A case against prompt engineering in education

Do we give students examples of great prompts, or do we allow them to struggle with developing their own prompting skills? This dilemma is common amongst educators integrating AI into their pedagogical strategies.

Refining prompts is as a pivotal vehicle for cognitive advancement. It fosters growth by nudging students to navigate beyond their current capabilities. A meticulously crafted ready-made prompt, while yielding impressive results, might overshoot a student's zone of proximal development. The essence of learning lies in recognizing and rectifying flaws of the output. In other word, giving students a great prompt to begin with may produce the result that is painfully obviously flawed to the instructor, but the flaws are completely invisible to students. When students are handed sophisticated prompts, there's a risk of them becoming passive users, merely applying these tools without understanding or growth. Here is some empirical evidence of this provided by Jack Dougal. One of my colleagues, hopefully will soon present similar results.

The general principle should be to calibrate potential outputs to a level where students can discern imperfections. It is also to ENCOURAGE them to look for imperfections, guiding them to be critical to the output. Just because it sounds good and grammar is perfect does not mean the text is good. This approach encourages active engagement with the learning material, prompting them to question, adapt, and evolve their understanding. It's akin to guiding someone through a labyrinth; the instructor's role is to provide just enough light to help them find their way, without illuminating the entire path.

In the educational sphere, the prompt industry's role is contentious. While it offers a plethora of ready-made prompts, enhancing efficiency, this convenience comes at a cost to cognitive development. In academia, the journey of crafting and refining prompts is crucial for fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

On the research front, the prompt industry does contribute valuable insights, empirically testing and refining prompts to optimize AI interactions. I love to find out about the chain-of-thought approach, for example. However, a significant portion of the prompts available in the market are of dubious quality. These prompts, lacking empirical validation, are frequently oversold in their capabilities. The indiscriminate use of these untested prompts can result in suboptimal outcomes, reinforcing the necessity for a discerning approach to their adoption and application.

The overarching promise of AI lies in its potential to democratize content creation, designed to comprehend natural, imperfect language and provide equitable access to all, regardless of their mastery of writing mechanics, their disability, or fluency in the dominant language. This vision is threatened by attempts to monopolize and professionalize access to AI, a trend that runs counter to the very ethos of this technology. The notion that one must know 'magic words' to effectively communicate with AI is a form of self-interested deception. It undermines the inclusive and accessible nature of AI, turning it into a gated community where knowledge is unfairly hoarded rather than shared. Vigilance against such practices is essential to preserve the integrity and egalitarian promise of AI, ensuring it remains a tool for empowerment and collective advancement, rather than a vehicle for exclusion and profiteering.

Every Exception Tends to Become a Precedent

A common saying in the legal world goes, "Hard cases make bad law." This proverb warns us that unique or extreme circumstances can lead to decisions that set undesirable precedents. When transferred to the academic setting, it takes on a similar cautionary tale: every exception tends to become a precedent. And in universities, as in many other organizations, flexibility is indeed an expensive luxury.

Universities are institutions governed by rules, regulations, and policies that establish a predictable and equitable environment for all. They are designed to ensure that everyone understands what is expected and how to achieve success. These rules aren't intended to stifle innovation or creativity but to create a fair and level playing field. 

However, the urge to accommodate exceptional circumstances or individual needs can sometimes lead us down a path of creating exceptions. Whether these exceptions are made out of empathy, a desire for inclusivity, or to facilitate academic progress, the result is the same: a divergence from the rule. And once an exception is made, the challenge begins: how to explain to everyone else that the rules still apply?

The dilemma becomes more complex when we consider that the criteria we thought were exceptional might turn out to be more common than anticipated. Perhaps a request initially deemed rare becomes increasingly frequent. Should everyone then be allowed the same leeway? The idealistic answer might be a resounding "yes," but the practicalities of running an educational institution often dictate otherwise.

Moreover, keeping exceptions a secret does no one any good. Even with the best intentions at heart, such hidden variations can create an atmosphere of mistrust and perceived unfairness. Suddenly, the act of kindness towards one individual morphs into a source of discontent among the masses. Compassion and good intentions can, paradoxically, damage group morale.

Yet, it would be unrealistic and even inhumane to argue that exceptions should never occur. Life is messy, complicated, and unpredictable. Exceptions will inevitably be needed and made. The challenge then lies in how we handle these exceptions.

To navigate this conundrum, it is crucial to establish a transparent process for exceptions. Such a process should have clear and consistent criteria, ensuring that exceptions are not arbitrary but based on well-defined circumstances. This approach does not merely promote fairness but also allows for flexibility where necessary without undermining the broader system of rules and expectations.

Each exception has the potential to become a precedent. Be mindful of the rules you bend today, for they may become the expectations of tomorrow. By handling exceptions with care, transparency, and consistency, we can maintain the trust and respect of our academic communities while still attending to the unique needs of individuals.

The Art of Yielding: How to Lose an Argument and Gain Self-Respect

In the grand arena of human interaction, voices clash and merge, forming a vibrant tapestry of perspectives. It is in these deliberations that people voice their opinions, objections, and counter-arguments, weaving together a rich fabric of collective wisdom. This is normal, as differences in perspectives, when brought together, make for better decisions. However, there is a looming threat that often casts a shadow over these deliberative assemblies—our inability to lose an argument, which poses a risk to democracy and hinders the effectiveness of our communication.

One may argue that falling in love with our own opinions is a natural byproduct of our passion for certain ideas or ideals. Yet, this attachment often blinds us to the possibility of alternative perspectives and can lead us to believe that any rejection of our opinions is a personal affront—a sign of disrespect. The truth is, our opinions and beliefs are not a complete representation of who we are. It is crucial to recognize that we can be respected even when our ideas are not universally accepted.

The trick, then, is not to overinvest in one's own opinion or a particular point. We must learn the wisdom of yielding, of knowing when to let go of our arguments and embrace the insights of others. This does not mean that we should blindly accept every contrary idea that comes our way; rather, it is a matter of acknowledging that our perspective is just one of many.

If you find yourself feeling disrespected when others disagree with you, it is worth examining the root of these emotions. Often, such feelings stem from a place of insecurity or a lack of self-respect. Ironically, the stubborn attachment to our opinions is both a symptom and a cause of these issues. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by cultivating a healthy sense of self-respect and a willingness to yield when appropriate.

Indeed, the process of learning how to lose an argument can have profound effects on our self-esteem. When we are able to let go of our need to be right, we open ourselves to the possibility of growth and self-improvement. It is through this willingness to yield that we foster a sense of humility and respect for the ideas of others. Ultimately, it is not about winning or losing the argument; it is about embracing the diversity of perspectives that enrich our collective wisdom.

