Missouri Course Redesign Initiative

Chris Weisbrook, UM SystemSeptember 28, 2011

Questions To Be Answered

What is the background of this project and how do NCAT and NGLC fit into the picture?

What data are required to be submitted and when?

What help can we expect from NCAT?

How are we going to share course and what do we mean by sharing courses?

A Bit of History

August 2010: Governor’s Higher Education Summit Focused on four areas, one of which was

“increased cooperation and collaboration” across the state

October 2010: Statewide Conference on Academic Transformation and Collaboration Provosts committed to contracting with NCAT

and Carol Twigg to engage in a statewide course redesign effort involving all thirteen 4-year public institutions

NCAT Contract

Expense of NCAT Contract ($390,000 + travel)

Contributors Thirteen Institutions ($190,000)

Prorated by amount of state appropriations Governor’s Office ($100,000) MDHE ($15,000) Mike Nietzel, advisor to Governor Nixon,

committed to finding the remaining $85,000

UM System is coordinating the project and covering expense of workshops

Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC) Grant Mike Nietzel initiated grant application

NGLC is funded by Bill & Melinda Gates and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundations

Over 600 applications; only 29 funded

Awarded $250,000 in April 2011

Funds are being used to cover rest of NCAT contact

Provosts decided to retain remaining funds (about $130,000) to be used to continue efforts after this cycle is concluded

Possibility of more NGLC funding if project is successful

“Other” NGLC Grant

Some confusion

Several of the Missouri institutions are involved in another NGLC Grant that is being coordinated by University of Central Florida

Involves adoption of college algebra and English composition courses that were developed by UCF

Missouri effort is being coordinated by Provost Rosati and others at SEMO

Objectives of Project as Described in Grant

Application Redesign 13 high-enrollment introductory courses

Improve learning outcomes Reduce costs

Share methodology of teaching courses with rest of institutions

Provide access to course materials to rest of institutions

Longer term objective: share courses with 2-year institutions

Reporting Requirements of

NCAT After Pilot

Learning data Completion data

After Full Implementation Learning data Completion data Cost data (might be same as proposal) Short report

No lesson plans or anything at that level

Focus of NGLC

Scaling proven methods/sharing freely

Degree completion of low-income young adults

Reporting Requirements of

NGLC Learning outcomes data—quarterly reporting Report for whole population Plus separate reporting for low income (pell-

eligible) Persistence to next semester

Baseline data for students in traditional and redesigned sections—examples: ACT Composite or subscore SAT Composite or subscore High school rank or other

Assistance of your IR office is needed

Data: Pilot Assessment Plan

(No change from NCAT form)PILOT ASSESSMENT PLAN

Institution:  Course Title:     1. Which method of comparing learning outcomes do you intend to use? (Put an X next to   all that apply)      <---Parallel Sections      # of traditional sections      # of students in each section      Total # of students         # of redesign sections      # of students in each section      Total # of students         <---Before and After  

 <---Timeframe for baseline data (e.g. fall 2011 semester, AY 2010-11, five-year average 2006-2011)

    # of traditional sections      # of students in each section      Total # of students         # of redesign sections      # of students in each section      Total # of students     2. Which method of obtaining data do you intend to use? (Put an X next to all that apply)         A - Comparisons of common final exams (internal and external)      B - Comparisons of common content items selected from exams      C - Comparisons of pre- and post-tests      D - Comparisons of student work using common rubrics     Describe briefly:                     

Data: Pilot Assessment Results

(Added data for Pell-eligible students) 

PILOT ASSESSMENT RESULTS                      

     Institution:      Course Title:       

 

Did you carry out the assessment(s) as planned and reported on the Pilot Assessment Plan? (If the assessment(s) you actually performed differed from what you previously reported, please complete a revised version and submit it with this report.)  

   

 Please complete a separate chart for each comparison made (for example, if you conducted more than one pilot or if you used more than one assessment method.)  

