Maryland Course Redesign Orientation Workshop October 2010

1. Maryland Course Redesign Orientation WorkshopOctober 2010 Welcome

2. History and Lessons Learned • Dr. Donald Spicer, USM

3. Background of Course Redesign • The problem • Large enrollment courses are almost universal and are problematic for students, faculty, and institutions • Long recognized but no full acceptable solutions were available • Pew Charitable Trusts funded a study in 1999 of models/strategies to address this • Premise----improving learning outcomes and saving resources need not be mutually exclusive • Appropriate use of technology may be the needed perturbation of the system

4. NCAT Programs • Initial program was to fund 10 institutions per year for 3 years to undertake model redesigns • All segments of higher education---public and private • A wide range of disciplines • Outcome • Most achieved improved learning outcomes • All saved money in offering the course • Subsequent programs focused on scaling up and/or addressing specific issues (e.g., developmental courses)

5. Findings • Five general models were used • Several common characteristics of successful redesigns were identified • Several hundred courses have been redesigned across the country subsequently

6. USM Involvement • Regents’ Effectiveness and Efficiency Initiative • In 2006 turned to E&E in academic sphere • Became first System to adopt Course Redesign as a System • 10 projects funded for 3 years across the USM • Biology, Chemistry, English, Mathematics, Psychology • Developmental to 300 level courses • Each solving a specific ‘problem’

7. Outcomes • All showed improved learning outcomes • Most showed savings in staffing the course • Some one-time capital investments were required • Generally improved student satisfaction • Generally improved faculty satisfaction • Generally departments could reuse savings in supporting other courses • Plaudits from Chancellor, BOR • Notice in Annapolis that USM is taking initiative

8. Lessons Learned • Needs to be faculty driven with administrative support • These are team efforts---not enough to have one really committed faculty member • Projects most successful if there is team enthusiasm about solving one or more real academic or financial problems

9. Next Steps • Chancellor and USM raised money to extend these successes • This is one strategy in a broader discussion of academic transformation

10. Carnegie Award Redesign Initiative • One of 3 Initiatives funded by 2009 Carnegie Corporation Academic Leadership Award to Chancellor Kirwan and additional fund raising • Goal is to scale-up Course Redesign based on lessons learned from first round • Focus on core curriculum and gateway courses • Up to $20,000 from this USM fund to be matched by institution • Many projects will not need this much funding

11. Overview of Lumina Grant • Jennifer Frank, USM

12. Lumina Course Redesign Grants • Part of the Lumina Foundation's “productivity grants” to increase the percentage of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60% by 2025 • States receiving grants (2009-2013) include Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas • Lumina’s overarching goals through this initiative are to: • Increase and reward completion • Generate and reinvest savings • Educate and train in affordable ways

13. Lumina Course Redesign Grants • “Growing by Degrees” is a statewide partnership between: • Maryland Governor's Office • Maryland Department of Legislative Services • Maryland Association for Community Colleges • Maryland Higher Education Commission • Maryland Independent College and University Association • University System of Maryland • Our state’s agenda through this initiative is to: • Engage the Governor’s P-20 Leadership Council • Promote cross-institutional collaboration in effectiveness and efficiency (E&E) efforts, both academic and administrative • Support faculty and institutional efforts to redesign bottleneck undergraduate courses

14. Lumina Course Redesign Grants • Two rounds of funding: Fall 2010 and Fall 2011 • 20-24 projects total over two cohorts • $20,000 in direct support with $20,000 institutional match • Funding for USM institutions will focus on developmental courses (pilots at University of Baltimore and Frostburg) • Funding for community colleges, independent institutions, and other public four-year institutions will consider bottleneck courses from any discipline (including developmental courses) • Competitive RFP process will be described in the afternoon: • October 25: Concept Paper • December 1: Full Proposal • Cohort 1 selections made in December 2010

15. Role of Course Redesign Faculty Fellows • Faculty experienced in the methodologies of course redesign who will support other faculty course redesign efforts statewide through: • Providing direct consultation to participating institutions • Developing and delivering workshops for faculty cohorts working toward new redesigns • Participating in the evaluation of proposals for course redesign grants • Assisting in the development and content management of a course redesign Web site hosted by USM

16. 2010-2011 Faculty Fellows Raouf Boules, Towson University MCRI Project: Developmental Mathematics & Intermediate Algebra Megan Bradley, Frostburg State University MCRI Project: General Psychology Ronald Gutberlet, Salisbury University MCRI Project: Fundamentals of Biology Jennifer Hearne, University of Maryland Eastern Shore MCRI Project: Principles of Chemistry I Eileen O’Brien, University of Maryland Baltimore County MCRI Project: Introductory Psychology

17. Principles of Course Redesign • Dr. Ronald Gutberlet, Salisbury University

18. Principles of Course Redesign (as developed by NCAT)

19. Five Principles • Redesign the Entire Course • Encourage Active Learning • Provide Students with Individualized Assistance • Build in Ongoing Assessment and Prompt (Automated) Feedback • Ensure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress

20. Redesign Entire Course • Benefits • Opportunity to evaluate and focus course goals • Counteract course drift • Capture the best that each instructor has to offer • Reduce duplication of effort • Meaningful and interesting faculty interaction

21. Redesign Entire Course • Challenges • Compromise and consensus building • Instructor buy-in across all sections • Time needed for team-building • Can’t be forced • Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology • The more support, the better! • Dept Chair and entire department • Dean; Provost’s Office • Instructional Design

22. Encourage Active Learning • How effective is the traditional lecture? • Is anyone listening? • Is everyone listening?

