academic affairs committee documents/2009-06-03... · 2009. 6. 3. · academic affairs committee...

ACADEMIC

AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 Videoconference

1:30 pm - 2:30 pm

ABOR – LCR – Teleconference only

Dial-In: 1 (877) 250-4160 Passcode: 5165491#

2008-2009

Board Members: President Fred T. Boice, Tucson Robert B. Bulla, Scottsdale Ernest Calderón, Phoenix Dennis DeConcini, Tucson Fred P. DuVal, Phoenix LuAnn H. Leonard, Kykotsmovi

Anne L. Mariucci, Phoenix Bob J. McLendon, Yuma Governor Janice K. Brewer Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne

Student Regents: Mary Venezia, NAU David Martinez III, UA Executive Director: Joel Sideman

Arizona Board of Regents2020 North Central Avenue, Suite 230

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593602-229-2500

Fax 602-229-2555www.azregents.edu

Arizona State University Northern Arizona University University of Arizona

MEMORANDUM

TO: Regents Provosts Ex Officio Dennis DeConcini Betty Capaldi, ASU Joel Sideman, Executive Director Bob McLendon Liz Grobsmith, NAU JC Mutchler, AFC David Martinez Meredith Hay, UA Alyssa McKinley, Student

Representative COPY: Cathy McGonigle Nancy Tribbensee FROM: Stephanie Jacobson DATE: May 27, 2009 SUBJECT: June 3, 2009, Academic Affairs Committee Teleconference A teleconference of the Academic Affairs Committee will be held on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 from 1:30 pm to 2:30 pm. The teleconference can be accessed by the information listed below. (An instruction sheet to help with the teleconference is also included as an attachment to this document). Dial In: 1-877-250-4160 Passcode: 5165491# Please review the agenda and meeting materials, and contact me at 602-229-2529 or e-mail at [email protected], if you have questions or concerns.

Conference Plus, Inc. Please forward this e-mail to all meeting members participating in the conference noted below. To Join Audio Conference Dial-In: 1 (877) 250-4160 Passcode: 5165 491# As a courtesy to others and to improve sound quality, please mute your phone when not speaking. You will be on hold with music until the host opens the conference call. TOUCH-TONE COMMANDS: Please use the list of touch-tone commands below to help facilitate your audio conference: Press ** for a menu of touch tone commands. Press *0 to speak to an operator (once the host has joined). Press *6 to mute your own line. Press #6 to unmute your own line.

Academic Affairs Committee

Regents Dennis DeConcini, Chair Phone: 520 325-9600 [email protected] Bob McLendon, Regent Phone: 928 783-8950 [email protected] David Martinez, Student Regent Phone: 520 626-3825 [email protected] Provosts Elizabeth (Betty) Capaldi, ASU Phone: 602-229-2529 [email protected] Asst: Julie Ramsden 602-436-1126 [email protected] Carol Peplow 480-965-1224 [email protected] Liz Grobsmith, NAU Phone: 928-523-2230 [email protected] Asst: Audrey Alicee 928-523-0012 [email protected]

Michelle Tanaka 928-523-3719 [email protected] Meredith Hay, UA Phone: 520-621-1856 [email protected] Asst: Wendy Hayley 520-626-0202 [email protected] Ann Marx 520-621-8121 [email protected] Ex Officio Joel Sideman, Member Phone: 602-229-2500 [email protected] Asst: Delfina Garcia 602-229-2506 [email protected] JC Mutchler, AFC Member Phone: 480-365-2031 [email protected] Alyssa McKinley, Phone: 602-620-1423 [email protected] ASA Student Representative ABOR Staff

Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR Phone: 602-229-2529 [email protected] Asst: Jewelyn Jenson (JJ), ABOR Phone: 602-229-2531 [email protected]

Academic Affairs Committee Meeting/Teleconference

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:30 pm to 2:30 pm

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38.431.02

LOCATIONS ABOR – LCR

By Teleconference

AGENDA

Chair: Regent Dennis DeConcini Members: Regent Bob McLendon, Regent David Martinez, Provost Betty Capaldi – ASU; Provost Liz Grobsmith – NAU, Provost Meredith Hay - UA, Joel Sideman, ABOR, JC Mutchler, AFC, and Alyssa McKinley, ASA

Welcome and Introductions

1. Modification to the 2009-2010 University Academic Strategic Plans

a. ASU – Disestablish the Clinical Lab Science (CLS) Program. b. NAU – Disestablish the BS in Environmental Chemistry and the

BS in Geochemistry.

2. Review of ABOR Policy 2-102 “Undergraduate Admissions” • The Committee is asked to review and recommend for Board approval a

change to the admission requirements for resident transfer students.

3. LCE Course Redesign Initiative • Dr. Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT), will

discuss the outcomes of the course redesign initiative in preparation for the June Board meeting.

Academic Affairs Committee June 3, 2009

Agenda Item #1a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 1

Contact Information: Betty Capaldi, Provost, ASU (480) 965-1244 [email protected]

Item Name: 2009-2010 ASU Academic Strategic Plan Update – Disestablishment of Clinical Laboratory Sciences Program

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item

Background ASU’s strategic plan, approved by the Academic Affairs Committee at their April 13, 2009 meeting, stated that the Clinical Laboratory Sciences Program would be disestablished if no program fee was approved. At the April 30 – May 1, 2009 meeting, the Board approved a surcharge, but no program fees. At that meeting the Board approved the 2009-2010 ASU Academic Strategic Plan with the provision that ASU report back on plans for the Clinical Laboratory Sciences program and some other programs within a week. The request to disestablish the Clinical Laboratory Sciences program is now resubmitted to the Academic Affairs Committee for action. Statutory/Policy Requirements ABOR Policy 2-203.A requires each university to submit, annually, an Academic Strategic Plan (ASP) to the Board. The plan provides an inventory of all academic degree programs which are expected to be planned, implemented, merged with other programs or eliminated in the upcoming year. Academic Strategic Plans may be modified during the year with the approval of the Academic Affairs Committee. Discussion The Clinical Laboratory Sciences program is not critical to ASU's central missions and impacts a relatively small number of students. Furthermore, the program is costly to administer. Current tuition and fees do not cover the cost of the program. In the current budgetary environment, ASU cannot afford to subsidize programs that are small, not central to the mission and very costly relative to the revenue generated per student credit hour. Recommendation That the Academic Affairs Committee approve the request to disestablish the BS in Clinical Laboratory Sciences program effective fall 2009. ASU will insure that all students currently in the upper division finish the program.

