WORKSHOP II:Planning for Course Redesign• Review of Workshop Homework• Innovative Course Redesign Practices• Break-out Sessions: Redesign Plans• Preparing the Final Proposal

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008

• Abstract• Application Narrative

– Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles

– Learning materials: what you plan to use– Assessment strategy: how you plan to

measure student learning– Cost reduction strategy: what you will do

with the savings– Five Critical Implementation Issues: how

you will address – Timeline: pilot in spring 2009; full

implementation in fall 2009

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008

• Tools and Forms• Assessment Forms (2)• Course Completion Forms (2)• Course Planning Tool (CPT)• Course Savings Summary Form (CSS)• Course Structure Form (CSF)

• Budget and budget narrative• A draft of your CPT will be due on

5/26/08.• Grant awards will be made on 6/30/08.

http://www.theNCAT.org/R2R/R2R_Planning_Resources.htm

• Five Models for Course Redesign• Five Principles of Successful

Course Redesign• Five Models for Assessing Student

Learning• Cost Reduction Strategies• Five Critical Implementation Issues• Five Course Redesign Proposals• Assessment Planning Forms• Course Planning Tool• Course Savings Summary• Course Structure Form• Planning Checklist

READINESS CRITERIA

• What were we looking for in your responses?

• Evidence of preliminary planning

• Collaborative response—not by one person

READINESS CRITERION #1Course Choice

• What impact would redesigning the course have on the curriculum, on students and on the institution—i.e., why do you want to redesign this course?

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING (4)

• MS State: Biology • MS State: Chemistry• MS State: Statics• USM: Nutrition

SOCIAL SCIENCE (2)

• USM: Anthropology• USM: Psychology

HUMANITIES (3)

• MS U for Women: English Comp• USM: Spanish• USM: Technical Writing

QUANTITATIVE (9)• Alcorn State: College Algebra• Delta State: College Algebra• Jackson State: Int & College Algebra • MS State: Statistics• MS U for Women: Int & College

Algebra• MVSU: Int Algebra • U of MS: Business Calculus• USM: Int Algebra• USM: Computing

FACTORS YOU CITED REGARDING HIGH IMPACT

• High drop-failure-withdrawal rates• Student performance in subsequent

courses • Students on waiting lists• Growing enrollment pressures• Lack of consistency in multiple sections• Disparate range of student skill levels

READINESS CRITERION #2Redesign Model

• Which redesign model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

• What aspects fit your particular discipline and your particular students?

CHOICE OF MODEL

• Supplemental: MS State (Biology)• Emporium:

– Alcorn State (College Algebra)– Delta State (College Algebra)– MS State (Statics)– USM (Intermediate Algebra)

• Fully Online: USM (Computing) • Buffet: USM (Nutrition)

REPLACEMENT MODEL

• Humanities– MS U for Women (English Comp)– USM (Spanish)– USM (Tech Writing)

• Natural and Social Sciences– MS State (Chemistry)– USM (Anthropology)– USM (Psychology)

REPLACEMENT MODEL

• U of MS (Business Calculus)• MS State (Statistics)

• Jackson State (Algebra)• MS U for Women (Algebra)• MVSU (Algebra)

REASONS CITED• “The mathematical background of students

who enroll in these courses dictates that they need the human touch in addition to technology to adequately enhance their mathematics learning skills.”

• “This model allows students to have more contact with supervisory personnel in a laboratory setting and reduces the number of contact hours in a formal lecture setting.”

– “The classes will be designed so that each week students spend two periods in a traditional lecture classroom setting and the third period in a supervised lab.”

– “Faculty will meet face-to-face for two 50-minute sessions each week. The third 50-minute session will be replaced with interactive learning using the chosen technology.”

• The average ACT scores for incoming new students are low. As a result, the math faculty does not feel comfortable with allowing these students to work in a more independent fashion than allowed by the replacement model.

