# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About the Series

Welcome to Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning, a podcast hosted by CTL Executive Director, Catherine Ross . Our mission is to encourage instructors, students, and leaders in higher education to reflect on what they believe about teaching and learning. In each episode, guests are invited to share their discoveries of "dead ideas"- ideas that are not true but that are often widely believed and embedded in the pedagogical choices we make.

Past conversations have focused on dead ideas in topics such as grading, teaching with technology, student motivation, assessment, and teaching and learning systems in the academy and how they need to be changed. Conversations have also explored dead ideas exposed by the move to remote teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We hope these radically honest conversations will inspire lightbulb moments for our listeners as they seek to understand their own teaching and learning. To listen to an audio trailer, click here.

The theme originates from the article "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning" (The Sociological Quarterly, 2011) by Diane L. Pike, Professor of Sociology at Augsburg University. Pike writes, "Ideas are dead because they are no longer correct, if they ever were. They are tyranny because we cling to them despite the evidence...Clinging to dead ideas about teaching and learning limits our practice as professors. The resulting tyranny means we fail to educate our students as effectively as we might...The good news is that learned behaviors, sociologically informed reflection, and the application of the research in the scholarship of teaching and learning can liberate us and improve the experiences of teachers and learners alike."
Where and When to Listen
Episodes are released every other Thursday and are approximately 30 minutes in length. Listen on this webpage (below) or subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Spotify.

Join our email list or follow us on Twitter to hear about upcoming episodes. Send us questions and feedback at CTL-podcast@columbia.edu.

Hosted by CTL Executive Director,
Catherine Ross

How can we improve teaching AND support all the instructors who teach science courses for undergraduates? Today we discuss this question with Marielena DeSanctis , President of the Community College of Denver, and Cassandra Volpe Horii , Associate Vice Provost for Education and Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Stanford University, who are co-authors of the article titled, " An Instructional-Workforce Framework for Coordinated Change in Undergraduate Education " (2023). Drs. DeSanctis and Volpe Horii discuss their framework-based on principles of justice, equity, and inclusion-which proposes treating all instructors (Visiting, Instructor, Teaching Assistant, Adjunct, Teaching Professor, TT/Tenured, Lecturer) as a unified workforce. Using the levers of governance, professional development, and reward systems, they offer institutions a path to significant improvement in the teaching of undergraduate science courses.

October 26, 2023. 32:23 min.
Transcript Resource

In today's episode, Kevin Gannon , a Professor of History and Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at Grand View University, discusses how the pandemic has highlighted "bedrock" flaws in higher education systems, including in faculty evaluation processes. These flaws, based on dead ideas such as emphasizing equality rather than equity, disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Dr. Gannon elaborates on the destructive potential of returning "back to normal" in these systems after the pandemic, and offers steps that faculty can take to best move forward. Gannon, author of the book Radical Hope: A Teaching Manifesto (2020), also shares what keeps him inspired and why he believes we should remain hopeful about the future of higher education.

October 21, 2021. 31:45 min.
Transcript

Do we really only use 10% of our brains? Will using technology in my course improve my students' learning and motivation? Are students nowadays "digital natives"? In this episode, we tackle these questions and others with Michelle Miller, Professor of Psychology at Northern Arizona University and author of Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with Technology. Miller talks about her research and experiences with misconceptions about the mind, brain, and learning, with a focus on neuromyths related to teaching with technology.

October 29, 2020. 24:58 min.
Transcript

Welcome to Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning, a new podcast hosted by CTL executive director, Catherine Ross. Our mission is to encourage instructors, students, and leaders in higher education to reflect on what they believe about teaching and learning. In each episode, guests are invited to share their discoveries of "dead ideas"-ideas that are not true but that are often widely believed and embedded in the pedagogical choices we make.

October 14, 2020. 3:49 min.
Transcript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning is a podcast from the Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning. Our mission is to encourage instructors, students, and leaders in higher education to reflect on what they believe about teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Retrieval practice is a simple research-based teaching strategy that dramatically raises students' grades. When students retrieve and bring information to mind, this mental challenge produces durable long-term learning. Easy learning leads to easy forgetting. Stop cramming, reviewing, and re-teaching. Instead, simply ask students what they remember. No prep, no grading, just powerful teaching.

The science of learning exists. It's time to unleash it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retrieval Practice: Unleash the Science of Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harness powerful teaching strategies, unleash the science of learning, and transform your classroom with resources by cognitive scientists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Styles, Lack of Research-Based Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The learning styles hypothesis is false, but there are patterns of student characteristics that are useful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amid AI Plagiarism, More Professors Turn to Handwritten Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five semesters after ChatGPT changed education forever, some professors are taking their classes back to the pre-internet era.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a type of observational bias in the social sciences called the "streetlight effect": we only look where it is easy to look.

It's named for the old joke of the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight on the sidewalk. When the cop - who had been dutifully helping him - finally asks where he thinks he lost them, the man points into the darkness and replies "in the park". When the cop asks in exasperation why he is looking under the streetlight, the drunk says "it's a lot easier because this is where the light is."

I feel like that cop when professors say we need to go back to our "old-school" ways and bring back blue-book exams, those in-person tests where students handwrite their essays. It took us decades of research to acknowledge that learning is a process, and students can't just produce picture-perfect answers on demand. That's why we stopped using blue books in the first place: learning had to be student-centred (rather than teacher-driven).

But incredibly, not only are blue books becoming popular again - the University of California Student Store has seen an 80 per cent increase in sales - but some professors even claim that "the authenticity and richness of [my] students' hand-penned prose nearly moved me to tears."

To which I say: "Bah, humbug!"

Blue books and handwritten exams more generally are back, of course, because of artificial intelligence (AI). Surveys consistently show that just about all college students are cheating, and professors have almost no recourse for catching them or reversing this trend. Whether it is honour code updates, revisions to academic integrity policies, better AI detectors, AI watermarking, process tracking software, or whatever else, these are all reactive and futile as students play cat-and-mouse games to not get caught.

Blue books are seen as an answer to this problem, and advocates even try to position it as more than just a measure of last resort: blue books help us step away from the endless scroll of technology, focus directly on what's in front of us, and ensure that everything written is indeed from the student. And writing by hand is also better for the brain!

Yet there is so much wrong with this perspective. On a basic level, it minimises and marginalises the 10 per cent of college students with some form of learning disability, and it unnecessarily ramps up anxiety for the 10 per cent to 35 per cent of college students for whom such time- and format-delimited stress functionally impairs their performance. But most problematically, it pretends that we can somehow go back to a transmission model of education, where professors simply transmit knowledge through their lecturing and then grade students on their understanding of such knowledge.

