COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R)

1. COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R) • C2R goals and program structure • NCAT programs and Redesign Scholars • C2R tasks prior to 4/24 Institutes • Redesign Alliance Conference

2. FIPSE GRANTColleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) • October 2006 – September 2009 • Build on success of PCR and R2R • 60 institutions committed to engage in redesign • Redesign Scholars Program • 12 disciplinary institutes • Support collaboration among NCAT staff, Redesign Scholars and institutional teams • Disseminate successful redesign strategies at annual national conference

3. WHAT DOES NCAT MEAN BY COURSE REDESIGN? Course redesign is the process of redesigning whole courses (rather than individual classes or sections) to achieve better learning outcomes at a lower cost by taking advantage of the capabilities of information technology.

4. C2R PROGRAM RESOURCES • NCAT’s Redesign Methodology • Nineteen Redesign Scholars • A Network of Experienced Institutions: the Redesign Alliance

5. C2R ROUND III PARTICIPANTS • Arizona State U: Leisure & Quality of Life • Coppin State U: Technology Fluency • Edison State College: Reading III • El Paso CC : Intermediate Algebra • Morehead State U: College Algebra • Regis U: Writing/Composition • Santa Fe College: Intermediate Algebra • U of MD Eastern Shore: Biology • U of Minnesota: Psychology • UNC Charlotte: Spanish • UW Bothell: Pre-Calculus

6. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN Challenge colleges and universities to redesign their approaches to instruction using technology to achieve quality enhancements as well as cost savings. 30 projects 1999 - 2003

7. IT IS POSSIBLE TO INCREASE LEARNING WHILE REDUCING COST • 25 of 30 PCR projects improved learning; the other 5 showed equal learning. • 24 measured course completion rates; 18 showed improvement. • All 30 reduced costs by 37% on average, with a range of 15% to 77%. Program in Course Redesign

8. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN:Rounds I and II • John Broida - U of Southern Maine • Elizabeth Connor - UMass Amherst • Joe Benson - U of Alabama • Malcolm Hill - Fairfield U (now U of Richmond) • Candace Thille - Carnegie Mellon • Kirk Trigsted - U of Idaho

9. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN:Round III • Gordon Hodge – U of New Mexico • Dennis Pearl – Ohio State • Rob Sanders – Portland State • Sally Search – Tallahassee CC • Jim Wohlpart – Florida Gulf Coast

10. THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGN2003 - 2006 • R2R established a more efficient means of spreading the ideas and practices that came out of the PCR to additional institutions. • Our goal was to accelerate institutional adoption by simplifying the redesign process--making it as close to turnkey as possible--while allowing for institutional individuality in the adoption process.

11. STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGY“A Menu of Redesign Options” • Readiness Criteria • Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign • Five Models for Course Redesign • Five Models for Assessing Student Learning • Cost Reduction Strategies • Five Critical Implementation Issues • Assessment Planning Forms • Course Planning Tool • Course Structure Form • Course Savings Summary • Planning Checklist

12. ROADMAP TO REDESIGN • 10 of 12 R2R projects improved learning; the other 2 showed equal learning. • 9 of 12 improved course completion rates. • All 12 reduced costs by 32% on average, with a range of 13% to 68%.

13. ROADMAP TO REDESIGN • Ron Henry • Georgia State University • Phoebe Rouse • LSU • Bill Williams • Eastern Washington University

14. NCAT PROGRAMS:Putting the Pieces Together • 1999 – Pew-funded RPI Center • Program in Course Redesign • Roadmap to Redesign • 2003 – Independent 501c3 • State- and System-based Programs

15. Pilots South Dakota Hawaii Ohio Minnesota Full-Scale Arizona Maryland Mississippi SUNY Tennessee Texas STATE- AND SYSTEM-BASED PROGRAMS

16. STATE-BASED PROGRAMS:Ohio Learning Network • Margaret Trim • Central Ohio Technical College • Amiee Wagner • Central Ohio Technical College • Mary Jane Pasky • Lorain County Community College

17. INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS • Tristan Denley • Ole Miss (now Austin Peay State U) • Michelle Miller • Northern Arizona U

18. BRING A REDESIGN SCHOLAR TO YOUR CAMPUS • FIPSE grant • $1,000 in honoraria ($500 each) • $1,000 in travel • Other visits are possible at campus expense.

19. C2R TIMELINE Feb–Mar 2009 Establish campus teams Mar 27, 2009 Conduct baseline assessments Mar–Apr 2009 Prepare draft redesign plans Apr 24, 2009 Disciplinary institutes Jun 1, 2009 Teams submit final plans Summer 2009 Campus planning and development Fall 2009 Pilot redesign projects Jan–Feb 2010 Assess the pilot results Mar 2010 Share results at Conference

20. BASELINE ASSESSMENTSDeadline: March 27th • Student learning outcomes • Course completion rates • Traditional course costs (CPT)

21. ASSESSMENT GOAL To establish the degree to which improved learning has been achieved as a result of the course redesign.

22. ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF OBTAINING DATA • Baseline “Before” (traditional) and “After” (redesign) • Parallel Sections – Compare traditional sections and redesigned sections (Fall 2008)

23. CHOOSE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD: FIVE MODELS A. Comparisons of Final Exams B. Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from Exams C. Comparisons of Pre- and Post- Tests D. Comparisons of Student Work using Common Rubrics E. Comparisons of Course Grades using Common Criteria

24. GRADES ARE NOT A SUFFICIENT MEASURE OF STUDENT LEARNING • Lack of consistency • Different coverage • Different tests and exams • Curving • Inflation Use only for course completion!

25. BASELINE ASSESSMENT DATA • Do you have baseline learning data? • If yes, please report it below. • If no, please describe how you plan to collect it. • Timeframe (e.g., fall 2002 semester, AY 2003-2004) • # of traditional sections • # of students in each section • # of students (total) • Which method of obtaining data did you use or do you plan to use?

26. BASELINE COURSE COMPLETION DATA • Timeframe (e.g., fall 2002 semester, AY 2003-2004, five-year average 1999-2004) • # of traditional sections • # of students in each section • # of students (total) • For each grade: number and percentage of students earning • Fall – Spring problem

27. COURSE PLANNING TOOL A decision-making tool that enables institutions to compare the “before” activities and costs (the traditional course) and the “after” activities and costs (the redesigned course)

28. THE CPT - IS IT WORTH IT? • Provides a structure for the team to think about activities and costs • Allows consideration of changes in specific instructional tasks • Permits visualization of duplication and waste • Enables cost/benefit analysis re: type of personnel per task TEAM!!!

29. Instructional Costs per Hour

30. Traditional Course Preparation

31. Traditional Course Delivery

32. C2R DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTESApril 24, 2009 • 9:00 – 10:00 C2R Overview (Plenary) • 10:00 – 12:00 Disciplinary Breakouts • 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch • 1:00 – 1:45 Assessment & CPT Review (Plenary) • 1:45 – 3:30 Innovative Practices • 3:30 – 4:00 Report Back Next Steps (Plenary)

33. DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTES HOMEWORK • Help us plan (Kay Katzer) • Background reading • Team presentation • 10 minutes • Choice of model • How you intend to implement the Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign • Feedback from Redesign Scholars

34. Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES

35. CHOICE OF MODEL • Supplemental: U of Minn (Psychology) • Replacement: Morehead State U (College Algebra), U of MD Eastern Shore (Biology), UNC Charlotte (Spanish) • Emporium: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (Interm Algebra), UW Bothell (Pre-Calc) • Fully Online: Arizona State U (Leisure) • Buffet: Coppin State U (Technology), Edison State College (Reading), Regis U (Writing/Composition)

36. Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES

37. FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN #1: Redesign the whole course #2: Encourage active learning #3: Provide students with individualized assistance #4: Build in ongoing assessment and prompt (automated) feedback #5: Ensure sufficient time on task and monitor student progress

38. FINAL PLAN FORMATDue June 1, 2009 • Abstract • Application Narrative • Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles • Learning materials: what you plan to use • Redesign Scholars and the NCAT staff: how you’ve taken advantage and/or how you plan to do so • Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings • Implementation issues: what you plan to do to address them • Timeline: pilot in fall 2009; indicate future plans

39. FINAL PLANS FORMATDue June 1, 2009 • Tools and Forms • Assessment Form • Course Completion Form • Course Planning Tool (CPT) • Course Savings Summary Form (CSS) • Course Structure Form (CSF) • A draft of your CPT is due on 5/25/09.

40. Five Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES

41. WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION? • Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow? • Is your enrollment stable or declining?

42. ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH (5) • Increase # of students served: Regis U • Increase section size: ASU,Coppin State U, UNC Charlotte • Increase section size and change the mix of personnel: UMES

43. STABLE ENROLLMENT (3) • Reduce the number of sections, increase the section size: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (+ change the mix of personnel) • Decrease number of faculty and increase instructor load: Morehead State U

44. NOT CLEAR OR IN PROCESS OF DECIDING (3) • Edison State College • University of Minnesota • U of Washington Bothell

45. Growth argument must be supported by data. • You can change your mind, but you must make a decision. • Retention is a “hope” - not a strategy. • Beware of paper savings!

46. Coordinated development and delivery and shared instructional tasks Interactive tutorial software Automated grading Course management software Peer interaction or interaction with other personnel Online training materials Individual development and delivery Face-to-face class meetings Hand grading Human monitoring and course administration One-to-one faculty/student interaction Face-to-face training of GTAs, adjuncts and other personnel LABOR SAVINGS TACTICSSubstitute (in part or in whole)

47. Step 1: Complete the CPT. • Step 2: Translate “saved” hours to one of the cost savings strategies. • Reducing time spent by individuals is an enabler that allows you to choose a cost savings strategy. • If you stop at the first step, you create what NCAT calls “paper savings.” • Paper savings = A workload reduction for individuals but not cost savings to the department or institution.

48. Traditional Each instructor teaches 1 section Section size = 25 Time spent = 200 hours Redesign Time spent = 100 hours Options: Each instructor = 2 sections of 25 Each instructor = 1 section of 50 COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE

49. NCAT CORPORATE ASSOCIATES • Blackboard • McGraw-Hill • Pearson Education

50. PROGRAM CONSULTANTS • Carol Twigg ctwigg@theNCAT.org • Carolyn Jarmon cjarmon@theNCAT.org • Kay Katzer kkatzer@theNCAT.org THE REDESIGN SCHOLARS