Issue: Arizona State University requests approval to disestablish the BS in Clinical Laboratory Sciences program effective fall 2009 because the program produces few graduates annually at a relatively high cost.


Agenda Item #1b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 1

Contact Information: Liz Grobsmith, Provost, NAU (928) 523-2230 [email protected]

Item Name: 2009-2010 NAU Academic Strategic Plan Update – Disestablishment of B.S. in Environmental Chemistry and B.S. in Geochemistry

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item

Background NAU’s strategic plan, approved by the Academic Affairs Committee at their April 13, 2009 meeting did not include the request to disestablish the B.S. in Environmental Chemistry and the B.S. in Geochemistry. At that meeting the Board approved the 2009-2010 NAU Academic Strategic Plan. The request to disestablish these programs was submitted to the CAOs on May 13, 2009 and is now being submitted to the Academic Affairs Committee for action. Statutory/Policy Requirements ABOR Policy 2-203.A requires each university to submit, annually, an Academic Strategic Plan (ASP) to the Board. The plan provides an inventory of all academic degree programs which are expected to be planned, implemented, merged with other programs or eliminated in the upcoming year. Academic Strategic Plans may be modified during the year with the approval of the Academic Affairs Committee. Discussion Curricular review and streamlining efforts have resulted in the recognition that there are too many degree options in Chemistry. We have determined that it is appropriate to retain four of our Chemistry programs, and eliminate the two extended majors in Environmental Chemistry and Geochemistry. Students currently enrolled in these programs will be allowed to complete their degrees if they wish. All other students interested in a Chemistry major will be advised into one of the remaining four degree programs. The elimination of these two degrees has no impact on students in other majors. The courses which make up these degree programs are also required for other degrees. Therefore, there is no elimination of courses or faculty. Recommendation That the Academic Affairs Committee approve the request to disestablish the B.S. in Environmental Chemistry and the B.S. in Geochemistry effective fall 2009. NAU will insure that the students currently enrolled in the programs will complete their degrees. The disestablishment has the support of the President, Provost, the Deans, Academic Chairs, and the Faculty Senate.

Issue: Northern Arizona University requests approval to disestablish the B.S. in Environmental Chemistry and the B.S. in Geochemistry effective fall 2009 because of very little demand for the programs.


Agenda Item #2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 5

Contacts Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR 602-229-2529 [email protected] David Young, ASU 480-727-5155 [email protected] Ron Pitt, NAU 928-523-5291 [email protected]

Item Name: Proposed Change to ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate

Admissions.”

Background

• ABOR Board Policy 2-102 provides the admission criteria for undergraduate students.

• Arizona undergraduate applicants who meet certain academic criteria are

assured admissions into the universities; applicants who do not meet those criteria or who are non-residents may be considered for admission under delegated admission, the section of the policy which gives the universities discretion in selecting those students most likely to be successful.

• Specific requirements for freshmen and transfer students are also defined under

assured and delegated admission criteria.

• A recent analysis of the success of Arizona transfer students suggests that the Board policy for assured admission is not optimal for the success of many transfer students at the universities.

• As a result, a proposal to redefine assured admission for Arizona transfer

students is proposed. Strategic Implications

• The Board of Regents, along with other organizations and entities within the state, are pursuing initiatives to increase the number of baccalaureate degrees produced in Arizona in order to insure our economic viability.

• Likewise, fiscal efficiency and productivity, while always a concern in the state, are even more critical under what is expected to be an extended period of budget constraint.

• By creating policies that support the success of students who enter our

universities more students are expected to succeed in meeting their educational goals.

Issue: The Academic Affairs Committee is asked to review and forward to the Board for approval a revision to Board policy on the criteria for assured and delegated admission for Arizona resident transfer students.


Agenda Item #2 Page 2 of 5

Discussion

• The primary goal of this change is to set high standards for transfer students as well as to improve the success rate for transfer students who enter the universities.

• A recent study of Arizona community college students who transfer to the

universities identified a significant difference in student success based on prior academic experiences.

• While some of this information is consistent with frequent findings from studies of transfer students (students with higher GPAs and more transfer credits are more successful that students with lower GPAs and fewer credits), this is the most comprehensive review of Arizona students under our existing transfer system.

• The proposed policy change would limit assured admission for resident transfer

students who do not qualify for assured admission based on high school performance (top 25% of the graduating class and successful completion of all 16 core competencies) to those students who either complete the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC) and have a cumulative GPA or 2.5 or complete an associate degree and have a 2.0 GPA.

• Other resident students and all non-residents will be eligible for admission under

the delegated admission criteria within certain parameters.

• This proposal was reviewed by the Academic Affairs Committee on April 13, 2009. While the committee expressed support for the proposal, the Committee asked that it be well vetted with the community colleges before the committee makes a formal recommendation to the Board

• The proposal has received support from several community college presidents and, on May 1, was unanimously endorsed by the Arizona Academic Programs Articulation Steering Committee (APASC), a statewide group comprised of university academic administrators and community college chief academic officers.

Data ASSIST report on transfer students is attached. Recommendation The Academic Affairs Committee is asked to forward for Board approval the proposed change to ABOR Policy 2-102, “Undergraduate Admissions” as presented on the following pages.



ABOR Policy Manual Chapter II ACADEMIC POLICIES

….

2-102 UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION

A. Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona

1. Each University will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents of

Arizona and who meet the following general aptitude and basic competency

requirements. Because of their strong academic performance in High School,

these students will be recognized as “Regents’ Graduates.”

a. General Aptitude

Applicants from a regionally accredited high school may demonstrate aptitude for

academic work by ranking in the 75 to 100 percentile (upper 25 percent/first

quartile) of their high school graduating classes.

b. Basic Competencies

Applicants must demonstrate academic competency in each of the subjects listed below. Students who choose to demonstrate their competency in a subject by completing appropriate high school or college courses must attain an overall grade point average for courses in that subject of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=A scale. A high school credit is defined as one (1) year of study.

