Special Edition: Guest Blog by Assistant Professor of Practice (Urban Forestry), Jennifer Killian
When I was asked to create a new course for Oregon State University’s Ecampus program, my first reaction was a mix of sheer excitement… and, well, a little terror. I’ve built workshops, presentations, and even all-day trainings, but assembling ten weeks of graduate-level content from scratch? That felt like wandering through a haunted house to me. Dark, empty, and full of unknowns. Adding to the surrealness, I realized that thirteen years ago, I was a graduate student here, taking several Ecampus courses myself including an early version of the very class I would now be teaching. The idea that I could bring my professional experience back to this institution and shape this course? Thrilling, humbling… and a yes, definitely a little spooky.
The course, FES 454/554: Forestry in the Wildland-Urban Interface, explores the complex challenges of managing forests where communities and wildlands meet. Students dive into forest health, urban forestry, land-use planning, wildfire, and natural resource management through social, ecological, economic, and political lenses. It’s a “slash course,” meaning both undergraduates and graduate students can enroll so I knew the content needed to speak to a broad spectrum of learners. And I had to build it all from the ground up.
Enter the magical world of Ecampus Instructional Design. My Instructional Design partner was way more than support. To me, she was a friendly ghost guiding me through every room of this haunted course house. There were moments when I was convinced I had hit a dead-end, only to have a creative solution appear almost instantly. From turning complex assignments into clear, engaging experiences to keeping me on track and motivated, the team transformed my raw ideas into a cohesive, polished course. I honestly cannot say enough about the skill, creativity, and dedication they bring to the table.
One lesson I carried from my own hiking adventures literally proved invaluable during the course build. Years ago, I was struggling up a 14,000-foot peak in Colorado, staring at the distant summit, more than ready to quit. My hiking buddy simply said, “Don’t look at the summit. Pick a rock a few feet ahead and walk to that. Then take a break, and pick another rock.” That became my metaphor for course development. Instead of being paralyzed by the enormity of a ten-week course, I focused on the next “rock.” Some of my rocks included simply finishing the syllabus, creating the first assignment, securing a guest lecture, or finding a key reading. By breaking the work into manageable pieces, the haunted hallways of that blank course shell became far less intimidating and actually surprisingly rewarding.
Another highlight of building this course was connecting students with the people shaping forestry in the field. Reaching out to industry professionals for guest lectures and insights brought this material to life and grounded it in examples. It also reminded me how much real-world perspectives enrich student learning. Two colleagues from my department contributed individual weeks of material, which helped broaden the course and gave students a chance to see the WUI topic through multiple professional lenses. I was grateful for their contributions too! Seeing the course evolve into a bridge between theory and practice was incredibly rewarding and it reinforced a key principle I’d learned over the years through my various roles. That collaboration amplifies impact. Never has this resonated more with me!
For anyone stepping into a course development role for the first time, my advice is simple; Lean on the resources around you. The Ecampus team offers an incredible array of tools, templates, and guidance. Don’t hesitate to ask questions, tap into expertise, and stick to timelines. Above all, remember the “next rock” approach: the mountain is climbed one step at a time. Celebrate small wins along the way because they add up faster than you think.
Looking back, building this course has been a career highlight. From the panic of staring at a totally blank syllabus to the thrill of seeing assignments, discussions, and modules come alive, I’ve learned that teaching online is truly a team sport. The course may be called Forestry in the Wildland-Urban Interface, but what I really learned was how humans, collaboration, and thoughtful design intersect to create something extraordinary. I hope my story encourages other first-time developers to embrace the process, trust their teams, and find joy in the climb. After all, even a haunted course house is easier to navigate when you have friendly ghosts guiding the way and every “next rock” brings you closer to the summit. And as the crisp autumn air settles in and the leaves turn, I’m reminded that even the spookiest, most intimidating challenges can reveal unexpected magic when you face them step-by-step.
“You won’t always have a calculator in your pocket!”
How we laugh now, with calculators first arriving in our pockets and, eventually, smartphones putting one in our hands at all times.
I have seen a lot of comparisons 123 across the Internet to artificial intelligence (AI) and these mathematics classes of yesteryear. The idea being that AI is but the newest embodiment of this same concern, which ended up being overblown.
But is this an apt comparison to make? After all, we did not replace math lessons and teachers with pocket calculators, nor even with smart phones. The kindergarten student is not simply given a Casio and told to figure it out. The quote we all remember has a deeper meaning, hidden among the exacerbated response to the question so often asked by students: “Why are we learning this?”
The response
It was never about the calculator itself, but about knowing how, when, and why to use it. A calculator speeds up the arithmetic, but the core cognitive process remains the same. The key distinction is between pressing the = button and understanding the result of the = button. A student who can set up the equation, interpret the answer, and explain the steps behind the screen will retain the mathematical insight long after the device is switched off.
The new situation – Enter AI
Scenario
Pressed for time and juggling multiple commitments, a student turns to an AI tool to help finish an essay they might otherwise have written on their own. The result is a polished, well-structured piece that earns them a strong grade. On the surface, it looks like a success, but because the heavy lifting was outsourced, the student misses out on the deeper process of grappling with ideas, making connections, and building understanding.
This kind of situation highlights a broader concern: while AI can provide short-term relief for students under pressure, it also risks creating long-term gaps in learning. The issue is not simply that these tools exist, but that uncritical use of them can still produce passing grades without the student engaging in meaningful reflection gained by prior cohorts. Additionally, when AI-generated content contains inaccuracies or outright hallucinations, a student’s grade can suffer, revealing the importance of reviewing and verifying the material themselves. This rapid, widespread uptake stresses the need to move beyond use alone and toward cultivating the critical habits that ensure AI supports, rather than supplants, genuine learning.
Employing multivariate regression analysis, we find that students using GenAI tools score on average 6.71 (out of 100) points lower than non-users. While GenAI may offer benefits for learning and engagement, the way students actually use it correlates with diminished exam outcomes
Another study (Ju, 2023) found that:
After adjusting for background knowledge and demographic factors, complete reliance on AI for writing tasks led to a 25.1% reduction in accuracy. In contrast, AI-assisted reading resulted in a 12% decline. Ju (2023).
In this same study, Ju (2023) noted that while using AI to summarize texts improved both quality and output of comprehension, those who had a ‘robust background in the reading topic and superior reading/writing skills’ benefited the most.
Ironically, the students who would benefit most from critical reflection on AI use are often the ones using it most heavily, demonstrating the importance of embedding AI literacy into the curriculum. For example: A recent article by Heidi Mitchell from the Wall Street Journal (Mitchell, 2025) cites a study showing that the “less you know about AI, the more you are likely to use it”, and describing AI as seemingly “magical to those with low AI literacy”.
