2 Higher Education Commission AgendaHigher Education CommissionIntroductionsMaryland’s College Completion GoalsAbout the Funder – Complete College AmericaDMCR Grant ProgramCourse Redesign BasicsGrant Application DevelopmentGrant Review Process and AwardingProject -wide Activity Requirements
3 Why is Maryland Interested in Course Redesign? Higher Education CommissionGovernor 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 CommissionState of Maryland entered into agreement with Complete College America (CCA) as one of ten recipients of the Completion Innovation Challenge GrantThe state received $1 million for this grantApproved 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 CommissionGoals: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 CommissionCourse 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 CommissionTreats all students as if they are the sameIneffective in engaging studentsInadequate individual assistancePoor attendance and success ratesStudents fail to retain learning*NCAT Presentation
8 What is Wrong with Multiple Sections?* Higher Education CommissionIn theory: greater interactionIn practice: large class sizeIn practice: dominated by the same presentation techniquesLack of coordinationInconsistent outcomes*NCAT Presentation
9 5 Principles of Course Redesign Higher Education CommissionRedesign the Entire CourseEncourage Active LearningProvide Students with Individualized AssistanceBuild in Ongoing Assessment and Prompt (Automated) FeedbackEnsure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress
10 Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire Course Higher Education CommissionBenefitsOpportunity to evaluate and focus course goalsCounteract course driftCapture the best that each instructor has to offerReduce duplication of effortMeaningful and interesting faculty interactionChallengesCompromise and consensus buildingInstructor buy-in across all sectionsTime needed for team-buildingVariation in faculty attitudes toward technologyGathering support for the project – the more support the better!
11 Goal 2: Encouraging Active Learning Higher Education CommissionBenefitsMultiple ways for students to engage with the course materialStudents decide when to work on the course material, within the framework of scheduled deadlinesStudents held accountable for assigned workStudent engagement and satisfactionFaculty engagement and satisfactionChallengesWhat 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
13 Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/ Monitoring Student Progress Higher Education CommissionOnline quizzesSophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant feedback, and assistanceTrack the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software)Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online workDesign an intervention strategy for students who are performing poorly on assessments or who are not spending sufficient time on taskA job for peer learning assistants?
15 The Supplemental Model Higher Education CommissionRetains the basic course structure, particularly the number of class meetingsSupplements lectures and textbooks with technology-based, out-of-class activitiesEncourages greater student engagement with course contentEnsures that students are prepared when they come to class
16 Higher Education Commission The Replacement ModelHigher Education CommissionReplaces (rather than supplements) in-class time with online, interactive learning activitiesCarefully considers why (and how often) classes need to meet face-to-faceAssumes that certain activities can be better accomplished online - individually or in groupsMay keep remaining in-class activities the same or may make significant changesMay schedule out-of-class activities in computer labs or totally online so that students can participate anytime, anywhere
17 Higher Education Commission The Emporium ModelHigher Education CommissionMoves all classes to a lab settingMultiple sections combined into one large sectionDepends heavily on instructional software including interactive tutorialsAllows students to work as long as they need to master the contentPermits the use of multiple kinds of personnelRequires a significant commitment of space and equipmentCan teach more than one course in the lab, thus leveraging the initial investment
18 Higher Education Commission The Fully Online ModelHigher Education CommissionEliminates 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 ModelHigher Education CommissionTakes into account each student’s knowledge/skill level and preferred learning styleProvides 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 StatisticsInitially students are made familiar with the various options through examples made available for them to experienceThen 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 CommissionRetains the basic structure of the college-level/core course, particularly the number of class meetingsReplaces 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/placementWorkshops 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 CommissionWorkshops are facilitated by students who have previously excelled in the core course and are trained and supervised by core course facultyWorkshop 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 SummaryHigher Education CommissionSupplemental – Add to the current structure and/or change the contentReplacement – Blend face-to-face with online activitiesEmporium – Move all classes to a lab settingFully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities onlineBuffet – Mix and match according to student preferencesLinked Workshop - Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”
23 Higher Education Commission Show me the money….Higher Education CommissionPreparing theRequest for Application
24 Higher Education Commission Who Can Apply?Higher Education CommissionEligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for Maryland’s Complete College America data projectFunding Priority: Those with high percentage of new entering students enrolled in developmental math courses.
