New ART 2.0 Features Just in Time for Course Backpacking

Amy Homkes-Hayes, Lead Innovation Advocate


A Brief History

The ART 2.0 dashboard with a collect of bar graphsAcademic Reporting Tools, known as ART 2.0, was brought into the Digital Innovation Greenhouse (DIG) by faculty champion, Dr. August Evrard, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Physics and Astronomy. ART 2.0 provides the Michigan community with views of the University’s curricular history manifested in several ways. In other words, we like to think of ART 2.0 as housing virtual decks of cards: one for courses, another for instructors, and so on. Since March 2016, CourseProfile has enabled students to view course history on things like enrollment by school or college, majors of students who took the course, pre/concurrent/post course selections, a subset of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) questions on topics like the perceived workload of the course, and how much the course increased interest in the subject. Starting in November 2016, the InstructorInfo deck has enabled students to view a subset of SET questions on topics like preparedness and clarity.

Since course cards are linked to several school and college course guides, accessible via Wolverine Access, and through the ART 2.0 homepage (, it makes it easy for students to use ART 2.0 when backpacking and registering for courses. ART 2.0 provides access to information U-M students may use to help explore what kind of courses to take, discover useful data on courses and instructors, and help decide, ultimately, what classes to enroll in based on their academic, personal, and professional goals.

Exciting New ART 2.0 Developments

The ART 2.0 search interfaceAs we continue to iterate on features for ART 2.0, we think about, and seek feedback on, what additional “card decks” would aid student course exploration and decision making. It’s with this frame in mind that we are excited to announce the next iteration in ART 2.0, MajorMetrics. MajorMetrics is a milestone for ART 2.0 by offering undergraduate major and minor information to the U-M community. Each MajorMetrics card includes a timeline of how many students have graduated with a particular degree (referred to as majors for undergraduate students) spanning the past 10 years. We have also included statistics on joint degrees (co-majors) and minors. We hope, like CourseProfile and InstructorInfo, MajorMetrics will enable students to conduct research on majors and minors they are interested in, or have already declared, using a rich data set.

In addition to MajorMetrics, we have substantially improved the search feature for ART 2.0. We now offer separate searching options by course, instructor, or degree, and the results are now presented in a more user-friendly fashion. We know giving students multiple pathways for searching courses, faculty, and majors contributes to their use of the tool, and we expect students will take advantage of these new search features as they backpack and register for Winter 2018 courses and beyond.

Like all our tools in DIG, ART 2.0 continues to evolve. Each production cycle brings fresh and innovative ways for students, faculty, and staff to view and use University data to enhance the experience and informed decision-making of curricular choices here at the University of Michigan.

A Look Inside the Video Production Techniques Behind the University of Michigan Teach-Out Series

Cy Abdelnour, Instructional Media Specialist, shares the importance of production quality for educational courses with this look into the production techniques utilized in the University of Michigan Teach-Out Series.

Connecting Schools and College Across Campus with “Traveling Innovation Hours”

Rachel Niemer, Director of the Gameful Learning Lab

Sarah Moncada, Academic Innovation Initiative Project Coordinator

In preparation for the November 14 Academic Innovation Initiative Summit, the Office of Academic Innovation has expanded its “Innovation Hour” event series in an effort to foster dialogue and collaboration between units across campus. This expanded series, called “Traveling Innovation Hours,” is a set of informal conversations, each co-hosted by Academic Innovation and a pair of U-M schools and colleges.

During the 2016-2017 academic year, Innovation Hours were gatherings hosted biweekly by Academic Innovation during which U-M community members could drop in and discuss a particular topic or open question related to teaching and learning in higher education. Each Innovation Hour followed a theme, with topics ranging from accessibility, students’ educational pathways, “just-in-time” teaching models, and many more.

Last year’s Innovation Hours took place at the Office of Academic Innovation–either at the Digital Education and Innovation Lab on Washington Street or on the 8th floor of the Hatcher Graduate Library. While we drew a diverse set of participants to these events, we wanted to introduce new voices and ideas this year by bringing the conversation to familiar spaces across campus and focusing on themes that are especially pertinent to nearby schools, colleges, and programs. We decided to take Innovation Hours “on the road” and invite facilitators from the host units to determine the theme for each session. The Traveling Innovation Hour was born!