Finally, Kosmyna et al. (2025), testing how LLM usage affects cognitive processes and neural engagement in essay writing, assembled groups of LLM users, search engine users, and those without these tools (dubbed “brain-only” users). The authors recorded weaker performance in students with AI assistance over time, a lower sense of ownership of work with inability to recall work, and even seemingly reduced neural connectivity in LLM users compared to the brain-only group, which scored better in all of the above.
The takeaways from these studies are that unstructured AI use acts as a shortcut that erodes retention. While AI-assistance can be beneficial, outright replacement of thinking with it is harmful. In other words, AI amplifies existing competence but rarely builds it from scratch.
Undetected
Many people believe themselves to be fully capable of detecting AI-usage:
Most of the writing professors I spoke to told me that it’s abundantly clear when their students use AI. Sometimes there’s a smoothness to the language, a flattened syntax; other times, it’s clumsy and mechanical. The arguments are too evenhanded — counterpoints tend to be presented just as rigorously as the paper’s central thesis. Words like multifaceted and context pop up more than they might normally. On occasion, the evidence is more obvious, as when last year a teacher reported reading a paper that opened with “As an AI, I have been programmed …” Usually, though, the evidence is more subtle, which makes nailing an AI plagiarist harder than identifying the deed. (Walsh, 2025).
In the same NY Mag article, however, Walsh (2025) cites another study, showing that it might not be as clear who is using AI and who is not (emphasis added):
[…] while professors may think they are good at detecting AI-generated writing, studies have found they’re actually not. One, published in June 2024, used fake student profiles to slip 100 percent AI-generated work into professors’ grading piles at a U.K. university. The professors failed to flag 97 percent.
The two quotes are not contradictory; they describe different layers of the same phenomenon. Teachers feel they can spot AI because memorable extremes stick in their minds, yet systematic testing proves that intuition alone misses the overwhelming majority of AI‑generated work. This should not be surprising though, as most faculty have never been taught systematic ways to audit AI‑generated text (e.g., checking provenance metadata, probing for factual inconsistencies, or using stylometric analysis). Nor do most people, let alone faculty grading hundreds of papers per week, have the time to audit every student. Without a shared, college-wide rubric of sorts, detection remains an ad‑hoc, intuition‑driven activity. Faulty detection risks causing undue stress to students, and can foster a climate of mistrust by assuming that AI use is constant or inherently dishonest rather than an occasional tool in the learning process. Even with a rubric, instructors must weigh practical caveats: large-enrollment courses cannot sustain intensive auditing, some students may resist AI-required tasks, and disparities in access to tools raise equity concerns. For such approaches to work, they must be lightweight, flexible, and clearly framed as supporting learning rather than policing it.
This nuance is especially important when considering how widespread AI adoption has been. Walsh (2025) observed that “just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments.” While this figure might seem to justify the use of AI detectors, it could simply reflect the novelty of the tool at the time rather than widespread intent to circumvent learning. In other words, high usage does not automatically equal cheating, showing the importance of measured, thoughtful approaches to AI in education rather than reactionary ones.
What to do…?
The main issue here is not that AI is magically writing better essays than humans can muster, it is that students are slipping past the very moments where they would normally grapple with concepts, evaluate evidence, and argue a position. Many institutions are now taking a proactive role rather than a reactive one, and I want to offer such a suggestion going forward.
Embracing the situation: The reflective AI honor log
It is a fact that large language models have become ubiquitous. They are embedded in web browsers, word processors, and even mobile keyboards. Trying to ban them outright creates a cat‑and‑mouse game; it also sends the message that the classroom is out of sync with the outside world.
Instead of fighting against a technology that is already embedded in our lives, invite students to declare when they use it and to reflect on what they learned from that interaction.
For this post, I am recommending using an “AI Honor-Log Document”, and deeply embedding it into courses, with the goal of increasing AI literacy.
What is it?
As assignments vary across departments and even within courses, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be effective. To support thoughtful AI use without creating extra work for students, faculty could select an approach that best aligns with their course design:
Built-in reflection: Students note when and how they used AI, paired with brief reflections integrated into their normal workflow.
Optional, just-in-time logging: Students quickly log AI use and jot a short note only when it feels helpful, requiring minimal time.
Embedded in assignments: Reflection is incorporated directly into the work, so students engage with it as part of the regular writing or research process.
Low-effort annotations: Students add brief notes alongside tasks they are already completing, making reflection simple and natural.
These options aim to cultivate critical thinking around AI without imposing additional burdens or creating the perception of punishment, particularly for students who may not be using AI at all.
AI literacy is a massive topic, so let’s only address a few things here:
Mechanics Awareness: Ability to explain the model architecture, training data, limits, and known biases.
Critical Evaluation: Requiring fact-checking, citation retrieval, and bias spotting.
Orchestration Skills: Understanding how to craft precise prompts, edit outputs, and add original analysis.
Note: you might want to go further and incorporate these into an assignment level learning outcome. Something like: “Identifies at least two potential biases in AI-generated text” could be enough on a rubric to gather interesting student responses.
Log layout example
#
Assignment/Activity
Date
AI Model
Exact Prompt
AI Output
What you changed/Added
Why You Edited
Confidence (1-5)
Link to Final Submission
1
Essay #2 – Digital-privacy law
2025-09-14
GPT-5
“Write a 250-word overview of GDPR’s extraterritorial reach and give two recent cases
[pastes AI text]
Added citation to 2023 policy ruling; re-phrased a vague sentence.
AI omitted the latest case; needed up-to-date reference
4
https://canvas.oregonstate.edu/……
Potential deployment tasks (and things to look out for)
It need not take much time to model this to students or deploy it in your course. That said, there are practical and pedagogical limits depending on course size, discipline, and student attitudes toward AI. The notes below highlight possible issues and ways to adjust.
Introduce the three reasons above (either text form or video, if you have more time and want to make a multimedia item). Caveat: Some students may be skeptical of AI-required work. Solution: Frame this as a reflection skill that can also be done without AI, offering an alternative if needed.
Distribute the template to students: post a Google-Sheet link (or similar) in the LMS. Caveat: Students with limited internet access or comfort with spreadsheets may struggle. Solution: Provide a simple Word/PDF version or allow handwritten reflections as a backup.
Model the process in the first week: Submit a sample log entry like the one above but related to your class and required assignment reflection type. Caveat: In large-enrollment courses, individualized modeling is difficult. Solution: Share one well-designed example for the whole class, or record a short screencast that students can revisit.
Require the link with each AI-assisted assignment (or as and when you believe AI will be used). Caveat: Students may feel burdened by repeated uploads or object to mandatory AI use. Solution: Keep the log lightweight (one or two lines per assignment) and permit opt-outs where students reflect without AI.