[Section A. 1. Truncated. Details on the competency areas omitted]

[Transfer Students Assured: Residents Only]

2. Each university will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents of Arizona and have a minimum of 24 transferable college or university credit hours in academic courses such as English, Mathematics, Social Science, Physical or Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, or the Humanities with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=A scale and meet the basic competency subjects required in ABOR Policy 2-102A.1.b. (Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona, Basic Competencies)



3. Each university will admit all undergraduate applicants who are residents of Arizona and who complete the Arizona General Education curriculum (AGEC-A, AGEC-B or AGEC-S) and have a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.5 or have an associate or higher degree from a regionally accredited institution of higher education with a and have a minimum 2.00 GPA on a 4.00=A scale.

4. Each university will admit all home schooled students who meet common criteria to be established by the universities.

B. DELEGATED UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION

1. Each university may use its discretion in admitting non residents applicants and resident applicants for undergraduate admission who do not meet the requirements in ABOR Policy 2-102A Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission of Residents of Arizona) provided the applicants lack no more than one (1) credit in two (2) of the basic competency subjects required in ABOR Policy 2-102A.1.b. Undergraduate Admission, Requirements for Assured Admission for Residents of Arizona, Basic Competencies), except not in both mathematics and laboratory science, and

a. have fewer than 24 transferable college or university credit hours and rank in the upper 50-74 percentile (second quartile) of their high school graduating class or have a cumulative high school grade point average of 2.50 or above on a 4.00=A scale, or

b. have 24-59 transferable college or university credit hours in academic courses such as English, Mathematics, Social Science, Physical or Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, or the Humanities with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.50 on a 4.00=A scale , or

b.c. are not residents of Arizona for tuition purposes and have a minimum of 24 have 60 or more transferable college or university credit hours with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.00 on a 4.00=A scale.

2. Students admitted under the conditions in ABOR Policy 2-102 B.1.a., and B.1.b, (Undergraduate Admission, Delegated Undergraduate Admission), must satisfy any deficiencies in the basic competencies and may be required to participate in special programs designed to strengthen academic preparedness for university-level courses.

3. Each university will consider a high school credit in career and technical education as part of the delegated admissions process. Career and technical education courses are defined as those high school courses in career and technical disciplines that include competencies beneficial to college preparation. These courses should be selected from those that include the highest level of competencies in the Arizona secondary school curriculum for career and technical education.

…...

Transfer�Credits Degree�StatusEntering�Number

First�Sem�GPA Percent CGPA Percent CGPA Percent CGPA Percent CGPA Percent CGPA

Total�Univ�Earned�Hrs

All�Students AGEC�Only 248 2.87 85.9% 3.05 83.1% 3.08 78.6% 3.12 78.2% 3.18 72.2% 3.18 67.6ASSC�Only�(AGS) 191 2.83 86.9% 3.05 80.1% 3.07 79.1% 3.12 75.4% 3.19 71.2% 3.19 67.1Both�AGEC�and�ASSC 780 3.02 86.4% 3.24 80.8% 3.31 78.7% 3.35 78.1% 3.39 73.3% 3.39 65.5Neither�AGEC�nor�ASSC 1,770 2.72 79.2% 3.01 71.5% 3.11 68.9% 3.16 66.7% 3.28 57.1% 3.29 71.4Total 2,989 2.82 82.1% 3.08 75.4% 3.16 72.9% 3.21 71.2% 3.30 63.5% 3.30 69.0

12�34 Neither�AGEC�nor�ASSC 359 2.35 68.5% 2.75 56.5% 2.89 53.2% 2.97 47.1% 3.25 31.5% 3.24 97.6

35�59 AGEC�Only 151 2.80 86.1% 3.03 81.5% 3.07 78.1% 3.11 78.1% 3.17 72.2% 3.17 69.2Neither�AGEC�nor�ASSC 749 2.65 77.7% 2.98 70.1% 3.06 67.4% 3.11 66.1% 3.22 55.7% 3.23 72.3Total 900 2.68 79.1% 2.99 72.0% 3.07 69.2% 3.11 68.1% 3.22 58.4% 3.22 71.7

60+ AGEC�Only 97 2.99 85.6% 3.08 85.6% 3.09 79.4% 3.14 78.4% 3.19 72.2% 3.19 65.1ASSC�Only�(AGS) 191 2.83 86.9% 3.05 80.1% 3.07 79.1% 3.12 75.4% 3.19 71.2% 3.19 67.1Both�AGEC�and�ASSC 780 3.02 86.4% 3.24 80.8% 3.31 78.7% 3.35 78.1% 3.39 73.3% 3.39 65.5Neither�AGEC�nor�ASSC 662 2.98 86.6% 3.16 81.1% 3.23 79.2% 3.27 78.1% 3.34 72.5% 3.34 64.4Total 1,730 2.99 86.5% 3.17 81.1% 3.24 79.0% 3.28 77.8% 3.34 72.7% 3.34 65.2

AZCC�Transfers�have�12�or�more�hours�from�one�or�more�Arizona�community�college�and�less�than�12�hours�from�any�other�institution.Associate�degrees�reflect�transfer�degrees�only;�AAS�degrees�are�not�included.Excludes�students�with�a�non�Arizona�Associate�degree�and�Maricopa�students�with�a�Transfer�Partnership�Degree.

January�5,�2009

DRAFT��For�APASC�Review�OnlyARIZONA�UNIVERSITY�SYSTEM

Students�Entering�as�New�AZCC�Transfers�in�Fall�2004

GraduatedFall�2008Fall�2008

Enrolled�or�Graduated�Enrolled�or�Graduated�Fall�2005

Enrolled�or�Graduated�Fall�2006 Fall�2007

Enrolled�or�Graduated�

Status�as�of�21st�Day:

Academic Affairs CommitteeJune 3, 2009

Agenda Item #2Page 5 of 5

Academic Affairs Committee Meeting June 3, 2009

Agenda Item #3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 of 19

Contact Information: Maryn Boess, ABOR 602-229-2560 [email protected] Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR 602-229-2529 [email protected]

