Transcript Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University

Redesign of Biology 101 at
Salisbury University
Getting Started on Course Redesign
1 February 2013
Biology 101 in 2006
A 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
Dr. Les Erickson, learning technology guru (left)
Bob Tardiff (Assoc Provost)
Melissa Thomas (IT)
Enhancement of online learning in Biology 210
– Kim Hunter, Richard Hunter
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 Course
Benefits
• 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 Course
Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
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 Learning
Benefits
• 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 Learning
Challenges
• 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 Pilot
Spring 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 Course
Replacement 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 Semester
Number 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 Instructor
Number 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
1-2 hours
2-5 hours
more than 5 hours
10 (24%)
27 (64%)
5 (12%)
0 (0%)
• The online lesson helps me understand the material and
is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
12 (29%)
30 (71%)
0 (0%)
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
1-2 hours
2-5 hours
more than 5 hours
7 (17%)
24 (57%)
11 (26%)
0 (0%)
• The study guide helps me understand the material and is
important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
30 (71%)
12 (29%)
0 (0%)
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
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
11 (26%)
32 (74%)
2 (5%)
0 (0%)
• I have learned new things about biology this semester.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
21 (51%)
20 (49%)
0 (0%)
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
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
9 (21%)
30 (70%)
4 (9%)
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 Initiative
2006–2009
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