Designing for Humanity: How to Create Assignments That Require a Heartbeat

Erin Stanley:

So happy to be joined by our presenter, Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss. Today. Throughout his career, he has had many titles, including music teacher, technology director, superintendent faculty. Currently he is the chair of the education department and professor of practice at Avian University. He has real deep insight into what’s happening with teaching and learning, not just in public schools, but also at the university level, as you can tell from his experience. So I’m going to turn the time over to Dr. Ziegenfuss. Thanks for being here.

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

Alright, thanks for the intro, Aaron, and welcome everybody. Looks like we have 30 participants today for this presentation on ai, specifically called Designing for Humanity, how to create assignments that require a heartbeat. So yes, we’re going to be talking about assignments today, but we’re talking about assignments that breathe that are human centered, that have the pulse of life, that can’t be totally outsourced or replicated by an AI alone. So first, a bit of housekeeping in the chat. I’m going to put the link, the short link to this particular presentation, and I would suggest that you click on that. And if you want, you can go up to the file menu, make a copy of it, and you can take notes on it or share it with somebody else, or whatever you would like to do with it is perfectly fine. There are really no AI experts in this world because it is changing and developing so rapidly.

So what I’m sharing here today is really a snapshot of where my thinking is at this moment in time. And I’m sure if we revisit it a month from now, my thinking will have developed even further. And hopefully during our time together in the q and a, my thinking as well as yours, we’ll be developing around this interesting topic of ai. So before we actually start, I want you to think about this question and let it swirl around in your head a little bit while I do a little bit more of an introductory kind of thing here. So think about the question, what if your assignments, your current assignments could talk? What would they say?

So by the end of the time today, we have some learning outcomes. So by the end of our time together today, I want you to walk away with three things. First, a reframed lens for ai, not as a threat, but as a design prompt, as something that’s prompting us to think about transformation and redesign, especially around this idea of assessment. Second, a powerful human-centered framework that I’ve been tinkering with that we can use to design, redesign our assessments with intention. And lastly, a checklist that might help you bring the heartbeat back into your assignments. But before we get started, let’s anchor the conversation a little bit in who I am and where I came from and what I care about. Aaron did a little bit of this intro in the beginning, but I’m currently working at Meridian University. I’m the professor of practice there. I’m also chair of the education department and director of the EDD program in transformational leadership.

This is actually my second career. Previously I spent 35 years in public education, started as a music teacher, then somehow got interested in technology. So that’s where this whole AI thing probably sparked way, way back when technology started to land its way into public schools. Then I worked my way through administration and did my last seven years as a public school superintendent here in Pennsylvania. When I retired, I started to think about how I embraced transformation and did a little side project called the human school. And you can learn a little bit about that at the link on the slide. And also if you need to connect with me or would like to connect with me, I love connecting with people. There’s my LinkedIn link there as well.

Alright, so let’s start off by building a little connection to get a sense of who is in the room and how you’re approaching this topic. Let’s do a little emoji poll. Take a moment to look at these options and if one of your current assignments, going back to that question I asked you to think about could talk, what would it say? And so if you want to put the emoji, I’m assuming these emojis are probably in zoom. If not, you can just type the text. Would your assignment say, I honor humanity where there’s a lot of human interaction and relationships in those assignments. Would it say I’m fine somewhere in between? Would it say don’t look too closely or would it say, I’m basically chat GPT bait? So take a moment and let’s see the temperature in the room around this idea of AI and assignments.

We’ve got a couple people with some deep humanity in their assignments, some people a mix, and probably for most of us, it’s a mix. We’re just sort of getting into this transformation about how do we make these assignments more human? And I’ll talk about my own personal experience too. I’ve had students who have submitted stuff that was clearly done with AI and really I held the mirror up and started to wonder how do we approach those kinds of things that happen within our classroom? So now let’s layer in some context. If you pay attention to the news, especially around ai, you might’ve heard in the past week about a recent study and it raised a lot of eyebrows because we see some sensational headlines like the ones that are depicted in the slides. But basically they’re saying that AI makes you dumber and it comes from a study out of the MIT media lab, but the headlines just were really trying to latch on to this idea of being anti AI and being sensational and actually kind of reporting out the study in a not very accurate manner. So basically the study actually found that a small group of college students who used AI to help them write an essay were less engaged when they returned to the task. So when they were asked to do a similar essay, four months later, they actually underperformed, no surprise, and even often neurologically. So cognitively, that’s why some of the headlines said that there was this cognitive debt or cognitive rot.

