1. WORKSHOP II: Planning for Course Redesign Review of Workshop Homework Innovative Course Redesign Practices Break-out Sessions: Redesign Plans Preparing the Final Proposal

2. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due June 16, 2008 Abstract Application Narrative – Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles – Learning materials: what you plan to use – Assessment strategy: how you plan to measure student learning – Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings – Five Critical Implementation Issues: how you will address – Timeline: pilot in spring 2009; full implementation in fall 2009

3. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due June 16, 2008 Tools and Forms Assessment Forms (2) Course Completion Forms (2) Course Planning Tool (CPT) Course Savings Summary Form (CSS) Course Structure Form (CSF) Budget and budget narrative A draft of your CPT will be due on 5/26/08. Grant awards will be made on 6/30/08.

4. http://www.theNCAT.org/R2R/R2R _Planning_Resources.htm Five Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Five Course Redesign Proposals Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Savings Summary Course Structure Form Planning Checklist

5. READINESS CRITERIA What were we looking for in your responses? Evidence of preliminary planning Collaborative response not by one person

6. READINESS CRITERION #1 Course Choice What impact would redesigning the course have on the curriculum, on students and on the institutioni.e., why do you want to redesign this course?

7. SCIENCE & ENGINEERING (4) MS State: Biology MS State: Chemistry MS State: Statics USM: Nutrition

8. SOCIAL SCIENCE (2) USM: Anthropology USM: Psychology

9. HUMANITIES (3) MS U for Women: English Comp USM: Spanish USM: Technical Writing

10. QUANTITATIVE (9) Alcorn State: College Algebra Delta State: College Algebra Jackson State: Int & College Algebra MS State: Statistics MS U for Women: Int & College Algebra MVSU: Int Algebra U of MS: Business Calculus USM: Int Algebra USM: Computing

11. FACTORS YOU CITED REGARDING HIGH IMPACT High drop-failure-withdrawal rates Student performance in subsequent courses Students on waiting lists Growing enrollment pressures Lack of consistency in multiple sections Disparate range of student skill levels

12. READINESS CRITERION #2 Redesign Model Which redesign model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why? What aspects fit your particular discipline and your particular students?

13. CHOICE OF MODEL Supplemental: MS State (Biology) Emporium: – Alcorn State (College Algebra) – Delta State (College Algebra) – MS State (Statics) – USM (Intermediate Algebra) Fully Online: USM (Computing) Buffet: USM (Nutrition)

14. REPLACEMENT MODEL Humanities – MS U for Women (English Comp) – USM (Spanish) – USM (Tech Writing) Natural and Social Sciences – MS State (Chemistry) – USM (Anthropology) – USM (Psychology)

15. REPLACEMENT MODEL U of MS (Business Calculus) MS State (Statistics) Jackson State (Algebra) MS U for Women (Algebra) MVSU (Algebra)

16. REASONS CITED The mathematical background of students who enroll in these courses dictates that they need the human touch in addition to technology to adequately enhance their mathematics learning skills. This model allows students to have more contact with supervisory personnel in a laboratory setting and reduces the number of contact hours in a formal lecture setting. – The classes will be designed so that each week students spend two periods in a traditional lecture classroom setting and the third period in a supervised lab. – Faculty will meet face-to-face for two 50-minute sessions each week. The third 50-minute session will be replaced with interactive learning using the chosen technology.

17. The average ACT scores for incoming new students are low. As a result, the math faculty does not feel comfortable with allowing these students to work in a more independent fashion than allowed by the replacement model. By using short pre-quizzes" on new material which are due prior to class, the faculty member can specifically tailor classroom instruction based on the pre-quiz results. This may include no class time on topics which the students have already mastered and more time spent on topics that students are struggling with or that are more challenging.

18. REPLACEMENT VS. EMPORIUM Ole Miss Replacement 2 hours in class 1 hour in lab Hawkes PCR and R2R Emporium 1 hour in class 2 – 3 hours in lab MyMathLab Key Factors in Common Thoughtfulness! Software is part of the instructional team. Planning for the whole, not just the parts.

