Transcript DSP History 0100 - Education Commission of the States

Shifting Developmental Studies into High
Gear: A System Approach to Redesign in
Tennessee
Academic Preparation Initiative Funded by FIPSE
Presented by
Dr. Paula Myrick Short, Principal Investigator
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Dr. Treva Berryman, Project Facilitator
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Presented at the 2009 National Forum on Education Policy
Nashville, Tennessee
July 10, 2009
TBR - DSP History
In
1984, the Tennessee Board of Regents mandated a
program of remedial and developmental studies

comprehensive mandatory assessment procedure

mandatory placement of underprepared students by
level of deficiency
comprehensive
support system with prescribed course
with up to 24 SCH
Colleges Spend Billions to Prep
Freshmen

A new report from Strong American
Schools, Diploma to Nowhere, estimates
the costs to bring students “up to speed”
for college work to be between $2.3 billion
and $2.9 billion annually

At TBR, $25 million spent annually on
remedial and developmental education
First-Time Freshmen
Remedial and Developmental Classes
Universities
2006 -11,155 with 4,511 (40.4%)
2007-11,559 with 4,809 (41.6%)
Community Colleges
2006 - 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3%)
2007 – 14,852 with 11,235 (75.6%)
Persistence An Issue
Universities
Community Colleges
DSP Courses
ACT
Retention
Six Year
Grad Rate
Zero
23.4
71.9%
45.4%
22.1
61.5%
29.1%
One
19.7
65.5%
31.4%
19.0
60.5%
22.2%
Two
18.9
63.2%
27.2%
18.1
55.5%
19.0%
Three
17.5
58.1%
21.7%
16.5
50.2%
13.1%
Four
16.4
54.6%
23.2%
15.6
45.8%
9.3%
Five
15.6
68.4%
25.1%
15.2
54.0%
10.7%
Six
15.1
60.7%
18.3%
14.5
48.4%
7.3%
Seven
14.3
65.4%
19.2%
13.9
45.4%
6.5%
Eight
14.1
44.8%
17.2%
13.2
42.0%
3.8%
Totals
21.1
67.5%
36.8%
18.0
54.6%
18.0%
Fall to Fall
ACT
Retention
Six Year
Grad Rate
Fall to Fall
2000 First-Time Freshman Cohort. Rates based on returning to or graduating from initial enrolling institution.
TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan
Objective A8
Increase speed and success of remedial/
developmental work for students requiring them
to become college-ready.
Strategy A8

Establish a best practice, system-wide, community-collegebased remedial/developmental program that is substantially
technology driven, composed of language arts and
mathematics, and allows students to identify and focus on the
academic areas where they are deficient.
The Challenge

Review what we have learned in the past 25 years

Consider the current research and new technologies

Realize that we have different careers, different
academic programs, and very different students than
we had 25 years ago

Design a program to meet the needs of underprepared students with the assumption that nothing
already exist
Expectations for the DSP
Redesign Initiative







Replicable/Scalable model for multiple settings
Improve the quality of learning and assessment
Significant cost savings
Increase retention
Decrease time to completion
Maintain commitment to access
Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and
enhanced public support
Timeline
2006 Initial Planning
- Appointed 20 Task Force Members ( mostly faculty)
- Applied for and awarded $739,000 FIPSE 3-yr grant
2007 Institutional Involvement- The NCAT Process
- Two workshops (330 total participants)
- Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot Interventions
2008 Pilots - 6 funded at $30,000 to $40,000 each
2009 Draft recommendations by the end of the year
2010 - Implement system wide fall semester (may require
phase-in)
Partners and their Role
National Center for Academic Transformation
(NCAT) www.thencat.org
Dr. Carol Twigg – monitoring process for funded pilots
Education Commission of the States
(ECS) www.ecs.org
Dr. Bruce Vandal – expanding research to guide public policy
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
(NCHEMS) http://www.nchems.org
Dr. Karen Paulson – external evaluation of the project
DSP REDESIGN TASK FORCE
Representatives include a President, Chief Academic
Officer, Student Affairs Officer, Director of
Admissions, University Vice President,
Developmental Studies Directors, and Faculty
1.
2.
3.
4.
TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES
Math Curriculum Review
English (reading/writing) Curriculum Review
Assessment
Funding/Financial
Consensus on a New Philosophy for DSP
Change of focus: from the past—to the future
Instead of remediating for whatever was missed or
forgotten from high school, we will prepare the student
to succeed in the curriculum of their chosen field of
study. If the student changes the career goal, additional
remediation may be needed.
Question
Can remediation be provided “just in time” so that
students can take college level courses prior to
completing all developmental studies requirements?
SHIFTING
GEARS INTO
REDESIGN
A Different Approach
Each redesign pilot is unique.
■
■
■
■
■
NeSCC – Emporium Model (reading)
CoSCC – Replacement Model (reading and writing)
APSU – Structured Learning Assistance (SLA) (math)
ClSCC and JSCC– Emporium Model (math)
ChSCC – Replacement Model (math)
Northeast State Community College








