Category: Uncategorized

By Kate Cammack, CfT co-director

TLDR: Can we be academically rigorous and also offer flexibility and support to students? Of course – but even if we endorse this tenet in theory, how do we walk the walk? Here are a few small ways to turn both dials up at once.

Choosing the right spots for “challenge”

My general sense of academic rigor has evolved since I first started teaching. In my early years, my students enjoyed a winning combination of cognitively complex but underscaffolded work, rapid-fire pace, and dense readings that lacked any context or orientation. Rigorous, right?!

Looking back, I think I wasn’t thinking carefully about what “rigor” or “challenge” actually meant. What did I actually want students to be putting their brains toward, and how could I help them prioritize and focus on those things?

In other words, how might I make my course easier, in order for my students to be more challenged?

The nature of challenging, intellectual work

Academic rigor and “intellectual challenge” are terms that can be tricky to define. 

Do they refer to the cognitive demand of the course, where higher-order skills on Bloom’s cognitive domain reflect a greater degree of intellectual “rigor”? 

Could affective skill development be a viable way to challenge students? This seems challenging to me, as an instructor and as a student; if done well, it could also be transformative.

(source)

What about metacognitive skills, which enable students to think about their own thinking?

Regardless of what challenging work you’re asking of your students, it’s equally important to also consider what you, as an instructor, can make easier for them so that they can put the maximum amount of possible brain power toward the “right type of hard.”

Other things that make courses hard for students

Cognitive demand is one the type of “hard” that we likely strive for. But many of the other “hards” of a course are actually other pedagogical choices that we can adjust without impacting this primary goal.

Briefly, researchers surveyed students in 100- and 300-level biology courses about their perceptions of what made each class “hard” or “easy.” Then, students’ responses were coded into categories: cognitive demand, preparation/interest coming into the course, workload, pace, relevance of content, alignment between content and assessments (e.g., did exams cover key content), and faculty support.

First, many students reported that courses were “hard” or “easy” based largely on how the course was designed or conducted (Fig 2, below). Specific examples include course structure, pace, assessment design, and so forth – in other words, all pedagogical decisions that we make when we design our syllabus, choose course materials, craft assignments, and conduct each class.

FIGURE 2. Student perceptions of what makes a college biology course hard. The 100-level students (black, n = 155) defined hard courses as those that have a high workload and low faculty support and seem to focus on disparate facts the students struggle to see as important. The 300-level students (gray, n = 39) recognized workload and preparation as key factors that make courses hard, but also noted that higher cognitive levels make courses harder. Overall response patterns differ for 100- and 300-level students (χ² = 39.016, df = 6, p = 0.00000071).

Second, students were able to identify “hard” or “easy” aspects of the same course, using these categories (Fig 5-6, below). For instance, students in an active learning course could discriminate between aspects of that particular course that made it hard (cognitive demand) and aspects that made it easy (instructor support).

FIGURE 5. Student perception of what makes “this” active-learning college biology course easy. The 100-level students (black bars, n = 41) defined the active-learning course as easy. The lowest contributor was the cognitive demand. The 300-level students (gray bars, n = 11) recognized the active-learning course as easy, indicating that it was easy because the content was logical, there was a high degree of learning support provided by faculty members, and it had a manageable workload and clear alignment.

FIGURE 6. Student perception of what makes “this” active-learning college biology course hard. The 100-level students (black bars, n = 45) defined the active-learning course as hard and subsequently characterized that difficulty as arising from the cognitive demand required of them in the course, the workload, and their lack of preparation for the course. The 300-level students (gray bars, n = 5) recognized the “active-learning course” as hard, with all students defining it as hard because of the high cognitive demand.

Note that students’ responses on many of these categories changed between the 100- and 300-level course. For instance, more 300-level students reported their course was hard because of the “high cognitive demand” than did the 100-level students. While many students said that a “low/manageable workload” made a course easier, this was more pronounced in the 100-level students, many of whom were first-year students and thus more likely to be adjusting to college.

Finally, students cited that faculty support was most important in courses “where they learned the most” (Fig7, below). While students don’t always accurately assess their own learning, they are paying attention to what faculty are doing, why they’re (perceived to be) doing it, and how it contributes to their success.

