Transcript Slide 1

Developmental Math
Course Redesign (DMCR)
Grant Program
Technical Assistance Workshop
Jackie Lichter
[email protected]
Melinda Vann
[email protected]
Higher
Education
Commission
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agenda
Introductions
Maryland’s College Completion Goals
About the Funder – Complete College
America
DMCR Grant Program
Course Redesign Basics
Grant Application Development
Grant Review Process and Awarding
Project -wide Activity Requirements
Higher
Education
Commission
Why is Maryland Interested
in Course Redesign?
•
Governor O’Malley has set a statewide goal that by
2025 at least 55%of Marylanders age 25-64 will hold
at least one degree credential – either an Associate’s
or Bachelor’s.
•
To attain the number of degrees necessary to meet
the completion goal, Maryland must produce 58,000
degrees per year, an increase of 20,000 – 23,000
annually.
•
Many will come from “natural” enrollment growth, but
close to 15,000 must come from “new initiatives.”
Higher
Education
Commission
What is the Completion Innovation
Challenge Grant?
•
State of Maryland entered into agreement
with Complete College America (CCA) as
one of ten recipients of the Completion
Innovation Challenge Grant
•
The state received $1 million for this grant
•
Approved project includes sub-grant to
support the redesign of developmental math
courses in the state’s institutions of higher
education
Higher
Education
Commission
The Developmental Math Course
Redesign Grant Program
Goals:
•
Find new ways to improve undergraduate student
learning outcomes.
•
Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous
assessment.
•
Reducing time-to-degree and accelerating student
success toward degree completion.
•
Develop the internal capacity of faculty and
administrators to continue the redesign process at
each participating institution.
Higher
Education
Commission
What is Course Redesign?
•
Course redesign is the process of redesigning whole
courses (rather than individual classes or sections) to
achieve better learning outcomes at a lower cost by
taking advantage of the capabilities of information
technology.
•
Course redesign is not just about putting courses
online.
•
It is about rethinking the way we deliver instruction in
light of the possibilities that new technology offers.
Higher
Education
Commission
•
•
•
•
•
What is Wrong with the
Lecture?*
Treats all students as if
they are the same
Ineffective in engaging
students
Inadequate individual
assistance
Poor attendance and
success rates
Students fail to retain
learning
*NCAT Presentation
Higher
Education
Commission
•
•
•
•
•
What is Wrong with Multiple
Sections?*
In theory: greater
interaction
In practice: large class
size
In practice: dominated by
the same presentation
techniques
Lack of coordination
Inconsistent outcomes
*NCAT Presentation
Higher
Education
Commission
5 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
Higher
Education
Commission
Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire
Course
Benefits
Challenges
• Opportunity to evaluate and focus
course goals
• Compromise and consensus building
• Counteract course drift
• Time needed for team-building
• Instructor buy-in across all sections
• Capture the best that each instructor • Variation in faculty attitudes toward
has to offer
technology
• Reduce duplication of effort
• Gathering support for the project – the
• Meaningful and interesting faculty
interaction
more support the better!
Higher
Education
Commission
Goal 2: Encouraging 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
• Student engagement and
satisfaction
•Faculty engagement and
satisfaction
Challenges
•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?
•Significant paradigm shift,
natural skepticism
Higher
Education
Commission
Goal 3: Individualized
Assistance
• Online learning tools
• Staffed computer labs
• Peer learning assistants
• Small group meetings
• Discussion sections
• Laboratories
• Supplementary instruction programs
• Online discussion tools
Higher
Education
Commission
Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/
Monitoring Student Progress
• Online quizzes
• Sophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant
feedback, and assistance
•Track the time that students spend online doing coursework
(Blackboard, publisher software)
•Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of
online work
•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?