So, the next time you find yourself in a heated debate, remember to practice the art of yielding. You may just find that, in losing an argument, you gain a deeper sense of self-respect and a renewed appreciation for the complexity of human thought.

Wraiting vs. writing

Wraiting is the new writing, only it has AI in it. I bet that a few years down the road, we will all be doing more wraiting than old-fashioned writing. And some of us will be better at it than others because doing it well requires considerable skill. Don’t complain then that I did not warn you, and you fell behind.

Just to give a glimpse of the new world, consider these wraiting tips. It is the tip of the iceberg, for there are a lot more nuances to it than I know about, and even more that I do not. Here are four key roles that AI can play in wraiting:

1. Brainstorming: One of the main roles that AI can play in wraiting is in the brainstorming stage of the writing process. It can help writers generate new ideas, provide suggestions for topics to explore, and even conduct initial literature reviews (only for well-explored topics). These tools can also be used to create outlines and plan the structure of a piece of writing, making it easier to organize ideas and stay on track.
2. Critiquing your ideas: Another important role that AI can play in wraiting is as a critical partner to chat about ideas with. With chatbot-style interactions, the AI can engage in a conversation about the writer's ideas, ask questions, provide feedback, and offer suggestions. This can help writers refine their ideas, explore new directions, and gain valuable insights into their writing.
3. Turning dense chunks of ideas into full paragraphs and segments: By using natural language processing algorithms, wraiting tools can analyze the structure and meaning of sentences and suggest improvements that can help writers better articulate their ideas. This can be especially useful for writers who struggle with writer's block or who find it challenging to organize their thoughts into cohesive paragraphs. AI can look for additional arguments, examples, metaphors, and references to support or challenge your claims.
4. Editing: Finally, AI can play a key role in the editing process of wraiting. From grammar and spelling to structure, flow, style, genre, and audience analysis, wraiting tools can help writers identify areas for improvement and provide suggestions for making changes. AI-powered editing tools can also help writers save time and effort by automatically correcting common errors and suggesting alternative phrasing.

Wraiting is not easy. AI-powered chatbot has several limitations, some of which are very serious, while others are simply annoying. Learning them will save you from disappointment and frustration; it is a part of the skill. But that would be a topic for another blog. In the meanwhile, build your wraiting skills by trying. It is investment in your future. For educators, there is additional significance. We should start teaching students how to wrait soon.

Poor planning and justice

Some people assume that personal biases, self-interest, and biased policies are the main cause of exclusionary practices. However, I don't believe that's entirely correct. Poor planning and badly designed procedures can also be a major source of actual exclusion. Individuals or groups may be excluded from participating in an event or project due to lack of access or poor organization. That's why good planning is an ethical commitment, not just a good business practice. Whether it's an academic conference, a student event, or any other project, it's important to manage it effectively.

Let us admit it, some faculty members lack project management skills because they haven't had the opportunity to develop them on their career path. It takes courage to admit that you don't know something and learn. And it can be even more difficult once you have those coveted letters after your name. However, these skills are essential for success in any field, so it's important to learn them.

When preparing for an event, it's important to manage it like a project. Here are some commonly known tips on how to manage a project or event with several people involved:

1. Start planning early: Plan the event well in advance to ensure that there is enough time to organize everything. Otherwise, we end up scrambling to find an accessible room or an available ASL interpreter. Improvisation and spontaneity are cute, but end up hurting someone. 
2. Develop a timeline: Create a timeline that outlines the key milestones and deadlines for the event. Counting backward is critical here. For example, if we want to announce an event and advertise it, we need at least a month. To advertise it, we need to confirm key speakers and their topics, which takes another month. Rooms are scarce, so we need to book a room at least two months in advance. To book a room, we need to know the general format, which will take a whole meeting to figure out, etc.
3. Establish roles and responsibilities: Assign clear roles and responsibilities to each person involved in the event. Don't assume that someone will do it; someone does not exist. In academic institutions, seek support from your chairs and deans; they can ask staff to help with specific tasks or match you with other resources on campus. We have the event support request form, but it does not have to be that sophisticated.
4. Communicate and monitor progress regularly: Establish effective communication channels between team members and stakeholders to ensure that everyone is informed about the progress of the event. A weekly check of progress is the most common routine. Put this checks in your calendar.
5. Anticipate and manage risks: Identify potential risks and develop a plan to mitigate them. What could go wrong, and what's the plan B? The most common error is to not ask "what if it rains?" or "what if it's 100F outside?
6. Debrief, identify lessons learned, write them down, pass on to the next person.

Do you want to be a social justice warrior? Get your act together; it's the first step. Remember the rule of the variable barrier: what's a minor annoyance for one person can be an insurmountable obstacle for someone else. We tend to ignore small things because they seem small to us. But from a different perspective, those same things can seem huge. 

Why Innuendo Has No Place in Academia

Innuendo can be a tricky thing. It's a subtle or hinted remark that often carries a suggestive or insulting connotation. It can take the form of a joke, comment, or gesture that is meant to communicate a hidden message or imply something negative about someone else. In academic and business settings, innuendo can have a destructive impact on professional relationships and workplace culture.

Here are some examples of what innuendo might look like in an academic business meeting:

• During a discussion on a curriculum proposal, someone says, "If only most faculty knew the basic facts about curriculum forms." This is a direct attack on the proposer disguised as a general lament about a lack of faculty training.
• Someone says, "Isn't this why we have support staff?" implying that staff are not doing their jobs.
• Someone says in a public meeting, "Some people can't teach and yet they present themselves as scholars." This kind of innuendo is even more damaging because it's not clear who the person has in mind, leaving many people feeling hurt or offended.

Now, you might be thinking, "Don't we need to allow criticism and accountability?" And the answer is yes, but there are many ways to provide negative feedback without resorting to innuendo. If you have a problem with someone's performance, the best first step is to meet with them face-to-face and express your concerns. You may not know the full story, so it's important to hear both sides. There are also official channels for complaining, such as going to a supervisor, union representative, HR, or equal opportunities office. These channels involve due process, whereas innuendo leaves no room for defense.

It's important to remember that personnel matters should not be the subject of public debates. If you're unhappy with someone's performance, you should take the appropriate steps to address it, rather than making hints or implications in a public setting. Engaging in innuendo will only harm your reputation and make others less likely to want to work with you.

As the facilitator of meetings one must make sure that innuendo has no place in the discussion. If someone starts to engage in this behavior, it's the facilitator's responsibility to shut it down and keep the meeting focused on its purpose. Innuendo does nothing to further the discussion and only serves to bring negativity to the table.

