Search
There are 19 results.
Tag
Tag
All (116)
Active Learning (2)
Activities (3)
Alt Text (2)
Analytics (4)
Animations (1)
Assessments (6)
Asynchrony (6)
Authentic Activities (2)
Backwards Design (2)
Belonging (2)
Canvas (9)
Case Studies (2)
Collaboration (5)
Color Contrast (2)
Communication (8)
Community (7)
Content Creation (10)
Copyright (2)
Course Maintenance (5)
Course Materials (7)
Course Preparation (5)
Discussions (5)
Diversity (4)
Equity (2)
Faculty Presence (3)
Feedback (6)
Formative Assessments (4)
Game-Based Learning (2)
Gamification (1)
Generative AI (1)
Grading (4)
Group Work (2)
Hyperlinks (1)
Images (3)
Inclusion (5)
Infographics (2)
Learning Objectives (3)
Multimodality (7)
Page Design (1)
Peer Review (1)
Podcasts (1)
PowerPoint (2)
Presentations (2)
Qualitative courses (1)
Quantitative courses (1)
Representation (1)
Revising (2)
Rubrics (4)
Scaffolding (1)
Screen Readers (1)
Social Media (2)
Summative Assessments (1)
Synchrony (8)
Third-Party Tools (2)
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (2)
Video (11)
Visual Accessibility (2)
Visual Design (2)
Workload (1)
Written Assignments (1)
Clear and Quick: The Why and How of Rubrics
Rubrics provide students with insight into their performance and mastery of learning outcomes, providing clarity on how grades are assigned and teaching students how to tailor their work. For instructors, rubrics take the guesswork out of deciding how to grade, saving valuable time.
Backward Design
Backward design is, as the name suggests, a process for designing curricula, courses, and lectures by working backwards from big-picture learning goals. The concept, introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005), suggests that instructors create assessments, activities, and course content that are explicitly aligned with the broader learning goals of the unit. This is different from the traditional content-driven approach to learning design, which focuses on course content first and only secondarily tries to align that content with learning goals.
Artificial Intelligence and Online Learning
Higher education institutions are racing to keep pace with the disruption caused by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. A 2023 QuickPoll survey by Educause found that 83% of higher education stakeholders believe generative AI will "profoundly change" the sector over the next three to five years. Additionally, 65% agreed that "the use of generative AI in higher ed has more benefits than drawbacks" (McCormack, 2023, Table 1). While institutions are exploring AI's potential in areas such as admissions, enrollment, administrative duties, scheduling, and institutional data research, this piece focuses on the overarching risks and rewards AI presents in teaching and learning.
Zoom Into Online Learning
Faculty often express concern over how to maintain personal relationships with their students in an online course space; incorporating optional synchronous elements to an online course can help “put a face” to a name. Zoom, the video conferencing tool that allows you to create synchronous experiences for their students, has become ubiquitous in educational and businesses in the past two years.
Academic Integrity in Assessment
To foster academic integrity, pair anti-plagiarism tools with clear conduct expectations and authentic low-stakes assessments. When designing and teaching online courses, maintaining academic integrity is frequently top of mind. In many cases, faculty may opt to adopt third-party tools to monitor student work. Despite the prevalence of academic monitoring software in online courses, however, the most powerful tools for promoting academic integrity are introduced much earlier in the course build process.
Accessible PDFs
Developing and delivering accessible instructional content—meaning content that students with and without disabilities can readily engage with and use—is essential to the success of an online course. While many accessibility standards and guidelines are broadly applicable, there are also specific considerations unique to different content formats and delivery modes. In this piece, we present recommendations for enhancing the accessibility of PDFs for students.
Quantitative Course Best Practices
"What I hear, I forget; what I see, I remember; what I do, I understand." –Chinese proverb
Student Support in a Multimodal Course
Multimodal courses allow for exciting opportunities in course content and activities but can be, by design, less flexible than asynchronous courses and less predictable than synchronous courses. These opportunities thus come with needs for additional logistical support and flexibility, as students need both to be able to take advantage of the opportunities of synchrony and asynchrony equitably. How can you best support students in a multimodal course, providing guidance through multiple forms of interaction? This piece gives insight into what kinds of support benefit students in multimodal courses and how to provide them. We’ll end with five quick tips for supporting students that apply to almost any multimodal course.
Accessible Use of Text
Students with diverse cognitive, linguistic, and academic abilities benefit from accessible text. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) establish numerous requirements (known as success criteria) to ensure that text is perceivable, operable, and understandable to all users. This guide synthesizes the essential criteria related to text accessibility. Following these guidelines when creating course content, such as documents, slides, and pages in the LMS, will help you eliminate potential barriers for your learners.
Multimodal Models
Designing a successful multimodal course means, at each step of the process, considering what each format does well—structuring the course such that each piece of content, each activity, each interaction uses the most effective delivery method available. But what does that look like in practice? This piece describes three approaches to structuring a multimodal course. In each model, asynchronous and synchronous time complement one another and further module and course objectives. Where the models differ is in the relative importance of asynchronous activities in enabling students to complete synchronous activities and vice versa.