Presentation on theme: "Questions To Be Answered What is the background of this project and how do NCAT and NGLC fit into the picture? What data are required to be submitted."— Presentation transcript:
Questions To Be Answered What is the background of this project and how do NCAT and NGLC fit into the picture? What data are required to be submitted and when? What help can we expect from NCAT? How are we going to share course and what do we mean by sharing courses?
A Bit of History August 2010: Governor’s Higher Education Summit Focused on four areas, one of which was “increased cooperation and collaboration” across the state October 2010: Statewide Conference on Academic Transformation and Collaboration Provosts committed to contracting with NCAT and Carol Twigg to engage in a statewide course redesign effort involving all thirteen 4-year public institutions
NCAT Contract Expense of NCAT Contract ($390,000 + travel) Contributors Thirteen Institutions ($190,000) Prorated by amount of state appropriations Governor’s Office ($100,000) MDHE ($15,000) Mike Nietzel, advisor to Governor Nixon, committed to finding the remaining $85,000 UM System is coordinating the project and covering expense of workshops
Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC) Grant Mike Nietzel initiated grant application NGLC is funded by Bill & Melinda Gates and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundations Over 600 applications; only 29 funded Awarded $250,000 in April 2011 Funds are being used to cover rest of NCAT contact Provosts decided to retain remaining funds (about $130,000) to be used to continue efforts after this cycle is concluded Possibility of more NGLC funding if project is successful
“Other” NGLC Grant Some confusion Several of the Missouri institutions are involved in another NGLC Grant that is being coordinated by University of Central Florida Involves adoption of college algebra and English composition courses that were developed by UCF Missouri effort is being coordinated by Provost Rosati and others at SEMO
Objectives of Project as Described in Grant Application Redesign 13 high-enrollment introductory courses Improve learning outcomes Reduce costs Share methodology of teaching courses with rest of institutions Provide access to course materials to rest of institutions Longer term objective: share courses with 2-year institutions
Reporting Requirements of NCAT After Pilot Learning data Completion data After Full Implementation Learning data Completion data Cost data (might be same as proposal) Short report No lesson plans or anything at that level
Focus of NGLC Scaling proven methods/sharing freely Degree completion of low-income young adults
Reporting Requirements of NGLC Learning outcomes data—quarterly reporting Report for whole population Plus separate reporting for low income (pell-eligible) Persistence to next semester Baseline data for students in traditional and redesigned sections—examples: ACT Composite or subscore SAT Composite or subscore High school rank or other Assistance of your IR office is needed
Data: Pilot Assessment Plan (No change from NCAT form) PILOT ASSESSMENT PLAN Institution: Course Title: 1. Which method of comparing learning outcomes do you intend to use? (Put an X next to all that apply) <---Parallel Sections # of traditional sections # of students in each section Total # of students # of redesign sections # of students in each section Total # of students <---Before and After <---Timeframe for baseline data (e.g. fall 2011 semester, AY , five-year average ) # of traditional sections # of students in each section Total # of students # of redesign sections # of students in each section Total # of students 2. Which method of obtaining data do you intend to use? (Put an X next to all that apply) A - Comparisons of common final exams (internal and external) B - Comparisons of common content items selected from exams C - Comparisons of pre- and post-tests D - Comparisons of student work using common rubrics Describe briefly:
Data: Pilot Assessment Results (Added data for Pell-eligible students) PILOT ASSESSMENT RESULTS Institution: Course Title: Did you carry out the assessment(s) as planned and reported on the Pilot Assessment Plan? (If the assessment(s) you actually performed differed from what you previously reported, please complete a revised version and submit it with this report.) Please complete a separate chart for each comparison made (for example, if you conducted more than one pilot or if you used more than one assessment method.) 1. Please report the results of your assessments using the appropriate summary chart below. Measures: In the performance sections of the chart, report the mean score and standard deviation for each group of students assessed. Total # of Students Performance on Pre- Assessment (if applicable) Performance on Post- Assessment Total # of Pell- eligible Students Performance on Pre- Assessment (if applicable) Performance on Post- Assessment Traditional Course: Timeframe: Redesigned Course: Timeframe: In the performance sections of the chart, report the percentage of students at each level of performance (for example, the percent earning a grade of "a", percent "b", etc.: or the percent rated at each level of a scoring rubric.) Traditional Course Timeframe: Pell-eligible students, only Score/GradeNumberPercentageScore/GradeNumberPercentage Total 100% Redesigned Course Timeframe: Pell-eligible students, only Score/GradeNumberPercentageScore/GradeNumberPercentage Total 100% 2. Were any difference in performance between the two groups statistically significant? <---Yes. At what level of confidence? <---No 3. Did the two groups of students assessed differ from one another in any important ways (e.g. gender balance, prior preparation levels, motivation, etc.)? If so, please describe these briefly: 4. Did you learn anything else about the impact of the redesign on students (e.g. changes in student attitudes toward the subject, better performance in downstream courses in the same discipline, etc.)? If so, please describe these differences briefly: 5. Baseline equivalency. What measure are you using (ACT composite, ACT math subscore, etc.): Total # of StudentsScore Total # of Pell-eligible StudentsScore Traditional Course: Timeframe: Redesigned Course: Timeframe:
Data: Pilot Course Completion/Retention (Added data for Pell-eligible students) PILOT COURSE COMPLETION/RETENTION Institution: Course Title: Traditional Course Timeframe: All students Pell-eligible students, only NumberPercentage NumberPercentage A A B B C C D D F F W W DR Other: Total 100%Total 100% Redesigned Course Timeframe: All students Pell-eligible students, only NumberPercentage NumberPercentage A A B B C C D D F F W W DR Other: Total 100%Total 100% Your definition of successful completion (e.g., a C or better): Your definition of retention (e.g., a D or better, enrolled in course to end, including F grades): Retention to following semester Traditional Course Timeframe: Enrolled in course Number returned next semester Percentage returned All students Pell-eligible students Redesigned Course Timeframe: Enrolled in course Number returned next semester Percentage returned All students Pell-eligible students
Common Data Template for Quarterly Reporting to NGLC Your team leader will get a request from me as this data is needed. The request will come with explicit instructions.
What Assistance Can You Expect from NCAT? Answer questions and provide assistance solving problems Suggest ideas Refer you to individuals/institutions that have done similar work You must be pro-active and ask for assistance. If you don’t ask, they will not seek you out.
Course Sharing: How will methods be shared? Workshops NCAT-sponsored Workshops After pilot implementation (~May 2012) After full implementation (~February 2013) At two additional workshops, redesign teams will present to faculty from other twelve campuses who teach the particular redesigned course
Course Sharing: How will materials be shared? Technology solutions Meeting of instructional design and IT staff across state Angie Hammons (S&T) is coordinating Julie Phelps will discuss progress-to-date immediately following this presentation
Structure of the Day Julie Phelps will talk about technology for sharing Group discussion by design model (emporium or replacement) Discussion with your team over lunch Panel discussion Breakout sessions lead by your colleagues