WORKSHOP II: Planning for Course Redesign Review of Workshop Homework Innovative Course Redesign Practices Break-out Sessions: Redesign Plans Preparing the Final Proposal

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due July 15, 2011 Abstract Application Narrative – Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles – Changes to course structure – Learning materials: what you plan to use – Assessment strategy: how you plan to measure student learning – Cost reduction strategy: which one and what you will do with the savings – Timeline

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due July 15, 2011 Project budget (w/provost/VPAA) Tools and Forms Assessment Forms (2) Course Completion Forms (2) Course Planning Tool (CPT) Draft of your CPT due on 7/1/11. Projects will be selected on 7/30/11.

_Planning_Resources.htm Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Four Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Planning Checklist

READINESS CRITERIA What were we looking for in your responses? Evidence of preliminary planning Collaborative response not by one person

READINESS CRITERION #1 Course Choice What impact would redesigning the course have on the curriculum, on students and on the institutioni.e., why do you want to redesign this course?

FACTORS YOU CITED REGARDING HIGH IMPACT High drop-failure-withdrawal rates Student performance in subsequent courses Students on waiting lists Growing enrollment pressures Lack of consistency in multiple sections Disparate range of student skill levels

NATURAL SCIENCE (4) UMKC: Biology MS&T: Chemistry TSU: Health & Fitness UCM: Anatomy & Physiology

SOCIAL SCIENCE (3) MSU: Psychology NMSU: Psychology SEMO: Sociology

BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (3) MWSU: Business NMSU: Management UCM: Economics

HUMANITIES (5) LU: Basic English MSSU: Oral Communication UCM: English Comp UMSL and SEMO: Spanish

QUANTITATIVE (8) HSSU: Developmental Algebra MWSU: Developmental Math NMSU: Math Skills UCM: Intermediate Algebra SEMO: College Algebra UMKC: College Algebra UMSL: Information Systems MU: Statistics

READINESS CRITERION #2 Redesign Model Which redesign model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why? What aspects fit your particular discipline and your particular students?

CHOICE OF MODEL: REPLACEMENT Humanities – LU: Basic English – MSSU: Oral Communication – UCM: English Comp – UMSL and SEMO: Spanish Natural Sciences – UMKC: Biology – UCM: Anatomy & Physiology

CHOICE OF MODEL: REPLACEMENT Social Sciences – MSU: Psychology – NMSU: Psychology – SEMO: Sociology

CHOICE OF MODEL: REPLACEMENT Other Disciplines – MWSU: Business – NMSU: Management – UCM: Economics – MU: Statistics – UMSL: Information Systems

CHOICE OF MODEL: EMPORIUM Mathematics – HSSU: Developmental Algebra – MWSU: Developmental Math – NMSU: Math Skills – UCM: Intermediate Algebra – SEMO: College Algebra – UMKC: College Algebra Other Disciplines – TSU: Health & Fitness

RESULTS OF USING THE EMPORIUM MODEL Developmental Math – Increased successful completion by 51% (from 10 to 135%) – Reduced costs by 30% (from 12 to 52%) College-level Math – Increased successful completion by 25% (from 7 to 63%) – Reduced costs by 37% (from 15 to 77%)

CHOICE OF MODEL: BUFFET MS&T: Chemistry

READINESS CRITERION #3 Assessment Plan Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

FOUR MEASUREMENT METHODS Common Final Exams MSSU: Oral Communication MS&T: Chemistry NMSU: Management NMSU: Psychology SEMO: College Algebra TSU: Health & Fitness UCM: Intermediate Algebra MU: Statistics UMKC: College Algebra UMKC: Biology

FOUR MEASUREMENT METHODS Pre- and Post-Tests – HSSU: Developmental Algebra – LU: Basic English – MSU: Psychology – MWSU: Business – MWSU: Developmental Math – UCM: Anatomy & Physiology Common Content Items: UCM Macroeconomics Common Rubrics: UCM English Comp Not Clear/No Choice – NMSU: Math Skills – SEMO: Spanish – SEMO: Sociology

More Is Not Better! Performance in follow-on courses Student attitude toward subject matter Student interest in pursuing further coursework in the discipline Differences in performance among student subpopulations Deep vs. superficial learning

GRADES ARE NOT A SUFFICIENT MEASURE OF STUDENT LEARNING Lack of consistency Different coverage Different tests and exams Curving Inflation Use only for course completion!

