Transcript Document 7280636

CHANGING THE EQUATION




The Context: Scaling a Proven Innovation
Program Structure and Resources
Readiness Criteria
Redesign Alliance Conference
BILL & MELINDA GATES
FOUNDATION


We believe that every life has equal value
and that each individual should have the
opportunity to live up to his or her
potential. In the U.S., the key to
opportunity is education.
The foundation’s U.S. Program is focused
on ensuring that 1) a high school
education should result in college
readiness and 2) postsecondary
education should result in a degree or
certificate with genuine economic value.
CHANGING THE EQUATION
Key Characteristics





Builds on NCAT’s record of success in course
redesign
Goal: to scale a proven innovation, the
Emporium Model
Focus: remedial and developmental math at
community and other two-year colleges
25+ institutions will be selected to receive a
$40,000 grant
Support collaboration among NCAT staff,
Redesign Scholars and institutional teams
WHAT DOES NCAT MEAN BY
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.
WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY?
National Association
of Developmental
Educators (NADE)
says using
“developmental”
and “technology” in
the same sentence
is an oxymoron.
FEDERAL STUDY SAYS NO
BENEFIT GOING HIGH-TECH


According to the National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, a research arm of the
Education Department, going high-tech
doesn't lead to higher math scores.
The study found achievement scores
were no higher in classrooms using
math software products than in
classrooms without the new products.
REASON?


Using technology
does not
automatically
lead to increased
student success.
It’s how you use
the technology
that leads to
increased
student success.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF
COURSE REDESIGN




The Program in Course
Redesign
1999 – 2003 (30 institutions)
The Roadmap to Redesign
(R2R)
2003 – 2006 (20 institutions)
Colleagues Committed to
Redesign (C2R)
2006 - 2009 (60 institutions)
Programs with Systems and
States
2006 – 2010 (~80 institutions)
REDESIGN SUCCESS IN
COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH
Increased the percentage of
students who successfully complete
a college-level math course by 43%
on average (7% to 170%)
 Reduced the cost of instruction by
37% on average (19% to 77%)
 Impacted ~13,000 students per year

IMPROVING SUCCESS IN
COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH
REDUCING THE COST OF
COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH
REDESIGN SUCCESS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL MATH
Increased the percentage of
students who successfully complete
a developmental math course by
51% on average (10% to 135%)
 Reduced the cost of instruction by
30% on average (12% to 52%)
 Impacted ~10,000 students per year

IMPROVING SUCCESS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL MATH
REDUCING THE COST OF
DEVELOPMENTAL MATH
REDESIGN SCHOLARS






Betty Frost – Jackson State CC
Jamie Glass – U of Alabama
Phoebe Rouse – LSU
John Squires – Chattanooga
State CC
Kirk Trigsted – U of Idaho
Karen Wyrick – Cleveland
State CC
CHANGING THE EQUATION
Scaling a Proven Innovation




Moving beyond the experimental phase
There is room for continuous
improvement but not for starting over.
To participate, you must meet our design
criteria.
Key elements that you must include
–
–
–
1) Emporium Model
2) Modularization
3) All remedial and developmental courses
EMPORIUM MODEL


Eliminates all lectures
Replaces them with a learningresource center (lab) model
–
–



interactive software
on-demand, personalized assistance
Permits the use of multiple kinds of
personnel
Allows multiple courses to be offered
at the same time and place
Can be adapted for different kinds of
institutions
FIXED VS. FLEXIBLE VERSIONS


Mandatory lab attendance (e.g., a minimum of
3 hours weekly) ensures that students spend
sufficient time on task and receive ondemand assistance.
These hours may be scheduled
–
–

at the student’s convenience
by the institution for student cohorts
Optional: Mandatory weekly group meetings
enable instructors to follow up on areas of
weaknesses, emphasize particular
applications and build community among
students and with instructors.
EMPORIUM MODEL
Keys to Success
Students spend the bulk of their
course time doing math problems.
 Students spend more time on
things they don’t understand and
less time on things they have
already mastered.
 Students get assistance when
they encounter problems in doing
math.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY
MODULARIZATION?
Breaking the course sequence
into smaller “chunks”
 Permitting students to test out
and move on when they show
mastery of a “chunk”
 Permitting students to move
through the modules at their own
pace and keep moving

WHY MODULARIZE?



