READINESS CRITERIA• What does it mean to be “ready” to do a

major course redesign?• Is your institution ready?• Which courses are “ready”—i.e., are good

candidates for a comprehensive redesign?

WHAT’S NEXT?

• Establish institutional teams• January 15, 2008

Deadline for submitting Course Readiness Instrument

• February 28, 2008

Workshop #2: Developing the Proposal

READINESS CRITERION #1Course Choice

• What impact would redesigning the course have on the curriculum, on students and on the institution—i.e., why do you want to redesign this course?

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN THINKING ABOUT HIGH IMPACT

• High drop-failure-withdrawal rates• Student performance in subsequent courses • Students on waiting lists• Student complaints• Other departmental complaints• Lack of consistency in multiple sections• Difficulty finding qualified adjuncts

READINESS CRITERION #2Redesign Model

• Which redesign model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

• What aspects fit your particular discipline and your particular students?

READINESS CRITERION #3Assessment Plan

• Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

ASSESSMENT GOAL

To establish the degree to which

improved learning has been

achieved as a result of the

course redesign.

ASSESSMENT PLANNING

Step 1. Establish the method of obtaining data.

Step 2. Choose the measurement method.

ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF OBTAINING DATA

• Baseline “Before” (traditional) and “After” (redesign)

• Parallel Sections – Compare traditional sections and redesigned sections

CHOOSE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD: FIVE MODELS

A. Comparisons of Final Exams

B. Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from Exams

C. Comparisons of Pre- and Post- Tests

D. Comparisons of Student Work using Common Rubrics

E. Comparisons of Course Grades using Common Criteria

READINESS CRITERION #4Cost Savings Plan

• Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

COST SAVINGS GOAL

Create cost savings that can be used to

sustain ongoing redesign, to fund

future operations and to free up resources for program and/or

institutional priorities.

WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION?

• Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow?

• Is your enrollment stable or declining?

ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH

• Increase the number of sections. • Increase section size.• Change the mix of personnel

teaching the course.

Mix and match for greater savings!

RIO SALADO COLLEGEPre-Calculus Math

Traditional• 4 courses taught

by 4 instructors • Student

interaction = each instructor

• $49 cost-per-student

Redesign• 4 courses taught by 1

instructor• Student interaction =

interactive software, 1 course assistant, and 1 instructor

• $31 cost-per-student

U OF TENNESSEESpanish

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

STABLE COURSE ENROLLMENT

• Reduce the number of sections and increase the section size.

• Reduce the number of graduate teaching assistants (Only 9 of 30 projects!)

• Change the mix of personnel teaching the course.

Mix and match for greater savings!

FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITYGeneral 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

VIRGINIA TECHLinear 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

• $21 cost-per-student

READINESS CRITERION #5Learning Materials

• Are the faculty able and willing to incorporate existing curricular materials in order to focus work on redesign issues rather than materials creation?

READINESS CRITERION #6Active Learning

• Do the faculty members have an understanding of and some experience with integrating elements of computer-based instruction into existing courses?

READINESS CRITERION #7Collective Commitment

• Describe the members of your team, the skills they bring to the project and what their roles will be in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

WHY INSTITUTIONAL TEAMS?

• Faculty experts• Administrators• Technology

professionals• Assessment

experts

READINESS CRITERIA

1. Course Choice2. Redesign Model3. Assessment Plan4. Cost Savings Plan5. Learning Materials6. Active Learning7. Collective Commitment

TABLE ASSIGNMENTS

• Criterion #2: A, F, J, M, P, T• Criterion #3: B, E, H, L, O, V• Criterion #4: C, I, N, R, U• Criteria #5 - #7: D, G, K, Q,

S

ASSIGNMENTCriteria #2 - #4

• Read the appropriate document from you packet.

• What do you need to consider in making a choice? Why choose one vs. another?

• What do you need to take into account in implementing a particular model or strategy?

• Choose one person to report back.

ASSIGNMENTCriteria #5 - #7

• Read the readiness criteria description in the Application Guidelines.

• What issues do you need to consider in developing your responses?

• What evidence would you provide to indicate your readiness?

• If there are gaps in your readiness, how would you plan to address them?

• Choose one person to report back.