The Foundations of Resiliency

by: Georgina Hickey, Foundations Director, Professor of History, Department of Social Sciences

More than a quarter of our students fail to come back from one year to the next. This attrition rate
is not unique to UM-Dearborn, but it is troubling. Rates are higher among low income students,
students of color, and first generation students, making attrition not just a financial challenge for the
institution, but also an equity problem.  Faculty in CASL want to interrupt these trends and so we are
launching a new initiative in the Fall of 2020, aimed at helping students find their footing at a
university and create a strong base of skills and knowledge on which they can build during their time
on campus and beyond.  Thus equipped, we hope students will be better able to continue their
education. We call this program Foundations.

Designed around evidence based best practices, the Foundations program is actually a collection of
unique seminars designed and taught by faculty from across the College of Arts Sciences and Letters. 
All incoming CASL students, be they FTIACS or transfer students, will take one seminar during
their first year on campus (students from the other colleges are welcome). We have created the
courses with the most vulnerable students at our institution in mind, the ones who are most likely to
face challenges to completing their education and who are the least likely to ask for help. This is why
CASL has chosen to require that all incoming students take a seminar in their first year.  

Designing these seminars with transfer students in mind is unique, as most campuses with first year
seminars focus only on the Freshman experience.  As many faculty have noticed, students coming
from dual enrollment programs or community colleges, however, have not necessarily acquired the
skills they need to thrive in a university setting.  Their time to recover if something goes wrong is
short and the stakes are high as they try to figure out a new institution. We are committed to helping
students finish, so all seminars fulfill at least one DDC requirement and we offer a mixture of lower
and upper division courses.

While the different course topics reflect the passions and interests of the individual faculty teaching
them, the seminars share a common set of goals. These include helping students develop their critical
thinking skills, make connections to their peers and a faculty member, take ownership of their
education, and become help seekers. Foundations seminars are designed to help students understand
how the University works and what professors want from them. Academic skills are taught, but they
are given depth by coming out of the focus of the course. Finally, the seminars will guide students in
making plans for their time on campus and funnel them into other High Impact Practices on campus
such as undergraduate research, travel abroad, and internships.

Developing these courses and working with faculty and staff from across campus to build faculty
skills in creating accessible, transparent pedagogy and increase faculty knowledge of campus
resources for students has proved an energizing process. Foundations faculty are making connections
with each other across disciplinary boundaries and the cross pollination of ideas is spilling into
teaching in our regular courses. 

As the program develops, new faculty and new courses will be added to the program each year and
Foundations will host professional development workshops and other events to continue to build the
cohort and support faculty in teaching and mentoring the new students arriving on campus.  

Click here to see the excellent courses developed for the program’s first year.

Engaging Students in an Online World

by: Bruce R. Maxim, Professor of Computer and Information Science and Nattu Natarajan, Collegiate Professor of Engineering

I knew early in my academic life that students would learn very little from listening to me lecture. I spent a lot of my energy creating programming assignments that would give students glimpses into the exciting world of software development. Yet, despite my best intentions, I found that my students were not really interested in what I had to say.

My solution to the challenge of getting students interested in the course material was to build a course that would engage and inspire students. As a result, I decided to begin redesigning my courses utilizing three key strategies: project-based learning, active learning, and gamification. I was not skilled enough to add these all at once, but over the years I began to include elements of each in the courses I created.

Project-Based Learning

I began my journey of making my courses more engaging by first starting with project-based learning (PBL). In its simplest form PBL is an instructional strategy where students learn by working on meaningful, real-world projects. PBL is a teaching method in which students acquire skills and knowledge through the process of investigating a complex question, problem, or challenge over a significant period of time.

I incorporated PBL in my lower level classes by having students work on projects in pairs, but I quickly realized that was not really project-based learning. In my upper level courses, students had more experience and better problem solving skills so they could tackle more meaningful problems.

I prefer to assign different projects to each team of four students. For term projects requiring two months or more to complete, I ask students to identify a project of their own to tackle. Grading the oral presentations and demonstrations of these projects is certainly not boring for me. To keep the rest of the class interested in watching other student presentations, I usually involve them in either formative peer review of the design artifacts or peer evaluation of the final products.