19. RESULTS OF USING THE EMPORIUM MODEL At the U of Alabama, student success rates went from 40% to 78%. U of Idaho students earned more As and Bs and fewer Ds and Fs. At the University of Missouri-Saint Louis, successful completion rate (grade of C or better) increased from 63.3% to 78.4%. In fall 2006, the final exam median at LSU was 78%, the highest ever achieved. At Wayne State, two-thirds of those who took the final exam passed it compared to only about half in the traditional course.

20. READINESS CRITERION #3 Assessment Plan Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

21. FIVE MEASUREMENT METHODS Common Finals: Alcorn State, Delta State, MS State (Chemistry), MS State (Statics), MS State (Statistics), MVSU, U of MS, USM (Computing) Common Content Items: MS State (Biology) Pre- and Post-Tests: USM (Anthropology) Common Rubrics: MS U for Women (English Comp), USM (Technical Writing) Multiple Methods: Jackson State, USM (College Algebra), USM (Nutrition), USM (Psychology), USM (Spanish)

22. More Is Not Better! Performance in follow-on courses Student attitude toward subject matter Student interest in pursuing further coursework in the discipline Differences in performance among student subpopulations Deep vs. superficial learning

24. GRADES ARE NOT A SUFFICIENT MEASURE OF STUDENT LEARNING Lack of consistency Different coverage Different tests and exams Curving Inflation Use only for course completion!

26. READINESS CRITERION #4 Cost Savings Plan Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

27. 10 HAVE A CLEAR COST REDUCTION STRATEGY Increase section size and decrease the number of sections (3) Increase section size and decrease the number of sections to accommodate growth (3) Increase section size, decrease the number of sections and change the mix of personnel teaching the course (3) Increase faculty load from 4 to 6 courses (1)

28. FIVE ARE NOT CLEAR Reduce the number of faculty (1) Accommodate more students via virtual labs but lack large lecture halls (1) Increase section size assuming growth (2) Increase section size vs. keep section size the same (1)

29. THREE DO NOT HAVE A COST REDUCTION STRATEGY Hope that retention will produce savings (2) Paper savings - took the first step but not the second (1)

30. LABOR SAVINGS TACTICS Substitute (in part or in whole) Coordinated development and delivery and shared instructional tasks Interactive tutorial software Automated grading Course management software Peer interaction or interaction with other personnel Online training materials Individual development and delivery Face-to-face class meetings Hand grading Human monitoring and course administration One-to-one faculty/student interaction Face-to-face training of GTAs, adjuncts and other personnel

31. Step 1: Complete the CPT. Step 2: Translate saved hours to one of the cost savings strategies. Reducing time spent by individuals is an enabler that allows you to choose a cost savings strategy. If you stop at the first step, you create what NCAT calls paper savings. Paper savings = A workload reduction for individuals but not cost savings to the department or institution.

32. COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE Traditional Each instructor teaches 1 section Section size = 25 Time spent = 200 hours Redesign Time spent = 100 hours Options: – Each instructor = 2 sections of 25 – Each instructor = 1 section of 50

33. COST REDUCTION EXAMPLE Traditional Instructor load = 4 sections 150 minutes/week 3 50-minute or 2 75-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Redesign Instructor load = 6 sections 150 minutes/week 2 50-minute meetings Time spent = 600 minutes per week Option: Reduce # of sections from 12 to 8 per semester, saving an additional $32,000

34. COURSE PLANNING TOOL A decision-making tool that enables institutions to compare the before activities and costs (the traditional course) and the after activities and costs (the redesigned course)

35. COST-PER-STUDENT

36. IN-CLASS TO OUT-OF-CLASS

40. THE CPT - IS IT WORTH IT? Provides a structure for the team to think about activities and costs Allows consideration of changes in specific instructional tasks Permits visualization of duplication and waste Enables cost/benefit analysis re: type of personnel per task TEAM!!!

