ROAD MAP TO REDESIGN: What We Have LearnedSo Far

1
ROAD MAP TO REDESIGNWhat We Have LearnedSo Far
2
THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGNProgram Purpose
R2R will establish a more efficient means of
spreading the ideas and practices that have come
out of the Program in Course Redesign to
additional institutions. Our goal is to
accelerate institutional adoption by simplifying
the redesign process-making it as close to
turnkey as possible-while allowing for
institutional individuality in the adoption
process.
3
PIECES OF REDESIGN

• Disciplinary repositories of research-based
  learning materials
• Used or developed by successful redesign projects
• Linked to inclusive list of course learning
  objectives/course topics
• Streamlined redesign methodology
• Select among techniques and models proven to
  increase learning and reduce costs

4
PEW GRANT PROGRAM VS.THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGN
Another Proof of Concept
5

• PROGRAM IN
• COURSE REDESIGN
• To encourage colleges and universities to
  redesign their approaches to instruction using
  technology to achieve cost savings as well as
  quality enhancements.

6 million 30 projects
6
ASSUMPTIONS THAT GET IN THE WAY

• Improving quality means increasing cost
• Adding IT increases cost
• Using IT may even threaten quality

7
TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION
Seminars
Lectures
8
BOLT-ON INSTRUCTION
9
THE ONE PERCENT SOLUTION

• Maricopa Community College District
• 200,000 students
• 2,000 course titles
• 25 courses
• 44 enrollment

All CCs 51 All four-year 35
10
THE ONE PERCENT SOLUTION

• Accounting (1)
• EMT (1)
• Spanish (1)
• Chemistry (1)

• English (7)
• Psychology (1)
• Mathematics (5)
• Fitness (1)
• Sociology (1)
• Computing (1)
• Philosophy (1)
• Economics (2)
• Biology (2)

11
QUANTITATIVE (13)

• Mathematics
• Iowa State University
• Northern Arizona University
• Rio Salado College
• Riverside CC
• University of Alabama
• University of Idaho
• Virginia Tech

• Statistics
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Ohio State University
• Penn State
• U of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
• Computer Programming
• Drexel University
• University at Buffalo

12
SCIENCE (5) SOCIAL SCIENCE (6)

• Biology
• Fairfield University
• University of Massachusetts
• Chemistry
• University of Iowa
• U of Wisconsin-Madison
• Astronomy
• U of Colorado-Boulder

• Psychology
• Cal Poly Pomona
• University of Dayton
• University of New Mexico
• U of Southern Maine
• Sociology
• IUPUI
• American Government
• U of Central Florida

13
HUMANITIES (6)

• English Composition
• Brigham Young University
• Tallahassee CC
• Spanish
• Portland State University
• University of Tennessee
• Fine Arts
• Florida Gulf Coast University
• World Literature
• University of Southern Mississippi

14
VARIETY OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE PROGRAM IN
COURSE REDESIGN

• Research Universities
• Comprehensive Universities
• Private Colleges
• Community Colleges

15
LARGE NUMBERS OFSTUDENTS

• Round I 20,585 students annually
• Round II 14,119 students annually
• Round III 18,724 students annually
• ANNUAL TOTAL 53,428 Students

16
IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES

• Penn State - 68 on a content-knowledge test vs.
  60
• UB - 56 earned A- or higher vs. 37
• CMU - scores on skill/concept tests increased by
  22.8
• Fairfield 88 on concept retention vs. 79
• U of Idaho 30 earned As vs. 20
• UMass 73 on tougher exams vs. 61
• FGCU - 85 on exams vs. 72 75 As and Bs vs.
  31
• USM - scored a full point higher on writing
  assessments
• IUPUI, RCC, UCF, U of S Maine, Drexel and U of
  Ala - significant improvements in understanding
  content

25 of 30 have shown improvement 5 have shown
equal learning.
17
REDUCTION IN DFW RATES

• U of Alabama 60 to 40
• Drexel 51 to 38
• Tallahassee CC 46 to 25
• Rio CC 41 to 32
• IUPUI 39 to 25
• UNM 39 to 23
• U of S Maine 28 to 19
• U of Iowa 25 to 13
• Penn State 12 to 9.8

18 of 24 that measured showed improvement.
18
COST SAVINGS RESULTS

• Redesigned courses reduce costs by 40 on
  average, with a range of 20 to 77.
• Collectively, the 30 courses projected a savings
  of about 3.6 million annually.
• Final results show actual annual savings of 3.1
  million.