Traveling Innovation Hour participants seated in discussion around a table.

One goal of Traveling Innovation Hours is to showcase innovative teaching and learning work from the host units. An example of this took place at the first Traveling Innovation Hour, where Don Peurach (School of Education) and Katie Richards-Schuster (School of Social Work) shared their experiences creating content for their schools’ online MicroMasters courses and led a conversation on the unique challenges of building meaningful online learning experiences for fields like theirs in which in-person interactions are so key to practice. At the most recent Traveling Innovation Hour, Elisabeth Gerber (Ford School of Public Policy) and Michael Bloom (Law School) described the ways different technologies have helped them manage course projects in which students interact with external clients. They invited other attendees to brainstorm solutions for the unique difficulties of coordinating student-client interaction.

Another goal of the series is to introduce attendees to individuals outside their unit who have similar goals and priorities. Fortunately, we are seeing evidence that Traveling Innovation Hours are meeting this second goal as well: One participant of the Traveling Innovation Hour co-hosted by the College of LSA and the School of Information remarked the most useful part of the event was the chance to meet colleagues from other departments who have an interest in helping students find personalized pathways through U-M. In addition, at the end of the Traveling Innovation Hour co-hosted by the Schools of Kinesiology and Public Health, one attendee from Kinesiology took a moment to suggest that the two co-hosting schools clearly had a lot in common and should continue these conversations. A (comedically brilliant) Public Health faculty member timed her response perfectly, “What, are you asking us out on a second date?” Not only do those schools have shared intellectual interests — the people present also have very similar senses of humor!

We are currently planning next semester’s Traveling Innovation Hours. If you have an idea for a theme you would like to discuss at a future Innovation Hour, please share via email at Details about next semester’s Traveling Innovation Hours will be forthcoming on the Academic Innovation events page.

Inaugural Multidisciplinary Student Design Jam a Success

Amy Homkes-Hayes, Lead Innovation Advocate


What happens when you bring together students from diverse disciplines like public health, law, and information to tackle a real-world medical policy and regulation challenge? Turns out great ideas emerge from multidisciplinary teams working under a tight timeframe (just 4 hours) on a pressing design challenge. Recently, the Office of Academic Innovation partnered with the U-M School of Public Health, School of Information, and Law School to host a multidisciplinary student design jam.

Students were put into interdisciplinary teams to ensure a diverse and well-rounded approach to tackling our design challenge. Speaking of design challenges, our event served to be both timely and relevant in partnering with Michigan Medicine faculty Jodyn Platt, MPH, Ph.D. and the Michigan Health Information Network Shared Services (MiHIN), a State of Michigan non-profit organization focused on how health information is exchanged both within and beyond states throughout the U.S. As Professor Platt and her MiHIN colleagues explained, some states opt into sharing health information, while others opt out. Relatedly, currently there is no effective infrastructure for hospitals, clinics, and other patient serving entities to easily, efficiently, and securely share health records between them. As a result, most often hospitals rely on more labor and time intensive methods like fax to share records. As people like Professor Platt and organizations like MiHIN grapple with these challenges, designing better systems for granting permission to and share health data are timely.

Professor Platt and MiHIN challenged our teams to create a tool or a policy that effectively helped manage the sharing of health records and data within and beyond the State of Michigan. Our students quickly responded to the challenge and delved thoroughly into the five major steps of the design thinking process:

Iteration: Our teams brainstormed lots of ideas in response to the design challenge first as individuals, and then as groups. They grappled with questions on how existing, and highly variable, state laws and regulations informed their design process. They communicated with one another across difference as they clarified ideas and refined ideas.

Prototyping: Once our teams settled on an idea or framework they started prototyping designs. Some of our teams envisioned creating a system for patients and healthcare providers to access and update permissions for sharing health data. Others thought about existing healthcare infrastructure like medical records systems, insurance systems, and others to add permissions and information to. Student teams received feedback and guidance from Digital Innovation Greenhouse full-time user experience, behavioral science, and data science staff on things to consider and ways to build mock-ups and wireframes.

User Feedback and Prototyping (again): Each team met with with Professor Platt, her PhD student, Gracie Trinidad, and MiHIN leadership to get feedback and implement on their prototypes.

