developmental math course redesign (dmcr) grant program technical assistance workshop

Developmental Math Course Redesign (DMCR)

Grant Program

Technical Assistance Workshop

Jackie [email protected]

Melinda [email protected]

Agenda

• Introductions• Maryland’s College Completion Goals• About the Funder – Complete College

America• DMCR Grant Program• Course Redesign Basics• Grant Application Development• Grant Review Process and Awarding• Project -wide Activity Requirements

Higher Higher Education Education

CommissionCommission



Why is Maryland Interested in Course Redesign?

• Governor O’Malley has set a statewide goal that by 2025 at least 55%of Marylanders age 25-64 will hold at least one degree credential – either an Associate’s or Bachelor’s.

• To attain the number of degrees necessary to meet the completion goal, Maryland must produce 58,000 degrees per year, an increase of 20,000 – 23,000 annually.

• Many will come from “natural” enrollment growth, but close to 15,000 must come from “new initiatives.”

What is the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant?

• State of Maryland entered into agreement with Complete College America (CCA) as one of ten recipients of the Completion Innovation Challenge Grant

• The state received $1 million for this grant

• Approved project includes sub-grant to support the redesign of developmental math courses in the state’s institutions of higher education





The Developmental Math Course Redesign Grant Program

Goals:• Find new ways to improve undergraduate student

learning outcomes.

• Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment.

• Reducing time-to-degree and accelerating student success toward degree completion.

• Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.


CommissionCommission What is 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.

• Course redesign is not just about putting courses online.

• It is about rethinking the way we deliver instruction in light of the possibilities that new technology offers.



What is 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

*NCAT Presentation



What is 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

*NCAT Presentation



5 Principles of Course Redesign

• Redesign the Entire Course

• Encourage Active Learning

• Provide Students with Individualized Assistance

• Build in Ongoing Assessment and Prompt (Automated) Feedback

• Ensure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress



Goal 1: Redesigning the Entire Course

Benefits• Opportunity to evaluate and focus course goals

• Counteract course drift

• Capture the best that each instructor has to offer

• Reduce duplication of effort

• Meaningful and interesting faculty interaction

Challenges• Compromise and consensus building

• Instructor buy-in across all sections

• Time needed for team-building

• Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology

• Gathering support for the project – the more support the better!



Goal 2: Encouraging Active Learning

Benefits• Multiple ways for students to engage with the course material

• Students decide when to work on the course material, within the framework of scheduled deadlines

• Students held accountable for assigned work

• Student engagement and satisfaction

•Faculty engagement and satisfaction

Challenges•What to do with that uncomfortable feeling that you are failing to complete a critical transaction if you do not say something out loud to a room full of students?

•Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism



Goal 3: Individualized Assistance

• Online learning tools

• Staffed computer labs

• Peer learning assistants

• Small group meetings

• Discussion sections

• Laboratories

• Supplementary instruction programs

• Online discussion tools



Goal 4: Ongoing Assessment/ Monitoring Student Progress

• Online quizzes

• Sophisticated learning software with problem sets, instant feedback, and assistance

•Track the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software)

•Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online work

•Design an intervention strategy for students who are performing poorly on assessments or who are not spending sufficient time on task

•A job for peer learning assistants?



6 Models of Course Redesign

• The Supplemental Model

• The Replacement Model

• The Emporium Model

• The Fully Online Model

• The Buffet Model

• The Linked Workshop Model


CommissionCommissionThe Supplemental Model

• Retains the basic course structure, particularly the number of class meetings

• Supplements lectures and textbooks with technology-based, out-of-class activities

• Encourages greater student engagement with course content

• Ensures that students are prepared when they come to class


CommissionCommissionThe Replacement Model

• Replaces (rather than supplements) in-class time with online, interactive learning activities

• Carefully considers why (and how often) classes need to meet face-to-face

• Assumes that certain activities can be better accomplished online - individually or in groups

• May keep remaining in-class activities the same or may make significant changes

• May schedule out-of-class activities in computer labs or totally online so that students can participate anytime, anywhere



The Emporium Model

• Moves all classes to a lab setting

• Multiple sections combined into one large section

• Depends heavily on instructional software including interactive tutorials

• Allows students to work as long as they need to master the content

• Permits the use of multiple kinds of personnel

• Requires a significant commitment of space and equipment

• Can teach more than one course in the lab, thus leveraging the initial investment


CommissionCommissionThe Fully Online Model

•Eliminates all in-class meetings and moves all learning experiences online.

