Author Archives: Dana Simionescu

What Our Online Students Told Us About Navigating Canvas (and What It Means for Course Design)

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Authors: Mary Ellen Dello Stritto & Dana Simionescu

What We Did and Why

When we design online courses, we make hundreds of small decisions about where to put things or how to introduce them. Should assignment instructions come before or after the readings? Does anyone look at the Module Learning Outcomes? Most of these calls get made on how we know people learn, what we think learners do, or what the program has always done, but rarely on concrete evidence about how students actually move through a Canvas course.

So, we asked them. During Winter 2026, we surveyed 463 Oregon State University Ecampus students about how they navigate Canvas, where they look for information, how they engage with course elements, and what they wish we’d do differently. Respondents were experienced online learners, so the patterns below reflect habits built up across various courses and instructors.

Some results confirmed what we suspected. Others were genuinely surprising. Below are the takeaways we think are most useful for instructors and instructional designers.

Takeaways

  1. Consistency across courses is what students wanted most.

When we asked students about improvements they wished for, the most common answer was about consistency. Students described spending the first weeks of every term re-learning each instructor’s idiosyncratic Canvas setup rather than focusing on the course content itself.

This is a hard problem because instructor autonomy is real and valuable, but it points to a clear opportunity: shared design elements and practices within a program or department go a long way. Even standardizing a few things—where the syllabus lives, a common module structure, consistent naming for module pages—reduces the cognitive load students carry from course to course. This is a strong argument for using course design templates.

  1. For most students, the Modules page was the front door.

The clearest finding from the survey: most students lived in the Modules page. When asked where they go to find assignment information, 55% said the Modules page. When asked what they do first when starting a new module, 72% said they go to the Modules page and click the first item.

But it’s worth noting that a substantial minority of students navigated primarily via the To-Do list, the Canvas Calendar, the Grades page, or other tools. This is often because they’re managing a heavy course load and prioritize by due date across all their courses rather than working through one module at a time. The Modules page is the dominant pathway, but it’s not the only one, and a well-designed course needs to support both behaviors.

This suggests a few practical instructional design moves:

  • Make the Modules page complete and self-contained. Anything important (instructions, rubrics, readings) should be reachable from a module. If it isn’t in (or linked from) Modules, most students won’t find it.
  • Set module requirements for key pages. Canvas allows you to require students to “View” or “Mark as done” specific items in a module. This helps ensure students see important pages they might otherwise skip, and it activates the progress indicators on the Modules page—which several students specifically asked for, as a way to track what they’ve completed.
  • Sequence matters. About 71% of students report always or often going through module items in the order presented, so the order you set is the order most students will follow.
  1. The Calendar and To-Do list are critical infrastructure. Make sure everything is there.

When students manage workload across multiple courses, they rely on Canvas’s cross-course tools: the Calendar, the To-Do list, and the Grades page, which several students described as the most reliable place to see all assignments listed consistently.

The most actionable finding here is about due dates. Students reported that items are sometimes missing from the Calendar and To-Do list, which leads directly to missed deadlines. The single most-mentioned problem was discussion posts with two due dates (initial post + replies). When only one of the dates shows up in the To-Do list, students might miss the other.

A few concrete design ideas:

  • Make sure every graded item has a due date entered in Canvas. This is what populates the Calendar and To-Do list for the students who navigate by deadline rather than by module sequence. This includes graded items that are completed in an external platform.
  • Consider adding “to-do dates” to non-assignment pages like learning materials or assignment overview pages. Canvas lets you assign a to-do date to a page so it appears in students’ To-Do lists alongside graded items. This brings important non-graded content into the deadline-driven navigation paths some students rely on.
  • For discussions with two post deadlines, use Canvas’s new discussion checkpoints feature, which lets you set separate due dates for initial posts and reply posts. They’ll appear as distinct items in students’ To-Do lists and Calendars, which is exactly what students in the survey were asking for.

Bar chart titled “Where do you most often go for assignment information? (n=458)”. Responses: Modules 55%; To-do list 13%; Canvas Calendar 13%; Assignments link 9%; Other 5%; Syllabus page 4%. For "Other", the most frequent is: Grades.

  1. What students actually read (and what they didn’t).

Of all the course elements we asked about (announcements, rubrics, assignment purpose statements, and module learning outcomes), rubrics came out on top across every measure: 80% of students read them always or often; 89% rated them useful or very useful; 55% checked the rubric specifically when looking for feedback on a graded assignment.

By contrast, module learning outcomes had the lowest engagement of any element we asked about. Only 45% of students read them always or often, and only 45% found them useful. About 15% rated them not at all useful. It might be worth experimenting with how outcomes are presented, where they appear, or how they’re connected to specific activities.

While announcements are the most consistently read course element in the survey (78% always or often), about 22% of students read them only sometimes or never, a significant subset of students. This suggests you should not put essential, course-critical information only in an announcement. Deadline changes, an assignment clarification, a required reading update— these need to exist somewhere durable in the course such as the module itself, the assignment page, or the syllabus in addition to any announcement you send.

  1. Students often previewed assignments before doing the readings.

About 75% of students indicated they always or often complete learning materials before starting an assignment, which is reassuring. But the open-ended responses complicated the picture: many students described previewing the assignment first, then working through the readings and videos with a clearer sense of what to focus on.

This is a reasonable strategy, and the design implication is about making the connection between learning materials and assignments explicit. When students preview an assignment, you want them to be able to tell, quickly, which readings and videos actually prepare them for it. Call that connection out directly on the assignment page, in the learning materials, or both! That will help students study with purpose.

Semi-donut chart titled “How often do you view learning materials before starting assignments? (n=458)”. Responses: Often 46%, Always 29%, Sometimes 24%, and Never 1%.

  1. Course introduction materials were valued and used as ongoing reference.

In our Ecampus courses at Oregon State University, the introductory section is called the “Start Here” module, and nearly all students (94%) engaged with it. The specific format will vary by institution and program, but the underlying behavior is informative regardless of what you call your opening module.