“The redesign process should take into
consideration the large and diverse student
population which we serve.
Of particular note is the large number of
students taking these courses and the wide
range of ACT math sub-scores of students in
this population.
The best redesign plan would consider the
academic needs of these students and reflect
instructional methods which would enhance
the learning experience for the students at
each extreme and in the middle.”
WHY MODULARIZE?



“Currently, all students spend the same
amount of class time working on the same
course elements.”
“The traditional format does not allow for
variances in skills areas or learning
differences.”
“We currently lose some capable students
who are held back by the less capable
ones, and we lose some of our less capable
students because they cannot keep up with
the rest of the class.”
WHY MODULARIZE?



“Modularizing courses will focus on the
needs of individual learners.”
“Students will participate in a learning
experience that gives more time to
deficient skills and less time to those skills
at which they are already competent.”
“Some students will progress more rapidly
and early exit developmental math.”
MODULARIZATION
Remedial & Developmental
Version 1




3 courses
32 mini-modules
Students are placed at
appropriate module.
Students add second
course if one is
completed.
Version 2




3 courses
12 modules
All students start at
module #1.
Students register for
“shell” courses.
Both: mastery learning + the ability to move
on to the next course in one term
CHANGING THE EQUATION
Scaling a Proven Innovation




Moving beyond the experimental phase
There is room for continuous
improvement but not for starting over.
To participate, you must meet our design
criteria.
Key elements that you must include
–
–
–
1) Emporium Model
2) Modularization
3) All remedial and developmental courses
CHANGING THE EQUATION
Program Structure and Resources
ELIGIBILITY
Public, independent non-profit
and for-profit institutions
 Regionally accredited
 Associate-degree granting
 Two-year branch campuses of
four-year institutions
(Four-year institutions are not
eligible to apply.)

TIMELINE
March 2010
April 15, 2010
April 30, 2010
May 21, 2010
Aug 1, 2010
Aug 15, 2010
Orientation at conference
Readiness responses due
50 institutions selected
Planning workshop
Final proposals die
Grants awarded
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Summer 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Campus planning/development
Redesign pilots
Pilot assessments
Full implementation
Redesign assessments
THREE-STAGE APPLICATION
PROCESS



Stage 1: Learn About NCAT Redesign
(December 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010)
Stage 2: 50 Teams Ready to Redesign
(April 1 – 15, 2010)
Stage 3: Develop a Final Redesign Plan
(May 1 – August 1)
STAGE 1
Learn About NCAT Redesign



Background reading
Conference
Preliminary readiness
STAGE 2
Identify 50 Teams Ready to Redesign

Establish course redesign teams
–
–
–
–

Faculty experts
Administrators
Technology professionals
Assessment experts
Submit readiness responses
STAGE 3
Develop a Final Redesign Plan
50 semi-finalists selected and
supported
 May 21 planning workshop
 August 1 final proposal
submissions

CHANGING THE EQUATION
Program Resources



NCAT’s Planning
Resources
Redesign Scholars
A Network of
Experienced
Institutions: the
Redesign Alliance
NCAT RESOURCES IN MATH
COURSE REDESIGN

Increasing Student
Success:
Redesigning
Mathematics
Articles and other
resources,
including FAQs






Six Principles of
Successful Course
Redesign
Four Models for
Assessing Student
Learning
Cost Reduction
Strategies
Five Critical
Implementation Issues
Things You Ought To
Consider
Proposal Example
http://www.thencat.org/Mathematics/CTE/CTE.htm
PLANNING WORKSHOP
May 21, 2010
Dallas, TX
Review of readiness responses and
workshop homework
 Plenaries and break-out groups