25 Higher Education Commission Award AmountHigher Education Commission$30,000 per course - up to 21 awards possibleMay submit more than one application/ one redesignPossible to receive more than one awardSubmit a separate application for each redesignMay 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 CommissionInstitutions must invest at least 25% of the total cost of the redesign e.g. $30,000 award matched with $10,000 of institutional resourcesWhy? Demonstrate “‘buy in” and long term sustainabilitySources 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 costCash
27 Grant Goals & Objectives Higher Education CommissionFind 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; andDevelop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.
28 Higher Education Commission Important DatesHigher Education CommissionDecember 2, Full Application DueDecember 22, Awards AnnouncedJanuary/February 2012 (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #1August 15, Interim Report Due
29 Higher Education Commission More Important DatesHigher Education CommissionFall Pilot of Redesigned CourseFall (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #2Spring Full Implementation of Course –all sectionsJanuary 31, 2013 Funding expires. Interim Report # Unexpended funds returned.August 15, 2013 Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation
30 Higher Education Commission RFA ComponentsHigher Education CommissionProject Cover Page (form provided, original signatures)Abstract (500 Words)Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages)Project TimelineBudget
31 Higher Education Commission Project NarrativeHigher Education CommissionExtent of NeedProject OverviewImplementation PlanOutcomes Assessment Plan and Projected OutcomesCost Savings
32 Higher Education Commission Extent of Need – 10 pts.Higher Education CommissionRelatively brief but compelling case statementSupported by institutional dataInclude number and percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental mathOther data might include pass/fail rate development mathDraw on data already presented in Concept Paper
33 Higher Education Commission Project Overview – 15 pts.Higher Education CommissionDetailedDescribe redesign model usedSpecific changes to implementNew learning methods/materials/approaches incorporated
34 Implementation Plan – 30 pts. Higher Education CommissionFall pilot redesigned course and assessat least 100 studentsSpring 2013 – implement across all sectionsExplain how the courses will be implementedIndicate number of students impacted each semester through Aug 2013
35 Outcomes Assessment Plan & Projected Outcomes – 30 pts. Higher Education CommissionHow 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 CommissionHow 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 CommissionMajor project activities including planning meetingsMonth/date of activityKey personnel responsible for the activityTable format may be used
38 Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost savings) Higher Education CommissionTwo Parts – budget table and budget narrativeBudget TableForm in Appendix 2 providedList expenditures by cost category for both requested grant funds and institutional matching fundsBudget NarrativeText 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 CommissionDecember 2, 2011 by 4:00 PMOne hard copy with original signaturesOne electronic copy (word or PDF – budgets may be xls)Attn: Melinda VannMaryland Higher Education CommissionAttention: Melinda Vann6 N. Liberty Street, 10th FloorBaltimore, MD 21201
40 Higher Education Commission Review ProcessHigher Education CommissionEvery application read by at least 4 qualified reviewersApplications read/scored individuallyReview panel meets to discuss and develop recommendationsRecommendations forwarded to Secretary of Higher Education who makes final funding decision
41 Higher Education Commission Scoring RubricHigher Education CommissionCategory Maximum PointsExtent of Need for the Project (funding priority) 10Project OverviewImplementation Plan and Timeline 30Assessment of Redesign Impact 30Budget and Cost Effectiveness(includes cost savings)Total
42 Additional Considerations Higher Education CommissionGeographic distribution of awardsFunding priority – support for institutions with high percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math
43 Notification of Awards Higher Education CommissionDecember 22, 2011 byFormal letter to arrive after holidaysProjects may begin when notice receivedReviewer comments shared with those who did not receive funding50% of award distributed within 60 days of award noticeBalance distributed after first interim report reviewed and accepted
44 Project-wide Activities Higher Education CommissionMeetingsSharing 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 AppendicesHigher Education CommissionAppendix 1 includes all post award procedures. Awardees should retain RFA for referenceAppendix 2 includes budget table and application cover sheetCost savings data collection tables will be distributed to awardees
46 Higher Education Commission Contact InformationHigher Education CommissionProgrammatic Questions:Erin Knepler, P-20 Project Director University System of MarylandorProgram technical assistance information -Application Development and Grants Management Questions:Melinda Vann, Director - Outreach and Grants Management, orRFA and forms