But here’s the kicker, this wasn’t a study that was about cognitive damage. It was really about how AI short circuits the learning process when we use it as a proxy for our own thinking. Basically, if we don’t struggle with the work, we don’t build the muscle. And that’s really nothing new. We know that. So the study isn’t actually a case against ai. I think it’s actually a case against how we should be careful about how we outsource our thinking. So used passively AI isn’t going to help us learn, but I believe if it’s used well, an AI can actually deepen our thinking and our learning. So let’s flip the script here. If an assignment invites shortcuts, who really owns that problem? Who do you think? Let’s drop some answers in the chat. If an assignment invites shortcuts. So when students cheat, who is really the owner of that problem?

Everyone, a hundred percent teacher instructor, the instructor, right? We’ve got some people in here that are thinking they’re holding the mirror up. And I know that’s hard. We’re going to talk a little bit later about the emotion of that moment when we’re like the person who’s responsible. We’ve been trained, we’ve been in doing this work for decades and we’ve done it a certain way, and suddenly this thing called AI comes on the scene and really disrupts our world. And I’m seeing lots of instructor, lots of teacher, couple of everyone, yeah, students certainly taking the responsibility there as well as the instructors.

So if an assignment can be completed without thinking or feeling, it’s not the AI’s fault that assignment was brittle to begin with. So we have a metaphor here that I find somewhat humorous. It’s the idea that it’s like sculpting ice in the desert. It’s beautiful in theory, but it’s doomed when it’s exposed to real world conditions. So that assignment that’s Cheatable is now being exposed to this real world condition of ai, and it’s not holding up too well just like that ice sculpture. So instead of asking how do we catch AI cheaters, which is a question I see a lot and hear a lot, let’s ask something far more powerful. Let’s shift from suspicion to intention. So from how do I catch cheaters to more like how do I design learning that requires a heartbeat? And that’s the question that we want to explore today.

So let me introduce a framework that I’ve been tinkering with that I call the Spark framework. I’ve been experimenting with this since a number of students submitted some assignments with ai. And as I work for the upcoming fall term to redesign my own assignments, I’m trying to figure out the best way to do that. And so develop this framework. It is certainly maybe not in its final evolution, but I thought it would be interesting to share it, get some feedback from you, and hopefully you might find some use for it as you begin to redesign your own assignments in the upcoming semesters. So the Spark framework is basically a design compass to bring back the heartbeat into your assignments. Spark represents the following, first situated. So we think about powerful learning. It’s always embedded in an actual context, in a place where we live, where we breathe, where we worry and our students live, breathe, and worry in their own spaces.

A lot of what we do in education is fake. How do we make it more real? How do we situate it in actual lived experience? So that’s the SP process as pedagogy. So much of what we do is focused on the end product. Now AI is forcing us to think about what is that process? How can learners show evidence of the process, the iterations, the messiness, that messy middle? How do we evaluate the becoming and not just the bean, a authentic purpose and audience? Typically, our assessments are really just for between the instructor and the student or the learner. How do we make for assignments for an authentic audience work that is aimed at someone who cares, someone who cares maybe in that situated environment Up there in the SR is relational. How do we embed in that messy middle part, that process? How do we embed dialogue, feedback, loops, metacognition, all those little speed bumps that actually help learners go deeper and can’t easily be outsourced to ai.

And then finally, kinetic. Oftentimes our products are text-based, but if we’re designing for an authentic audience in an authentic situated situation, there might be different outputs or different products that we want students to create. So how do we help them figure out some different multimedia sources in which they can share the story of that Missy iteration and maybe take some artistic risks outside of plain text? So these five dimensions, I think, breathe human life into assignments. Yes, they extend, they deepen, they make learning not transactional anymore. So much of our learning is transactional, go through the process. I’m not really concerned about the process, I’m more concerned about the product. And then how do I give you an A and we move on to the next thing. But these invite depth, they invite context, and they also invite perpetual movement through the learning process. So let me show you what this looks like in practice.