•Adopts successful design elements of Supplemental, Replacement and Emporium models including Web-based, multi-media resources, commercial software, automatically evaluated assessments with guided feedback, links to additional resources and alternative staffing models.


CommissionCommissionThe Buffet Model

•Takes into account each student’s knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style

•Provides an array of learning opportunities including : lectures, outside reading material, labs, small group study sessions, videos, oral and written presentations, homework assignments, individual and group, projects, etc.

•Started by Ohio State University for Introductory Statistics•Initially students are made familiar with the various options through examples made available for them to experience

•Then the student selects what suits him/her and signs a contract detailing containing the choices and what needs to be accomplished



The Linked Workshop Model

• Retains the basic structure of the college-level/core course, particularly the number of class meetings

• Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”

• Workshops are designed to remove deficiencies in core course competencies (for a particular course)

• Students are individually assigned software modules based on results of diagnostic assessments/placement

• Workshops consist of computer-based instruction, small-group activities and test reviews to provide additional instruction on key concepts



The Linked Workshop Model Continued

•Workshops are facilitated by students who have previously excelled in the core course and are trained and supervised by core course faculty

•Workshop activities are just-in-time—i.e., designed so that students use the concepts during the next core course class session, which in turn helps them see the value of the workshops and motivates them to do the workshop activities.



Summary

• Supplemental – Add to the current structure and/or change the content

• Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities

• Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting

• Fully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities online

• Buffet – Mix and match according to student preferences

• Linked Workshop - Replaces the remedial/developmental course with just-in-time “workshops”

Preparing the Request for Application


CommissionCommissionShow me the money….

Eligibility: Public institutions providing metrics data for Maryland’s Complete College America data project

Funding Priority: Those with high percentage of new entering students enrolled in developmental math courses.


CommissionCommissionWho Can Apply?


CommissionCommission Award Amount

• $30,000 per course - up to 21 awards possible

• May submit more than one application/ one redesign

• Possible to receive more than one award

• Submit a separate application for each redesign • May request >$30,000 if proposing the merger of multiple

courses of differing levels into one redesigned course but…

• Merger models should recognize economies of scale


CommissionCommissionRequired Matching Fund

Institutions must invest at least 25% of the total cost of the redesign e.g. $30,000 award matched with $10,000 of institutional resources

Why? Demonstrate “‘buy in” and long term sustainability

Sources of Match – •In-kind contributions like faculty and staff time, provision of instructional materials and technology purchases related to the redesign. Matching funds must comprise at least 25% of the total project cost

•Cash


CommissionCommissionGrant Goals & Objectives

1. Find new ways to improve undergraduate student learning outcomes;

2. Demonstrate these improvements through rigorous assessment;

3. Reduce instructional costs, freeing up institutional resources for other academic priorities; and

4. Develop the internal capacity of faculty and administrators to continue the redesign process at each participating institution.

December 2, 2011 Full Application Due

December 22, 2011 Awards Announced

January/February 2012 (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #1

August 15, 2012 Interim Report Due


CommissionCommissionImportant Dates

Fall 2012 Pilot of Redesigned Course

Fall 2012 - (TBD) Project-Wide Meeting #2

Spring 2013 Full Implementation of Course –all sections

January 31, 2013 Funding expires. Interim Report #2 Unexpended funds returned.

August 15, 2013 Final Report –Impact of Full Implementation


CommissionCommissionMore Important Dates

Project Cover Page (form provided, original signatures)

Abstract (500 Words)

Project Narrative (no more than 5 pages)

Project Timeline

Budget


CommissionCommissionRFA Components


CommissionCommissionProject Narrative

• Extent of Need• Project Overview• Implementation Plan• Outcomes Assessment Plan and

Projected Outcomes• Cost Savings

• Relatively brief but compelling case statement• Supported by institutional data• Include number and percentage of first time

students enrolled in developmental math• Other data might include pass/fail rate

development math• Draw on data already presented in Concept

Paper


CommissionCommissionExtent of Need – 10 pts.

