Targeting Diverse Learning Needs with a Buffet Redesign Model Klaus Woelk woelk@mst.edu Associate Professor Interim Chairman of Chemistry Missouri S&T Rolla, MO

My Fall Semester 2009 Class General chemistry (189 students) 86% freshman, 9% sophomore, 5% other Engineering students (82%) 29% mechanical and aerospace, 12% electrical and computer, 12% civil and environmental, 12% chemical, 6% metallurgical and ceramics, 6% architectural, 9% other, 14% undeclared Non-major science students (9%) 47% biology, 41% computer, 12% other Chemistry students (6%) Others (3%) mostly undeclared

Why redesign a course? Improve student learning in changing environments online society millennium students “No Child Left Behind” generation Save money in times of budget constraints same work done with less faculty or with less expensive instructional personnel more students per section

First Round of Redesign (2004) Measures to enhance student engagement and participation in large classrooms Clickers (preparedness, learning, understanding) ongoing assessment, instant automated feedback Daily homework (graded quickly) time on task, ongoing assessment, prompt feedback Assigned daily reading, required note preparation time on task

Increase in Student Performance

Second Round of Redesign (2007-2010) --- Replacement Model --- Second Round of Redesign (2007-2010) --- Replacement Model --- (2007) Daily homework (graded quickly) MasteringChemistry (graded instantly) (2009) Recitation Quizzes 15-minute MasteringChemistry -based quiz developed own database of test questions (2010) Assigned daily reading, required note preparation 3-minute MasteringChemistry -based reading quiz Cost Savings (~ $4,700) Before: 11 Undergraduate Graders (~ $13,000) delay between submission and return of graded work inconsistent grading After: 1 Graduate Assistant (~ $8,300) administering MasteringChemistry

Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) Missouri Course Redesign Initiative Missouri Governor Missouri’s public four-year institutions National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) Improve learning outcomes Reduce instructional costs Redesigning large-enrollment, multi-section courses Using technology-supported active learning strategies

Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) Changing the course structure Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) Changing the course structure Traditional up to 1200 Students annually 6 courses, 48 recitation sections 6 instructors 12 TAs + 6 PLAs (Peer Learning Assistants) Redesigned 3 courses, 24 collaborative learning centers 2 instructors 6 TAs + 6 PLAs

Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) --- Buffet Model --- Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) --- Buffet Model --- Lectures Face to face Online synchronous g Active Learning Collaborative learning centers Online modules Online learning modules Discipline specific Extra credit Students must develop study plan, discuss with instructor

Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) --- Buffet Model --- Third Round of Redesign (2011-2013) --- Buffet Model --- Lectures Face to face: clickers (Turning Technologies), text messaging Online synchronous: ResponseWare (Turning Technologies), text messaging Active Learning Collaborative learning centers, peer learning, peer evaluation Online modules, individualized feedback Online learning modules Discipline specific Extra credit Students must develop study plan, discuss with instructor Lectures Face to face Online synchronous g Active Learning Collaborative learning centers Online modules Online learning modules Discipline specific Extra credit Students must develop study plan, discuss with instructor

Course Structure (Fall Semesters, traditional) W Th F 8-8:50 Lecture A Recitations A1, B1, C1, D1 Recitations A5, B5, C5, D5 9-9:50 Lecture B Recitations A2, B2, C2, D2 Recitations A6, B6, C6, D6 10-10:50 Lecture C Recitations A3, B3, C3, D3 Recitations A7, B7, C7, D7 11-11:50 Lecture D Recitations A4, B4, C4, D4 Recitations A8, B8, C8, D8 Afternoon and evening recitation quizzes voluntary collaborative learning centers

Course Structure (Fall Semesters) W Th F 8-8:50 Learning Centers E1, F1, G1, H1 E3, F3, G3, H3 9-9:50 Lectures A (f2f), C (so) 10-10:50 B (f2f), D (so) E2, F2, G2, H2 E4, F4, G4, H4 11-11:50 Afternoon and evening common exams voluntary collaborative learning centers

Face-to-face Lectures Engaging students inside the classroom

Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom

Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom

Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom

Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom Synchronous Online Lectures Engaging students outside the classroom

Student-Centered Learning in Collaborative Learning Centers

Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education* Adopted by the UM Board of Curators for the UM Strategic Action Plan ”A Design for the Future” (1999). Faculty Members are urged to: Encourage Student-Faculty Contact Encourage Cooperation Among Students Encourage Active Learning Give Prompt, Frequent, Informative Feedback Emphasize Time on Task Communication High Expectations Respect and Encompass Diverse Talents and Learning Styles * modified slightly from: Chickering and Gamson (AAHE Bull. vol 39(March), 3-7, 1987) http://lead.mst.edu/sevenprinciples/index.com

“Online” doesn’t mean “left alone” Intrusive Intervention Intense monitoring of first two week performance Academic alerts LASSI (Learning And Study Strategies Inventory) Study Plan Possibility to change buffet options Accountability MasteringChemistry diagnostics Optional Assistive Instructional Tools Course discussion board Office hours LEAD (Learning Enhancement Across Disciplines)

LEAD Collaborative Learning Centers

LEAD Collaborative Learning Centers Active Learning … … in a non-threatening environment

Outcome vs. Number of Sessions Attended This is for Section AA only. I have not completed charts for the other sections.

Total Number of Students Per Session This is the total number of students who swiped-in on a given day. The small group at the end of the semester were attending unofficial sessions which Mr. McDowell hosted. Nearly 180 students strong at its peak, it shows much demand.

Average Seat Time per Student This is the average amount of time (in minutes) spent per student at the LEAD session on a given date. One of the things of note is that the average seat time is much higher than what was required to obtain a bonus point. Also, the small group at the end is again Mr. McDowell's group of diehard faithfuls.

Acknowledgements Next Generation Learning Challenges The Missouri Learning Commons: Redesigning Gateway Courses at Scale Missouri S&T General Chemistry Redesign Team Harvest Collier, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs, Professor of Chemistry Stephen Clark, Professor of Mathematics, Assistant to the Provost Emmalou Satterfield, Assistant Teaching Professor of Chemistry Angie Hammons, Manager of Instructional Design Services Julie Phelps, Instructional Designer, eLearning Specialist Amy Skyles, Instructional Technology eLearning Specialist Dan Cernusca, Instructional Design Specialist Diane Hagni, Program and Project Support Specialist Additional Support Travis McDowell, Chemistry Graduate Student Johnathan Harper, Chemistry Graduate Student Peris Carr, Chemistry Graduate Student Barbara Wilkins, Instructional Designer, eLearning Specialist Malcolm Hays, Instructional Developer, eLearning Expert

Success tomorrow depends on choices today. unknown author

Video clips from the redesigned Missouri S&T general chemistry course are available at: http://classes.mst.edu/chem1