Faculty frequently name critical thinking as one of the most important goals for student learning. However, a key challenge to cultivating critical thinking can be the development of complex assessments. This can be especially difficult in large classes, when many tests and quizzes are in a multiple-choice format.

In a recent study published in the Journal of Dental Education, a team of U-M faculty from the School of Dentistry (Carlos Gonzalez-Cabezas and Margherita Fontana), School of Public Health (Olivia Anderson) and the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (Mary Wright) investigated a new approach to mitigate these challenges. This student-centered approach to testing asks students to work in teams to design their own multiple-choice questions.

The research is clear that peer cooperation promotes learning and can foster students' appreciation of diverse perspectives. But how to get students on board to realize the full benefits of working with their peers?

In other blog posts, CRLT has featured some effective strategies for structuring group work and guiding student pairs. Here, we highlight one U-M instructor who is applying those strategies to foster group work that has won high praise from her students and, by their account, facilitated their success with the most challenging aspects of the course.

Cynthia (Cindee) Giffen, who teaches Biology 171 in the Comprehensive Studies Program, assigns her students to in-class working groups that change several times a semester. The class includes students with a diverse range of background preparation, and the groups are designed to provide a safe space for students to work through complex activities, ask questions, and make mistakes in a low-risk environment as they prepare for individual assessments. Giffen requires students to work on complex tasks in groups during class. Students receive a participation grade for their engagement in the group activities, but all written work they submit for a grade is completed individually, using their own words. Students are motivated to work in these groups, then, in part because these low-stakes interactions prepare them to submit their best work when it's time to earn a grade.

We are very pleased to share the news that Matthew Kaplan has been appointed Executive Director of CRLT.

Matt's appointment culminates a long evaluation and planning process for CRLT, which included internal and external reviews as well as a national search for a director with an inspiring vision for the Center's future. Candidates were invited to speak on "The Future of a Teaching Center in a Research University," and Matt's talk highlighted the importance of CRLT's interconnectedness. Defining the center's role as "cooperative leadership," he foregrounded our crucial collaborative relationships with partners on campus as well as our connections with the work of other university teaching centers both nationally and internationally. 

Matt brings to the Executive Director position over twenty years of experience in educational development, during which he has published widely on topics related to teaching and learning, faculty development, and teaching center administration. He has also held leadership roles in POD Network, the national professional organization for educational developers in higher ed, and is recognized as a key expert by teaching center colleagues nationally. He also knows our center and university very well, having worked at CRLT since 1994 and served as CRLT's interim director since January of 2014.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month, and it has come this year at a time when many U-M instructors are wondering how, in their role as teachers, they can make a difference with this issue on campus. For some, relevant course content provides a perfect occasion for engaging students in discussion about sexual violence and identifying relevant campus resources, initiatives, and policies. But what if you teach in an area where such issues are not relevant to your course topics? How, if you want, can you help promote a safer campus? And how can you be prepared to respond supportively in the event that a student’s learning in your class is negatively affected by an experience of sexual violence? Students often trust teachers as a primary contact when dealing with distress, so no matter your field, it’s useful to be prepared for such encounters.

Recently, student governments in both LSA and the College of Engineering have endorsed language that all faculty can include on their syllabus to provide information about campus policies as well as resources regarding sexual assault and harassment. The students leading these efforts propose that, as easily-accessible documents, syllabi are perfect places to share information such as contact numbers for crisis support services--resources that, by definition, students don't plan to need. They also emphasize the important role faculty can play in drawing attention to safety from sexual assault as a Title IX concern, in minimizing stigma against sexual assault survivors, and in demonstrating an institutional commitment to a campus where students can learn free from the threat of sexual violence. Such syllabus statements were advocated for similar reasons in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education blog.

As alternatives to such a policy-focused statement, some U-M teachers choose to include syllabus statements that focus more directly on the potential impacts on student learning of sexual violence. These might emphasize the boundaries of confidentiality, or point students to resources about supporting their friends and classmates who are survivors of sexual violence. Holly Rider-Milkovich, Director of U-M's Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center (SAPAC), recommends instructors include language such as the following on their syllabus or in speaking with students: