Introduction to Psychology: Northern Arizona University Fully implemented, 2009  2000/year foundational, survey-style class  Traditionally, 8-11 uncoordinated sections/year  Issues:  Engagement. 63% study < 2 hours per week  Student learning and achievement  Enrollment pressures and cost. $62/student  Consistency. Non-permanent staff, divergent grade distributions  Faculty perception, participation

Background and Overview  ABOR/Learner-Centered Education program  PIs: K. Laurie Dickson, Derrick Wirtz  Supplemental model  Goals: Promote learning and success, engagement/effort, consistency, full-time staffing, while reducing cost  Measures include knowledge assessment, grades, exam performance, student opinion surveys  Primary comparison: Fall 2005, 120-student traditional section  Redesigned course:  Team taught F2F section with substantial online supplementation  400 students/section, back to back scheduling, coordination  GTA team approach with “early intervention specialist”

Redesigned Course Pedagogy  Web assignments  4 per semester  Guided exploration and written reflection on web-based surveys and other activities  Pilot research suggested these effectively complement material  Required, repeatable online quizzes  Randomly sampled from test bank (Myers Exploring Psychology)  Student response system  Full credit for any answer  10% of course grade  contact with struggling students

Fully Online Component  Institutional need for fully-online offering  Cost effectiveness, staffing, and course building were barriers  Co-designed by experienced former adjunct and M. Miller  Master content template created collaboratively  Staffing varies; adjunct during academic year, full-time in other sessions For full description and results please see: Miller, M.D., & Rader, M.E. (2010). Two heads are better than one: Collaborative development of an online course content template. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6,

Results: Grades Redesigned course produces similar pattern as traditionally taught course. Note increased student effort, pattern associated with D and F grades.

But wait…  Could “non-exam” assignments or other factors have inflated grades?  How many students would have failed solely on the basis of exam scores?  What about learning?

Results: Exam Scores  Four versus two exams; otherwise comparable  Students in redesigned section scored significantly better better (p <.001).  5.7% difference is about half of one standard deviation  In redesigned section, 6.5% would have failed on exam scores alone

Results: Learning Assessment  Both sections made significant gains (p <.001)  Degree of gain statistically indistinguishable across sections

Other Impacts and Findings  Communication and intervention  Strategies for routing, managing and preventing  Positive response to proactive contact  Study skills workshops  Student response system  Perceptions radically improved from pilot to current version  Students endorse SRS usefulness, though logistical problems persist  Students strongly endorsed usefulness of repeatable quizzes  Department and faculty impacts  Cost: $62 -> $43  Team teaching/coordination approach  90% of teaching done by full-time faculty

For More Information…    y_Abstract.htm  Miller, M.D., & Rader, M.E. (2010). Two heads are better than one: Collaborative development of an online course content template. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6,  Miller, M.D. (2009) What the science of cognition tells us about instructional technology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41,