23. Encourage Active Learning • Does information transfer still require a lecture in 2010? • What are the course goals and does the traditional lecture serve them? • Need not take an all-or-nothing approach • How to select an effective combination of lecture and active learning? • Can we do a better job of “priming” students for a lecture? • Is anyone reading the textbook?

24. Encourage Active Learning • Benefits • Multiple ways for students to engage with the course material • Students decide when to work on the course material, within the framework of scheduled deadlines • Students held accountable for assigned work • Student engagement and satisfaction • Faculty engagement and satisfaction

25. Encourage Active Learning • “…easy to want to come to class every time and not fall asleep.” • “This was my favorite course this semester.” • “I like the way this class is conducted better than my friend’s bio classes.”

26. Encourage Active Learning • Challenges • What to do with that uncomfortable feeling that you are failing to complete a critical transaction if you do not say something out loud to a room full of students? • Is anyone listening? • Is everyone listening? • Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism

28. Individualized Assistance • Online learning tools • Staffed computer labs • Peer learning assistants • Small group meetings • Discussion sections • Laboratories • Supplementary instruction programs • Online discussion tools

29. Ongoing Assessment • Online quizzes • Sophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant feedback, and assistance • Clickers in the classroom

30. Monitor Student Progress • Track the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software) • Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online work • Weekly online quizzes in Biol 101 • Design an intervention strategy for students who are performing poorly on assessments or who are not spending sufficient time on task • A job for peer learning assistants?

33. Methods/Models Course Redesign • Dr. Raouf Boules, Towson University

34. 1. The Supplemental Model • Retains the basic course structure, particularly the number of class meetings • Supplements lectures and textbooks with technology-based, out-of-class activities • Encourages greater student engagement with course content • Ensures that students are prepared when they come to class

35. 2. The Replacement Model • Replaces (rather than supplements) in-class time with online, interactive learning activities • Carefully considers why (and how often) classes need to meet face-to-face • Assumes that certain activities can be better accomplished online - individually or in groups • May keep remaining in-class activities the same or may make significant changes • May schedule out-of-class activities in computer labs or totally online • Examples: • Towson University: Developmental Mathematics • UMES: Principles of Chemistry

36. 3. The Emporium Model • Moves all classes to a lab setting • Multiple sections combined into one large section • Depends heavily on instructional software including interactive tutorials • Allows students to work as long as they need to master the content • Permits the use of multiple kinds of personnel • Requires a significant commitment of space and equipment • Can teach more than one course in the lab, thus leveraging the initial investment

37. Traditional (linear algebra) 38 sections (~40) 10 tenured faculty, 13 instructors, 15 GTAs 2 hours per week $91 cost-per-student Redesign 1 section (~1520) 1 instructor, grad & undergrad TAs + 2 tech support staff 24*7 in open lab $21 cost-per-student THE MATH EMPORIUMat Virginia Tech Replicated at U of Alabama, U of Idaho, LSU, Wayne State, U Missouri-St. Louis, Seton Hall

38. Virginia Tech Math Emporium537 computers, open 24/7

39. Mathematics Technology Learning Center (MTLC), University of AlabamaOpen 70 hours/week

40. Polya Math Center, University of IdahoOpen 84 hrs/wk

41. The LSU Math Lab

42. Eliminates all in-class meetings and moves all learning experiences online. Adopts successful design elements of Supplemental, Replacement and Emporium models including Web-based, multi-media resources, commercial software, automatically evaluated assessments with guided feedback, links to additional resources and alternative staffing models. Examples: RIO SALADO COLLEGE: Pre-Calculus Mathematics U. OF S. MISSISSIPPI: World Literature 4. The Fully On-Line Model

43. 5. The Buffet Model • Takes into account each student’s knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style • Provides an array of learning opportunities including : lectures, outside reading material, labs, small group study sessions, videos, oral and written presentations, homework assignments, individual and group, projects, etc • Started by Ohio State University for Introductory Statistics • Initially students are made familiar with the various options through examples made available for them to experience • Then the student selects what suits him/her and signs a contract detailing containing the choices and what needs to be accomplished

44. 6. The Linked Workshop Model • Retains the basic structure of the college-level/core course, particularly the number of class meetings • Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops” • Workshops are designed to remove deficiencies in core course competencies (for a particular course) • Students are individually assigned software modules based on results of diagnostic assessments/placement • Workshops consist of computer-based instruction, small-group activities and test reviews to provide additional instruction on key concepts

45. 6. The Linked Workshop Model (Cont’d) • Workshops are facilitated by students who have previously excelled in the core course and are trained and supervised by core course faculty • Workshop activities are just-in-time—i.e., designed so that students use the concepts during the next core course class session, which in turn helps them see the value of the workshops and motivates them to do the workshop activities.

46. Summary • Supplemental – Add to the current structure and/or change the content • Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities • Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting • Fully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities online • Buffet – Mix and match according to student preferences • Linked Workshop - Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”

47. Institutional and Course Readiness • Dr. Jennifer Hearne, UMES

48. USM Carnegie Course Redesign InitiativeINSTITUTIONAL & COURSE READINESS assessment Jennifer L. Hearne, Ph.D. October 7-8, 2010

49. INSTITUTIONAL READINESS CRITERIA • Does your institution want to control or reduce costs? • Does your institution want to increase productivity? • Academic productivity of students • Academic course offerings • Scholarly activity of faculty

50. INSTITUTIONAL READINESS CRITERIA • Is the institution committed to providing the needed support for the redesign project? • Short term AND long term commitment • Scheduling flexibility • Staffing • Technology and support