Redesigning Developmental Studies to be Efficient and Effective in Tennessee Funded by FIPSE/Principal Investigator Dr. Paula Myrick Short, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Tennessee Board of Regents

1
Redesigning Developmental Studies to be
Efficient and Effective in Tennessee Funded by
FIPSE/Principal InvestigatorDr. Paula Myrick
Short, Vice Chancellor for Academic
AffairsTennessee Board of Regents

• Presented at a Workshop for Kentuckys
• Redesign for 2009
• Improving the Success of Underprepared Students
• June 17, 2008

Dr. Treva Berryman, TN Board of Regents Assoc.
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
2
Developmental Studies Some see as a Symptom, Not
a Solution

• High percentage of students in developmental
  education
• 28 of all students, 40 of community college
  students (NCES, 2003)
• Low college attainment rates
• 16 enrolled in remedial reading and 27 enrolled
  in remedial math earn bachelors degree (Adelman,
  2004)
• High cost to students and states
• 1 billion dollars a year dedicated to
  developmental education. (Breneman/Harlow, 1999)
• Focus on higher education/high school alignment
  as panacea
• 31 states involved with Achieve, Inc.s American
  Diploma Project (Achieve, Inc.)

3
Developmental Studies as Solution

• States setting ambitious goals to increase
  college attainment
• 90 of new jobs require postsecondary education
  (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006)
• Enrollment increases from students traditionally
  underserved and under-prepared for postsecondary
  education (WICHE, 2003)
• Research finds that developmental studies works
  for those who complete. (Bettinger and Long, 2006)

4
Who Regulates Developmental Studies?

• States
• Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
  Massachusetts
• Postsecondary Systems
• Tennessee, Georgia
• Individual Institutions
• For most states placement and assessment
  decisions are made by individual institutions

- Education Commission of the States, 2008
5
Barriers to Success include

• Low completion rates
• Little data about what works
• Non-traditional student attendance patterns
• Student goals not aligned with traditional
  measures of success
• Financial aid, funding formulas and other
  policies which limit innovation in program
  delivery
• Misperceptions from policymakers
• The pressure to run successful programs
  inexpensively.

6
The Challenge

• Aligning State and System Policy with
  Institutional Practice to Deliver Developmental
  Studies Effectively and Efficiently
• Critical Components for Success
• 1) Provide Steadfast System Level Leadership
• --to push the agenda with the campusesnot
  letting up in communicating the message that it
  WILL be done.
• 2) Empower Broad-Based Action
• -- provide a mechanism, a model, (i.e., NCAT
  process, task force, etc.)
• 3) Make Needed Resources Available
• -- provide support and recognize progress
  (even small wins).

7
Thanks to NCAT and TBROur students have
benefitedfrom this project.

• The above statement is from the final PowerPoint
  slide of a recent presentation given by the
  director of a math redesign pilot.
• The first statement of his presentation was,
  This project was a TBR mandate. We had to do
  this even though we didnt want to. . .

8
TBR Developmental Studies Redesign Project
9

• Fall 2006 First-time Freshmen Cohort in the
  Tennessee Board of Regents System
• Total Universities
• 11,155 with 4,511 (40.4) in DSP
• Total Two-Year
• 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3) in DSP
• Grand Total
• 25,983 with 15,226 (58.6) in DSP
•  

10

• TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan
• Dr. Paula Myrick Short, vice chancellor for
  academic affairs, led the initiative to ensure a
  focus on student success was included in the
  system-wide strategic plan. One strategy was to
  redesign developmental studies for the state.
• Objective A8
• Increase speed and success of
  remedial/developmental work for students
  requiring them to become college-ready.
• Strategy A8
• Establish a best practice, systemwide,
  community-college-based remedial/developmental
  program that is substantially technology driven,
  composed of language arts and mathematics, and
  allows students to identify and focus on the
  academic areas where they are deficient.

11

• Timeline
• 2006 - Initial Planning
• - Appoint Task Force Members (20-mostly
  faculty)
• - Applied for and awarded 739,000 FIPSE
  3-yr grant
• 2007 - Institutional Involvement (The NCAT
  Process)
• - Two workshops (230 and 100
  participants)
• - Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot
  Interventions
• 2008 - (Spring/Fall) and 2009 (Spring)
  Pilots 6
• 2009 - October (Sub-councils) November
  (Presidents)
• December (Board)
• 2010 - Implement system wide (perhaps in
  phases)

12
From Dr. Kildare to Medical Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
13
From Perry Mason.to Legal Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
14
From Superheroes to Super Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
15
From Flash Gordon to NASA
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
16
From the Stand Alone Teacher of the 1950s
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
17
to the Stand Alone Teacher of the 21st Century
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
18
VETERANS (63 plus)(Silent Generation)

• 38 Million Americans
• Respect experience
• Duty before pleasure
• Eager to conform to group roles
• Equate age with status and power
• See change as disruptive and undesirable
• Fear new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
19
BABY BOOMERS (43-62)

• 76 million Americans
• Enjoy and value teamwork
• Want to get with the program
• Are willing to go the extra mile
• Have good people skills
• Embrace equity and fairness
• Like to receive credit and public recognition
• Less flexible when it comes to change
• Retiring but want to stay engaged
• Own new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
20
GEN-XERS (26-45)

