Presented at the 2009 national forum on education policy nashville tennessee july 10 2009
Download
1 / 49

Shifting development studies into high gear - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 163 Views
  • Updated On :

Presented at the 2009 National Forum on Education Policy Nashville, Tennessee July 10, 2009. Shifting Developmental Studies into High Gear: A System Approach to Redesign in Tennessee Academic Preparation Initiative Funded by FIPSE

Related searches for Shifting development studies into high gear

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Shifting development studies into high gear' - isaiah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Presented at the 2009 national forum on education policy nashville tennessee july 10 2009 l.jpg

Presented at the 2009 National Forum on Education Policy

Nashville, Tennessee

July 10, 2009

Shifting Developmental Studies into High Gear: A System Approach to Redesign in Tennessee

Academic Preparation Initiative Funded by FIPSE

Presented byDr. Paula Myrick Short, Principal InvestigatorVice Chancellor for Academic AffairsDr. Treva Berryman, Project FacilitatorAssociate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs


Tbr dsp history l.jpg

TBR - DSP History

In 1984, the Tennessee Board of Regents mandated a program of remedial and developmental studies

comprehensive mandatory assessment procedure

mandatory placement of underprepared students by

level of deficiency

comprehensive support system with prescribed course

with up to 24 SCH


Slide3 l.jpg

Colleges Spend Billions to Prep Freshmen

A new report from Strong American Schools, Diploma to Nowhere, estimates the costs to bring students “up to speed” for college work to be between $2.3 billion and $2.9 billion annually

At TBR, $25 million spent annually on remedial and developmental education


Slide4 l.jpg

First-Time Freshmen

Remedial and Developmental Classes

Universities

2006 -11,155 with 4,511 (40.4%)

2007-11,559 with 4,809 (41.6%)

Community Colleges

2006 - 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3%)

2007 – 14,852 with 11,235 (75.6%)


Persistence an issue l.jpg
Persistence An Issue

2000 First-Time Freshman Cohort. Rates based on returning to or graduating from initial enrolling institution.


Slide6 l.jpg

TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan

Objective A8

Increase speed and success of remedial/ developmental work for students requiring them to become college-ready.

Strategy A8

Establish a best practice, system-wide, community-college-based remedial/developmental program that is substantially technology driven, composed of language arts and mathematics, and allows students to identify and focus on the academic areas where they are deficient.


Slide7 l.jpg

The Challenge

Review what we have learned in the past 25 years

Consider the current research and new technologies

Realize that we have different careers, different academic programs, and very different students than we had 25 years ago

Design a program to meet the needs of under-prepared students with the assumption that nothing already exist


Expectations for the dsp redesign initiative l.jpg
Expectations for the DSP Redesign Initiative

Replicable/Scalable model for multiple settings

Improve the quality of learning and assessment

Significant cost savings

Increase retention

Decrease time to completion

Maintain commitment to access

Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and enhanced public support


Slide9 l.jpg

Timeline

2006 Initial Planning

- Appointed 20 Task Force Members ( mostly faculty)

- Applied for and awarded $739,000 FIPSE 3-yr grant

2007 Institutional Involvement- The NCAT Process

- Two workshops (330 total participants)

- Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot Interventions

2008 Pilots - 6 funded at $30,000 to $40,000 each

2009 Draft recommendations by the end of the year

2010 - Implement system wide fall semester(may require

phase-in)


Slide10 l.jpg

Partners and their Role

National Center for Academic Transformation

(NCAT) www.thencat.org

Dr. Carol Twigg – monitoring process for funded pilots

Education Commission of the States

(ECS) www.ecs.org

Dr. Bruce Vandal – expanding research to guide public policy

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

(NCHEMS) http://www.nchems.org

Dr. Karen Paulson – external evaluation of the project


Slide11 l.jpg

DSPREDESIGN TASK FORCE

Representatives include a President, Chief Academic Officer, Student Affairs Officer, Director of Admissions, University Vice President, Developmental Studies Directors, and Faculty

TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES

Math Curriculum Review

English (reading/writing) Curriculum Review

Assessment

Funding/Financial


Slide12 l.jpg

Consensus on a New Philosophy for DSP

Change of focus: from the past—to the future

Instead of remediating for whatever was missed or forgotten from high school, we will prepare the student to succeed in the curriculum of their chosen field of study. If the student changes the career goal, additional remediation may be needed.

Question

Can remediation be provided “just in time” so that students can take college level courses prior to completing all developmental studies requirements?


Slide13 l.jpg

SHIFTING

GEARS INTO REDESIGN


A different approach l.jpg
A Different Approach

Each redesign pilot is unique.

■ NeSCC – Emporium Model (reading)

■ CoSCC – Replacement Model (reading and writing)

■APSU – Structured Learning Assistance (SLA) (math)

■ ClSCC and JSCC– Emporium Model (math)

■ ChSCC – Replacement Model (math)


Northeast state community college l.jpg
Northeast State Community College

Reading Emporium

Diagnostic pre- and post-test; individualized plan

Mandatory weekly hours in the Reading Center w/ individual assistance

Online Learning Communities through D2L and Tegrity

MyReadingLab—Web-based and modularized

Course Notebook

Multiple sets of practice and module tests

Automatic tracking and grading


Improved learning at northeast state l.jpg
Improved Learning at Northeast State

Student Learning/Performance


Northeast state community college17 l.jpg
Northeast State Community College

Learning Outcomes

Student success ( “C” of better) increased from 52% (traditional) to 58% (redesigned delivery).