–
–
–
How to organize a math emporium
How to modularize
How to engage students
Preparing the final proposal
 Software exhibits

FINAL PROPOSALS DUE 8/1/10






How will you implement the Emporium Model and
embody the Six Principles?
How will the lab component of your redesign
operate?
What learning materials do you plan to use?
How will you measure student learning?
How will you reduce costs; what will you do with
the savings?
How will you address the five critical
implementation issues?
+ A timeline and a project budget
WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING THAT WE HAVE LEARNED
ABOUT QUALITY AND COST?
The factors that lead
to increased student
learning and
increased student
retention are the
same as those that
lead to reduced
instructional costs!
SIX PRINCIPLES OF
SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN
#1: Redesign the whole course sequence
#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
#6: Modularize the student experience
#1: REDESIGN THE WHOLE
COURSE SEQUENCE
–
Quality: Eliminate “course drift”;
greater course coherence and quality
control
–
Cost: Eliminate duplicate effort;
create opportunities for alternate
staffing
#2: ENCOURAGE ACTIVE LEARNING
–
Quality: "Students learn math by
doing math, not by listening to
someone talk about doing math.“
–
Cost: Reduce faculty preparation
and presentation time; reduce
grading time (e.g., interactive
software)
#3: PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH
INDIVIDUALIZED ASSISTANCE
–
Quality: Students get help when they
are “stuck” and stay on task rather
than giving up (e.g., software
tutorials, F2F in labs)
–
Cost: Apply the right level of human
intervention (e.g., tutors, course
assistants)
#4: BUILD IN ONGOING ASSESSMENT
AND PROMPT (AUTOMATED) FEEDBACK
–
Quality: Enables practice, diagnostic
feedback, focused time on task
–
Cost: Good pedagogy with large
numbers of students; automated
grading; faculty spend time on what
students don’t understand
#5: ENSURE SUFFICIENT TIME ON
TASK AND MONITOR STUDENT
PROGRESS
–
Quality: Self-pacing vs. milestones for
completion; points for engagement
–
Cost: Course management systems
can reduce costs while increasing
oversight; automated intervention
#6: MODULARIZE THE
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
–
Quality: Students spend the amount
of time needed to master each module,
proceeding at a faster pace if possible
or at a slower pace if necessary.
–
Cost: Modularization leads to a
reduced need for course sections.
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
August 1, 2010 – April 1, 2012
Grant awards: $40,000
 Concrete planning: Fall 2010
 Scholar consultants
 Pilot: Spring 2011
 Revisions: Summer 2011
 Full Implementation: Fall 2011
 Workshops (2)

CHANGING THE EQUATION
Readiness Criteria
READINESS CRITERIA
What are we looking for in your
responses?



Understanding of the
program
Evidence of preliminary
planning
Team response—not by
one person
READINESS CRITERION #1
Course Sequence

What impact would
redesigning the
course sequence
have on the
curriculum, on
students and on the
institution—i.e.,
why do you want to
redesign this
course sequence?
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN
THINKING ABOUT HIGH IMPACT






High drop-failure-withdrawal rates
Student performance in subsequent
courses
Student complaints
Other departmental complaints
Lack of consistency in multiple sections
Difficulty finding qualified adjuncts
READINESS CRITERION #2
Redesign Model


How would you implement the
Emporium Model on your
campus?
What constraints may impact
your implementation?
READINESS CRITERION #3
Assessment Plan


Which assessment
model do you think
would be most
appropriate for your
redesign? Why?
Have you identified
each course’s
expected/intended
learning outcomes?
ASSESSMENT GOAL
To establish the
degree to which
improved
learning has been
achieved as a
result of the
course redesign.
ESTABLISH THE METHOD
OF OBTAINING DATA