ITEM: Learner Centered Education Course Redesign Initiative Progress Report

Action Item Discussion Item Information Item BACKGROUND In 2001, the Regents authorized $500,000 of the TRIF Regents Innovation Fund from Proposition 301 monies for grants to faculty to improve and expand learner-centered education throughout the university system. The purpose of learner centered education is to change the dynamics of student-faculty interaction to optimize students’ learning and learning outcomes (focusing on what is learned rather than on what is taught), to utilize technology to create opportunities for student learning, to utilize student peer interaction (collaborative learning) and to create more active learning venues for students beyond the standard lecture and discussion method. In July 2007, the Board of Regents allocated $1 million for a 2-year LCE initiative based on the successful course redesign model pioneered by the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT). The LCE Course Redesign Initiative (CRI), to be managed by NCAT consultants over the two-year period, was intended to:

• Redesign high-enrollment undergraduate courses to demonstrably improve student learning outcomes;

• Reduce per-student costs of instruction in the redesigned courses; • More effectively align existing institutional resources; and • Develop internal capacity to redesign additional courses beyond the project

funding period. The 13 funded projects were guided through a pilot phase, in spring 2008, to test and refine their redesign strategies. Following the pilot phase, three projects were discontinued primarily due to staffing issues. The remaining 10 followed through to full implementation of their redesigned courses in fall 2008:

• ASU General Chemistry • ASU Computer Literacy • ASU Organizational Behavior • ASU Public Speaking

Issue: The Committee will receive a final report on the outcomes of the LCE Course Redesign Initiative. The redesigned courses were fully implemented in the Fall 2008 and final outcomes related to student learning improvements and cost savings/reductions will be provided.

Academic Affairs Committee Meeting June 3, 2009


• ASU Women & Society • NAU Psychology • UA Biology • UA Chemistry • UA Geology

The 10 projects submitted their outcome data to NCAT in March 2009 and shared their full final reports in a project conference on April 2, 2009. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The LCE CRI clearly addresses two goals of the 2020 Vision System-wide Strategic Plan: Goal 1-Educational Excellence, by developing approaches to course delivery which improve learning and/or increase capacity while retaining or increasing academic performance and Goal 4-Productivity, by maximizing the use of resources with greater effectiveness. DISCUSSION This report presents final project data on the course redesign projects individually and collectively, addressing the questions:

• Did student learning improve? • Did course completion rates improve? • Were costs reduced? • Will the redesign be sustained and/or expanded?

NCAT conducted a rigorous analysis of the reported project outcomes, the results of which are presented in this report. These results will also be presented in June to the Arizona Board of Regents in a detailed, project-by-project report, by Dr. Carol Twigg, President of NCAT. Detailed Project and Overall Outcomes

• Please see Attachment B, “LCE-CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions,” for details on

o Total annual cost and savings, by course and by total LCE CRI initiative o Cost per student and cost reductions, by course

• Please see Attachment C, “NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign

Projects’ Final Reports,” for reported results for individual projects in: o Student learning outcomes o Course completion rates o Reduction in instructional costs o Sustainability of redesigned course

Academic Affairs Committee Meeting April 13, 2009


Summary Data NCAT compiled the following summary data based on a review of all 10 final project reports.

1. Student Learning: Did student learning in the redesigned course improve, as measured by direct comparisons of content mastery?

5 = Yes – scores measurably improved on substantially similar assessments 2 = Yes – scores show no difference, but course is significantly more challenging 3 = No difference – learning outcomes were comparable to traditional format

2. Course Completion: Did course completion rates improve, as measured by

comparisons of final course grades?

5 = Yes 1 = No difference, but significantly more difficult course 2 = No difference: Course completion was not an issue and was equivalent to

traditional format, at 90% and 93% 2 = No, course completion rates were unchanged

3. Cost Reduction: Were instructional costs reduced?

10 = Yes (in addition, 4 projects saved more than originally projected) (Please see “Summary of Cost and Savings Results,” below.)

4. Sustainability: Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over?

8 = Yes 2 = Questionable

Students Impacted It is also worth noting that more than 14,000 students were enrolled in, and therefore directly impacted by, the redesigned courses during the fall 2008 semester. This is the largest student cohort with which NCAT has worked to date in consulting to a redesign process. Total annual enrollment in the redesigned courses is estimated at more than 21,000 students. Many of the projects plan to further increase enrollment as part of the ongoing redesign, raising the number of students impacted even higher in coming semesters.



Summary of Cost and Cost Reductions Results Overall, as shown on Attachment A, NCAT’s analysis of the final project reports reveals the following key cost and cost reductions results:

1. Total Annual Cost and Cost Reductions, By Course and by Total LCE CRI Initiative: Across all 10 completed course-redesign projects, total annual cost reductions are calculated at $1,223,432.

a. This represents an overall cost reduction of 28%, compared with the annual cost of $4,386,900 for offering the courses in the traditional, pre-redesign format.

b. Total annual savings were within 2.2% of the projected savings of $1,250,912.

c. On a course-by-course basis, total annual cost reduction ranges from $36,000 (NAU Introduction to Psychology) to $302,400 (UA Geology).

d. The average cost reduction across all courses was 37%, ranging from 13% (UA Chemistry) to 59% (ASU Organizational Management and Leadership.

2. Cost Per Student and Cost Reduction, by Course: On average, the redesigned courses saved $93 per student in instructional costs compared with the traditional course delivery methods.

a. This is within 2.2% of the projected per-student saving of $95. b. On a course-by-course basis, cost reduction per student ranged from $18

(NAU Introduction to Psychology) to $252 (UA Geology). These cost reductions were achieved by a number of means through the redesign process, including:

• Transferring portions of the class to on-line or distance-learning format • Reconfiguring the staffing: Use of graduate teaching assistants,

undergraduate teaching assistants, faculty, adjuncts, etc. • Integrating technology into the teaching/learning experience and/or classroom

management practices • Reconfiguring classroom/laboratory space to accommodate larger numbers of

students • Increasing student-enrollment capacity without additional resources

Sustainability of the Redesigned Courses Both the final reports and the team presentations at the project conference on April 2 clearly show the faculty teams’ high level of enthusiasm for the redesign process and their own project results. Project teams unanimously supported the continuation of the redesigned courses, and many are already working to apply similar redesign strategies to other courses in their departments. (Please see Attachment B for comments and observations on sustainability for each course)



Next Steps NCAT’s rigorous analysis of all project data provides the foundation for solid decision-making about the next steps for the Learner-Centered Education grant program. The LCE Advisory Council, comprised of members of the Arizona Faculties Council and each university provost’s office, has already discussed a number of options for continuing, expanding, and/or revising the annual LCE grant program. The Council will revisit these discussions in the light of the LCE CRI program results and present its recommendation to the Academic Affairs Committee, with the expectation of initiating a new round of LCE program funding by the end of 2009. APPENDIX Attachment A: LCE CRI Summary Attachment B: LCE CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions Attachment C: NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign Projects’ Final

Reports RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. Input from the Committee is welcomed.

