1. Course Redesign (DMCR)
Developmental Math
Course Redesign (DMCR)
Grant Program
Technical Assistance Workshop
Jackie Lichter
Melinda Vann

2. Higher Education Commission
Agenda
Higher Education Commission
Introductions
Maryland’s College Completion Goals
About the Funder – Complete College America
DMCR Grant Program
Course Redesign Basics
Grant Application Development
Grant Review Process and Awarding
Project -wide Activity Requirements

3. Why is Maryland Interested in Course Redesign?
Higher Education Commission
Governor O’Malley has set a statewide goal that by at least 55%of Marylanders age will hold at least one degree credential – either an Associate’s or Bachelor’s.
To attain the number of degrees necessary to meet the completion goal, Maryland must produce 58,000 degrees per year, an increase of 20,000 – 23,000 annually.
Many will come from “natural” enrollment growth, but close to 15,000 must come from “new initiatives.”

4. What is the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant?
Higher Education Commission
State of Maryland entered into agreement with Complete College America (CCA) as one of ten recipients of the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant
The state received $1 million for this grant
Approved project includes sub-grant to support the redesign of developmental math courses in the state’s institutions of higher education

5. The Developmental Math Course Redesign Grant Program
Higher Education Commission
Goals:
Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes.
Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment.
Reducing time-to-degree and accelerating student success toward degree completion.
Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.

6. What is Course Redesign?
Higher Education Commission
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.

7. What is Wrong with the Lecture?*
Higher Education Commission
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
*NCAT Presentation

8. What is Wrong with Multiple Sections?*
Higher Education Commission
In theory: greater interaction
In practice: large class size
In practice: dominated by the same presentation techniques
Lack of coordination
Inconsistent outcomes
*NCAT Presentation

9. 5 Principles of Course Redesign
Higher Education Commission
Redesign the Entire Course
Encourage Active Learning
Provide Students with Individualized Assistance
Build in Ongoing Assessment and Prompt (Automated) Feedback
Ensure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress

10. Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire Course
Higher Education Commission
Benefits
Opportunity to evaluate and focus course goals
Counteract course drift
Capture the best that each instructor has to offer
Reduce duplication of effort
Meaningful and interesting faculty interaction
Challenges
Compromise and consensus building
Instructor buy-in across all sections
Time needed for team-building
Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology
Gathering support for the project – the more support the better!

11. Goal 2: Encouraging Active Learning
Higher Education Commission
Benefits
Multiple ways for students to engage with the course material
Students decide when to work on the course material, within the framework of scheduled deadlines
Students held accountable for assigned work
Student engagement and satisfaction
Faculty engagement and satisfaction
Challenges
What to do with that uncomfortable feeling that you are failing to complete a critical transaction if you do not say something out loud to a room full of students?
Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism

12. Goal 3: Individualized Assistance
Higher Education Commission
Online learning tools
Staffed computer labs
Peer learning assistants
Small group meetings
Discussion sections
Laboratories
Supplementary instruction programs
Online discussion tools

13. Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/ Monitoring Student Progress
Higher Education Commission
Online quizzes
Sophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant feedback, and assistance
Track the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software)
Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online work
Design an intervention strategy for students who are performing poorly on assessments or who are not spending sufficient time on task
A job for peer learning assistants?

14. 6 Models of Course Redesign
Higher Education Commission
The Supplemental Model
The Replacement Model
The Emporium Model
The Fully Online Model
The Buffet Model
The Linked Workshop Model

15. The Supplemental Model
Higher Education Commission
Retains the basic course structure, particularly the number of class meetings
Supplements lectures and textbooks with technology-based, out-of-class activities
Encourages greater student engagement with course content
Ensures that students are prepared when they come to class

16. Higher Education Commission
The Replacement Model
Higher Education Commission
Replaces (rather than supplements) in-class time with online, interactive learning activities
Carefully considers why (and how often) classes need to meet face-to-face
Assumes that certain activities can be better accomplished online - individually or in groups
May keep remaining in-class activities the same or may make significant changes
May schedule out-of-class activities in computer labs or totally online so that students can participate anytime, anywhere

