Most of us are very familiar with the traditional ways colleges gather student feedback and measure student engagement. End-of-course evaluations are nearly universal in higher education, and they can offer helpful information about the student experience. However, these surveys are backward-looking and rarely provide the kind of nuanced, candid insight we need to make meaningful changes in our teaching and course design choices. Recent research backs this up. Becker, Brandt, and Psihopaidas (2021) found that student evaluations often miss the deeper contextual and emotional dimensions of learning that instructors need to make meaningful improvements. Their study demonstrated that when students are asked to talk through their experiences in real-time conversations, such as student panels, instead of rating them on a form, they reveal far more about what supports or hinders their engagement. Continue reading
Raising three boys has its challenges. I found that instilling good manners is essential to maintaining some semblance of order. Following simple rules of etiquette displays a sense of respect for those you are interacting with, whether it be at the table or in a conversation.
Do instructional designers secretly serve as change agents in higher education institutions? Change is a faint tremor that rarely erupts to alter the academic structure cemented in tradition and intricate policies. However, instructional designers have a unique role that gives them access to the three primary stakeholders at a university: faculty, administration, and students. Acting in a supportive, non-threatening role, instructional designers have the opportunity to create change without having to move the weighty levers of the academic machine. Taking a look at the five characteristics of change agents identified by George Couros, author of