Attachment A Academic Affairs Committee Meeting June 3, 2009


ABOR LCE-CRI SUMMARY 25-May-09

Total Annual Cost and Cost Reduction,, by Course and by Total LCE CRI Project: TOTAL ANNUAL COST: Annual Traditional Redesign - Total Annual Total

Institution/Course: Enrollment (historic) Projected Actual $ Savings %

Savings ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $1,362,000 $254,240 16% ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $84,448 $61,488 $48,312 44% ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $149,600 $129,800 $72,600 36% ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $57,240 $55,440 $78,840 59% ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $85,200 $120,000 58% ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $159,600 $58,800 27% NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $96,000 $84,000 $36,000 30% UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $224,900 $307,940 $152,240 33% UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $696,000 $100,000 13% UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $222,000 $302,400 58% TOTAL, All Courses: 21,626 $4,386,900 $3,136,988 $3,163,468 $1,223,432 28% AVERAGE Percent Savings by Course: 37%

Cost Per Student and Cost Reduction, by Course:

COST PER STUDENT,

BY COURSE: $$ Savings % Savings Annual Traditional Redesign - per Student Per Student, by Course institution/Course: Enrollment (historic) Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual ASU Chemistry 4,540 $356 $300 $300 $56 $56 16% 16% ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $50 $38 $28 $12 $22 24% 44% ASU Geology 2,200 $92 $68 $59 $24 $33 26% 36% ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $373 $159 $154 $214 $219 57% 59% ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $342 $142 $142 $200 $200 58% 58% ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $78 $57 $57 $21 $21 27% 27% NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $60 $48 $42 $12 $18 20% 30% UA Biology 1,730 $266 $130 $178 $136 $88 51% 33% UA Chemistry 4,000 $199 $174 $174 $25 $25 13% 13% UA Geology 1,200 $437 $185 $185 $252 $252 58% 58% ^ = Adds students

Attachment B Academic Affairs Committee Meeting June 3, 2009


LCE CRI Projected and Actual Costs and Cost Reductions

Table 1. ABOR LCE-CRI Projected Savings Summary

Institution Course Cost per Student Savings % Savings

Traditional Redesign per Student by Course UA Chemistry $199 $174 $25 13% ASU Chemistry $356 $300 $56 16% NAU Intro to Psychology $60 $48 $12 20% ASU Computer Literacy $50 $38 $12 24% ASU Geology $92 $68 $24 26% ASU Women in Society $78 $57 $21 27% UA Biology $266 $130 $136 51% ASU Org Mgmt & Leadership $373 $159 $214 57% ASU Public Speaking $342 $142 $200 58% UA Geology $437 $185 $252 58% AVERAGE SAVINGS per course: 35%

Institution Course Annual Annual Cost Annual

Enrollment Traditional Redesign Savings NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $96,000 $24,000 ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $83,448 $26,352 ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $149,600 $52,800 ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $58,800 ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $57,240 $77,040 UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $100,000 ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $120,000 UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $224,900 $235,280 ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $254,240 UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $302,400 TOTAL 21,626 $1,250,912 ^ Adds students

Attachment B (continued) Academic Affairs Committee Meeting April 13, 2009


Table 2. ABOR LCE-CRI Actual Savings Summary

Institution Course Cost-per-Student Savings % Savings

Traditional Redesign per Student by Course UA Chemistry $199 $174 $25 13%ASU Chemistry $356 $300 $56 16%ASU Women in Society $78 $57 $21 27%NAU Intro to Psychology $60 $42 $18 30%UA Biology $266 $178 $88 33%ASU Geology $92 $59 $33 36%ASU Computer Literacy $50 $28 $22 44%ASU Public Speaking $342 $142 $200 58%UA Geology $437 $185 $252 58%ASU Org Mgmt & Leadership $373 $154 $219 59% AVERAGE SAVINGS per course: 37%

Institution Course Annual Annual Cost Annual

Enrollment Traditional Redesign Savings NAU ^ Intro to Psychology 2,000 $120,000 $84,000 $36,000ASU ^ Computer Literacy 2,196 $109,800 $61,488 $48,312ASU ^ Women in Society 2,800 $218,400 $159,600 $58,800ASU Geology 2,200 $202,400 $129,800 $72,600ASU ^ Org Mgmt & Leadership 360 $134,280 $55,440 $78,840UA Chemistry 4,000 $796,000 $696,000 $100,000ASU ^ Public Speaking 600 $205,200 $85,200 $120,000UA Biology 1,730 $460,180 $307,940 $152,240ASU Chemistry 4,540 $1,616,240 $1,362,000 $254,240UA Geology 1,200 $524,400 $222,000 $302,400 TOTAL 21,626 $1,223,432^ Adds students

Attachment C Academic Affairs Committee Meeting April 13, 2009


NCAT’s Summary of the LCE CRI Course Redesign Projects’ Final Reports

Summary 1. Did student learning improve (as measured by direct comparisons of content mastery)?

5 Yes 2 Yes – scores show no difference, but the course is significantly more difficult 3 No difference (learning was equivalent to traditional format)

2. Did course completion rates improve (as measured by comparisons of final grades)?

5 Yes 1 No difference but significantly more difficult course 2 No difference (course completion was not an issue and was equivalent to traditional format:

90% and 93%) 2 No

3. Were instructional costs reduced?

10 Yes (In addition, 4 projects saved more than originally projected.)

4. Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over?

8 Yes 2 Questionable

Detail, by Project 1. Did student learning improve (as measured by direct comparisons of content mastery)? Yes

1. ASU Computer Literacy (compared final grades using common criteria)

• The redesigned course included a significant shift in content to ensure student preparation in computing and the use of modern tools and techniques to solve real world problems. Content shifted from learning a few basic concepts and common tools, to covering a broader range of technology advances, and familiarity with a wide variety of tools to support future self-learning.