Reading Emporium
Diagnostic pre- and post-test; individualized plan
Mandatory weekly hours in the Reading Center w/
individual assistance
Online Learning Communities through D2L and
Tegrity
MyReadingLab—Web-based and modularized
Course Notebook
Multiple sets of practice and module tests
Automatic tracking and grading
Improved Learning at Northeast State
Student Learning/Performance
Class
Pre-Test
Average
Post-Test
Average
Value
Added
Pilot II
72.06
84.77
12.59
Pilot III
65.23
86.05
20.82
Traditional
72.29
81.09
8.80
Northeast State Community College
Learning Outcomes
Student success ( “C” of better) increased from
52% (traditional) to 58% (redesigned delivery).
Students with a grade of “A” increased from
14% (traditional) to 30% (redesigned delivery).
APSU - SLA Components
In the Classroom
Faculty teach the core
course the same way it
is taught for non-SLA
sections.
The SLA Leader models
effective student
behavior.
In the Workshop
Weekly
Faculty/ SLA
Leader
Coordination
Meeting
The SLA Leader
reinforces key course
concepts, teaches study
habits, and conducts
test reviews.
MyMathLab provides
individualized
instruction on
prerequisite course
competencies
Prerequisite Competencies
MATH 1010
Fractions & decimals
Number & measure
Proportional reasoning
Signed numbers &
algebraic expression
Linear equations &
their graphs
Radicals & roots
MATH 1530
Algebraic expression
Equations, inequalities,
& percents
Graphing, functions, &
linear equations
Polynomials,
exponents, & radicals
APSU – SLA Results

Significant increase in student success rate
Course
Fall 2008
Spring
2009
Traditional
Math 1010 70.5%
62.2%
23.1%
Math 1530 51.9%
64.15%
22.5%
 Significant increase in student
retention from 59.9% to 63.6%
APSU - SLA Benefits
For the University
For Students
Decreased costs.
Decreased costs.
Increased revenue.
Decreased time
required to complete
core requirements.
Reduced class space
requirements.
Increased student
success.
Increased opportunity
for success.
Survive Master Achieve Review Transfer
SMART Math Center at
Jackson State Community College
Jackson State - Before Redesign





Three Traditional Courses
 Enrollment: 2200
 Number Sections: 102
 Max Size per Section: 24
Student had to pass course or start over next term
Each instructor designed own course presentations, lectures,
homework assignments, and tests
Student class time rigid
Student had to successfully complete all three courses before
being accepted into Allied Health or Nursing programs or taking
certain college level courses
SMART Math at JSCC

Mastery Approach

Opportunity to Progress More Quickly (or slowly, if
needed)

Accommodation of Learning Styles

On-demand Individual Assistance

Immediate Feedback on Tests and Homework

Use of Customized Textbook with Study Guides and
Technology Driven Instruction
JSCC Modularization
12 modules covering same competencies as traditional
development courses.
MODULES
TRADITIONAL COURSE
1, 2, 3
DSPM 0700 Basic Mathematics
4, 5, 6, 7
DSPM 0800 Elementary Algebra
8, 9, 10, 11, 12
DSPM 0850 Intermediate Algebra
To satisfy a module the overall grade must be at least 75%
Module grades calculated as follows:
Attendance
5%
Notebooks
10%
Homework
15%
Post-Test (Proctored)
70%
Results of JSCC Modularization


40 Courses of Study require a General Education Math
Courses
 31 Majors allowed a Math Course with prerequisite
Modules 1 – 7
 2 Required at least 8 Modules
 7 Required all 12 Modules
7 Programs of Study do not require college level Math –
Allied Health & Nursing
 2 Require Modules 1-8
 4 Require Modules 1-7
 1 Requires Modules 1-6
 1 Requires Modules 1-4
Students Completing DSPM
Requirements
Students who can enroll in college level
courses/programs next term
Traditional Course Spring 2008
24%
Redesign Course Spring 2008
22%
Redesign Course Fall 2008
36%
Redesign Course Spring 2009
42%
Student Outcomes
41% 54% 57% 59%
74% 72% 75% 83%
Student Learning = Students making ABC
Course Retention = Students enrolled in the course to the end of semester
Mean Scores on Post Test
by Modules
Cleveland State Community College