FIGURE 7. Comparison of 100- and 300-level student responses to courses wherein they learned the most. Bars represent frequencies of response. Both 100- and 300-level students identified faculty support as being key in a course in which they learned the most. In addition, courses in which they did not have a lot of initial knowledge but had high interest and saw strong practical application resulted in their perception of learning the most.

(FWIW I found this overall framework so valuable, I now include it in my anonymous midterm feedback. After asking my typical start-stop-continue questions, I ask students to sort these “rigor” items into categories of “this makes our course harder for me,” “this makes our course easier for me,” or “not sure/it depends.” Not only has this provided more specific and actionable feedback to me, but it also (hopefully) presents a new schema for our students to use to reflect on their classroom experience.)

We can support our students’ work toward those challenging goals

We should hold high standards for the quality of our students’ work. Clear, high standards can also be conveyed with dignity and respect. This is what faculty support can look like, and is a hallmark of a mentor mindset.

(image from B. Lom, ACS summer book club)

Scholars have described the “mentor’s dilemma” – instructors who want to be kind may soften their criticism, but students can read vague praise as a sign that we expect less of them. However:

• Yeager and colleagues gave students a brief note telling students that the instructor held high standards and believed they could reach them. Students who got it were substantially more likely to revise their work. Note that the standard didn’t change, just the brief message that it was attainable.
• It has implications for students’ sense of belonging. A short intervention that helped students see early struggles as normal/temporary improved mental health and GPAs for students from marginalized groups. It wasn’t lowering a bar; it removed a barrier that had nothing to do with learning or cognitive “challenge.”
• Clear expectations and chances to get feedback before the high-stakes moments helps everyone, and often help most the students who arrive with the least insider knowledge. See the TILT framework for more on this.

This entire interview is interesting, but the final portion discusses the Mentor Mindset:

A few things that we can do

Our feedback is emotional – and often feels personal – to students. How might we adjust our feedback so that it maintains students’ motivation and promotes their self-efficacy?

• Give permission to fail, by using low-stakes assessments & providing opportunities to revise/resubmit – this helps students build confidence and reduce their fear of failure
• Balance criticism with praise, even in low-scoring work
• Use non-judgmental, respectful language and acknowledge effort
• Offer specific suggestions for improvement, not just identification of problems
• Help build your students’ feedback literacy by discussing how to use feedback constructively, and what it might (and doesn’t) mean about their learning and their identity

We can also help cultivate students’ growth mindsets:

• We can help students think about their learning. Students don’t often know how to make sense of their learning experiences. Consider talking explicitly with them about what makes courses hard (or easy) or how to make sense of the feedback that you give them – it will be time well spent. 
• We can also build metacognitive practices into our classes. It can be valuable to provide students dedicated time to articulate aspects of their learning, from exams to groupwork.
• We can be explicit about our belief that students are capable of succeeding. Canning et al. (2019) found that students in courses taught by faculty who believed ability is fixed showed larger achievement gaps and reported less motivation. Students pick up on how we think about their potential, whatever our syllabi say. If we treat support as a concession, students may hear that we doubt them. If we treat it as part of the challenge, they may hear the opposite.
• Finally, when we hear students cite their “learning style,” we can gently reframe their thinking to allow more nuance and welcome space to their academic journey.

Rigor tells students we think they can do something difficult. Support helps them do it. I’d like to think our best teaching offers both.

“Good teachers care about the subject; great teachers care about their students.” –Adam Grant, PhD

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

We’ve entered the point in the semester with new surprises, mysteries, and challenges in our teaching. 

A few opportunities that this time brings:

2. A metacognitive opportunity for them. You might ask students to reflect critically and constructively on their own learning experience thus far.
   • How are they engaging in your class? What strategies are working for them? What do they want to try?
   • How do they think they are doing, with respect to any guidelines set earlier in the semester (e.g., discussion norms, class community agreement)? 
   • What worked (and didn’t) in their preparation for your midterm exam (e.g., exam wrapper), and can they articulate what they might do differently next time (see this simple example from a chemistry course)?