Innuendo has no place in academic or any other settings. It's destructive, undermines professional relationships, and goes against the principles of due process and democracy. If you have concerns about someone's performance, there are better ways to address it than through hints or suggestions. By upholding a "no innuendo" rule in meetings, we can create a more positive and productive environment for all.

Don’t assign homework to your dean or chair

Quite a few people enjoy assigning homework to their leaders - to program coordinators, chairs, deans, provosts, and presidents. At every meeting, at every opportunity, they will say: "We should do this or that," while clearly assuming that someone else has to implement it, somehow. And if the people in authority are hesitant or insufficiently enthusiastic, well, then it's clearly their incompetence or sabotage.

Well, this is not how higher ed, or any other organization, can work. To undertake a project of any significant size, someone must evaluate whether it is worth it (that is the ratio of effort over results), and if it aligns with strategic priorities. Someone must assess the scope of work and find resources – people mainly – to do it. Alternatively, the faculty member who has a brilliant idea can execute it on their own or lead a volunteer ad-hoc committee! Administrators and chairs cannot and should not prevent faculty from exercising their right to faculty governance and initiative. It is also totally fine to make a proposal to the entire group and ask academic leaders to support a project, including finding resources. Those kinds of proposals go through some sort of a debate, then evaluation, planning, etc. But it is critical for sustainable development not to chase every new idea that sounds good at the moment. That is the path to chaos and waste of resources. The entire concepts of mission and strategy are designed to prevent us from scattering attention and resources.

My advice to chairs and coordinators: recognize when people try to give you homework without a good reason. Do not promise anything you may regret. Gently push back by asking: OK, great, who is going to do this? My advice to faculty: keep generating ideas, but also invite others to critique and analyze them. Like a pair of jeans, a good idea has to be worn-down a little. Do not expect that someone else will pick up on your idea and just do it because you think it is great in general, regardless of context.

A fine line separates simple requests from assigning homework. However, here are some examples. I am happy to send you an existing document, but don’t ask me to compile a document especially for you just because you're curious. I am very happy to meet and discuss anything, but don’t ask me to prepare for the meeting in a particular way. I will answer any questions but won’t teach you how to do something complicated. I will match your idea with existing programs and resources, but will normally question the creation of any new program or resource. I will react quickly and use any opportunity to advance our mission but won’t do things that merely look good.

Little kids pass through the stage where they believe there are omnipotent adults who can do anything they want. And if they refuse to do something, it is because they are intentionally hostile towards them. Most of us outgrow this illusion and realize there is no omnipotent authority and unlimited resources at the disposal of those with authority. We live in a very imperfect world and work in very flawed organizations. A dose of realism makes for much better working relationships and fewer disappointments.

The pull of the rough draft

In general, executives try to walk out of any meeting with minimal to-do list in their hands. When discussing a project, we have a temptation to say “oh, I can do it so easily, and I may be the best in the room to do it.” That is almost always the wrong thing to do; if you a leader, you should find someone else to do it, whenever possible. Otherwise, your time will be completely eaten up by such tasks. More importantly, you are not letting your team learn and grow. Delegation of responsibility is essential for a learning organization.

However, there is one exception to this rule. When a meeting resolves in a need for some sort of a document, I often volunteer to do the first draft. It is because the framing of the issue and structuring of the initial document are critically important to get it right. After that, people can contribute to it in many ways, including completely overriding the initial idea. But everyone tends to stick to the original frame. A document with three sections tends to stay with three sections, no matter how many edits it goes through. If it has the Background part, and a summary part, they normally stay. If you include a section called “Limitations of the proposed approach,” people usually keep it there. I may never have any input or control over the document again, but I can influence the questions people ask themselves while writing it.

The structure of things, not just documents, is something that is obvious to the point of becoming invisible. It affects our thinking in subtle, barely perceptible ways. The most potent power is that of a blank page, where everything is still possible, and nothing is solid yet. We rarely get to deal with the blank page. None if us get to do anything really from scratch. The “scratch” is the sensation of boundless creativity. That is the reason not to miss such rare moments where nothing yet is fixed. Whatever you or others create later will increasingly limit further steps. The way you use your freedom determines the shackles that will eventually confine it. Treasure the potency of a rough draft.

A shoestring conference. Downshifting in the academia.

No deep thoughts here, just some practical tips on how to run an international conference with no budget and minimal support. There is an international network of scholars that has no legal status and no budget. We intend to keep it that way as long as possible, because setting up an organization is a headache regardless of jurisdiction. It is because once money start exchanging hands, tax authorities reasonably require some accountability. It is harder in some countries than in others, but still it is a burden.

We use Qualtrics, a common survey software to collect names of all people who are interested in being in the loop. Conference proposals are also accepted through the same survey software. Once proposals are in, we created one long file with all the anonymized proposals. Reviewers would all go to the same file and insert their reviews right there, after each proposal. The reviewers also use a code number, so we maintain the double-blind standard. This little trick cuts down on writing back and forth, matching reviews with proposals, and virtually eliminates manual data entry. The only small manual step – we mark rejected proposals on the list and mark the rest of them automatically mark accepted. A mail merge trick allows you to send 60 emails in a few seconds. It can send a thousand in a few minutes.

Now, the next trick is important; we discovered it this year, and it works. We created a google doc with empty time slots, and invited presenters to enter their name and paper title in any empty slot. It worked great, and we have a program no one spent any time putting together. It literally assembled itself, and people had a choice on time. The non-editable version of the program is automatically published on the conference website. Now, we got people a little confused because for the global conference, we had to use UTC, and it is surprisingly hard for many people to figure out the time difference. This is something to improve next time around.

Because the conference is virtual this year, we did not have to deal with hotels, contracts, food, receptions, and all that stuff. We sweet-talked the keynote speaker to give the talk for free, which eliminated the need for registration fees. The conference is open to all, so people come to the site, enter a zoom room, and participate. No worries, no zoom bombing took place. I believe it is a very rare event, and even if it happens, no one is physically hurt. Those who ran conference know, what a headache registration is, both in terms of money collection, and maintaining records.

One can, of course, pay someone 50K to run an online conference, and charge a few hundred dollars in fees. The treasurer has to worry that if not enough people register, the conference will be in the red. Well, we have no treasurer. However, the quality of conversation is not affected by that at all. I the end, it is the same 8-12 people in every room, listening to a presentation, and engaging in productive conversations. With available distributed information processing technologies, there is a way to downshift in many areas of life. Scholarly conferences is one of them.

If we ever decide to go f2f, there are ways of keeping the cost down. Any campus can give rooms and tech support for free. People can book their own hotels without conference discounts. The way those discounts work is – you must buy a lot of food in exchange for slightly discounted rooms, and free or discounted conference rooms. And if you do not make the quota – you are liable to pay the difference. It is a racket, really. Unless you run a conference in very expensive cities, the discounts are not worth the registration fees. The local host campus can always sponsor a reception, with a cash bar, of course.

