Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University

Getting Started on Course Redesign1 February 2013

Biology 101 in 2006A Traditional Introductory Course for Non-majors

• Three hours of lecture and two hours of lab per week

• Lecture sections of 72–96 students• Lab sections of 24 students• Common lab syllabus• Not a bottleneck like some courses (e.g.,

Anatomy and Physiology), but…

Course Needed Attention

• Course drift and duplication of effort in lecture• Extensive faculty resources dedicated to course,

including frequent need for overload pay• Heterogeneous faculty investment in course• Lab time not as productive as possible• Student engagement• Faculty engagement

Student Engagement• How effective is the traditional lecture?

– Is anyone listening?– Is everyone listening?

Maryland Course Redesign Initiative

2006–2009

SU Redesign Team

• Clem Counts• Mark Frana• Sam Geleta• Ron Gutberlet• Mark Holland (Dept Chair)• Wanda Kelly• Joan Maloof• Claudia Morrison-Parker• Wanda Perkins• Betty Lou Smith• Bob Tardiff (Assoc Provost)• Melissa Thomas (IT)• Enhancement of online learning in Biology 210

– Kim Hunter, Richard Hunter

Dr. Les Erickson, learning technology guru (left)

Broad Support

• Assigned time to prepare and implement pilot section of redesigned course

• Department faculty and university administration supportive and encouraging

• Support (advice, implementation, etc.) from our Instructional Technology group

• NCAT strategies and mentoring– Carol Twigg and Carolyn Jarmon

• USM– Don Spicer, Nancy Shapiro, Stan Jakubik

Redesign Entire CourseBenefits

• 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

Redesign Entire CourseChallenges

• Compromise and consensus building

• Instructor buy-in across all sections

• Time needed for team-building

• Probably can’t be forced “from above”

• Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology

Encourage Active Learning

• Did information transfer still require a lecture in 2006?

• Were traditional lectures serving our course goals?

• Can we do a better job of “priming” students for class?– Is anyone reading the textbook?

Key Components of Redesign

• Use of Blackboard to deliver online content that partially replaces traditional lectures– Weekly instructions– Study guide (outline of key content; questions, fill in blank)

• Reading assignments• Online animations• Online practice activities

– Online quiz

• Maximize use of lab time for activities, discussion, team contests

• Use of clickers to engage more students, to initiate discussions, and to automate some grading

Encourage Active LearningBenefits

• 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

Encourage Active LearningChallenges

• Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism

• 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?

Value of PilotSpring 2008

• Learned that “lecture” time could probably be reduced to one hour per week

• Learned that limited traditional lecturing is probably beneficial

• Developed online course component• Single instructor• Student feedback prior to full implementation• Evidence for skeptical faculty

Structure of Redesigned CourseReplacement Model

• One hour of “lecture” and two hours of lab per week

• Large “lecture” sections (120 students)

• Small lab sections (24 students)

• Shared online component (Blackboard)

• Workload discussions

Course Structure

Traditional Initial Redesign Full Redesign

“Lecture”

hrs/week

students/section

sections

3

72-96

6

1.5

96

6

1

120

4

Lab

hrs/week

students/section

sections

2

24

20

2

24

20

2

24

20

Enhancements to Course Structure

• The same instructor now teaches all of the lab sections (5) from their “lecture” section.

• One section of Biology 101 with its 5 labs is a full teaching load.

• Course Coordinator

• Lab Coordinator

Additional Enhancements

• Complete revision of lab manual during summer 2008

• Academic value of lab time is maximized—activities and small group discussion.

• Revision of online materials based on student and instructor feedback; cost savings for students.

• Course drift minimized through use of common online materials and faculty cooperation and compromise (summer and fall 2008).

Evaluation and Assessment

• Three surveys– Midsemester survey– End-of-semester survey– Course evaluations

• Embedded exam questions– Same instructor, different semesters– Same semester, different instructors

• DFW rates– Same instructor, different semesters

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good

• “I liked the online style of the course.”• “Online quizzes were helpful.”• “I usually do not like bio but it quickly became

my favorite this semester.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good

• “…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.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good

• “I really like the mix between online work and class time.”

• “It is new and a little hard to get used to, but I like it!”

• “I never really liked bio until now.”• “I like the online material…it makes class easier

to attend.”• “The breakdown of DNA and protein synthesis is

interesting and never taught in my high school.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Bad

• “I would prefer a hard covered textbook.”

• “YouTube usually doesn’t work on my computer.”

• “The only thing I don’t like about the lessons is it goes into a great detail and covers things we don’t need to know for the exam.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Ugly

• “Hybrid class sucked b/c I didn’t learn anything from e-book or learning modules, time consuming or annoying.”

