Exploring the Cognitive Dynamics of Artificial Intelligence in the Post-COVID-19 and Learning 3.0 Era: A Case Study of ChatGPT.” Asian Journal of Distance Education 19 (2): 1–10. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=5e5adf38-08c7-317f-875c-5a3740249029.

Mora, Raúl Alberto, and Peggy Semingson. 2023. “AI and Literacy Education: Consider the Challenges, Embrace the Possibilities, and Make Your Classroom Even More Human.” Literacy Today (2411-7862) 41 (1): 54–58. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=448ddec2-8908-3565-8329-f93e8e062486.

Nacheva, Radka. 2025. “Analysis of AI Mobile Applications for Ensuring Digital Accessibility in Higher Education for People with Disabilities.” Acta Educationis Generalis 15 (1): 133–45. doi:10.2478/atd-2025-0009.

Perry, Abby. 2024. “Ai Meets Academia.” Christianity Today 68 (1): 73–92. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=80289ae4-1ab6-32a2-8589-530a7b2a90e2.

Wang, Huanhuan, and James D. Lehman. 2021. “Using Achievement Goal-Based Personalized Motivational Feedback to Enhance Online Learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development 69 (2): 553–81. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=e40d870e-82a9-36ba-b1de-217bd2d657cb.

Source link

April 9, 2025

Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations.” Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations. Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Don’t Give Trump Student, Faculty Names, Nationalities

The American Association of University Professors is warning college and university lawyers not to provide the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights the names and nationalities of students or faculty involved in alleged Title VI violations.

The AAUP’s le t ter comes after The Washington Post reported last week that Education Department higher-ups directed OCR attorneys investigating universities’ responses to reports of antisemitism to “collect the names and nationalities of students who might have harassed Jewish students or faculty.” The department didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday.

In a 13-page Wednesday letter to college and university general counsels’ offices, four law professors serving as AAUP counsel wrote that higher education institutions “are under no legal compulsion to comply.” The AAUP counsel further urged them “not to comply, given the serious risks and harms of doing so”—noting that the Trump administration is revoking visas and detaining noncitizens over “students’ and faculty members’ speech and expressive activities.” The administration has targeted international students and other scholars suspected of participating in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, shared ancestry, which includes antisemitism. But the AAUP counsel wrote that “Title VI does not require higher education institutions to provide the personally identifiable information of individual students or faculty members so that the administration can carry out further deportations.”

And Title VI investigations, they wrote, “are not intended to determine whether the students and faculty who attend these schools have violated any civil rights laws, let alone discipline or punish students or faculty.” They wrote that investigations are instead “intended to determine whether the institution itself has discriminated.”

Providing this information to the federal government may violate the First Amendment rights of those targeted, plus the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and state laws, they wrote, adding that this information shouldn’t be turned over without “clear justification for the release of specific information related to a legitimate purpose in the context of a particular active investigation.”

Source link

April 4, 2025

Tag: Faculty

Microlearning: Small Bites, Big Impact

Andragogy: Engaging Adult Learners

Combining Microlearning and Andragogy for Optimal Engagement

Addressing Online Learning Challenges

Conclusion

Personal Experience

1. Cultural Perspectives on Authority

2. Adapting to Autonomy in the Classroom

3. Feedback and Revising

4. Peer Support

5. Creating a Sense of Belonging

Conclusion

Faculty’s inflation-adjusted salaries are still climbing out of their pandemic dip

Two Forms of Curriculum in Higher Education

Need for Effective Curriculum Design in Higher Ed

The Integrated Course Design Model

Initial Design Phase: Gathering Situational Factors

The Role of Student Interest and Prior Knowledge

Fink’s Worksheet for Identifying Situational Factors

Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning

Two Forms of Curriculum in Higher Education

Need for Effective Curriculum Design in Higher Ed

The Integrated Course Design Model

Initial Design Phase: Gathering Situational Factors

The Role of Student Interest and Prior Knowledge

Fink’s Worksheet for Identifying Situational Factors

Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning

Elevating Engagement

Prompting Productivity

Incorporating Inclusivity

Conclusion

How It Works

Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

What It Does

How It Works

Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

What It Does