And I’m going to use some of my, an example from my own practice. So I teach a freshman education class where they’re learning about critical pedagogy as part of this. So they’re education majors as part of this. They go into field work and they take the theory that we learn in class and they apply it to be able to think about what they’re observing in their particular field work context. One of the assignments that I’ve had them do is called the critical artifact analysis assignment. And if you did access the Google presentation, the link in there, you can see this, there’s links in this document as well that you’re certainly welcome to access. But basically if you look at the structure of the CHEATABLE assignment, step one is the students select an artifact. So they’re in their field experience. Where’s your curiosity taking you? Are you seeing something on the wall?

Are you involved in a particular lesson? Does the school or the classroom have a particular grading policy looking for an artifact that you would like to explore? And the second step, how do you use the theory that we’re learning in class, that critical pedagogy concepts? And how do you begin to explore? And one of the concepts that I require of them is the concept of belonging. How do you explore that particular artifact through the lens of these critical pedagogy concepts? And then you actually produce jumping to that final product. You produce a three page analysis. First describe the artifact, then second, you do a critical analysis. And then third, you complete an interpretation for teaching and learning. I give them an assessment rubric. And honestly, there were students that through this in ai, they picked an artifact through the rubric in ai, through the assignment in ai.

And they came up with something that to me was clearly AI generated. And maybe there were even some things that were not clearly AI generated that were, but it was pretty cheatable assignment and it was pretty hard to hold the mirror up and say, Ugh, that’s not the best assignment anymore. Maybe years ago that worked. Now AI is forcing us, it’s acting as a mirror that we have to hold up and say, okay, so how do I redesign this? And so this is where I’ve been tinkering with the idea of the spark framework. So here’s my sort of spark ified critical artifact re-imagination that I plan to use in the fall and may be tweaking things along the way. But basically let me talk you through how this is more process oriented, how it is more human centered and less able to be AI offloaded, so to speak.

Now, I’ll talk after this about how AI can actually be a thought partner and elevate some of those human qualities that we value. So AI isn’t totally out of this. I want them to use the tool because it’s something that can elevate I think, qualities of being human and something that they’re going to need to know how to use as future educators. So first, again, like before, choose a living artifact. But what I want you to do is I want you to have a conversation with somebody who is impacted by that artifact that you want to explore. And then once you decide on something, I want you to send me a 30 to 60 minute audio or video clip where you’re describing it off the top of your head, nothing scripted, why you chose that particular artifact and why it has caught your attention. So there’s a human element right there.

Step two, they’re doing their critical analysis. They’re using the critical pedagogy concepts. And really if you look at this page here, what I’m asking them to do is to really show me throughout the process what is the messiness, what is the journey that they took? So they’ve decided on this product, what are the various iterations that they go through? I want to see journal entries, I want to see mind maps. I want to see the messiness of how you are putting all of this together. If you’re using AI as a thought partner, I want you to show me how are you using it, what kinds of prompts are you using? Are you using it to create visuals? Are you using it to hone your critical thinking? And I’ll show some examples of this after I go through this particular assignment. Then I require them to actually get some feedback along the way.

Are you getting feedback from me as the instructor? Are you getting feedback from your peers? Or more importantly, are you getting feedback from the people, the audience that you are working with around this particular artifact? So if you choose a grading policy and you are having a consultation or conversation with a student around that artifact, I want to know what kind of feedback are they giving you on your interpretation of that? So I want you to include that in your process as well. And then I want a written reflection from just a very short reflection around some prompts that are listed here. And then finally, I want you to create a product, an output that is pertinent and relevant to the audience that you chose and is something that they can consume, again, give you feedback on, and it could be in a different medium other than just written text, although written text is absolutely something that is important.

If it’s important for your audience, then it’s something that you should certainly include. And then I include an assessment criteria around Spark down here and give them some AI use guidelines as well. So that’s an example. If I go back to my slide of how we might, again, this is evolving how we might use the Spark framework in a real action assignment and how we might transform it using the Spark framework. So I did mention that I encourage students to use ai, I want to model it for them. I want to help them. I want to collaboratively work with them to figure out the best ways to use this, the best ways that AI can actually elevate those things that we care about that we think are uniquely human. Things like curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, voice and empathy. And I want to walk through with you, and again, if you’ve downloaded the slides, you’ll have access to this and you can tinker with the prompts and go explore a little bit further beyond our time here.