Success of academic downshifting is not entirely dependent on the virtual modality. It is a matter of choice and skill. Simple is beautiful. Sorry, middlemen.

Workflows or How do we tame Higher Ed inefficiency

One of the main causes of low organizational efficiency is that universities do not routinely review their procedures. It does not seem to be anyone’s job. Various people create procedures all the time, but no one seems to be in charge of periodically reviewing them and making dure they still do what they are supposed to do. For example, in the College of Education, there are 47 annual processes that require some college-level coordination. Some of them repeat every semester. In addition, there are dozens within each of our branches that only their respective staff have. Some of these are fully redundant. For example, we report reassigned time for our chairs and coordinators in a special form, but we also report the same on faculty workload modules. Or here is another beautiful thing: The University has a storage for course evaluations by students. But because they wipe the data out every so often, for completely obscure reasons, our staff download hundreds of them on a network drive, and then upload a significant portion of them again to faculty RTP files, this time on OneDrive. What should have been one link, becomes three downloads and two uploads, for hundreds of files. I could go on and on with a list. A fundamental problem is that someone creates workflows, but no one reviews and improves them.

To conduct a workflow review, these are the basic steps:

1. Is the work process needed at all? What happens if it is simply abandoned? In most cases, the answer is no, but asking this question really helps tog et at the purposes. Some procedures have been designed to prevent a very rare undesired outcome. But their cost is often disproportionally high. I worked at a place, where the President had to sign all travel requests over $250, because many years ago someone had an embarrassing trip to Hawaii that got media coverage. Well, such trips never occurred again, but the procedure stuck for years.

2. Work procedures are flows of information. It is helpful to start considering them from the first point to the last one and try to create the shortest path possible. For example, some processes are applications, where everyone is eligible. There is no point in approving applications, so that step should be removed. In other cases, a university unit would send something to deans with a request to distribute to faculty. However, that unit has access to all faculty emails and can the information directly, without bothering deans. Sometimes extra steps appear just in case, because in similar processes, there have been such extra steps. The shortest is the chain, the better.

3. Similarly, instead of approvals, consider informing. If the risk of inappropriate decision is very low, consider self-attestation instead of active controls. For example, we routinely approve student requests for late class drops. And these requests require approvals of their instructor, the chair and the dean. I guess the hope was that 3-level approval would give the process some rigor. But it does not, for none of the three have any way of verifying student stories of hardship. In these cases, it is enough to say something “I swear the explanation is true, and if not, this would be a violation of honor’s code.” This way, three people would not be involved in processing a decision none of them actually made. Examples of extraneous approvals are a many; they all distract us from doing our jobs.

4. Universities have many databases that often do not speak to each other. What we do not want is a process, where someone reads data and them manually enters it into another database. Not only it is insanely time-consuming, but also prone to errors. If at all possible, a procedure should stay within one database.

In the end, a workflow review is not a set of specific steps. It is just an attempt to take a look at what we are doing and why we are doing it. There is no magic solution, just a drive toward simplicity, sanity, and automation.

The sublime art of complaining

Many students, staff and faculty do not know how to complain well. People should defend their rights, and it is important to know how to do it effectively. Make is easier for the administrator you are complaining to to be more helpful. 

1. You need to know what you want to achieve, what would be an adequate resolution for you. If you just want an apology, say so. If you want your problem fixed – say which one and what would be an acceptable solution. Iа you don’t want what happened to you to happen to others -think about how to do that. However, if you want the offending person immediately fired or burned at stake, well, it is unlikely to happen, so be realistic. If you want the world to know how horrible A is, keep in mind that administrators cannot really share a lot of personnel-related information with others. Perhaps good old gossip will work better for you there. If you just want the administrator to know about some misbehavior, just in case there are other complaints like this – it is totally fine, as long as you are explicit about your intentions. If you just want to tell the other person you do not appreciate the way you are treated, it is better to confront them directly. Bullies and tyrants are rarely aware of their bad behavior. They always have a theory about why what they do is a good thing. Tell them first, before complaining to others.

2. Don’t start with your conclusions, start with facts. In other words, don’t say so-and-so is disrespectful or ageist. What did they say or do to you? We need specific words and actions. An administrator needs to know facts, not only your opinion. Of course, you can also say how you felt about it, and why. Your personal perceptions do matter, just start with facts. Also, if there is a written policy that the other person’s actions violate, name and cite them. It helps to process the complain better.

3. Don’t expect to be immediately believed. You can count on empathy and validation of your feelings. An administrator cannot be dismissive, or immediately distrustful. However, the accused must have an opportunity to present their point of view, and until that moment the administrator must refrain from making her or his mind. This is just the basic due process, without which any action is not defensible in court. I know it does not feel good when someone is checking your story. The very fact checking feels a tad disrespectful. However, think about it in terms beyond your own case. After all, when someone complains about you, you would want that story verified, and you would welcome an opportunity to defend yourself, right?

4. Anonymous complaints are very hard to do anything about. Unless they are about something very serious like sexual harassment or threats of violence, they are likely to be forwarded to the person you are complaining about and that’s about it. Eve if they keep coming, there is always a suspicion that it is the same person waging a campaign. Only rarely anonymous complaints are so specific that they are verifiable. For example, “so and so said this in class.” But even that is hard to check – no administrator wants to go to the entire class of students, and ask – did your professor say this horrible thing? We ask the professor and unless she or he fesses up, it is hard to pinpoint. If you want to be serious about your complaint, sign it.

5. Student complainers often want their name to be kept confidential, usually out of fear of retaliation. Those are very hard to deal with. To confront the accused, an administrator must provide examples, details, facts. Providing those details will identify the complainer. I cannot go to a faculty member and say, “Hey, listen, there is a student concern aboutcontent of your email, but I cannot tell you which one, and what kind of a concern.” Any institution is obligated to prevent retaliation, so don’t be so afraid about revealing your name. If you are still afraid, just keep in mind that your complaint will be very difficult to do anything about. It will not be as powerful as an open one. Retaliation is not as easy as you might think, and putting your name forward automatically places you under increased protection.

6. While you can complain on behalf of other people, to raise an issue, it is always better if the victim of alleged mistreatment complains on their own behalf. Don’t be a passive bystander, talk to the victim, offer your help. Your administrator or whoever pick us the case, will have to check with the direct victim anyway, to verify the facts, and to see of the person want to raise a complaint.

A disclaimer: this has nothing to do with Chancellor’s resignation. We were just working on the College’s grievance policy since Fall semester.

