�鶹��Ѱ�����

Project Objective��

This project is an opportunity for A&S students to develop interests and skills related to personal and professional development. Many of the modules in this project address the "hidden curriculum" of the college experience, and are intended to complement the work students are doing in the classroom.��

The Students as Partners work accomplished our main goals of creating modules about the use of AI and also the ethics involved with AI. Additionally, the student perspectives were infused throughout additional modules of the broader project.����

Project Benefits for Students

First-year students coming into the university will benefit from this resource from the start of their time at CU. This project, created for A&S students, will build a student's foundation of campus resources that will help support and develop their interests and skills. Students will benefit from a supportive and foundational learning experience on topics that are necessary during and after college, but are often disparate in their availability and focus in program curriculum.

Project Assessment

As we launch this project, we'll get feedback from participants, and we'll track completion rates for modules. Students will begin participation in fall 2026, so we'll reassess and make changes based on feedback and our experience.��

Project Challenges

Our biggest challenge was determining our scope and goals. This wasn't a huge challenge, but it did require negotiating and collaborating to move this project in a direction we all agreed upon. The student partners thought that they would be working solely on AI, but that was not the sole goal of the application and project. They were delighted to have opportunities to engage with additional parts of the project.��

Project Leads

• Phoenix Bryan, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Aris Wertin, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Kathy Noonan, Director for Community Engagement, A&S

Phoenix Bryan	Aris Wertin	Kathy Noonan

Project Objective��

We combined our shared love of language and linguistics to explore how we could approach a redesign of the Introduction to Linguistics course (LING 2000). The course aims to establish foundational knowledge in linguistics with a focus on several subdisciplines, including phonology, phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics. The course is required for majors and minors in linguistics and speech, language, and hearing sciences. It also satisfies a general education requirement, so it draws students from across all academic disciplines.��

Our main objective was to change the types of assignments and assessments in the course to increase opportunities for students to make real-world connections to the content with the hope of increasing student interest and investment in the course and the field. The current assessments (10 weekly homework assignments and 3 exams) are online, open book, and open note. They are autograded quizzes administered through Canvas. Given the use of the Internet and generative AI, students can successfully complete the assignments without fully and meaningfully engaging with the content. Our main goals were to recreate assessments to make learning visible—thinking out of the box, but also attending to the reality of logistics involved in assessing 150 students.

The revised course will be taught in Fall 2026, so goals related to the implementation and efficacy of our innovations will be evaluated later. However, with relation to our SaP goals, we had many critical conversations about what is feasible and what would increase student engagement with the material. We met the goals we set for curriculum redesign in the sense that there is a plan of action for evaluating learning in more creative, engaging ways. For example, weekly learning checks will be moved to a paper-based format to be completed collaboratively during recitations. This will allow students to work together, discuss problem sets and concepts, and build knowledge together (as opposed to completing a quiz individually online). They will not use online resources or AI to complete the work but rather refer to the text, lecture notes, one another, and the TA. In addition, there will be a semester-long project through which students will build a Padlet portfolio in groups from their recitation section. This Padlet will allow them to showcase learning that connects course concepts to the world around them through real-world observations and conversations, social media, and analysis of other languages they are familiar with or interested in. They will showcase these portfolios through presentations in recitation. For example, during the module on phonology, they might find an online video or media headline that addresses linguistic variation based on accent. For each post, they'll include the media and a brief reflection that integrates learning from the text and lecture.��

Project Benefits for Students

Among the benefits to future learners in this course, we hope they will be able to apply learning about linguistics to the world around them and share that learning with others outside of class. We hope to cultivate a truly genuine interest in the myriad ways that language is part of our daily life and the impact language has on individuals, systems, and society. By creating more relevant and meaningful assessments, we hope that engagement in lecture and recitation sessions will increase. In addition, the redesign of the assessments will increase student investment as they partake in a community of practice exploring and collaborating to make sense of various linguistic constructs. An additional bonus to students is that the weekly assessments and larger learning checks will be completed on paper, so they won't have a looming multi-day online assignment to complete over the weekend.��

Project Assessment

Evaluating this project will require multiple approaches. First, I'd like to reapply for the SaP program and have the insights of a student partner who can observe some of the recitation sections to see how the collaborative assignments and Padlet presentations go. I plan to check in with students in the course more frequently throughout the semester through brief 1-question surveys at the start of class. With my teaching assistants, we'll monitor the extent to which students are able to make meaningful and appropriate connections between the readings/lectures and their application of the concepts to real-world language use.��

Project Challenges

Our greatest challenge was identifying feasible assessment solutions, given that this class has 150 students with 2 TAs. We both brought deep passion for language and linguistics, so we often approached our solutions from that perspective. However, we had to remind ourselves that not everyone in this class will have that intrinsic motivation and inherent interest in the course topics, which would drive their investment in more innovative assignments. We also had to be mindful about how much we could accomplish—balancing big ideas with the potential additional management and labor on behalf of the TAs and the instructor. Another challenge was creating assessments and new approaches to teaching the course that maintain the rigor so that students who continue with upper-division linguistics courses are successful—both in those future courses and in their future linguistics-related careers (e.g., language education, speech pathology).