3 Developmental Math Courses


6 College Level Math Courses




60 computer lab on main campus in Cleveland
35 computer classroom/lab on campus in Athens
Project Timeline




College Algebra, Statistics, Finite Math
Precalculus I, Precalculus II, Applied Calculus
2 Computer Labs, 4 Computer Classrooms


Basic Math, Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra
Spring 2008: Elementary Algebra and Intermediate Algebra
Fall 2008: Basic Math, College Algebra, Statistics, Finite Math
Fall 2009: Precalculus I, Precalculus II, and Applied Calculus
1000+ Students Enrolled In 9 courses Each Semester
Cleveland State’s Approach

Course Layout





Course Grade




Each course consists of 10 – 12 mini-modules
1 hour class meeting each week – students work in class
2 hours work outside class each week – at least 1 hour in lab
Students expected to complete one module each week
10% Attendance Grade - class & lab attendance, module finished
30% Homework Sets – 2 to 5 sections per module
60% Quiz and Exam Grades – 1 quiz each module, 2 exams
Course Standards




Students must complete every homework set (70 or better)
Students must pass every module quiz and exam (70 or better)
Students must pass attendance grade (70 or better)
Students may take each quiz and exam multiple times
Changing Faculty Roles
Traditional Faculty Role









Dispense information
Covering material
15 hours of contact time
Teaching 5 class sections
Help students outside
class?
7.5 office hours each week
Prep time a burden
Grading at home
Focused on lectures
New Faculty Role









Assist students with
learning
Tracking student progress
20 hours of contact time
Teaching 10 class sections
10 lab hours each week
5 office hours each week
Prep time eliminated
100% online grading
Focused on student
success
Attitude Adjustments
Before Redesign
After Redesign
Students
Students



I want my lecture!
Study night before exam
What do I need to pass?
Teachers

I want my lecture!
Class



Low attendance
Don’t do homework
Not engaged in class



I like this!
Weekly homework, quiz
I want an A.
Teachers

This works!
Class



Median attendance grade
88
Average homework grade 97
Come to class early, stay late
But Did It Help?

Developmental Math




College Level Math





Success rate in developmental math courses went from 54% to 72%
Each course showed significant improvement in Fall 2008
Intermediate Algebra had a 79% success rate in Fall 2008
Success rate in three redesigned courses increased from 72% to 75%
College Algebra improved, Finite Math & Statistics stayed same
33% increase in students passing a college level math course
More students passed a college level math course in Spring 2009 than
were enrolled in a college level math course in Spring 2008
Developmental Students In College Level Math



Before redesign 71% success for developmental students in math
After redesign 76% success rate for developmental students in math
Fall 2008 developmental students 79% success rate in math while
college math success rate was unchanged at 72%
Keep Them Coming Back For More

Higher Success Rates In Developmental Math




Reduced Scheduling Roadblocks For Students




Students can’t graduate if they can’t get their classes scheduled
Increased course offerings helps students in scheduling classes
One hours class meetings easier to schedule, reducing time
conflicts
Continuous Enrollment Plan Keeps Students Working



29% increase in students passing a developmental math course
32% increase in students exiting developmental math
42% enrollment increase in college math courses 09S
63 students completed multiple math courses in Fall 2008
46 exited developmental math, 13 completed college math
course
These Factors Positively Impact Graduation And
Retention

College retention increased by 7% Spring 2009
Less Is More
Before Redesign

3 Developmental Math
Courses



3 College Math Courses





17 Sections Offered
Average Class Size 20
Athens & Vonore Sites


30 Sections Offered
Average Class Size 24
5 Developmental Math
Classes
4 College Level Math
Courses
Maximum Class Size 32
Most Sections 20 - 25 Students
After Redesign

3 Developmental Math Courses



3 College Math Courses





28 Sections Offered
Average Class Size 14
Athens & Vonore Sites


40 Sections Offered
Average Class Size 18
9 Developmental Math
Classes
8 College Level Math Sections
Maximum Class Size 22
Most Sections 15 - 20 Students
More Bang For The Buck

Faculty Productivity Increased by 23%







Average student load increased from 106 in 07F to 130 in 08F
FTE per faculty member went from 21.2 in 07F to 26.0 in 08F
Five of eight faculty members responsible for 150+ students
Faculty members teach 10 or 11 sections under redesign
Faculty members work in Math Lab 8 – 10 hours each week
Weekly contact time increased from 15 hours to 20 hours
Costs Reduced By Over $50000/Year As Of
Fall 2009




