SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

Multi-institutional Course Redesign

Creative Disruption to “Instruction As Usual”

R. Michael Tanner, APLU Vice President and Principal InvestigatorJoel M. Smith, Vice Provost & CIO, Carnegie Mellon University

Version of July 12, 2011

A Partnership among: APLU Association of Public and Land-Grant UniversitiesAACC American Association of Community Colleges OLI Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University

A Planning Grant funded ($400K) by The Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationMarch 2011 – February 2012


National Context: • Increase the number of U.S. degree holders

Obama 2020, Lumina, SHEEO 2008

• Educate a workforce for 21st century jobsProjection: 63% of jobs in 2018 will require a degree Lifetime value of a college degree is increasing

• Large per capita reductions in state HE funding

• Changing student demographics and heterogeneous backgrounds


The Dream: Overcome the “Iron Triangle”


Control Costs

Advance Quality of Learning

Improve Access & Success

Keys to Quality, Efficiency, and Access: • High Quality learning experience with information

technology and cognitive science

• Collaboration among faculties and institutions in developing, adopting, and sustaining the initiative

• Large Scale through wide adoption at universities and CCs through partnership → economies of scale

• Focus on high enrollment gateway courses common to universities and community colleges


This

Pro

ject

’s D

istin

ctio

n

Achieving the Dream:

• Higher Quality – Better, faster learning using cognitive science: learn how students learn.

• Smooth Transfer, Access and Articulation - Consistent level of readiness for follow-on courses via defined and agreed upon learning outcomes

• Large Scale Adoption and Sustainability through collaboration

• Lower Cost per student using information technologyLess remediation, fewer repeated courses,

etc.Minimal cost to replicate software


• Use the full capabilities of information technology

(First motion pictures photographed stage

plays!)

• Immediate feedback to students and instructors

• Customized learning experience

• Non-judgmental and multi-layered support

(“I’d rather learn calculus from my computer.”)

• Convenience

(24/7 access wherever the Web is available.)


Break out of the box:

OLI course design methodology:• Creates a rich computer-mediated learning environment • Using concepts from learning sciences• Defined learning outcomes

Higher Quality: OLI

o Students are given active challenges and timely feedback.

o Instructors – More engagement with students

Receive feedback on their students’ progress

Very little lecturing

o Course designers- Feedback on learning design.


Better learning: OLI Platform

Course Interdisciplinary Design Team:

-Learning Scientists-Faculty Content Experts-Human-computer interaction experts-Software Engineers

-Challenges-Hints

-Responses-Requests

-Assessment Dashboard


Wide adoption at universities and community colleges, with more enjoyable and successful learning at both.

Large Scale (AACC and APLU)

The one-time development costs for an OLI course are high:Learning outcomes are elaborated explicitly.Learning experiences and interactions are carefully designed.

On-going renewal is similarly intensive and expensive.

Costs can be amortized and benefits spread by large scale Introductory courses in popular subject areas at CCs, 4-year,

and research universities

Lower Cost per Student


Simplified Cost SketchCurrent Mode of Instruction

Class of 200, meeting twice a week in lecture, once in sections.One instructorEight TAs (one TA for 25 students)

Lower cost per student (feasibility argument)

Claim: OLI software and computer support can be very low cost per student at scale.

Sketch Cost per student: ~40% lower, counting OLI costs

Hybrid Mode of Instruction with OLI environment – No textbookTwo Classes of 200, each meeting once a week in lecture, once in sections.One instructor Eight TAs (one TA for 50 students)OLI software and computer support


ProcessPlanning Phase to Development Phase: • (Spring 2011)

o Project publicized to institutions, soliciting advice and expressions of interest

o APLU/AACC Steering Committee empanelled• (Summer 2011)

o Course areas for full proposals/statements identified o Solicitation and criteria to APLU/AACC institutions and

partners • (Early Fall 2011)

o Proposals received and reviewed by Steering Committee.o Lead development sites chosen, contributor networks formedo Development proposals submitted to funders


Development Phase, 2012 and 2013, an Ongoing Research Project:

• OLI Teams work with teams centered at Lead development institutions

• Three tiers of engagement:o Development Lead siteo Contributor participantso Improvement Network participants

• Lead development site faculty are the final arbiters of content and learning outcomes if consensus does not emerge.


Status Report as of June 15, 2011

• Ten subject areas chosen from university/community college responses and interests for possible pursuit: Pre-calculus, calculus, psychology, biology/life science, general chemistry, macro-economics, financial accounting, English composition, Introductory Spanish, English as 2nd language

• 28 universities and systems have expressed interest at some level

• On-line partnership application to be made available


Appeal to SHEEO

• There are many, many “course redesigns” that have been done or are underway across nation (National Center for Academic Transformation, OLI, others). The courses of interest are often the same common subject areas.

• Can we build subject area communities and do a versatile and highly effective intelligent courseware design for a large national community?


Challenges

Central challenge: Assuring widespread adoption of materials produced and sustainable evolution

“Multi-institutional course redesign just doesn’t work.”


Challenges – • Agreement on course content

Approach: Provide flexibility for faculty to supplement

consensus materials. Engage faculty to contribute during the

development phase. Concentrate on core 80% Remember – These are introductory classes!


Challenges – (a) curriculum jig-saw puzzle

• Institutional differences in content and organization of curriculum

EnglishComp.

Pre-Calculus

Physics

Calculus

BiologySta

tistic

s

Che

mis

try

Sociology

Advanced Courses

Psychology

Ecology

Engineering


Develop materials as “modules” whenever possible to be flexibly linked. (The mosaic solution is not feasible!)

Challenges – (b) curriculum jig-saw puzzle

EnglishComp.

Pre-Calculus

Physics

Calculus

Biology

Statistics

Che

mis

try

Social Computing

Advanced Courses

Psychology

Ecology

Engineering

Sociology


Challenges – • Flexibility versus

consistent learning methodologies Consensus on core elements/modules within the

community of subject experts.

• Faculty culture shift Building communities of scholars motivated by

learning outcomes in each course area, for peer support and sustainability

Faculty development programs


Challenges –

• Institutional shifts – approvals and rewards Engaging departments in the redesign project Formal recognition and peer endorsement of

contributions Administrative leaders affirming value of project

• Intellectual property Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial) Paid release time for faculty, other possible financial

considerations Acknowledgements and use of logos


Challenges – • Business model for sustainability

o Charging – who and how? Modest student fee, institutional subscription?

Not-for-profit, for public benefit Transparency in resource handling Governance mechanisms for on-going

discussion and evolution of content

Questions and Comments?


SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

Documents

Transcript of SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011