Project Leads

• Anna Hoisington, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Rai Farrelly,��Teaching Associate Professor & TESOL Director, LING

Anna Hoisington	Rai Farrelly

Project Objective

In an undergraduate World Literature course, student partner Anna Hoisington and educator Shannon Leone collaborated on a project to help students design chatbots that translate literary analysis into structured processes, making visible how meaning is produced in GenAI.��

The project is scaffolded in two stages: students first build a chatbot based on a single text, then develop a final chatbot addressing a contemporary feminist issue across multiple texts. In both stages, they move from close reading to system design by defining analytical frameworks, guiding how those frameworks operate, and testing how they function. Reflection and peer review are central, prompting students to examine how their design decisions influence the responses their systems generate. Through this work, students understand interpretation as a structured process while building AI literacy, demonstrating how humanities methods can be used to analyze and design generative AI systems.��

As partners, Anna and Shannon wanted to create a humanities-based model for AI pedagogy by framing generative AI as an interpretive system. Students translate literary analysis into structured chatbot designs through patterns, priorities, and constraints. The project positions analytical argumentation and critical engagement as foundational to working with GenAI systems.

The objective for students is to develop advanced AI literacy through interpretive practice. Students examine how GenAI systems shape outputs and test their own approaches. In doing so, they encounter the limits of their assumptions and revise their methods. This process shifts their focus from evaluating outputs to analyzing the epistemology of GenAI systems.

Project Benefits for Students

Students develop a more rigorous understanding of interpretation as a structured process of decision making. By translating their arguments into chatbot designs, they learn to identify patterns that guide analysis and to recognize the theoretical and ideological assumptions that inform their approaches.

This process builds metacognitive awareness, as students track how their design decisions register in system outputs and revise those decisions in response. It also strengthens AI literacy by positioning students as designers. As a result, they gain experience in critical engagement with texts and systems, structured thinking, and rhetorical awareness that transfers across courses and into professional settings.��

Project Assessment

The assessment strategy focuses on the clarity and consistency of the student’s interpretive framework rather than technical complexity. Students are evaluated on:

• Interpretive Framework: The presence of a clear, coherent analytical lens
• Interpretive Mechanics: How effectively the chatbot guides reasoning (ex., through questioning, pattern recognition, or evidence-based claims)
• Textual Specificity: Engagement with textual details, not summary or general themes
• Handling of Complexity: The ability to acknowledge ambiguity and multiple interpretations

Peer evaluations play a critical role in assessment. Students test one another’s chatbots and provide structured feedback on how each system functions in practice. These evaluations focus on how effectively analytical frameworks are translated into system behavior, how constraints guide interpretation, and where designs oversimplify or narrow meaning. Students demonstrate the ability to evaluate how GenAI systems are constructed and how design choices affect their outputs.

Project Challenges

A central challenge lies in asking students to move from close reading to system design by articulating clearly defined analytical frameworks. This shift requires critical examination of their own writing, as students restructure their reasoning into procedural instruction. Through this process, they make their interpretive assumptions explicit, which can be difficult but constitutes a foundational practice for both humanities learning and AI literacy.��

The constraints and unpredictability of working with GenAI systems are a productive challenge. Students revise system structures to better understand and interrogate the difference between their intended design and actual system behavior. This process of revision reveals how computational systems organize and produce meaning.

Team Leads:

• Anna Hoisington,��Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL

• Shannon Leone, Lecturer, the Departments of English and Women & Gender Studies��

Anna Hoisington	Shannon Leone

Project Objective��

We collaborated on the development of a new micro-credential, “From Theory to Action: Cultivating Inclusivity and Belonging,” offered by the Office for Access & Community Engagement in the College of Arts and Sciences. This micro-credential is designed to equip undergraduate students with essential workplace skills such as navigating conflict, understanding global perspectives, and developing as socially responsible community members. Together, we contributed to shaping content that prepares students for a successful transition into professional environments, including the creation of specific modules (with Aris focusing in depth on one module) and providing student-informed perspectives on relevance and engagement.

Overall, we largely met our project goals, while also recognizing areas for growth. Anna noted that she started strong, maintained consistency, and gained valuable knowledge and connections throughout the process, expressing overall satisfaction with her contributions. Aris similarly felt that he met most of his goals, particularly in developing a module, which is nearly complete. He shared that some final components are still being wrapped up due to time constraints and initial unfamiliarity with the content. Both reflections highlight meaningful progress, strong effort, and significant learning, alongside an awareness that clearer expectations and additional time could have further strengthened outcomes.