• In six prior terms of the course taught in the traditional format, an average of 26% of students

earned 70%+ (a C or better); in the redesigned format, 65% of students earned 70+ (a C or better) on a demonstrably more difficult course.



2. ASU Organizational Management and Leadership (compared common exam questions)

• Students in the redesigned course performed better compared to the traditional format. Specifically, scores on common exam questions in the traditional course averaged 67.4%, while in the redesigned course, exam scores averaged 76%.

3. ASU Women in Society (compared common midterms and common exams)

• In each of the fall 2008 redesign sections, the average midterm grade was higher than the average of the spring 2007 traditional course. --In Section A, the average midterm grade was 2.79% higher; --In Section B, the average midterm grade was 14.61% higher; and, --In Section C, the average midterm grade was 9.92% higher

• Final exam grades in the fall 2008 redesign courses were also higher than in the spring 2007

traditional course. --In Section A, the average exam grade was 6.13% higher; --In Section B, the average exam grade was 7.83% higher; and, --In Section C, the average exam grade was 7.49% higher.

4. UA Biology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests)

• Students in the traditional fall 2007 course gained 7.47% in dealing with core course objectives; students in the redesigned fall 2008 course gained 8.64%. This difference is significant at the 0.001 level.

5. UA Chemistry (compared common ACS final exams)

• Students in the first semester of the redesigned course sequence performed significantly better (p<0.05) than their counterparts in the previous years. The average final exam grade in the two semesters that the redesigned first-semester course has been offered was 59.3 ± 15.1% compared to an average of 54.0 ± 16.3% in the two previous years.

• Similar results were obtained for the second course in the General Chemistry sequence. The

average grade for the final exam in the fall 2008 semester of the redesigned course was 49.9 ± 11.6% compared to an average of 45.2 ± 7.69% in the equivalent off-sequence semesters in the two previous years.

• Comparison of the final grade distribution between the traditional and the redesigned courses

also shows a significant improvement in student performance (67.1% to 70.7% in the first semester, and 64.4% to 68.1% in the second semester.)

• Development and implementation of common midterm and final exams based on a common

set of learning objectives for the two courses has helped decrease the wide variability in the depth and extent of the material covered in different sections of the same course.

Yes – outcomes show no difference, but the course is significantly more difficult

1. ASU Geology (compared concept sketches on exams) • The final class averages are 74.3 percent for the traditional course and 73.4 percent for the

redesigned course, a difference that is not statistically significant. The team considers such comparisons to have limited validity because of the major changes in how the course was taught.



• The redesign changed the kind of knowledge that students gained compared to the

traditional course. Previously this course used multiple-choice questions during exams to assess a thin veneer of factual knowledge spread across many aspects of geology. In contrast, the redesigned course used (1) online quizzes to assess a breadth of knowledge, (2) concept sketches on exams to assess deep conceptual knowledge in 40 or so of the most important geologic topics, and (3) online investigations that allowed students to solve an authentic scientific problem.

• The fruits of this approach were clearly visible in the excellent concept sketches produced by students during exams designed to demonstrate student mastery of conceptual knowledge, which averaged better than 80 percent on nearly every exam. The team considers these concept sketches to be the best indication of how well students understand geological concepts and systems.

2. NAU Psychology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests)

• In the redesigned section, performance improved from a mean of 31.2% correct on the pre-test to 40.2% for the post-test. This represents an improvement in .72 of one standard deviation, which is the second best ever obtained for a face-to-face section of this class since the department began using the knowledge assessment.

• The traditional section in fall 2006 used as a comparison also showed a large increase

across the pre- and post-test (from 32.02% to 47.76%). • When expressed in terms of proportion of one standard deviation, the improvement in the

redesigned section is closer to that in the traditional section based on the mean scores alone.

• These findings must be considered in light of the substantial increase in the amount and

challenge level of required course work compared to the traditional mode of delivery. Traditionally, students completed few or no assignments outside of the standard four exams, and class participation was not required or assessed. In the redesigned course, students completed four required web assignments, daily class participation questions, 14 required online quizzes, and a required research survey.

No difference

1. ASU Chemistry (compared performance on common final exams)

NCAT note: A formal report has not been received, but the PI has conveyed this general information.

2. ASU Public Speaking (compared performance on final speeches)

• Overall, the redesigned course allowed for the same learning levels to be achieved by students, while tripling course capacity.

• The largest impact on students was an increase in comfort when speaking in a public setting.

Students in the redesign course were much more likely to voluntarily engage in public speaking at an earlier point during the semester. Students were quick to engage in class discussions and showed more excitement when about to perform their speech assignments than in the traditional course.



3. UA Geology (compared common pre-tests and post-tests and common exam questions)

• The Geosciences Concept Inventory (GCI v1.0) was given as a pre-test/post-test to students in the traditional course and the redesigned course to compare student learning in terms of gain scores.

• Students in the traditional course had a pre-test GCI percentage correct of 28.67 (SD=11.45,

n=96) which increased to 45.26 (SD=11.76, n=84) on the post-test. After course redesign, students had a pre-test GCI percentage correct of 38.62 (SD=8.42, n=144) which increased a post-test GCI score of 48.73 (SD=7.49, n=132).

• Although the gains from pre-test to post-test are statistically significant, the different in post-

test GCI scores between the two groups is not. This is interpreted as students’ knowledge levels were equivalent in both courses.

• An analysis of common four separate essay-style exam questions was conducted to

compare students in both the traditional and the redesigned courses. In all categories, the student-supplied responses from the two courses were indistinguishable.

• Based on additional qualitative data collected, the team believes that these assessment

instruments had insufficient resolving power to detect differences in student achievement or the student experience rather than that there were no actual differences in the student experience.

2. Did course completion rates improve (measured by comparing final grades)? Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

• The DFW rate in the first-semester course for science majors dropped by four percent.

• The DFW rate did not change in the non-science-majors course. 2. ASU Computer Literacy

• In six prior terms of the course taught in the traditional format, an average of 26% of students earned 70%+ (a C or better); in the redesigned format, 65% of students earned 70+ (a C or better) on a demonstrably more difficult course.