Baseline “Before”
(traditional) and “After”
(redesign)
Parallel Sections –
Compare traditional
sections and
redesigned sections
(Spring 2011)
CHOOSE THE MEASUREMENT
METHOD: FOUR MODELS




Comparisons of Final Exams
Comparisons of Common
Content Items Selected from
Exams
Comparisons of Pre- and PostTests
Comparisons of Student Work
using Common Rubrics
GRADES ARE NOT A SUFFICIENT
MEASURE OF STUDENT LEARNING





Lack of consistency
Different coverage
Different tests and
exams
Curving
Inflation
READINESS CRITERION #4
Cost Savings Plan


Which cost savings
strategy do you think
would be most
appropriate for your
redesign? Why?
How would you
reallocate the
resources saved?
COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Step 1. Identify the enrollment
profile of the course
 Step 2. Choose the labor savings
tactic(s) that will allow you to
implement the chosen strategy
with no diminution in quality.
 Step 3. Choose the appropriate
cost reduction strategy.

WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT
SITUATION?


Is your enrollment
growing or
projected to grow?
Is your enrollment
stable or
declining?
LABOR SAVINGS TACTICS
Substitute (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





Individual
development and
delivery
Face-to-face class
meetings
Hand grading
Human monitoring
and course
administration
One-to-one
faculty/student
interaction
CHOOSE A COST REDUCTION
STRATEGY

Each instructor carries more
students. This can be done by
–
–
increasing section size
increasing the number of sections that
each instructor carries for the same
workload credit.
Change the mix of personnel from
more expensive to less expensive.
 Do both simultaneously.

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



Growth argument
must be supported by
data.
Retention is a “hope”
- not a strategy.
You can change your
mind, but you must
make a decision.
READINESS CRITERION #5
Learning 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 #6
Departmental Support


Are decisions about
curriculum in the
department made
collectively--in other
words, beyond the
individual faculty
member level?
Are the faculty ready
to collaborate?
READINESS RESPONSES





Due: April 15, 2010
One page per
criterion
Format: Word
please! (no pdfs)
Cover sheet signed
by Chief Academic
Officer
Email to
[email protected]
THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE
Fourth Annual Conference
How to get the
most out of your
conference
experience . . .
THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE


Members: a community of higher
education institutions and others who
are committed to and experienced with
large-scale course redesign.
Mission: to advance the concept of
course redesign throughout higher
education to increase student success
and access while containing or
reducing instructional costs.
SUNDAY



Orientation
Corporate
Exhibits
Opening
Reception
Corporate Hospitality Suites
Birds of a Feather (Lunches)
CORPORATE MEMBERS







Blackboard
Carnegie Learning
Cengage Learning
Hawkes Learning Systems
McGraw-Hill
Pearson Education
SMARTHINKING
MONDAY MORNING
Opening Keynote: Kay McClenney
 Disciplinary Showcases

–
–
–
–
–
–
Developmental Mathematics
College-Level Mathematics
Developmental English
Social Science
Science and Engineering
Other Disciplines
MONDAY AFTERNOON

Roundtable Discussion Sessions
–
–
–
–
–
–




Developmental math
College-Level Math
Humanities and Writing Intensive
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Administrators
Sector Roundtables
CTE Debriefing
Poster Sessions
Poolside Reception
TUESDAY MORNING


Opening Keynote: Dennis Pearl
Hot Topics in Course Redesign
–
–
–
–
–
–
Departmental Redesign
Developing a Valid Assessment Plan
Engaging Students
How to Get Started
Linked Courses
Modularization
A FINAL WORD OF



Many math examples
throughout conference
(e.g., publishers, poster
sessions, other
participants)
Keep focused on data
Keep focused on what
you need to do for
Changing the Equation
KEEP A FOCUS ON SUCCESS!
Increased the percentage of
students who successfully complete
a developmental math course by
51% on average (10% to 135%)
 Reduced the cost of instruction by
30% on average (12% to 52%)
 Impacted ~10,000 students per year