In my senior design classes I am able to go one step farther and have students work on projects for clients outside the university. This lends an air of authenticity to the project work completed. Students work harder when they know they will need to present their project work publicly. In my project classes we celebrate final project presentations with pizza. Project-based learning is a great way to organize homework assignments but was not helping me work out the problem of keeping students engaged during class.

Active Learning

About five years ago I became involved with a multi university project whose goal was to create an active learning community focused on software engineering education. I attended a summer workshop in Pittsburgh, and it changed my teaching philosophy forever. It was simple: if you want students to be engaged give them something fun or meaningful to do in class besides listen to lectures and take notes.

I had always been leery of flipped classrooms, because I feared that students would arrive unprepared for the day’s activities. Eventually I decided to begin each class with a short introduction to the topic (20 minutes or less in a two or three hour class) and have students write (for a grade) critical reflections on the assigned textbook readings that formed a basis for the day’s class activities. Cutting my carefully crafted lectures, honed over several years, was a painful process. But it worked. Students realized I was telling them things they would need to know very soon, and they listened.

The activities I use in class take many different forms: games (board, card, dice, computer), roleplay, simulations, software engineering tools, case studies, trigger videos, group problem solving, scaffolded design activities, ethics debates, and oral presentations. Student groups, regardless of their engaged activities, are expected to share their results with the whole class. Each class period ends with a class debriefing discussion. The students love doing the activities! With active learning I felt like I was beginning to make headway with student engagement during class. This was confirmed by observational data I collected for a full semester in two different classes.

A concern many instructors have with group projects is how to evaluate the contribution of each member of a team toward the final project grade. One way I have addressed this is to have students evaluate each person’s contribution to the final product with a numeric score (0 to 5) and provide a list of the activities completed by each. I have also made use of timecards which focus on concrete milestones delivered by each person to the final product. The timecards allow students to focus on different skills (such as game art or programming) needed to complete the project. This led me to explore the use of gamification as a form of personalized learning.

Gamification

Gamification, or  the use of game design elements in non-game settings can be quite effective in increasing student motivation and attention to task. Good games provide players with the information they need within the context in which the information will be used. Good games constantly challenge players to work at the edge of their knowledge and abilities. This helps to keep students engaged and eager to learn what they need for the next challenge. These are lofty goals to accomplish in any classroom as I am still trying to better gamify my courses.

If you are interested in gamification there are some simple elements you can play with such as leader boards and badging. Leader boards help students to track their progress to earn a specific grade. Leader boards encourage friendly competition. Badges can be used to reward extra effort on boring tasks. One key to gamified learning is including both required and optional activities students can use to earn their course grade. The optional activities can be used to allow students to customize their completion of a course.

Finally, trying to involve online students in the types of activities I have been doing in my classes has been challenging, but it is possible. I often scale my class activities to make it possible for students to do them at home, working by themselves. I also make sure that project teams include both in-class and distance-learning students. I am still working on better ways to engage online students.

What are you working on? If you have suggestions, please feel free to share them with me. I am always eager to learn new things.

Real Talk: the Hub hosts national speaker about empathy and the student experience

by: Carla Vecchiola, LEO in Social Sciences and Director of the Hub for Teaching and Learning 

    Paul Hernandez’ October 25th keynote address at Henry Ford College was surprising. The assembled faculty from HFC and University of Michigan - Dearborn did not expect his vulnerable, emotional, captivating story. He told us that he was raised in deep poverty, engulfed in gang life in Los Angeles, and watched his momma work 7 days a week, 15 hours a day until her fingers bled. Though some of us in the room were waiting for him to get to specific teaching techniques, we were all rapt with attention to his personal and honest story. Only after the hour session was finished, in which about 40 minutes was his personal narrative and the rest of the time Q & A, was it clear how much we learned about teaching without a list, a description, a specific outline of teaching techniques, or a powerpoint (aside from one slide of him and his momma beaming at his graduation from his doctoral program).

