CHANGING THE EQUATION

1. CHANGING THE EQUATION • The Context: Scaling a Proven Innovation • Program Structure and Resources • Readiness Criteria • Redesign Alliance Conference

2. BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • We believe that every life has equal value and that each individual should have the opportunity to live up to his or her potential. In the U.S., the key to opportunity is education. • The foundation’s U.S. Program is focused on ensuring that 1) a high school education should result in college readiness and 2) postsecondary education should result in a degree or certificate with genuine economic value.

3. CHANGING THE EQUATIONKey Characteristics • Builds on NCAT’s record of success in course redesign • Goal: to scale a proven innovation, the Emporium Model • Focus: remedial and developmental math at community and other two-year colleges • 25+ institutions will be selected to receive a $40,000 grant • Support collaboration among NCAT staff, Redesign Scholars and institutional teams

4. 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.

5. WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY? National Association of Developmental Educators (NADE) says using “developmental” and “technology” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

6. FEDERAL STUDY SAYS NO BENEFIT GOING HIGH-TECH • According to the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a research arm of the Education Department, going high-tech doesn't lead to higher math scores. • The study found achievement scores were no higher in classrooms using math software products than in classrooms without the new products.

7. REASON? • Using technology does not automatically lead to increased student success. • It’s how you use the technology that leads to increased student success.

8. A BRIEF HISTORY OF COURSE REDESIGN • The Program in Course Redesign 1999 – 2003 (30 institutions) • The Roadmap to Redesign (R2R) 2003 – 2006 (20 institutions) • Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) 2006 - 2009 (60 institutions) • Programs with Systems and States 2006 – 2010 (~80 institutions)

9. REDESIGN SUCCESS IN COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH • Increased the percentage of students who successfully complete a college-level math course by 43% on average (7% to 170%) • Reduced the cost of instruction by 37% on average (19% to 77%) • Impacted ~13,000 students per year

10. IMPROVING SUCCESS IN COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH

11. REDUCING THE COST OF COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH

12. REDESIGN SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENTAL MATH • Increased the percentage of students who successfully complete a developmental math course by 51% on average (10% to 135%) • Reduced the cost of instruction by 30% on average (12% to 52%) • Impacted ~10,000 students per year

13. IMPROVING SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENTAL MATH

14. REDUCING THE COST OF DEVELOPMENTAL MATH

15. REDESIGN SCHOLARS • Betty Frost – Jackson State CC • Jamie Glass – U of Alabama • Phoebe Rouse – LSU • John Squires – Chattanooga State CC • Kirk Trigsted – U of Idaho • Karen Wyrick – Cleveland State CC

16. CHANGING THE EQUATIONScaling a Proven Innovation • Moving beyond the experimental phase • There is room for continuous improvement but not for starting over. • To participate, you must meet our design criteria. • Key elements that you must include • 1) Emporium Model • 2) Modularization • 3) All remedial and developmental courses

17. EMPORIUM MODEL • Eliminates all lectures • Replaces them with a learning-resource center (lab) model • interactive software • on-demand, personalized assistance • Permits the use of multiple kinds of personnel • Allows multiple courses to be offered at the same time and place • Can be adapted for different kinds of institutions

18. FIXED VS. FLEXIBLE VERSIONS • Mandatory lab attendance (e.g., a minimum of 3 hours weekly) ensures that students spend sufficient time on task and receive on-demand assistance. • These hours may be scheduled • at the student’s convenience • by the institution for student cohorts • Optional: Mandatory weekly group meetings enable instructors to follow up on areas of weaknesses, emphasize particular applications and build community among students and with instructors.

19. EMPORIUM MODELKeys to Success • Students spend the bulk of their course time doing math problems. • Students spend more time on things they don’t understand and less time on things they have already mastered. • Students get assistance when they encounter problems in doing math.

20. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY MODULARIZATION? • Breaking the course sequence into smaller “chunks” • Permitting students to test out and move on when they show mastery of a “chunk” • Permitting students to move through the modules at their own pace and keep moving

21. WHY MODULARIZE? • “The redesign process should take into consideration the large and diverse student population which we serve. • Of particular note is the large number of students taking these courses and the wide range of ACT math sub-scores of students in this population. • The best redesign plan would consider the academic needs of these students and reflect instructional methods which would enhance the learning experience for the students at each extreme and in the middle.”

22. WHY MODULARIZE? • “Currently, all students spend the same amount of class time working on the same course elements.” • “The traditional format does not allow for variances in skills areas or learning differences.” • “We currently lose some capable students who are held back by the less capable ones, and we lose some of our less capable students because they cannot keep up with the rest of the class.”

23. WHY MODULARIZE? • “Modularizing courses will focus on the needs of individual learners.” • “Students will participate in a learning experience that gives more time to deficient skills and less time to those skills at which they are already competent.” • “Some students will progress more rapidly and early exit developmental math.”

