1. SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011 Multi-institutional Course Redesign Creative Disruption to “Instruction As Usual” R. Michael Tanner, APLU Vice President and Principal Investigator Joel M. Smith, Vice Provost & CIO, Carnegie Mellon University Version of July 12, 2011

2. A Partnership among: APLU Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities AACC American Association of Community Colleges OLI Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University A Planning Grant funded ($400K) by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation March 2011 – February 2012 SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

3. National Context: Increase the number of U.S. degree holders Obama 2020, Lumina, SHEEO 2008 Educate a workforce for 21 st century jobs Projection: 63% of jobs in 2018 will require a degree Lifetime value of a college degree is increasing Large per capita reductions in state HE funding Changing student demographics and heterogeneous backgrounds SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

4. The Dream: Overcome the “Iron Triangle” SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011 Control Costs Advance Quality of Learning Improve Access & Success

5. Keys to Quality, Efficiency, and Access: High Quality learning experience with information technology and cognitive science Collaboration among faculties and institutions in developing, adopting, and sustaining the initiative Large Scale through wide adoption at universities and CCs through partnership → economies of scale Focus on high enrollment gateway courses common to universities and community colleges SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011 This Project’s Distinction

6. Achieving the Dream: Higher Quality – Better, faster learning using cognitive science: learn how students learn. Smooth Transfer, Access and Articulation - Consistent level of readiness for follow-on courses via defined and agreed upon learning outcomes Large Scale Adoption and Sustainability through collaboration Lower Cost per student using information technology Less remediation, fewer repeated courses, etc. Minimal cost to replicate software SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

7. Use the full capabilities of information technology (First motion pictures photographed stage plays!) Immediate feedback to students and instructors Customized learning experience Non-judgmental and multi-layered support (“I’d rather learn calculus from my computer.”) Convenience (24/7 access wherever the Web is available.) SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011 Break out of the box:

8. OLI course design methodology: Creates a rich computer-mediated learning environment Using concepts from learning sciences Defined learning outcomes Higher Quality: OLI o Students are given active challenges and timely feedback. o Instructors – More engagement with students Receive feedback on their students’ progress Very little lecturing o Course designers- Feedback on learning design. SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

9. Better learning: OLI Platform Course Interdisciplinary Design Team: -Learning Scientists -Faculty Content Experts -Human-computer interaction experts -Software Engineers -Challenges -Hints -Responses -Requests -Assessment Dashboard SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

10. Wide adoption at universities and community colleges, with more enjoyable and successful learning at both. Large Scale (AACC and APLU) The one-time development costs for an OLI course are high: Learning outcomes are elaborated explicitly. Learning experiences and interactions are carefully designed. On-going renewal is similarly intensive and expensive.  Costs can be amortized and benefits spread by large scale  Introductory courses in popular subject areas at CCs, 4- year, and research universities Lower Cost per Student SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

11. Simplified Cost Sketch Current Mode of Instruction Class of 200, meeting twice a week in lecture, once in sections. One instructor Eight TAs (one TA for 25 students) Lower cost per student (feasibility argument) Claim: OLI software and computer support can be very low cost per student at scale. Sketch Cost per student: ~40% lower, counting OLI costs Hybrid Mode of Instruction with OLI environment – No textbook Two Classes of 200, each meeting once a week in lecture, once in sections. One instructor Eight TAs (one TA for 50 students) OLI software and computer support SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

12. Process Planning Phase to Development Phase: (Spring 2011) o Project publicized to institutions, soliciting advice and expressions of interest o APLU/AACC Steering Committee empanelled (Summer 2011) o Course areas for full proposals/statements identified o Solicitation and criteria to APLU/AACC institutions and partners (Early Fall 2011) o Proposals received and reviewed by Steering Committee. o Lead development sites chosen, contributor networks formed o Development proposals submitted to funders SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

13. Development Phase, 2012 and 2013, an Ongoing Research Project: OLI Teams work with teams centered at Lead development institutions Three tiers of engagement: o Development Lead site o Contributor participants o Improvement Network participants Lead development site faculty are the final arbiters of content and learning outcomes if consensus does not emerge. SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

14. Status Report as of June 15, 2011 Ten subject areas chosen from university/community college responses and interests for possible pursuit: Pre-calculus, calculus, psychology, biology/life science, general chemistry, macro-economics, financial accounting, English composition, Introductory Spanish, English as 2 nd language 28 universities and systems have expressed interest at some level On-line partnership application to be made available SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

15. Appeal to SHEEO There are many, many “course redesigns” that have been done or are underway across nation (National Center for Academic Transformation, OLI, others). The courses of interest are often the same common subject areas. Can we build subject area communities and do a versatile and highly effective intelligent courseware design for a large national community? SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

16. Challenges Central challenge: Assuring widespread adoption of materials produced and sustainable evolution “Multi-institutional course redesign just doesn’t work.” SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

17. Challenges – Agreement on course content Approach:  Provide flexibility for faculty to supplement consensus materials.  Engage faculty to contribute during the development phase.  Concentrate on core 80%  Remember – These are introductory classes! SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

18. Challenges – (a) curriculum jig-saw puzzle Institutional differences in content and organization of curriculum English Comp. Pre-Calculus Physics Calculus Biology Statistics Chemistry Sociology Advanced Courses Psychology Ecology Engineering SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

19.  Develop materials as “modules” whenever possible to be flexibly linked. (The mosaic solution is not feasible!) Challenges – (b) curriculum jig-saw puzzle English Comp. Pre-Calculus Physics Calculus Biology Statistics Chemistry Social Computing Advanced Courses Psychology Ecology Engineering Sociology SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

20. Challenges – Flexibility versus consistent learning methodologies  Consensus on core elements/modules within the community of subject experts. Faculty culture shift  Building communities of scholars motivated by learning outcomes in each course area, for peer support and sustainability  Faculty development programs SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

21. Challenges – Institutional shifts – approvals and rewards  Engaging departments in the redesign project  Formal recognition and peer endorsement of contributions  Administrative leaders affirming value of project Intellectual property  Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial)  Paid release time for faculty, other possible financial considerations  Acknowledgements and use of logos SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011

22. Challenges – Business model for sustainability o Charging – who and how? Modest student fee, institutional subscription?  Not-for-profit, for public benefit  Transparency in resource handling  Governance mechanisms for on-going discussion and evolution of content Questions and Comments? SHEEO Annual Meeting, July 13, 2011