Something that may be of interest
During my time on the MAA Instructional Practices Guide project team, we drew heavily on the 2014 Freeman et al. meta-study, “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.” This study is often simplified to “active learning is good; lecturing is bad.”
However, our perspective on this has evolved. The debate between lecturing and active learning isn’t a binary choice but rather a nuanced blend of both approaches.
 |
| I wish this report, Employment Outcomes for Humanities Majors: State Profiles, would have come out before we entered advising. With the high cost of an education, our students are often driven to a major by its perceived earning potential. With a daughter who graduated with a liberal arts degree in English and French, I grow weary of trying to defend her choices over our son’s math and computer science major. |
 |
|
Faculty members have shared that they are feeling the strain of their students’ mental health issues. Whether it’s a request for an extension or an e-mail apologizing for missing class because they’ve got “stuff going on.” In Professors Struggle With Demands to Tend to Students’ Mental Health, Kelly Field gives a realistic assessment of what faculty are facing, particularly this time of year. |
 |
|
Have you ever had that difficult conversation with a student after a poor performance on a test or assignment? Often, the student will state in exasperation that they “studied really hard.” Nevertheless, their performance does not reflect this effort. In the article From Deficit to Empowerment: A Neuroscience Approach to Unveiling the Learning Brain, Mays Imad points out that learning is a very complex process and many things must properly align to succeed. |
 |
|
I recently had a birthday. Maybe I am getting wistful, but this Inside Higher Ed article by Kenneth McNay had some solid advice for those of us who have been here a while. In particular, it made me think about how I can explore innovation and risk-taking, that I should try to facilitate knowledge sharing, and finally, to redefine my research productivity metrics to encourage me to explore those high-risk, innovative areas. |
 |
|
In my role as director, I subscribe to a large number of newsletters, listservs, and blogs. So, my inbox sees a lot of traffic. One article titled But What if You Can’t Quit Your ‘Dead-End Job’? recently stood out. It brought to mind a note I received from a senior colleague soon after I secured tenure back in 2007. |
 |
|
Like many of us, I spent a lot of time over the summer reading and thinking about generative AI chatbots and what they might mean for my teaching, especially since most of my courses involve a lot of writing. Could ChatGPT answer my prompts? Did my assignments encourage students to put in thought and effort, or was I making it easy for them to farm out their work to a bot? |
I recently facilitated an AI-focused session for the GLCA (resources, including the recording, can be found here). Out of nearly 300 registrants, about 60% reported being very familiar or somewhat familiar when asked to rate their knowledge of generative AI based on exposure through reading, podcasts, webinars, etc. Interestingly, 63% of registrants reported no experience or limited experience using generative AI such as ChatGPT, Bing, or Bard.
“There is no dumb question.”
“Take risks.”
“Reach beyond the comfortable to learn new perspectives and skills.”
Have you ever used those phrases or similar with your students? I know I have. But do I promote a learning environment that supports my claims and encouragements? Not always.
The article 4 Questions to Ask to Promote Student Learning by JT Torres gives us four simple questions to ask ourselves to ensure our learning environment aligns with our encouragement.
 |
|