A couple of patterns stood out:

  • Students returned to introductory materials throughout the term, not just at the start. They come back to look up course-specific information they need: the syllabus, grading policies, instructor contact info, the schedule, materials lists. Whatever you put in your opening module, students are treating it as a reference document rather than a one-time orientation.
  • Students valued course-specific information, rather than repeated institutional or platform content. Several experienced students described feeling that intro materials contain too much familiar content such as generic LMS tutorials, university-wide policies, boilerplate language that doesn’t change from course to course. They indicated that the genuinely useful course-specific information sometimes gets buried.

The takeaway here is that the introductory part of a course functions as a course-specific reference, so the design move is to make the truly course-specific content (your syllabus, schedule, assignment overview, contact info, policies) easy to find and return to—and to be thoughtful about how much repeated cross-course content shares that space.

  1. Mobile is for monitoring, not learning.

Our results showed that mobile usage was widespread but specific in purpose: 78% of students checked grades on their phones, 70% checked due dates, and 62% read announcements. But only 8% took quizzes, 8% completed assignments, and 13% participated in discussions on mobile devices.

The pattern is clear: students used phones to monitor and plan and they used computers to actually do the work. These results suggest you probably don’t need to redesign assignments to be mobile-first, but the quick-check pathways (grades, due dates, announcements) should be especially clean and reliable.

  1. Feedback is sought but hard to find consistently.

94% of students checked the gradebook Comments box for feedback. Roughly 59% also looked at annotated comments on the assignment, and 55% checked the rubric. Very few students skipped feedback entirely.

They told us the challenge is location. Students described frustration that feedback is input in different places depending on the instructor and the course. One student indicated they didn’t even realize that annotated comments existed.

If you use annotations or rubric-based feedback, tell students explicitly where to look for that feedback, ideally early in the term and again when the first graded assignment returned. Consider a dedicated section in your starting module, and/or a one-sentence announcement after the first round of grading such as “Your feedback is in three places: the Comments box, annotations on your submission, and the rubric.” This can save students from missing substantial parts of instructor feedback.

  1. Keep modules unlocked when you can.

Several students specifically asked for modules to remain unlocked so they could work ahead when they knew a busy week was coming. Locked modules were described as a barrier to time management, especially for students juggling multiple courses, work, and other obligations.

There are legitimate pedagogical reasons to release content sequentially: scaffolding, preventing students from getting overwhelmed, keeping a cohort moving together for discussion-based learning. But if you’re locking modules by default rather than for a specific reason, it’s worth reconsidering. Unlocked modules let the students who want to plan ahead do so without preventing anyone else from working through the course at the standard weekly pace.

Conclusion

If we had to compress the survey into one sentence for course designers, it would be this: students want predictable, modules-centered courses where everything they need is reachable from one place, due dates are accurate and consistent, and feedback is easy to find.

If you’re doing similar work at your institution or experimenting with any of these changes in your own courses, we’d love to hear about it.

Link Accessibility – FAQs

Posted on by | Leave a reply

The golden rule of link accessibility: links should be descriptive! For foundational information on the why and the how, see OSU Digital Accessibility – Links.)  Let’s dig deeper into a few common questions:

Can I use “click here” or “this” for my link text?

This practice is not ideal, and it’s best to avoid it. While WCAG does permit it when surrounding context provides enough information, you would not be creating a good experience for your audience. That type of text is not descriptive enough to show the user where the link will go, and it’s especially problematic if this text appears multiple times! Think of people skimming the content – whether visually or via assistive technologies. It’s much more helpful when the text clearly conveys the link’s function or destination. See an example below.

Side-by-side comparison of unhelpful versus descriptive link text. On the left, three sentences each use 'click here' as the link text. Below, a simulated screen reader link list shows three identical 'click here' entries with no way to distinguish them. On the right, the same three sentences use descriptive link text: 'OSU Digital Accessibility guidelines,' 'W3C WAI Functional Images,' and 'APA citation formatting examples.' The screen reader link list below shows all three distinct, meaningful labels.

Yes, you can use an image directly as a link or button. But! If the image serves as a link on its own, make sure to write alt text that describes the action initiated by the link. The example image below is linked to an interactive lesson about cat behavior. Therefore, you would use the alt text “Cat Behavior Interactive Lesson”, NOT describe the image. See more explanations and examples on the W3C WAI Functional Images page.

Example image for cat behavior lesson.

Citation styles may be strict, but they do allow some flexibility for online-only resources and materials outside of formal papers. The recommended practice is to link the work title and ditch the DOI or URL, like in the example below. Check out more examples and explanations for APA and for MLA.

Side-by-side comparison of two APA citations for the same source. On the left, the citation ends with a long DOI URL displayed as a hyperlink. On the right, the article title is hyperlinked instead and the URL is removed entirely, resulting in a cleaner, more accessible reference.

Try not to! Having redundant links may increase extraneous cognitive load, since people may wonder whether they go to the same place or need to click the link again. The article The Same Link Twice on the Same Page: Do Duplicates Help or Hurt? gives a detailed explanation of why this may cause problems. The Office for Digital Accessibility at the University of Minnesota also includes “Avoid Repetitious Links” in their Dos and Don’ts.

You may have noticed, on occasion, “ghost links” in Canvas. The link validator or accessibility checker says there’s a broken or duplicate link, but when you look at the text, there’s nothing there. However, if you switch to the HTML editor, you’ll find the link lurking underneath. In the example below, you can see that there are actually two links instead of one: the Assignment 1 link was not completely deleted when I replaced it with Assignment 2.

What happens is that sometimes, if you delete text without unlinking first, the link may persist. To avoid this situation, make sure to remove the links before deleting or pasting in text.

Rich text editor showing one link vs html editor showing two links.