     Hernandez showed us how his upbringing and his worldview made him appear to his teachers as disengaged, apathetic, and disruptive though he himself felt hungry, scared, and focused on his immediate needs rather than the long term investment of education. We heard his story of dropping out of middle school and community college once. Eventually he succeeded in community college, at California State University, and in graduate school at Michigan State University. He did so because of teachers who took the time to connect with him, which changed his life path from the streets to his doctoral degree and eventually his nationally renowned work as an activist to improve teaching and learning for underserved students. His stories of teachers who connected with him encouraged us to think of ways to reach out to our most vulnerable students. Hearing the power that his teachers had on him, just by connecting and trying to understand his worldview, inspired us to see our students differently, as real people with real struggles whom we can help by understanding where they are coming from.

     In the two faculty workshops that followed the keynote, Hernandez modeled his Real Talk approach by being accessible, vulnerable, and relatable with faculty. He shared his own missteps and failings with students which helped faculty connect with him as a presenter. He also shared his successful alternative assignments that take his students’ worldview into consideration in order to make sure that students see themselves in the learning activity. Faculty had time to apply his techniques to their own assignments in small groups composed of both HFC and UMD faculty. An added bonus of these joint events are the conversations they encourage between faculty across our two campuses.

      The Hub held a follow-up conversation to consider our students’ worldviews with respect to technology and how they might differ from faculty’s. Autumm Caines, an Instructional Designer in the Hub, led a conversation about students’ use and views of technology for learning and academic work. The questions posed were: How might it be different than our use and views? What does this difference mean for our teaching? What are the stereotypes of student use of technology? Are they accurate? The goal was to begin to consider digital teaching strategies that reach all of our students. The conversation was wide ranging but one concern raised by everyone at the table is how to teach students who, due to experience with social media (and faculty are not immune), may have become accustomed to expect entertainment and are unaccustomed to sustained focus. Eric Charnesky, a Lecturer in Computer and Information Science, shared this quote: 

The goal of intellectual education is not to know how to repeat or retain ready-made truths. (A truth that is parroted is only a half-truth.) It is learning to master the truth by oneself at the risk of losing a lot of time and going through all the roundabout ways that are inherent in real activity. - Jean Piaget

     Hernandez’ call for Real Talk dovetails nicely with Piaget’s insistence on real activity. Connecting with our students is the best way to make learning meaningful for our students. If you missed Hernandez’ keynote and workshops but would like to be inspired by his story, you can view his TED Talk.

Conversations with Colleagues: Dr. Marie Waung on Teaching Online

By: Ilir Miteza, Associate Provost for Graduate, Global, and Digital Education 

In this blog we plan to feature a few conversations with colleagues revolving around teaching, learning, and academic success. Last week I sat with my CASL colleague Dr. Marie Waung, a professor of industrial & organizational psychology, to discuss the challenges and opportunities of teaching online. I hope you’ll agree that her take is interesting, informative, and … funny!

1. Do you use a different paradigm when you teach online, or do you think of your course as a virtual classroom, taught in the same way as a traditional course? 

I approach my face-to-face and online courses in a similar manner, emphasizing student engagement, and instructor organization and flexibility. I view technology as a tool that can increase the accessibility of my courses; however, the courses themselves are driven by content and student engagement. In any online interaction there is a danger of forgetting that there is a human being at the other end. To combat this I set up small interactions to build rapport. For example, I have an online discussion during the first week of class where I respond personally to each student's post - usually we talk about topics unrelated to the course, such as what they are binge watching, to which Hogwarts house they belong, their pets and siblings, unusual hobbies, National Parks visited, favorite childhood books. I also send each student a personal email through Canvas after each of the three exams outlining their performance on the exam, how they did compared to the rest of the class, and what they might do to improve their performance. 

2. How long did it take you to say 'I've got this! I know what it takes to teach a great online course!"? What was that journey like? 