19
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SAVINGS?3.1 Million Annually

• Stay in department for continuous course
  improvement and/or redesign of others
• Provide a greater range of offerings at upper
  division or graduate level
• Accommodate greater numbers of students with same
  resources
• Stay in department to reduce teaching load and
  provide more time for research
• Redesign similar courses
• Miscellaneous
• Offer distance sections
• Reduce rental expenditures
• Improve training of part-time faculty

20
WHAT DO THE FACULTY SAY?

• Its the best experience Ive ever had in a
  classroom.
• The quality of my worklife has changed
  immeasurably for the better.
• Its a lot of work during the transition--but
  its worth it.

21
PEW GRANT PROGRAM VS. ROADMAP TO REDESIGN

• 30 institutions in any discipline
• Invent their own redesigns
• Center support
• 200,000 grant
• Planning period 7 months
• Implementation period 2 years
• Detailed assessment plans
• Detailed progress reports (3)

• 20 institutions in 4 disciplines
• A menu of redesign options
• Center support
• Rich array of learning resources
• Planning period 2 months
• Implementation period 15 months
• A menu of assessment plans
• Brief final report

Target Large-enrollment, introductory courses
22
R2R ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

• Academic practices Core associates
• Center for Academic Transformation
• Academic practices New associates

23
CORE ASSOCIATES

• Produce a comprehensive list of learning
  objectives/course topics
• Identify course components proven to increase
  student learning and reduce costs
• Advise faculty members at other institutions re
  pedagogy, materials use and redesign
  implementation
• Assist new associate teams in redesign planning
• Advise CAT re program development

24
CENTER FOR ACADEMIC TRANSFORMATION

• Provide a virtual home for the practices and
  coordinate practice activities
• Manage the development and implementation of a
  streamlined redesign process
• Convert each institutions materials for general
  use using agreed-upon formats
• Establish a national competition to select 20 new
  associates
• Support the selection process for new associates
  through workshops, planning materials and
  individualized assistance

25
NEW ASSOCIATES

• Select appropriate redesign components and models
  
• Review the learning objectives and course
  materials developed by the academic practices
• Identify additional resources to be acquired from
  commercial and non-commercial sources or to be
  developed themselves
• Develop final redesign plans
• Implement 20 course redesigns

26
SUMMARY TIMELINE
December 2003 Practice Meeting I February 1,
2004 Publication of competition guidelines
April 1, 2004 Preliminary application
deadline April 15, 2004 40 institutional teams
invited to workshop June 2004 Workshop for 40
new practice applicants August 1,
2004 Competition final application
deadline August 15, 2004 20 new practice
associates selected Practice Meeting
II September 1, 2004 20 new redesign projects
begin Fall 2004 Campus course development Spring
2005 Campus pilots June 2005 New practice
associates workshop Summer 2005 Campus course
revisions Fall 2005 Campus full implementations
July 2006 New practice associates workshop
Practice Meeting III
27
VIRTUAL REPOSITORIES OF DISCIPLINARY MATERIALS

• R2R web site course topics and materials
  descriptions
• Benefits of practice experience theyve
  screened lots of materials
• Research-based what do we mean?
• Three kinds - commercial, modified with
  permission, locally developed
• Commonly available formats

28
A STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGYA Menu of
Redesign Options

• Five Models for Course Redesign
• Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign
• Cost Reduction Strategies
• Course Planning Tool
• Course Structure Form
• Five Models for Assessing Student Learning
• Five Critical Implementation Issues
• Planning Checklist

29
FIVE REDESIGN MODELS

• 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

30
FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN

• 1 Redesign the whole course
• Q Course coherence and quality control
• C Eliminate duplicate effort use alternate
  staffing
• 2 Encourage active learning
• Q Learning is not a spectator sport.
• C Reduce faculty preparation and presentation
  time
• (e.g., interactive software, peer learning
  teams)
• 3 Provide students with individualized
  assistance
• Q Students get help when they are stuck and
  stay on task rather than giving up
• C Apply the right level of human intervention