BONUS link-related tip: Don’t underline regular text

Usually, links are underlined, and most people think of links when they see underlined text. This may be confusing when they try to access the link and it doesn’t work. In addition, underlining is just not a good way of highlighting information. For more information, see an article and video from Boise State University: Underlined text.

A sample paragraph where the phrase 'rubric and grading criteria' is underlined but is not a link, while 'Course Resources page' is an actual hyperlink.

These practices make your course more readable, easy to navigate, and overall, more enjoyable for your students!

Alternative Text – FAQs

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Accessibility is a hot topic these days, and alt text is one of its most significant building blocks. There are many comprehensive resources and tutorials out there, so I won’t get into what alt text is or how to write it (if you need an intro, start here: OSU Digital Accessibility – Alternative Text for Images). In this post, I’ll address a few issues where guidance is less clear-cut and that have come up in my conversations with instructors.

Does alt text have a character limit?

You’ve done the work and written a detailed alt text that you’re proud of. You hit “done” and, much to your frustration, the Canvas editor is flagging your image and saying: “Alt attribute text should not contain more than 120 characters.” What’s going on here? Is there really a limit, and why is it so?

Well, this is one of those things where you’ll find lots of conflicting information. Some people say that assistive devices only read the first 140 characters; others, the first 150; yet others argue there are no such limits with modern tech. See this article: 100, 150, or 200? Debunking the Alt text character limit, which has more info and references, including a nod to NASA’s famous alt text for the James Webb telescope images.

One thing is clear though: alt text should be short and sweet, to make it easy on the users. Keep the purpose in mind and address it as succinctly as you can. However, if your carefully written alt text still exceeds Canvas’s limit of 120 characters, don’t fret – that constraint is probably too restrictive anyway.  But if the image is complex and needs a much longer description, use a different method (see more options below).

How should I use a long description?

When you have an image that contains a lot of information, such as a graph or a map, you need both alt text and a long description. The alt text is short (e.g., “Graph of employment trends 2025”), while the long description is detailed (e.g., it would describe the axes and bars, numbers etc.). The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) – Complex Images Tutorial explains a few ways you can add a long description.  The most common ones (and that I would recommend) are:

  • Put the long description on a separate page or in a file and add a link to it next to the image.
  • Put the long description on the same page in the text (under a special heading or simply in the main content) and include its location in the alt text (e.g., “Graph of employment trends 2025. Described under the heading Employment Trends”.)

The advantage of these methods is that everyone, not just people using assistive technologies, can access them. The description can benefit people with other disabilities or those who simply need more help understanding complex graphics.

But wait, what about image captions? Do they duplicate alt text?

Image captions can be used in various ways: as a short title for the picture, as related commentary, or as a full explanation (see an example of alt text vs. caption). In any case, avoid duplicating content between the caption and the alt text. If the caption doesn’t include a sufficient description, make sure you have that in the alt text. Alternatively, you can keep the alt text very short and use the caption for a longer description that everyone can read (I wouldn’t recommend very long ones, though – those may be better placed elsewhere, as described above).

For web pages, it’s best to add the caption using the <figcaption> element. This ensures that your caption is semantically linked to its image. If you like editing the HTML in your LMS, check out the W3Schools tutorial on the HTML <figcaption> Tag.

Should the alt text describe people’s gender, race, age etc.?

It really depends on what you are trying to convey and how much you know about the individuals in the image. Are those details significant? If yes, you should include them. Are you making any assumptions? Make sure not to project your own ideas about who the person is. This guide from University of Colorado Boulder: Identity and Inclusion in Alt Text is a great resource to refer to when faced with these decisions.

It’s 2026! Can’t I just get AI to write the alt text?

You’re right that AI tools can be a great help in writing alt text or long descriptions! We often recommend ASU’s Image Accessibility Creator. But, as you’re aware, LLMs are not always correct. Moreover, they don’t know what exactly you want your students to get from that image (well, you could tell them, but that may be as much effort as writing the alt text yourself…). Make sure you always check the output for accuracy and revise it to fit your purpose and context.

Student Voices Support Quality Standards in Online Education

Posted on by | Leave a reply

This post was written in collaboration with Mary Ellen Dello Stritto, Director of Ecampus Research Unit.

Quality Matters standards are supported by extensive research on effective learning. Oregon State University’s own Ecampus Essentials build upon these standards, incorporating OSU-specific quality criteria for ongoing course development. But what do students themselves think about the elements that constitute a well-designed online course?

The Study

The Ecampus Research Unit took part in a national research study with Penn State and Boise State universities that sought student insight into what elements of design and course management contribute to quality in an online course. Data was collected from 6 universities across the US including Oregon State in Fall of 2024. Students who chose to participate completed a 73-item online survey that asked about course design elements from the updated version of the Quality Matters Rubric. Students responded to each question with the following scale: 0=Not important, 1=Important, 2=Very Important, 3=Essential.  A total of 124 students completed survey, including 15 OSU Ecampus students. The findings reveal a remarkable alignment between research-based best practices and student preferences, validating the approach taken in OSU’s Ecampus Essentials.

See the findings in data visualization form below, followed by a detailed description.

Data visualization of the findings. See detailed description after the image.

