COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R) C2R goals and program structure NCAT programs and Redesign...

COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R)

C2R goals and program structure NCAT programs and Redesign Scholars C2R tasks prior to 4/24 Institutes Redesign Alliance Conference

FIPSE GRANTColleagues Committed to

Redesign (C2R)

October 2006 – September 2009 Build on success of PCR and R2R 60 institutions committed to engage in redesign Redesign Scholars Program 12 disciplinary institutes Support collaboration among NCAT staff,

Redesign Scholars and institutional teams Disseminate successful redesign strategies at

annual national conference

WHAT DOES NCAT MEAN BY COURSE REDESIGN?

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.

C2R PROGRAM RESOURCES

NCAT’s Redesign Methodology

Nineteen Redesign Scholars

A Network of Experienced Institutions: the Redesign Alliance

C2R ROUND III PARTICIPANTS Arizona State U: Leisure & Quality of Life Coppin State U: Technology Fluency Edison State College: Reading III El Paso CC : Intermediate Algebra Morehead State U: College Algebra Regis U: Writing/Composition Santa Fe College: Intermediate Algebra U of MD Eastern Shore: Biology U of Minnesota: Psychology UNC Charlotte: Spanish UW Bothell: Pre-Calculus

PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN

Challenge colleges and universities to redesign their approaches to instruction using technology to achieve quality enhancements as well as cost savings.

30 projects1999 - 2003

IT IS POSSIBLE TO INCREASE LEARNING WHILE REDUCING COST

25 of 30 PCR projects improved learning; the other 5 showed equal learning.

24 measured course completion rates; 18 showed improvement.

All 30 reduced costs by 37% on average, with a range of 15% to 77%.

Program in Course Redesign

PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN:Rounds I and II

John Broida - U of Southern Maine Elizabeth Connor - UMass Amherst Joe Benson - U of Alabama Malcolm Hill - Fairfield U

(now U of Richmond) Candace Thille - Carnegie Mellon Kirk Trigsted - U of Idaho

PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN:Round III

Gordon Hodge – U of New Mexico Dennis Pearl – Ohio State Rob Sanders – Portland State Sally Search – Tallahassee CC Jim Wohlpart – Florida Gulf Coast

THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGN2003 - 2006

R2R established a more efficient means of spreading the ideas and practices that came out of the PCR to additional institutions.

Our goal was 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.

STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGY

“A Menu of Redesign Options” Readiness Criteria Five Principles of Successful

Course Redesign Five Models for Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student

Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation

Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist

ROADMAP TO REDESIGN

10 of 12 R2R projects improved learning; the other 2 showed equal learning.

9 of 12 improved course completion rates.

All 12 reduced costs by 32% on average, with a range of 13% to 68%.

ROADMAP TO REDESIGN Ron Henry

– Georgia State University

Phoebe Rouse– LSU

Bill Williams– Eastern Washington University

NCAT PROGRAMS:Putting the Pieces Together

1999 – Pew-funded RPI Center

Program in Course Redesign Roadmap to Redesign 2003 – Independent 501c3 State- and System-based

Programs

STATE- AND SYSTEM-BASED PROGRAMS

Pilots South Dakota Hawaii Ohio Minnesota

Full-Scale Arizona Maryland Mississippi SUNY Tennessee Texas

STATE-BASED PROGRAMS:Ohio Learning Network

Margaret Trim – Central Ohio

Technical College

Amiee Wagner– Central Ohio

Technical College

Mary Jane Pasky– Lorain County

Community College

INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS

Tristan Denley– Ole Miss (now Austin Peay State U)

Michelle Miller– Northern Arizona U

BRING A REDESIGN SCHOLAR TO YOUR CAMPUS

FIPSE grant– $1,000 in honoraria

($500 each)– $1,000 in travel

Other visits are possible at campus expense.