Students with a grade of “A” increased from 14% (traditional) to 30% (redesigned delivery).


Slide18 l.jpg

APSU - SLA Components

Weekly Faculty/ SLA Leader Coordination Meeting


Slide19 l.jpg

Prerequisite Competencies

  • MATH 1010

  • Fractions & decimals

  • Number & measure

  • Proportional reasoning

  • Signed numbers &

    algebraic expression

  • Linear equations &

    their graphs

  • Radicals & roots

  • MATH 1530

  • Algebraic expression

  • Equations, inequalities,

    & percents

  • Graphing, functions, &

    linear equations

  • Polynomials,

    exponents, & radicals


Apsu sla results l.jpg
APSU – SLA Results

  • Significant increase in student retention from 59.9% to 63.6%

  • Significant increase in student success rate



Slide22 l.jpg

S MA RT

urvive

chieve

aster

eview

ransfer

SMART Math Center at

Jackson State Community College


Slide23 l.jpg

Jackson State - Before Redesign

  • Three Traditional Courses

    • Enrollment: 2200

    • Number Sections: 102

    • Max Size per Section: 24

  • Student had to pass course or start over next term

  • Each instructor designed own course presentations, lectures, homework assignments, and tests

  • Student class time rigid

  • Student had to successfully complete all three courses before being accepted into Allied Health or Nursing programs or taking certain college level courses


Smart math at jscc l.jpg
SMART Math at JSCC

  • Mastery Approach

  • Opportunity to Progress More Quickly (or slowly, if needed)

  • Accommodation of Learning Styles

  • On-demand Individual Assistance

  • Immediate Feedback on Tests and Homework

  • Use of Customized Textbook with Study Guides and Technology Driven Instruction


Jscc modularization l.jpg
JSCC Modularization

12 modules covering same competencies as traditional development courses.

To satisfy a module the overall grade must be at least 75%

Module grades calculated as follows:

Attendance 5%

Notebooks 10%

Homework 15%

Post-Test (Proctored) 70%


Results of jscc modularization l.jpg
Results of JSCC Modularization

  • 40 Courses of Study require a General Education Math Courses

    • 31 Majors allowed a Math Course with prerequisite Modules 1 – 7

    • 2 Required at least 8 Modules

    • 7 Required all 12 Modules

  • 7 Programs of Study do not require college level Math – Allied Health & Nursing

    • 2 Require Modules 1-8

    • 4 Require Modules 1-7

    • 1 Requires Modules 1-6

    • 1 Requires Modules 1-4


Students completing dspm requirements l.jpg
Students Completing DSPM Requirements

Students who can enroll in college level courses/programs next term

Traditional Course Spring 2008 24%

Redesign Course Spring 2008 22%

Redesign Course Fall 2008 36%

Redesign Course Spring 2009 42%


Student outcomes l.jpg
Student Outcomes

41% 54% 57% 59% 74% 72% 75% 83%

Student Learning = Students making ABC

Course Retention = Students enrolled in the course to the end of semester



Cleveland state community college l.jpg
Cleveland State Community College

  • 3 Developmental Math Courses

    • Basic Math, Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra

  • 6 College Level Math Courses

    • College Algebra, Statistics, Finite Math

    • Precalculus I, Precalculus II, Applied Calculus

  • 2 Computer Labs, 4 Computer Classrooms

    • 60 computer lab on main campus in Cleveland

    • 35 computer classroom/lab on campus in Athens

  • Project Timeline

    • Spring 2008: Elementary Algebra and Intermediate Algebra

    • Fall 2008: Basic Math, College Algebra, Statistics, Finite Math

    • Fall 2009: Precalculus I, Precalculus II, and Applied Calculus

  • 1000+ Students Enrolled In 9 courses Each Semester


Cleveland state s approach l.jpg
Cleveland State’s Approach

  • Course Layout

    • Each course consists of 10 – 12 mini-modules

    • 1 hour class meeting each week – students work in class

    • 2 hours work outside class each week – at least 1 hour in lab

    • Students expected to complete one module each week

  • Course Grade

    • 10% Attendance Grade - class & lab attendance, module finished

    • 30% Homework Sets – 2 to 5 sections per module

    • 60% Quiz and Exam Grades – 1 quiz each module, 2 exams

  • Course Standards

    • Students must complete every homework set (70 or better)

    • Students must pass every module quiz and exam (70 or better)

    • Students must pass attendance grade (70 or better)

    • Students may take each quiz and exam multiple times


Changing faculty roles l.jpg
Changing Faculty Roles

Traditional Faculty Role

New Faculty Role

  • Dispense information

  • Covering material

  • 15 hours of contact time

  • Teaching 5 class sections

  • Help students outside class?