24. Version 1 3 courses 32 mini-modules Students are placed at appropriate module. Students add second course if one is completed. Version 2 3 courses 12 modules All students start at module #1. Students register for “shell” courses. MODULARIZATIONRemedial & Developmental Both: mastery learning + the ability to move on to the next course in one term

25. CHANGING THE EQUATIONScaling a Proven Innovation • Moving beyond the experimental phase • There is room for continuous improvement but not for starting over. • To participate, you must meet our design criteria. • Key elements that you must include • 1) Emporium Model • 2) Modularization • 3) All remedial and developmental courses

27. CHANGING THE EQUATIONProgram Structure and Resources

28. ELIGIBILITY • Public, independent non-profit and for-profit institutions • Regionally accredited • Associate-degree granting • Two-year branch campuses of four-year institutions (Four-year institutions are not eligible to apply.)

29. TIMELINE March 2010 Orientation at conference April 15, 2010 Readiness responses due April 30, 2010 50 institutions selected May 21, 2010 Planning workshop Aug 1, 2010 Final proposals die Aug 15, 2010 Grants awarded Fall 2010 Campus planning/development Spring 2011 Redesign pilots Summer 2011 Pilot assessments Fall 2011 Full implementation Spring 2012 Redesign assessments

30. THREE-STAGE APPLICATION PROCESS • Stage 1: Learn About NCAT Redesign (December 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010) • Stage 2: 50 Teams Ready to Redesign (April 1 – 15, 2010) • Stage 3: Develop a Final Redesign Plan (May 1 – August 1)

31. STAGE 1 Learn About NCAT Redesign • Background reading • Conference • Preliminary readiness

32. STAGE 2 Identify 50 Teams Ready to Redesign • Establish course redesign teams • Faculty experts • Administrators • Technology professionals • Assessment experts • Submit readiness responses

33. STAGE 3Develop a Final Redesign Plan • 50 semi-finalists selected and supported • May 21 planning workshop • August 1 final proposal submissions

34. CHANGING THE EQUATIONProgram Resources • NCAT’s Planning Resources • Redesign Scholars • A Network of Experienced Institutions: the Redesign Alliance

35. Six Principles of Successful Course Redesign Four Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Things You Ought To Consider Proposal Example Increasing Student Success: Redesigning Mathematics Articles and other resources, including FAQs NCAT RESOURCES IN MATH COURSE REDESIGN http://www.thencat.org/Mathematics/CTE/CTE.htm

36. PLANNING WORKSHOP May 21, 2010 Dallas, TX • Review of readiness responses and workshop homework • Plenaries and break-out groups • How to organize a math emporium • How to modularize • How to engage students • Preparing the final proposal • Software exhibits

37. FINAL PROPOSALS DUE 8/1/10 • How will you implement the Emporium Model and embody the Six Principles? • How will the lab component of your redesign operate? • What learning materials do you plan to use? • How will you measure student learning? • How will you reduce costs; what will you do with the savings? • How will you address the five critical implementation issues? + A timeline and a project budget

38. WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT QUALITY AND COST? The factors that lead to increased student learning and increased student retention are the same as those that lead to reduced instructional costs!

39. SIX PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN #1: Redesign the whole course sequence #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 #6: Modularize the student experience

40. #1: REDESIGN THE WHOLE COURSE SEQUENCE • Quality: Eliminate “course drift”; greater course coherence and quality control • Cost: Eliminate duplicate effort; create opportunities for alternate staffing

41. #2: ENCOURAGE ACTIVE LEARNING • Quality: "Students learn math by doing math, not by listening to someone talk about doing math.“ • Cost: Reduce faculty preparation and presentation time; reduce grading time (e.g., interactive software)

42. #3: PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUALIZED ASSISTANCE • Quality: Students get help when they are “stuck” and stay on task rather than giving up (e.g., software tutorials, F2F in labs) • Cost: Apply the right level of human intervention (e.g., tutors, course assistants)

43. #4: BUILD IN ONGOING ASSESSMENT AND PROMPT (AUTOMATED) FEEDBACK • Quality: Enables practice, diagnostic feedback, focused time on task • Cost: Good pedagogy with large numbers of students; automated grading; faculty spend time on what students don’t understand

44. #5: ENSURE SUFFICIENT TIME ON TASK AND MONITOR STUDENT PROGRESS • Quality: Self-pacing vs. milestones for completion; points for engagement • Cost: Course management systems can reduce costs while increasing oversight; automated intervention

45. #6: MODULARIZE THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE • Quality: Students spend the amount of time needed to master each module, proceeding at a faster pace if possible or at a slower pace if necessary. • Cost: Modularization leads to a reduced need for course sections.

46. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE August 1, 2010 – April 1, 2012 • Grant awards: $40,000 • Concrete planning: Fall 2010 • Scholar consultants • Pilot: Spring 2011 • Revisions: Summer 2011 • Full Implementation: Fall 2011 • Workshops (2)

48. CHANGING THE EQUATIONReadiness Criteria

49. READINESS CRITERIAWhat are we looking for in your responses? • Understanding of the program • Evidence of preliminary planning • Team response—not by one person

50. READINESS CRITERION #1Course Sequence • What impact would redesigning the course sequence have on the curriculum, on students and on the institution—i.e., why do you want to redesign this course sequence?