C2R TIMELINE

Feb–Mar 2009 Establish campus teams Mar 27, 2009 Conduct baseline assessments

Mar–Apr 2009 Prepare draft redesign plansApr 24, 2009 Disciplinary institutesJun 1, 2009 Teams submit final plans Summer 2009 Campus planning and

development Fall 2009 Pilot redesign projects Jan–Feb 2010 Assess the pilot resultsMar 2010 Share results at Conference

BASELINE ASSESSMENTSDeadline: March 27th

Student learning outcomes

Course completion rates

Traditional course costs (CPT)

ASSESSMENT GOAL

To establish the degree to which

improved learning has been

achieved as a result of the

course redesign.

ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF OBTAINING DATA

Baseline “Before” (traditional) and “After” (redesign)

Parallel Sections – Compare traditional sections and redesigned sections (Fall 2008)

CHOOSE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD: FIVE MODELS

A. Comparisons of Final Exams

B. Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from Exams

C. Comparisons of Pre- and Post- Tests

D. Comparisons of Student Work using Common Rubrics

E. Comparisons of Course Grades using Common Criteria

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!

BASELINE ASSESSMENT DATA

Do you have baseline learning data? If yes, please report it below. If no, please describe how you plan to collect it. Timeframe (e.g., fall 2002 semester, AY 2003-

2004) # of traditional sections # of students in each section # of students (total) Which method of obtaining data did you use or

do you plan to use?

BASELINE COURSE COMPLETION DATA

Timeframe (e.g., fall 2002 semester, AY 2003-2004, five-year average 1999-2004)

# of traditional sections # of students in each section # of students (total) For each grade: number and percentage

of students earning Fall – Spring problem

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)

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!!!

Instructional Costs per Hour

Faculty TAs/GAs

Salary $89,538 Salary $32,618% devoted to instruction 50% % devoted to instruction 50%% devoted to this course 50% % devoted to this course 50%$ devoted to this course $22,385 $ devoted to this course $8,155

Contact hours for course 30 Contact hours for course 116Out of class hours 140 Out of class hours 244Total hours 170 Total hours 360Cost per hour $132 Cost per hour $23

Support Staff $ per Hour Position #1 $19#2 $29#3 $12#4 $7

Traditional Course PreparationFACULTY TAs/GAsHourly rate =$132 Hourly rate = $23

I. Course Preparation # of Hours Total Cost # of Hours Total Cost

A. Curriculum DevelopmentB. Materials AcquistionC. Materials Development 1. Lectures/presentations 60 $7,900 464 $10,510 2. Learning materials/software 3. Diagnostic assessments 4. Assignments 5. Tests/evaluations 12 $1,580 88 $1,993Sub-Total 72 $9,480 552 $12,503

D. Faculty/TA Devmt/Training 1. Orientation 240 $5,436 2. Staff meetings 15 $1,975 120 $2,718 3. Attend lectures 240 $5,436Sub-Total 15 $1,975 600 $13,590Total Preparation 87 $11,455 1152 $26,093

Traditional Course DeliveryII. Course Delivery # of Hours Total Cost # of Hours Total Cost

A. Instruction 1. Diagnose skill/knowledge level 2. Presentation 30 $3,950 3. Interaction 30 $3,950 1048 $23,737 4. Progress monitoring Sub-Total 60 $7,900 1048 $23,737

B. Evaluation 1. Test proctoring 11 $1,448 32 $725 2. Tests/evaluation 12 $1,580 648 $14,677Sub-Total 23 $3,028 680 $15,402Total Delivery 83 $10,929 1728 $39,139

TOTAL 170 $22,384 2880 $65,232Support Staff = $3805

GRAND TOTAL $91,421 Total # of students 350Cost per student $261.20

C2R DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTESApril 24, 2009

9:00 – 10:00 C2R Overview(Plenary)

10:00 – 12:00 Disciplinary Breakouts 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 1:45 Assessment & CPT Review

(Plenary) 1:45 – 3:30 Innovative Practices 3:30 – 4:00 Report Back

Next Steps(Plenary)

DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTES HOMEWORK

Help us plan (Kay Katzer) Background reading Team presentation

– 10 minutes– Choice of model– How you intend to implement the Five

Principles of Successful Course Redesign– Feedback from Redesign Scholars

NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES

Six Models for Course Redesign

Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign

Five Models for Assessing Student Learning

Cost Reduction Strategies

Five Critical Implementation Issues

Assessment Planning Forms

Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings

Summary Planning Checklist

CHOICE OF MODEL

Supplemental: U of Minn (Psychology) Replacement: Morehead State U (College

Algebra), U of MD Eastern Shore (Biology), UNC Charlotte (Spanish)