Seven strategies of successful online teaching

1. Build relations intentionally. Intuitive ways of relationship-building do not work online, therefore you need to apply specific effort. Educational relations generally have two dimensions: one is safety and the other is growth. Students need to feel safe and included first, and only then you can challenge them to grow. In other words, to take a student out of the comfort zone, they need to get into that zone first. It is important to know that the comfort zone is not universal, people of color, of various gender identities, individuals with trauma may experience both comfort and challenge differently.
2. Do not replicate, recreate. Online teaching is never a direct replication of f2f teaching. Even most experienced instructors must deconstruct their course all the way down to learning outcomes, and then rebuild it from scratch, assignment by assignment, assessment by assessment. It is the only way.
3. Focus on we-moments. I am using here Doug Lemov’s model: I do—We do—You, or a bit more detailed, I do­—I with your help do—you with my help do—you do. Online environment works great for “I do” moments, and fine for the ”you do” ones. Unfortunately, you must trick it to perform the “we do” activities. The most common, but not the only way of constructing a guided practice (we do) is a prompt or a clue. It is when a student does something they cannot yet do alone but can do with some assistance. You cannot be over the shoulder of each student to guess how much they are struggling and give them an appropriate hint. What you can do, is break down any skill into a series of gradually increasing in complexity skills and develop a prompt or a clue for each of these stages. This way, you will be invisibly present when students engage in stretching activities.
4. All can see. If you do not want to spend all waking hours providing similar feedback to every one of your students, design a clever way where your most critical feedback to one of the students is heard and seen by all. This will allow you to protect your time. I know at least 3-4 ways of doing it, but you can figure out your own.
5. Explain how you do it. Similarly, students need to see each other think. This is where Bandura extends Vygotsky. A student does not have to experience every cognitive break-through and every error. They can live through them vicariously, by observing others. A whole set of moves can make student thinking explicit, allowing others benefit from observational learning.
6. Micro-assignments. Unlike in f2f course, where you can have a few large assessments, an online course is better served by many smaller low-stake assessments. This is both to reduce cheating, but also to make skill development more granular, and more visible.
7. Low-stakes group activities. Circling back to #1, an online course will be successful with robust peer-to-peer interactions. The significantly decrease stress, encourage community, and provide even more opportunities for the “we do” activities. Just avoid high stakes group projects – in almost all courses, they end in disaster as often as in success. This is risk you do not want to take. Try games, brainstorming, TikTok-sized videos, mutual practice.

We are the tools that need care

Let’s not pretend this is normal, because it is not. The entire year online feels like a sentence to an exile. The conditions are reasonable, but it is still a withdrawal of freedom. Most people are resilient enough to cope with any one given stress. However, this is a low-level, long-duration set of stressed. They range from the increased time for teaching prep and grading to persistent child care issues, from the lack of social contact to the inability to recharge y getting out of town. I wish I had a way of reaching out to all to my colleagues and students, and tell them – I understand, I really do. I guess this is what I am doing right now.

People of caring professions are especially vulnerable to self-neglect. Their work requires a constant focus on the needs of others, on encouraging, challenging, consoling and cajoling of others. Their gaze is always directed outward, preoccupied with measuring of others’ well-being and progress. It is a cognitive and relational service, an act of giving. Looking inward is difficult for them. Assessing their own well-being, acknowledging stress, pain, and stating their own needs – all of these feel like an extra burden. Yet they need to do that.

It is because our own self is the most important, the most expensive instrument with which we can do encouraging, challenging, consoling and cajoling. For a teacher or a support staff, working while damaging one’s own self is like trying to play a beautiful and complicated music on a violin that is out of tune or missing a string. You can have all the skills and tall he right intentions in the world, but your music is not going to come out right. In this trade, we are our own tools. And any craftsperson takes care of her or his tools. It is totally fine to lay awake at night, mentally planning, or talking, or working through a problem – if it happens 2-3 times a year. If it happens a couple of times a week, this is a problem. Your tool is need of some serious maintenance. It will require some freeing of time, some creation of space for yourself. However, just accept the cost. There is no deferred maintenance of the self.

Our selves are very unique, which makes them so valuable as instruments. But the uniqueness also makes it hard to provide a universal recipe for self-care. However, all of the known ways require some mitigation of stresses. It could be in reducing the source of the stress, or learning to reduce the intensity of experiencing them. I will give just a few OK’s as examples; but the point is to continue.

• It is OK to tell your students: You know, I realized I planned too much work for myself in this semester. I am going to cancel this required assignment, because I cannot do a good job grading it. Feel free to do it on your own, just for practice, and ask your classmate for a feedback. I will give you an extra credit if you do that.
• It is OK to tune out of the political news out there. The situation is going to resolve itself without your great emotional investment. Consider how much you can actually do (other than vote), and how much this stuff is getting you upset. Watch a romantic flick instead of CNN. Sorry, CNN; perhaps another year.
• It is OK to tell your boss, your colleagues, or an organization you are volunteering for: Sorry, can we postpone this project to the next year? I cannot deal with it right now. We do not have to be super-productive right this year. Think of all years before and after.
• It is OK, no, scratch that, you need to seek help. We have professional help available; a unique program called the Employee Assistance Program. But we also have colleagues, administrators, friends, most of whom will hear you out, empathize, give support and advice. We all know that by helping you we are also helping those you care for. Any support given to an educator multiplies down the chain of care.

Don’t replicate, recreate: Observational learning in an online course

In his effort to overcome the limitations of behaviorism, Albert Bandura demonstrated the existence of observational learning, a subspecies of social learning. We learn our behaviors from others, and can develop cognitive models by observing others. In a good f2f class, such opportunities abound. For example, when one student tries to think aloud through a problem presented by instructor, the rest of the students observe and learn to apply the same moves in problem solving. The instructor always identifies good moves, and correct wrong ones. It creates a situation of guided observation. A similar thing happens in small group discussions: students will learn to reproduce skills shown by their more advanced peers. The phenomenon is not the only learning mechanism, but an important one.

For example, in courses on multicultural education, we teach student how to become culturally de-centered. In other words, they need to overcome the very common and naïve assumption that their own culture is normal, and all others are good but exotic. They master an ability to view their own cultural background just as exotic as any other, if viewed from outside. It is a fairly difficult mental and emotional shift. An instructor can explain it many times, and still students are unable to overcome the deeply help assumption about their own “normality.” The main pedagogical problem is that you cannot only use other people’s examples or stories; students need to work through their own, highly individual cultural experiences and assumptions. We orchestrate some sort of an explication activity, where students share their specific cultural experiences, compare them to each other. We wait for one of them to have the “aha” moment, to slip out of their own egocentric point of view and view themselves through the eyes of the very different other. And then we focus on that experience, call the attention of others, more or less asking them to do what this student just did. This is just one illustration. In almost any course, there are 2-3 significant growth points, where students need to move up to the next level. If you have not identified key jumps like this, you should definitely think more about your course. The point is, complex skills are hard to teach without the support of observational learning.