6 Models of Course
Redesign
• The Supplemental Model
Higher
Education
Commission
• The Replacement Model
• The Emporium Model
• The Fully Online Model
• The Buffet Model
• The Linked Workshop Model
Higher
Education
Commission
The Supplemental Model
• Retains the basic course structure,
particularly the number of class meetings
• Supplements lectures and textbooks with
technology-based, out-of-class activities
• Encourages greater student engagement
with course content
• Ensures that students are prepared when
they come to class
Higher
Education
Commission
The Replacement Model
• Replaces (rather than supplements) in-class time with online,
interactive learning activities
• Carefully considers why (and how often) classes need to meet
face-to-face
• Assumes that certain activities can be better accomplished online individually or in groups
• May keep remaining in-class activities the same or may make
significant changes
• May schedule out-of-class activities in computer labs or totally
online so that students can participate anytime, anywhere
Higher
Education
Commission
The Emporium Model
• Moves all classes to a lab setting
• Multiple sections combined into one large section
• Depends heavily on instructional software including interactive
tutorials
• Allows students to work as long as they need to master the
content
• Permits the use of multiple kinds of personnel
• Requires a significant commitment of space and equipment
• Can teach more than one course in the lab, thus leveraging the
initial investment
Higher
Education
Commission
The Fully Online Model
•Eliminates all in-class meetings and moves all learning
experiences online.
•Adopts successful design elements of Supplemental,
Replacement and Emporium models including Webbased, multi-media resources, commercial software,
automatically evaluated assessments with guided
feedback, links to additional resources and alternative
staffing models.
Higher
Education
Commission
The Buffet Model
•Takes into account each student’s knowledge/skill level and
preferred learning style
•Provides an array of learning opportunities including : lectures,
outside reading material, labs, small group study sessions, videos,
oral and written presentations, homework assignments, individual
and group, projects, etc.
•Started by Ohio State University for Introductory Statistics
•Initially students are made familiar with the various options
through examples made available for them to experience
•Then the student selects what suits him/her and signs a
contract detailing containing the choices and what needs to be
accomplished
Higher
Education
Commission
The Linked Workshop
Model
• Retains the basic structure of the college-level/core course,
particularly the number of class meetings
• Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time
“workshops”
• Workshops are designed to remove deficiencies in core course
competencies (for a particular course)
• Students are individually assigned software modules based on
results of diagnostic assessments/placement
• Workshops consist of computer-based instruction, small-group
activities and test reviews to provide additional instruction on key
concepts
Higher
Education
Commission
The Linked Workshop
Model Continued
•Workshops are facilitated by students who have
previously excelled in the core course and are trained
and supervised by core course faculty
•Workshop activities are just-in-time—i.e., designed so
that students use the concepts during the next core
course class session, which in turn helps them see the
value of the workshops and motivates them to do the
workshop activities.
Higher
Education
Commission
Summary
• Supplemental – Add to the current structure and/or change
the content
• Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities
• Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting
• Fully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities online
• Buffet – Mix and match according to student preferences
• Linked Workshop - Replaces the remedial/developmental
course with just-in-time “workshops”
Higher
Education
Commission
Show me the money….
Preparing the
Request for Application
Higher
Education
Commission
Who Can Apply?
Eligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for
Maryland’s Complete College America data project
Funding Priority: Those with high percentage of new
entering students enrolled in developmental math
courses.
Higher
Education
Commission
• $30,000
Award Amount
per course - up to 21 awards possible
• May submit more than one application/ one redesign
• Possible to receive more than one award
• Submit a separate application for each redesign
• May request >$30,000 if proposing the merger of multiple
courses of differing levels into one redesigned course
but…
• Merger models should recognize economies of scale
Higher
Education
Commission
Required Matching Fund
Institutions must invest at least 25% of the total cost of the
redesign e.g. $30,000 award matched with $10,000 of
institutional resources
Why? Demonstrate “‘buy in” and long term sustainability
Sources of Match –
•In-kind contributions like faculty and staff time, provision of
instructional materials and technology purchases related to
the redesign. Matching funds must comprise at least 25%
of the total project cost
•Cash
Higher
Education
Commission
Grant Goals & Objectives
1. Find new ways to improve undergraduate student
learning outcomes;
2. Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous
assessment;
3. Reduce instructional costs, freeing up institutional
resources for other academic priorities; and
4. Develop the internal capacity of faculty and
administrators to continue the redesign process at each
participating institution.
Higher
Education
Commission
Important Dates
December 2, 2011
Full Application Due
December 22, 2011
Awards Announced
January/February 2012 (TBD)
Project-Wide Meeting #1
August 15, 2012
Interim Report Due
Higher
Education
Commission
More Important Dates
Fall 2012
Pilot of Redesigned Course
Fall 2012 - (TBD)
Project-Wide Meeting #2
Spring 2013
Full Implementation of Course –all sections
January 31, 2013
Funding expires. Interim Report #2
Unexpended funds returned.