Provide periodic feedback: scan the logs, highlight common hallucinations or errors provided by students, give a “spot the error” mini lecture/check-in/office hour. Caveat: In large classes, it’s not realistic to read every log closely. Solution: Sample a subset of entries for themes, then share aggregated insights with the whole class during office hours, or post in weekly announcements or discussion boards designed for this kind of two-way feedback.
(Optional) Student sharing session in a discussion board: allow volunteers or require class to submit sanitized prompts (i.e., any personal data removed) and edits for peer learning. Caveat: Privacy concerns or reluctance to share work may arise. Solution: Keep sharing optional, encourage anonymization, and provide opt-outs to respect comfort levels.
Important considerations when planning AI-tasks
Faculty should be aware of several practical and pedagogical considerations when implementing AI-reflective logs. Large-enrollment courses may make detailed feedback or close monitoring of every log infeasible, requiring sampling or aggregated feedback. Some students may object to AI-required assignments for ethical, accessibility, or personal reasons, so alternatives should be available (i.e. the option to declare that a student did not use AI should be present). Unequal access to AI tools or internet connectivity can create equity concerns, and privacy issues may arise when students share prompts or work publicly. To address these challenges, any approach should remain lightweight, flexible, and clearly framed as a tool to support learning rather than as a policing mechanism.
Conclusion
While some students may feel tempted to rely on AI, passing an assignment in this manner can also pass over the critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and reflective judgment that go beyond content mastery to true intellectual growth. Incorporating a reflective AI-usage log based not on assumption of cheating, but on the ubiquitous availability of this now-common tool, reintroduces one of the evidence-based steps for learning and mastery that has fallen out of favor in the last 2-3 years. By encouraging students to pause, articulate, and evaluate their process, reflection helps them internalize knowledge, spot errors, and build the judgment skills that AI alone cannot provide.
Fu, Y. and Hiniker, A. (2025). Supporting Students’ Reading and Cognition with AI. In Proceedings of Workshop on Tools for Thought (CHI ’25 Workshop on Tools for Thought). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5 pages. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.13900v1
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
In part one of this two-part blog series, we focused on setting the stage for a better feedback cycle by preparing students to receive feedback. In part two, we’ll discuss the remaining steps of the cycle- how to deliver feedback effectively and ensure students use it to improve.
In part one, we learned about the benefits of adding a preliminary step to your feedback system by preparing students to receive suggestions and view them as helpful and valuable rather than as criticism. If you haven’t read part one, I recommend doing so before continuing. This first crucial but often overlooked step involves fostering a growth mindset and creating an environment where students understand the value of feedback and learn to view it as a tool for improvement rather than criticism.
Step 2: Write Clear Learning Outcomes
The next step in the cycle is likely more familiar to teachers, as much focus in recent decades has been placed on developing and communicating clear, measurable learning outcomes when designing and delivering courses. Bloom’s Taxonomy is commonly used as a reference when determining learning outcomes and is often a starting point in backwards design strategy. Instructors and course designers must consider how a lesson, module, or course aligns with the learning objectives so that students are well-equipped to meet these outcomes via course content and activities. Sharing these expected outcomes with students, in the form of CLOs and rubrics, can help them to focus on what matters most and be better informed about the importance of each criterion. These outcomes should also inform instructors’ overall course map and lesson planning.
Another important consideration is ensuring that learning outcomes are measurable, which requires rewriting unmeasurable ones that begin with verbs such as understand, learn, appreciate, or grasp. A plethora of resources are available online to assist instructors and course designers who want to improve the measurability of their learning outcomes. These include our own Ecampus-created Bloom’s Taxonomy Revisited and a chart of active and measurable verbs from the OSU Center for Teaching and Learning that fit each taxonomy level.
Step 3: Provide Formative Practice & Assessments
The third step reminds us that student learning is also a cycle, overlapping and informing our feedback cycle. When Ecampus instructional designers build courses, we try to ensure instructors provide active learning opportunities that engage students and teach the content and skills needed to meet our learning objectives. We need to follow that up with ample practice assignments and assessments, such as low-stakes quizzes, discussions, and other activities to allow students to apply what they have learned. This in turn allows instructors to provide formative feedback that should ideally inform our students’ study time and guide them to correct errors or revisit content before being formally or summatively graded. Giving preliminary feedback also gives us time to adjust our teaching based on how students perform and hone in on what toreview before assessments. Providing practice tests or assignments or using exam wrappers, exit cards, or “muddiest point” surveys to collect your students’ feedback can also be an important practice that can help us improve our teaching.
Step 4: Make Feedback Timely and Actionable
Step four is two-fold, as both the timeliness and quality of the feedback we give are important. The best time to give feedback is when the student can still use it to improve future performance. When planning your term schedule, it can be useful to predict when you will need to block off time to provide feedback on crucial assignments and quizzes, as a delay for the instructor equates to a delay for students. Having clear due dates, reminding students of them, and sticking to the timetable by giving feedback promptly are important aspects of giving feedback.
To be effective, feedback must focus on moving learning forward. It should target the identified learning gap and suggest specific steps for the student to improve.. For a suggestion to be actionable, it should describe actions that will help the student do better without overloading them with too much information- choose a few actionable areas to focus on each time. Comments that praise students’ abilities, attitudes, or personalities are not as helpful as ones that give them concrete ways to improve their work.
Step 5: Give Time to Use Feedback and Incentive it
The last step in the cycle, giving students time to use the feedback provided, is often relegated to homework or ignored altogether. Feedback is most useful when students are required to view it and preferably do something with it, and by skipping this important step, the feedback might be ignored or glanced over perfunctorily and promptly forgotten. To close the loop, students must put the feedback to use. This can be the point where your feedback cycle sputters out, so be sure to make time to prioritize this final step. Students may need assistance in applying your feedback. Guiding students through the process, and providing scaffolds and models for using your feedback can be beneficial, especially during the initial attempts.
In my experience, it never hurts to incentivize this step: this can be as simple as adding points to an assignment for reflecting on the feedback given or giving extra credit opportunities around redone work. As a writing teacher, I required rewrites for work that scored below passing and offered to regrade any rewritten essays incorporating my detailed feedback. This proved to be a good solution, and while marking essays was definitely labor intensive, I was rewarded with very positive feedback from my students, often commenting that they learned a lot and improved significantly in my courses.