Emporium: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (Interm Algebra), UW Bothell (Pre-Calc)

Fully Online: Arizona State U (Leisure) Buffet: Coppin State U (Technology),

Edison State College (Reading), Regis U (Writing/Composition)


Six Models for Course Redesign








FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN

#1: Redesign the whole course#2: Encourage active learning#3: Provide students with individualized

assistance#4: Build in ongoing assessment and

prompt (automated) feedback#5: Ensure sufficient time on task and

monitor student progress

FINAL PLAN FORMATDue June 1, 2009

Abstract Application Narrative

– Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles

– Learning materials: what you plan to use– Redesign Scholars and the NCAT staff: how

you’ve taken advantage and/or how you plan to do so

– Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings

– Implementation issues: what you plan to do to address them

– Timeline: pilot in fall 2009; indicate future plans

FINAL PLANS FORMATDue June 1, 2009

Tools and Forms• Assessment Form• Course Completion Form• Course Planning Tool (CPT)• Course Savings Summary Form (CSS)• Course Structure Form (CSF)

A draft of your CPT is due on 5/25/09.


Five Models for Course Redesign








WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION?

Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow?

Is your enrollment stable or declining?

ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH (5)

Increase # of students served: Regis U

Increase section size: ASU, Coppin State U, UNC Charlotte

Increase section size and change the mix of personnel: UMES

STABLE ENROLLMENT (3)

Reduce the number of sections, increase the section size: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (+ change the mix of personnel)

Decrease number of faculty and increase instructor load: Morehead State U

NOT CLEAR OR IN PROCESS OF DECIDING (3)

Edison State College University of Minnesota U of Washington Bothell

Growth argument must be supported by data.

You can change your mind, but you must make a decision.

Retention is a “hope” - not a strategy.

Beware of paper savings!

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

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.

COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE

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

NCAT CORPORATE ASSOCIATES

Blackboard McGraw-Hill Pearson Education

PROGRAM CONSULTANTS• Carol Twigg

[email protected]

• Carolyn Jarmon

[email protected]

• Kay Katzer

[email protected]

THE REDESIGN SCHOLARS

THE REDESIGN ALLIANCEThird Annual Conference

How to get the most out of your conference

experience . . .

THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE

Mission: to advance the concept of course redesign throughout higher education to increase student success and access while containing or reducing instructional costs.

Create a community of higher education institutions and others who are committed to and experienced with large-scale course redesign.

THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE

Program in Course Redesign Roadmap to Redesign (R2R) State- and System-based

Programs Corporate Community Colleagues Committed to

Redesign (C2R) Individual Institutions

SUNDAY

Orientation Corporate

Exhibits Opening

Reception

Corporate Hospitality SuitesBirds of a Feather (Lunches)

MONDAY MORNING Opening Keynote: Philip

Parsons Disciplinary Showcases

Developmental Mathematics – Humanities– Developmental Mathematics– College-Level Mathematics (2)– Social Science– Natural Science– Statistics and Computing

MONDAY AFTERNOON Roundtable Discussion Sessions

– College-Level Math – Developmental English – Humanities– Social Sciences– Natural Sciences– Social Sciences– Administrators

Panel: Learning Space Design Poster Sessions Poolside Reception

TUESDAY MORNING

Hot Topics in Course Redesign– Engaging Students in New Ways of Learning– Working with Commercial Software– Developing a Valid Assessment Plan– Effective Use of Undergraduate Learning

Assistants– It’s Not Your Father’s Online Course– Applying the Five Models in New Ways– Redesigning Developmental English

Panel: The Power of Quizzing

COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R) C2R goals and program structure NCAT programs and Redesign...

Documents

Transcript of COLLEAGUES COMMITTED TO REDESIGN (C2R) C2R goals and program structure NCAT programs and Redesign...