I started teaching online in 1998 as part of the U of M - Dearborn/UAW-Ford program(₁). The course was taught synchronously with video feed being sent to multiple Ford plants from my classroom. Over the years online teaching has evolved tremendously. Rapid advances in video technology, learning platforms, and pedagogical best practices make it difficult to say "I've got this." More accurately I can say, "I've got this for now." I appreciate that online teaching requires me to keep current with teaching and technology innovations. In addition, the skills that I have developed teaching online have helped to enhance my face-to-face courses.

3. Have you learned something about students teaching online that wasn’t obvious to you before? 

Over the years I have noticed the impact of online courses on accessibility. Compared to my face-to-face courses, my online courses serve more students with disabilities, those with young children, those without access to regular transportation, and those with unpredictable or inflexible work schedules, as well as more students of color. Almost every semester I have a student in the course who is about to give birth. The running joke with my classes is that we would like to help choose the baby's name. (So far, no "takers", but I do wish that I'd kept track of all of the babies born within my online courses.)

4. What was your proudest moment as a teacher in an online course? 

I really enjoy seeing my online students on campus, especially when they greet me enthusiastically and talk to me about the course material.  Once a student told me that her gerbil loved my (unfortunately high-pitched) voice, so that as a treat she would play my online lectures at double speed, causing her gerbil to jump on its wheel and run very fast. Perhaps, that was not my proudest moment, but it was a memorable one.

5. Do you have a list of “dos and don'ts” when teaching online? 

I don't have a list of rules about online teaching. However, I remind myself that: 1) I should not make myself crazy trying to achieve perfection; and 2) gradual, persistent change will take me far. Although large, splashy teaching innovations are appealing, they can be time-consuming to implement. I try to remember that much can be achieved through small, thoughtful changes, that are manageable even during extra busy semesters.  In general, I try to move continuously toward improvement, but I don't stress about taking time to get there. 

6. As a psychologist teaching online, what have you discovered about learning (how people learn) that confirms or refutes what you have seen in your own professional literature? 

I've incorporated a number of psychology learning principles into my courses.

• Mass versus Spaced Practice. One of the biggest challenges for students in online courses is time management. It is easy to let an online course slide when life gets busy and then cram right before an exam. However, research indicates that learning is more effective when practice is spaced over time, rather than completed all at once. I often remind students to schedule time to work on the course each week. I also divide  longer assignments into shorter chunks with due dates spaced apart.
  
• Performance Feedback. Feedback is important because it allows for an adjustment of learning strategy and/or effort. It is difficult to meet one's goals without performance feedback to mark progress. I strive to grade student work quickly to provide feedback as soon as possible, allowing  students time to adjust their effort or learning strategy. 
  
• Organization. I try to set up my courses so that they run like clockwork with very predictable due dates. This reduces the chance of  students forgetting to complete assignments/discussions. Also, material is organized by week using Canvas pages to allow students to see at a glance what needs to be completed on any given week.
  
• Examples/Humor. Relating material to what a student already knows by using examples can help new knowledge become integrated into existing knowledge or schema. Humor can help to make material more salient, which can improve memory of that material. I try to use examples and humor as much as possible.
  
• Comprehension Checks.  Providing comprehension checks and short practice quizzes is a strategy that I have found to be effective. These give students practice recalling information and applying it, which has been found to  enhance memory for the material. 

(₁) About the UAW-Ford program - In the 1990s UAW-Ford provided union members with access to classes from U of M - Dearborn as a benefit.  Workers in the plant who registered for a course could go to a designated classroom at the plant and watch lectures and participate synchronously in our classes. (I remember having classes in Dearborn and Louisville plants and maybe one other place, and I had multiple cameras and microphones that I switched to and from when a student at a plant asked a question.) My Psychology in the Workplace course was a good fit for this program so it was one of the courses added to the list the union members could choose from. A very small number of Ford employees were interested and they seemed to lose interest over time. I think they liked the idea of taking college courses more than actually taking them. Although I do remember having a few who were incredible students. Unfortunately, I have no electronic or paper records of this. In the 19990s most everything was on paper, and I think that most files were stored on floppy disks.

Adventures in Instructional Redesign (originally posted on UM-Dearborn's Reporter)

See original post on The Reporter on 10/29/19: https://umdearborn.edu/news/articles/adventures-instructional-redesign

UM-Dearborn faculty Lisa Martin, Emily Luxon, and Mercedes Miranda recently redesigned courses as part of the Hub's Course Redesign Faculty Fellows Program. 

With all kinds of promising innovations in teaching and educational technology, it’s easy to see why course redesigns are a big trend in higher ed. But what does it really take to “blow up your course,” as one of our UM-Dearborn professors put it? To fill out the picture, we chatted with three of our faculty who recently redesigned courses with support from The Hub’s Course Redesign Faculty Fellows Program. Here’s our conversation with COB Lecturer Mercedes Miranda, Women’s and Gender Studies Associate Professor Lisa Martin and Political Science Assistant Professor Emily Luxon, which has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Reporter: So could each of you start by sharing why you wanted to do a redesign, and what you hoped to accomplish?

Mercedes: For me, the goal was to better present my course online. I’ve been teaching online for a long time, but I always felt like it was a one-way avenue. So I wanted to learn from the professional instructional designers at The Hub about how I could create more of a sense of community and interact more with my students. My second goal was to develop better assessment tools to track their comprehension. When you’re in a classroom, it’s much easier to get a feeling for how the students are progressing. But in the online environment, I always struggle with that, and I wanted to figure out ways to assess whether the online students were understanding the material.

Lisa: Well, I had never taught online, but a lot of the Women’s and Gender Studies courses are offered online. Our intro course was not, however, and we’d seen a lot of growth in enrollment for that class. We could keep offering more sections, but we thought making an online version would help support that enrollment even more. So I decided I’d try it. The challenge with that class is that it has a lot of ‘a-ha’ moments. And it’s the discussions and conversations that make the class so rich. So I was really curious to see how I could recreate that in an online format.

Emily: For me, part of the reason for the course redesign is that I kind of wanted to change everything about the class: I wanted to change the textbook, the assignment approach, stop having bluebook exams, and try out assignments that more meaningfully integrate student experiences with the class material. But I knew I was going to also teach an online version of the course in the winter. So I wanted to design it in a way that I could teach it both in-person and online and not have them feel like two completely different classes.

Reporter: And so how did you go about doing that?

Lisa: I think what’s great about The Hub is that there’s a structure to support you, but it’s also really flexible: I mean, you see how different each of our goals were. At the beginning, they really got us thinking with some big open-ended questions, and they also gave us readings on some key topics like, for example, assessments that don’t involve exams. We also each got assigned an instructional designer, and we had weekly meetings with them. We met once a month as a group, too, which was a great way to get feedback on your ideas from the group and learn from what everybody else was trying.

Emily: One of the things I found really useful about the group meetings is that we actually got to try out some of the tools, like Google Hangouts, that we might use in an online course. That really showed me the potential of the technology; or in some cases, it let me know why I might not want to use a particular tool.

Reporter: All the cool new instructional technology is definitely one of the things that makes this space so fun. What’s an example of a new idea — either a teaching method or a tech thing — that you found interesting or inspiring?

Emily: I remember I was reading an assigned blog post and I clicked through a couple links, and I found another post about someone who had their entire class write one research paper. I was really intrigued by that, so I decided to try it — not for this Hub redesign, but in a different class that I also redesigned. We’re still working our way through it, but the students have really stepped up. They’re organizing themselves, and coming up with ideas, and they’re doing things that are more active. Across all my classes, in fact, I’m trying to do more active learning and cut down on the amount of time I am lecturing at my students.

Lisa: For me, it was videos. And let me just say, Mercedes has to talk to you about how she does her videos, because they’re amazing. Eventually, though, as I explored the idea of video lectures, I ended up in a place that I thought I didn’t want to lecture much at all. So, for example, in another class, I’m doing kind of a flipped course. So if I am lecturing, I’ll throw the video up online. But then, in class, we’re doing many different kinds of group activities. I think that when students have the time to work together, they can do really impressive things. The challenge is we’re always giving them group projects and then making them find time outside of class, when they have such disparate schedules. But I know I have them all here twice a week, so why not use that time? Since I’ve been doing that, they’re suddenly not asking if they can work on their own, or trying to get out of the groups, which is what I’ve often experienced in the past.