17. Higher Education Commission
The Emporium Model
Higher Education Commission
Moves all classes to a lab setting
Multiple sections combined into one large section
Depends heavily on instructional software including interactive tutorials
Allows students to work as long as they need to master the content
Permits the use of multiple kinds of personnel
Requires a significant commitment of space and equipment
Can teach more than one course in the lab, thus leveraging the initial investment

18. Higher Education Commission
The Fully Online Model
Higher Education Commission
Eliminates all in-class meetings and moves all learning experiences online.
Adopts successful design elements of Supplemental, Replacement and Emporium models including Web-based, multi-media resources, commercial software, automatically evaluated assessments with guided feedback, links to additional resources and alternative staffing models.

19. Higher Education Commission
The Buffet Model
Higher Education Commission
Takes into account each student’s knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style
Provides an array of learning opportunities including : lectures, outside reading material, labs, small group study sessions, videos, oral and written presentations, homework assignments, individual and group, projects, etc.
Started by Ohio State University for Introductory Statistics
Initially students are made familiar with the various options through examples made available for them to experience
Then the student selects what suits him/her and signs a contract detailing containing the choices and what needs to be accomplished

20. The Linked Workshop Model
Higher Education Commission
Retains the basic structure of the college-level/core course, particularly the number of class meetings
Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”
Workshops are designed to remove deficiencies in core course competencies (for a particular course)
Students are individually assigned software modules based on results of diagnostic assessments/placement
Workshops consist of computer-based instruction, small-group activities and test reviews to provide additional instruction on key concepts

21. The Linked Workshop Model Continued
Higher Education Commission
Workshops are facilitated by students who have previously excelled in the core course and are trained and supervised by core course faculty
Workshop activities are just-in-time—i.e., designed so that students use the concepts during the next core course class session, which in turn helps them see the value of the workshops and motivates them to do the workshop activities.

22. Higher Education Commission
Summary
Higher Education Commission
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 - Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”

23. Higher Education Commission
Show me the money….
Higher Education Commission
Preparing the
Request for Application

24. Higher Education Commission
Who Can Apply?
Higher Education Commission
Eligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for Maryland’s Complete College America data project
Funding Priority: Those with high percentage of new entering students enrolled in developmental math courses.

25. Higher Education Commission
Award Amount
Higher Education Commission
$30,000 per course - up to 21 awards possible
May submit more than one application/ one redesign
Possible to receive more than one award
Submit a separate application for each redesign
May request >$30,000 if proposing the merger of multiple courses of differing levels into one redesigned course but…
Merger models should recognize economies of scale

26. Required Matching Fund
Higher Education Commission
Institutions must invest at least 25% of the total cost of the redesign e.g. $30,000 award matched with $10,000 of institutional resources
Why? Demonstrate “‘buy in” and long term sustainability
Sources of Match –
In-kind contributions like faculty and staff time, provision of instructional materials and technology purchases related to the redesign. Matching funds must comprise at least 25% of the total project cost
Cash

27. Grant Goals & Objectives
Higher Education Commission
Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes;
Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment;
Reduce instructional costs, freeing up institutional resources for other academic priorities; and
Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.

28. Higher Education Commission
Important Dates
Higher Education Commission
December 2, Full Application Due
December 22, Awards Announced
January/February 2012 (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #1
August 15, Interim Report Due

29. Higher Education Commission
More Important Dates
Higher Education Commission
Fall Pilot of Redesigned Course
Fall (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #2
Spring Full Implementation of Course –all sections
January 31, 2013 Funding expires. Interim Report # Unexpended funds returned.
August 15, 2013 Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation

30. Higher Education Commission
RFA Components
Higher Education Commission
Project Cover Page (form provided, original signatures)
Abstract (500 Words)
Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages)
Project Timeline
Budget