What Students Consider Most Important

Students clearly value practical, research-backed features that make online courses easier to navigate, more accessible, and more supportive of learning. The following items received the most ratings of “Essential” + “Very Important”:

QM Standards and Study FindingsRelated Ecampus Essentials
Accessibility and Usability (QM Standards 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6): Every OSU student rated course readability and accessible text as “Very Important” or “Essential” (100%). Nationally, this was also a top priority (96% and 91%, respectively). Accessibility of multimedia—like captions and user-friendly video/audio—was also highly rated (100% OSU, 90% nationally).Text in the course site is accessible. Images in the course are accessible (e.g., alt text or long description for images). The course design facilitates readability. All video content is accurately captioned.
Clear Navigation and Getting Started (QM Standards 1.1, 8.1): 93% of OSU students and 94% of the national sample rated easy navigation highly, while 89% of OSU students and 96% nationally said clear instructions for how to get started and where to find things were essential.  Course is structured into intuitive sections (weeks, units, etc.) with all materials for each section housed within that section (e.g., one page with that week’s learning materials rather than a long list of files in the module). Course is organized with student-centered navigation, and it is clear to students how to get started in the course.
Meaningful Feedback and Instructor Presence (QM Standards 3.5, 5.3): Students placed high importance on receiving detailed feedback that connects directly to course content (100% OSU, 94% nationally). The ability to ask questions of instructors was also essential (100% OSU, 96% nationally).  Assessments are sequenced in a way to give students an opportunity to build knowledge and learn from instructor feedback. The instructor’s plan for regular interaction with students in substantive ways during the course is clearly articulated. Information about student support specific to the course (e.g., links to the Writing Center in a writing course, information about TA open office hours, etc.) is provided.  
Clear Grading Criteria (QM Standards 3.2, 3.3): 93% of OSU students and the full sample found clear, detailed grading rules to be essential.  Specific and descriptive grading information for each assessment is provided (e.g., detailed grading criteria and/or rubrics).
Instructional Materials (QM Standard 4.1): All OSU students and 92% nationally rated high-quality materials that support learning outcomes as very important or essential.Instructional materials align with the course and weekly outcomes. A variety of instructional materials are used to appeal to many learning preferences (readings, audio, visual, multimedia, etc.). When pre-recorded lectures are utilized, content is brief and integrated into course learning activities, such as with interactive components, discussion questions, or quiz questions. Longer lectures should be shortened to less than 20 min. chunks.

What Students Consider Less Important

The study also revealed areas where students expressed less enthusiasm:

Study FindingsRelated Ecampus Essentials
Self-Introductions (QM Standard 1.9): Over half of OSU students (56%) and a third nationally (33%) rated opportunities to introduce themselves as “Not Important”.No specific EE
Peer Interaction (QM Standard 5.2): Students were lukewarm about peer-to-peer learning activities. Nearly half said that working in small groups is not important (47% OSU, 46% nationally). About a quarter didn’t value sharing ideas in public forums (27% OSU, 24% nationally) or having learning activities that encourage them to interact with other students (27% OSU, 23% nationally).  Three forms of interaction are present, in some form, in the course (student/content, student/instructor, student/student).
Technology Variety and Data Privacy Info (QM Standards 6.3, 6.4): Some students questioned the value of using a variety of tech tools (20% OSU, 23% nationally rated this as “Not Important”) or being given info about protecting personal data (20% OSU, 22% nationally).  Privacy policies for any tools used outside of Canvas are provided.

Student Comments

Here are a few comments from Ecampus students that illustrate their opinions on what makes a quality course:

  • “Accessible instructional staff who will speak to students in synchronous environments. Staff who will guide students toward the answer rather than either treating it like cheating to ask for help at all or simply giving out the answer.”
  • “A lack of communication/response from teachers and no sense of community” – was seen as a barrier.
  • “Mild reliance on e-book/publisher content, out-weighed by individual faculty created content that matches student deliverables. In particular, short video content guiding through the material in short, digestible amounts (not more than 20 minutes at a go).”
  • “When there aren’t a variety of materials, it makes it hard to successfully understand the materials. For example, I prefer there to be lectures or videos associated with readings so that I understand the material to the professor’s standards. When I only have reading materials, I can sometimes misinterpret the information.”
  • “Knock it off with the discussion boards, and the ‘reply to 2 other posts’ business. This is not how effective discourse takes place, nor is it how collaborative learning/learning community is built.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

The takeaways? This research shows that students recognize and value the same quality elements emphasized in OSU’s Ecampus Essentials:

  1. Student preferences align with research-based standards – Students consistently value accessibility, clear structure, meaningful feedback, and purposeful content.
  2. Universal design benefits everyone – Students’ strong preference for accessible, well-designed courses supports the universal design principles embedded in the Ecampus Essentials.

However, there is always room for improvement, and these data provide some hints. Many students don’t immediately see value in peer interactions and collaborative activities, even though extensive educational research shows these are among the most effective learning strategies. Collaborative learning is recognized as a High Impact Practice that significantly improves student outcomes and critical thinking. This disconnect suggests we need to design these experiences more thoughtfully to help students recognize their benefits. Here are some suggestions:

  • Frame introductions purposefully: Instead of generic “tell us about yourself” posts, connect introductions to course content (“Introduce yourself and share an experience related to the topic of this course”).
  • Design meaningful group work: Create projects that genuinely require collaboration and produce something students couldn’t create alone.
  • Show the connection: Explicitly explain how peer interactions help students learn and retain information better, and the value of teamwork for their future jobs.
  • Start small: Begin with low-stakes peer activities before moving to more complex collaborations.

Debunking Myths: Memory, Attention, and Technology in Education

Posted on by | Leave a reply

In our hyper-connected world, it’s tempting to think that technology like Google, Generative Artificial Intelligence, and our smartphones have rendered memory obsolete. But is that really true?

I recently participated in a book club offered by Oregon State University’s Center for Teaching and Learning. The book we read, Remembering and Forgetting in the Age of Technology: Teaching, Learning, and the Science of Memory in a Wired World by Michelle D. Miller, challenges misconceptions about how technology affects our memory and attention and offers valuable insights for educators. Let’s explore some key takeaways.

Memory Still Matters

There has been a growing backlash against memorization in education, with critics claiming it’s outdated and harmful to creativity and critical thinking. But here’s the kicker: memory actually supports robust, transferable thinking skills. Memory and thinking aren’t enemies – they’re complementary partners in learning.

Despite the “Google it” mentality, memory remains crucial. It’s not just about recalling facts; it’s about building a foundation for critical thinking and creativity. For one thing, it’s impossible in certain situations to stop and look things up (think emergency room doctors or lawyers during a trial). But more than that, our own memorized knowledge in a discipline allows us to consider context and practice skills fluently.

