Workshop Wednesday: Students’ Experiences at UWGB via Neurodiverse Viewpoints (Feb. 7, 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.)

Although “neurodiverse” is an umbrella term that can refer to a wide variety of minds, there may be some overlap when it comes to the experiences, challenges, and triumphs that neurodiverse students encounter in higher ed. What are some common barriers these students face at UWGB and how can we help remove those barriers, or work with students to overcome them? What are some strengths and assets they bring to UWGB that we might be overlooking? Join us on Wednesday, Feb. 7, at 3:30 p.m. as we explore these questions and more through a student panel on neurodiversity. All UWGB faculty and staff are invited and can attend either in person in the Christie Theatre or virtually via Zoom. Registration is not required, but if you are interested, we encourage you to sign up to receive an Outlook calendar invitation with the livestream link. This event is jointly sponsored by Assistant Vice Chancellor Stacie Christian and CATL.

Event Poster

Upcoming Workshop Wednesdays

On the first Wednesday of February, March, and April, CATL will host a “Workshop Wednesday” event from 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.

  • Mar. 6 | 3:30 – 4:30 p.m. | Topic: Accessibility
  • Apr. 3 | 3:30 – 4:30 p.m. | Topic: Universal Design for Learning

Event Follow-Up: “Language Inclusivity at UWGB”

What language practices do your students bring to our UWGB community? How do you value and sustain those language practices in your classrooms and other interactions with students? This follow-up to the “Language Inclusivity at UWGB” workshop led by Dr. Cory Mathieu, 2022-23 EDI Consultant, on April 14, 2023, includes the session recording, an event summary, key takeaways, and resources for further reading.

Session Recording (April 14, 2023)

Event Summary

Text by Edith Mendez and Cory Mathieu

Language is fundamental to the teaching and learning that occurs in every classroom at UWGB. All academic content is construed by language. However, our students use language to not only communicate academic concepts and ideas, but also as a representation of their identity, their culture, and their sense of belonging. When our students’ language practices ­– the myriad ways they use language ­– are not upheld, uplifted, and valued in our classrooms, they can feel that they themselves are unwelcome or unaccepted in our academic spaces.

Standard language ideologies, or beliefs that certain varieties of language are more academic, more intelligent, or, simply, more correct, are deeply ingrained in our society and, especially, in academia. Students who do not speak or write ‘standard English’ are often expected to adjust their language practices to be successful, both in academics and beyond. This causes many issues, not only because their language is deemed inferior but because of the intersectionality of language and identity. Our students’ character, who they are as individuals, is then also linked to these negative connotations. Considerable research has shown that students of color and multilingual students are most frequently affected by these ideologies as their language practices are most regularly deemed to be ‘non-standard’ by those in positions of power.

Through this workshop, we further describe and debunk standard language ideologies while also offering insight as to how this issue is actively affecting UWGB students, not only academically but in terms of their identities and sense of belonging. We do so in order to offer alternative perspectives, policies, practices that are linguistically inclusive, actively welcoming and valuing the language, experiences, knowledge, capabilities, and strengths all students bring to our classrooms.

Key Takeaways

  • “Standard English” is a myth! (Lippi-Green, 2012)
    • All languages that are spoken within the U.S. and are acquired as first languages are
      • Linguistically acceptable
      • Grammatical
    • Standard English is the variety that has been afforded power and status (Lippi-Green, 2012)​.
      • ‘White mainstream English’
  • Issue with appropriateness-based approach to education
    • Standard language is a language of power, but it does not provide power to everyone.
      • Students of color will always be seen as people of color and treated as such, regardless of how they speak
  • Language is central to identity
    • Identity is central to a sense of belonging
      • Sense of belonging is central to learning
  • If students do not feel as if they belong, they may be negatively impacted
    • Academically
    • As Individuals
      • Mentally
      • Emotionally
  • There are things you can do to make each and every one of the students that walk through your door feel welcomed, valued, capable, and respected
    • Language inclusivity syllabus statement
    • Varied performance assessments with different audiences to allow for content to be expressed through different language varieties and registers
    • Explicit teaching of language and genres expected of students
    • Critical discussions about language use in your content area – why do we use and expect the language that we do? Who determined and continues to determine what language is acceptable or not in this discipline?

Further Reading

Transparency and Student Success: Time-Saving Small Changes

At the recent Instructional Development Institute (IDI) 2023 Conference, our community came together to discuss the topic of student success. One common theme discussed was how instructors and staff can help students succeed in college. An answer that came up repeatedly within various sessions was to adjust our course design methods. While making changes to a course can seem a daunting task, supporting student success does not have to involve doing a large-scale course overhaul. Instead, making small, sustainable changes to a course or even to individual activities and assessments can help increase the chances of student success within the classroom. These small changes are also an easier and more realistic lift for instructors, and some of them can even be time saving overall. In this blog post, we will explore some examples of how including the transparency in learning and teaching (TiLT) framework and proper scaffolding can help reduce confusion and barriers between instructors and students when engaging with learning materials. 