     1. Please report the results of your assessments using the appropriate summary chart below.       Measures:       

 In the performance sections of the chart, report the mean score and standard deviation for each group of students assessed.  

   

      Total # of Students  

Performance on Pre-Assessment (if

applicable)  Performance on Post-

AssessmentTotal # of Pell-

eligible Students  Performance on Pre-

Assessment (if applicable)  Performance on Post-

Assessment               Traditional Course:                           Timeframe:                                     Redesigned Course:                           Timeframe:                                                      

 

In the performance sections of the chart, report the percentage of students at each level of performance (for example, the percent earning a grade of "a", percent "b", etc.: or the percent rated at each level of a scoring rubric.)  

     Traditional Course                        Timeframe:             Pell-eligible students, only                   Score/Grade Number Percentage Score/Grade Number Percentage                                                                                                                       Total     100%     100%                                                Redesigned Course          Timeframe:             Pell-eligible students, only                   Score/Grade Number Percentage Score/Grade Number Percentage                                                                                                                       Total         100%         100%       2. Were any difference in performance between the two groups statistically significant?         <---Yes. At what level of confidence?     <---Yes. At what level of confidence?        <---No   <---No        

 

3. Did the two groups of students assessed differ from one another in any important ways (e.g. gender balance, prior preparation levels, motivation, etc.)? If so, please describe these briefly:  

      

 

4. Did you learn anything else about the impact of the redesign on students (e.g. changes in student attitudes toward the subject, better performance in downstream courses in the same discipline, etc.)? If so, please describe these differences briefly:  

     5. Baseline equivalency.                      

 What measure are you using (ACT composite, ACT math subscore, etc.):              

              

    Total # of Students ScoreTotal # of Pell-eligible

Students Score             Traditional Course:                     Timeframe:                             Redesigned Course:                     Timeframe:                                                                            

Data: Pilot Course Completion/Retention

(Added data for Pell-eligible students)  PILOT COURSE COMPLETION/RETENTION                       Institution:      Course Title:         Traditional Course    Timeframe:                All students       Pell-eligible students, only        Number Percentage   Number Percentage    A     A        B     B        C     C        D     D        F     F        W     W        DR     DR        Other:     Other:                   Total       100% Total       100%          Redesigned Course    Timeframe:                All students       Pell-eligible students, only        Number Percentage   Number Percentage    A     A        B     B        C     C        D     D        F     F        W     W        DR     DR        Other:     Other:                   Total       100% Total       100%       Your definition of successful completion (e.g., a C or better):                   Your definition of retention (e.g., a D or better, enrolled in course to end, including F grades):          Retention to following semester                     Traditional Course      Timeframe:                       

   Enrolled in

course

Number returned

next semester

Percentage returned  

  All students                 Pell-eligible students                 Redesigned Course      Timeframe:                       

   Enrolled in

course

Number returned

next semester

Percentage returned  

  All students                 Pell-eligible students                                           

Common Data Template for Quarterly Reporting to NGLC

Your team leader will get a request from me as this data is needed. The request will come with explicit instructions.

What Assistance Can You Expect

from NCAT? Answer questions and provide assistance

solving problems

Suggest ideas

Refer you to individuals/institutions that have done similar work

You must be pro-active and ask for assistance. If you don’t ask, they will not seek you out.

Course Sharing:How will methods be shared?

Workshops NCAT-sponsored Workshops

After pilot implementation (~May 2012) After full implementation (~February 2013)

At two additional workshops, redesign teams will present to faculty from other twelve campuses who teach the particular redesigned course

Course Sharing: How will materials be shared?

Technology solutions Meeting of instructional design and

IT staff across state Angie Hammons (S&T) is

coordinating Julie Phelps will discuss progress-to-

date immediately following this presentation

Structure of the Day Julie Phelps will talk about technology for

sharing

Group discussion by design model (emporium or replacement)

Discussion with your team over lunch

Panel discussion

Breakout sessions lead by your colleagues

Questions?