3. Hit the reset button. Students’ motivation and intentions sometimes need a bit of a reset around midterm. For instance:

• If they don’t seem as prepared for class as you’d like (e.g., not doing all of the reading), up their accountability by asking them to complete four quick questions on their reading prior to coming to class
• iIf you’re growing concerned that students are getting more lax about AI use, you might send them a gentle nudge reminding them what your course policy is and why it is important to their learning.
• If some aspect of your course isn’t working as you’d hoped, you can adjust it – have a conversation with your students, explain what you’d like to try and why you think it’ll help, and get their feedback.

4. Connect with a colleague! 

• Remember your network and reach out to someone who helps fill your cup
• Lauryl and I love to talk teaching — let us know some times that work for you, and where you’d like to meet!

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

TLDR: Students often explain themselves through learning styles – “I’m an auditory processor,” “I’m a visual learner,” “I don’t really learn by reading.” Here’s what 15+ years of studies in psychology and education actually found about “learning styles”, and how to help students see a more nuanced relationship between their learning, their preferences, and even their identity.

“I’m a visual learner”

As a neuroscientist, I draw a lot of diagrams in my classes. They get ugly and messy, and if I post one here it’ll make your eyes bleed. Despite this, every semester, at least one of my students tells me something along the lines of, “I really like the diagrams, because I’m such a visual learner.”

In my own learning experience, I found that drawing diagrams helps solidify core concepts and visualize dynamic processes and interactions in ways that reading the material did not. In my teaching, asking students to generate drawings helps them to remain actively engaged in their learning. I’ve even built assessments where students can choose to explain concepts via diagrams on video – here’s a screenshot of one of my NEUR101 students’ TikTok explanations:

I might posit that visual-based approaches to learning can be particularly helpful for explaining certain concepts. But I balk at “visual learner,” and so does the data.

A story that we tell ourselves

I imagine that most of us have heard students reference their “learning style” at some point. and it got me thinking about the origins of this myth, and why it’s so persistent.

The word “myth” comes from the Greek mythos, meaning “story” – not necessarily a false one, just a shared narrative that explains something about ourselves to ourselves. 

The “learning styles theory” states that our learning styles are innate, unchanging, and wired into our brains – they are a part of who we are, as individuals. VARK is one model, but there are over 70 frameworks out there (an early indicator that the construct might be suspect). It is a myth that is widely told and deeply embedded in educator training and development.

(image source)

Everyone loves a good story – they can be memorable, easy, and simplify things. But telling ourselves stories that aren’t accurate, particularly about our capacity to learn, can pose problems.

We do have learning preferences

What is true: our students differ, and their preferences for how information is presented are real. 

It is valuable to use different approaches to teaching and assessment, in order to engage different students’ preferences and strengths – indeed, this is a central premise of UDL. 

It is also true that we might not know whether something “works” well for our learning until we engage with it in multiple ways and in different settings. I have preferences for how I work with material, and much of that was forged through trial/error and skill-building, and engagement.

Some of these things might be “learning preferences” but others might not; as one author quipped, “is it really a learning style to like to work in pairs, in the afternoon, when it is warm, and while snacking?”

Learning doesn’t improve when instruction is matched to learners’ preferences

Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer & Bjork (2008) ran a definitive review, where they set a genuinely fair bar for what would count as compelling evidence: a crossover interaction, where they would sort learners by style, randomly assign them to different instructional conditions, and see whether Style-A learners do better under the Style-A method while Style-B learners do better under the Style-B method. Figure 1 diagrams “acceptable” vs “unacceptable” evidence, in true psychologist-nerd fashion.

They found that (a) very few studies met that bar and (b) the few studies that did found scant compelling evidence that learning style impacts academic performance.

As one example, Husmann & O’Loughlin (2019) found that anatomy students’ self-reported learning style did not predict the study strategies that they students used or how well they performed on assessments.

This TED Talk provides a nice overview of some of these data.

What might actually be going on

First, students aren’t always the best judge of their learning. In one study, students reported that they thought that they learned less in active- vs passive-learning STEM classrooms, but their quiz scores were actually higher in the active-learning classrooms (see below). Preference can easily get mistaken for ability.

Second, we tend to pay more attention to information that matches what we already believe. A student who “gets it” from my diagrams now has “proof” that they are a visual learner (even though we didn’t test whether other ways of understanding might have worked just as well). This is called confirmation bias, and we all have it.