• “If you taught as much as you were supposed to, I’d understand the topics better.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Exam Performance

Embedded Questions—Same SemesterNumber of questions answered correctly by a higher

percentage of students.

Pilot Tie (± 5%) Traditional

Exam 1 5 2 2

Exam 2 2 5 2

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Exam Performance

Embedded Questions—Same InstructorNumber of questions answered correctly by a higher

percentage of students.

Pilot Tie (± 5%) Previous Semester

Exam 1 5 3 1

Exam 2 4 4 1

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results

• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the online lesson?– less than 1 hour 10 (24%)– 1-2 hours 27 (64%)– 2-5 hours 5 (12%)– more than 5 hours 0 (0%)

• The online lesson helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.– Strongly agree 12 (29%)– Agree 30 (71%)– Disagree 0 (0%)– Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results

• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the study guide?– less than 1 hour 7 (17%)– 1-2 hours 24 (57%)– 2-5 hours 11 (26%)– more than 5 hours 0 (0%)

• The study guide helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.– Strongly agree 30 (71%)– Agree 12 (29%)– Disagree 0 (0%)– Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results

• I understand the material that we have covered so far in Biology 101.– Strongly agree 11 (26%)– Agree 32 (74%)– Disagree 2 (5%)– Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

• I have learned new things about biology this semester.– Strongly agree 21 (51%)– Agree 20 (49%)– Disagree 0 (0%)– Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results

• I can see how the topics we are covering are relevant to my life and my education.– Strongly agree 9 (21%)– Agree 30 (70%)– Disagree 4 (9%)– Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

• Which of these best matches your feelings about the course?– I’d prefer a traditional lecture with no online component. 5 (13%)– I like having a mix of online work and class time. 33 (83%)– I’d prefer to have more online work and less class time. 2 (5%)

Impact of Redesign on Student Retention—DFW Rates

Pilot Previous Semester

Withdrawals 0/48 4/87

F’s 0/48 1/87

D’s 3/48 5/87

Cost Reduction—Overload Pay

Fall 2006

(Traditional)

Spring 2009

(Redesign)

Fall 2009

(Redesign)

$10,370.48 $1196.00 $0

Cost Reduction—Cost per Student

Traditional

(Spring 2007)

Redesign

$329 $155

Implementation Notes

• Comfort level of instructors improves significantly after one semester.

• Student attitudes and expectations evolve quickly.– Some resistance (very limited) to course

design during pilot– Format of redesigned course is now expected

by students and taken in stride

Implementation Notes

• “In class is my favorite way of learning, but the online is like homework and reinforces what I’ve learned.”

• Only 1 or 2 of 48 pilot students had a strong negative reaction to the course format.

• 5 students from pilot changed their major to Biology

Individualized Assistance

• Online learning tools• Staffed computer labs• Peer learning assistants• Small group meetings

– Discussion sections– Laboratories

• Supplementary instruction programs• Online discussion tools

Ongoing Assessment

• Online quizzes

• Clickers in the classroom

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?

NCAT’s Five Principles of Course Redesign

• 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

Selected Goals of Biology 101

• Improve biological literacy of our students

• Demonstrate relevance of biological science to all citizens

• Create a positive experience of biology, doing justice to the amazing natural world

• Distinguish science from non-science

• Share practical information about personal and environmental health

Maryland Course Redesign Initiative2006–2009

This initiative is consistent with the recommendation of the Spellings Commission on The Future of Higher Education: "We urge states and institutions to establish course redesign programs using technology- based, learner-centered principles drawing upon the innovative work already being done by organizations such as the National Center for Academic Transformation."

The USM will be the first System-wide initiative adhering to this recommendation. Each USM institution will be redesigning at least one pilot course during a 3 year period starting in 2006. It is expected that by the end of this period there will be internal capacity to redesign other courses as appropriate.

Implementation Issues

• Adequate coverage of course content– Positive effect of the online structure

• Technology– Browser compatibility with publisher materials– Clicker glitches (batteries, participant list, students forget)

• Faculty development and support (very good)– Assigned time– Blackboard training sessions

• Student attitudes and reactions– Mostly very positive– Some (limited) perception that redesign’s purpose is for the

instructor to get out of work– eBook was not popular

Evaluation and Assessment• Student surveys

– Response to course is generally positive– Students spend more time working on course material

• Embedded exam questions– Student performance has improved or stayed the same

• DFW rates– Decrease from 11 to 6% for one instructor– Heterogeneous results during fall 2008

• Full implementation in spring 2009– Analysis pending