ChatGPT, though, completely broke this model by making the reproduction of polished answers instant and effortless. The old model assumed that what a student could produce under test conditions reflected what they had actually learned; AI severs that link, and no amount of handwriting in a blue book can rewind that reality.

Am I overwhelmed and exhausted from the process of finding a new way of teaching? Yep. Do I wish there was a better way? You bet. But if we want to find our keys (to saving higher education), we need to become courageous and tiptoe into the darkness.

So let me offer some first steps.

First, we have to rethink writing. Since AI has taken away my ability to trust what is and is not students' authentic final product, I now focus on, grade and scaffold what writing experts have suggested all along: my students' process of thinking. As the National Commission on Writing pointed out long ago: "If students are to make knowledge their own, they must struggle with the details, wrestle with the facts, and rework raw information and dimly understood concepts into language they can communicate to someone else. In short, if students are to learn, they must write." Writing equals thinking; or to paraphrase Robert Frost more poetically, writing is discovering.

But discovering something is actually really hard. We would all rather skate along on our well-worn patterns of thoughts and assumptions than have to rethink them. As one recent meta-analysis put it, thinking is "unpleasant".

And it is really unpleasant (and confounding and disruptive) when we are faced with complex and contested issues, as happens all the time in the college classroom. The second thing faculty therefore have to do is embrace the reality that our job is to guide students' learning as they tackle such topics. (That's why it's called a cognitive apprenticeship!)

None of this demands that we embrace AI; but it also doesn't mean we have to shun it. AI, when used correctly, offers powerful scaffolding for everything from brainstorming to clarifying complex arguments and readings. In fact, I work with my college students in literally every class to help them see AI as a conversation partner rather than as a ghostwriter. My goal is always to help my students think and write better. And while it's a huge amount of work, my students really appreciate having assistance at any time, on any subject, at any level of understanding.

So let me be clear: we don't need more blue books or a return to in-person exams patrolled by vigilant proctors. The keys to saving higher education won't be found under the false glow of tradition; they're somewhere out there in the dark, waiting for us to be brave enough to look.
Dan Sarofian-Butin is professor at the department of education and community studies at Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Return of handwritten essays is a hopeless response to ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asking undergraduates to submit pen-on-paper essays is a desperate and retrograde step that undermines assessment rather than safeguards it, says Dan Sarofian-Butin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week's post shares a bunch of intellectual air with John Warner's thinking about AI writing and undergraduate assessment. There's often a lot of alignment between my thinking and John's when it comes to talking about writing assessment, but he published first, so let me point you to his excellent piece, ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving, as a companion to this week's Detox.
We don't value writing in the university.

I want this to not be true - I have the English doctorate and the nine years of full-time college academic writing instruction to prove it - but it is. Consider who does the labour of most writing instruction in our institutions, especially at the foundational level: graduate students and precarious sessional instructors. This labour is underpaid and the work often done without benefits, a commitment from the institution, funding for professional development, and so on. Within courses that are not academic writing courses, writing instruction is typically limited and surface, with the pressures of course content far outweighing the need to learn to write in the discipline. Coverage is king, after all. Again, this demonstrates a lack of value for writing instruction: if we valued it, we would make time for it.

But we all want students to write. We want them to write well.

It's never been a tenable relationship and it has resulted in the kinds of writing instruction that John Warner articulates so clearly in Why They Can't Write: without time, resources, and a sense of institutional priority, student writing instruction and assignments are perfunctory at best and empty simulations of argument at worst. They're shallow. They're boring. And they don't teach students how writers approach the task of writing.

And then there's ChatGPT.

Once again, I find myself amused and dismayed at the energy being poured into the anxious intersection of ChatGPT and writing assessment. The essays ChatGPT writes are objectively bad. They are vapid. Bullshit. Or, as I said on my podcast a few weeks back, bafflegab. But that kind of surface writing that obsesses over forum instead of content - oh my god, you guys, ChatGPT can make citations now!! - is exactly what we have been training our students to do since the advent of the five-paragraph essay. We trained our learners to write like robots, following patterns and scripts and worrying less about content than the fact that it looks vaguely like an essay. And shockingly, robots are also good at writing like robots. So is the problem really ChatGPT?

You Cannot Teach Writing At Scale; Solutions That Don't Acknowledge This Suck

Sorry, VP-Finances reading this (lol, imagine a VP-Finance reading this), but it's just not possible to scale up good writing instruction. Writing is hard work and it's heart work - it involves revision and effort. It needs attention and care. It requires investment: small classes, time, professional development, and integration across the curriculum.

We're not going to do that. I know that and you know that. I would love to be wrong, but I'm not. But that doesn't make the root of the problem any different.

But this is why so many of the "solutions" I have seen offered for the ChatGPT problem art ultimately worthless. Ban the essay? I mean, maybe that's a solution, but I actually think essay writing is a valuable mode of learning and I'm not sure we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a lot of the way we approach writing sucks butts doesn't mean writing isn't a useful way to learn. (I do think that if there's no application in your discipline to talk about writing process in class, then assigning an essay makes very little sense. But that doesn't mean I want to get rid of essay writing. I just want people to teach process.) Then there's the "in-class, handwritten essays only crowd," which, okay, good luck with that. We removed cursive from the school system ages ago - 2006 in Ontario! - and have you tried to write a lengthy exam essay without that skill? Students with disabilities like dysgraphia, or fine motor challenges, or any number of other concerns would be disproportionately disadvantaged by such a move. Also... do you want to go back to reading handwritten essays? I do not.

The idea that we would talk about banning the entire form that many of our disciplines base our discourse on, or that we would talk about forcing students back to handwritten assignments, instead of thinking about why our current assessment practices are so easily gamed by a sophisticated bullshit machine is utterly baffling to me.

As long as we exclusively evaluate essays as a product that demonstrates learning, instead of treating the process of developing an essay as a learning experience that we work through together, we will always be susceptible to the next shortcut, from contract cheating to ChatGPT. We do not devote our time or energy or resources to the process of writing essays. Why are we surprised that students don't either?