Reporter: OK, Mercedes, let’s hear about those videos.

Mercedes: Well, I think I came to the realization that teaching online was a completely different animal than teaching in the classroom. What I was doing before working with The Hub is recording a video that was basically a PowerPoint with voiceover. And I thought if it was a three-hour class, I had to provide “entertainment” for three hours. But now, we know that doesn’t really work. So instead, I focus on highlights — the key points  — and those videos are now just five minutes. I was very excited about this. In fact, I put a green screen in my basement so I could record all the videos, because it takes quite a bit of time to put them together. And now, I’m in the videos, talking in sync with the PowerPoint; so, for example, when I say “key point number one” it appears behind me on the screen. I thought the presence of someone in front of the camera really made a difference.

Reporter: Wow. That’s amazing that you built a studio in your basement! OK, one more question for everyone: How is it going so far? Or in the case that you’re teaching your redesigned course next semester, what’s something you’re looking forward to trying out?

Emily: Since I blew the class up and started from scratch, I feel like it’s still a little rough around the edges. For me, I’m usually not sure if I like something until I’ve done it. One of the things I’m doing this semester in the face-to-face class is giving students more time to talk or discuss, because my past classes told me I didn’t give them enough time on specific activities. But then, I did a mid-course evaluation in this class, and now apparently I’m giving them too much time! So I’m still trying to calibrate that. And with my lectures now, even in my other classes that haven’t been fully redesigned, I’ve started setting my phone timer for 10 minutes, and when it goes off, I’ll try to stop wherever I am and switch to doing an activity. That way the students are not getting hit with an hour straight of lecturing.

Lisa: So I’ll teach my online course for the first time in winter, and I think the big thing is that The Hub convinced me that I could get rid of exams and do different kinds of assessments. Instead, I’m doing lots of smaller lower-stakes assignments. For example, when they’re responding to discussion questions online, that will actually count for something. And they’ll have so many opportunities like this, no one thing will make or break them — like a big exam.

Mercedes: I actually taught my class this summer, but I’m still working to improve the videos. For example, I am using this feature Quizlet in a different course, and now the students watch the videos, and after two minutes, there is a question. That gives me the test of comprehension I was looking for. And like Lisa was saying, the students then have multiple, lower-stakes opportunities to earn points. So this time, I’m going to move away from the big test, where it’s 35 percent of their grade, and assign more weight to these quizzes. I don't know if the students will love me or hate me. But I think it helps motivate them. I guess we’ll find out.

Want to learn more about the The Hub’s Course Redesign Faculty Fellows Program? Or are you faculty and want to apply? You can find more details at the program website. 

Guiding Solutions or Students?

by Scott Riggs and Image by Dr. Nilay Chakraborty

Who are we as an institution? What are we about? Many of us are wrestling with these questions as our campus is going through the strategic planning process. This is what we have been pondering in Global Education as we seek to develop a vision of global learning that is both meaningful and useful for our campus community.

Recently, we keep coming back to one question: are we trying to change the world and our local communities, or are we helping our students build awareness, skill sets, and a sense of purpose and trusting that they will bring about positive change with their own initiative?  Here are two examples of how this question plays out for global learning.  Are we to try collectively to move the needle on issues like climate change with a unified campus vision, or are we to develop a sense of urgency and empowerment in our students, and then trust them to become agents of change in their communities?  Are we to create model communities that can collaboratively reach solutions on divisive issues, or are we to teach students intellectual empathy and let them create these communities on their own?  
A simple answer would be to pursue both options. The modeling of solutions paired with teaching skills, attitudes, and a honed sense of purpose intuitively seem to pair well together in a spiral of forward progression. But do prescribed solutions limit creativity? Does prescribing attitudes break trust with a large portion of the population that is looking for more job training and less of a perceived moral agenda in higher education? By focusing on guiding both solutions and students, do we dilute or strengthen our potential impact? By tackling both, do we spread limited resources too thin to be effective? By not addressing both, do we shortchange our students?

