FULLY ONLINE MODEL Moves all or most of the learning environment online Provides access to anyone, anywhere, anytime – on demand Allows international groups

FULLY ONLINE MODEL

• Moves all or most of the learning environment online

• Provides access to anyone, anywhere, anytime – on demand

• Allows international groups of students to interact easily and learn from each other

FINE ARTSFlorida Gulf Coast University

CHALLENGES• Significant inconsistency among multiple

sections• Difficulty finding either faculty or adjuncts

with the breadth of knowledge in all of the humanities

• Poor performance in this course that is required by all freshmen

• Growth in students and no money for new faculty


• Each module covers one aspect of the Humanities

• Each module is designed and monitored by a faculty expert in that academic area

• One course coordinator manages the course of 400+ students each term

• Undergraduate peer tutors and adjuncts guide discussion groups and evaluate longer papers

• 24/7 interactive learning resources are available anytime, any place


• Online tests are evaluated automatically• The Intelligent Essay Assessor (after being

trained) evaluates short focused essay test questions

• Students attend performances and art shows in their home community or on campus

• The model is scalable because more discussion groups can be added as needed.


Traditional• 25 sections (~30); 6

sections (~15) = 800• Taught mainly by

adjuncts• “Course drift”• $132 cost-per-student

Redesign• Single section (~950)• Taught by 1 faculty, 1

course coordinator, 20 preceptors

• Consistent & coherent• $81 cost-per-student

Average exam scores increased from 70% to 85% Number of A’s/B’s increased from 31% to 75% DFW rate decreased from 45% to 11%

MACRO & MICRO ECONOMICSLorain County Community College

• Sought to increase number of students served; these are bottleneck courses

• Sought to increase the consistency among various modes of instruction

• Modularized the content into 1-credit units• Increased section size from ~24 in other online

sections and ~40 F2F to 100 in redesigned course• Added course coordinator to help with email

unrelated to economics, assessment and discussion

• Use online lectures, videos, quizzing, group projects and discussion

MICRO & MACRO ECONOMICSLorain County Community College

RESULTS• Increased consistency of content• Ability to accommodate more students• Students were just as successful in the online,

redesigned course as in the face-to-face classes• The increase in size of the course had no negative

impact on student achievement, while serving 2 ½ times more students

• Fall 2005 term showed slightly higher retention rate: 61% in traditional course, 68% in redesigned course at level of C or above.

BUFFET MODEL• Assess each student’s knowledge/skill level

and preferred learning style• Provide an array of high-quality, interactive

learning materials and activities• Develop individualized study plans• Built in continuous assessment to provide

instantaneous feedback • Offer appropriate, varied

human interaction

when needed

STATISTICSOhio State University

CHALLENGES• Previous redesign using IT increased the cost • Students had highly variable learning styles• Lectures were poorly attended• 20% of the students repeat the course each quarter even though most have satisfactorily

completed initial modules• Too many emails for faculty• Faculty time was used inefficiently• Inconsistency among sections


• Students use online assessment by Felder and Solomon.

• There are multiple routes to established outcomes for each module.

• Students are assisted in thinking about how they approach learning and what mode is easiest for them.

• Students file a learning plan for each module.• Various kinds of learning activities using

websites, software, video lectures, small group discussions, individual and group projects.


OUTCOMES

• Redesign students had greater success on common exams (mean = 78.3) than traditional students (mean = 70).

• The number of students needing to retake the course was reduced from 33% to 24%.

LINKED WORKSHOP MODEL• Retain basic structure of the college-level course, particularly

the number of class meetings• Replace remedial/developmental course with just-in-time

(JIT) workshops• Design workshops to remove deficiencies in core course

competencies• Workshops consist of computer-based instruction, small-

group activities and test reviews to provide additional instruction on key concepts

• Students individually assigned software modules based on results of diagnostic assessments

• Workshops facilitated by students who have previously excelled in core course; students trained and supervised by core course faculty

• JIT workshop activities designed so students use concepts during next core course class session, which in turn helps them see the value of the workshops and motivates them to do workshop activities

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

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!

FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN

#1: Redesign the whole course– Quality: Eliminate “course drift”;

greater course coherence and quality control

– Cost: Eliminate duplicate effort; create opportunities for alternate staffing


#2: Encourage active learning– Quality: “Learning is not a

spectator sport.”– Cost: Reduce faculty preparation

and presentation time; reduce grading time(e.g., interactive software, peer learning teams)


#3: Provide students with individualized assistance

– Quality: Students get help when they are “stuck” and stay on task rather than giving up: software tutorials, F2F in labs or help rooms, “beep a tutor,” SMARTHINKING

– Cost: Apply the right level of human intervention: peer 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; individual and group assessment; 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

READINESS CRITERIA• What does it mean to be “ready” to do a

major course redesign?• Is your institution ready?• Which courses are “ready”—i.e., are good

candidates for a comprehensive redesign?

READINESS CRITERION #1Course Choice

• What impact would redesigning the course have on the curriculum, on students and on the institution—i.e., why do you want to redesign this course?

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN THINKING ABOUT HIGH IMPACT

• High drop-failure-withdrawal rates• Student performance in subsequent courses • Students on waiting lists• Student complaints• Other departmental complaints• Lack of consistency in multiple sections• Difficulty finding qualified adjuncts

READINESS CRITERION #2Redesign 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?

READINESS CRITERION #3Assessment Plan

• Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

ASSESSMENT GOAL

To establish the degree to which

improved learning has been

achieved as a result of the

course redesign.

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

Step 1. Establish the method of obtaining data.

Step 2. Choose the measurement method.

ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF OBTAINING DATA

• Baseline “Before” (traditional) and “After” (redesign)

• Parallel Sections – Compare traditional sections and redesigned sections

CHOOSE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD: FIVE MODELS

A. Comparisons of Final Exams

B. Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from Exams

C. Comparisons of Pre- and Post- Tests

D. Comparisons of Student Work using Common Rubrics

E. Comparisons of Course Grades using Common Criteria

READINESS CRITERION #4Cost Savings Plan

• Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

COST SAVINGS GOAL

Create cost savings that can be used to

sustain ongoing redesign, to fund

future operations and to free up resources for program and/or

institutional priorities.

WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION?

• Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow?

• Is your enrollment stable or declining?

ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH

• Increase the number of sections. • Increase the section size.• Change the mix of personnel

teaching the course.

Mix and match for greater savings!

RIO SALADO COLLEGEPre-Calculus Math

Traditional• 4 courses taught

by 4 instructors • Student

interaction = each instructor

• $49 cost-per-student

Redesign• 4 courses taught by 1

instructor• Student interaction =

interactive software, 1 course assistant, and 1 instructor

• $31 cost-per-student

U OF TENNESSEESpanish

Traditional• 57 sections (~27)• Adjuncts + 6 TAs• 100% in class• $167,074

($2931/section)• 1529 students @ $109

Redesign• 38 sections (~54)• Instructor-TA pairs• 50% in class, 50%

online• $56,838 ($1496/section)• 2052 students @ $28

STABLE COURSE ENROLLMENT

• Reduce the number of sections and increase the section size. (Reduce the number teaching the course.)

• Reduce the number of graduate teaching assistants (Only 9 of 30 projects!)

• Change the mix of personnel teaching the course (Adjuncts, undergraduate learning assistants.)

Mix and match for greater savings!

FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITYGeneral Biology

Traditional• 7 sections (~35)• 7 faculty• 100% wet labs• $131,610• $506 cost-per-student

Redesign• 2 sections (~140)• 4 faculty• 50% wet, 50% virtual• $98,033• $350 cost-per-student

READINESS CRITERION #5Learning 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 #6Active Learning

• Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

READINESS CRITERION #7Collective 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.

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

NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES

http://www.thencat.org/R2R/R2R_Planning_Resources.htm

C2R PROGRAMColleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) is a three-

year program conducted by NCAT with support from FIPSE.

Program Purpose: To support the efforts of colleges and universities to redesign their instructional approaches using technology to achieve improvements in student learning while reducing instructional costs.

Deadline to Apply for Round III: January 15, 2009

Application Guidelines: www.thencat.org/RedesignAlliance/DissemProgram.htm

THE REDESIGN ALLIANCEThird Annual Conference

When: March 22-24, 2009Where: The Rosen Centre Hotel

Orlando, FloridaHotel Reservation Deadline:

February 19, 2009Meeting Registration Deadline:

March 13, 2009

REDESIGNING STUDENT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Carolyn Jarmon, [email protected]

www.theNCAT.org

Documents

FULLY ONLINE MODEL Moves all or most of the learning environment online Provides access to anyone, anywhere, anytime – on demand Allows international groups