We’re all familiar with Bloom’s taxonomy and its bottom level: “Remembering”. Michelle Miller recommends that, instead of viewing memory as the “lowest” level of thinking, consider it the foundation. Higher-order thinking skills interact with and reinforce memory, creating a two-way street of learning.

The Power of Testing

Contrary to popular belief, quizzes and tests aren’t the enemy. Research shows that retrieval practice actually strengthens long-term retention, supports complex skills, and can even reduce test anxiety. It’s not about memorizing for the test; it’s about reinforcing learning.

In addition, “pre-quizzing” – that is, giving a quiz before introducing the material (ungraded or graded for participation only) – has been shown to help activate prior knowledge, integrate new information into existing schemas, and identify gaps or misconceptions that instructors can address.

Attention Spans: Not What You Think

The idea that “attention spans are shrinking” isn’t backed by solid science. In fact, in attention research there’s no such thing as “attention span”! And that “Students can only pay attention for 10 minutes at a time” idea? It’s based on outdated, poorly designed studies.

What about the idea that technology worsens our attention? There is no strong evidence that technology is affecting our ability to pay attention. While people often report this phenomenon (about themselves or others), a more likely explanation seems to be our decreased tolerance for boredom rather than our actual ability. However, smartphones can indeed be very distracting, and they can also affect memory negatively through the “I can Google it” effect – the expectation that information will be available online anytime can reduce our memory encoding.

Handwriting vs. Typing: It’s Complicated

The debate over handwritten versus typed notes isn’t as clear-cut as you might think. What matters most is your note-taking strategy. The best notes, regardless of medium, involve synthesizing ideas rather than transcribing verbatim.

Enhancing Memory in the Classroom

The good news is that there are many things an educator can do to help students remember essential content. Here are some strategies:

  1. Create meaning and structure: When we process information deeply and evaluate it for meaning we remember it better than when we perform shallow processing. Organizational schemes like narrative structures help information stick, and active learning techniques such as project-based learning ensure a deeper level of engagement with the content.
  2. Connect to prior knowledge: Ask questions to elicit information, draw explicit connections with previous material, and use pre-quizzing to help students see the gaps and stimulate curiosity.
  3. Embrace visualization: We’re visual creatures – use this to engage your audience. Create and ask students to create mind-maps, infographics, or other visual representations.
  4. Engage emotions: Both positive and negative emotions can enhance memory, but aim for a supportive atmosphere, which has been shown to improve learning outcomes. The emotion of surprise is a powerful memory enhancer.
  5. Connect to goals: Show how information is relevant to students’ immediate objectives.
  6. Use the self-reference effect: Relating information to oneself boosts memory. Ask students to bring their own experience or interests into the learning process through personalized assignments.
  7. Implement retrieval practice: Regular quizzing with immediate feedback can significantly boost retention.
  8. Space it out: Distribute practice over time instead of cramming.

Conclusion

In this age of information overload, understanding how memory works is more crucial than ever. By debunking myths and implementing evidence-based strategies, we can help students navigate the digital landscape while building strong, adaptable minds. I’ve only touched on a few points, but this book is chock-full of interesting information that’s useful not just for educators but for everyone!

What myths about memory and technology have you encountered in your teaching? How might you incorporate these insights into your classroom? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

References

Miller, M. D. (2022). Remembering and forgetting in the age of technology: teaching, learning, and the science of memory in a wired world (1st ed.). West Virginia University Press.

Difficult content? Try the power of vicarious learning!

Posted on by | Leave a reply

A few years ago, I was taking a Statistics class that was dreaded by most students in my graduate program. Upon starting, I discovered with pleasure that the instructor had introduced a new textbook, called An Adventure in Statistics: The Reality Enigma by Andy Field. The book followed a story-telling format and featured an outlandish science-fiction type plot, humor, colorful graphics, and comic-book snippets.

The merits of storytelling have been widely discussed, and that’s not what I want to talk about here. Rather, I’d like to highlight a specific element that I believe made a great contribution to the book’s instructional value: most of the content is presented through the dialogue between the main character, Zach, who needs to learn statistics, and various mentors, in particular one professor-turned-cat. The mentors guide Zach through his learning journey by explaining concepts, answering his queries, and challenging him with thought-provoking points. This makes the content more approachable and easier to understand as we, the students, struggle, ask questions, and learn together with Zach.

I believe that using dialogues—in particular of the student-tutor type—instead of monologues in instructional materials is an underutilized method of making difficult concepts more accessible. It is not a topic that has been researched much, but I did encounter a few interesting references.

One term that is often used to refer to this type of learning—by observing others learn—is “vicarious learning”. It was introduced in the 1960’s by Bandura, who showed that learning can happen through observing others’ behavior. Later, it was also used to talk about learning through the experiences of others or through storytelling (Roberts, 2010).

I was interested specifically in the effectiveness of student-tutor dialogue, which is a type of vicarious learning, and I found two articles that presented research on this topic.

Muller, Sharma, Eklund, and Reiman (2007) used instructional videos on quantum mechanics topics for second year physics students. In one condition, the video was a regular presentation of the material. In the other, the video was a semi-authentic dialogue between a student and a tutor, and incorporated alternative conceptions that physics students might hold, in combination with Socratic dialogue. The authors found significantly better outcomes on the post-test for the dialogue treatment.

Chi, Kang, and Yaghmourian (2017) conducted two studies that also featured physics concepts. They compared the effects of student-tutor dialogue videos versus lecture-style monologue videos, using the same tutors and the same supporting multimedia presentations. They, too, found increased learning for the students who watched the dialogue videos. They also found that students who watched the dialogue videos seemed to engage more in solving problems, generating substantive comments, and interacting constructively with their peers. The researchers offered some possible explanations for why this was the case: the incorrect statements and questions of the tutee triggered a more active engagement; tutees can serve as a model of learning; tutees make errors which are followed by tutor feedback – what they call “conflict episodes” that may motivate students to try harder.