READINESS CRITERION #4 Cost Savings Plan Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

10 HAVE A CLEAR COST REDUCTION STRATEGY Increase section size and decrease the number of sections (4) Increase section size, decrease the number of sections and change the mix of personnel teaching the course (3) Double enrollment on same resource base (1) Reduce faculty and/or lab personnel (2)

10 ARE NOT CLEAR OR WEAK Intention but no numbers/detail Could language Fill the room strategy (minimal section size increase) Increase capacity without evidence of demand Reallocate savings within the course

THREE DO NOT HAVE A COST REDUCTION STRATEGY Comparing what if scenarios Hope that retention will produce savings Paper savings - took the first step but not the second

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

Step 1: Complete the CPT. Step 2: Translate saved hours to one of the cost savings strategies. Reducing time spent by individuals is an enabler that allows you to choose a cost savings strategy. If you stop at the first step, you create what NCAT calls paper savings. Paper savings = A workload reduction for individuals but not cost savings to the department or institution.

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

COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE Traditional Instructor load = 4 sections 150 minutes/week 3 50-minute or 2 75-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Redesign Instructor load = 6 sections 150 minutes/week 2 50-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Option: Reduce # of sections from 12 to 8 per semester, saving an additional $32,000

COURSE PLANNING TOOL A decision-making tool that enables institutions to compare thebefore activities and costs (the traditional course) and the after activities and costs (the redesigned course)

Instructional Costs per Hour

TRADITIONAL COURSE

COST-PER-STUDENT

IN-CLASS/OUT-OF-CLASS HOURS

HOURS CORRESPONDENCE

INSTRUCTIONAL COSTS For One Section of the Course Include benefits in personnel costs. Include all personnel on sheet 1. Use an average salary by faculty type/role rather than showing each individual person involved. Show only one average for each type rather than an aggregate.

CPT TASKS Calculations you have completed – All personnel costs expressed as an hourly rate – The specific tasks associated with offering the traditional course – How much time each person spends on each of the tasks – Total instructional costs for the traditional course Calculations you need to complete – Tasks and hours in the redesign (page 3) – Total instructional costs for the redesign (page 4)

REDESIGNED COURSE

Annual Cost Comparison

THE CPT - IS IT WORTH IT? Provides a structure for the team to think about activities and costs Allows consideration of changes in specific instructional tasks Permits visualization of duplication and waste Enables cost/benefit analysis re: type of personnel per task TEAM!!!

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 #5 Learning Materials Have identified and named commercial materials (12) Are committed to and are exploring commercial materials (6) Intend to use homegrown materials (2) No specifics (3)

READINESS CRITERION #6 Active Learning Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

READINESS CRITERION #6 Active Learning Software does not = active learning. Software is not a magic bullet. It depends on how its used. Key = active student engagement with the material Sound pedagogy is the key to successful redesign projects. When sound pedagogy leads, technology becomes an enabler for good practice rather than a driver.

READINESS CRITERION #7 Collective Commitment Describe the members of your team, the skills they bring to the project and what their roles will be in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

INNOVATIVE COURSE REDESIGN PRACTICES Creating "Small" within "Large Undergraduate Learning Assistants Freshmen Dont Do Optional Modularization New Instructional Roles Avoiding Either/or Choices

ASSIGNMENT Each table will consider one practice. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If you were to implement the practice, what benefits would it offer? What challenges would it present? What needs to be taken into account in implementing this practice? Choose one person to report back.

TABLE ASSIGNMENTS 1, 7, 13 – "Small" within "Large 2, 8 – ULAs 3, 9 – Freshmen Dont Do Optional 4, 10 – Modularization 5, 11 – New Roles 6, 12 – Avoiding Either/Or

COURSE REDESIGN PLANS We have broken your teams up so that each team member can present and get feedback. Each person will present a summary of the model your team has chosen and how you will implement the Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign within it. (5 minutes) Each person will receive feedback from the table group. (10 minutes) Identify any questions about the process and choose someone to report back.

FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN #1: Redesign the whole course #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

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due July 15, 2011 Abstract Application Narrative – Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles – Changes to course structure – Learning materials: what you plan to use – Assessment strategy: how you plan to measure student learning – Cost reduction strategy: which one and what you will do with the savings – Timeline

FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due July 15, 2011 Project budget (w/provost/VPAA) Tools and Forms Assessment Forms (2) Course Completion Forms (2) Course Planning Tool (CPT) Draft of your CPT due on 7/1/11. Projects will be selected on 7/30/11.

_Planning_Resources.htm Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Four Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Planning Checklist

FIVE CRITICAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Prepare students (and their parents) and the campus for changes in the course. Train instructors, GTAs and undergraduate peer tutors. Ensure an adequate technological infrastructure to support the redesign as planned. Achieve initial and ongoing faculty consensus about the redesign. Avoid backsliding by building ongoing institutional commitment to the redesign.

CONTACT INFORMATION Carol Twigg Carolyn Jarmon Chris Weisbrook *PLUS NCAT REDESIGN SCHOLARS*