I Don't Think This Is an Academic Integrity Issue

If ChatGPT didn't work for the kinds of writing we assign and assess at the undergraduate level, we would have nothing to worry about. And for that reason, I don't think this is an academic integrity issue - I think it's an assessment integrity issue. We treat those like they are the same thing, but they're not. Academic integrity is about contravening the shared norms of a community, but ChatGPT is not a straightforward example of that when there are already research papers being written with ChatGPT cited as a co-author. Assessment integrity is about our practice. And we can do something about it.

And of course, though I don't think it's an academic integrity issue, the same cop pedagogies that infect the academic integrity space are already here with their solutions that only ever make things worse. Turnitin, a company with the ethical core of a rotting banana, is hard at work adding AI detection to their originality checker, so they can keep collecting your students' intellectual property and use it to build more large language models. Who doesn't love an arms race?

The reality is that students need the skills to communicate clearly in a world that they also share with ChatGPT. And now that ChatGPT will be built in to the enterprise-level business tool we have allowed to subsume educational technologies in this sector, we cannot simply issue blanket bans. This will be as embedded in the process of writing as grammar and spell checkers are now - which, too, was once considered an unthinkable crutch for bad writers to lean on (I'm not so old in the grand scheme of things, and I had a professor who told us we all must disable our grammar checkers or we were cheating; no one listened, and so it goes).

That doesn't mean I think we all need to capitulate to the robot overlords, and I don't agree with the "moral panic" takes that minimize the very real dangers of a tool like ChatGPT, which is entirely based on unethical and exploitative business practices that cause great harm. I am not going to demand you feed that machine. I also never want to minimize the very real pressures teaching faculty face in this precarious, built-for-scale system where education is the bottom priority of the most powerful people in the room. Listen, it's painfully easy for me to tell you you need to revamp your assessments - I haven't drafted an undergraduate syllabus since 2019.

But much like most of us used to tell our students to stay away from Wikipedia (which is a bad comparison on many levels, not least because it was always misguided advice), we have a losing battle on our hands. It was always better to talk about how to use Wikipedia responsibly than to imagine we could keep students away from it. I'm not persuaded by many prosocial applications of AI at the moment, but I'm not persuaded by the prosocial applications of a lot of things that find their way into our classrooms and we still have to deal with them. Our institutions have made a series of choices - including getting in bed with Microsoft and allowing all kinds of AI into our institutions in the first place - that make extracting ourselves from the ChatGPT ecosystem pretty unlikely.

So Then What, Brenna? Do You Have Any Actual Advice?

Let me tell you what I would be doing if I was in the classroom this semester. This is the kind of advice that was always deeply enraging to me when I was teaching faculty, because who is this asshole with no marking load? But here it goes. Your fault for subscribing.

1. Talk to students about ChatGPT. What are its problems and shortcomings? How do you see the work it produces as falling short of your standards? What do you see as the AI implications in your discipline?

2. Evaluate for process, not just product. When we only collect the finished product, there's little incentive for students to learn the process - and the kind of thinking essay writing requires means a lot of process work. Help students to understand how to write well in your discipline and how to establish good habits around writing.

3. Include reflection in your assessments, both in terms of how the content is relevant to students and in terms of the process they undertook. Thinking though how an assignment went (especially before the instructor marks it) can really help students to develop skills.

4. Think critically about your assessments. If you assign essays, do you have a reason for that? And do you provide essay writing instruction? The essay is often the default mode of assessment, but that puts a lot of pressure on the final product, and often students have little support in developing it. Are their other ways to assess learning that might be more effective?

None of these are silver bullets. Students will still use ChatGPT and we might not like what they come up with. But we can insulate against some of its problems by thinking about our assessment practices more. We can also talk openly about the ethics of using AI tools in education and help students to see the whole picture so that they can go out and make good choices about AI themselves.

Maybe more importantly, here's what I wouldn't do.

1. I wouldn't ramp up surveillance or look for a technological solution to what is ultimately a pedagogical problem. That's an arms race and I can tell you right now, education does not have the means to win it.

2. I wouldn't try banning ChatGPT. First of all, once it's packaged with Microsoft it's all game over anyway. It won't go away because we stick our heads in the sand.

3. I wouldn't give up on the essay. I would probably give a lot less weight to the final paper and a lot more weight to the process of thinking through an argument, but I ultimately still believe that thinking through ideas in writing is a valuable practice. Look, I do it every week.

It sucks that this is all happening in a moment when the pandemic has faculty fatigued and burnt out and when austerity is back in our universities in a big way. There's no real solution to ChatGPT that doesn't involve hands on writing instruction: smaller classes, authentic assessment, relationship building, and care. We're never getting those kind of resources. So we staunch the bleeding. Because if we don't, the next step is AI marking those AI essays - and the question of who does the evaluating is the topic for next week's post.

One quick reminder before then: our first live session on January 27th, which anyone can register for here. That's this Friday! I hope to see you there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking What Was Already Broken: AI and Writing Assignments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week's post shares a bunch of intellectual air with John Warner's thinking about AI writing and undergraduate assessment. There's often a lot of alignment between my thinking and John's when it comes to talking about writing assessment, but he published first, so let me point you to his excellent piece, ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving , as a companion to this week's Detox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 2024)

Liv Marken, Contributing Editor, CWCR/RCCR
This is Part Two of two in this series. You can read Part One, The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism here. CWCR/RCCR Editor Traditional assessment as a reassuring solution to overwhelming problems?
My previous post discussed the resurgence of traditional handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams as a response to pandemic-era cheating and GenAI. While some post-secondary instructors return to these assessments, they risk moving backwards: the nature of these exams is inconsistent with commitments to equity and inclusion practices. Accommodation gains, it seems, were a corollary of pandemic remote learning, and these gains have gradually diminished due to an attitude of "returning to normal."
Tradition can be harmful
I acknowledge that instructors are contending with heavy workloads, large class sizes, post-pandemic stressors, and increased cheating. They may find reassurance in a return to traditional assessment methods. However, the assumption that a return to tradition is a return to quality is unfounded. Handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams introduce unnecessary and irrelevant constraints for all students. They can disadvantage Indigenous students, multilingual students, disabled students (Gernsbacher, Soicher, & Becker-Blease 2020), and even those who are left-handed (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998) or not adept at cursive writing (Summers & Catarro, 2003).

