1. WELCOME! Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) Disciplinary Institutes April 24, 2009 Dallas, TX

2. C2R DISCIPLINARY INSTITUTES Agenda 9:00 – 10:00C2R Overview 10:00 – 12:00 Disciplinary Breakouts 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2:00 Assessment & CPT Review 2:00 – 3:30 Innovative Ideas 3:30 – 4:00Next Steps

3. FIPSE GRANT Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) October 2006 – September 2009 Build on success of PCR and R2R 60 institutions committed to engage in redesign Redesign Scholars Program 12 disciplinary institutes Support collaboration among NCAT staff, Redesign Scholars and institutional teams Disseminate successful redesign strategies at annual national conference

4. WHAT DOES NCAT MEAN BY 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.

5. C2R PROGRAM PURPOSE C2R’s purpose is to “support the efforts of colleges and universities to redesign their instructional approaches using technology to achieve improvements in student learning while reducing instructional costs.” Outcome: Course Redesign Pilots

6. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CONDUCT A PILOT? You need to plan for how you will fully implement your redesign in all sections of the course. You need to conduct a pilot implementation of that plan in Fall 2009. A pilot should involve a significant sub-set of the course enrollment (typically at least 100 students.)

7. C2R PROGRAM RESOURCES NCAT’s Redesign Methodology Nineteen Redesign Scholars A Network of Experienced Institutions: the Redesign Alliance

8. C2R ROUND III PARTICIPANTS Coppin State U: Technology Fluency Edison State College: Reading III El Paso CC : Intermediate Algebra Morehead State U: College Algebra Regis U: Writing/Composition Santa Fe College: Intermediate Algebra U of MD Eastern Shore: Biology U of Minnesota: Psychology UNC Charlotte: Spanish UW Bothell: Pre-Calculus

9. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN Challenge colleges and universities to redesign their approaches to instruction using technology to achieve quality enhancements as well as cost savings. 30 projects 1999 - 2003

10. QUANTITATIVE (13) Mathematics – Iowa State University – Northern Arizona University – Rio Salado College – Riverside CC – University of Alabama – University of Idaho – Virginia Tech Statistics – Carnegie Mellon University – Ohio State University – Penn State – U of Illinois-Urbana Champaign Computer Programming – Drexel University – University at Buffalo

11. SCIENCE (5) SOCIAL SCIENCE (6) Biology – Fairfield University – University of Massachusetts Chemistry – University of Iowa – U of Wisconsin- Madison Astronomy – U of Colorado- Boulder Psychology – Cal Poly Pomona – University of Dayton – University of New Mexico – U of Southern Maine Sociology – IUPUI American Government – U of Central Florida

12. HUMANITIES (6) English Composition – Brigham Young University – Tallahassee CC Spanish – Portland State University – University of Tennessee Fine Arts – Florida Gulf Coast University World Literature – University of Southern Mississippi

13. WHAT’S 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

14. WHAT’S 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

15. IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES Penn State - 68% on a content-knowledge test vs. 60% UB - 56% earned A- or higher vs. 37% CMU - scores on skill/concept tests increased by 22.8% Fairfield – 88% on concept retention vs. 79% U of Idaho – 30% earned A’s vs. 20% UMass – 73% on tougher exams vs. 61% FGCU - 85% on exams vs. 72%; 75% A’s and B’s vs. 31% USM - scored a full point higher on writing assessments IUPUI, RCC, UCF, U of S Maine, Drexel and U of Ala - significant improvements in understanding content 25 of 30 have shown improvement; 5 have shown equal learning.

16. REDUCTION IN DFW RATES U of Alabama – 60% to 40% Drexel – 51% to 38% Tallahassee CC – 46% to 25% Rio CC – 41% to 32% IUPUI – 39% to 25% UNM – 39% to 23% U of S Maine – 28% to 19% U of Iowa – 25% to 13% Penn State – 12% to 9.8% 18 of 24 that measured showed improvement.

17. COST SAVINGS RESULTS Redesigned courses reduce costs by 37% on average, with a range of 15% to 77%. Collectively, the 30 courses saved about $3 million annually.

18. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SAVINGS? Accommodate more students Offer more options at the second-year or upper-division level Develop distance learning courses and programs Decrease time to graduation for students by eliminating academic bottlenecks Free up expensive campus space

19. WHAT DO THE FACULTY SAY? “It’s the best experience I’ve ever had in a classroom.” “The quality of my worklife has changed immeasurably for the better.” “It’s a lot of work during the transition-- but it’s worth it.”

20. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN: Rounds I and II John Broida - U of Southern Maine Elizabeth Connor - UMass Amherst Joe Benson - U of Alabama Malcolm Hill - Fairfield U (now U of Richmond) Candace Thille - Carnegie Mellon Kirk Trigsted - U of Idaho

21. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN: Round III Gordon Hodge – U of New Mexico Dennis Pearl – Ohio State Rob Sanders – Portland State Sally Search – Tallahassee CC Jim Wohlpart – Florida Gulf Coast

22. PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN VS. THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGN Another “Proof of Concept”

23. THE ROADMAP TO REDESIGN 2003 - 2006 R2R established a more efficient means of spreading the ideas and practices that came out of the PCR to additional institutions. Our goal was to accelerate institutional adoption by simplifying the redesign process--making it as close to turnkey as possible--while allowing for institutional individuality in the adoption process.

24. STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGY “A Menu of Redesign Options” Readiness Criteria Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Six Models for Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist

25. ROADMAP TO REDESIGN 10 of 12 R2R projects improved learning; the other 2 showed equal learning. 9 of 12 improved course completion rates. All 12 reduced costs by 32% on average, with a range of 13% to 68%.

26. ROADMAP TO REDESIGN Ron Henry – Georgia State University Phoebe Rouse – LSU Bill Williams – Eastern Washington University

27. NCAT PROGRAMS: Putting the Pieces Together 1999 – Pew-funded RPI Center Program in Course Redesign Roadmap to Redesign 2003 – Independent 501c3 State- and System-based Programs

28. STATE- AND SYSTEM-BASED PROGRAMS Pilots South Dakota Hawaii Ohio Minnesota Full-Scale Arizona Maryland Mississippi SUNY Tennessee Texas

29. STATE-BASED PROGRAMS: Ohio Learning Network Margaret Trim – Central Ohio Technical College Amiee Wagner – Central Ohio Technical College Mary Jane Pasky – Lorain County Community College

30. INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS Tristan Denley – Ole Miss (Now Austin Peay State U) Michelle Miller – Northern Arizona U

31. BRING A REDESIGN SCHOLAR TO YOUR CAMPUS FIPSE grant – $1,000 in honoraria ($500 each) – $1,000 in travel Other visits are possible at campus expense.

32. NCAT CORPORATE ASSOCIATES Blackboard McGraw-Hill Pearson Education

33. C2R TIMELINE Feb–Mar 2009Establish campus teams Conduct baseline assessments Mar – Apr 2009Prepare draft redesign plans Apr 24, 2009Disciplinary institutes Jun 1, 2009Teams submit final plans Summer 2009Campus planning and development Fall 2000Pilot redesign projects Jan–Feb 2010Assess the pilot results Mar 2010Share results at Conference

34. FINAL REDESIGN PLAN Due June 1, 2009 Application Narrative – Redesign model: how you will embody the Five Principles – Learning materials: what you plan to use – Redesign Scholars and the NCAT staff: how you’ve taken advantage and/or how you plan to do so – Cost reduction strategy: what you will do with the savings – Implementation issues: what you plan to do to address them – Timeline: pilot in fall 2008; indicate future plans

35. FINAL REDESIGN PLAN Due June 1, 2009 Tools and Forms Assessment Form Course Completion Form Course Planning Tool (CPT) Course Savings Summary Form (CSS) Course Structure Form (CSF)

36. NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist

37. CHOICE OF MODEL Supplemental: U of Minn (Psychology) Replacement: Morehead State U (College Algebra), U of MD Eastern Shore (Biology), UNC Charlotte (Spanish) Emporium: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (Interm Algebra), UW Bothell (Pre-Calc) Buffet: Coppin State U (Technology), Edison State College (Reading), Regis U (Writing/Composition)

38. NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Planning Checklist

39. 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

40. NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary Form Planning Checklist

41. WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION? Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow? Is your enrollment stable or declining?

42. STABLE COURSE ENROLLMENT Reduce the number of sections and increase the section size. Reduce the number of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Change the mix of personnel teaching the course. Mix and match for greater savings!

43. FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY General Biology Traditional 7 sections (~35) 7 faculty 100% wet labs $131,610 $506 cost-per-student Redesign 2 sections (~140) 4 faculty 50% wet, 50% virtual $98,033 $350 cost-per-student

44. VIRGINIA TECH Linear Algebra Traditional 38 sections (~40) 10 tenured faculty, 13 instructors, 15 GTAs 2 hours per week $91 cost-per-student Redesign Single section (1520) 1 tenured faculty, graduate & under- graduate assistants 24 x 7 in open computer lab $26 cost-per-student

45. STABLE ENROLLMENT (3) Reduce the number of sections, increase the section size: El Paso CC, Santa Fe College (+ change the mix of personnel) Decrease number of faculty and increase instructor load: Morehead State U

46. ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH Increase the number of sections, keep section size the same. Reduce the number of sections, increase the section size. Change the mix of personnel teaching the course. Mix and match for greater savings!

47. U OF TENNESSEE Spanish Traditional 57 sections (~27) Adjuncts + 6 TAs 100% in class $167,074 ($2931/section) 1529 students @ $109 Redesign 38 sections (~54) Instructor-TA pairs 50% in class, 50% online $56,838 ($1496/section) 2052 students @ $28

48. FLORIDA GULF COAST U Performing & Visual Arts Traditional 25 sections (~30); 6 sections (~15) = 800 Taught mainly by adjuncts “Course drift” $132 cost-per-student Redesign Single section (~950) Taught by 1 faculty, 1 course coordinator, 16 preceptors Consistent & coherent $81 cost-per-student

49. ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH (5) Increase # of students served: Regis U Increase section size: Coppin State U, UNC Charlotte Increase section size and change the mix of personnel: UMES

50. NOT CLEAR OR IN PROCESS OF DECIDING (3) Edison State College University of Minnesota U of Washington Bothell

51. Growth argument must be supported by data. You can change your mind, but you must make a decision. Retention is a “hope” - not a strategy. Beware of paper savings!

52. 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

53. 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.

54. 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

55. COST SAVINGS IN PRACTICE University of Mississippi AY 2000-2001 45 math majors 40 BA students 5 BS students PhD program put on probation Fall 2000: 6 courses Spring 2001: 7 courses AY 2006-2007 81 math majors 50 BA students 31 BS students 20 PhDs over the last 4 years Fall 2007: 13 courses Spring 2007: 15 courses

56. NCAT PLANNING RESOURCES Six Models for Course Redesign Five Principles of Successful Course Redesign Five Models for Assessing Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Five Critical Implementation Issues Assessment Planning Forms Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Course Savings Summary 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. TWO FINAL POINTS 1.If you follow our advice and participate in our process— derived from the successes achieved in the PCR and R2R—you will improve student learning, you will increase retention and you will reduce instructional costs. 2.You are now part of a national movement!

59. Program in Course Redesign (PCR) – 30 institutions Roadmap to Redesign (R2R) – 20 institutions Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R) – 60 institutions State and System-based Programs – 80+ institutions

60. QUANTITATIVE Mathematics – Developmental Math – Pre-calculus Math – College Algebra – Discrete Math – Introductory Algebra – Elementary Algebra – Beginning Algebra – Intermediate Algebra – Linear Algebra Statistics – Business Statistics – Introductory Statistics – Elementary Statistics – Economic Statistics Computing – Computer Programming – Information Technology Concepts – Computer Literacy – Information Literacy – Tools for the Information Age

61. SCIENCE – Anatomy and Physiology – Astronomy – Biology – Ethnobotany – Chemistry – Geology SOCIAL SCIENCE – American Government – Macro and Microeconomics – Psychology – Sociology – Urban Affairs

62. HUMANITIES – Developmental Reading – Developmental Writing – English Composition – Communication Studies – Understanding the Visual and Performing Arts – History of Western Civilization – Great Ideas in Western Music – Spanish – World Literature – British Literature – Women and Gender Studies PROFESSIONAL – Elementary Education – Education: The Curriculum – Engineering Technology – Organizational Behavior – Public Speaking – Accounting – Nursing

63. SPELLINGS COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION “We urge states and institutions to establish course redesign programs using technology-based, learner- centered principles drawing upon the innovative work already being done by organizations such as the National Center for Academic Transformation.”