Invisible Checkboxes Everywhere! “Channel Factors” in the Age of LMSs

I just submitted a proposal for the summer ’24 IUT (Improving University Teaching) conference which this year is held in Milwaukee, and co-organized by Universities of Wisconsin and UW-M. I plan to attend regardless of the acceptance of the proposal: it sounds like an interesting conference and it’s almost local… Here is the proposal:

Title: Invisible Checkboxes Everywhere: “Channel Factors” in the Age of Technology-Mediated Student-Instructor Interactions

Short Abstract: This workshop examines “channel factors”: rarely-explored, invisible default settings in widely used technologies that mediate instructor-student interactions, and their impact on student experience. It encourages participants to pivot from acceptance of defaults to evidence-based decisions: some well-hidden, little checkboxes have big impact, and can reduce achievement gap and drop-out rates, or do harm. Leveraging the presenter’s experience with instructional tech, and participants’ as architects of students’ learning experiences, this workshop will equip them with tools to identify these factors in their own context, and to plan for using them purposefully to improve student learning.

Session Description: In this interactive workshop, participants will delve into the concept of “channel factors” and their impact on student-instructor interactions mediated by instructional technology that dominates most of today’s higher ed teaching. The presenter will guide attendees through the identification of these influential yet often unnoticed, “almost invisible” elements, using real-world examples and experiences from a healthcare department of a research university . By examining the “choice architecture” embedded in LMS and surprising biases in other technologies, such as increasing no-transparent use of AI, participants will gain insights into how these factors can be not only identified, but also intentionally leveraged to enhance student engagement and learning.

The workshop will also provide a framework for developing a plan to identify and address these “pivot points” within participants’ own institutional contexts (departments, colleges), such as specific LMSs used, or institutional AI policies. Through collaborative mini-discussion and practical exercises, attendees will learn how to transform these mostly invisible levers into deliberate, evidence-informed strategies.

The session will culminate in an exploration of the potential impact of these strategies on reducing achievement gaps and drop-out rates, particularly in large gateway courses. By sharing insights and best practices from their own department, the presenter will offer perspectives on how multiple stakeholders, including academic technology & innovation team, working together with advising, faculty, and program directors, can work together to develop a structured, ongoing approach that addresses these hidden “pivot points” (including the ones yet to materialize), and create a more supportive and inclusive learning experience for students.

Overall, this workshop aims to increase awareness of the significant influence of “channel factors” that hide embedded within educational technologies, to empower participants to take a more intentional approach to their use, and to provide practical guidance for implementing evidence-supported, consensus-decision strategies that take into account the views, experience, and perspectives of multiple departmental stakeholders. By shedding light on these often overlooked elements, the session seeks to equip educators with the knowledge and tools to make a meaningful impact on student success.

This session will include the overview of key concepts, such as “channel factors”, “choice architecture”, “conformity effects,” or “pluralistic ignorance” and a few specific case studies that illustrate the practical challenges and solutions. If offered as a workshop (90 mins ideally, but 60 could work), this session will include opportunities for structured group mini-discussions, and hands-on activities to reinforce key concepts and facilitate practical application. Participants will leave with a clear, deeper understanding of the hidden influences at play, and a clear roadmap for using these insights to enhance student engagement and improve outcomes.

If this was offered as a roundtable – what would I ask the participants?

In the LMS my department uses, deep at the bottom of the Settings page, in more settings…” there is a small checkbox that allows students to edit and delete their discussion posts after posting. What impact does checking it on or off have on learning? Can you think of other small, hidden checkboxes or invisible “black box” mechanisms with potentially outsized impact on students? 
At what level (individual instructor, technology team, “academic affairs” or equivalent level, a committee or workgroup with a range of stakeholders) should such decisions be made? Should they be hard policy or soft guidelines?

If this was a workshop, what would be the activities to engage the audience?

1. Small group mini-discussion: are there features in the software you use for class that surprised you when you discovered them? What is their impact on students? (results shown / shared on Slido);
2. Case study (in small groups): presentation of a real “checkbox dilemma” and invitation to propose a solution, followed by shared research that informed my department’s decision
3. Stakeholder mapping: drafting an initial list of people (by function) who should be involved in a decision-making process.
4. Vote: Decision or recommendation: once the “better option” is identified, is it a recommendation or (departmental) policy? Why?
5. All-room idea brainstorming (Slido): What to do about unclear outcomes (no clear winner solution)?

What key reference is the basis for this proposal:

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

More references?

The “origins” mention on how these ideas started in the first place, goes to Kurt Levin’s 1952 classic (psychology) paper on channel factors. Then, Thaler (Nobel, 2017) and Sunstein’s (Holberg Prize, 2018) book “Nudge” (expanded anniversary “final” edition), supported by numerous references to papers grounded in experiments conducted by both authors, such as their foundational paper: Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R. and Balz, John P., Choice Architecture (April 2, 2010); A recent good summary on the role of defaults (broadly understood) is Jachimowicz Jon M. et al. “When and Why Defaults Influence Decisions: A Meta-Analysis of Default Effects.” Behavioural Public Policy 3.2 (Cambridge UP, 2019): 159–186. Web.