Many post-secondary instructors noted a rise in cheating over the pandemic, including a rise in contract cheating (Friesen, 2023). As instructors grapple with this development, challenges common to neoliberal post-secondary institutions continue: growing class sizes, disconnection, unreasonable workloads, and performance pressure (Helmes 2022; Knoetze 2023; Reed 2023). In light of these challenges, redesigning assessments or providing in-depth, formative feedback represents considerable added work. However, while a return to tradition may alleviate some anxiety, it is not the way to go. Institutions recruit and admit greater numbers of equity-deserving and non-traditional students, and they create strategic plans around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and Indigenization; however, they often fail to make necessary systemic adjustments to tuition, classroom sizes, housing, methods of assessment (Tai et al., 2023), and appropriate learning supports for these students. Instructors, programs, and departments would do well to consult the extensive research on effective, equitable assessment for learning and nurturing a culture of academic honesty.
The inefficacy of handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated assessments
I have heard instructors sentimentalizing their own experiences who, as students, survived the rigours and anxiety of traditional exams. A fondness for a tradition of anxiety and distress can lead to decisions led by the fallacy of appeal to tradition, which, in this context, may be paraphrased as, "While a student, I faced emotional distress and succeeded; therefore, my students can and should as well." This sounds like a bootstrapping refrain, connected to the myth of meritocracy, a part of the capitalist, colonial enterprise of Canada, which infuses education systems at every level (Schick & St. Denis 2003; McLean 2017; Bergen 2021).
They are a test of the body, not knowledge. They introduce unwarranted temporal constraints.
I have also heard instructors echoing a wider cultural assertion that students "lack resilience these days," which leans on a superficial pop-psychology interpretation of "resilience" as individually determined. In reality, resilience does not just come down to individual toughness and positivity; it is intricately tied to circumstance and systemic challenges (Hutcheon 2015; Traynor 2018). Students are extraordinarily resilient these days. They face pandemic learning loss (Volante & Klinger, 2023); the rising cost of living (Statistics Canada, 2023); tuition increases (Canadian Federation of Students, 2022); debt concerns (Piper & Wong, 2022); food insecurity (Macdonald, 2022); a nation-wide urban housing crisis (Macdonald & Tranjan, 2023); intensified discriminatory rhetoric toward marginalized groups (Moran, 2023); and reduced access to mental health services (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2022). Many instructors of previous generations were traditional students without such significant interfering commitments or barriers and, therefore, should not apply their experiences to those of students today. And for those who "survived" rigorous university examination experiences, we must ask why we normalize education as emotionally distressing and scarring.

Handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams are not a silver bullet against cheating. The literature is clear: they are an ineffective and inequitable form of assessment (Gagne, 2019; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021; Vu & Dall'Alba, 2013; Waterfield & West, 2006; Woldeab & Brothen, 2019). Here is a summary of how these exams are inequitable and ineffective:
They perpetuate a culture of distrust.
Writing by hand differs greatly from using a word processor or voice-to-text software. Handwriting is a complex skill that orchestrates motor skills, such as fine motor control, and perceptual features, such as visual perception, bilateral coordination, and sustained attention (Feder & Majnemer, 2009). In a post-secondary student body unaccustomed to note-taking or composing on paper, or for those students who have handwriting difficulties due to poor ergonomics, written exams can cause significant physical discomfort (Chang, Chen, & Yu 2011). Cursive writing remains in the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island curricula (Mulally, 2017), but is not required in British Columbia or Newfoundland and Labrador and has only very recently returned to Ontario (Pugh, 2023). Combined, the latter three provinces represent over 4 million residents aged 14-25 (Statistics Canada, 2022).

The pressure of working against the clock can induce anxiety levels that go beyond the activation of "good stress," hindering a student's capacity to perform analytic and creative tasks (Parr, Levi, and Jacka, 1995; Roskes, Elliot, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013). Timed tests disadvantage those who have slower writing speeds, such as those who are left-handed (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998) and those who print instead of using cursive or a mix of printing and cursive (Summers & Catarro, 2003). While many disabled students receive extended testing time as an accommodation (Sokal & Wilson, 2017), typical extensions are set at 1.5 times the original exam duration. For instance, a three-hour exam would be extended to 4.5 hours. Despite the lack of empirical evidence for extended time as an appropriate accommodation for disabled students, it is widely used in nearly 50 Canadian institutions surveyed by Sokal and Wilson (2017).
They lack authenticity, failing to replicate real-world professional research, writing, and analytical processes. They can result in marker bias related to neatness, penmanship, non-content errors, and common errors in language learners' writing.
Beyond the drawbacks it imposes on many disabled students, timed testing is incompatible with common Indigenous cultural norms. For example, Claypool and Preston (2021) argue that time restrictions on tests can penalize Indigenous students whose culture values reflection rather than quick responses as a measure of intelligence. Indigenous academic Evelyn Steinhauer advocates for assessments valuing diverse analytical processes, writing that she "had been socialized to wait, to be invited, to really think through what we need to say rather than just throw out a quick response "(78), a cultural norm at odds with timed assessment (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 82). Formative feedback, not often provided after a final exam, contributes to Indigenization by leading to critical and reflective thinking rather than a singular focus on grade attainment (Louie, Poitras-Pratt, Hanson, & Ottman, 2017).
They can disadvantage Indigenous students.
In-person, invigilated examinations communicate distrust, a dynamic which harms student learning and engagement. Carless (2008) argues that post-secondary institutions create an atmosphere of distrust when they default to exams as the main form of assessment and argues that "cultures of surveillance and accountability" (p.1) distract instructors from their primary responsibilities as educators and researchers. Post-secondary institutions should be guided by research-backed approaches to preventing academic dishonesty (Eaton, 2021; Eaton & Christensen Huges, J., 2022), and increasingly, these approaches should inform adjustments to assessment in the wake of GenAI (Bens & Berdahl, 2023).

The formation of trust is also a two-way street, and students from particular backgrounds are more likely to have formed a distrust of educational institutions and instructors. For example, Poitras-Pratt and Danyluk (2019) point out that "educators must understand that a strong distrust and fear of schooling from Canada's First Peoples stems from previous negative experiences in schools where these adverse feelings are passed on to their children," and that "[b]y creating positive experiences . . . educators can begin to rebuild trust and a sense of belongingness essential to reconciliation" (p.4). Listening to communities' perspectives on schooling is crucial. For instance, feedback collected in a study by Claypool and Preston (2011) showed that First Nations organizations' representatives in Saskatchewan discussed schools as locations of "incessant testing" (p. 89).