Third, it can be a deferral of responsibility. Maybe they didn’t set aside enough time to study, or weren’t using study techniques that led to deeper understanding.

What’s at stake

There are deeper costs. When students pigeonhole themselves as a certain type of learner, they’re not just misdiagnosing how they learn, they are absorbing a fixed mindset about learning itself. A “learner identity” can turn a temporary preference into a fixed label, which runs counter to a growth mindset. 

If a student walks away believing they can’t learn well from a certain format because it doesn’t match their style, that’s not a neutral misunderstanding — it’s an excuse to stop trying. In other words, when the learning style myth is reinforced, it suggests that struggles are signs of a mismatch that is outside their control, not a normal and expected part of learning.

In these ways, fixed academic identities (e.g., “bad test-taker”) can have far-reaching implications for students’ persistence, self-efficacy, and even belonging.

Three things that we can do

We can help students think about their learning. Students don’t often know how to make sense of their learning experiences. Consider talking explicitly with them about what makes courses hard (or easy) or how to make sense of the feedback that you give them – it will be time well spent. 

We can also build metacognitive practices into our classes. It can be valuable to provide students dedicated time to articulate aspects of their learning, from exams to groupwork.

Finally, when we hear students cite their “learning style,” we can gently reframe their thinking to allow more nuance and welcome space to their academic journey.

Your “enjoys-a-visual-but-can-learn-other-ways-too” colleague,

Kate

By Kerry Ginger, Department of Music

The Music Department applied for a CfT Department and Program Enhancement Grant in April 2026 to support a daylong departmental retreat, and we were grateful to receive funding for food. Our project, which I called “Big Ideas,” was to take stock of the Music Department’s strengths and opportunities, carve out time to consider the central curricular and programming questions facing us right now, and to build cohesion among our faculty. Since 4 of the 7 full-time Music faculty commute from elsewhere, it was helpful to have the CfT’s support for snacks and meals, which allowed for a full day on the Mountain in early May.

As an incoming chair, I’m keenly aware that there’s a lot I don’t know about the functioning of our department. For that reason, I wanted to listen to my colleagues and ask big-picture questions about the state of our program. We agreed on a May date in order to capture any momentum (and, honestly speaking, frustrations!) from the recently concluded spring semester, and then use those to develop longer-term “marching orders” that might guide us over the summer and into the fall. Over pastries and a meal at Stirlings, our conversations took shape.

Our first major activity was a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), during which we identified effective practices and sticking points. From there, we channeled our energy into several salient topics: facilitating music student belonging; independently attainable facilities improvements and beautification; comps and honors updates; curricular check-ins in core pods of the major (specifically, the required music history and theory/composition sequences); and outreach, recruitment, and fundraising. We also took some time to brainstorm ideas that would bring applied music students and faculty closer together, including a once-per-semester Symposium recital, a faculty collage concert, receptions, better social media engagement, and informational meetings for our majors.

Working together in such a focused capacity under reduced time pressure was invaluable. Our SWOT helped us understand what issues face our students and colleagues, while also pointing the way to shared investment in our strengths and opportunities. As a result of our planning, we have gotten a lot done in the months since: curricular revisions and catalog updates; comps improvements; welcome activities and advertising during Orientation Week; enhanced communication with FM to maintain and beautify Guerry Hall; new marketing materials, including new banners and a stellar new pamphlet from Marketing and Communications; and new ideas for raising needed money after recent budget reductions.

We’re grateful to the Center for Teaching for supporting these crucial activities, and encourage other programs to take advantage of this grant program!

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

TLDR: A new – and particularly valuable – report on AI from MIT provides concrete guiding principles and a compelling call to action.

We hear a lot about AI as a “crisis in higher education.” The word “crisis” comes from the ancient Greek root krinein, which means “to separate, decide, or judge”. A few years ago, I heard a “crisis” helpfully reframed as akin to the process of sifting sand at the beach – it’s a chance to let all the stuff that you don’t care about fall away, so that you’re left with only the treasures – the most important and valuable things.

