Missouri Course Redesign Initiative
description
Transcript of Missouri Course Redesign Initiative
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-Assessment
Total # 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?