31. Higher Education Commission
Project Narrative
Higher Education Commission
Extent of Need
Project Overview
Implementation Plan
Outcomes Assessment Plan and Projected Outcomes
Cost Savings

32. Higher Education Commission
Extent of Need – 10 pts.
Higher Education Commission
Relatively brief but compelling case statement
Supported by institutional data
Include number and percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math
Other data might include pass/fail rate development math
Draw on data already presented in Concept Paper

33. Higher Education Commission
Project Overview – 15 pts.
Higher Education Commission
Detailed
Describe redesign model used
Specific changes to implement
New learning methods/materials/approaches incorporated

34. Implementation Plan – 30 pts.
Higher Education Commission
Fall pilot redesigned course and assess
at least 100 students
Spring 2013 – implement across all sections
Explain how the courses will be implemented
Indicate number of students impacted each semester through Aug 2013

35. Outcomes Assessment Plan & Projected Outcomes – 30 pts.
Higher Education Commission
How will redesign student learning outcomes and time to degree be assessed?
Pilot, full implementation, after grant has ended?
What percentage of developmental math students involved in pilot? In fully implemented course (all sections)?

36. Cost Savings – scored with budget
Higher Education Commission
How will redesigned course save institution money?
How much will the institution save?
How will savings be applied elsewhere?
Cost savings forms will be provided to awardees

37. Project Timeline (considered part of implementation plan)
Higher Education Commission
Major project activities including planning meetings
Month/date of activity
Key personnel responsible for the activity
Table format may be used

38. Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost savings)
Higher Education Commission
Two Parts – budget table and budget narrative
Budget Table
Form in Appendix 2 provided
List expenditures by cost category for both requested grant funds and institutional matching funds
Budget Narrative
Text explaining how each amount was computed (e.g. 50 $15 per hour, 100 $3 each)

39. Application Due Date December 2, 2011 by 4:00 PM
Higher Education Commission
December 2, 2011 by 4:00 PM
One hard copy with original signatures
One electronic copy (word or PDF – budgets may be xls)
Attn: Melinda Vann
Maryland Higher Education Commission
Attention: Melinda Vann
6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201

40. Higher Education Commission
Review Process
Higher Education Commission
Every application read by at least 4 qualified reviewers
Applications read/scored individually
Review panel meets to discuss and develop recommendations
Recommendations forwarded to Secretary of Higher Education who makes final funding decision

41. Higher Education Commission
Scoring Rubric
Higher Education Commission
Category Maximum Points
Extent of Need for the Project (funding priority) 10
Project Overview
Implementation Plan and Timeline 30
Assessment of Redesign Impact 30
Budget and Cost Effectiveness
(includes cost savings)
Total

42. Additional Considerations
Higher Education Commission
Geographic distribution of awards
Funding priority – support for institutions with high percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math

43. Notification of Awards
Higher Education Commission
December 22, 2011 by
Formal letter to arrive after holidays
Projects may begin when notice received
Reviewer comments shared with those who did not receive funding
50% of award distributed within 60 days of award notice
Balance distributed after first interim report reviewed and accepted

44. Project-wide Activities
Higher Education Commission
Meetings
Sharing assessment data - traditional vs. redesigned course student outcomes. Institutions will decide on appropriate assessment measures themselves.
Collection and sharing of instructional cost data that compares costs in the traditional course with those in the redesigned format. Common project-wide templates will be used for all participating institutions.

45. Higher Education Commission
Appendices
Higher Education Commission
Appendix 1 includes all post award procedures. Awardees should retain RFA for reference
Appendix 2 includes budget table and application cover sheet
Cost savings data collection tables will be distributed to awardees

46. Higher Education Commission
Contact Information
Higher Education Commission
Programmatic Questions:
Erin Knepler, P-20 Project Director University System of Maryland or
Program technical assistance information -
Application Development and Grants Management Questions:
Melinda Vann, Director - Outreach and Grants Management, or
RFA and forms

47. Higher Education Commission
Questions?