One of the easiest ways to include the TiLT framework within your course is to include detailed instructions for activities and assessments. Provide clearly written and detailed instructions to students on why an assignment is being given, what tasks students must do to complete the assignment or assessment, and what criteria will be used to grade their work. Assignment and assessment descriptions can be broken down into three clearly defined categories. ‘Purpose,’ ‘Task,’ and ‘Criteria for Completion’ or similarly named categories can help guide students through activities. At the end of the day, using the TiLT framework to make the “why” and “how” of your assignments and assessments more transparent to your students can also save time for you by reducing the number of emails or messages you receive from students asking for clarification. 

Another way to easily incorporate TiLT is the inclusion of scaffolding using low-stakes assignments and assessments. Smaller scale, low-stakes assessments or assignments can scaffold towards a final summative assessment. By breaking the process up into smaller, more manageable chunks, students can more easily track deadlines, which can reduce procrastination. Making these assignments and assessments worth only a few points can also provide incentive to complete them, and act as a buffer towards the final grade. Lastly, scaffolded assignments can also cut down on plagiarism cases, as you will be able to see the student’s work as they progress towards the final deliverable for your course. 

Using Canvas Rubrics to identify and explain assignment and assessment grading criteria and to show students what is required to complete an assessment is a third way to include TiLT within your course. This option can be used for both formative and summative assessments. You can also align rubric criteria to match with the expected outcomes of your course. Choosing to align course outcomes directly with course activities and rubrics also shows transparency in how different course elements will met expected course outcomes. The inclusion of detailed rubrics that match the expected outcomes for module assignments, discussions, or other assessments can help guide students through formative assessments. Rubrics can also show transparency in assessment purpose, goals, and completion in line with the TiLT framework, and are integrated with the Canvas Speedgrader to make grading assignments and assessments based on the rubric faster. 

If you would like to learn more about how to use the TiLT framework to make small, sustainable changes within your own course design, feel free to contact the CATL office through email (CATL@uwgb.edu) or schedule a consultation with us. Interested instructors may also want to sign up for our professional training opportunity LITE 201: Trail Guides when it is offered in the summer. This course will walk you through creating modules, assignments, and assessments using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TiLT) for your own courses. 

Implementing Negotiable Grading Schemes

Article by Amy J. Kabrhel, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry & 2022-23 Instructional Development Consultant

For years I have seen students enter my courses on the first day of classes eager to engage with the course material who then slowly stop doing the homework but still perform well on the exams. I wondered if this was due to exhaustion, being overwhelmed with other demands on their time, or, frankly, just laziness. On the flip side, I have had students who rock it on the homework and fumble on the exams. I know they have learned the material being assessed but their ability to show me what they have learned via my exams is hindered. There are several reasons for this (undiagnosed learning disability, test anxiety, lack of sleep, etc.), but after 16 years of teaching in higher education, I have finally decided to make my course grading scheme more equitable for the wide variety of students I see in my courses. In Fall of 2022, I implemented a negotiable grading scheme in my CHEM 211 (Principles of Chemistry I) course as detailed below.

Negotiable Grading Scheme for CHEM 211
#1-Consistency Commander #2-Exam Rockstar #3-Quiz Master #4-Final Boss
Exams (4): 40% (10% each) 56% (14% each) 24% (6% each) 40% (10% each)
Final Exam: 15%

(equiv. to 1.5 exams)

 21%

(equiv. to 1.5 exams)

 9%

(equiv. to 1.5 exams)

 25%

(equiv. to 2.5 exams)
Online Homework

(42-lowest 2 dropped):

 20%

(0.5% each)

 5%

(0.125% each)

 40%

(1% each)

 15%

(0.375% each)
Pre-Lecture Quizzes

(37-lowest 7 dropped):

 10%

(~0.33% each)

 3%

(0.1% each)

 12%

(0.4% each)

 5%

(~0.17% each)
Discussion (4 graded): 5% (1.25% per graded week)
Project: 10%

#1–Consistency Commander: Tends to maintain consistent and successful study/learning strategies across the semester, appreciates the use of homework and quizzes to regularly check in and keep motivation up.

#2–Exam Rockstar: Prefers to spend time studying for exams, does not place a high priority on weekly check-in assessments (homework and quizzes).

#3–Quiz Master: Places a high priority on weekly check-in assessments (homework and quizzes) to regularly keep up with the material, places a lower priority on exams.

#4–Final Boss: Prefers synthesizing knowledge across the term and proving their knowledge acquisition at the end of the semester on the cumulative Final Exam, places a lower priority on weekly check-in assessments.

In this negotiable grading system, students select the grading scheme that best matches their abilities, learning preferences, time constraints, and anxieties. On the first day of classes last fall, I introduced these grading schemes, described each in a bit more detail, and then asked each student to fill out a small sheet of scratch paper with their name and their preferred grading scheme. I made it clear that they were not locked into this scheme on Day 1 but that by reflecting on their choice at the beginning of the semester, they knew where to focus their efforts. After Exam 2 (approximately halfway through the semester), we revisited the grading schemes, and students locked in their scheme for the semester.