As one of the most fear-inducing assessment modes, in-person, timed exams hinder the process of rebuilding trust and fostering a sense of belonging. Cardinal advocates for a focus on "mutual trust" in post-secondary assessment due to remarkable levels of fear "at all levels" in our educational system (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 82). Poitras-Pratt and Gladue (2022) assert that when it comes to defining Indigenous principles of academic integrity, it is crucial to remember the cultural importance and complexity of relationships, especially amid power dynamics and "individualistic tendencies" (p.117) in the academy.
What can writing centres do to support students?
Multiple studies question traditional exams' efficacy in skill development and employability (Keppell & Carless, 2006; Vu & Dall'Alba, 2014; Sotiriadou et al., 2019; Tai et al., 2023). Increasingly, industries and accreditation bodies are considering how assessments connect to outcomes, meaning that professional colleges, in particular, will need to attend to quality assessment design (Montgomerie, Czapalay, & Smith, 2021). Students value and prefer challenging, practical, and authentic assessment (Ibarra-Sáiz, Rodríguez-Gómez & Boud, 2021). Typically, professionals do not compose with pen and paper while being surveilled. In a study on instructors'' assessment design approaches, Bearman et al. (2017) found that instructors wanted students to show, think, act, and write like professionals, to shape not only their careers but also their broader personal development. This wider applicability to life skills fits with Indigenization and decolonization goals; Indigenous education scholar Noella Steinhauer's suggestion of a shift from assessing students based solely on their test-taking abilities to evaluating those who can effectively apply knowledge in authentic, everyday scenarios (Steinhauer et al., 2020). A focus on grades over learning can disconnect students from their accountability to community, "los[ing] sight of their responsibility as learners" (p. 79).

Repeated studies reveal negative and positive biases and assumptions related to the evaluation of a student's abilities based on neatness and penmanship (Marshall & Powers, 1969; Klein, Joseph, & Taub, 2005; Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011). Even the assumed gender of the writer, as judged by the style of handwriting, has been shown to trigger marker bias (Baird, 1998; Eames & Loewenthal, 1990; Ruusuvirta, Sievänen, & Vehkamäki, 2021). A review by Meadows and Billington (2005) reports that numerous studies show that handwritten exams are marked more harshly than typed exams. "[N]on-content errors," such as poor spelling, have been identified as sources of bias in evaluations (Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011, p.9), particularly when to comes to judging a student's overall abilities (Jansen, Vogelin, Machts, Keller & Moller). Nairn (2003) found that instructors penalize non-native English writers' grammatical errors more harshly than they do for other students. Handwritten exams are more prone to include grammar and spelling errors, increasing the probability of these students encountering unfair or biased grading.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action (2015) addresses human rights violations related to residential schools, including a call for culturally appropriate curricula. Writing about curriculum reform, Battiste (2010) urges educators to recognize, acknowledge, value, and nurture Indigenous students' various ways of knowing, values, and beliefs. Assessment redesign is both a part of and a consequence of curriculum reform. STEM education expert Marc Higgins notes that in mainstream assessment, what "count[s]" as knowledge does not align with Indigenous beliefs, assumptions, and practices about how knowledge should be represented (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 76). He argues that an Indigenous theory of evaluation and assessment should contribute to educational changes that align with Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and community needs.
References
Ways to demonstrate knowledge can be at odds with family and community needs and expectations; for example, Noella Steinhauer explains that mainstream assessments value memorization and marks over deep learning, which were at odds with her grandmother's expectation that she respect social and cultural norms by sharing her stories of learning and supporting siblings through the education system (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p.79). Indigenous learning models stress non-individualistic, holistic approaches to learning. For example, the First Nations Holistic Lifelong Learning Model (Canadian Council for Learning, 2007, p. 19) is represented by a tree, its branches representing collective well-being; leaves representing collective well-being; and roots that represent the sources and domains of knowledge: traditions and ceremonies, the natural world, languages, ancestors, family, self, community, clan, nation, and other nations. Raindrops nurturing the tree of learning are not only teachers but also parents, mentors, counsellors, and Elders. The tree rings represent stages and forms of learning, both informal and formal: workplace, post-secondary, early, elementary/secondary, and intergenerational learning. The tree's core depicts western and Indigenous knowledge in balance, surrounded by the learner's physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental selves.

Mainstream forms of assessment neglect students' physical, emotional, and spiritual selves, and written quizzes, tests, and exams prioritize "rational, linear, and accountable tasks" focusing on achieving curriculum objectives (Preston & Claypool, 2021, p. 4). Misty Underwood puts it well, explaining that mainstream assessment is based on "what the person knows now . . . not how they live " (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 81). By creating fear, distrust, pain, and imbalance, assessments such as timed, in-person, and invigilated examinations are highly limited when viewed through the First Nations Lifelong Learning Model - one of many holistic Indigenous learning models. Holistic, inclusive, or alternative assessment models are helpful not only to Indigenous learners but also to most other learners, including non-traditional students (Butcher, McPherson, Shelton, Clarke, Hills, & Hughes, 2017)

As students navigate a wide range of writing projects and assessments, including final exam preparation, writing centre professionals can provide them with space, feedback, resources, time management strategies, and referral to complementary services such as wellness services or library research support. Although they typically do not have a direct influence on assessment design, they can, where appropriate, support students through the process of preparing for handwritten, timed, in-person exams. And writing centre professionals are not alone in imagining and enacting interventions to help students as they contend with poorly designed and inequitable forms of assessment. In their study on inclusive assessments, Nieminen (2023) argues that educational institutions need to look at the idea of "inclusive assessment" as a "communal project between students, teachers, researchers, administrators, policymakers, and other crucial stakeholders" (p. 633). We are more effective when we are part of a community of support (North, 1982, p. 44-45). Below is a list of potential collaborations with various members of campus communities:

Units or programs for Indigenous student engagement and support: co-facilitate dedicated Q&A and preparatory sessions in Indigenous student centres.

Student wellness units: to ensure informed advice and referral for students experiencing mental health challenges, consult with health peer mentors and program and service coordinators on stress and anxiety management strategies. Collaborate or cross-promote on social media.

Health and safety experts: request ergonomics education and resources, such as posters for the writing centre.

Rehabilitative medicine students and experts: solicit occupational therapy resources on pencil grip (see Selin, 2003) or physiotherapy resources for stretches and strategies to reduce hand cramping.

Student caregiver groups: provide tutors, toys, games, and space for child-friendly study and writing sessions.

Learning centres: assist with mock or rehearsal exam events with the involvement of peer study mentors.

Student unions: collaborate on information campaigns and learn from what student leaders are hearing from students.

