Developmental Math Course Redesign (DMCR) Grant Program Technical Assistance Workshop

1. Developmental Math Course Redesign (DMCR) Grant Program Technical Assistance Workshop Jackie Lichter jlichter@mhec.state.md.us Melinda Vann mvann@mhec.state.md.us

2. Agenda Higher Education Commission • Introductions • Maryland’s College Completion Goals • About the Funder – Complete College America • DMCR Grant Program • Course Redesign Basics • Grant Application Development • Grant Review Process and Awarding • Project -wide Activity Requirements

3. Why is Maryland Interested in Course Redesign? Higher Education Commission • Governor O’Malley has set a statewide goal that by 2025 at least 55%of Marylanders age 25-64 will hold at least one degree credential – either an Associate’s or Bachelor’s. • To attain the number of degrees necessary to meet the completion goal, Maryland must produce 58,000 degrees per year, an increase of 20,000 – 23,000 annually. • Many will come from “natural” enrollment growth, but close to 15,000 must come from “new initiatives.”

4. What is the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant? Higher Education Commission • State of Maryland entered into agreement with Complete College America (CCA) as one of ten recipients of the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant • The state received $1 million for this grant • Approved project includes sub-grant to support the redesign of developmental math courses in the state’s institutions of higher education

5. The Developmental Math Course Redesign Grant Program Higher Education Commission Goals: • Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes. • Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment. • Reducing time-to-degree and accelerating student success toward degree completion. • Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.

6. What is Course Redesign? Higher Education Commission • 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. • Course redesign is not just about putting courses online. • It is about rethinking the way we deliver instruction in light of the possibilities that new technology offers.

7. What is Wrong with the Lecture?* Higher Education Commission • Treats all students as if they are the same • Ineffective in engaging students • Inadequate individual assistance • Poor attendance and success rates • Students fail to retain learning *NCAT Presentation

8. What is Wrong with Multiple Sections?* Higher Education Commission • In theory: greater interaction • In practice: large class size • In practice: dominated by the same presentation techniques • Lack of coordination • Inconsistent outcomes *NCAT Presentation

9. 5 Principles of Course Redesign Higher Education Commission • 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

10. Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire Course Higher Education Commission • Challenges • Compromise and consensus building • Instructor buy-in across all sections • Time needed for team-building • Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology • Gathering support for the project – the more support the better! • 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

11. Goal 2: Encouraging Active Learning Higher Education Commission • 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 • 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? • Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism

12. Goal 3: Individualized Assistance Higher Education Commission • Online learning tools • Staffed computer labs • Peer learning assistants • Small group meetings • Discussion sections • Laboratories • Supplementary instruction programs • Online discussion tools

13. Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/ Monitoring Student Progress Higher Education Commission • Online quizzes • Sophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant feedback, and assistance • Track the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software) • Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online work • 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?

14. 6 Models of Course Redesign Higher Education Commission • The Supplemental Model • The Replacement Model • The Emporium Model • The Fully Online Model • The Buffet Model • The Linked Workshop Model

15. The Supplemental Model Higher Education Commission • 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

16. The Replacement Model Higher Education Commission • 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 so that students can participate anytime, anywhere

17. The Emporium Model Higher Education Commission • 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

18. The Fully Online Model Higher Education Commission • 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.

19. The Buffet Model Higher Education Commission • 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

20. The Linked Workshop Model Higher Education Commission • 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

21. The Linked Workshop Model Continued Higher Education Commission • 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.

22. Summary Higher Education Commission • 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”

23. Show me the money…. Higher Education Commission Preparing the Request for Application

24. Who Can Apply? Higher Education Commission Eligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for Maryland’s Complete College America data project Funding Priority: Those with high percentage of new entering students enrolled in developmental math courses.

25. Award Amount Higher Education Commission • $30,000 per course - up to 21 awards possible • May submit more than one application/ one redesign • Possible to receive more than one award • Submit a separate application for each redesign • May request >$30,000 if proposing the merger of multiple courses of differing levels into one redesigned course but… • Merger models should recognize economies of scale

26. Required Matching Fund Higher Education Commission • Institutions must invest at least 25% of the total cost of the redesign e.g. $30,000 award matched with $10,000 of institutional resources • Why? Demonstrate “‘buy in” and long term sustainability • Sources of Match – • In-kind contributions like faculty and staff time, provision of instructional materials and technology purchases related to the redesign. Matching funds must comprise at least 25% of the total project cost • Cash

27. Grant Goals & Objectives Higher Education Commission • Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes; • Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment; • Reduce instructional costs, freeing up institutional resources for other academic priorities; and • Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.