Considerations
A robust feedback cycle often includes opportunities for students to develop their own feedback skills by performing self-assessments and peer reviews. Self-assessment helps students in several ways, promoting metacognition and helping them learn to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. It also allows students to reflect on their study habits and motivation, manage self-directed learning, and develop transferable skills. Peer review also provides valuable practice honing their evaluative skills, using feedback techniques, and giving and receiving feedback, all skills they will find useful throughout adulthood. Both self-assessment and peer review give students a deeper understanding of the criteria teachers use to evaluate work, which can help them fine-tune their performance.
Giving and receiving feedback effectively is a key skill we all develop as we grow, and it helps us reflect on our performance, guide our future behavior, and fine-tune our practices. Later in life, feedback continues to be vital as we move into work and careers, getting feedback from the people we work for and with. As teachers, the most important aspect of our job is giving feedback that informs students how to improve and meet the learning outcomes to pass our courses. We soon learn, however, that giving feedback can be difficult for several reasons. Despite it being one of our primary job duties as educators, we may have received little training on how to give feedback or what effective feedback looks like. We also realize how time-consuming it can be to provide detailed feedback students need to improve. To make matters worse, we may find that students don’t do much with the feedback we spend so much time providing. Additionally, students may not respond well to feedback- they might become defensive, feel misunderstood, or worse, ignore the feedback altogether. This can set us up for an ineffective feedback process, which can be frustrating for both sides.
I taught ESL to international students from around the world for more than 10 years and have given a fair amount of feedback. Over many cycles, I developed a detailed and systematic approach for providing feedback that looked like this.
Gaps in this cycle can lead to frustration from both sides. Each step in the cycle is essential, so we’ll look at each in greater depth in this blog series. Today, we will focus on starting strong by preparing students to receive feedback, a crucial beginning that sets the stage for a healthy cycle.
Step 1: Prepare Students to Receive Feedback
An effective feedback cycle starts before the feedback is given by laying careful groundwork. The first and often-overlooked step in the cycle is preparing students to receive feedback, which takes planned, ongoing work. Various factors may influence whether students welcome feedback, including their self-confidence going into your course, their own self-concept and mindset as a learner, their working memory and learning capacity, how they view your feedback, and whether they feel they can trust you. Outside factors such as motivation and working memory are often beyond our control,butcreating an atmosphere of trust and safety in the classroom can positively support students. Student confidence and mindset are areas in which teachers can play a crucial supporting role.
Researcher Carol Dweck coined the term “growth mindset” after noticing that some students showed remarkable resilience when faced with hardship or failure. In contrast, others tended to easily become frustrated and angry, and tended to give up on tasks. She developed her theory of growth vs. fixed mindsets to explain and expound on the differences between these two mindsets. The chart below shows some of the features of each extreme, and we can easily see how a fixed mindset can limit students’ resilience and persistence when faced with difficulties.
Mindset directly impacts how students receive feedback. Research has shown that students who believe that their intelligence and abilities can be developed through hard work and dedication are more likely to put in the effort and persist through difficult tasks, while those who see intelligence as a fixed, unchangeable quality are more likely to see feedback as criticism and give up.
Developing a growth mindset can have transformative results for students, especially if they have grown up in a particularly fixed mindset environment. People with a growth mindset are more likely to seek out feedback and use it to improve their performance, while those with a fixed mindset may be more likely to ignore feedback or become defensive when receiving it. Those who receive praise for their effort and hard work, rather than just their innate abilities, are more likely to develop a growth mindset. This is because they come to see themselves as capable of improving through their own efforts, rather than just relying on their natural talents. A growth mindset also helps students learn to deal with failure and reframe it positively. It can be very difficult to receive a critique without tying our performance to our identity. Students must have some level of assurance that they will be safe taking risks and trying, without fear of being punished for failing.
Additionally, our own mindset affects how we view student effort, and we often, purposefully or not, convey those messages to students. Teachers with growth mindsets have a positive and statistically significant association with the development of their students’ growth mindsets. Our own mindset affects the type of feedback we are likely to provide, the amount of time we spend on giving feedback, and the way we view the abilities of our students.
These data suggest that taking the time to learn about and foster a growth mindset in ourselves and our students results in benefits for all. Teachers need to address the value of feedback early on in the learning process and repeatedly throughout the term or year, and couching our messaging to students in positive, growth-oriented language can bolster the feedback process and start students off on the right foot, prepared to improve.
Here are some concrete steps you can take to improve how your students will receive feedback:
Model a growth mindset through language and actions
Include growth-oriented statements in early messaging
Provide resources for students to learn more about growth vs. fixed mindsets
Discuss the value of feedback and incorporate it into lessons
Create an atmosphere of trust and safety that helps students feel comfortable trying new things
Teach that feedback is NOT a judgment of the person, but rather a judgment on the product or process
Ensure the feedback we give focuses on the product or process rather than the individual
Praise effort rather than intelligence
Make it clear that failure is part of learning and that feedback helps improve performance
Provide students with tools and strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning
Resources for learning more about growth mindset and how it relates to feedback:
One of my favorite design strategies is to make a small adjustment that delivers a big impact. When it comes to creating a welcoming online course, certain small adjustments can do just that and go a long way in warming up the online classroom. But first, let us look at why online courses ought to be welcoming and then what it means to be welcoming in the online space.
Why Welcoming Students Is Important
First, why is it important to design a welcoming course? According to the OSU Ecampus Online Teaching Principles, which are supported by research and endorsed by Quality Matters, it is recommended to “[m]ake facilitation choices that support diverse students and make each student feel welcomed and valued.” Additionally, specific review standard 1.8 from the Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric, 7th Edition, states that “The self-introduction by the instructor is welcoming and is available in the course site.” Furthermore, UDL 3.0 Guidelines were updated recently and include “Design Options for Welcoming Interests & Identities.” While all of those are evidence-based recommendations, I think it is safe to say that many faculty also have plenty of anecdotal evidence for the benefits to students when feeling welcome in a course. If one has been working in the higher education context for several years, it is easy to forget that many students struggle to feel that they belong in this context. Warm communication and greetings is one way to begin connecting with students who are skeptical that their experience matters or that their presence is valued.
What Does It Mean To Be Welcoming?
Next, let’s look at what it means to be welcoming in the online classroom. If we get down to basics and turn to a dictionary definition, we see that Merriam-Webster has defined welcoming as “to greet hospitably and with courtesy and cordiality; to accept with pleasure the occurrence or presence of.” For the online modality then, we can ask ourselves some questions: Where in the course can facilitators greet students? When students inquire about office hours or email with a question, can their presence be warmly accepted? Next let’s look at actions that faculty or other course facilitators, such as graduate teaching assistants, can take to be welcoming.
Creating a Welcoming Online Classroom
The following tips are just a few of the actions that can be taken to create a welcoming online classroom:
Greet each student in the introduction discussion. Replying to each student is one of those actions that is small but has a big impact.