• Similar results in the number of students withdrawing from the course remained between

traditional and redesigned sections.

3. ASU Geology

• Student success rate (C or higher in the course) was 85% in the spring 2008 traditional sections compared to 86.3% in the redesigned full implementation in fall 2008.

• This improvement accompanied an increase in student workload from the traditional course,

where students were only required to take five exams during the semester, to the fully redesigned course, where students completed five exams, 25-30 online quizzes, and 10 online investigations. In other words, the success rate went up slightly even though the workload and depth of coverage in the course increased from the traditional course to the fully redesigned course.



4. UA Biology

• The DFW rate for traditional sections was 38.41%; the DFW rate for the redesigned sections was 33.83%, a difference of 4.58%.

• The decrease in DFW rates was accompanied by an increase of 5.22% in C grades, with

rates of As and Bs relatively unchanged.

5. UA Chemistry

• In the past two years, 11.4% of the students enrolled in the first semester of General Chemistry failed the course in the traditional format. This percentage dropped to an average of 6.5% in the two semesters that the redesigned course has been offered.

• Similar trends were observed for the second course in the series (a drop from 14.4% to 4.8%

when comparing equivalent off-sequence semesters in the past two years). No difference but significantly more difficult course

1. NAU Psychology

• Similar results in the number of students withdrawing from the course remained between traditional and redesigned sections.

• These findings must be considered in light of the substantial increase in the amount and

challenge level of required course work compared to the traditional mode of delivery. Traditionally, students completed few or no assignments outside of the standard four exams, and class participation was not required or assessed. In the redesigned course, students completed four required web assignments, daily class participation questions, 14 required online quizzes, and a required research survey.

No difference

1. ASU Organizational Management and Leadership

• Completion rates in this course are high, averaging around 93%.

2. UA Geology

• Completion rates in this course are high, averaging around 90%. No

1. ASU Women in Society

• Student success rate (C or higher in the course) was 85% in the spring 2007 traditional sections compared to 75% in the redesigned full implementation in fall 2008. Although students did better on exams, low assignment scores--including assignments not completed--impacted final grades.

2. ASU Public Speaking

• Student success rate (C or better) went from 92% in the traditional course to 89% in the redesigned course.



3. Were instructional costs reduced? Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

• The number of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) involved in the course has been reduced from 101 to 77 annually. This change alone resulted in an annual savings of $842,562.

• In addition, the mix of personnel teaching the course has changed: 8.5 GTAs were replaced

with five full-time instructors, saving $40,458 annually.

• On the Tempe campus there is a considerable reduction in the use of space. The need for 74 recitation rooms for 24 students each was replaced by one newly designed room for 72 students devoted exclusively to general chemistry recitations. Previously we were using 110 recitation rooms for one hour.

2. ASU Computer Literacy

• The plan was to decrease the cost-per-student from $50 to $38, a 24% reduction. The design is working better than expected. Delivery of the redesigned course is possible with less support than originally anticipated, leading to a cost reduction from $50 to $28 per student, a 44% savings.

• The school chose to sustain the model with a higher level of faculty support which lessens

the savings somewhat, although they are still substantial; a reduction from $50 to $33 per student, a 34% savings.

• It was challenging to convince administrators that the redesign objectives could be met and

that the course should be delivered as designed. It was difficult to get them to understand the substantially different way in which the course would be delivered and to convince them that it was possible to deliver the course with reduced costs. (NCAT note: This comment is from the lead faculty member!)

3. ASU Geology

• The plan was to reduce the time spent by instructional personnel by 26%. Overall, we estimate that the redesign effort resulted in a time savings of 30% for instructors and 35% for teaching assistants.

• As a result of lessons we learned during deployment of the fully redesigned course, the

amount of time spent by instructors and teaching assistants during the current (spring 2009) semester is much less, and so the final time savings will be higher than these estimates.


• The team planned to increase the number of students served from 270 to 360 students and to increase section size from ~45 to ~60 students, reducing the cost-per-student from $373 to $159, a 57% decrease. The actual cost-per-student was $154, which represents a 59% savings.



• Now that the course is taught in a new building with larger classrooms, the team believes

they will be able to increase enrollment to as high as 250 students per term, because one classroom will hold 150 and a second classroom will hold 100. This means that they can increase the annual enrollment to ~500 (from the current 360) without additional resources.


• The original cost savings plan was implemented. The university saved $200 per student enrolled in the redesigned course. The enrollment capacity has the ability to triple, although because of university restrictions currently it has only doubled.

• In previous semesters, the course was traditionally taught with eight sections, capped at

twenty-five each, a total of 200 students enrolled. In contrast, the redesigned course provided six sections capped at 100 students. This provided an opportunity for 600 students to complete the course annually.

• No additional resources were required. With the increased enrollment in the redesigned

course, the number of faculty members did not change.


• As planned, the redesign reduced the cost-per-student from $78 to $57, a 27% decrease. The redesign achieved this cost savings by increasing class size from 150-200 to 400 and reducing the number of sections from nine to four in the redesign.

• Our program was able to serve 1,200 students (903 in WST 100 and 300 in WST 300) with

only three faculty (one tenure track and two instructors.)

• The cost savings will allow us to accommodate new student growth during a time of retrenchment in new hiring and to meet demand of our new graduate program.

7. NAU Psychology

• The operational cost of the course was reduced by decreasing the number of sections from 11 to eight, increasing section size, and reducing the number of people teaching the course from seven to five.

• Face-to-face section size increased from 175 per section to 400 in three sections and 200 in

three sections. During the redesign, the team also added online sections of the course. Two online sections of 100 students each were also added, increasing the total number of students served from 1925 to 2000.

• The team saved more than anticipated. The team anticipated that the reduced cost per

student would be $48, a 23% reduction. The redesign actually reduced the cost-per-student from $60 to $42, a 30% reduction.

• The cost savings were used to address budget cuts and to expand the department of

psychology's course offerings to include an honors section of Introduction to Psychology, special topics courses, and individual undergraduate research experiences.

• Going forward, full-time faculty will do 90% of the teaching of PSY 101 without it dominating

resource use in the department.