Pitch: Student teams were given four minutes each to pitch their final prototypes to Professor Platt and MiHIN. As you can imagine four minutes is not a lot of time to thoroughly explain your process and product, however our student teams did a great job of crafting concise presentations on their prototypes and their competitive advantages.

In the end, both Professor Platt and MiHIN indicated they were thoroughly impressed with the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and overall responsiveness of each design. Professor Platt and MiHIN also offered the winning student team the opportunity to present their prototype at the Michigan Medicine sponsored Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Learning Health Systems Symposium on November 14th, 2017, and both Professor Platt and MiHIN indicated a sincere interest in continuing to work with the winning team on their idea. Events like these demonstrate the value of tackling complex challenges relying on various backgrounds, experiences, identities, and skill sets.

As students indicated as they left for the evening, they appreciated learning from and being partners with students from other schools who they would otherwise may have never met. They remarked at how worthwhile it was to iterate for a real client with a pressing problem where their designs may make a real impact, and where they were able to deeply engage researchers and professionals dealing with these exact same problems in the field.


What to Expect at the Academic Innovation Initiative Summit

Rachel Niemer, Director of the Gameful Learning Lab, previews the Academic Innovation Initiative Summit on November 14, 2017.

Is it Time to Scale College Towns? Reimagining Public Engagement through Agile Design

This article was originally posted on 10/11/2017 on Inside Higher Ed

Full remarks viewable here

Full presentation viewable here

James DeVaney, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Innovation

To realize our preferred future of higher education, we have to create a vision of it. Growing up in one college town and spending my career in others, I took for granted until very recently that college towns are unique platforms for learning. Now I’m betting on the notion that like many other platforms, college towns are scalable. If this turns out to be true, a whole new world of possibilities for two-way public engagement is within reach.

Large wire sculpture of two adults sitting facing away from each other with solid structures of children inside the wire frames reaching out to each other

Love by Alexander Milov” by _masha is licensed under CC BY 2.0

When living in a college town, you begin your pursuits with a goal of seeking greater understanding, not with the goal of confirming a current set of beliefs. Fundamental to the dynamic university communities that anchor these unique college towns is compassion. Compassion, it turns out, is essential to discovery and discovery is at the center of a vibrant and healthy society. It’s time to invest time and treasure in the compassionate public square for the information age.

I’m proud of the real and vital commitments my own institution, the University of Michigan, has made to academic innovation, public engagement, and diversity, equity and inclusion. These mission-aligned investments fit together like puzzle pieces and signal to our community and the world that the leading public research university will continue its long-standing commitment to innovation, inclusion, excellence, and social justice well into the future.

As I’ve settled into my role at U-M over the last three and a half years, I’ve discovered there are many universities such as Davidson College, Georgetown University, and Dartmouth College, who share our values and sense of urgency. Another institution I’ve come to admire greatly is Duke University. So it was a joy to receive an invitation to speak at the Duke NextEd Festival last week in Durham to kickoff a community conversation around innovative ways to make the Duke educational experience more engaging, transformative, and equitable.

In my remarks on “Academic Innovation and the Compassionate Public Square” (full remarks and presentation viewable here), I described a problem: If the world of facts and basic research is no longer valued by society, we have a problem of relevance, not existence.

I then described how we are leveraging our model for academic R&D to design solutions to this problem of relevance. Universities watched as the bootcamp industry grew outside of academia. There is clear demand for just-in-time learning. We should take note but resist imitation. There is a real opportunity for universities to reclaim and reimagine the bootcamp concept and bolster leading research enterprises with a new capability for agile curriculum development. Imagine the power of just-in-time community problem solving fueled by the expertise and lived experiences of universities and their growing global learning communities.

College towns are platforms that need to be scaled. Higher education institutions regularly transform society while also providing anchors for tradition and values. Whether it’s accelerating or pacing, institutions are constantly influencing the velocity of societal change. We’re applying an academic R&D mindset at Michigan and it’s starting to scale. We are creating a model for agile curriculum development differentiated by the capacities of a vast research enterprise. This is about relevance.

University of Michigan Teach-Out SeriesTo provide an example of academic R&D in action, I described in my remarks the evolution of the Teach-Out model as a new opportunity for two-way engagement with the public. It is now possible to move from a producer push model to true conversation with a global public community. Through a dialogue-based approach we set higher expectations of the public as content creators and active participants. College towns are the greatest. And they can do better to facilitate compassionate and critical conversations around the issues most important to society.

