WORKSHOP II: Planning for Course Redesign

1. WORKSHOP II:Planning for Course Redesign • Review of Workshop Homework • Innovative Course Redesign Practices • Break-out Sessions: Redesign Plans • Preparing the Final Proposal

2. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008 • Abstract • Application Narrative • Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles • Learning materials: what you plan to use • Assessment strategy: how you plan to measure student learning • Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings • Five Critical Implementation Issues: how you will address • Timeline: pilot in spring 2009; full implementation in fall 2009

3. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008 • Tools and Forms • Assessment Forms (2) • Course Completion Forms (2) • Course Planning Tool (CPT) • Course Savings Summary Form (CSS) • Course Structure Form (CSF) • Budget and budget narrative • A draft of your CPT will be due on 5/26/08. • Grant awards will be made on 6/30/08.

4. http://www.theNCAT.org/R2R/R2R_Planning_Resources.htm • Five Models for Course Redesign • Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign • Five Models for Assessing Student Learning • Cost Reduction Strategies • Five Critical Implementation Issues • Five Course Redesign Proposals • Assessment Planning Forms • Course Planning Tool • Course Savings Summary • Course Structure Form • Planning Checklist

5. READINESS CRITERIA • What were we looking for in your responses? • Evidence of preliminary planning • Collaborative response—not by one person

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

7. SCIENCE & ENGINEERING (4) • MS State: Biology • MS State: Chemistry • MS State: Statics • USM: Nutrition

8. SOCIAL SCIENCE (2) • USM: Anthropology • USM: Psychology

9. HUMANITIES (3) • MS U for Women: English Comp • USM: Spanish • USM: Technical Writing

10. QUANTITATIVE (9) • Alcorn State: College Algebra • Delta State: College Algebra • Jackson State: Int & College Algebra • MS State: Statistics • MS U for Women: Int & College Algebra • MVSU: Int Algebra • U of MS: Business Calculus • USM: Int Algebra • USM: Computing

11. FACTORS YOU CITED REGARDING HIGH IMPACT • High drop-failure-withdrawal rates • Student performance in subsequent courses • Students on waiting lists • Growing enrollment pressures • Lack of consistency in multiple sections • Disparate range of student skill levels

12. READINESS CRITERION #2Redesign Model • Which redesign model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why? • What aspects fit your particular discipline and your particular students?

13. CHOICE OF MODEL • Supplemental: MS State (Biology) • Emporium: • Alcorn State (College Algebra) • Delta State (College Algebra) • MS State (Statics) • USM (Intermediate Algebra) • Fully Online: USM (Computing) • Buffet: USM (Nutrition)

14. REPLACEMENT MODEL • Humanities • MS U for Women (English Comp) • USM (Spanish) • USM (Tech Writing) • Natural and Social Sciences • MS State (Chemistry) • USM (Anthropology) • USM (Psychology)

15. REPLACEMENT MODEL • U of MS (Business Calculus) • MS State (Statistics) • Jackson State (Algebra) • MS U for Women (Algebra) • MVSU (Algebra)

16. REASONS CITED • “The mathematical background of students who enroll in these courses dictates that they need the human touch in addition to technology to adequately enhance their mathematics learning skills.” • “This model allows students to have more contact with supervisory personnel in a laboratory setting and reduces the number of contact hours in a formal lecture setting.” • “The classes will be designed so that each week students spend two periods in a traditional lecture classroom setting and the third period in a supervised lab.” • “Faculty will meet face-to-face for two 50-minute sessions each week. The third 50-minute session will be replaced with interactive learning using the chosen technology.”

17. The average ACT scores for incoming new students are low. As a result, the math faculty does not feel comfortable with allowing these students to work in a more independent fashion than allowed by the replacement model. • By using short “pre-quizzes" on new material which are due prior to class, the faculty member can specifically tailor classroom instruction based on the pre-quiz results. This may include no class time on topics which the students have already mastered and more time spent on topics that students are struggling with or that are more challenging.