• By using short “pre-quizzes" on new material which are due prior to class, the faculty member can specifically tailor classroom instruction based on the pre-quiz results. This may include no class time on topics which the students have already mastered and more time spent on topics that students are struggling with or that are more challenging.

REPLACEMENT VS. EMPORIUM

Ole Miss• Replacement• 2 hours in class• 1 hour in lab• Hawkes

PCR and R2R• Emporium• 1 hour in class• 2 – 3 hours in lab• MyMathLab

Key Factors in Common

Thoughtfulness!

Software is part of the instructional team.

Planning for the whole, not just the parts.

RESULTS OF USING THE EMPORIUM MODEL

• At the U of Alabama, student success rates went from 40% to 78%.

• U of Idaho students earned more As and Bs and fewer Ds and Fs.

• At the University of Missouri-Saint Louis, successful completion rate (grade of C or better) increased from 63.3% to 78.4%.

• In fall 2006, the final exam median at LSU was 78%, the highest ever achieved.

• At Wayne State, two-thirds of those who took the final exam passed it compared to only about half in the traditional course.

READINESS CRITERION #3Assessment Plan

• Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

FIVE MEASUREMENT METHODS• Common Finals: Alcorn State, Delta State,

MS State (Chemistry), MS State (Statics), MS State (Statistics), MVSU, U of MS, USM (Computing)

• Common Content Items: MS State (Biology)• Pre- and Post-Tests: USM (Anthropology)• Common Rubrics: MS U for Women (English

Comp), USM (Technical Writing)• Multiple Methods: Jackson State,

USM (College Algebra), USM (Nutrition), USM (Psychology), USM (Spanish)

More Is Not Better!• Performance in follow-on courses• Student attitude toward subject matter• Student interest in pursuing further

coursework in the discipline• Differences in performance among

student subpopulations• Deep vs. superficial learning

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!

READINESS CRITERION #4Cost Savings Plan

• Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

10 HAVE A CLEAR COST REDUCTION STRATEGY

• Increase section size and decrease the number of sections (3)

• Increase section size and decrease the number of sections to accommodate growth (3)

• Increase section size, decrease the number of sections and change the mix of personnel teaching the course (3)

• Increase faculty load from 4 to 6 courses (1)

FIVE ARE NOT CLEAR

• Reduce the number of faculty (1)• Accommodate more students via virtual

labs but lack large lecture halls (1)• Increase section size assuming growth (2)• Increase section size vs. keep section size

the same (1)

THREE DO NOT HAVE A COST REDUCTION STRATEGY

• Hope that retention will produce savings (2)

• “Paper savings” - took the first step but not the second (1)

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

COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE

Traditional• Instructor load = 4

sections • 150 minutes/week

3 50-minute or 2 75-minute meetings

• Time spent = 600 minutes per week

Redesign• Instructor load = 6

sections • 150 minutes/week

2 50-minute meetings• Time spent = 600

minutes per week • Option: Reduce # of

sections from 12 to 8 per semester, saving an additional $32,000

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)

COST-PER-STUDENT

IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

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!!!

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.

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)

COURSE STRUCTURE FORMInstitution Name:Course Name:

Fall Spring Summer Total Fall Spring Summer TotalCOURSE STRUCTURE Length of term (in weeks) Total course enrollment # of type 1 sections # of type 2 sections

# of students per type 1 section # of students per type 2 section

COURSE MEETINGSType 1 Section Total # of in-class hours per week Total # of lectures per week Length of each lecture (hours) Total # of recitations per week Length of each recitation (hours) Total # of labs per week Length of each lab (hours) Total # of other meetings per week Length of each (hours)

Type 2 Section Total # of in-class hours per week Total # of lectures per week Length of each lecture (hours) Total # of recitations per week Length of each recitation (hours) Total # of labs per week Length of each lab (hours) Total # of other meetings per week Length of each (hours)

TRADITIONAL REDESIGN

INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNELType 1 Faculty Number teaching the course Number of sections per faculty Number of lectures per faculty Number of recitations per faculty Number of labs per faculty Number of other meetings per faculty

