Presentation on theme: "Developmental Math Course Redesign (DMCR) Grant Program Technical Assistance Workshop Jackie Lichter Melinda Vann"— Presentation transcript:
Developmental Math Course Redesign (DMCR) Grant Program Technical Assistance Workshop Jackie Lichter Melinda Vann
Agenda Introductions Marylands 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 Higher Education Commission
Why is Maryland Interested in Course Redesign? Governor OMalley has set a statewide goal that by 2025 at least 55%of Marylanders age will hold at least one degree credential – either an Associates or Bachelors. 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.
What is the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant? 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 states institutions of higher education Higher Education Commission
The Developmental Math Course Redesign Grant Program 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.
Higher Education Commission What is Course Redesign? 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.
Higher Education Commission What is Wrong with the Lecture?* 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
Higher Education Commission What is Wrong with Multiple Sections?* In theory: greater interaction In practice: large class size In practice: dominated by the same presentation techniques Lack of coordination Inconsistent outcomes *NCAT Presentation
Higher Education Commission 5 Principles of Course Redesign 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
Higher Education Commission Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire Course 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!
Higher Education Commission Goal 2: Encouraging Active Learning 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
Higher Education Commission Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/ Monitoring Student Progress 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?
Higher Education Commission 6 Models of Course Redesign The Supplemental Model The Replacement Model The Emporium Model The Fully Online Model The Buffet Model The Linked Workshop Model
Higher Education Commission The Supplemental Model 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
Higher Education Commission The Replacement Model 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
Higher Education Commission The Emporium Model 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
Higher Education Commission The Fully Online Model 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.
Higher Education Commission The Buffet Model Takes into account each students 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
Higher Education Commission The Linked Workshop Model 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
Higher Education Commission The Linked Workshop Model Continued 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-timei.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.
Higher Education Commission Summary 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
Preparing the Request for Application Higher Education Commission Show me the money….
Eligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for Marylands Complete College America data project Funding Priority: Those with high percentage of new entering students enrolled in developmental math courses. Higher Education Commission Who Can Apply?
Higher Education Commission Award Amount $ 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
Higher Education Commission Required Matching Fund 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
Higher Education Commission Grant Goals & Objectives 1.Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes; 2.Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment; 3.Reduce instructional costs, freeing up institutional resources for other academic priorities; and 4.Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.
December 2, 2011Full Application Due December 22, 2011Awards Announced January/February 2012 (TBD)Project-Wide Meeting #1 August 15, 2012Interim Report Due Higher Education Commission Important Dates
Fall 2012 Pilot of Redesigned Course Fall (TBD)Project-Wide Meeting #2 Spring 2013Full Implementation of Course –all sections January 31, 2013Funding expires. Interim Report #2 Unexpended funds returned. August 15, 2013Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation Higher Education Commission More Important Dates
Project Cover Page (form provided, original signatures) Abstract (500 Words) Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages) Project Timeline Budget Higher Education Commission RFA Components
Higher Education Commission Project Narrative Extent of Need Project Overview Implementation Plan Outcomes Assessment Plan and Projected Outcomes Cost Savings
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 Higher Education Commission Extent of Need – 10 pts.
Detailed Describe redesign model used Specific changes to implement New learning methods/materials/approaches incorporated Higher Education Commission Project Overview – 15 pts.
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 Higher Education Commission Implementation Plan – 30 pts.
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)? Higher Education Commission Outcomes Assessment Plan & Projected Outcomes – 30 pts.
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 Higher Education Commission Cost Savings – scored with budget
Major project activities including planning meetings Month/date of activity Key personnel responsible for the activity Table format may be used Higher Education Commission Project Timeline (considered part of implementation plan)
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) Higher Education Commission Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost savings)
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 Higher Education Commission Application Due Date
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 Higher Education Commission Review Process
CategoryMaximum Points Extent of Need for the Project (funding priority) 10 Project Overview15 Implementation Plan and Timeline30 Assessment of Redesign Impact30 Budget and Cost Effectiveness (includes cost savings)15 Total 100 Higher Education Commission Scoring Rubric
Geographic distribution of awards Funding priority – support for institutions with high percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math Higher Education Commission Additional Considerations
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 Higher Education Commission Notification of Awards
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. Higher Education Commission Project-wide Activities
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 Higher Education Commission Appendices
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 Higher Education Commission Contact Information