Student-Centered Panels: Designed to center our work from the perspectives of the undergraduates we seek to serve; these panels highlight our undergraduates' experiences as they describe institutional barriers they have faced and curricular and co-co-curricular experiences that have been most valuable to their educational journeys at our institutions. 

Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS): Is there a sacred cow on your campus that you’d like to sacrifice, but you don’t think it will ever be possible? Try TIPS, a method for inducing heretical thinking and creative destruction. This session format helps participants answer the question, “What should we stop doing to make progress toward our top priority?” Session proposals should outline a common goal or priority for research universities (for example, increasing retention or reforming the general education curriculum). Facilitators will lead participants through a series of three steps: 1) Make a list of things we could do to achieve the worst result imaginable, 2) Go through the list and ask, “is there anything we are currently doing that resembles anything on this list?” and 3) identify which of these items that lead to the undesirable result should be stopped (and how). For more information, see the guidance from Liberating Structures: https://www.liberatingstructures.com/6-making-space-with-triz/  

Fishbowl Discussion: The fishbowl method for group discussions is a structured conversation technique that arranges participants in two concentric circles - an inner circle of active speakers (the "fish") who engage in discussion while an outer circle of listeners (the "bowl") observes without interrupting. Typically, the inner circle contains 3-5 chairs with one left empty, allowing participants from the outer circle to join the conversation by occupying the empty chair, at which point someone from the inner circle must voluntarily leave to maintain the balance. This arrangement promotes focused dialogue among a manageable number of people while still allowing everyone the opportunity to contribute, making it particularly effective for addressing controversial topics, encouraging participation from quieter group members, or facilitating deep discussions on complex issues. Session proposals should detail the topic to be discussed and include the names and brief bios of 3-5 conversation leaders who can initiate the discussion.

Responding to Data: In this session, the facilitators will distribute 1-page handouts with some data related to a topic/problem relevant to undergraduate education. The handout might include a data table, graph, or chart, with some brief contextual information. Participants will have 5 minutes to review and reflect upon what the data is telling them (think), share their reflections with a partner at the table (pair), and share their partner reflections with the whole table. Next, each table will engage in conversation about what these data mean for undergraduate education practitioners. Facilitators will close with their own analysis of the data, reflecting on what they heard from the group and noting novel insights that emerge.

Lightning Round: Up to three panelists give brief, 2-to-3-minute lightning round talks about topics in undergraduate education. Following the lightning rounds, panelists will sit at different tables in the audience. The full group will go through three 10-minute rounds of “speed discussion” during which the participants will get to ask questions of the panelist at their table, challenge their thinking, and share their perspectives and ideas. After 10 minutes, a bell will ring, and participants will rotate to another table (and another panelist). During the final 10 minutes, panelists will return to the front of the room and discuss what they heard from the small groups.

Investigating Root Causes of a Problem in Undergraduate Education: Go deep into a problem related to undergraduate education and leverage the insights of a diverse group of your peers. Session proposals will clearly state the problem they are trying to solve – this problem statement will become the “head” of a fish in a fishbone diagram. Facilitators will guide small groups (max 6) participants in systematically analyzing the root causes of the problem using several categories: people, technology, processes, infrastructure, data/measurement, and the natural environment. These root causes will form the main "bones" branching from the central spine of the fish. Through structured brainstorming and discussion, the group populates each category with increasingly specific contributing factors, drilling down with "why" questions to reach fundamental causes rather than symptoms. The facilitator encourages equal participation and challenges assumptions, ultimately producing a comprehensive visual representation that reveals the complex interrelationships between various factors influencing the problem, which then serves as the foundation for developing targeted, effective solutions.