Creating tutorial dialogue videos is time consuming and more difficult than making regular lectures. So, it is certainly not practical to use them on a large scale. However, it may be worth considering them for those areas where students struggle a lot.

Let us know if you’ve tried vicarious learning in any shape or form!

References:

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross S (1963) Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(6): 601–607.

Chi, M. T., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue- than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10-50.

Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., Eklund, J., & Reimann, P. (2007). Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting. Instructional Science, 35(6), 519–533. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41953754

Roberts, D. (2010). Vicarious learning: A review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(1), 13-16.

Quality Matters Rubric 7th Edition: What’s New?

Posted on by | Leave a reply

This month brings the new and improved QM Higher Education Rubric, Seventh Edition! To see the detailed changes, you can order the new rubric or take the Rubric Update Session, which is a self-paced workshop that will be required for all QM role holders. In the meantime, if you’d like a short summary of the revisions, continue reading below.

The main changes include:

  • The number of Specific Review Standards has increased from 42 to 44.
  • The points value scheme was also slightly revised, with the total now being 101.
  • A few terminology updates were implemented.
  • The descriptions and annotations for some of the general and specific standards were revised.
  • The instructions were expanded and clarified, with new additions for synchronous and continuous education courses.

Most of the standards (general or specific) have undergone changes consisting of revised wording, additional special instructions, and/or new examples to make the standards clearer and emphasize the design of inclusive and welcoming courses. In addition, some standards have received more substantial revisions – here are the ones that I found the most significant:

Standard 3: There is a new Specific Standard: SRS 3.6: “The assessments provide guidance to the learner about how to uphold academic integrity.” This standard is met if “the course assessments incorporate or reflect how the institution’s academic integrity policies and standards are relevant to those assessments.” SRS 3.6 is the main addition to the 7th edition, and a very welcome one, especially considering the new complexities of academic integrity policies.

Standard 4: SRS 4.5 (“A variety of instructional materials is used in the course.”) has received an important annotation revision – this standard is met if at least one out of three of the following types of variety are present in the course: variety of type of media; different perspectives/representations of ideas; diverse, non-stereotypical representations of persons or demographic groups. I was really happy to see this clarification, since it’s always been a little difficult to evaluate what constitutes “variety”, and reviewers will certainly appreciate the recognition of diversity of people and ideas.

Standard 8: SRS 8.3 was divided into two separate Specific Standards: SRS 8.3 “Text in the course is accessible.” and SRS 8.4 “Images in the course are accessible.” At the same time 8.5 (former 8.4) was turned into “Video and audio content in the course is accessible.” This should allow for a more nuanced evaluation of the various accessibility elements, and it is nice to see the focus on captions for both video and audio materials. Moreover, these three standards (SRS 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5) now include publisher-created content – this is an important step forward in terms of advocating for all educational materials to be made accessible upfront.

In addition to the standards themselves, some changes were made to the Course Format Chart, the Course Worksheet, and the Glossary. Notably, a course/alignment map is now required with the Course Worksheet – a change that is sure to spark delight among QM reviewers. The definitions of activities and assessments were also revised to clarify the distinction between the two – another much-needed modification that should eliminate a common point of confusion.

Overall, the new edition brings about clearer instructions, more relevant examples, and a deeper inclusion of diversity, accessibility, and academic integrity. Reviewers and course designers should find it easier to evaluate or create high quality courses with this updated guidance.

Creating Effective Learning Environments: Lessons from UX Design

Posted on by | Leave a reply

As educators and instructional designers, one of our tasks is to create online learning environments that students can comfortably use to complete their course activities effectively. These platforms need to be designed in such a way as to minimize extraneous cognitive load and maximize generative processing: that is, making sure that the learners’ efforts are spent on understanding and applying the instructional material and not on figuring out how to use the website or app. Research and practice in User Experience (UX) design – more specifically, usability – can give us insights that we can apply to improve our course page design and organization.

Getting Started: General Recommendations

Steve Krug, in his classic book Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, explains that, in order for a website or app to be easy to use, the essential principle can be stated as “don’t make me think” (Krug, 2014). That may sound like a strange principle in an educational context, but what Krug referred to is precisely the need to avoid wasting the users’ cognitive resources on how a particular platform works (thus reducing extraneous cognitive load), and to make them feel comfortable using that product (enhancing generative processing). When looking at a web page or app, it should be, as much as possible, obvious what information is on there, how it is organized, what can be clicked on, or where to start; this way, the user can focus on the task at hand.

Krug (2014) provided a few guidelines for ensuring that the users effortlessly see and understand what we want them to:

  • Use conventions: Using standardized patterns makes it easier to see them quickly and to know what to do. Thus, in online courses, it helps to have consistency in how the pages are designed and organized: consider using a template and having standard conventions within a program or institution.
  • Create effective visual hierarchies: The visual cues should represent the actual relationships between the things on the page. For instance, the more important elements are larger, and the connected parts are grouped together on the page or designed in the same style. This saves the user effort in the selection and organization processes in the working memory.
  • Separate the content into clearly defined areas: If the content is divided into areas, each with a specific purpose, the page is easier to parse, and the user can quickly select the parts that are the most relevant to them.
  • Make it obvious what is clickable: Figuring out the next thing to click is one of the main things that users do in a digital environment; hence, the designer must make this a painless process. This can be done through shape, location or formatting—for example, buttons can help emphasize important linked content.
  • Eliminate distractions: Too much complexity on a page can be frustrating and impinges on the users’ ability to perform their tasks effectively. Thus, we need to avoid having too many things that are “clamoring for your attention” (Krug, 2014, Chapter 3). This is consistent with the coherence principle of multimedia learning, which states that elements that do not support the learning goal should be kept to a minimum and that clutter should be avoided. Related to this, usability experts recommend avoiding repeating a link on the same page because of potential cognitive overload. This article from the Nielsen Norman Group explains why duplicate links are a bad idea, and when they might be appropriate.
  • Format text to support scanning: Users often need to scan pages to find what they want. We can do a few things towards this goal: include well-written headings, with clear formatting differences between the different levels and appropriate positioning close to the text they head; make the paragraphs short; use bulleted lists; and highlight key terms.