• Detailed

• Describe redesign model used

• Specific changes to implement

• New learning methods/materials/approaches incorporated


CommissionCommissionProject Overview – 15 pts.

• Fall 2012 - pilot redesigned course and assess– at least 100 students

• Spring 2013 – implement across all sections

• Explain how the courses will be implemented

• Indicate number of students impacted each semester through Aug 2013



Implementation Plan – 30 pts.

• How will redesign student learning outcomes and time to degree be assessed? – Pilot, full implementation, after grant has ended?

• What percentage of developmental math students involved in pilot? In fully implemented course (all sections)?



Outcomes Assessment Plan & Projected Outcomes – 30 pts.

• How will redesigned course save institution money?

• How much will the institution save?

• How will savings be applied elsewhere?

• Cost savings forms will be provided to awardees



Cost Savings – scored with budget

• Major project activities including planning meetings

• Month/date of activity

• Key personnel responsible for the activity

• Table format may be used



Project Timeline (considered part of implementation plan)

Two Parts – budget table and budget narrative• Budget Table

– Form in Appendix 2 provided– List expenditures by cost category for both requested grant

funds and institutional matching funds

• Budget Narrative– Text explaining how each amount was computed (e.g. 50

hours @ $15 per hour, 100 workbooks @ $3 each)



Budget – 15 pts. (includes cost savings)

December 2, 2011 by 4:00 PM

One hard copy with original signatures

One electronic copy (word or PDF – budgets may be xls)

Attn: Melinda Vann

[email protected]

Maryland Higher Education Commission

Attention: Melinda Vann

6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21201


CommissionCommissionApplication Due Date

• Every application read by at least 4 qualified reviewers

• Applications read/scored individually• Review panel meets to discuss and develop

recommendations• Recommendations forwarded to Secretary of Higher

Education who makes final funding decision


CommissionCommissionReview Process

Category Maximum Points

Extent of Need for the Project (funding priority) 10

Project Overview 15

Implementation Plan and Timeline 30

Assessment of Redesign Impact 30

Budget and Cost Effectiveness

(includes cost savings) 15

Total 100


CommissionCommissionScoring Rubric

• Geographic distribution of awards

• Funding priority – support for institutions with high percentage of first time students enrolled in developmental math


CommissionCommissionAdditional Considerations

• December 22, 2011 by email• Formal letter to arrive after holidays• Projects may begin when email notice received• Reviewer comments shared with those who did

not receive funding• 50% of award distributed within 60 days of award

notice• Balance distributed after first interim report

reviewed and accepted


CommissionCommissionNotification of Awards

• Meetings

• Sharing assessment data - traditional vs. redesigned course student outcomes. Institutions will decide on appropriate assessment measures themselves.

• Collection and sharing of instructional cost data that compares costs in the traditional course with those in the redesigned format. Common project-wide templates will be used for all participating institutions.


CommissionCommissionProject-wide Activities

• Appendix 1 includes all post award procedures. Awardees should retain RFA for reference

• Appendix 2 includes budget table and application cover sheet

• Cost savings data collection tables will be distributed to awardees


CommissionCommissionAppendices

Programmatic Questions:

Erin Knepler, P-20 Project Director University System of Maryland

[email protected] or 301-445-2781

Program technical assistance information -

http://www.usmd.edu/usm/academicaffairs/cr2

Application Development and Grants Management Questions:

Melinda Vann, Director - Outreach and Grants Management, [email protected] or 410-767-3269

RFA and forms

http://www.mhec.state.md.us/Grants/index.asp


CommissionCommissionContact Information

Questions?



developmental math course redesign (dmcr) grant program technical assistance workshop

Documents

redesign process

course drift

course goals

degree completion

college completion goalsabout

better learning outcomes

active learning

state of maryland