For many of us, the AI crisis has invited deep discernment – what are we doing, why are we doing it, and how might we re-center and uplift the values and goals that we care most about?

This past Friday, cognitive psychologist (and MIT alumna) Karen Yu shared a new report on AI from MIT with our department, and it is one of the more lucid, organized, and well-supported pieces on AI in higher education that I’ve read thus far.

It presents guiding principles, including:

• Be humble. AI has evolved so rapidly, and changed our work so quickly and dramatically, that we need to acknowledge what we don’t know and that we must continue to navigate this landscape, as an inevitable aspect of our job as educators. As Brene Brown says, “we’re not looking to be right, we’re looking to get it right” – and, for me, getting it right requires adjustments, course corrections, and (ultimately) a growth mindset.
  
• Be bold. This is not a time for “patches and duct-tape” but for big thinking and reinvention. That takes cognitive-emotional space and some gas in the tank, so this principle goes hand-in-hand with sustainable teaching and self-care.
  
• Put humanity front and center. Teaching and learning are relational. We are here for our students, and they are here for us. A crucial goal of higher ed is to “nurture and protect our shared humanity.” As I told my students, if they’re submitting AI work and I’m using AI to grade, we have some real existential problems to grapple with (!)
  
• Lean into learning. As educators, we are here to show our students how to learn, not just convey content. The report calls us to clarify the process of learning (engaging in productive struggle; engaging in the “hard fun” of thinking) and the product of learning as themselves – their intellectual growth, habits of mind, and ways of being that will enable them to lead purposeful lives. This also might invite us to reconsider the products of learning that students often peg too much importance to – their grades.
  
• Teach with intentionality. We all tweak and adjust assignments and course materials from semester to semester. However, it can be rare for us to pull back and really ask ourselves what we’re trying to accomplish, and if we’re accomplishing it in the most meaningful ways. If we really consider what our learning objectives are and (re)design from there, we might find that a more expansive and exciting set of possibilities opens up.

There are many more valuable parts to the report, including recommendations for our teaching. Please consider giving it a read.

Looking for outlets to navigate the AI crisis together?

• Join our community of practice (CoP), a come-as-you-are way to think through teaching possibilities together.
• Get a sense of how your students’ learning via our FCR program
• Identify and build your teaching network, by inviting a colleague to coffee or for a walk.

In solidarity,

Kate

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

TLDR: Your first day of class is an important opportunity to build connection and community – don’t waste it!

As our first day of classes nears, I always think of James Lang’s wonderful article “How to teach a great first day of class.”

There are many ways to spark students’ curiosity, build community, and kick off the semester, including:

1. Setting the stage. Arrive early, greet students, make small chat, pass out chocolates, even play some music (probably not this). For my FYE class this year, I used these nametags one day and table tents the next. Consider a time that you’ve entered a room and felt excitement and curiosity, and let that inform your approach!
2. Low-stakes introductions. Questions that you might ask that spark genuine curiosity could include What is something you’re curious about? or What is one thing that you hope to learn, make, or understand better this semester?  It can be also helpful for students to pair up, then introduce each other. As a learner, I find that I like being told what to do and who to talk to on the first day, so I’m always looking for ways to group students. Lighthearted icebreakers? I love Katy Morgan’s “what ____ are you today?” (and there are so many versions) and hearing about students’ hobbies, halloween costumes, or secret talents. Finally, you might provide a more personal venue for students to introduce themselves, before or after the first day of class – for instance, a Brightspace survey with questions like “Answer one of the following: What is your name story? Where do you call home? What is something surprising or enjoyable that you did over summer break?” Some of the name stories that I’ve heard have been touching and a wonderful point of connection.
3. Actually doing some learning. What better way to introduce your students to your course than by engaging them in some concepts, ideas, or ways of thinking that you’ll be practicing that semester? These early activities can set an important tone for the semester.
4. Consider community norms. You might ask: What do we need from one another to do our best thinking in this class? You can collect students’ ideas, pull out themes, and compile them into a shared document. Such classroom community agreements are living documents that can then be revisited and updated throughout the semester. Also, our own Dr. Lydia Reinig is an incredible thought-partner and resource for cultivating space for dialogue.