Adjunct eliminated in math department as a result of this
project
Shift in personnel possible due to redesign
Math Lab staffed by faculty and part time tutors
Copying costs drastically reduced due to online testing
Make Hay While The Sun Shines

Continuous Enrollment Plan





Students may start in any redesigned math course when they finish
the course they are currently enrolled in, without switching classes
Students add second class to schedule if they complete it
Students can take advantage of this option at any point
Whatever work the student completes transfers next semester
Students Completing Multiple Courses





63 students completed multiple math courses in 2008 - 2009
46 of these exited developmental math in one semester
13 of these completed a college level math course
2 students completed 3 courses in one semester
Many more students completed a course and started in 2nd course
Can I Get A Witness?
Students Discuss Redesign
Teachers Discuss Redesign
WHY DOES THE EMPORIUM
INCREASE SUCCESS?

Active learning: Students spend the bulk of
their course time doing math problems.

On-demand help: Students get assistance
when they encounter problems in doing
math.

Modularization: Students spend more time
on things they don’t understand and less
time on things they have already mastered.
Students learn math by
doing math, not by
listening to someone
talk about doing math.
The same is true for
reading and writing.
WHAT NEEDS FURTHER STUDY?
Record-keeping, tuition policy,
financial aid
 Whole courses vs. competencies
 Cost structures, funding models
 Approach to modularization
 Engaging more students

WHOLE COURSE VS.
COMPETENCIES NEEDED




Cleveland State: Whole course
Austin Peay: Competencies for two specific courses
Jackson State: Competencies needed for 40
programs of study
 31 required 7 of 12 modules
 2 required 8 of 12 modules
 7 required all 12 modules
What impact do these different structures have on
student success and cost?
CLEVELAND STATE
COST REDUCTION
After
Before






Section size = 24
55 sections (Fall/Spring)
 45 by FT faculty
 10 by adjuncts
Faculty load = 10 sections
Faculty cost = $256,275
Adjunct cost = $14,400
Total cost = $270,625






Section size = 18
77 sections (Fall/Spring)
 77 by FT faculty
 0 by adjuncts
Faculty load = 20 sections
Faculty cost = $219,258
Adjunct cost = $0
Total cost = $219,258
Savings = $51,418 or 19%
JACKSON STATE
COST REDUCTION
Before







After
Section size = 20
102 sections (Annual)
 80 by FT faculty
 22 by adjuncts
Faculty load = 5 sections
Faculty cost = $386,000
Adjunct cost = $31,966
Other personnel = $4,885
Total cost = $422,851







Section size = 30
73 sections (Annual)
 42 by FT faculty
 31 by adjuncts
Faculty load = 5 sections
Faculty cost = $202,650
Adjunct cost = $45,043
Other personnel = $12,856
Total cost = $260,549
Savings = $162,302 or 38%
NORTHEAST STATE COST REDUCTION
Before
 Section size = 17
 24 sections (Fall/Spring)
 12 by FT faculty
 12 by adjuncts
 Faculty load = 3 sections
Faculty cost = $61,428
 Adjunct cost = $19,404
 Other personnel = $0
 Total cost = $80,832
After
 Section size = 275 & 137
 2 sections (Fall/Spring)
 2 by FT faculty
 0 by adjuncts
 Faculty load =.5 section
Faculty cost = $30,714
 Adjunct cost = $0
 Other personnel = $8,925
Total cost = $39,639
Savings = $41,193 or 51%
ENGAGING MORE STUDENTS

Students who “do the work” succeed.

That leads to a big difference in learning outcome
averages and improvement in completion rates .

This means a higher percentages of As & Bs.



CSCC Elementary Algebra – 34% (T) vs. 66% (R)
CSCC Intermediate Algebra – 38% (T) vs. 69% (R)
The issue is, how to engage those who don’t engage.


CSCC = 26%
JSCC = 41%
There are still too many students not engaged.
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?





The Emporium Model works and the Linked
Workshop Model works.
Modularization works.
It’s possible to improve quality while radically
reducing costs in developmental studies.
Developmental studies students will flourish by
using technology appropriately—both traditional
and non-traditional students.
Students who previously feared math can love math!
Final Thoughts

Re-design (not redesign)



Move Forward and Don’t Look Back




Tweaking lectures will give you tweaked results
Significant change can give you significantly different results
If you redesign, spend your energy making it work
Don’t hang on to “the way it has always been done” (i.e. lecture)
Ask the right questions: How do we. . .? not Why can’t we. . . .?
Goal: Transformation

Lakeisha before redesign and after