A Course Redesign Initiative at a Southern Public University

G. David JohnsonJack Dempsey

University of South Alabama

Institutional Backdrop• Financial crisis• Decreasing state

support • Increasing

demand for flexible learning opportunities

• LMS decision• Better

technology options

Redesign RFPs• Description of specific

innovation• Instructional efficiency goals as

measured by instructional salary/credit hour production

• Rationale for choosing the innovation

• Costs associated with implementation

• Time frame for piloting redesign

Faculty Proposal

Redesign RFPs• Evaluation plan to demonstrate

improved quality and cost efficiencies

• Sources of baseline information• Baseline instructional costs• How active learning results• How student learning is

measured

Proposal Review

Cont’d

Course Redesign InitiativeFirst Round

• 37 faculty Proposals respond to SVPAA’s call

• Up to 18,000 annual course enrollments potentially affected

• 25 pilots started fall 2010 semester

College ProposalsCourse

EnrollmentsA&S 20 12,220CESP 6 1,946CIS 2 1,887COE 4 445MCOB 5 1,418

37 17,916

Strong Support from Deans

• Deans video

Principles:Principles:Improve QualityImprove Quality

Increase Cost EfficiencyIncrease Cost Efficiency

Research SupportUSDOE meta-analysis*

“Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”

“Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.”

*Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2009.

Research Support

NCAT projects*(redesign 30 institutions)

25 of 30 signif. increases in learning (others NSD)

Majority reported increased course-completion and lower DFW rates

Avg. cost reduction 37%

*National Council on Academic Transformation.

Six Models of Course Redesign(based on NCAT)

• The Supplemental Model • The Replacement Model • The Emporium Model • The Fully Online Model • The Buffet Model

• Linked Workshop ModelMath Emporium Lab at Univ. of South Alabama

Course Redesign Initiative

• Focus–High enrollment

courses

–eLearning• usually blended format

Scope

U. South Alabama• 37 redesign proposals

(first round)

• affecting estimated 4,400 undergrads

NCAT• 30 institutions• 30 course redesigns• affecting 50,000 students

nationwide

Type of Redesign

Models of Redesign fall 2010

Quality and Cost Efficiencies

• Creative eLearning technologies – lecture capture– interactive instructional materials from publishers– online tutoring– guided examples– team case studies– expert guests

Quality and Cost Efficiencies

• Active on-campus learning sessions– Structured team-based problems– Cases and inquiry learning scenarios– Oral and project presentations– Large group content review– Strategic quizzing; practice tests– Critiques and discussion

How have we supported?

Professional Development• NCAT and Sloan-C Conferences

and workshops - 3 groups of faculty

• Innovation in Learning Center workshops

• ILC Redesign website• Evaluation assistance• Redesign Academy (3 days w/

honorarium)• Redesign Faculty Get-Togethers

How have we supported?

Direct Support• New Institutional

tools (iTunesU, Camtasia Relay, Kaltura, Big blue Button)

• Personal Tools (laptops, software)

• E-Learning Assistant Program

ILC staff shooting video of blended course activities

How have we supported?

Peer Modeling• Some eLeader program topics:

– Creating screencasts for Political Science

– Using online debates in Community Health courses

– Assessment--matching Engineering outcomes

– iTunes U in Real Estate courses– Using Wikis in Library Science– Presentation skills for video in Nursing

courses– Preparing student review podcasts om

Business– Virtual Engineering chalkboard

Faculty Reactions

• faculty video

How did we measure?

Cost Indicators

• Comparison of Methods

Institutional •Personnel cost per Student•% Change in personnel cost per student•Course enrollment•Reduction in part-time instructors and GAs

Course Specific• Reassign faculty

assignments • Time for research and

grant-seeking

How did we measure?

Quality Metrics

• Comparison of Methods

Institutional • Student Success rates• D/Fs,• WDs

Course Specific• Common Final Exams• Common Content Items

Selected from Exams• Pre- and Post-tests• Student Work Using

Common Rubrics

Personnel Costs fall 2010

Personnel Costs Spring 2011

Fall 2010 Grade Comparisons

Spring 2011 Grade Comparisons

Continue Formative Focus

• Working with administrators and faculty to improve or restructure course redesign

• Alert chairs and deans to problems

• Discuss course redesign changes with Depts.

• Ongoing reports to VP

Formative Focus

• Identify most effective and efficient courses

• Determine commonalities that resulted in success

• Structure• Activities• Course formats

• Targeted faculty training• Student support from

faculty members

USA Redesign Academy

Some Improvements

• Initial student orientation help create structure

• Changing from online to more structured blended format for 100-level courses

• Evaluate savings in classroom use

Student Orientation Video prepared by the USA Innovation in Learning Center.

Risks & RewardsWildflowers or Weeds? Principle-guided Innovation

Special thanks to our colleague Cecelia Martin for her help in analyzing data related to this presentation.