28. Important Dates Higher Education Commission December 2, 2011 Full Application Due December 22, 2011 Awards Announced January/February 2012 (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #1 August 15, 2012 Interim Report Due

29. More Important Dates Higher Education Commission Fall 2012 Pilot of Redesigned Course Fall 2012 - (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #2 Spring 2013 Full Implementation of Course –all sections January 31, 2013 Funding expires. Interim Report #2 Unexpended funds returned. August 15, 2013 Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation

30. RFA Components Higher Education Commission Project Cover Page (form provided, original signatures) Abstract (500 Words) Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages) Project Timeline Budget

31. Project Narrative Higher Education Commission • Extent of Need • Project Overview • Implementation Plan • Outcomes Assessment Plan and Projected Outcomes • Cost Savings

32. Extent of Need – 10 pts. Higher Education Commission • Relatively brief but compelling case statement • Supported by institutional data • Include number and percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math • Other data might include pass/fail rate development math • Draw on data already presented in Concept Paper

33. Project Overview – 15 pts. Higher Education Commission • Detailed • Describe redesign model used • Specific changes to implement • New learning methods/materials/approaches incorporated

34. Implementation Plan – 30 pts. Higher Education Commission • Fall 2012 - pilot redesigned course and assess • at least 100 students • Spring 2013 – implement across all sections • Explain how the courses will be implemented • Indicate number of students impacted each semester through Aug 2013

35. Outcomes Assessment Plan & Projected Outcomes – 30 pts. Higher Education Commission • How will redesign student learning outcomes and time to degree be assessed? • Pilot, full implementation, after grant has ended? • What percentage of developmental math students involved in pilot? In fully implemented course (all sections)?

36. Cost Savings – scored with budget Higher Education Commission • How will redesigned course save institution money? • How much will the institution save? • How will savings be applied elsewhere? • Cost savings forms will be provided to awardees

37. Project Timeline (considered part of implementation plan) Higher Education Commission • Major project activities including planning meetings • Month/date of activity • Key personnel responsible for the activity • Table format may be used

38. Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost savings) Higher Education Commission Two Parts – budget table and budget narrative • Budget Table • Form in Appendix 2 provided • List expenditures by cost category for both requested grant funds and institutional matching funds • Budget Narrative • Text explaining how each amount was computed (e.g. 50 hours @ $15 per hour, 100 workbooks @ $3 each)

39. Application Due Date Higher Education Commission December 2, 2011 by 4:00 PM One hard copy with original signatures One electronic copy (word or PDF – budgets may be xls) Attn: Melinda Vann mvann@mhec.state.md.us Maryland Higher Education Commission Attention: Melinda Vann 6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201

40. Review Process Higher Education Commission • Every application read by at least 4 qualified reviewers • Applications read/scored individually • Review panel meets to discuss and develop recommendations • Recommendations forwarded to Secretary of Higher Education who makes final funding decision

41. Scoring Rubric Higher Education Commission Category Maximum Points Extent of Need for the Project (funding priority) 10 Project Overview 15 Implementation Plan and Timeline 30 Assessment of Redesign Impact 30 Budget and Cost Effectiveness (includes cost savings) 15 Total 100

42. Additional Considerations Higher Education Commission • Geographic distribution of awards • Funding priority – support for institutions with high percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math

43. Notification of Awards Higher Education Commission • December 22, 2011 by email • Formal letter to arrive after holidays • Projects may begin when email notice received • Reviewer comments shared with those who did not receive funding • 50% of award distributed within 60 days of award notice • Balance distributed after first interim report reviewed and accepted

44. Project-wide Activities Higher Education Commission • Meetings • Sharing assessment data - traditional vs. redesigned course student outcomes. Institutions will decide on appropriate assessment measures themselves. • Collection and sharing of instructional cost data that compares costs in the traditional course with those in the redesigned format. Common project-wide templates will be used for all participating institutions.

45. Appendices Higher Education Commission • Appendix 1 includes all post award procedures. Awardees should retain RFA for reference • Appendix 2 includes budget table and application cover sheet • Cost savings data collection tables will be distributed to awardees

46. Contact Information Higher Education Commission Programmatic Questions: Erin Knepler, P-20 Project Director University System of Maryland eknepler@usmd.edu or 301-445-2781 Program technical assistance information - http://www.usmd.edu/usm/academicaffairs/cr2 Application Development and Grants Management Questions: Melinda Vann, Director - Outreach and Grants Management, mvann@mhec.state.md.us or 410-767-3269 RFA and forms http://www.mhec.state.md.us/Grants/index.asp

47. Higher Education Commission Questions?