The first day sends a powerful message about what—and who—matters in our classrooms. If we want students to participate, collaborate, ask questions, and take intellectual risks, why not begin by helping our students experience exactly those things.

Happy teaching, friends!

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

TLDR: A welcome email is a quick, simple opportunity to begin building your faculty-student relationship before our semester even begins. Do it this week!

Students are looking for connection

You may have seen the recent Inside HigherEd article about students wanting to matter on campus. They want to have peers and faculty who know them well, who will notice if they’re struggling, and who will help them contemplate their purpose and role in the world. They also notice if and where student wellbeing seems like a “shared responsibility” – not just the purview of isolated groups or centers.

What can we do to connect with our students, before the semester even begins?

A small act can make a big difference

Legg & Wilson (2009) found that sending a quick, pre-semester email:

• enhanced students’ motivation to be in the course;
• improved students’ attitude toward the course;
• increased students’ perceptions of the instructor, including
  • how prepared they were
  • how clearly they presented material
  • whether they’d recommend them to a friend

All of these positive effects were seen on the first day of class. 

Some effects seemed to be longer-lasting – students who received the email were less likely to withdraw from the course, compared to students who did not receive an email.

Finally, male students didn’t respond positively to the many exclamation points used by the female professor in her email. Ridiculous!!!!!!!

FWIW here’s the email that the email-group received:

• “My name is Janie Wilson, and I will be your professor for Introduction to Psychology in the Spring. I want to take this opportunity to say Welcome! I love teaching this course, and I hope you enjoy it too. I’ll be lecturing using PowerPoint, but I will also try to spice things up a bit by doing demonstrations, showing brief film clips, and getting you involved. I also promise to be respectful of you, so you should always feel free to ask any questions in class or come see me outside of class if you’d prefer. I also promise to be fair. To me that means treating all students the same rather than having favorites! Thank you for signing up for this course! I will try very hard to keep you awake!”

I imagine we could all find ways to adjust & update the language of this particular email. That said, keep in mind that the positive effects that the researchers found were a result of this email. 

Imagine what could be possible with your own, improved version!

Why is this important? 

You’re signaling approachability and care, which is important for students’ motivation to learn, attitudes, and even cognitive work (e.g., meta-analysis 1, meta-analysis 2).

You’re reducing uncertainty and/or trepidation about you and your course. Students experience many emotions – including hope and pride, loss and dislocation, and anxiety – as they transition (back) to college. Let’s contribute actively to the positive emotions, and lessen the negative emotions, where we can.

You’re starting to build a supportive faculty-student relationship, which is positively associated with students’ persistence (this).

You’re helping cultivate students’ sense of belonging, which is important for academic & social success (this)

Brightspace courses open this week…so now’s the time!

It will only take a few minutes!

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

Do you give your student at least one .pdf in your course? 

Me too! 

In fact, I give them a lot of them.

And, you might have noticed that they are often flagged on Brightspace for accessibility issues.

Adam Hawkins taught me this very straightforward fix that (a) you can do directly in Brightspace and (b) takes a speedy, technology-is-amazing 1-3min per .pdf (in my experience thus far)

This is what you do:

Find your .pdf. Here’s the first page of a chapter that I scanned in as a .pdf

There are some clear jokes to be made here, about running from pain while working on Brightspace, but let’s move on.

Click on “Upload/create” and choose “Upload files”

Choose your file, upload it, and you should see it in your Brightspace folder like this:

The accessibility marker is at the right – sadly, the purple almost-circle means that it’s “thinking” about the accessibility, not that it’s “almost perfect.” If you click on it, you’ll see something like this:

Oh no! 

No worries – here’s what you do!

Click the purple “Alternative Formats” button at the top-left of your screen. You’ll get a window like this.

Click “OCR Formats” on the bottom-right. Then, you’ll have a screen like this:

You’ll click “OCR Overlaid PDF”. When you hover over that button, you’ll see “generate”. Click that – it’ll take (literally) a minute, so let’s take the time to find out what you just did.

The “overlay” is a new, accessible file that Brightspace is making to go on top of your .pdf file. Think of it as an accessibility panini, being made just for you.

Once it’s done, the button will look like this:

You can download it if you want, but you don’t need to. Now, click out of this box, and go back to your main accessibility screen associated with that document. 