The Teach-Out puts institutions, individual scholars, and diverse public stakeholders into conversation about real-time contemporary issues. By scaling communities that are bound together by a commitment to discovery, and moving beyond a broadcast model for public engagement, we have a much greater chance of activating public concern and elevating public discourse.

They day after I visited Duke for the NextEd Festival I returned home to Ann Arbor in time to listen to U-M’s President Mark Schlissel establish new commitments to reimagine public engagement. Building from a long history of public engagement and academic innovation at U-M, our mode of connected experimentation is about recognizing the diversity of learners in any large population and figuring out how to use technology not just to transmit but to help learners construct their own understanding of the world. Through meaningful two-way engagement we strengthen the U-M community and increase the power of our collective potential in pursuing new discoveries and greater understanding.

U-M was founded in 1817 to serve the Michigan Territories. In 2017, U-M is poised to create a compassionate public square through a growing and tangible focus on global and lifelong learning. A compassionate square that is virtuous, vibrant, vital, and vast, can only serve to elevate public discourse, not distort.

What I love about hearing from my colleagues at Duke, Davidson, Georgetown, Dartmouth and others, is that each institution is finding its own way. The magnitude of opportunities ahead is far greater than the capacity of any single institution and many solutions are needed in order to establish a an environment in which society and the academy learn from each other. U-M will celebrate academic innovation and public engagement at our Academic Innovation Initiative Summit next month. I hope other institutions will continue to design and share innovative solutions to two-way engagement with the public.

The Future of Engagement: Using Contextual Inquiry to Enhance the Course Advocate Role

Kayla Carucci, Community Engagement Intern

Why Contextual Inquiry?

At the Digital Education and Innovation Lab (DEIL), Course Advocates (CAs) play an integral part in managing online courses. Last month, we defined the role and responsibilities of CAs . One of our Learning Experience Designers described them as “the frontline for any problems that could surface after course launch.”

Initially the Lab employed only a handful of CAs, but today there are more than 50! While DEIL has experienced rapid growth throughout the past five years, the Course Advocate position has remained relatively unchanged. As a result, two DEIL employees suggested using contextual inquiry to provide recommendations on how to make the CA position more effective. But why use contextual inquiry?

Multicolored sticky notes placed in a hierarchy on a whiteboardBest-known for its use of the affinity diagram–more fondly known as an affinity wall by students and faculty at UMSI–contextual inquiry is a user-centered design method that utilizes inductive reasoning to organize, interpret and consolidate large quantities of information regarding complex systems and problems. By combining elements of ethnographic interviews and participant observation, this method produces rich qualitative data about daily work practices, culture and environment.


Selecting and Interviewing Participants

Before jumping in, I sat down with key stakeholders to clarify the goals and expectations for this project. Specifically, I was asked to focus on the training process for Course Advocates as well as how to increase their engagement levels. After selecting a group of 10 employees to interview, I began to research and observe the inner workings of DEIL in order to inform my own understanding of how the Lab typically operates.

The individuals selected for interviews contribute across the life-cycle of course development and included operations staff, Program/Project managers, Learning Experience Designers, faculty champions and Course Advocates. I wrote a unique set of questions for each employee, with the intention of learning about their job responsibilities and previous interactions with CAs.

To allow for candid discussion, each interview was held in a private location and all participants were invited to converse with me as if I knew absolutely nothing about DEIL. After each session, I studied my interview notes in order to distill key data points and generate follow-up questions; in total, around 500 key data points was transferred to individual post-it notes to be used during the wall building process.


Wall Building

A stack of yellow sticky notesInitially, affinity notes were sorted into large groups on whiteboards if they appeared to be related. They were reorganized numerous times until small hangings of one to five notes began to emerge. When a note did not fit into one of these hangings, they were added to a discard pile.

Eventually, the small clusters evolved to identify a total of 15 pressure points. These points formed six main findings and two additional areas for further exploration. When my affinity wall was complete, it spanned three 36” x 24” whiteboards and only 119 yellow notes remained.



My key findings were spread across four different themes–communication, productivity, engagement, and recruitment/hiring. In a final report, I outlined 11 recommendations which provided both short and long term solutions.