• 39 million Americans
• Work best with members of their own choosing
• Self-reliant, skeptical of authority
• Embrace alternative workplace structures
• Prefer informal roles and freedom to complete
  tasks their own way
• Willing to challenge higher ups
• Core of the work force
• Technical savvy and creative
• Use of new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
21
NEXTERS (25 and under)GEN Y or MILLENNIALS

• Diversity as a norm
• Idealistic
• Collaborative
• Communication is constant
• Open to new challenges
• Prefer a flattened hierarchy
• Wired grew up digital
• Embrace new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
22

• Since 1984
• There have been no significant changes in
  developmental studies education in the TBR
  system.
• Yet
• Academic Program Inventory changed.
• Students are very different (Generation X, Y, and
  millennials).
• Careers require different skills.
• Technology changes every 90 days! (software that
  grades written essays, Tegrity, DSP Suite from
  Addison-Wesley, Carnegie Learning Systems, PLATO
  (Academic Systems), MyMathLab, MyReadingLab, etc.)

23

• From Innovation to Transformation
• ?We came to the project with no pre-conceived
  answers. The challenge and opportunity is to 1)
  remain open-minded, 2) think out-of-the-box, and
  3) base recommendations on data-driven decisions.
• ?Everything is on the table! This includes the
  concept of courses, assessments, diagnostics,
  placement, delivery methods, funding models, and
  more.

24

• Partners and their Role
• National Center for Academic Transformation
• (NCAT) www.thencat.org
• Dr. Carol Twigg redesign funded pilots
• Education Commission of the States
• (ECS) www.ecs.org
• Dr. Bruce Vandal expanding research to guide
  public policy
• National Center for Higher Education Management
  Systems
• (NCHEMS) http//www.nchems.org
• Dr. Karen Paulson external evaluation of the
  project

25

• SUB-COMMITTEES OF
• DSP REDSIGN TASK FORCE
• Math Curriculum Revision
• English (reading/writing) Curriculum Revision
• Assessment
• New Funding (and Financial Aid) Model(s)

26
RELATED INITIATIVES

• ?P-16 Statewide Regional Councils
• ?Statewide Teaching Quality Initiative
• ?ACT Statewide Organization /ACT State Council
• ?High School Curriculum Alignment
• ?TN Lottery Rules Regulations
• ?Dual Enrollment and AP Classes
• ?Institutional Community Outreach Programs
• ?American Diploma Project
• ?ACCESS to SUCCESS

27

• Task Force has thus far reached consensus on a
  new philosophy for DSP
• What are we remediating for?
• Change of focus from the pastto the future. (In
  the future, we will remediate for whatever is
  needed to prepare the student to succeed in the
  curriculum of their chosen field of study. If the
  student changes the career goal, additional
  remediation may be needed.)
• Can we benefit from an emphasis on the positive
  (strengths) rather than the negative
  (weaknesses)? Can remediation be provided just
  in time so that students can take college level
  courses prior to completing all developmental
  studies requirements?

28
Primary Objectives and Outcomes

• Scalable for delivery in multiple settings
• Increase the quality of learning and assessment
• Significant cost savings
• Institutional, Departmental, Individual Student,
  Cost per Student Served, etc.)
• Streamline amount of time to completion
• Maintain commitment to access
• Replicable model (process and product)
• Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and
  enhanced public support

29
Where are We Today?

• Six funded pilots began January, 2008 (non-funded
  pilots are also on-going) (all in modular
  format).
• 1 of 3 semesters of pilots completed with mixed
  results.
• APSU -(just in time remediation for college
  level course(s)
• (significant improvement demonstrated)
• CSTCC math emporium (some aspects of initial
  plan not followed mixed results will be
  revising plan over the summer)
• ClSCC math emporium (first pilot extremely
  successful)
• JSCC math emporium (positive results)
• NSTCC Reading (mixed results revising plan)
• CoSCC Reading/Writing combined (limited data
  revising plan)

30
Where are We Today?

• Support from Chief Academic Officer at all 19 TBR
  institutions
• Updates provided at all quarterly sub-council
  meetings
• Task forces and subcommittees made up of
  primarily faculty are working
• A point person on each campus is identified for
  facilitating communication
• Data mining in progress (institutional,
  statewide, and national with assistance from ECS
  in Institutional Research staff)
• Task Force meetings every other month and
  conference calls on-going for committees
• Regular communication with DSP Coordinators at
  each campus

31

• QUESTIONS?

Additional Resources ?The National Center for
Academic Transformation http//www.thencat.org
? The Education Commission of the States
http//www.ecs.org/ ?Dr. Paula Myrick Short,
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and
Principal Investigator for FIPSE grant
(paula.short_at_tbr.edu) ?Dr. Treva Berryman,
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Tennessee Board of Regents (treva.berryman_at_tbr.edu
)
32
Given new innovation in technology what would the
ideal developmental studies program look like?

• What are the challenges?
• What are the opportunities?
• What policies should be adopted?
• What resources are required?

33

• Discussion Questions
• Are there advantages to common assessments,
  placements, and exits to encourage greater
  collaboration across institutions and systems?
• Should developmental studies programs define
  standards for delivery or for outcomes?
• How do we measure student success?
• How do we move from innovation to transformation
  of developmental studies?