Project Benefits for Students

This micro-credential is designed to address a gap in traditional coursework by preparing students for the realities of professional life. Anna emphasized that many university classes do not explicitly teach workplace expectations, conflict navigation, or professional communication, and that this project can help students feel more comfortable and confident about their next steps. Aris added that students will gain concrete strategies for navigating conflict in ways that honor multiple perspectives, an essential life and workplace skill. Together, these insights underscore that the micro-credential will help students build confidence, develop practical interpersonal skills, and feel better prepared to enter the workforce.

Project Assessment

Patricia and Marysia are partnering with the Center for Teaching and Learning to develop pre- and post-surveys for students who enroll in and complete the micro-credential. These assessments will help identify strengths, address areas for improvement, and evaluate the overall impact and value of the program.

Project Challenges

Both students identified time constraints as a primary challenge. Anna noted that balancing school and work while living abroad was at times overwhelming, but she developed stronger time management skills and appreciated the creative freedom within this project. Aris shared that he initially struggled with limited background knowledge on the subject matter, which led to additional time spent double-checking his work, as well as difficulty balancing competing commitments. He found that meeting with Kaela (our student employee) to clarify expectations and deepen his understanding significantly improved his productivity. While some time-related challenges remained difficult to fully resolve, both students adapted by refining their workflows and seeking support when needed.

Project Leads

• Phoenix Bryan, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Aris Wertin, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Kaela Kennedy, Student Program Coordinator,�� Access & Community Engagement
• Dr.Patricia Gonzalez,��Asst. Dean for Access and Community Engagement
• Dr. Marysia Lopez, Program Manager for Access and Community Engagement

			��
Phoenix Bryan	Aris Wertin	Kaela Kennedy	Dr. Patricia Gonzalez	Dr. Marysia Lopez

Project Objective��

Engaging authentic student-to-student interaction in an asynchronous online course environment is challenging. To address this challenge, we thought about how to best elicit student reflection and provide opportunities for connection between students. Together, we built two discussion boards and two individual reflections over the semester to be added to the other connection posts and reflective activities that Alpna already had in her course.

Project Benefits for Students

We feel this approach will provide more opportunities for students to participate in reflective activities and build metacognition skills. Also, we think presenting intentional opportunities for students to connect with each other over content and study skills within an asynchronous setting will be beneficial.��

Project Assessment

We will continue monitoring student participation.��

Project Challenges

So many questions, so little time!

Project Leads

• Catalina Holly, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• , Associate Teaching Professor, Cont. Ed. Economics

Catalina Holly	Alpna Bhatia

Project Objective��

Aaron Klass and Bobby Hodgkinson developed learning goals and investigated potential curricula for a future generative AI certificate, credential, and/or possible minor. We started with an iterative approach to develop potential learning goals, then we investigated courses that were currently being offered at �鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder that aligned with our learning goals. We also formulated a basic survey to understand what students/faculty/staff would like in terms of a Generative AI-focused program.

Project Benefits for Students

Understanding the benefits and limitations of this technology will likely benefit many students across many careers.

Project Assessment

We will review the survey results and present these findings to others across campus to start the process of bringing this to fruition.

Project Challenges

Filtering through the vast amount of available content was difficult, but we used AI to assist us.�� Also, we found the AI results were sometimes incorrect or incomplete, so we had to adapt and adjust accordingly.

Project Artifacts

Project Leads

• Aaron Klass, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Bobby Hodkinson,��Associate Teaching Professor, CEAS

Aaron Klass	Bobby Hodkinson

Project Objective��

Partners Daniel Mandeville and Catherine Kunce transformed one section of a first-year writing course into a standalone upper-division writing course, using the��framework. The pair adopted materials from the Reacting game, Modernism vs Traditionalism: Art in Paris, 1888-1889, and created an expanded standalone course for upper-division writing students.��

Our goal from the start of the semester was to address problems that arose from the first-year version of the course, thus improving the student experience. One significant challenge we addressed was adapting the curriculum of the game to create a manageable pace for both the course and the students. We also incorporated as many �鶹��Ѱ�����resources as possible to improve the student experience, such as the Art Museum and the library’s special collections, among other campus resources.��

Project Benefits for Students

Students taking this class will have the opportunity to fulfill their required upper-division writing requirements in a unique and engaging class structure. As far as we are aware, this is the first time this Reacting framework has been adapted into a standalone course for writing students. We hope that more departments and professors will adopt this learning model to support their own disciplines.��

Project Assessment

This course will now go through the Program of Writing and Rhetoric's approval process, to offer this course in the Spring of 2027. We hope that our partnership will continue even as the course is being offered, so that we can make assessments and adjustments as students are participating.��

Project Challenges

One challenge we encountered was the necessity to be flexible in how we thought about the class. For example, we had to be efficient in how the class is structured and make decisions about what we can and cannot achieve or include in this course. Another challenge we faced was adapting the materials that already existed for the Reacting framework to fit within an upper-division writing class.��

Project Leads

• Daniel Mandevile, Student as Pedagogical Consultant, CTL
• Catherine Kunce,��Associate Teaching Professor, Program for Writing and Rhetoric)

Daniel Mandevile	Catherine��Kunce