While some of my proposed recommendations were long term in scope, before my internship ended, I had the pleasure of enacting three smaller recommendations: renaming the initial on-boarding process “Orientation” and focusing on expectations and responsibilities; creating an internal-only course for new CAs to explore and learn their course platform; and creating a Slack channel for the course advocates to share knowledge and learn from one another.

I am hopeful the Digital Education and Innovation Lab will continue to implement my recommendations over the next year–I encourage you to keep an eye out for them!

Creating Accessible Content for Online Courses: Exploring New Methods and Workflows

Yuanru Tan, Learning Design and Accessibility Fellow

As a Learning Design and Accessibility Fellow in the Digital Education & Innovation Lab (DEIL), my focus this summer was to develop ways to improve the accessibility of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) at the University of Michigan. Here, I will focus on how I worked to improve the experience for learners who use screen readers to access online courses at U-M. However, we recognize that accessibility involves more than consideration of individuals with sensory disabilities, such as visual impairment and hearing impairment; learners with learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) and learners with limited technology resources (e.g., low quality internet) must also be considered when designing online courses.

In this blog post, I will share the process of how I assessed the accessibility levels of our current courses and how I developed methods and workflows to improve these assets, with the guidance of experts at U-M.


Getting started

To begin, I consulted with DEIL’s accessibility working group to learn more about the issues and challenges that are involved when developing a course. I learned that an overarching goal at DEIL is to design courses and produce materials that are accessible to the widest audience possible. I also met with leaders from U-M’s Office of Institutional Equity to further understand the requirements for online learners who are visually impaired and to learn about best practices for creating course assets that are accessible for them. Using these valuable insights as a starting point, I conducted an accessibility audit, which included reviewing our current MOOC materials and documenting the status of all course assets to identify areas for improvement. I learned DEIL has been doing an excellent job of creating materials that are accessible to many of our MOOC learners by consistently providing transcripts and captioning for all videos. However, two pathways for improvement were identified: (1) in many of our courses, we provide slides as downloadable files to accompany lecture videos, and we wanted to ensure these files are optimized for learners who use screen readers; and (2) some videos require that learners closely observe visual cues and content, revealing a need to create visual descriptions for these videos. My two main summer work goals were clear!


Optimizing files for use with screen readers

To gain insight into potential approaches for optimizing files for use with screen readers, I consulted with Jane Berliss-Vincent, Assistive Technology Manager at Information Technology Services. From my conversation with Jane, I learned there is often manual work that needs to be done to successfully convert a file. After repetitive experiments and tests, I found HTML is the most reliable and accessible file format for screen reader users. As a result, I developed a workflow that included multiple file conversions and use text formatting language (using Markdown syntax) to ensure the resulting HTML files were consistent in formatting and styling. In working with Brandon Werner, Screen Reader Specialist at Information Technology Services, I learned there are three essential attributes of accessible files. Users of screen readers must be able to: (1) use the arrow key to navigate, (2) use Tab key to locate hyperlinks and (3) use the “Enter” key to open hyperlinks. The HTML files I created using the workflow I developed, met these three requirements.


Preparing visual description for files and videos

Yuanru Tan

Some of our MOOC content contains static visual representations, such as figures, illustrations and graphs, often within lecture slides contained in our videos. We have been exploring how to write high quality “alt text” (alternative text), which is an informative and brief description of the essential content of an image. Learners who are visually impaired can then read the descriptions accompanying an image in the downloadable files we create (see section above) to accompany these videos. During this investigative process, we have found expert content knowledge is sometimes required to “interpret” complicated images. We are developing a process for gathering input and feedback from DEIL staff, faculty members and other content experts to ensure our “alt text” is highly accurate and informative.

Other visual content within some of our MOOCs are dynamic, such as demonstrations, performed on camera. For example, in a user experience testing video, learners are required to observe how a user interacts with a website. In order for visually impaired learners to interpret the exercise, it is necessary to describe the minute nuances of the user’s interaction with the website. In a follow-up consultation with Brandon Werner, I learned the preferred means of presenting this kind of content is in a separate text file with timestamps that correspond to video events. Brandon listened to the video’s audio and identified important questions about the users’ interactions with the website. To better understand the context of the activity, I met with the learning experience designers and project manager for the course. I then wrote a visual description to document what was happening in the video (e.g., mouse clicks, searching activity, scrolling) and tested it with a friend who had not seen the video. Following this iterative process, I improved the description and shared it with the course design team and faculty lead who approved it for use in the course. We believe it is important to be thorough and careful in this work because it has the potential to impact a learner’s understanding of course content!


