Servicing Students Through Learning Science

Dr. Michelle G. Hill – Executive Director of Social Sciences, and Linda Ruest – Senior Director, Learning Design and Development, Southern New Hampshire University

Dr. Michelle G. Hill is the Executive Director of Social Sciences at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). In her role, she oversees both the undergraduate and graduate online programs in various disciplines, including anthropology, criminal justice, human services, political science, psychology, and sociology. Dr. Hill is dedicated to ensuring that the university's curriculum remains relevant, marketdriven, and inclusive, preparing students for the dynamic demands of their respective fields. 

Linda Ruest is an accomplished professional in the field of education and has made significant contributions to the growth and success of Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). Overseeing a talented team of approximately 33 professionals who specialize in learning science and assessment, she diligently design and develop innovative and effective learning solutions for all programs to create impactful and engaging learning experiences.

Can you give us a brief description of your roles and responsibilities at Southern New Hampshire University?

Hill: In my current capacity as the Executive Director of Social Sciences for Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), I am entrusted with the oversight of both undergraduate and graduate online programs, which include anthropology, criminal justice, human services, political science, psychology, and sociology.

My team and I are one of many stakeholders committed to ensuring that our curriculum remains up-to-date, market-driven, and inclusive, as we understand the critical role of education in preparing students for the ever-changing demands of their fields.

With an enrollment of over 43,000 active students in our online Social Sciences programs, we take pride in providing accessible and flexible learning opportunities that empower individuals from diverse backgrounds to achieve their academic and professional aspirations. Our primary objective is to equip our students with the necessary skills and knowledge to become leaders in their respective fields and make a meaningful impact in their communities.

Ruest: As a Senior Director of Learning Design and Development and part-time adjunct, I have the opportunity to work with a talented team of content editors, instructional designers, and learning architects who specialize in learning science and assessment. Our team works diligently with many other stakeholders to design and develop innovative and effective learning solutions from our catalogue of SNHU online courses.

The team comprises a skilled leadership group, expert instructional designers, and learning architects, who are committed to delivering exceptional learning experiences for our students. We continually optimize our design frameworks using the latest research by our New Learning Solutions team and best practices in the field of education to create impactful and engaging learning experiences that can deliver on our program outcomes and course competencies.

How do your online courses help students to manage cognitive load?

Hill: Our approach to course design is informed in part by our students’ feedback, particularly their concerns around the dilemma of work-life balance. To address this, we incorporate learning science principles that help to alleviate cognitive load in our courses. Specifically, we have used cognitive load theory (CLT) to help shape our course design. CLT was developed by John Sweller in the 1980s (Sweller, 1988).

Our teams work hard to help students manage intrinsic cognitive load and minimize extraneous cognitive load by managing the complexity of the material they are learning and streamlining the delivery of information (Duran, Zavgorodniaia, & Sorva, 2022). By incorporating current best practices in learning science, we focus on designing courses that are effective, efficient, and engaging.

Linda and I have collaborated on examining CLT and its application to learning science practices to enhance our ability to educate our students. This approach is not limited to a single program but rather is a norm used across our online academic teams at SNHU.

Ruest: We prioritize designing backward, starting with our institutional and program outcomes, and working toward meeting them. We use several methodologies and best practices, including backward design, which follows Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) Understanding by Design (UDL) approach, UDL principles, and other learning design principles that are tailored to the needs of each program and course for our institution and learners.

Before we ever build a single activity in our learning management system, we create design specifications using these frameworks, principles, and best practices. They allow us to consider our approach analytically and holistically across a program. During development, we work collaboratively with stakeholders, like program deans and curriculum designers, to identify competencies, design courses, and define the necessary technology and resources. This approach helps us break down cognitive load and support a comprehensive learning experience for our students. We also use in-house quality assurance standards and processes to confirm our courses meet our expectations.