Many online students are older than the traditional college age, so they often have extensive work experience and life experiences to draw upon. Acknowledging this life experience can go a long way in welcoming students.
Rename office hours to something like Coffee Chat, Afternoon Tea, or Q&A Hour. Here is an example to consider: Which description of office hours sounds more welcoming, Example 1 or Example 2? Example 1: “Office Hours are held by appointment. Please email to make an appointment.” Let’s compare that to Example 2: “Please join me for a Coffee Chat this term! Coffee Chats are held three times per term, as an open Zoom room for our class. If you can’t attend any of the scheduled Coffee Chats, please email me and schedule a time to meet. I want to get to know each of you. Furthermore, when I get to know students, I am better positioned to serve as a reference for educational or professional opportunities that come up in our field. I look forward to meeting with you!”
Consider how students are described in the course site. Alternative descriptions besides “students” could be fellow scholars, colleagues, participants, etc.
Consider these two different introduction discussion prompt designs, 1 and 2:
Design 1: “Students: Post an introduction that includes the following: Your major and why you are taking this course. Reply to two other students.”
Design 2 (designed to be more welcoming): “Welcome, fellow engineering scholars! Please introduce yourselves so that we may all begin to get to know each other. In your post, include 1) an educational or professional goal that you have connected to this course, 2) a time management tip that you have found helpful that you are willing to share with others, and 3) a photo or fun fact about yourself. Replies to other participants are optional but encouraged.”
Ecampus Online Teaching Principles, endorsed by Quality Matters, recommend “referring to each student by name with their chosen pronouns.” Sometimes students who use a shortened nickname will say so in their introductory post, but it is also nice to include instructions for students on how to change their display name in the course site. That way, facilitators of the course, including graduate teaching assistants, if applicable, do not have to refer back to the introduction post to remember what students prefer to be called.
Takeaway
Adding a welcoming tone to a course does not mean that the whole course needs to be redesigned. A few small adjustments here and there can make a difference.
I’d like to share a recent experience highlighting the crucial role of collecting and using feedback to enhance our online course materials. As faculty course developers and instructional designers, we understand the importance of well-designed courses. However, even minor errors can diminish the quality of an otherwise outstanding online course.
A lighthouse on the Oregon coast, where student feedback and technological tools act as the guiding light. Image generated with Midjourney.
A Student’s Perspective
Recently, feedback was forwarded to me submitted by an online student enrolled in a course I had helped develop.
He praised the overall design of the courses and the instructors’ responsiveness, but he pointed out some typographic and grammatical errors that caused confusion. He mentioned issues like quiz answers not matching the questions and contradictory examples.
What stood out to me was his statement:
“These courses are well-designed and enjoyable. Their instructors are great. They deserve written material to match.”
Proactive Steps for Quality Improvement
This feedback got me thinking about how we can proactively address such concerns and ensure our course materials meet the high standards our students deserve. Here are a few ideas that might help:
Implement a Feedback Mechanism
Incentivize students to hunt for flaws. Reward sharp eyes for spotting typos and grammar slips. Bonus points could spark enthusiasm, turning proofreading into a game of linguistic detective work. For example:
Weekly Surveys: Add a question to the weekly surveys asking students to report any errors they encounter, specifying the location (e.g., page number, section, or assignment).
“Did you encounter any typographic or grammatical errors in the course materials this week? If so, please describe them here, including the specific location (e.g., page number, section, or assignment).”
Assignment Feedback: Include a text-field option for students to report errors alongside their file uploads in each assignment submission.
Utilize Technology Tools
Consider using technology tools to streamline the review process and help identify typographic, grammatical, or factual errors.
AI tools
The latest advanced AI tools can assist in identifying grammatical errors, suggesting more precise phrasing, and improving overall readability. They can also highlight potential inconsistencies or areas needing clarification, ensuring the materials are more accessible to students. They can also help format documents consistently, create summary points for complex topics, and even generate quiz questions based on the content.
(Oregon State University employees and currently enrolled students have access to the Data Protected version of Copilot. By logging in with their OSU credentials, users can use Copilot with commercial data protection, ensuring their conversations are secure and that Microsoft cannot access any customer data.)
Many powerful AI tools exist. But always verify their information for accuracy. Use them as a helper, not your only guide. AI tools complement human judgment but can’t replace it. Your oversight is essential. It ensures that AI-suggested changes align with the learning goals. It also preserves your voice and expertise.
Tools for content help
Some tools can be used to target different areas of content improvement:
Grammar and Style Checkers:
Grammarly: Checks grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style
Read Aloud: A text-to-speech extension for browsers (Chrome|Firefox )
Collaborative Editing Platforms:
Google Docs: Allows real-time collaboration and suggesting mode
Microsoft Word (with Track Changes): Enables collaborative editing
Request Targeted Assistance
If specific content requires a closer review, ask for help from other SMEs, your instructional designer, colleagues, or even students. Collaboration can provide fresh perspectives and help catch errors that might have been overlooked.
Encourage Open Communication
Foster an environment where students feel comfortable reporting errors and providing feedback. Make it clear that their input is valued and will be used to improve the course.
Embrace Constructive Criticism
It’s natural to feel defensive when receiving critical feedback (I always do!), but view it as an opportunity for potential improvement. By addressing these concerns, you can enhance the quality of your course materials and ultimately improve our students’ learning experience.
All the buzz recently has been about Generative AI, and for good reason. These new tools are reshaping the way we learn and work. Within the many conversations about Artificial Intelligence in Higher Ed a common thread has been appearing regarding the other AI–Academic Integrity. Creating and maintaining academic integrity in online courses is a crucial part of quality online education. It ensures that learners are held to ethical standards and encourages a fair, honest, and respectful learning environment. Here are some strategies to promote academic integrity and foster a culture of ethical behavior throughout your online courses, even in the age of generative AI.
Create an Academic Integrity Plan
Having a clear academic integrity plan is essential for any course. Create an instructor-only page within your course that details a clear strategy for maintaining academic integrity. This plan might include a schedule for revising exam question banks to prevent cheating, as well as specific measures to detect and address academic dishonesty (plagiarism or proctoring software). In this guide, make note of other assignments or places in the course where academic integrity is mentioned (in the syllabus and/or particular assignments), so these pages can be easily located and updated as needed. By having a plan, you can ensure a consistent approach across the course.
Exemplify Integrity Throughout the Course
It is important to weave academic integrity into the fabric of your course. Begin by introducing the concept in your Start Here module. Provide an overview of what integrity means in your course, including specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This sets the tone for the rest of the course and establishes clear expectations. On this page, you might:
Offer resources and educational materials on academic integrity for learners, such as guides on proper citation and paraphrasing.