Education student groups or student bullet journal or "BuJo" clubs: provide space and promotion for practice with penmanship, cursive, and writing speed, legibility, and cursive variations.

Academic peer mentors: share student exam experiences via testimonials and tips via posters, screens, or social media. Collaborate on learning community and structured study session instruction, support, and resources.

Faculty developers: co-facilitate workshops and co-develop resources for high-stakes assessment design.

Access and equity services units: request accommodation resources and advice, tutor training, and collaborate on providing space, services, and programming for particular student groups preparing for high-stakes assessments, such as student caregivers and disabled students.

As writing centre professionals, we have a moral imperative to work toward equitable education. To achieve this, we can collaborate with campus partners and advocate for students. This includes helping them prepare not only for the consequences of a return to outdated and ineffective assessment methods but also for the challenges presented by emerging and innovative assessment forms. Drawing insights from students' experiences in the context of both the introduction of GenAI and the pandemic's impact on in-person activities, we can avoid perpetuating an 'us vs. them' mentality between students and teachers. By doing so, we work against the continuation of mutual distrust and other harmful dynamics that are antithetical to learning.

Battiste, M. (2010). Nourishing the learning spirit: Living our way to new thinking. Education Canada, 50(1), 14-18.

Bens, S. and Berdahl, L. (2023, June 13). Academic integrity in the age of ChatGPT. University Affairs. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/the-skills-agenda/academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-chatgpt/

Bergen, J. (2021, October 21). Meritocracy and the cultivation of land/racism on the 'Canadian' prairies: Considerations for teachers. Canadian History & Environment | Nouvelle initiative Canadienne en histoire de l'environnement https://niche-canada.org/2021/10/21/meritocracy-and-the-cultivation-of-land-racism-on-the-canadian-prairies-considerations-for-teachers/

Butcher, J., McPherson, E., Shelton, I., Clarke, A., Hills, L., and Hughes, J. (2017). Unfit for purpose? Rethinking the language of assessment for Widening Participation students. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 19(2) pp. 27-46.

Canadian Council on Learning. (2007). Redefining How Success is Measured in First Nations, Inuit and Métis Learning, Report on Learning in Canada. https://education.afn.ca/afntoolkit/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/5._2007_redefining_how_success_is_measured_en.pdf

Chang, S., Chen, C., & Yu, N. (2011). Biomechanical analyses of prolonged handwriting in subjects with and without perceived discomfort. Human Movement Science, 43, 2015. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.008.

Claypool, T.R. & Preston (2011). Redefining learning and assessment practices impacting Aboriginal students: Considering Aboriginal priorities via Aboriginal and western worldviews. [Indigenous Education] in Education, 17(3). 84-93. https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2011.v17i3.74

Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity. ABC-CLIO.

Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1

Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2009). Children's handwriting evaluation tools and their psychometric properties. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23(3), 65-84. DOI: 10.1080/J006v23n03_05

Fiarman, S. E. (2016). Unconscious bias: When good intentions aren't enough. E ducational Leadership: Disrupting Inequity, 74(3), 10-15. https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Unconscious-Bias_Ed-Leadership.pdf

Friesen, J. (2023, February 17). Hired exam-takers, blackmail and the rise of contract cheating at Canadian universities. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-university-students-cheating-exams/

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steve-Graham-4/publication/291819847_It_Is_More_Than_Just_the_Message_Presentation_Effects_in_Scoring_Writing/links/5d27d7bc299bf1547cad32d6/It-Is-More-Than-Just-the-Message-Presentation-Effects-in-Scoring-Writing.pdf

Heidt, A. (2023, January 24). "Arms race with automation": Professors fret about AI-generated coursework. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00204-z

Helmes, S. (2022). Critical Pedagogy as a Tool for Resistance in the Neoliberal University? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).

Hutcheon, E. (2015). "Cripping" resilience: Generating new vocabularies of resilience from narratives of post-secondary students who experience disability. (Master's thesis, University of Calgary). http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2275

Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Boud, D. (2021). The quality of assessment tasks as a determinant of learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 943-955, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1828268

Keppell, M., & Carless, D. (2006). Learning-oriented assessment: A technology-based case study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 179-191. DOI: 10.1080/09695940600703944

Klein, J., & Taub, D. (2005). The effect of variations in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays. Assessing Writing, 10(2): 134-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.05.002.

Knoetze, R. (2023). Cultivating criticality in a neoliberal system: a case study of an English literature curriculum at a mega distance university. Higher Education. DOI: 0.1007/s10734-023-01084-y

Louie, D., Poitras-Pratt, Y., Hanson, A. & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying Indigenizing principles of decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher Education / Revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur, 47(3), 16-33. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043236ar

Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades reexamined. Journal of Educational Measurement, 6, 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1969.tb00665.x

McLean, S. (2017). "We built a life from nothing": White settler colonialism and the myth of meritocracy. Our Schools/Our Selves, Fall/Winter, 32-33. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/5e8f9310-00e3-45dc-a643-45566336e2c8?s=u

Meadows, M. & Billington, L. (2005). A Review on the Literature on Marking Reliability. Assessments and Qualifications Alliance Research Report, a commissioned by the National Assessment Agency. https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/content/research/CERP_RP_MM_01052005.pdf

Montgomerie, D., Czapalay, A., & Smith, J. (2021). Supporting quality through collaboration and funding-based policy levers: Nova Scotia's experience. In S. H. Jones & S. L. Lefebvre (Eds.), Assessing Quality in Postsecondary Education (pp. 165-172). McGill-Queen's University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv8bt1jw.14

Mulally, R. (2017, September 10). Some provinces don't teach handwriting in schools but is it necessary? SaltWire. https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/lifestyles/some-provinces-dont-teach-handwriting-in-schools-but-is-it-necessary-240157/

Nairn, L (2003). Faculty response to grammar errors in the writing of ESL students. TESOL Newsletter for the ESL in Higher Education E-Section. http://www.sfu.ca/heis/archive/22-1_nairn.pdf

Intelligent (2023, January 23). Nearly 1 in 3 college students have used ChatGPT on written assignments. https://www.intelligent.com/nearly-1-in-3-college-students-have-used-chatgpt-on-written-assignments/

Nieminen, J. H. (2023). Unveiling ableism and disablism in assessment: A critical analysis of disabled students' experiences of assessment and assessment accommodations. Higher Education, 85, 613-636. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-022-00857-1

Parr, P., Levi, N. & Jacka, K. (1995). Unspeeded examinations: An equitable and practical method of assessment. Paper presented at the Equity and Access Conference, Melbourne, Australia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED397108