But basically I’m going to walk you through how you could use AI to actually elevate these things that we think are uniquely human qualities. But instead of removing them or overtaking them or eliminating them, I believe that they can actually be used through a conversation with the AI and through various prompts to enhance and elevate these different qualities. So first, let’s start with curiosity. AI can turn curiosity into deep discovery. So through a prompt where you’re having a conversation where the student or you, if you’re doing some work around this can have a conversation with the ai, use it as a thought partner. You might use a prompt such as what are five surprising or overlooked questions about a grading policy. For example, if that was the artifact that challenge traditional assumptions about equity and belonging in classrooms. Now, this is focused specifically on my example, but the idea is I’m prompting the AI to have a conversation that is going to continue, could potentially be infinite, that’s going to probe further and allow me to exercise and deepen my own curiosity around the topic and help me develop towards that final product and that process that I’ve been working on in my assignment.

So that’s curiosity critical thinking. I believe AI turns critical thinking into metacognition in motion. So if I was suggesting for my students to have a conversation with AI to elevate their critical thinking around the critical pedagogy artifact assignment, they might put a prompt in such as, here’s my working interpretation of something like a grading policy. And then they could put their interpretation into the AI and ask it to respectfully challenge my reasoning and offer an alternative perspective on how it might impact student belonging. And I think one thing that’s really important to understand about these prompts that I’m sharing here is that they’re not one off one shot things. You want to have a conversation with the ai. That’s when you’re practicing something like critical thinking. So if you gave it this prompt or a student gave it this prompt, it would give some output and probably finish with a question and the student could give some input.

There would be this dialogue between the AI that would deepen and allow the student to exercise critical thinking around their assignment, which could then push their thinking into an area that might not have existed without the AI creativity. AI transforms creativity into co-creation. So a prompt that a student might give around this project or this assignment might be, give me five unusual visual metaphors to represent how a grading policy affects student agency. Think like a poet, a comic artist, and a cultural critic, which could be turned into a short animation or zine. So this could tie into that K, how will I demonstrate in the end, how will I tell this story for my audience and in what format? And I can use the AI to help me probe more deeply into those creative options voice. Oftentimes we’ll hear that AI is just going to rob students of their voice.

And I say it can actually amplify voice if we have a conversation with it. So the prompt here that a student might use to elevate their voice is take something that they’ve written with only their human capacity and say, revise this paragraph from my artifact analysis to sound more like me. I’d like it to be confident, reflective, and a little defiant, and they can put whatever terms they want in there, keep my message, just help it land more clearly. And again, you want to have a conversation. You just don’t want to take copy and paste into your final work that you want to share with the professor what it generates. You want to have a conversation with it or take it and add your own human touch to it, and you would want to model and explain these things to your students. Don’t just expect that they have that paradigm that they know that they can use these in this way.

Lastly, let’s talk about empathy. I believe AI expands empathy as we shift perspectives. So the prompt here that a student might use in this particular assignment simulate how a neurodivergent student might feel about this artifact such as a grading policy, and describe what values or needs they might bring to their critique of it. And I could use that information to maybe reframe some things, and I would include this as part of my process and how I’m using AI to help me evolve my thinking and think about this. I’m using the AI or your students are using the AI to have these conversations to elevate these uniquely human-centered qualities. These are things that that student could actually have a conversation with another expert or another student. But the AI 24 7 doesn’t get tired, always there, doesn’t talk back, and it really can be a thought partner and if used in an effective manner.

So these five forces aren’t just learning strategies. They’re what I believe are human capacities amplified. But let’s be honest, you might be thinking, I don’t feel really good right now about having to redesign my assignments. And you don’t need to do them all at once. You can do them one at a time. This shift isn’t just technical, it’s emotional. We have probably been doing this work for years, if not decades. We are used to certain things. And when something like AI comes on the scene, we feel a little bit of grief. When you get people like me saying, hold the mirror up, you got to change. You got to transform what you’re doing because your assignments don’t hold up anymore. We have grief. We have grief for the old ways of doing school, doing education, but that grief, it’s necessary. So Joe Hudson, who’s an executive coach for Open AI executives tells us that if grief doesn’t come, then the transformation doesn’t either.

So if we don’t feel that grief and we don’t acknowledge it and just sort of sit in it for a while, we’re probably going to continue doing the same thing and getting the same outcomes and the same feedback and the same AI generated assignments from our students. And I don’t think we want to want to live with that. So how do we move forward? I think we move forward with intention and maybe even with a little design checklist. So this is kind of a takeaway from today, and here’s the new rubric. Could an LLM or an AI do this task or assessment without breathing solely? Could this be done with no human interaction? Is the process visible and accessible? Does a real audience care? Does it invite movement, creativity, and connection?