Include definitions of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, and falsification.
Provide guidance on how learners might use generative AI within the class, including what is and is not considered acceptable.
Add scenarios or case studies that allow learners to discuss and understand academic integrity issues, specifically related to the use of generative AI.
Connect academic integrity with ethical behavior in the larger field.
Provide a place for learners to reflect on what it means for them to participate in the course in a way that maximizes their learning while maintaining academic integrity.
Throughout the course, continue to reinforce these ideas. Reminders about academic integrity can be integrated into various lessons and modules. By articulating the integrity expectations at the activity and assignment level, you provide learners with a deeper understanding of how these principles apply to their work.
Set Clear Expectations for Assignments
When designing assignments, it is important to be explicit about your expectations for academic integrity. Outline what learners should and should not do when completing the task. For instance, if you do not want them to collaborate on a particular assignment, state that clearly. Provide examples and resources to guide learners on how to properly cite sources or avoid plagiarism. Be specific with your expectations and share why you have specific policies in place. For instance, if you want to discourage the use of generative AI in particular assignments, call out the ways it can and cannot be used. As an example, you might tell learners they can use generative AI to help form an outline or check their grammar in their finished assignment, but not to generate the body text. Share the purpose behind the policy, in this case it might be something about how a writing assignment is their opportunity to synthesize their learning and cement specific course concepts. This kind of transparency shows respect for the tools and the learning process, while also clearly outlining for learners what is acceptable.
Encourage Conversations About Integrity
Creating opportunities for learners to engage in discussions about academic integrity can help solidify these concepts in their minds. You can incorporate forums or discussion boards where learners can share their thoughts and experiences related to integrity. This also gives them a chance to ask questions and seek clarification on any concerns they may have. Encourage open dialogue between instructors and learners regarding academic integrity and any related concerns. These conversations can also extend beyond the classroom, exploring how integrity applies in your field or career paths. By connecting academic integrity to real-world scenarios, you help learners understand its relevance and importance in their professional lives.
Foster a Supportive Learning Environment
A supportive learning environment can help reinforce academic integrity by making learners feel comfortable asking questions and seeking guidance. Offer resources like definitions, guides, or access to mentors who can provide additional support. When learners know they have access to help, they are more likely to adhere to integrity standards. With generative AI in the learning landscape, we will inevitably encounter more “gray areas” in academic integrity. Be honest with your learners about your concerns and your hopes. Being open to conversations can only enhance the learning experience and the integrity in your courses.
We all play a role in cultivating a culture of academic integrity in online courses. By documenting a clear plan, weaving integrity into the course content, setting clear expectations, encouraging conversations, and providing support, you can create an environment where honesty and ethical behavior are valued and upheld. This not only benefits learners during their academic journey but also helps them develop skills and values that will serve them well in their future careers.
I was recently reminded of a conference keynote that I attended a few years ago, and the beginning of an academic term seems like an appropriate time to revisit it on this blog.
In 2019, Dan Heath, a bestselling author and senior fellow at Duke University’s CASE Center, gave a presentation at InstructureCon, a conference for Canvas users, where he talked about how memories are formed. He explained that memories are composed of moments. Moments, according to Heath, are “mostly forgettable and occasionally remarkable.” To illustrate, most of what I’ve done today–dropping my kids off at spring break camp, replying to emails, going to a lunchtime yoga class, and writing this blog post–will largely be forgotten by next month. There is nothing remarkable about today. Unremarkable is often a desirable state because it means that an experience occurred without any hiccups or challenges.
Heath went on to describe what it is that makes great experiences memorable. His answer: Great experiences consist of “peaks,” and peaks consist of at least one of the following elements: elevation, insight, pride, or connection. He argued that we need to create more academic peaks in education. Creating peaks, he contends, will lead to more memorable learning experiences.
So, how do we create these peaks that will lead to memorable experiences? Let’s explore some ideas through the four approaches outlined by Heath.
Elevation. Elevation refers to moments that bring us joy and make us feel good. You might bring this element into your course by directly asking students to share what is bringing them joy, perhaps as an icebreaker. Sharing their experiences might also lead to connection, which is another way (see below) to create peaks that lead to memorable experiences.
Insight. Insight occurs when new knowledge allows us to see something differently. Moments of insight are often sparked by reflection. You might consider making space for reflection in your courses. Creativity is another way to spark new insights. How might students engage with course concepts in new, creative ways? To list off a few ideas, perhaps students can create a meme, record a podcast, engage in a role play, or write a poem.
Pride. People often feel a sense of pride when their accomplishments are celebrated. To spark feelings of accomplishment in your students, I encourage you to go beyond offering positive feedback and consider sharing particularly strong examples of student work with the class (after getting permission–of course!) Showcasing the hard work of students can help students to feel proud of their efforts and may even lead to moments of joyful elevation.
Connection. Connection refers to our ties with other people. Experiencing connection with others can feel deeply rewarding. As I mentioned above, asking students to share their experiences with peers is one way to foster connection. In Ecampus courses, we aim to foster student-student and student-teacher connection, but I encourage you to explore other opportunities for students to make meaningful connections. Perhaps students can get involved with their communities or with colleagues, if they happen to have a job outside of classes. Students could connect with their academic advisors or the writing center to support their work in a course. There are many ways to foster connections that support students in their learning!
It’s easy to focus on delivering content, especially in online courses. This was one of Heath’s overarching points. The key, however, to creating memorable learning experiences is to take a student-centered approach to designing and facilitating your course.
I invite you to start the term off by asking yourself: How can I create more moments of elevation, insight, pride, and connection for my students? It might be easier than you think.
References:
Heath, D. (2019, July 10). Keynote. InstructureCon. Long Beach, CA.
This article has its roots in a discussion I had with an Ecampus intern about going on the job market. This intern is working in an academic technologies role at a higher ed institution already, but also getting the Instructional Design certificate here at OSU. It was my first time thinking about what the growth of instructional design certificate and degree credentials means for all instructional designers. Very few of the instructional designers I’ve met and worked with here or at my previous institutions actually have degrees in instructional design, including myself. The field of instructional design emerged out of a specific institutional and educational need in higher education and corporate education, which makes for an ever-growing, ever-changing, but always innovative membership. How do we, as a field, continue to be inclusive of all instructional designers, regardless of their academic or educational backgrounds?