Putting It to the Test: A UX Study in Higher Education

The online learning field has yet to give much attention to UX testing. However, a team from Penn State has recently published a book chapter describing a think-aloud study with online learners at their institution (Gregg et al., 2020). Here is a brief description of their findings and implications for design:

  • Avoid naming ambiguities – keep wording clear and consistent, and use identical terms for an item throughout the course (e.g., “L07”, “Lesson07)
  • Minimize multiple interfaces – avoid adding another tool/platform if it does not bring significant benefits.
  • Design within the conventions of the LMS – for example, avoid using both “units” and “lessons” in a course; stick to the LMS structure and naming conventions as much as possible.
  • Group related information together – for example, instead of having pieces of project information in different places, put them all on one page and link to that when needed.
  • Consider consistent design standards throughout the University – different departments may have their own way of doing things, but it is best to have some standards across all classes.

Are you interested in conducting UX testing with your students? Good news: Gregg et al. (2020) also reflected on their process and generated advice for conducting such testing, which is included in their chapter and related papers. You can always start small! As Krug (2014, Chapter 9) noted, “Testing one user is 100 percent better than testing none. Testing always works, and even the worst test with the wrong user will show you important things you can do to improve your site”.

References

Gregg, A., Reid, R., Aldemir, T., Gray, J., Frederick, M., & Garbrick, A. (2020). Think-Aloud Observations to Improve Online Course Design: A Case Example and “How-to” Guide. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux/15_think_aloud_obser

Krug, S. (2014). Don’t make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to Web usability. New Riders, Peachpit, Pearson Education.

Loranger, H. (2016). The same link twice on the same page: Do duplicates help or hurt? Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/duplicate-links/

Learning Outcomes: Do Students Even Read Them?

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Learning outcomes (LOs) are used in instructional design to describe the skills and knowledge that students should have at the end of a course or learning unit, and to design assessments and activities that support these goals. It is widely agreed that specific, measurable outcomes are essential for planning instruction; however, some educators question the benefits of explicitly presenting them to students. I have been asked (and wondered myself): “What is the point of listing learning outcomes in the course?” “How do they help learning? “Do students even read them?”

So, I went on a quest for research that attempted to answer such questions. I was particularly interested in unit/module-level outcomes, as those are the ones that directly steer the content, and students see them throughout the course. Here’s a brief summary of what I found.

Note: the studies use the terms “learning outcome”, “learning objective”, or “learning goal” – they all refer to the same concept: a specific and measurable description of the skills and knowledge that students are expected to have at the end of a learning unit/period of study. At OSU we use the term “outcomes”.

What Does the Research Say?

Armbruster et al. (2009) redesigned an Introductory Biology course at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, using active learning and student-centered pedagogies, leading to increased student performance and satisfaction. One of the strategies used was to include explicit learning goals in the lecture slides, and labeling exam and quiz questions with the related goals. Students’ attitudes towards the course were assessed via a questionnaire and comparison of university-administered student evaluations. Students were asked to rank lecture components in terms of helpfulness to learning, and the authors found that one of the highest-ranking elements was the inclusion of explicit learning goals.

Simon and Taylor (2009) surveyed 597 students from computer science and microbiology and immunology courses at the University of British Columbia, where instructors presented learning goals at the beginning of each lecture or topic area. The questions were open and the answers coded into a number of categories, which helped them identify several values of goals. The main value was “knowing what I need to know”: students reported that the goals showed them how to focus their efforts and felt that the goals “allowed them to organize the information more effectively and be more expertlike in their approach to the class” (Simon & Taylor, 2009, p.55). The authors did not find any difference between presenting the goals before each lecture versus at the beginning of the unit/topic area.

Brooks et al. (2014) examined students’ views of learning outcomes at the University of Leicester, UK. First, they surveyed 918 students taking Biological Sciences, English and Medicine courses. They found that 81% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that learning outcomes are useful learning aids. Additionally, 46% found LOs more useful as their courses progressed, and 49% reported that they engaged more with the LOs as the course progressed. The authors also investigated when LOs are most useful, and found that the most common answer (46%) was when reviewing the material. Moreover, 49% of students reported that LOs can only be fully understood at the end of a module. The researchers followed up on these results with a focus group, which confirmed that students use LOs in various ways and at various points during the course.

Osueke et al. (2018) looked into students’ use and perceptions of learning objectives at University of Georgia. 185 students in an undergraduate Introduction to Biochemistry and Molecular Biology course took part in the study. The instructors included instructions in the syllabus, which they also stated on the first day of class: “Focus on the learning objectives. The exams will assess your accomplishment of the learning objectives. Use the learning objectives as a guide for what to focus on when you are completing assignments and studying for exams.” Students completed two assignments requiring them to explain their use of the LOs. The researchers found that many students (33.8%) reported they had been instructed on how to use LOs to study – these instructions ranged from passively “look over” to using them as a study guide. The ways students used the LOs were: as questions to answer (47.4%), as a resource for studying (24.1%), as a self-assessment tool (14.3%), and passive use (13.5%). When asked why they find the LOs helpful, students said that they help them: narrow down the information (57.1%); organize their studying (23.3%); communicate information (5.3%); monitor their understanding (4.5%); forced them to study (1.5%).