So the question ist, how will I add AI to my work? And I see that as that’s the, I’m not dealing with the whole uncomfortableness of this, the whole grief of it. They ask, how do I just add to it? We’ve done that for years with technology. I was a technology director. One of our biggest flaws early on with technology and education was it just made what we currently do more efficient. So I’m asking you to not ask that question of how will I add AI to my work? But instead, how will I design redesign for ai, not just integrate it. So let’s keep going. Here’s some resources that might feed your curiosity beyond today. If you want to do a little bit of reading. I’ve been doing a little bit of writing and two things that I’ve sent out there recently that might be of interest.

If this topic sparks your curiosity beyond our time today. The first paper, generative AI, didn’t break higher ed, it just held up a mirror. I argue that generative AI hasn’t really broken higher ed, and even if you’re in the K 12 space, it’s still the same thing. You can substitute that it has instead exposed its brittle design assumptions, inviting us to confront outdated pedagogies, reimagine learning from a human-centered lens and lead bold systemic transformation. I really think that AI can, if we choose it as an opportunity, can be one for transformation. So think about the parts of the education system that you might not like or that you wish were different. AI could be a catalyst in that. And the second paper, AI is co-learner, not proxy. Reclaiming the human and learning. It basically encapsulates a lot of what I’ve presented here today. The idea that AI isn’t a threat to embracing that AI isn’t a threat, that actually something that can help us in the transformation process around this idea of a spark framework that can help us redesign learning environments that elevate those human capacities that I mentioned.

So these are calls to really reclaim the human and learning. And if you want to pursue those a little bit further, you’re more than welcome to do that. So that’s about all I have to share. I saw there was a lot of stuff going through the chat. If there’s anything that you have in terms of your curiosities, your questions, what are you wondering what sparked for you today? Happy to do a little q and a here. So you can put, I’m not sure how we’re going to moderate this. If Erin, you want to moderate that or if people should put stuff in the chat. So I’ll turn it back to you, Erin.

Erin Stanley:

Yeah, I’ll keep an eye out. Put your questions in the chat or in the q and a box. There are two different things on Zoom, but either place is great. Thank you so much for also just so generously sharing the examples you did and your slides so everyone can really take that and use those practical, actionable how-to kind of assignments. One thing I loved about it was that they’re really applicable to so many different disciplines. This is not just teaching the examples you were using, especially in encouraging and teaching soft skills. AI helps us do that at a whole other level, which is really amazing.

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

Yeah, ai, most technology is sort of morally neutral and it’s how we approach it, how we decide to use it, and we have to help our faculty. We have to help our learners understand that it operates in a totally different paradigm than traditional software and we have to model that for them.

Erin Stanley:

Absolutely. And I feel like when AI was new, we all kind of thought of it as like superpowered, Google or search. That’s all we were using it for. And you’re absolutely right. There’s just so much more that we can do with it. So one question that came through was what have your students’ reaction been to these assignments where it does require a bit more from them?

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

So actually I don’t have an answer to that because I’m going to be exploring that in the fall. It was really this past spring where I felt like there was a lot more ai, plagiarism, so to speak, and it really got me thinking, I can’t keep doing this. And so that was one example of how I’ve been thinking a lot about this over the summer. And so I was looking at my assignments thinking, what are those things that are uniquely human and how can I put this together in a framework? And like I said earlier, this is very nascent. This is very much in its beginning stages, but I think it’s a good opportunity to share it with people, to have people like those that are on the webinar here, tinker with it, kick the tires, give some feedback on it. I’m sure it can be elevated, but this is just sort of my effort at the moment to take my particular context and my experiences and try and put it into a framework that I’m going to be beginning to use in the fall.