The common learning management systems facilitate student-teacher interaction really well. They are OK at facilitating student-student interactions. But they do not have an easy way of supporting the kind of three-way dance with students observing, and instructor approving/disapproving their actions and thoughts. This is why so many instructors are desperately trying to force their students to keep their cameras on during Zoom sessions. The really want to read and send the non-verbal clues. But that is not the solution; it simply does not work through Zoom. Besides, the requirement to keep the cameras on all the time has a whole set of legal and ethical implications.

The direct replication of f2f world generally does not work in an online course. This is why it is important to remember one rule: don’t replicate, re-create. What you need to do instead is build a routine where students are asked to produce bite-size performances that get them one small step closer to the target skill. Then you need to make sure they read or watch each other’s performances/texts, with explicit instructions on how to critique and learn from each other. Do that, repeat, crank it up one notch, repeat again. Wait for a breakthrough, and then point out explicitly to that break-through, and ask everyone do the same thing Jenni or Jose just did. In other words, structure your activities in a way that observational learning still takes place, even though more slowly, a lot more explicitly, and more deliberate. However, the larger point is more important: do not replicate the exact behavior, re-create something else, with similar pedagogical properties.

Tool fetishism in online teaching

Anxiety about online teaching skills often manifests in an interesting way: instructors are drawn to the vast array of digital tools, platforms, and services available for classroom use. Examples include Padlet, Flipgrid, Word Wall, Kahoot, Edmodo, Socrative, Projeqt, Thinglink, eduClipper, Animoto, and many more, with hundreds out there, each boasting its own fan club. Instructors also turn to blogs, website building platforms, Google and Office tools, smartphone apps, YouTube, Vimeo, and the like.

This attraction to digital tools is a form of "fetishism." Discovering a new tool can instill a sense of agency and accomplishment, making it feel like "your thing" and awakening creativity. While this can be fun, the costs are significant.

Modern Learning Management Systems (LMS) like Canvas have features that nearly replicate what these specialized tools offer. You don't need Kahoot to create a quiz, or Flipgrid for video discussion; Canvas and Zoom can usually suffice. Although external tools may appear flashier or slightly more effective for specific purposes, students often find them frustrating. An undergraduate might juggle five classes, each requiring one or two new platforms, accounts, passwords, and menu systems.

Some argue that learning these tools is part of digital literacy training. However, true digital literacy lies in the ability to critically assess various tools, resisting the allure of novelty to focus on the essence of the task at hand. Real professionals maintain a skeptical attitude, knowing that no tool is irreplaceable, and each comes with pros and cons. Most will only be relevant for a few years, and an over-enthusiasm for a specific tool can be a sign of inexperience.

Every minute spent exploring a new digital toy detracts from essential pedagogical thought and course design. Successful online courses hinge on the instructor's careful planning and clear objectives, not on a myriad of digital tools. Time students spend learning a new platform also diverts them from the course's intended learning goals.

The bar for incorporating a new digital tool should be high: it must be unique, directly aligned with class objectives, and not available through the standard LMS like Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle. If a tool meets these criteria, it can certainly be useful. But an undue focus on tools becomes problematic and detracts from teaching and learning.

The underlying principles of successful online course design include simplicity, predictability, variety, and explicit step-by-step progression. Simplicity means fulfilling course objectives with the least complicated technology and minimal tools. The focus should be on basics, without being sidetracked by every shiny new gadget. If there's interest, further elaboration on these principles can be provided. But for now, let's return to foundational practices and resist being seduced by the ever-changing landscape of digital tools.

How do you know your online or hybrid course is good-enough?

It looks like at least some of us will be teaching online or hybrid in the Fall. This semester was in the salvaging mode; not utterly failing was a victory. In the Fall, students will expect a little more from us, because we will have had more time to prepare. This is an attempt to offer a description of a minimal threshold for Fall 2020. What is a good-enough course for the next iteration? The list is highly subjective, so ignore it if you can. However, if you buy into the question, but not the answer, that would be a good thing.

1. If it is not interactive, it should not be synchronous. If you simply lecture, with some Q&A at the end, record your lecture and make Q&A live, or move them to Canvas. There is literally no point in every student listening to your lecture at the same time. ALL students understand it, even if they don’t dare to say it. Consider getting rid of lectures altogether, or only reserve them for critical moments you want to explain. But if it is just your PowerPoint, trust me, it does not need a narration. Don’t waste your time developing long lectures; instead invest it in creating assignments and assessments. However, if your typical lecture is packed with engagement moments, if every few minutes you ask for examples, offer mini-assignments, group discussions, demonstrations, etc. – go for it. There is nothing wrong with highly engaging synchronous class. I always thought it was too time consuming to prepare, but you may be a much better lecturer than me (which is not hard).

2. No busy work. Again, students immediately recognize busy work. It is something that you ask them to do to fill the learning time. Always tell students what is it they will be practicing, and give an example or a good description of a successful performance. I know this is hard; perhaps the hardest part of course design, especially for an online course. As you shrink class time, it feels like you have to keep them busy for about the same amount of time doing something. Unfortunately, SOMETHING does not cut it. Explain in simple terms the purpose of each assignment: “I just want to know if you all understood the X concept and can apply it correctly.” “You will be practicing the very important skill of Y.” “I need to make sure you can recall the basic facts of this unit.” Prioritize quality over quantity. Yes, we use the Carnegie unit to measure seat time; it is simply an administrative convenience. However, steady progress toward a specific skill and knowledge is really the point of teaching. There is no direct relationship between length of work and learning. Only intentional, well-designed work contributes to learning.

3. Provide feedback without working yourself to death. Because online and hybrid instruction involves more independent work, some instructors feel they have to grade it all, or least provide feedback to every sentence a student writes. This can quickly become an unsustainable burden. Students rarely understand this concern, unfortunately, and may expect the same. Do not over-promise feedback, do not overwork yourself. Instead of individual feedback on everything, use three life-saving shortcuts: self-assessment, peer-assessment, and spot-check feedback. The first two are self-explanatory; just make sure to give them some clear criteria, otherwise it will all be “I like your point,” and “Good job.” The spot-check feedback works like this: browse through student discussion, short texts, and identify a few common errors and strengths. Give students a whole group feedback, without naming names, but make it clear you are there, and read some of the stuff, but not every single word. That would eliminate the need for tedious, repetitive feedback that has fairly low effectiveness, but can devour your time.