August 15, 2013
Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation
Higher
Education
Commission
RFA Components
Project Cover Page (form provided, original signatures)
Abstract (500 Words)
Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages)
Project Timeline
Budget
Higher
Education
Commission
•
•
•
•
Project Narrative
Extent of Need
Project Overview
Implementation Plan
Outcomes Assessment Plan and
Projected Outcomes
• Cost Savings
Higher
Education
Commission
Extent of Need – 10 pts.
• Relatively brief but compelling case statement
• Supported by institutional data
• Include number and percentage of first time
students enrolled in developmental math
• Other data might include pass/fail rate
development math
• Draw on data already presented in Concept
Paper
Project Overview – 15 pts.
Higher
Education
Commission
• Detailed
• Describe redesign model used
• Specific changes to implement
• New learning methods/materials/approaches
incorporated
Higher
Education
Commission
Implementation Plan
– 30 pts.
• Fall 2012 - pilot redesigned course and assess
– at least 100 students
• Spring 2013 – implement across all sections
• Explain how the courses will be implemented
• Indicate number of students impacted each
semester through Aug 2013
Higher
Education
Commission
Outcomes Assessment Plan &
Projected Outcomes – 30 pts.
• How will redesign student learning outcomes
and time to degree be assessed?
– Pilot, full implementation, after grant has ended?
• What percentage of developmental math
students involved in pilot? In fully
implemented course (all sections)?
Higher
Education
Commission
Cost Savings – scored with
budget
• How will redesigned course save institution
money?
• How much will the institution save?
• How will savings be applied elsewhere?
• Cost savings forms will be provided to
awardees
Higher
Education
Commission
Project Timeline (considered
part of implementation plan)
• Major project activities including planning
meetings
• Month/date of activity
• Key personnel responsible for the activity
• Table format may be used
Higher
Education
Commission
Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost
savings)
Two Parts – budget table and budget narrative
• Budget Table
– Form in Appendix 2 provided
– List expenditures by cost category for both requested grant
funds and institutional matching funds
• Budget Narrative
– Text explaining how each amount was computed (e.g. 50
hours @ $15 per hour, 100 workbooks @ $3 each)
Higher
Education
Commission
Application Due Date
December 2, 2011 by 4:00 PM
One hard copy with original signatures
One electronic copy (word or PDF – budgets may be xls)
Attn: Melinda Vann
[email protected]
Maryland Higher Education Commission
Attention: Melinda Vann
6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Higher
Education
Commission
Review Process
• Every application read by at least 4 qualified
reviewers
• Applications read/scored individually
• Review panel meets to discuss and develop
recommendations
• Recommendations forwarded to Secretary of Higher
Education who makes final funding decision
Higher
Education
Commission
Category
Scoring Rubric
Maximum Points
Extent of Need for the Project (funding priority)
Project Overview
Implementation Plan and Timeline
Assessment of Redesign Impact
Budget and Cost Effectiveness
(includes cost savings)
Total
10
15
30
30
15
100
Higher
Education
Commission
Additional Considerations
• Geographic distribution of awards
• Funding priority – support for institutions with
high percentage of first time students enrolled
in developmental math
Higher
Education
Commission
•
•
•
•
Notification of Awards
December 22, 2011 by email
Formal letter to arrive after holidays
Projects may begin when email notice received
Reviewer comments shared with those who did
not receive funding
• 50% of award distributed within 60 days of award
notice
• Balance distributed after first interim report
reviewed and accepted
Higher
Education
Commission
Project-wide Activities
• Meetings
• Sharing assessment data - traditional vs. redesigned course
student outcomes. Institutions will decide on appropriate
assessment measures themselves.
• Collection and sharing of instructional cost data that
compares costs in the traditional course with those in the
redesigned format. Common project-wide templates will be
used for all participating institutions.
Higher
Education
Commission
Appendices
• Appendix 1 includes all post award procedures. Awardees
should retain RFA for reference
• Appendix 2 includes budget table and application cover sheet
• Cost savings data collection tables will be distributed to awardees
Higher
Education
Commission
Contact Information
Programmatic Questions:
Erin Knepler, P-20 Project Director University System of Maryland
[email protected] or 301-445-2781
Program technical assistance information http://www.usmd.edu/usm/academicaffairs/cr2
Application Development and Grants Management Questions:
Melinda Vann, Director - Outreach and Grants Management,
[email protected] or 410-767-3269
RFA and forms
http://www.mhec.state.md.us/Grants/index.asp
Higher
Education
Commission
Questions?