1. COURSE REDESIGN: Increasing Student Success While Reducing Instructional Costs

2. TODAY’S DISCUSSION  The National Center for Academic Transformation  Proven Models for Successful Redesign  Examples of Successful Redesigns

3. Established in 1999 as a University Center at RPI funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts Became an independent non-profit organization in 2003 Mission: help colleges and universities learn how to use technology to improve student learning outcomes and reduce their instructional costs

4. NCAT PROGRAMS Program in Course Redesign (PCR) –30 institutions Roadmap to Redesign (R2R) –20 institutions Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) –60 institutions State and System-based Programs –60+ institutions –AZ, MD, MS, SUNY, TN, TX

5. TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION Seminars Lectures

6. “BOLT-ON” INSTRUCTION

7. WHAT’S 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

8. WHAT’S 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

9. 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. 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.

10. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN To encourage colleges and universities to redesign their approaches to instruction using technology to achieve cost savings as well as quality enhancements. 50,000 students 30 projects

11. WHY REDESIGN? Look for courses where redesign will have a high impact: High withdrawal/failure rates Students on waiting lists Students turned away – graduation bottleneck Over enrollment of courses leading to multiple majors Inconsistency of preparation Difficulty getting qualified adjuncts Difficulty in subsequent courses

12. ACADEMIC AREAS Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Anatomy & Physiology, Physics, Geology Humanities: English, Spanish, Fine Arts Social Sciences: Psychology, Economics, Sociology Quantitative Area: Math, Statistics, Computing Professional Studies: Accounting, Nutrition, Organizational Behavior, Engineering Statics

13. ALL TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS Public Private Research Universities Comprehensive Universities State Colleges Community Colleges

14. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 25 of the original 30 showed improvement; 5 showed equal learning 24 measured retention; 18 showed improvement All 30 showed cost reduction Results in subsequent national and state and system programs have continued to show comparable results

15. WHAT DO THE FACULTY SAY? “It’s the best experience I’ve ever had in a classroom.” “The quality of my worklife has changed immeasurably for the better.” “It’s a lot of work during the transition--but it’s worth it.”

16. REDESIGN MODELS 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 – JIT workshops linked to college level course

17. REDESIGN CHARACTERISTICS Redesign the whole course—not just a single class Emphasize active learning—greater student engagement with the material and with one another Rely heavily on readily available interactive software—used independently and in teams Mastery learning—not self-paced Increase on-demand, individualized assistance Automate only those course components that can benefit from automation—e.g., homework, quizzes, exams Replace single mode instruction with differentiated personnel strategies Technology enables good pedagogy with large #s of students.

18. University of Hawaii, Manoa The course of 600 students annually suffers from problems typical of multiple-section courses course drift and inconsistent learning experiences for students a one-size-fits-all approach course material that needs constant updating an inability to scale beyond the current infrastructure.

19. University of Hawaii, Manoa Traditional: 2 lecture section & 20 lab sections Redesign: 2 hours in optional lecture and 2 hours in lab Lectures are podcast in 30-minute segments – students listen to them as they complete lab exercises & homework 5-minute podcasts of chapter summaries are also available.

20. University of Hawaii, Manoa Results Scores on Midterm and Final Exams –Traditional: 66.18 and 68.95 –Redesign: 83.52 and 75.93 Increase in level of questions asked by students indicating greater depth of learning in the redesign Greater consistency in grading Ability to grow without more staff

21. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy Issues Course is not learner-centered Content does not develop problem-solving skills. Course does not ensure that students with a broad range of learning styles and levels of preparation will master the content and succeed. Course has high DFW rate, among the 30 highest rates at ASU.

22. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy Traditional: 8 lecture sections of ~270 - 2200 students annually Redesign in 2 formats –Replacement: 2 lecture sections of ~299 One optional lecture each week One open, interactive lab each week Online resources –Online: 1 online section of up to 500 students Students must pass an online assessment first

23. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy All students have –Interactive online projects –Discussion board –Quizzes which are automatically graded –Web-based, multi-media resources aligned with the text

24. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy Learning Results Redesign course included more challenging content All failing students had multiple missed assignments and/or projects A very small percentages of students in the replacement model came to lecture

25. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy Students found the course more applied and valuable Final grades –Increase in # of As in redesigned course: from 38% to 62% –Students in both formats did equally well at all grade levels

26. Arizona State University Computing and Information Literacy Cost Reduction One faculty coordinator, rather than 2 instructors GTAs: reduced from 2 to 1 UGAs: replace 6 undergrad graders with 5 undergrad learning assistants working fewer hours Cost-per-student decreased from $50 to $38, a 24% reduction

27. OTHER REDESIGN EXAMPLES Drexel University – Computer Programming State University of New York at Buffalo – Computer Literacy University of Southern Mississippi – Introduction to Computing

28. FACULTY BENEFITS Increased opportunity to work directly with students who need help Reduced grading Technology does the tracking and monitoring More practice and interaction for students without faculty effort Ability to try different approaches to meet different student needs Opportunity for continuous improvement of materials and approaches

29. A STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGY “A Menu of Redesign Options” Five Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Cost Reduction Strategies Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Five Critical Implementation Issues Planning Checklist

30. COURSE REDESIGN: Increasing Student Success While Reducing Instructional Costs Carolyn Jarmon, Ph.D. cjarmon@theNCAT.org www.theNCAT.org