See how there’s the button with three-dots? Click that, and select “Replace with Alternative Format.”

You’ll see a screen like this. And there’s your new OCR Overlaid Tagged PDF Panini Sandwich! Click the button and click “replace.”

Now, your accessibility score should look much happier!

Note here, that, in this example, I still have 193 remaining issues. It turns out that, on this .pdf, there was a bunch of tiny font in the references. I clicked “skip” at the bottom of this accessibility window, as there’s nothing that I can do about it, and I still got a 92% on this .pdf. So, don’t be worried about the number of issues that you have – apparently some issues contribute to your score more than others.

If you’d like help and/or want to work through this with someone, you have friends! 

• Adam, Matt, and I are happy to consult, assist, and walk you through this process. We can meet you in your office or take you for a coffee (unfortunately, not a real panini). 
• You can also connect with your FTC – they are there to help.

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

My two boys (10 & 8) just finished camp at our indoor rock climbing gym, and came home with some good advice.

To prevent fatigue in your arm muscles, try climbing like a “confident crab” with your arms extended, and not like a “scaredy-bear” with your arms bent/tucked in.

(crab; bear)

This week I’m working on being a “confident crab” in my teaching prep – reaching big to set myself (and semester) up for success, so that I don’t get exhausted/burn out later.

For me, this means connecting with others to brainstorm, troubleshoot, and “fill my teaching cup” to the brim, before the semester begins.

What’s going on this week

Tuesday, Aug 11th

• Elon’s Annual Teaching & Learning Conference (w/ virtual option): 7:30-10:30am
• CfT Drop-in Hours: 10am-1pm

Wed, Aug 12th

• CfT Drop-in Hours: 9-10am
• Student learning goals & Brightspace: 10-11:30am
• Assignment (Re)alignment: 1-2pm

Thurs, Aug 13th

• Assignment (Re)alignment: 9-10am
• Student learning goals & Brightspace: 10-11:30am
• CfT Drop-in Hours: 12-1pm

Connect with others

We each have many goals, needs, and interests in our professional (and personal) lives. And, sometimes faculty life can be lonely. How often do we sit down to think about our support networks? How can we sustain ourselves and our work this coming year?

You might give yourself the gift of remembering – and expanding! – your network before the semester begins. It can be helpful to identify colleagues and friends who are good brainstormers, feedback-givers, advocates, emotional support, models of balance, and so forth:

I’ll be in the CfT tomorrow, Tues, Aug 11, from 10am-1pm, if anyone would like to drop by to chat, brainstorm, or talk about fun things they did this summer (I began a rewilding journey).

if you’re looking for a thought-partner, you can always book a one-on-one consultation with us – Lauryl and I love to ideate and troubleshoot.

And, if you’re looking for collaborators, skill guidance, brainstormers, and even emotional support all in one place (!), we’ll be hosting two communities of practice (CoP) that will meet a few times throughout the fall semester; each session will have time to have focused discussions and protected work time:

1. Assignment (Re)Alignment CoP HERE
2. STEM/social sciences CoP HERE

Virtual workshops & resources

We know that some of you are returning from summer travel and/or aren’t back to campus yet. There are a few virtual workshops on the horizon:

• Elon’s Annual Teaching & Learning Conference – TOMORROW Tues, Aug 11th (free registration here)
• “Back to Campus with AI: Learning From Student Ambassadors” Wed, Aug 12th
• “Joyful Teaching in Every Class” 90min e-course by Flower Darby
• “Right on time or just in time: Welcoming students to class” – Thurs, Aug 18th, 11am-12pm

I also highly recommend two Chronicle e-newsletters:

• Beth McMurtrie’s “Teaching” is weekly
• Jeff Young’s “Jagged Intelligence” (AI in higher ed) is every other week

And for those of you who like to get away from your screens and/or are on Team Commuter with me, the 60-Second SoTL podcast offers brief summaries of recent research on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).

Scuttle on, confident crabs! 🦀

AI was not used to support/write this post.