One potentially positive fact is that academia moves very slowly, so we have some time to strategize. Instructional design is still an emerging speciality within higher education, with each institution classifying that role differently, and providing that role with different levels of support. Some institutions, even today, do not have any instructional designers. Current research indicates that this must change. One of the best sources of data about the field of instructional design in higher education and instructional designers is the Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) Project. The participants in the CHLOE survey are “the senior online officer at each participating institution.” This survey pool recognizes the variance in organizational structures at different institutions by focusing on the COO’s purview. In the 2019 CHLOE 3 survey, it was reported that the median number of instructional designers employed at 2-year colleges, and public and private 4-year institutions, was four, regardless of enrollment or institution size. In CHLOE 7, one of the conclusions was that “insufficient instructional design staffing may be one of online learning’s most serious long-term vulnerabilities,” with only 10% of Chief Online Officers surveyed describing their ID capacity as sufficient for their current needs, and only 3% believing they would be able to meet anticipated need.
These findings signal that universities should be moving towards a significant fiscal investment in hiring instructional designers. Joshua Kim wrote a few key takeaways from the CHLOE 7 in CHLOE 7: The Present and Future of Instructional Design Capacity. Kim predicts that universities will need to not only hire more instructional designers, but that these roles will need to be hybrid or remote to attract the post-pandemic workforce. In addition to hybrid and remote options, Kim posits that, “Forward-thinking universities may find that they need to start offering star non-faculty educators the same recognition and incentives that have long been necessary to recruit and retain star tenure-line faculty.” But what does this mean for instructional designers? How would an instructional designer even be able to become identified as a “star” within the field or even at a specific institution?
Understanding Branding for Faculty and Non-Faculty Educators
Circling back to my initial inquiry about what instructional designers can do to ensure the field stays inclusive, I believe an individual enterprise will have a collective impact that will benefit the largest number of people: personal branding. In What’s the Point of a Personal Brand? Executive coach Harrison Monarth uses the story of his client, Mike, to illustrate how important it is for employees to think about how personal branding is now a strategy for gaining visibility within organizations, and that visibility is now a key component when employers are thinking about promotion. Monarth observes that “In high-performing organizations, at certain levels, everyone is exceptional. To clearly differentiate your value and what you bring to the table, you need to do more than have a good reputation. You need to have an outstanding personal brand.” Having a brand isn’t the same thing as being a celebrity, although I think many would agree that there are celebrities in every field, even instructional design.
Creating a personal brand is a successful career strategy outside of the corporate world as well, and one of the fields that is encouraging faculty to think about branding is not, as one might think, business but medicine. In 2019, the Academic Medicine blog published Knowing Your Personal Brand: What Academics Can Learn From Marketing 101, the purpose of which was to persuade medical professionals that a brand identity can be empowering. According to the article,
[K]nowing one’s academic brand can (1) help faculty members approach projects and other responsibilities through the lens of building or detracting from that brand, (2) provide a framework for determining how faculty members might best work within their institutions, and (3) help faculty members better understand and advocate their own engagement and advancement.
Although this article specifically speaks to and about academic teaching faculty, Instructional designers at institutions are often placed in the professional faculty role, along with librarians or program directors, and have many of the same professional demands on their job descriptions. As former faculty, I can attest that both of my careers have included independent research, departmental service, and conference or publication responsibilities.
Finding Your Personal Brand
If a brand is defined as opinions that people have about you based on your work, it is important to be self-aware, and intentional about the work that you do. Creating your brand can be a difficult task if, like me, you have a variety of experiences and interests. It requires self-reflection about one’s accomplishments and body of work as a whole, and the need to generalize what are sometimes very disparate activities. In Using Your Personal Mission Statement to INSPIRE and Achieve Success, an article published in Academic Pediatrics, the official journal of the Academic Pediatric Association, the authors describe a framework for building a personal mission statement (INSPIRE):
Identify Your Core Values
Name the Population You Serve
Set Your Vision
Plan How You Will Achieve Your Vision
Identify Activities That Align With Your Mission
Review, Revise, and Refine Your Mission Statement
Enlist Others to Help You Accomplish Your Mission
A slimmed down version of this same framework can be a helpful starting point for creating a brand identity. It enables you to identify your core values, name the population you serve, and identify activities that support those values and populations. But unlike a mission statement, this framework is best completed in reverse; a backwards brand design, if you will. (Sidenote: Instructional designers love to do things backwards). I call this framework SIFT:
Start with your experience and accomplishments
Identify keywords or topics
Frame your work and interests
Tie everything together
I believe that SIFT-ing has the potential to be a reflective process that will lead to a changing self-awareness of different types of instructional designers, for ourselves, and collectively.
Start with your experience and accomplishments
The best place to begin is with your complete resume or CV. It might be tempting to start with the tailored version you used to get your last position, but you don’t want to limit your view to only things that you think are relevant to instructional design. I can trace some elements of my brand back to my undergraduate and graduate degrees. I also include my two years as a contracted captioner for 3play and Rev within the same brand. Finding a brand that encompasses all that you are will only be successful if you use the most complete picture of yourself.
Identify keywords or topics
Your brand is more than just the places that you’ve worked at, the committees you’ve served on, and projects you’ve worked on. To understand your brand, you should begin by identifying a perspective, or positionality, that informs the decisions you’ve made in the past, however unconsciously that might have been, and looks towards the future. Keywords can be a useful next step, but you will want to avoid the potential to find yourself trapped within categories! In a field like medicine, there are already established research interests and specialties. As a field, instructional design hasn’t reached the point of specialization, but we are trending towards accepting that there are too many topics that fall under the broad umbrella of instructional design for everyone to be experts in everything. For example, the Quality Matters Instructional Designers Association has 21 expertise categories that you can select from when joining the association that others can use to find you to connect with you.
A screencapture of the list of categories from the QM IDA website
When I first joined the QM IDA, I didn’t know what boxes to check, or even what some of these categories were. And since they are presented without explanation, the criteria for self-identification are unclear. I can check almost all of these boxes as things I have experience in—with the exception of K12 and the Continuing and Professional Education Rubric, but is experience the same thing as expertise? It might be my imposter syndrome talking, but I am more inclined to identify with interests than areas of expertise. (Sidenote: I still haven’t checked any boxes.)
Frame your work and interests
I hadn’t noticed a pattern to my interests while I was doing them, but by reflecting on my professional journey, I realized that I could trace one interest all the way back to my undergraduate honors thesis, through to my current career as an instructional designer. I’ve always had an interest in communities and the community spaces they inhabit—especially if they are online. Community doesn’t appear on QM’s list of categories, but it is the lens through which I approach many of the categories on that list. Accessibility, Computer-Based Learning, Distance Education, Hybrid instruction/Design, LMS, Multimedia Creation, Problem-Based Learning—all of these categories need to address questions of community by addressing inclusivity, access, equity, and authentic student-student and student-teacher interactions. Community is the keyword I use to frame my research interests and approach to instructional design, in all of its various forms.