18. Ole Miss Replacement 2 hours in class 1 hour in lab Hawkes PCR and R2R Emporium 1 hour in class 2 – 3 hours in lab MyMathLab REPLACEMENT VS. EMPORIUM Key Factors in Common Thoughtfulness! Software is part of the instructional team. Planning for the whole, not just the parts.

19. RESULTS OF USING THE EMPORIUM MODEL • At the U of Alabama, student success rates went from 40% to 78%. • U of Idaho students earned more As and Bs and fewer Ds and Fs. • At the University of Missouri-Saint Louis, successful completion rate (grade of C or better) increased from 63.3% to 78.4%. • In fall 2006, the final exam median at LSU was 78%, the highest ever achieved. • At Wayne State, two-thirds of those who took the final exam passed it compared to only about half in the traditional course.

20. READINESS CRITERION #3Assessment Plan • Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

21. FIVE MEASUREMENT METHODS • Common Finals: Alcorn State, Delta State, MS State (Chemistry), MS State (Statics), MS State (Statistics), MVSU, U of MS, USM (Computing) • Common Content Items: MS State (Biology) • Pre- and Post-Tests: USM (Anthropology) • Common Rubrics: MS U for Women (English Comp), USM (Technical Writing) • Multiple Methods: Jackson State, USM (College Algebra), USM (Nutrition), USM (Psychology), USM (Spanish)

22. More Is Not Better! • Performance in follow-on courses • Student attitude toward subject matter • Student interest in pursuing further coursework in the discipline • Differences in performance among student subpopulations • Deep vs. superficial learning

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!

26. READINESS CRITERION #4Cost Savings Plan • Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

27. 10 HAVE A CLEAR COST REDUCTION STRATEGY • Increase section size and decrease the number of sections (3) • Increase section size and decrease the number of sections to accommodate growth (3) • Increase section size, decrease the number of sections and change the mix of personnel teaching the course (3) • Increase faculty load from 4 to 6 courses (1)

28. FIVE ARE NOT CLEAR • Reduce the number of faculty (1) • Accommodate more students via virtual labs but lack large lecture halls (1) • Increase section size assuming growth (2) • Increase section size vs. keep section size the same (1)

29. THREE DO NOT HAVE A COST REDUCTION STRATEGY • Hope that retention will produce savings (2) • “Paper savings” - took the first step but not the second (1)

30. 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)

31. 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.

32. 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

33. Traditional Instructor load = 4 sections 150 minutes/week 3 50-minute or 2 75-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Redesign Instructor load = 6 sections 150 minutes/week 2 50-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Option: Reduce # of sections from 12 to 8 per semester, saving an additional $32,000 COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE

34. 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)

35. COST-PER-STUDENT

36. IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

37. IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

38. IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

39. IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

40. 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!!!

41. ACTIVITIES AND COSTS • Determine all personnel costs expressed as an hourly rate. • Determine the specific tasks associated with offering a course. • Determine how much time each person spends on each of the tasks. • Calculate the total instructional costs. • Redesign the course by task and re-calculate the costs.

42. COURSE STRUCTURE FORM A formatted spreadsheet that enables institutions to compare the structure of the traditional course with the that of the redesigned course (types of sections, number of students enrolled and the kinds of personnel)

45. READINESS CRITERION #5Learning Materials • Are the faculty able and willing to incorporate existing curricular materials in order to focus work on redesign issues rather than materials creation?

46. READINESS CRITERION #6Active Learning • Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

47. READINESS CRITERION #7Collective Commitment • Describe the members of your team, the skills they bring to the project and what their roles will be in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

48. FOR MORE INFORMATIONwww.theNCAT.org

49. INNOVATIVE COURSE REDESIGN PRACTICES • Creating "Small" within "Large“ • Undergraduate Learning Assistants • Freshmen Don’t Do Optional • Modularization • New Instructional Roles • Avoiding “Either/or” Choices

50. ASSIGNMENT • Each table will consider one practice. • Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? • If you were to implement the practice, what benefits would it offer? What challenges would it present? • What needs to be taken into account in implementing this practice? • Choose one person to report back.