4. Make relations work. You know the “I am not a robot” checkbox? Well, you have to prove to students you are not a robot. While they know that at the rational level, you have to somehow convince them on the emotional level that you are a real human being that cares about them. There are many ways of doing it, from welcome videos, to weekly messages to each class. Here is one of the best quotes about the role of relationships in learning motivation: "Students in a closed-circuit-TV class on campus felt no need to pay attention out of courtesy to the instructor." People are often oblivious to the critical importance of the "courtesy to the instructor" mechanism. It does not just automatically appear in online environment, and has to be created. It often does in the f2f world with its social norms evolving over thousands of years of personal interactions. Practice the intentional pedagogy of relations, and learning will follow.

I just re-read my short checklist, and of course, most of it applies to the f2f teaching just as much. Well, good teaching is good teaching, regardless of the medium. In education, medium is not the message. If you reasonably can check off all four benchmarks, you’re good to go.

The convertible course or How to prepare for the unknown

Like many universities, we cannot make a call yet about the modality of the Fall semester. New science findings come up every day, and most reasonable state governments have determined neither the exact day of reopening, nor the restrictions imposed on the reopening. It is tempting to just declare the fully online Fall, but we have no idea how it will affect the student experiences, and how many of them will just sit it out. However, the semester is going to end soon, and faculty want some certainty. It is not like they spend the entire summer preparing, but our minds crave settling on a version of predictable future. No one needs more anxiety.

The best strategy, in my view, is to start thinking of a convertible course that can be easily converted to the f2f mode, a hybrid mode (which may come in several variations, from split classroom to a double hybrid, or yet another option), or the fully online mode. Moreover, we should be prepared to switch from one mode to another mid-semester if needed. This may seem like an overwhelming task. Some have asked already if they have to prepare three different syllabi. However, like many new problems, if you really break it down into elements, it is not that hard.

As I have written before, think of a course as a combination of three basic elements:

1. Content that includes your live or recorded lectures, or video/lectures created by other people, course readings, demonstrations, and other organized curricular materials.
2. Activities or exercises where students apply learned concepts and practice skills.
3. Assessments.

Content and assessments actually do not change that much from one modality to another. You can make content delivery more or less interactive, interrupting delivery with questions, short exercises, blitz-discussions, etc. But it is actually more important to make it active: give students a task to do while they listen, watch, or read. It is a good idea for f2f, hybrid, and online courses. For assessments, it is best to create some performance-based assessments such as projects, essays, products, etc. No proctored exams with multiple choice tests, please. They do not work well in any modality, while creating an illusion of objectivity. See more on online assessments.

The middle part of the set is a little more difficult. Start with making a list of practicing activities that you already have for f2f class. For example, in my undergraduate classes, I had 10 or 11 projects for most weeks of the semester: there were role games, experiments, discussions, debates, interpretations of data, individual exercises with group reflections, skits, and group presentations. 6 or 7 of them could be easily replicated on Canvas, in an online mode. The other 3-4 I had to redo from scratch, and design some sort of alternatives that would work online. How? - begin from the end: what do you want students to practice? What skills and understandings? And then go down from that, considering the limitations imposed by the online communication technologies. But it is a manageable task, and actually a creative exercise.

Here is the benefit: while you are thinking how to replace a project, you are forced to confront your own assumptions about what it actually does, and how do you know it does what you think it does. It is a humbling and eye-opening experience. For years, I failed to explain to my students what counts as a good written argument. Only after I failed one more time in an online class it became obvious to me. While some students definitely got it, I never explicitly explained what I want, because I did not know it myself. I could recognize it, and I could produce it, but I could not explain it.

F2F teaching is vulnerable to the narcissistic trap, a common problem for beginning teachers. You did and sounded good in class, and felt it was a good class. You performed well, like an actor after a successful show. But did they learn anything? - it is a very different question. A good instructor makes herself/himself invisible, while student learning comes up front. Just watch Debora Ball’s videos of her lessons – you don’t notice her the most of the class. All the drama, all the action is with students, and their struggle to figure something out.

Forcing your ego through the shredder of online teaching makes us better f2f teachers. Even if by some magic we pop up in the pre-COVID world before Fall, the exercise of thinking through convertible courses is not going to waste. And this is what we will do our best to help faculty to do.

The double hybrid

The great reopening has overnight become a political issue. It is sad in general, but for higher ed also adds more uncertainty. Like agriculture, our business is seasonal and needs advanced planning. If Fall goes online, it will not only present a huge logistical problem, but also may deal a serious blow to enrollments. Who wants to start one’s college career completely online? Why not take a year off, and then go to college like normal freshmen? The traditional young undergrads come to campus for experience as much as for a degree.

It looks like I am the only one who worries about the possibility of partial reopening. It would make me happy to be wrong on this. However, I believe a partial reopening would be much better than staying online for another semester. I wrote about the split classroom model last week. Here is another option; let’s call it the double hybrid model.

Let’s assume you teach a class of 30 students, in a room that has a capacity of 30 or so. To provide social distance, you cannot have more than 15 in your room. The simplest way to do it is to have them take turns. One half comes in on Tuesdays, and the other half on Thursdays. You teach the f2f portion of the hybrid class twice. However, they stay on the same schedule in the online portion of the class. The option does not need any fancy technology; just your regular good old Canvas shell.

The double hybrid is much simpler than the split classroom with respect to technology. However, it may be a little more labor-intensive. You would have to keep track of double the number of f2f sections. Those of us who taught multiple sections of the same course know that they never come out exactly the same. Groups have different tempo, different character. As an instructor, you forget where you already explained something, and where you ran out of time. You forget where you told a particular story or a joke, and where you have not. It is just not easy to teach the same thing two or more times.

On the plus side, converting a regular class into a hybrid is a much simpler task than going all the way online. This is why we normally advise instructors to try a hybrid first, to get the feel for online tools, and then eventually take the second step of a fully online course, if needed. Hybrid courses gain more popularity, because they offer a compromise between convenience and flexibility of online instruction on one side, and the ease of human connection on the other. For campuses with space shortage problems, hybrids offer a unique opportunity to increase classroom availability at little or no cost. Hybrid programs can extend the geographic range of evening programs for working populations. Students who are unwilling to drive to campus twice a week, may be OK to drive once a week.

In other words, experimenting with hybrids is useful regardless of the quarantine. It builds new competencies, and expands the range of options for any campus. When an institution confronts new challenges, the broader range of skills and options is a definite asset.

Phased reopening and the split classroom model

The two main governors have spoken, and both are talking about phased reopening. In other words, we are not going back to normal normal, we are likely to go back to a new normal. The pat of the new normal will be retaining social distancing, plus a certain number of people will always be on quarantine, because of their contact with infected. For the higher ed, especially for large campuses like ours, this presents a challenge. Our classrooms are normally full, and there is no way to be 6 feet apart without cutting down the numbers of students in EVERY class. Even if this does not happen, a small minority of students will be in isolation and we need to be able to include them into regular f2f classes.

