Transcript Course Efficiency Inititiative

A Course Redesign Initiative at a
Southern Public University
G. David Johnson
Jack Dempsey
University of South Alabama
Institutional
Backdrop
• Financial crisis
• Decreasing state
support
• Increasing
demand for
flexible learning
opportunities
• LMS decision
• Better
technology
options
Redesign RFPs
Faculty Proposal
• Description of specific
innovation
• Instructional efficiency goals as
measured by instructional
salary/credit hour production
• Rationale for choosing the
innovation
• Costs associated with
implementation
• Time frame for piloting
redesign
Redesign RFPs
Cont’d
Proposal Review
• Evaluation plan to demonstrate
improved quality and cost
efficiencies
• Sources of baseline information
• Baseline instructional costs
• How active learning results
• How student learning is
measured
Course Redesign Initiative
First Round
• 37 faculty Proposals
respond to SVPAA’s
call
• Up to 18,000 annual
course enrollments
potentially affected
• 25 pilots started fall
2010 semester
College
Proposals
Course
Enrollments
A&S
20
12,220
CESP
6
1,946
CIS
2
1,887
COE
4
445
MCOB
5
1,418
37
17,916
Strong Support from Deans
• Deans video
modernize systems
urban university
economic pressures
Course Redesign Initiative
Principles:
Improve Quality
Increase Cost Efficiency
Research Support
USDOE meta-analysis*
“Students who took all or part of their class
online performed better, on average, than
those taking the same course through
traditional face-to-face instruction.”
“Instruction combining online and face-to-face
elements had a larger advantage relative to
purely face-to-face instruction than did purely
online instruction.”
*Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online
Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
Research Support
NCAT projects*
(redesign 30 institutions)
25 of 30 signif. increases in learning (others
NSD)
Majority reported increased coursecompletion and lower DFW rates
Avg. cost reduction 37%
*National Council on Academic Transformation.
Six Models of Course Redesign
(based on NCAT)
• The Supplemental Model
• The Replacement Model
• The Emporium Model
• The Fully Online Model
• The Buffet Model
• Linked Workshop Model
Math Emporium Lab at Univ. of South Alabama
Course Redesign Initiative
• Focus
–High enrollment
courses
–eLearning
• usually blended
format
Scope
U. South Alabama
• 37 redesign proposals
(first round)
• affecting estimated
4,400 undergrads
NCAT
• 30 institutions
• 30 course redesigns
• affecting 50,000 students
nationwide
Type of Redesign
11%
Whole Course
13%
Certain Sections
76%
New or Combine
Course
Models of Redesign fall 2010
Quality and Cost Efficiencies
• Creative eLearning technologies
– lecture capture
– interactive instructional materials from publishers
– online tutoring
– guided examples
– team case studies
– expert guests
Quality and Cost Efficiencies
• Active on-campus learning sessions
– Structured team-based problems
– Cases and inquiry learning scenarios
– Oral and project presentations
– Large group content review
– Strategic quizzing; practice tests
– Critiques and discussion
How have we supported?
Professional Development
• NCAT and Sloan-C Conferences
and workshops - 3 groups of
faculty
• Innovation in Learning Center
workshops
• ILC Redesign website
• Evaluation assistance
• Redesign Academy (3 days w/
honorarium)
• Redesign Faculty Get-Togethers
How have we supported?
Direct Support
• New Institutional
tools (iTunesU,
Camtasia Relay,
Kaltura, Big blue
Button)
• Personal Tools
(laptops, software)
• E-Learning Assistant
Program
ILC staff shooting video of blended course activities
How have we supported?
Peer Modeling
• Some eLeader program topics:
– Creating screencasts for Political
Science
– Using online debates in Community
Health courses
– Assessment--matching Engineering
outcomes
– iTunes U in Real Estate courses
– Using Wikis in Library Science
– Presentation skills for video in Nursing
courses
– Preparing student review podcasts om
Business
– Virtual Engineering chalkboard
Faculty Reactions
• faculty video
How did we measure?
Cost Indicators
• Comparison of Methods
Institutional
• Personnel cost per Student
• % Change in personnel cost
per student
• Course enrollment
• Reduction in part-time
instructors and GAs
Course Specific
• Reassign faculty
assignments
• Time for research and
grant-seeking
How did we measure?
Quality Metrics
• Comparison of Methods
Institutional
• Student Success rates
• D/Fs,
• WDs
Course Specific
• Common Final Exams
• Common Content Items
Selected from Exams
• Pre- and Post-tests
• Student Work Using
Common Rubrics
Personnel Costs fall 2010
Redesign
Comparison
3300
3916
Full-time instructors
29
54
Part-time instructors
20
38
GA’s (teaching only)
0
1
Avg FT instructor cost
per student
$87.17
$123.85
-28.8%
Avg PT instructor cost
per student
$15.53
$25.05
-38.0%
Total Personnel cost
per student incl. GAs
support personnel
$125
$152
-22.3%
Course enrollment
% Change
Personnel Costs Spring 2011
Redesign
Comparison
3,150
3,296
Full-time instructors
25
38
Part-time instructors
24
31
GA’s (teaching only)
0
1
Avg FT instructor cost
per student
$78.21
$108.83
-28.2%
Avg PT instructor cost
per student
$16.73
$22.43
-25.4%
Total Personnel cost
per student incl. GAs
support personnel
$110.28
$133.35
-17.3%
Course enrollment
% Change
Fall 2010 Grade Comparisons
Redesign
Frequency
Comparison
Percent
Frequency
Percent
2,078
63.0
2,640
67.4
D/F Rate
830
25.2
886
22.6
WD Rate
389
11.8
390
10.0
3
0.1
0
0.0
3,300
100.0
3,916
100.0
Success Rate
Incompletes
Total Students
Spring 2011 Grade Comparisons
Redesign
Frequency
Comparison
Percent
Frequency
Percent
2,008
63.7
2228
67.6
D/F Rate
739
23.5
716
21.7
WD Rate
402
12.8
352
10.7
1
0.1
0
0.0
3,150
100.0
3,296
100.0
Success Rate
Incompletes
Total Students
Continue Formative Focus
• Working with
administrators and faculty
to improve or restructure
course redesign
• Alert chairs and deans to
problems
• Discuss course redesign
changes with Depts.
• Ongoing reports to VP
Formative Focus
USA Redesign Academy
• Identify most effective and
efficient courses
• Determine commonalities
that resulted in success
• Structure
• Activities
• Course formats
• Targeted faculty training
• Student support from
faculty members
Some Improvements
• Initial student orientation
help create structure
• Changing from online to
more structured blended
format for 100-level
courses
• Evaluate savings in
classroom use
Student
Orientation
Video
prepared by
the USA
Innovation in
Learning
Center.
Risks
Wildflowers or Weeds?
&
Rewards
Principle-guided Innovation
Special thanks to our colleague Cecelia Martin for her
help in analyzing data related to this presentation.