And what I shared in the sort of spark effect critical artifact analysis is one way that I will approach it in the fall, at least at the moment. It might evolve between now and the fall, but that’s how I’m thinking about how to incorporate these human-centered qualities. And then how do I also embed in the work that we do, that process of how to use the ai, the importance of the conversation, the importance of approaching AI as a piece of software that operates in a different paradigm than other kinds of software that we’re used to that just give us an output and we’re happy with that and we assume it’s accurate, we assume it’s what we were expecting and we move on. I also think that a lot of our assignments are, a lot of our work in education is transactional. I think that the question is probably pushing on that dissonance between, wow, this actually takes a lot of time now that student’s going to be giving me a lot of stuff that I now have to give feedback on. You could also modify that to have multiple submissions along the way. So maybe what we do is we make a smaller number of assignments, but make them go deeper. Again, moving away from that transaction, I’ve got all these things I have to cover. Let’s make sure there’s an assessment for everyone. How do we redesign assessments where maybe they encompass more and they go deeper and they elevate those human-centered aspects and they become less transactional and more human-centered.

Erin Stanley:

How much do you anticipate that you’ll kind of let students in on this process? Are you going to throw these assignments at them with no kind of context and see how they’re received? Or do you feel like you have to say, now I’m doing something really different? Warning, warning, how much are you going to involve them?

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

Oh, absolutely. Transparency.

Erin Stanley:

Yeah,

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

And I think the other, that’s another word that I think that we need to use more of when we have this AI conversation, and that is people are using it. We’re just not all that transparent about it. I mean, everybody on this call has used AI to do something that they weren’t transparent about using AI for. We’ve all done it, but how do we be transparent with our students too? I’m going to say, here’s how I use ai. I’ve done that before. Here’s how I use ai. Here’s how I think you’re using ai. Let’s talk about how do we most effectively use it? Use it. There are no authorities, like I said at the top where this is rapidly changing. AI is going to be supposedly open. AI is coming out with GPT five in this month. Who knows how that’s going to upset the fall, the fall semester. So let’s work together, including with our students and our fellow faculty members. Let’s be transparent about the messiness of figuring this out.

Erin Stanley:

Yeah. Do you have any tips to redesign an assignment for a really large class where multiple choice is typically the summative and formative assessments along the way, just because when you’re dealing with that large number, it’s hard to assess any other way? Do you have any tips for that situation?

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

That’s an interesting question. So I’m at a small university, so my classes are not, I don’t have large lecture hall classes, so I haven’t really thought about that. But that is a great way that people outside of my space who might be in this space in that particular context can contribute to the evolution of this framework. But the first thing that comes to my mind is to exercise a mindset that I have adopted, and that is always invite AI to the table. So what I would do is ask ai, give me a dozen ways that I might modify this multiple choice assignment or test or quiz to fit the spark framework. And here are the parameters. I don’t want it to take more than this amount of time, or I don’t want to expect more than this amount of engagement. So how do you give it some parameters?

And oftentimes the AI can come up with things that we couldn’t think of blind spots. I also oftentimes tell people the amazing thing about having a partner conversation with AI is it knows so much more than any single human being because it has basically the sum of digital knowledge in its system, plus it also has compute power, which allows it to process things and see our blind spots, see the things we don’t see. So right now, I have a blind spot as an answer to your question, but my mindset is let’s go to AI and see what I can learn.

Erin Stanley:

What are your favorite AI tools to use is?

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

So I would say chatt PT, obviously. And here’s the reason why. It has a very good memory and it kind of becomes the golden handcuffs where I certainly have tried things like Claude and Gemini and used that for some outlier kind of things. But the really amazing thing is now that I’ve used chat GPT probably since it was publicly available, it knows a lot about me and there’s a lot about me and what I ask it and the conversations I have in its memory for better or for worse. And there are certainly trade-offs, and that’s a whole nother conversation. But if I am asking it to write like me, write something like me or speak in my voice, it does a pretty good job just because it knows who I am. And so that has been really my tool of choice in the work that I do at the moment.

Erin Stanley:

Yeah. Very cool. Okay, last call for any other questions, and while you’re all thinking about maybe a last question you want to ask, I’m going to grab share back from you, Randy, and share a upcoming webinar. We have in about a month, more on the topic of ai, talking about AI skills specific to the workforce. What do your students need to know that’s really going to help them in the workforce? Okay. So let me see any other, I think we got all those questions answered. Thank you so much for your time and for sharing all your expertise with us. This framework is, I think you’re really onto something, so I’m so excited to see how this develops and how you kicked the tires, and you’re going to have to come back and give us an update about how your students responded and what worked.

Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss:

Absolutely. I’d love to come back maybe at the end of the term.

Erin Stanley:

Yeah. All right. Thanks everyone. Thank you so much. Have a great day. And thank you so much for joining us.