Poitras Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. J. (2019). Exploring reconciliatory pedagogy and its possibilities through educator-led praxis. T he Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.3.9479

Poitras Pratt, Y., Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic Integrity: Embracing Indigenous truths. In: Eaton, S.E., Christensen Hughes, J. (eds) Academic Integrity in Canada. Ethics and Integrity in Educational Contexts, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_5

Preston, J.P. & Claypool, T.R. (2021.) Analyzing assessment practices for Indigenous students. Frontiers in Education. 6. doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.679972

Pugh, J. (2023, July 1). Ontario teachers could be the ones doing the learning as cursive makes mandatory return to curriculum. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/ontario-cursive-reintroduction-1.6893378

Roskes, M., Elliot, J., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Time pressure undermines performance more under avoidance than approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 803-813. DOI: 10.1177/0146167213482

Ruusuvirta, T., Sievänen, H., & Vehkamäki, M. (2021). Negative findings of the handwriting legibility effect: The explanatory role of spontaneous task-specific debiasing. SN Social Sciences, 1(7), 167. DOI: 10.1007/s43545-021-00183-w

Schick, C. & St. Denis, V. (2003). What makes anti-racist pedagogy in teacher education difficult? Three popular ideological assumptions. Alberta Journal of Education, 49(1), 1-14.

Selin, A-S (2003). Pencil grip: A descriptive model and four empirical studies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36190927_Pencil_grip_A_descriptive_model_and_four_empirical_studies

Sokal, L., & Wilson, A. (2017). In the nick of time: A pan-Canadian examination of extended testing time accommodation in post-secondary schools. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1), 28-62. DOI: 10.15353/cjds.v6i1.332

Sotiriadou, P., Logan-Fleming, D., Daly, A. & Guest, R. (2019). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015

Steinhauer, E., Cardinal, T., Higgins, M, Madden, B., Steinhauer, N., Steinhauer, P., Underwood, M., Wolfe, A., & Cardinal, Elder Bob (2020). Thinking with Kihkipiw: Exploring an Indigenous theory of assessment and evaluation for teacher education. In S. Cote-Meek & T. Moeke-Pickering (Eds.), Decolonizing and Indigenizing Education in Canada (pp. 73-86). Canadian Scholars.

Summers, J., & Catarro, F. (2003). Assessment of handwriting speed and factors influencing written output of university students in examinations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50(3), 148-157. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1630.2003.00310.x

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 483-497. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451

Tisi, J., Whitehouse, G., Maughan, S., & Burdett, N. (2013). A Review of Literature on Marking Reliability Research (Report for Ofqual). National Foundation for Educational Research. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81cc0e40f0b62302699360/0613_JoTisi_et_al-nfer-a-review-of-literature-on-marking-reliability.pdf

Traynor M. (2018). Guest editorial: What's wrong with resilience? Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 5-8. DOI: 10.1177/1744987117751458

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action. Retrieved from https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

Vu, T. T., & Dall'Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 778-791. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.795110

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed Exams: A Critical Examination and Guidance for Writing Centre Support (Part 2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 2024) Liv Marken, Contributing Editor, CWCR/RCCR This is Part Two of two in this series. You can read Part One, The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing a “Late Bank” Can Reduce Student Stress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implementing a “Late Bank” Can Reduce Student Stress What is this Research About? Assignment deadlines are a common source of stress for university students. Flexible assignment deadlines have been shown to improve the quality of student work and the overall learning experience. One type of flexible deadline is a “late bank” policy, where students can submit an assignment late without having to request permission or explain the reason for the late submission. In this study, the researchers tested students’ perceptions of a late bank in online graduate-level courses. What did the Researchers Do? The researchers surveyed 78 students in 5 online graduate-level Psychology courses at a large university in Western Canada. Students had access to a “late bank” where they could choose to submit one of their course assignments up to 5 days late without penalty. Participants completed a survey about the usefulness of the late bank, their stress levels during the course, their reasons for using the late bank (if they chose to use it), and their attitudes toward the course instructor. What did the Researchers Find? The researchers found that approximately half of the respondents (51%) used the late bank. Most respondents reported that having access to the late bank helped reduce their stress. Reasons for using the late bank included the need to balance other coursework, unexpected personal situations, and school-life balance. Most students (62%) reported that the late bank policy had a positive impact on their attitude toward the course instructor. → How to Implement this Research in Your Classroom A “late bank” is a flexible assignment deadline that gives students additional days to submit assignments late, with no penalty and no questions asked. A late bank policy can be included on the course outline and described in class. Research demonstrates that the option of a late bank reduced students’ stress. Students also reported that the late bank policy had a positive impact on their attitudes toward the course instructor. Instructors could consider implementing a late bank policy as a simple and effective way to reduce student stress. → Citation Schroeder, M., Makarenko, E., & Warren, K. (2019). Introducing a late bank in online graduate courses: The responses of students. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), https: doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8200 → Keywords Post-secondary education Stress Graduate education Online Assignments This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Canada License Snapshot Writer: Jennifer Reniers Snapshot Publication Date: 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Incivilities: The Challenge of Interactions between College Students and Instructors in the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study investigates patterns in classroom incivilities among pre-tenure geography faculty at US colleges and universities. The analysis considers experiences of different groups of faculty, an…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Perceptions of Classroom Incivility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Classroom incivility is a major concern in higher education today. Yet little study has been done of student perceptions of behavior in the classroom. Based on a survey of 3,616 students at a Midw…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advice | Why Calls for a ‘Return to Rigor’ Are Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What’s the point of pursuing “solutions” that exacerbate student disengagement, the very problem they are supposed to solve?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Relationship of Instructor Self-Disclosure, Nonverbal Immediacy, and Credibility to Student Incivility in the College Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this study, we examined the potential mediating role of instructor credibility in the relationship of instructor self-disclosure and nonverbal immediacy to student incivility in the college clas…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disruptive Academic Behaviors: The Dance Between Emotional Intelligence and Academic Incivility - Journal of Academic Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study aims to better understand the perceptions and experiences related to incivility by students and faculty across multiple academic programs and respondent subgroups at a regional university in the southern United States. The study used a thematic analysis to examine student and faculty responses to three qualitative questions that focused on their perceptions of recent experiences and primary causes of incivility in higher education. Clark’s (2007, revised 2020) Conceptual Model for Fostering Civility in Nursing Education and Daniel Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence domains were used to give meaning and context to the study findings. For this group of respondents, the study found that incivility in higher education between faculty, students, and faculty and student relationships remain pervasive. Despite the global pandemic and social unrest occurring during the study period, these behaviors did not coalesce around a specific subgroup. Both faculty and students agreed that relationship management with a keen focus on communication could mitigate academic incivility. These findings can inform educators, students, and future researchers in planning meaningful interventions that address incivility in higher education. A relational approach centered on communication skill-building is needed to combat the persistent issue of incivility in higher education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When you need to talk, we’re here to help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our compassionate and experienced counsellors, who are registered professionals, offer free and confidential mental health and wellness counselling to current Algonquin College students. To make

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accessibility. Advocacy. Accommodation. Awareness.