Type 2 Faculty Number teaching the course Number of sections per faculty Number of lectures per faculty Number of recitations per faculty Number of labs per faculty Number of other meetings per faculty

Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) Number teaching the course Number of sections per GTA Number of lectures per GTA Number of recitations per GTA Number of labs per GTA Number of other meetings per GTA

Undergraduate Assistants (UGAs) Number assisting in the course Number of sections per UGA Number of lectures per UGA Number of recitations per UGA Number of labs per UGA Number of other meetings per UGA

READINESS CRITERION #5Learning Materials

• Are the faculty able and willing to incorporate existing curricular materials in order to focus work on redesign issues rather than materials creation?

READINESS CRITERION #6Active Learning

• Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

READINESS CRITERION #7Collective Commitment

• Describe the members of your team, the skills they bring to the project and what their roles will be in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONwww.theNCAT.org

INNOVATIVE COURSE REDESIGN PRACTICES

• Creating "Small" within "Large“

• Undergraduate Learning Assistants

• Freshmen Don’t Do Optional

• Modularization• New Instructional Roles• Avoiding “Either/or”

Choices

ASSIGNMENT

• Each table will consider one practice.• Do you think this is a good idea? Why

or why not? • If you were to implement the practice,

what benefits would it offer? What challenges would it present?

• What needs to be taken into account in implementing this practice?

• Choose one person to report back.

TABLE ASSIGNMENTS

• 1, 7, 13, 19 -– "Small" within "Large“• 2, 8, 14 -– ULAs• 3, 9, 15 -– Freshmen Don’t Do Optional• 4, 10, 16, 20 -– Modularization• 5, 11, 17 -– New Roles• 6, 12, 18, 21 -– Avoiding “Either/Or”

COURSE REDESIGN PLANS

• We have broken your teams up so that each team member can present and get feedback.

• Each person will present a five-minute summary of the model your team has chosen and how you will implement the Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign within it. (5 minutes)

• Each person will receive feedback from the table group. (10 minutes)

• Identify any questions about the process and choose someone to report back.

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 PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008

• Abstract• Application Narrative

– Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles

– Learning materials: what you plan to use– Assessment strategy: how you plan to

measure student learning– Cost reduction strategy: what you will do

with the savings– Five Critical Implementation Issues: how

you will address – Timeline: pilot in spring 2009; full

implementation in fall 2009

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMATDue June 16, 2008

• Tools and Forms• Assessment Forms (2)• Course Completion Forms (2)• Course Planning Tool (CPT)• Course Savings Summary Form (CSS)• Course Structure Form (CSF)

• Budget and budget narrative• A draft of your CPT will be due on

5/26/08.• Grant awards will be made on 6/30/08.

http://www.theNCAT.org/R2R/R2R_Planning_Resources.htm

• Five Models for Course Redesign• Five Principles of Successful

Course Redesign• Five Models for Assessing Student

Learning• Cost Reduction Strategies• Five Critical Implementation Issues• Five Course Redesign Proposals• Assessment Planning Forms• Course Planning Tool• Course Savings Summary• Course Structure Form• Planning Checklist

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 about the redesign.

• Avoid backsliding by building ongoing institutional commitment to the redesign.

NCAT CORPORATE ASSOCIATES

• Blackboard• Cengage Learning

(Thomson Learning)• Houghton Mifflin • McGraw-Hill• Pearson Education

THE REDESIGN ALLIANCESecond Annual Conference

When: March 16 – 18, 2008Where: The Rosen Centre Hotel

Orlando, FloridaHotel Reservation Deadline:

February 29, 2008Meeting Registration Deadline:

February 29, 2008

PROGRAM CONSULTANTS

• Carol Twigg

ctwigg@theNCAT.org

• Carolyn Jarmon

cjarmon@theNCAT.org

518-695-5320

*PLUS PCR and R2R PARTICIPANTS*