"Our Approach to Course Design is Heavily Influenced by our Students’ Feedback, Particularly their Concerns Around Time Management. We Incorporate Learning Science Principles That Help to Alleviate Time Pressure in our Courses, Prioritizing Cognitive Load Theory"

Our Learning Science and Assessment (LSA) team collaborated with Michelle and her team to redevelop the Associate and Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice programs and the Bachelor of Arts in Psychology program using these frameworks and practices. During that time, all program stakeholders came together to determine the program outcomes, examine what types of courses would be necessary for these programs, and identify competencies that would be included in each course. The competencies were designed by the curriculum designers, a group separate from LSA, in collaboration with instructional designers to document design specifications and create learner profiles. These competencies and this documentation served as the foundation for our backward design approach, and our frameworks and best practices served as filters to help us identify and address potential issues with cognitive load.

Could you shed light on some of the core principles of your learning design?

Ruest: One of the learning design principles we employ is conceptual frameworks, which involves representing course concepts to students by their relationships rather than as discrete elements. Experts in a particular field or discipline tend to organize information in a relational manner, which is different from novices who think more discretely. We work with faculty experts to break down the curse of knowledge and identify conceptual frameworks for each course. This approach helps students focus on mastering course concepts rather than devising an entirely new mental model from scratch.

For example, in our Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity program, we developed a playbook concept that every expert in the field has, which helped students absorb and synthesize the complex material more effectively. We also mapped every activity in the course to a course competency, ensuring that formative activities were scaffolded to summative assessments. This approach helps students understand how skills and knowledge apply in real-world settings and reduces cognitive load.

Another design principle we use is maximizing effort, where we aim to reduce ancillary activities unrelated to core learning outcomes and maximize students’ time on task. For example, in a recent human resources course, a key formative activity provides the opportunity for students to engage in a low-stakes opportunity that is modeled after an authentic task in the field. The same task is an explicit scaffolding activity to two separate course competencies. Lastly, the vehicle used for submission gives student exposure to a tool they will use in the summative project to better prepare them for the high-stakes assessment. One activity achieving three purposes, none of which are ancillary to the learning.  

We also focus on formative preparation, where formative experiences model essential performances required in summative assessments rather than isolating individual components.

Hill: One example of formative preparation is in our Introduction to Psychology course. Linda’s team created a visual that illustrates the scaffolding for projects one, two, and three, which are summative assessments. This visual shows how the formative assessments map to each of those projects so that students can easily see how each assignment builds upon the previous one, leading up to the summative assessments where they demonstrate those competencies. In other courses, there are visuals or maps that show formative preparation as well. We encourage our instructors to highlight this scaffolding in their announcements to students. There are also additional teaching interventions provided in faculty facilitation notes that instructors can use to highlight these elements, such as demonstrating how the competencies are being applied in the assignments throughout the course.

How have COVID-19 disruptions and transformations impacted the students? And what, according to you, would be the future of the online learning space?  

Ruest: During the pandemic, we had a large demographic of remote students who were primarily new to navigating the online space. Many of them came to us specifically because we offered online courses. When designing an online learning experience, it’s important to be intentional and considerate of the fact that students are going through this asynchronously. Online courses are popular because they offer flexibility that is not always available in traditional synchronous courses. Our goal is to ensure that the courses we offer meet the required competencies and program outcomes while not overwhelming our students.

One of the things that we have noticed coming out of the pandemic is that students seem to have less time. People are re-evaluating their priorities and are becoming more attentive to how they manage their time and commitments. Many of our students work multiple jobs, and it’s essential for us to deliver a tight, cohesive online learning experience that adds value and prepares them for real-world contexts.

Hill: Another thing we observed was the shift in age demographics of our online students. When Linda and I started at SNHU, our students were primarily in their mid to late 30s. However, during the pandemic, we saw more and more students in the “traditional” age range of 18 to 22 years old taking online courses. This was likely due to the shift in responsibilities for younger students and the need for more flexibility in scheduling. As educators, it is important to meet students where they are and support them as much as possible while also adhering to course and program requirements.

Looking ahead, there are a couple of challenges that we face. First, we need to think about the role of technology, such as AI, in education. I believe AI can be a helpful tool for students to build higher-order cognitive skills. Second, we need to consider how we can best support students who experienced learning loss during the pandemic, particularly considering K-12 students as they enter higher education or other educational pathways in the future. In addition, supporting students’ mental health, well-being, and sense of belonging are important factors as they pursue their education and strive for their goals. As educators, it’s our responsibility to find ways to help all our students succeed.

Cognitive

Learning Management