Tie everything together
If you go to my LinkedIn profile, you’ll see that I have “Humanities girl in an instructional technology world” as my headline. That’s my brand. You might notice that it does not include “instructional design” or “community.” But at the same time, by labeling myself a humanist, I am evoking the words associated with humanities and humanism–things like communities, kindness, compassion, human potential, and the arts. Technology is often viewed either as the savior of humanity, or its destruction. In reality, of course, it’s both. By framing myself as a humanist working with technology, I am clueing people in that my perspective on technology will incorporate potential negative impacts for people. The playful nature of the headline i.e. using “girl” to rhyme with “world” also reveals my personality. Compare this headline with something like, “I am interested in humane approaches to technology used in education.” It’s true, but it doesn’t tell you about me as a person outside of my interests.
Being “On Brand”
To declare a brand is not to limit your interests, nor should it be criticized as promoting a non-interest in other topics. Another observation from Kim is that instructional designers are likely very busy, and overstretched. In his words, there is “a significant mismatch between institutional demand for instructional design services and the available supply.” To avoid burnout, instructional designers need to be strategic with the projects they commit to. A brand can also help you be selective about which conferences you attend, or committees you serve on. Being “on brand” can be a way of focusing your energy, and also a touchstone of your identity.
Using the SIFT framework, you can reflect on your professional values, and your professional goals. One of my colleagues in the field is an accessibility expert, and gets called in to consult on all things related to accessibility in addition to her daily work as an instructional designer. She recently became a certified Accessibility Professional with the IAAP, and this credential is visible on her LinkedIn profile as an emblem of her brand. Knowing her brand allowed her to appeal to her institution to allow her this opportunity that enriches not only her own skillset, but the prestige of her institution by having an IAPP certified accessibility professional on their staff. In that sense, personal branding can also help institutions build diverse departments that are teams of specialists.
To return to the three benefits of branding for faculty outlined in the Academic Medicine article, knowing my brand helps me decide where to devote my limited bandwidth by pursuing professional activities that are “on brand” for me. I can also use my brand to search for specific opportunities that will build my brand, even if those fall outside the typical skillset of instructional designers. However, moving towards a “branding” mindset also benefits my colleagues, who are equally, individually, uniquely talented, and should be recognized for their specialties and allowed to follow their passions, rather than be constrained to their job duties. As instructional design teams at universities grow, having a team of specialists can also help alleviate burnout by allowing people to play to their strengths. This can ensure that instructional design remains a space where all career pathways are valid and not contingent on specific credentials.
As educators and instructional designers, one of our tasks is to create online learning environments that students can comfortably use to complete their course activities effectively. These platforms need to be designed in such a way as to minimize extraneous cognitive load and maximize generative processing: that is, making sure that the learners’ efforts are spent on understanding and applying the instructional material and not on figuring out how to use the website or app. Research and practice in User Experience (UX) design – more specifically, usability – can give us insights that we can apply to improve our course page design and organization.
Getting Started: General Recommendations
Steve Krug, in his classic book Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, explains that, in order for a website or app to be easy to use, the essential principle can be stated as “don’t make me think” (Krug, 2014). That may sound like a strange principle in an educational context, but what Krug referred to is precisely the need to avoid wasting the users’ cognitive resources on how a particular platform works (thus reducing extraneous cognitive load), and to make them feel comfortable using that product (enhancing generative processing). When looking at a web page or app, it should be, as much as possible, obvious what information is on there, how it is organized, what can be clicked on, or where to start; this way, the user can focus on the task at hand.
Krug (2014) provided a few guidelines for ensuring that the users effortlessly see and understand what we want them to:
Use conventions: Using standardized patterns makes it easier to see them quickly and to know what to do. Thus, in online courses, it helps to have consistency in how the pages are designed and organized: consider using a template and having standard conventions within a program or institution.
Create effective visual hierarchies: The visual cues should represent the actual relationships between the things on the page. For instance, the more important elements are larger, and the connected parts are grouped together on the page or designed in the same style. This saves the user effort in the selection and organization processes in the working memory.
Separate the content into clearly defined areas: If the content is divided into areas, each with a specific purpose, the page is easier to parse, and the user can quickly select the parts that are the most relevant to them.
Make it obvious what is clickable: Figuring out the next thing to click is one of the main things that users do in a digital environment; hence, the designer must make this a painless process. This can be done through shape, location or formatting—for example, buttons can help emphasize important linked content.
Eliminate distractions: Too much complexity on a page can be frustrating and impinges on the users’ ability to perform their tasks effectively. Thus, we need to avoid having too many things that are “clamoring for your attention” (Krug, 2014, Chapter 3). This is consistent with the coherence principle of multimedia learning, which states that elements that do not support the learning goal should be kept to a minimum and that clutter should be avoided. Related to this, usability experts recommend avoiding repeating a link on the same page because of potential cognitive overload. This article from the Nielsen Norman Group explains why duplicate links are a bad idea, and when they might be appropriate.
Format text to support scanning: Users often need to scan pages to find what they want. We can do a few things towards this goal: include well-written headings, with clear formatting differences between the different levels and appropriate positioning close to the text they head; make the paragraphs short; use bulleted lists; and highlight key terms.
Putting It to the Test: A UX Study in Higher Education
The online learning field has yet to give much attention to UX testing. However, a team from Penn State has recently published a book chapter describing a think-aloud study with online learners at their institution (Gregg et al., 2020). Here is a brief description of their findings and implications for design:
Avoid naming ambiguities – keep wording clear and consistent, and use identical terms for an item throughout the course (e.g., “L07”, “Lesson07)
Minimize multiple interfaces – avoid adding another tool/platform if it does not bring significant benefits.
Design within the conventions of the LMS – for example, avoid using both “units” and “lessons” in a course; stick to the LMS structure and naming conventions as much as possible.
Group related information together – for example, instead of having pieces of project information in different places, put them all on one page and link to that when needed.
Consider consistent design standards throughout the University – different departments may have their own way of doing things, but it is best to have some standards across all classes.
Are you interested in conducting UX testing with your students? Good news: Gregg et al. (2020) also reflected on their process and generated advice for conducting such testing, which is included in their chapter and related papers. You can always start small! As Krug (2014, Chapter 9) noted, “Testing one user is 100 percent better than testing none. Testing always works, and even the worst test with the wrong user will show you important things you can do to improve your site”.
References
Gregg, A., Reid, R., Aldemir, T., Gray, J., Frederick, M., & Garbrick, A. (2020). Think-Aloud Observations to Improve Online Course Design: A Case Example and “How-to” Guide. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux/15_think_aloud_obser
Krug, S. (2014). Don’t make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to Web usability. New Riders, Peachpit, Pearson Education.