31
FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN

• 4 Build in ongoing assessment and prompt
  (automated) feedback
• Q Enables practice, diagnostic feedback,
  focused time on task
• C Automation reduces cost while improving
  quality
• 5 Ensure sufficient time on task and monitor
  student progress
• Q Self-pacing vs. milestones for completion
• C Course management systems can reduce costs
  while increasing oversight

32
COST REDUCTION

• Cost reduction strategies
• Course structure form
• Course planning tool

33
COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES

• Step 1 - Identify the enrollment profile of the
  course
• Stable enrollment
• Growing enrollment
• Step 2 - Choose the appropriate cost reduction
  strategy
• Step 3 - Choose the labor savings tactic(s) that
  will allow you to implement the chosen strategy
  with no diminution in quality

34
STABLE COURSE ENROLLMENT

• Reduce the number of sections and increase the
  section size. (Reduce the number teaching the
  course.)
• Reduce the number of graduate teaching assistants
  (GTAs).
• (Only 9 of 30 projects!)
• Change the mix of personnel teaching the course.
• (Adjuncts, undergrad learning assistants)

Mix and match for greater savings!
35
ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH

• Increase the number of sections, keep section
  size the same and keep personnel the same.
• Reduce the number of sections, increase the
  section size and change the mix of personnel.
• Change the mix of personnel teaching the course.

Mix and match for greater savings!
36
LABOR SAVINGS TACTICSSubstitute (in part or in
whole)!

• 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

37
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)

38
COURSE PLANNING TOOL

• A formatted spreadsheet that enables institutions
  to compare the before activities and costs (the
  traditional course) and the after activities
  and costs (the redesigned course)

39
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.

40
THE CPT - IS IT WORTH IT?

• Provides a structure for thinking 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

41
ASSESSMENT GOAL

• To establish the degree to which improved
  learning has been achieved as a result of the
  course redesign.

42
FIVE ASSESSMENT MODELS

• Step 1. Establish the method of obtaining data
• Pilot phase
• Full implementation phase
• Step 2. Choose the measurement method
• Comparisons of Common Final Exams
• Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from
  Exams
• Comparisons of Pre- and Post-tests
• Comparisons of Student Work Using Common Rubrics
• Comparisons of Course Grades Using Common Criteria

43
FIVE CRITICAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

• Prepare students (and their parents) and the
  campus for changes in the course.
• Train instructors, GTAs and undergraduate peer
  tutors.
• Ensure an adequate technological infrastructure
  to support the redesign as planned.
• Achieve initial and ongoing
• faculty consensus .
• Avoid backsliding by building
• ongoing institutional
• commitment to the redesign.

44
PLANNING CHECKLIST

• Provides benchmark for ongoing overview of entire
  redesign
• Highlights areas earlier projects neglected
• Provides integrating roster for continued
  monitoring of progress

45
NEW R2R ASSOCIATES

• Spanish (4)
• Montclair State University
• Texas Tech University
• Towson University
• The University of Alabama
• Statistics (3)
• Calhoun Community College
• UCLA
• UNC at Greensboro

46
NEW R2R ASSOCIATESPRE-CALCULUS MATH (10)

• Concordia University
• Georgia State University
• Louisiana State University
• Seton Hall University
• UNC at Chapel Hill
• University of Arkansas - Fort Smith
• University of Missouri - St. Louis
• UNC at Greensboro
• University of South Alabama
• Wayne State University

47
NEW R2R ASSOCIATESPSYCHOLOGY (8)

• Chattanooga State
• East Carolina University
• Eastern Washington University
• Central Michigan University
• Mohave Community College
• Ocean County College
• Seton Hall University
• University of Arkansas - Fort Smith

48
NEXT

• New R2R Associates were announced last month
• Planning is underway
• Pilot Projects begin in Spring, 05
• Workshop to review and evaluate the pilots in
  June, 05
• Full Implementation in Fall, 05

49
STAY TUNED
50
ROAD MAP TO REDESIGN What We Have LearnedSo far

• Carolyn Jarmon, Ph.D.
• Jarmoc_at_rpi.edu
• www.center.rpi.edu