CAL offers in person and remote appointments. If you are a new or returning student and would like to book an appointment with a Disabilities Counsellor, a Learning Strategist, the Intake Coordinator or an Assistive Technologist, please contact the Welcome Centre at welcomecentre@algonquincollege.com or by calling them at 613-727-4723 ext.7200.

With a large number of changes to your programs and education, the Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) staff want to assure you that you continue to have access to our support. We are Here2Help!
Important information, updates, and FAQs from CAL
The Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) is committed to creating an inclusive and accessible campus. We provide support to students with visible and non-visible disabilities who self-identify.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CAL offers in person and remote appointments. If you are a new or returning student and would like to book an appointment with a Disabilities Counsellor, a Learning Strategist, the Intake Coordinator or an Assistive Technologist, please contact the Welcome Centre at welcomecentre@algonquincollege.com or by calling them at 613-727-4723 ext.7200.

# data[].attributes.headline
Knowledge Centre for Supporting Student Mental Health

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge Centre for Supporting Student Mental Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowledge Centre for Supporting Student Mental Health - Employee Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Knowledge Centre is a repository of information for employees to learn more about Supporting Student Mental Health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Knowledge Centre for Student Academic Accommodations

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge Centre for Student Academic Accommodations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowledge Centre for Student Academic Accommodations - Employee Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Knowledge Centre is a collection of information, directions, processes and best practices about Student Academic Accommodations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Cambrian College Teaching & Learning Innovation Hub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GenAI Resources | Cambrian College Teaching & Learning Innovation Hub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supporting Teaching and Learning at Cambrian College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is evolving rapidly. As generative AI tools transform our work and personal lives, understanding its potential and limitations within education will be a jour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College students are writing with AI – but a pilot study finds they’re not simply letting it write for them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A pilot study analyzing college students’ writing with AI shows an interactive process, from brainstorming to editing the output produced by chatbots.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inside Higher Ed survey of student AI use

# data[].attributes.subject
Inside Higher Ed survey of student AI use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Key findings from Inside Higher Ed’s student survey on generative AI show that using the evolving technology hasn’t diminished the value of college in their view, but it could affect their critical thinking skills.

# data[].attributes.headline
UGuelph research snapshot of student AI use

# data[].attributes.subject
UGuelph research snapshot of student AI use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Echoes of AI in Academia: Student Perspectives on Opportunities and Obstacles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Echoes of AI in Academia: Student Perspectives on Opportunities and Obstacles What is this Research About? As Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) continues to evolve, perceptions within the higher education sector are notably mixed. GenAI leverages advanced machine learning algorithms, such as Variational Autoencoders (VAE) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), to create new data samples that closely replicate existing datasets. This approach allows for the innovative application of AI in various fields by generating realistic and useful data. In this study, researchers explore the advantages and challenges of integrating GenAI tools like ChatGPT into educational processes, assessing their impact on teaching and learning environments. What did the Researchers Do? The researchers conducted a survey among university students in Hong Kong to assess their understanding of GenAI technologies and their views on integrating AI into higher education. The survey, which included both Likert scale and open-ended questions, aimed to identify potential challenges and evaluate AI’s impact on teaching and learning. This approach helped gather detailed insights into students’ perceptions and knowledge of AI technologies. What did the Researchers Find? The researchers found that students generally hold positive views on AI and GenAI technologies, appreciating their potential to enhance educational experiences and outcomes. Despite this, concerns remain about ethical issues, plagiarism, and academic integrity. Students have varied levels of familiarity and comfort with AI technologies, with some also worried about their potential impact on employment opportunities and ethical considerations. → How to Implement this Research in Your Classroom To effectively integrate this research into the classroom, educators can start by introducing discussions about AI and GenAI technologies in relevant courses, enhancing students’ awareness and understanding. It’s also crucial to engage students in critical thinking about the ethical considerations and limitations of AI, including concerns about plagiarism and academic integrity. Facilitate hands-on experiences with AI tools like ChatGPT in controlled environments, guiding students on ethical use. Additionally, incorporating student feedback into curriculum design and teaching strategies can help tailor the educational approach to better meet their needs and address their concerns. → Citation Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023, July 17). Students’ voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in Higher Education - International Journal of Educational Technology in higher education. SpringerOpen. https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 → Keywords Machine Learning Generative AI Digital Pedagogy Datasets Plagiarism This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Canada License Snapshot Writer: Aasim Khan Snapshot Publication Date: 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
Awaken Your Flame: Finding Balance in Teacher Wellbeing

# data[].attributes.subject
Awaken Your Flame: Finding Balance in Teacher Wellbeing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Awaken Your Flame: Finding Balance in Teacher Wellbeing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teacher well-being isn’t a luxury—it’s essential. In this reflective piece, Michelle shares her personal journey from burnout to recovery, including a pivotal transformation during the pandemic that forced her to slow down and prioritize her own healing. Drawing from decades of experience as an educator and coach, she offers practical strategies—like micro-reset moments, personalized wellness check-ins, and boundary-setting—to help educators sustain their energy and prevent burnout. Centred around the idea that you can’t pour from an empty cup, this piece empowers teachers to protect their flame and lead with vitality, presence, and purpose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Institute for Pedagogical Wellness (IPW) is a collaborative program intended to equip faculty and graduate students with pedagogical wellness knowledge and skills to implement in their classrooms. It also provides a space for participants to support each other in teaching and professional development.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Path Forward, Mikan E'niigaanimok: Continuous Improvement Through an Indigenous Lens 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Path Forward, Mikan E'niigaanimok: Continuous Improvement Through an Indigenous Lens 

# data[].attributes.headline
Building on Strength: Collaborating for Indigenous Student Success

# data[].attributes.subject
Building on Strength: Collaborating for Indigenous Student Success