From a macroscopic point of view, there is a complex inter-dependency between the University, student as an individual and society as a whole. Skills, awareness and purpose are one of the three most important components that a student receives through a university education. While skills gathered are directly related to the efficiency of a person in the future workplace, the awareness and sense of purpose both directly and indirectly provide the mechanisms to calibrating and augmenting determination and hope of the individual in the workplace. These individual channels are important drivers for overall societal growth. These ensure increased mutual understanding between different entities and systems in the society which ultimately lead to solution of difficult problems including social equality and overall societal betterment.

I don’t claim to have perfect answers here, but I am curious what other members of our community think about these questions.  If you would like to join this discussion, we’d love to see your thoughts in the “Comments” section of this blog post.

Students as Partners: What Students Tell Us About Learning
Ilir Miteza

This year our campus adopted some ambitious goals. Chief among them was raising our 6-year graduation rate from 54% to 70%. Let that sink in: less than 300 four-year colleges and universities out of more than 3000 nationwide are able to pull that off! In other words, we are striving to be in the top 10% of higher education institutions nationwide.

All of us at UM-Dearborn - faculty or staff - understand what’s at stake: lost time and investment, unpaid loans, dashed dreams and injured self-confidence for our students who don’t cross the finish line. Nationally, the students who can least afford a fresh start are more likely to drop out. As other universities, we spend much time and resources with those who end up dropping out, and much more to recruit and support their replacements.

Much work is done daily by the faculty, advisors, and others involved with academic success systems, to ensure our students succeed. The campus is leveraging technology, redesigning gateway courses, removing barriers, and brainstorming healthy practices in instruction and learning. Although literature and best practices can guide us, we should also listen to our students!

A student panel during Digital Education Day in March 2019 shared some insightful ideas about teaching in online courses, which I think apply equally well to most traditional courses. What did they have to say? To begin with, a long list of what they would like to see more in our classes. We heard suggestions for better ways of learning, and ideas for better course management practices.

They told us they want more avenues to learn on their own, such as team projects, essays on topics they care about, ways to engage with a variety of content, including audio-visual. Thoughtfully, they added that they see great value in active faculty guiding them, even in autonomous work.

Ideas for better course management practices included predictable weekly routines (applies more to online courses), study guides and outlines, re-doable practice assignments, and challenging homework assignments helpful for exam preparation and learning. 

What about ... um ... their pet peeves? Brace for impact! There was no lost love for “legwork” or “busywork” assignments devoid of meaning or value, focused on rote memorization, or regurgitation. There were no fans of multiple choice quizzes in the panel, either. The same goes for lessons or assignments that are too open-ended or vague. We heard “please be concrete, specific, transparent!” They did like group work, but not the kind that does not engage anyone or that is not framed with good shared accountability practices and rules.

Furthermore, the student panelists made a plea to some faculty who assign an uneven course load throughout the term. The rest of life is on set schedules: classes, work, meals, sleep, and so on. Uneven coursework distribution throws off their rhythm and makes it hard to plan and keep up. Unsurprisingly, they tipped their hat to faculty who are timely in responding to emails and calls, with a constant and engaged presence in their courses. 

I left the room thinking that much of what I had heard was quite consistent with what we see in the student success literature.  We want students to work with a variety of learning methods, including quantitative, logical, historical, analytic, all the way to creative. The meaningful assignments they are clamoring for can take them beyond the questions with known answers. They want to explore, be able to journey all the way to the unknown and unknowable. Our students know there are limits to a front-loaded knowledge model of learning; they want to know how and when to leverage facts and theories, and how to make contextual sense of them. They want to build readiness and confidence for a “messy” real world.

If we are to design better learning experiences and graduate more students on time, is listening to them enough? What do you think is possible with students as partners?