By Kate Cammack, CfT Co-Director

Unauthorized GenAI use is impacting our ability to accurately gauge our students’ learning

Recently, a Brown economics professor shared his experience shifting from take-home to in-person exams. Briefly, Prof. Roberto Serrano gave his 86 advanced microeconomic theory students a take-home midterm exam and was surprised to find a class average of 96%, when it had typically been 65-80%. Suspicious of unauthorized AI use, he gave the final exam in-person. While there were certainly many factors at play (see full article), there was a dramatic drop in exam performance:

(image source)

(While Student 22 has been the source of many educators’ knowing shrugs/eyerolls, it’s important to point out that their performance did improve over the course and their scores didn’t follow the pattern of purported AI use. Yes to you, S22!)

Like Prof. Serrano, many of us have been called to rethink how we’re assessing student learning.

• What counts as “credible evidence” that students are learning what we want them to learn?
• Are our existing assessments actually capturing the most meaningful aspects of students’ learning? 
• How is AI changing our ability to accurately gauge students’ actual understanding?

What GenAI is already capable of, even for novice learners

Regardless of your current AI stance, we need to acknowledge the GenAI landscape that we’re currently in. To limit the Debbie Downer-ness of this, you might choose one of these brief videos, made by academics at the University of Sydney.

Examples of how students can use/misuse GenAI for assessment:

Examples of how GenAI can produce reflective writing, including discussion board posts:

Examples of how GenAI can produce video, audio, and even students’ likenesses:

The same institution (University of Sydney) has developed what they’re calling a “two-lane approach” to rethinking assessments — this allows faculty to either lean in or lean out in a given type of assessment. As they summarized:

“If we do not change our assessments to align them with the capabilities of generative AI, our degrees will be easier to pass and we will have failed to prepare our students for their future.” (source)

So, what do we do?

Last year, I shared some of my struggles with grades. I’ve moved away from in-class exams for a variety of reasons, ranging from bad test-taker identity to compelling research on more equitable assessment strategies, and frankly I don’t want to return to them. I’m currently exploring multi-part portfolios that are mostly completed in class (also here, here), and I’m reading about new, alternative ways of evaluating student learning. I haven’t landed on any great solutions yet, but it’s been a valuable way for me to think deeply and critically about what aspects of student learning are actually most important to me.

I’d love to share our ideas, strategies, and approaches with each other. Please join us for one (or more!) of our (Re)Designing Assignments & Assessments for Real Thinking mini-workshops, where you’ll have protected time to:

1. Articulate the key goals (learning objectives) of one of your assignments/assessments!
2. Evaluate whether student work toward those goals (learning outcomes) is still being accurately represented/captured by that assignment 
3. Revise/adjust that assignment/assessment to re-align with your objectives/outcomes, based on your current GenAI stance

Please join us! We’ll add more if needed:

• Wed, Aug 12, 1-2pm (add to calendar)
• Thurs, Aug 13, 9-10am (add to calendar)
• Fri, Aug 21, 10-11am (add to calendar) and 11am-12pm (add to calendar)

For anyone looking for longer-term accountability and solidarity, we’ll also be facilitating two communities of practice (CoP) that will meet regularly throughout fall semester; each session will have time to:

1. have focused discussions on how/where/when GenAI is shifting our thinking about student learning (15-20min), and
2. update a specific assignment so that it is (re)aligned with your learning objectives and your current GenAI stance (30-40min)

Two options for this fall:

1. General CoP on (Re)designing assignments for real thinking: sign up HERE.
2. STEM/social sciences CoP on helping students read/critique scientific research papers: sign up HERE

Finally, if you’re looking for a thought-partner, you can always book a one-on-one consultation with us – we’d love to ideate and troubleshoot together.

In solidarity 

Related readings:

Rowsell (2025) Cheating matters, but redrawing assessment ‘matters most’

Martin (2026) AI broke college assessment. One university believes it’s got a fix.

Dellarocas (2026) AI will break assessment before it fixes it

McMurtrie (2026) How AI is forcing professors to overhaul the way they teach.

Webcast (2026) Academic integrity under fire: Fortifying assessment in an AI-mediated world.

McMurtrie (2026) What one professor learned after seeing Fs jump this semester.

Miller (2026) AI Research Roundup (8 studies on AI, learning & cognition)

AI was not used to support/write this post.