On Day 1, half of my students picked #1-Consistency Commander and the other half picked #3-Quiz Master. This did not surprise me since a large number of students have some form of test anxiety. However, after seeing their exam scores on Exams 1 & 2, which were quite good this fall, and seeing how a few of them had started not completing the homework and pre-lecture quizzes on time, a few students switched to #2-Exam Rockstar. After the Final Exam, I calculated each student’s final course grade in each grading scheme (easily done via Excel) and found that most students had picked the scheme that best matched their skills and learning preferences. A few, however, had a higher grade in a scheme different than the one they had selected. I discussed this with them (via email or in person) to help them reflect on their metacognition and to help them get a better sense of their strengths (and weaknesses) as a college student. They were very appreciative of this, and I believe this will help them realize where they may need to focus more of their attention in courses that do not use negotiable grading schemes.

This spring semester, I am using a similar negotiable grading scheme in my CHEM 212 (Principles of Chemistry II) course. Most of my CHEM 212 students took CHEM 211 with me last fall, so they were anticipating this grading system, and when I introduced it on Day 1, they were very thankful. Many of them stated that they wished more of their professors used this system, which is what prompted me to write this blog post. I think negotiable grading schemes are a wonderful way to make your course more accessible and equitable to our students who come from varying backgrounds with unique skill sets that speak to some assessment types more so than others. In addition, negotiable grading schemes give students agency in your course and a feeling that they have more control over their course grades. They can more easily balance their workload and put their efforts into the assessments that matter most to them. As you can see from my schemes presented above, all assignments are still included in each overall scheme; it is their weight that changes. In some cases (e.g., Discussion and Project for my course), the assessment is too important for it to have varying weight from scheme to scheme. This can express to students the value of certain assessments.

One minor drawback is that Canvas can only show one grading scheme. I chose #1-Consistency Commander for the scheme I put in my CHEM 211 Canvas page. This means students who chose a different grading scheme had to see me (or email me) to know what their current grade was on their chosen scheme. Thankfully, if you keep your Excel grade book up to date, this is not too difficult to communicate to those students.

Overall, I found this method of grading liberating for students and wonderful for student-instructor rapport. As mentioned, I am using this method in Spring 2023, and I plan to continue using this method in most of my courses from now on. If you have any questions for me about negotiable grading scheme, I would be more than happy to chat with you about them.

Events on AI, Machine-Generated Content, and ChatGPT (Feb. 10, Feb. 17, Mar. 24 & Apr. 7, 2023)

Have you heard the term “ChatGPT” and wondered what everyone was talking about? Are you thinking about how artificial intelligence and machine-generated content could help you as a teacher or complicate your ability to assess true student learning? Experts from across UW-Green Bay are coming together to help you! Please read on to learn more about the sessions being offered in Spring 2023.

ChatGPT Workshop (Feb. 10 & 17, 8 – 9:30 a.m.)

We are excited to announce that the Cofrin School of Business, with support from CATL, is hosting a workshop on ChatGPT! Come learn about ChatGPT by Open AI. Join CSB faculty in this interactive workshop to experience the most advanced chatbot and discuss implications for teaching and learning.

The workshop is moderated by Oliver Buechse, Executive in Residence, Cofrin School of Business. It will be offered on two different Fridays, Feb. 10 and 17, from 8 – 9:30 a.m. in the Willie D. Davis Finance and Investment Lab on the first floor of Wood Hall. The workshops are free and open to all UWGB employees.

If you need an accommodation for any of the sessions that are a part of the “ChaptGPT Workshop” please contact Kathryn Marten (martenk@uwgb.edu).

AI, Teaching, & Learning Series (Feb. 17, Mar. 24, & Apr. 7, 11:40 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.)

UW-Green Libraries, CATL, The Learning Center, and UWGB faculty are all coming together to offer a series of three workshops on machine-generated content applications and artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and their potential impacts on teaching and learning. Participants will have the option to attend this series in-person or via Zoom. 

Teaching and Learning in the Time of ChatGPT | Friday, Feb. 17, 11:40 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

UW-Green Bay instructors with expertise in artificial intelligence and machine learning will introduce us to AI-content generating tools, like ChatGPT, and their potential uses and pitfalls. Join other instructors for an engaging discussion about the impact on teaching and learning and a brief opportunity to test the tools themselves. 

Writing Assignments and Artificial Intelligence | Friday, Mar. 24, 11:40 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

ChatGPT and other text-generating tools have raised concerns among instructors whose curriculum relies upon writing assignments from creative writing to lab reports and research papers. In this session, we’ll focus on the implications of these tools on writing and pedagogy, assessment, and curriculum design.  

Designing and Managing Authentic Assessments | Friday, Apr. 7, 11:40 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Students may inevitably use artificial intelligence and text-generating tools, but there are strategies instructors can explore and use to alleviate instructional stress around student learning. In this session, we will explore strategies for planning and developing authentic assessments to help students actively engage in their learning. This session will also offer instructors resources to help navigate the issues surrounding artificial intelligence and discuss ways to create assessments that embrace or acknowledge the use of AI and text-generating tools.

If you need an accommodation for any of the sessions that are a part of the “AI, Teaching & Learning Series,” please contact Kate Farley (farleyk@uwgb.edu).