8. UA Biology

• The plan was to achieve cost savings by decreasing the number of instructors in the fall term from six to four, reducing the number of GTAs and increasing the number of UGAs (who are not paid) while supporting increased enrollment.

• The fully implemented redesign reduced the number of faculty in the fall term from six to five.

The changes for the GTAs and UGAs were implemented as planned.

• This change during full implementation means that the cost-per-student has declined from $266 in the traditional course to $178 in the redesigned course (rather than to the planned cost-per-student of $130). This is a savings of 33% rather than the planned 51%.

9. UA Chemistry

• As anticipated, major cost savings were associated with the reduction in the number of course planning and student contact hours for faculty and lecturers.

• Thanks to these cost savings, the Department of Chemistry has been able to sustain, and

even increase, the average enrollment in the General Chemistry courses despite the major budget cuts that we have suffered in the past three years.

10. UA Geology

• The team had a two-fold strategy to reduce costs. --decreasing the number of GTAs each term from seven to four and replacing many of them with undergraduate preceptors. --reducing the number of hours spent by faculty and graduate teaching assistants on preparation, class time and grading.

• The bulk of our savings came from using twice as many undergraduate preceptors (from 20 to 40) and fewer half-time graduate teaching assistants.

• Instructors found that they inevitably found themselves spending more time than they

planned on preparation for teaching and on grading purely by choice, not out of necessity. 4. Will the redesign be sustained after the grant period is over? Yes

1. ASU Chemistry

• Sustainability is high because of the construction and monopoly on the new cooperative learning room for the general chemistry classes. The provost toured in April 2009 to see the progress, and visitors from outside the department are impressed with this new learning environment.

2. ASU Computer Literacy

• It is certain that the redesigned course will be sustained.



• A new faculty member was recruited to deliver the redesigned course and has successfully

completed a semester. Feedback from her is positive. She plans to maintain the course as designed.

• The transition of the course to the new faculty member was easily facilitated. Alongside the

redesigned course, the team created substantial documentation to support faculty, TA and ULA training.

• The new faculty member is continuing to implement minor changes in an effort to further

improve the quality of the course, and address the challenges the team was unable to focus on due to the technical challenges faced.

3. ASU Geology

• The redesign approach is being used in all large Introduction to Geology classes taught by our school. The results of the redesign effort have resulted in improved student understanding of geologic concepts, as assessed with concept sketches, and improved rates of student success. The time and cost savings are significant and are consistent with those originally estimated.

• Since the start of the redesign project, all instructors have used the same textbook,

PowerPoints, online quizzes, online investigations, online movies, and other materials. Instructors are largely pleased with this new approach, which has now been adopted by seven faculty members–every instructor who has taught a large Introduction to Geology class since the start of the redesign project. The efforts of the redesign project will be sustained for the foreseeable future.


• The redesign initiative is a success. Student learning has increased while the cost-per-student in the course had decreased. There is no question that the team is committed to the redesign and that it will be sustained. Other faculty members who might be assigned to teach the course in the future have also expressed their intent to employ the course redesign in their sections. Additionally, the redesign has also become a model for other courses taught by professors on the team as well as by other faculty in the school.

• The team believes the redesign will enable them to accommodate even more students, and

without adding new sections, as enrollment in the school continues to grow. With the availability of larger and suitable (that is, classrooms suitable for grouping students on occasion) classrooms, it is believed that class size could increase by about 20% with perhaps graduate teaching assistant and student-grader hours being the only modest cost increase.


• The redesign will be very easy to sustain and to replicate for new faculty. This redesign allowed the program to standardize its survey courses. In the past, each instructor taught her own version, and the results were often uneven. Now the course is delivered in a consistent manner.

• The redesign was such a success that the program may be adapting the model for some of

the other large classes. To achieve even better results instructors will emphasize the importance of completing all assignments.



6. NAU Psychology

• The team is confident that the redesign will be sustained over time. • In fact, the department will have full-time faculty teaching all face-to-face sections of PSY

101 while maintaining a $42 cost per student.

• The transition of a new faculty member into the co-teaching team highlights the flexibility of the redesign.

• Additionally, the impressive learning outcomes and cost savings of the redesign has resulted

in the placement of one of the team members at the university-level to serve as a campus redesign scholar in an attempt to continue the university's efforts to improve student learning and foster a campus community of individuals interested in active-learning approaches, especially in large classrooms.

7. UA Biology

• The faculty who participated in the course redesign were uniformly positive about the impact of the redesign. Although the learning gains, as measured by pre- to post-test gains, were relatively modest, there is increased enthusiasm for “optimizing” the approaches and working together to address some of the issues that arose from the post-course analysis.

• The instructional team has continued monthly meetings throughout the spring semester,

unheard of prior to the redesign, and several are working with the publisher to suggest modifications and improvements to the Mastering Biology materials so that the students will be even better supported in their learning.

8. UA Chemistry

• The Department of Chemistry fully supports the changes that were implemented and is committed to provide the resources needed to sustain the project.

• At this moment, all of the General Chemistry courses offered by the department are being

taught following the new format. Questionable


• The course redesign has proven to be sustainable. It is able to maintain a consistent curriculum and cost savings while course content is delivered effectively to the students. However, because the university is making a wide spectrum of changes to its academic programs, currently ASU is not planning to keep the redesign program in place.

2. UA Geology

• The PI says, “The sustainability of the project is not in question unless the general education program at the university sees some significant changes in the wake of the transformation and budget cuts. During the current semester (spring 2009) all sections are being run essentially as they were during our fully implemented redesign semester.”

• However, the two strategies used to reduce costs were to replace graduate teaching

assistants with undergraduate teaching assistants and reduce instructor time in preparing and teaching the course.



• The team does not seem to be committed to cost reduction:

1) Instructors found that they spent more time than they planned on preparing for teaching and on grading purely by choice, not out of necessity. 2) The PI feels that having a graduate teaching assistant in break-out sessions leads to better exam and quiz scores. “If this is the case we will strive to get more TA support and give the students the value of this experience. We will continue to look for ways to improve learning that may require the use of more graduate teaching assistants in the future.”

• Thus, both cost reduction strategies may be abandoned.

academic affairs committee documents/2009-06-03... · 2009. 6. 3. · academic affairs committee...

Documents