Sana et al. (2020) conducted three experiments aiming to find to what extent presenting the LOs improve retention of information. Participants were asked to read five passages on a neuroscience topic, and then they were tested on comprehension and retention. The experiments took place at McMaster University, Ontario and employed different participants, methods, materials, and procedures. They found that: interpolating LOs throughout the lesson (as opposed to all LOs presented at the beginning) improved learning compared to not including LOs, especially when students’ attention was explicitly directed to them; converting LOs into pretest questions (that students attempted to answer) further enhanced performance; multiple-choice and short answer questions were equally effective; and withholding feedback on pretests was more effective than providing feedback – the explanation proposed by the authors for this last finding was that students may be more motivated to seek the correct answers themselves, which causes further processing of the material.

Barnard et al. (2021) investigated students’ and academics’ perspectives on the purpose of learning objectives and approaches to assessment preparation. They conducted focus groups with participants from an undergraduate Psychology course at the University of Nottingham, UK. The students reported that LOs are useful for guidance, as they “use them to create direction for some of the learning and revision strategies” (Barnard et al., 2021, p. 679).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Good news! The findings of these studies suggest that many students do appreciate clear LOs and use them to guide their learning. The LOs help them understand what they are expected to know – thus, students use them to focus their study, to review for an exam, and to self-check their knowledge.

As instructors and instructional designers, what can we do to help students take full advantage of LOs? Apart from having specific and measurable LOs, make sure that the LOs are well aligned with the activities, and make this alignment explicit. It may also be helpful to offer some guidance on how to use the LOs, for instance by prompting students to recap their learning at the end of a unit based on the LOs. Finally, we could turn the LOs into questions and use them as a pretest.

For more on creating and using LOs, check out the CBE—Life Sciences Education website, which has an informative guide, including a section on student use. 

Do you have any other ideas or resources on how to use learning outcomes to improve students’ experience and study habits? If so, we’d love to hear from you!

References

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025

Barnard, M., Whitt, E., & McDonald, S. (2021). Learning objectives and their effects on learning and assessment preparation: Insights from an undergraduate psychology course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1822281

Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964

Osueke, B., Mekonnen, B., & Stanton, J. D. (2018). How undergraduate science students use learning objectives to study. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1510

Sana, F., Forrin, N. D., Sharma, M., Dubljevic, T., Ho, P., Jalil, E., & Kim, J. A. (2020). Optimizing the efficacy of learning objectives through pretests. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar43–ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0257

Simon, B., & Taylor, J. (2009). What is the value of course-specific learning goals? Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(2), 52–57. Retrieved from: https://www.colorado.edu/sei/sites/default/files/attached-files/what_is_the_value_of_course-specific_learning_goals.pdf

Make Your Canvas Pages Accessible in a Few Simple Steps!

Posted on by | Leave a reply

One of the major advantages of digital learning is that we can ensure our materials are accessible to all students. As such, at Ecampus, we are striving – and encouraging others to strive – for universal design, that is, design that anyone can use comfortably regardless of any impairments. In past posts, we have covered various ways of improving accessibility in a course, including how to fix PowerPoint or Word files. Today I’d like to focus on making Canvas pages accessible and making use of the on-page Accessibility Checker available in the Canvas Rich Content Editor.

Common Issues

Here are the main things you can do to ensure your Canvas pages (including assignments, discussions etc.) are accessible:

  1. Use proper hierarchy of headings and do not skip heading levels. You want to start with Heading 2 (Heading 1 is the title), then subordinate to that will be Heading 3 and so on. This is especially useful for screen reader users because it helps with logical page navigation. Some people choose their headings by the font size – not a good idea! If you want to adjust the size of your text, use the “Font sizes” option in the editor, after designating the correct heading level.
  2. Add an alt text description to any image or mark it as decorative. This is helpful for screen reader users and people for whom the images are not loading.
  3. Make the link names descriptive, rather than just pasting the url. For example, you would write Student Resources instead of https://experience.oregonstate.edu/resources. Also, avoid linking “click here” type of text. This helps screen reader users (which would read a url letter by letter), and it also makes it easier for everyone to scan the page and find the needed information.
  4. Ensure good color contrast. I often see instructors making their text colorful – in particular, red seems to be very popular. Indeed, a touch of color can make the page more visually pleasing and help bring out headings or important information! The danger lies in using colors that don’t have enough contrast with the background. This is especially problematic for people with less-than-optimal eyesight, but good contrast really just makes it easier for all of us to read. Also, a word of caution: Canvas has recently rolled out dark mode for mobile platforms and many people like to use it. Some colored or highlighted text may not look clear in dark mode.
  5. Add caption and header row to tables. These are extremely helpful for screen reader users, and the caption helps everyone to quickly see what the table is about. To add these things, you actually have to rely on the on-page accessibility checker – it will flag the issues and walk you through fixing them. While we’re on the subject of tables, you also want to avoid complex tables with merged cells because they are hard to navigate for a screen reader.
  6. Avoid underlining text. Underlining is normally reserved for links. Try using other means of highlighting information, such as bold, italics or caps.

Find and Fix

Canvas has a very useful tool that can help you find some accessibility issues as you edit your page. At the bottom of the editor, the icon representing a human in a circle will show notification when something is amiss.

Screenshot of bottom of editor showing the accessibility checker icon

When you click on that icon, the checker will open on the right-hand side, explaining each issue and allowing you to fix it right there.

Screenshot of the accessibility checker dialog window

This tool can find:

  • Skipped heading levels/starting with the wrong heading
  • Missing alt text
  • Insufficient color contrast – you can find a suitable color right here
  • Missing table caption and header row

It will NOT flag poorly formatted links or underlined text. So, for these issues, you’ll have to watch out yourself!

For a full list of problems verified by this checker, see this article from Canvas Community.

When you’ve finished building your course, you can also use UDOIT, the global accessibility checker, or Ally, if your institution has installed it. These tools can help you find additional problems, including embedded materials with accessibility issues.

To conclude, following these simple rules can greatly enhance the usability of your Canvas course. The built-in accessibility checker will help you spot and fix some common issues. Once you start paying attention, building instructional content with accessibility in mind will become second nature!