Many of us know that f2f and online worlds are not easily blended. It is easier to teach all in f2f or all in online mode. Try to have half of your class f2f and the other remotely, and you will discover a whole can of worms. However, many pioneers tried to do that for years. There is a model that does not even have an established name in the literature. Let us call it the split classroom model. It is not hybrid or blended, where the same students have both online and f2f experience. No, it is when there is a smaller f2f classroom that generates much of content, and another set of students accessing it remotely. I know people doing it successfully. Our Child Development Cohort programs has run like for many years and is now in 9 remote locations, but they hire separate off-site seminar leaders. Mark Rodriguez tried that for the Ed Technology Masters Program. Anatoly Kasprzhak experimented with a similar format years ago in Moscow, where he had optional f2f sessions for his hybrid program. I am sure there are hundreds of other examples out there. To my knowledge, no one had described the split classroom model yet. If you know of a good research on it, please let me know.

The advantage of the model is that as an instructor, you do not need to generate additional interactive content. Your f2f small group generates it: the interaction, the live lectures, the small group discussion, and all the countless ways in which a good f2f classroom helps digest knowledge. However, there are also serious technical challenges for which we should start preparing now. The problem is, you need to capture all that rich content and beam it to your online group. You also need to allow the online students to interact back, for learning cannot be all vicarious. There are some adjustments to pedagogy, but they are not overwhelming. Zoom can handle the communication between the f2f and online portion of the class.

The technical challenges are these. If you don’t sit in front of a computer, but move around, you need a wearable microphone or a much better stationary one. Your laptop or tablet mics are useless. You also need a tracking camera or multiple cameras capturing the entire room. We have only a handful of teaching studio rooms in the AIRC, and perhaps in some other buildings. They don’t come cheap, and will run tens of thousands of dollars.

The next best thing is a Zoom-ready room with a wide-angle camera and a good microphone. We probably have another dozen or so throughout the campus, including three in Eureka that Binod set up in the last year. Most of them actually are conference rooms, not classrooms. Binod found several solutions on the market: there are wall-mounted or stationary consoles that are able to pick up audio, and have digitally tracking and/or wide-angle cameras. These will stay within a few hundred dollars. However, with hundreds of classrooms on campus, and uncertain budget, I don’t know if we can invest much.

However, to hedge our bets, we should probably identify a portable solution that can be carted from classroom to classroom, test it, and be ready to scale up for a possible split classroom expansion. If we don’t need to expand, great. It is not a bad capacity to have anyway. The split classrooms may be useful for all kinds of accommodations for sick or quarantined students. The split classroom may even mainstream, especially for smaller programs struggling with enrollment. Why not have a few online students in addition to the normal f2f class? In the future, the split classroom model may also go international for a cheaper alternative to going abroad. We just don’t have years to work on it.

Teaching online: Week four tips

If this is your first time, by now you did the heavy lift. Congratulations. Next week, all the frustrating limitations and inefficiencies of online teaching will become painfully obvious. You may be doing either too much zoom time, and it is difficult to engage students. Or you assign them too much independent work, which makes it difficult to engage. Or else, you spent all your waking time providing individual feedback to students, which maintains their level of engagement, but is killing you. Welcome to the joggling world of the online teaching circus!

If you are still zooming the entire time, feel entitled to reduce the zoom time. Use it for weekly check-in, emotional support for students, and Q&A time. Use the break-out rooms in Zoom to add variety. Ask small groups to do a specific assignment, let them select their reporter who will present the highlights of the discussion back in the common room.

If you must lecture, pre-record several 5-8 minute segments rather than an hour-long lecture. It is much easier for students to watch, for they can skip, take breaks, and re-watch. It is actually easier for you to produce in chunks. But also, try searching YouTube or open lecture databases of other universities – there is a chance someone has done the same lecture better than you, or at least acceptable. It is all fair game: your job is not necessarily to produce content. It is to curate content, to select it, and include it in your class’ structure. You know how a school teacher will never let kids loose in a museum without a worksheet? It is the same with any kind of content: give students something to do beyond “take notes.” For example, “Draw a mind map of today’s lecture,” or “Build a list of key concepts.”

You manage a face-to-face discussion with your tone of voice, facial expression, and comments on comments. These allow students to learn what kind of thinking is good and appropriate in your discipline, and what kind is not. None of this subconscious communication machinery works in a Canvas discussion thread. You worry about student comments being shallow, and factually wrong. Adapt by building a very structured discussion. For example:

• Write an example where the concept A is applicable. Google and link the best illustration of the concept B.
• Comment on at least two of your classmate’s entries, using one of the two patterns: (1) I agree, and can further develop your point, or (2) I disagree, because.
• Find an error in this statement, explain why do you think it is an error (You would have to prove the statement)
• Self-assess your skill doing… What do you need to do to grow?
• Define С in your own words, differently than your textbook does it.
• Develop a test to assess your classmates’ knowledge of today’s reading (thanks, Aaminah).

In threaded discussion, do NOT read and give feedback to every single entry; that would make you miserable. And you will find yourself repeating the same point over and over again. The frustrating limitation of online environment is that students do not automatically “hear” what you said. Rather, glance through quickly, spot most common errors and good examples. Point out to the rest of the class, whose response was especially brilliant, encourage them to re-read those. Comment on common errors without naming those who made them, of course. Make it clear students have t read ALL of your comments. Your voice has to be on loudspeaker.

While high stakes standardized tests are almost always problematic, short low-stake quizzes are fun, and can be highly engaging. Both Zoom and Canvas have polls/quizzes. There is a number of external quiz-making platforms, but stick to Canvas if you can, because it will automatically add them to your gradebook. Putting the quizzes together will save you time on grading, and will make your course more interesting. Besides multiple choice, consider fill-in the blank; those are not automatically graded, but still very easy to grade, and help spot misconceptions.

If you use final essays in your assessment, make them shorter; it will save you time on grading. Also consider progressive assignments: an idea one week, an outline the second week, a draft third week, and the paper at the end. This kind of process discourages plagiarism, and lets you do the last grading more cursory. Most students won’t read your feedback on the final paper, sorry. Recycle your comments. If you wrote an especially good feedback, same it in the comment file. There is a very good chance another student will need exactly the same comment.

In general, online teaching is about relentlessly prioritizing, simplifying, defining what is the bottom line, what essential skill or set of facts you need students to learn. And it is about making explicit what you used to convey implicitly. It is a lot about reflecting on your own assumptions and expectations.