Future Directions

Through the process, I have had many opportunities to speak with colleagues and experts at the University about how we might improve the accessibility of our online courses. However, I am still looking forward to hearing more perspectives, especially from MOOC learners with disabilities, to enrich my understanding of their experiences with the course assets we have created. Although my summer term as a Learning Design and Accessibility Fellow has come to an end, there are still ongoing opportunities to find and fill the gap between learner needs and the resources we provide. As a graduate student in the New Media & New Literacies program at the University of Michigan School of Education, I am very motivated by this summer’s experience and I will continue to work on improving the accessibility of online learning experiences in the future.

How Residential Students and Global Learners Play a Role in Enhancing the MOOC Experience

Cinzia Smothers, Community Engagement Manager

Stephanie Haley, Engagement & Iteration Manager

We often receive feedback from learners about how smoothly their MOOC learning experience ran. Since this is in large part due to our Course Advocates, we wanted to share some context on what their role is here in the Office of Academic Innovation.

Course Advocates (CAs) and Course Development Assistants (CDAs) are assigned to assist Faculty Members who work with us to design, produce, and offer a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC).

CDAs and CAs have very similar and, in many respects, overlapping roles. The work of a CDA takes place primarily during the development of the MOOC leading up to the point of the course launch. Some activities that CDAs might be involved with are assignment creation, assisting with course building, graphic design tasks, and more. The work of a CA begins slightly before the MOOC launches and continues through the management and maintenance of the MOOC Discussion Forums, as well as through the course review process for future iterations. It is also not uncommon – and is even encouraged, when practical – for a CDA to transition into the CA role for a designated MOOC.

Our team of CAs and CDAs currently consists of about 60 individuals with rich and diverse backgrounds and interests. Most CAs and CDAs are current U-M students (undergraduate as well as graduate), but there is also a subset of enthusiastic former MOOC learners who have joined the CAs/CDAs’ ranks, often by direct invitation of the respective faculty member.

Sophie, who holds a Master of Science degree in Web Applications Development and a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical/Computer Engineering, and who is the CA for Introduction to Data Science in Python and Applied Plotting, Charting & Data Representation in Python, became interested in MOOCs to stay involved in the Computer Vision sector. Reflecting on her experience as a CA, she said, “I enjoy helping learners troubleshoot problems with their assignments, it gives me a sense of empowerment and wellbeing.”

Blair, who is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education and the CA for Leading Ambitious Teaching & Learning, became a CA to gain a deeper understanding about various perspectives on systemic approaches to improving teaching and learning and also to learn more about MOOCs and innovative ways to increase access to educational opportunities. Reflecting on her experience so far, Blair said, “I like the opportunity to learn with and support a large group of learners in diverse contexts tackling the challenging issue of leading ambitious teaching and learning. I enjoy supporting the learners’ discussions about the course content because everyone brings such unique perspectives to the material and often these discussions push my own thinking.”

Isabella, CA for Mindware: Critical Thinking for the Information Age and Inspiring and Motivating Individuals, said, “I first got involved with CA work by helping to develop one of U-M’s courses, and now I enjoy being able to be a part of the course community and making sure students from all over are excited about the material and having a fun time taking our courses.”

Sometimes, CAs might take on slightly different responsibilities, depending on specific circumstances and the CA’s interests, aptitudes, and background. Because of this variety of responsibilities and backgrounds, and with the goal of developing appropriate and responsive workflows, we initiated a process of examining CAs’ relevant work-related needs. For example, Kayla Carucci, a graduate student who will start her PhD program at the U-M School of Information this fall, has been working at the Digital Education and Innovation Lab over the summer months to conduct a contextual analysis of the CA/CDA workflow (more to come on this soon!).

To learn more about the CDA/CA role here at Academic Innovation, check out this snapshot of the role and its responsibilities.

U-M students who would like to apply to this position are encouraged to submit their resume through the Student Employment Office website.