41. ACTIVITIES AND COSTS Determine all personnel costs expressed as an hourly rate. Determine the specific tasks associated with offering a course. Determine how much time each person spends on each of the tasks. Calculate the total instructional costs. Redesign the course by task and re-calculate the costs.

42. COURSE STRUCTURE FORM A formatted spreadsheet that enables institutions to compare the structure of the traditional course with the that of the redesigned course (types of sections, number of students enrolled and the kinds of personnel)

45. READINESS CRITERION #5 Learning Materials Are the faculty able and willing to incorporate existing curricular materials in order to focus work on redesign issues rather than materials creation?

46. READINESS CRITERION #6 Active Learning Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

47. READINESS CRITERION #7 Collective Commitment Describe the members of your team, the skills they bring to the project and what their roles will be in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

48. FOR MORE INFORMATION www.theNCAT.org

49. INNOVATIVE COURSE REDESIGN PRACTICES Creating "Small" within "Large Undergraduate Learning Assistants Freshmen Dont Do Optional Modularization New Instructional Roles Avoiding Either/or Choices

50. ASSIGNMENT Each table will consider one practice. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If you were to implement the practice, what benefits would it offer? What challenges would it present? What needs to be taken into account in implementing this practice? Choose one person to report back.

51. TABLE ASSIGNMENTS 1, 7, 13, 19 -– "Small" within "Large 2, 8, 14 -– ULAs 3, 9, 15 -– Freshmen Dont Do Optional 4, 10, 16, 20 -– Modularization 5, 11, 17 -– New Roles 6, 12, 18, 21 -– Avoiding Either/Or

52. COURSE REDESIGN PLANS We have broken your teams up so that each team member can present and get feedback. Each person will present a five-minute summary of the model your team has chosen and how you will implement the Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign within it. (5 minutes) Each person will receive feedback from the table group. (10 minutes) Identify any questions about the process and choose someone to report back.

53. FIVE PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL COURSE REDESIGN #1: Redesign the whole course #2: Encourage active learning #3: Provide students with individualized assistance #4: Build in ongoing assessment and prompt (automated) feedback #5: Ensure sufficient time on task and monitor student progress

54. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due June 16, 2008 Abstract Application Narrative – Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles – Learning materials: what you plan to use – Assessment strategy: how you plan to measure student learning – Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings – Five Critical Implementation Issues: how you will address – Timeline: pilot in spring 2009; full implementation in fall 2009

55. FINAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Due June 16, 2008 Tools and Forms Assessment Forms (2) Course Completion Forms (2) Course Planning Tool (CPT) Course Savings Summary Form (CSS) Course Structure Form (CSF) Budget and budget narrative A draft of your CPT will be due on 5/26/08. Grant awards will be made on 6/30/08.

56. http://www.theNCAT.org/R2R/R2R _Planning_Resources.htm Five Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Five Course Redesign Proposals Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Savings Summary Course Structure Form Planning Checklist

57. FIVE CRITICAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Prepare students (and their parents) and the campus for changes in the course. Train instructors, GTAs and undergraduate peer tutors. Ensure an adequate technological infrastructure to support the redesign as planned. Achieve initial and ongoing faculty consensus about the redesign. Avoid backsliding by building ongoing institutional commitment to the redesign.

58. NCAT CORPORATE ASSOCIATES Blackboard Cengage Learning (Thomson Learning) Houghton Mifflin McGraw-Hill Pearson Education

59. THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE Second Annual Conference When: March 16 – 18, 2008 Where: The Rosen Centre Hotel Orlando, Florida Hotel Reservation Deadline: February 29, 2008 Meeting Registration Deadline: February 29, 2008

60. PROGRAM CONSULTANTS Carol Twigg ctwigg@theNCAT.org Carolyn Jarmon cjarmon@theNCAT.org 518-695-5320 *PLUS PCR and R2R PARTICIPANTS*