  • 7.5 office hours each week

  • Prep time a burden

  • Grading at home

  • Focused on lectures

Assist students with learning

Tracking student progress

20 hours of contact time

Teaching 10 class sections

10 lab hours each week

5 office hours each week

Prep time eliminated

100% online grading

Focused on student success


Attitude adjustments l.jpg
Attitude Adjustments

Before Redesign

After Redesign

Students

  • I want my lecture!

  • Study night before exam

  • What do I need to pass?

    Teachers

  • I want my lecture!

    Class

  • Low attendance

  • Don’t do homework

  • Not engaged in class

Students

  • I like this!

  • Weekly homework, quiz

  • I want an A.

    Teachers

  • This works!

    Class

  • Median attendance grade 88

  • Average homework grade 97

  • Come to class early, stay late


But did it help l.jpg
But Did It Help?

  • Developmental Math

    • Success rate in developmental math courses went from 54% to 72%

    • Each course showed significant improvement in Fall 2008

    • Intermediate Algebra had a 79% success rate in Fall 2008

  • College Level Math

    • Success rate in three redesigned courses increased from 72% to 75%

    • College Algebra improved, Finite Math & Statistics stayed same

    • 33% increase in students passing a college level math course

    • More students passed a college level math course in Spring 2009 than were enrolled in a college level math course in Spring 2008

  • Developmental Students In College Level Math

    • Before redesign 71% success for developmental students in math

    • After redesign 76% success rate for developmental students in math

    • Fall 2008 developmental students 79% success rate in math while

      college math success rate was unchanged at 72%


Keep them coming back for more l.jpg
Keep Them Coming Back For More

  • Higher Success Rates In Developmental Math

    • 29% increase in students passing a developmental math course

    • 32% increase in students exiting developmental math

    • 42% enrollment increase in college math courses 09S

  • Reduced Scheduling Roadblocks For Students

    • Students can’t graduate if they can’t get their classes scheduled

    • Increased course offerings helps students in scheduling classes

    • One hours class meetings easier to schedule, reducing time conflicts

  • Continuous Enrollment Plan Keeps Students Working

    • 63 students completed multiple math courses in Fall 2008

    • 46 exited developmental math, 13 completed college math course

  • These Factors Positively Impact Graduation And Retention

    • College retention increased by 7% Spring 2009


Less is more l.jpg
Less Is More

Before Redesign

After Redesign

  • 3 Developmental Math Courses

    • 30 Sections Offered

    • Average Class Size 24

  • 3 College Math Courses

    • 17 Sections Offered

    • Average Class Size 20

  • Athens & Vonore Sites

    • 5 Developmental Math Classes

    • 4 College Level Math Courses

  • Maximum Class Size 32

  • Most Sections 20 - 25 Students

  • 3 Developmental Math Courses

    • 40 Sections Offered

    • Average Class Size 18

  • 3 College Math Courses

    • 28 Sections Offered

    • Average Class Size 14

  • Athens & Vonore Sites

    • 9 Developmental Math Classes

    • 8 College Level Math Sections

  • Maximum Class Size 22

  • Most Sections 15 - 20 Students


More bang for the buck l.jpg
More Bang For The Buck

  • Faculty Productivity Increased by 23%

    • Average student load increased from 106 in 07F to 130 in 08F

    • FTE per faculty member went from 21.2 in 07F to 26.0 in 08F

    • Five of eight faculty members responsible for 150+ students

    • Faculty members teach 10 or 11 sections under redesign

    • Faculty members work in Math Lab 8 – 10 hours each week

    • Weekly contact time increased from 15 hours to 20 hours

  • Costs Reduced By Over $50000/Year As Of Fall 2009

    • Adjunct eliminated in math department as a result of this project

    • Shift in personnel possible due to redesign

    • Math Lab staffed by faculty and part time tutors

    • Copying costs drastically reduced due to online testing


Make hay while the sun shines l.jpg
Make Hay While The Sun Shines

  • Continuous Enrollment Plan

    • Students may start in any redesigned math course when they finish the course they are currently enrolled in, without switching classes

    • Students add second class to schedule if they complete it

    • Students can take advantage of this option at any point

    • Whatever work the student completes transfers next semester

  • Students Completing Multiple Courses

    • 63 students completed multiple math courses in 2008 - 2009

    • 46 of these exited developmental math in one semester

    • 13 of these completed a college level math course

    • 2 students completed 3 courses in one semester

    • Many more students completed a course and started in 2nd course


Can i get a witness l.jpg
Can I Get A Witness?

Students Discuss Redesign

Teachers Discuss Redesign


Why does the emporium increase success l.jpg
WHY DOES THE EMPORIUM INCREASE SUCCESS?

  • Active learning: Students spend the bulk of their course time doing math problems.

  • On-demand help: Students get assistance when they encounter problems in doing math.

  • Modularization: Students spend more time on things they don’t understand and less time on things they have already mastered.


Slide41 l.jpg

Students learn math by doing math, not by listening to someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.


What needs further study l.jpg
WHAT NEEDS FURTHER STUDY? someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

  • Record-keeping, tuition policy, financial aid

  • Whole courses vs. competencies

  • Cost structures, funding models

  • Approach to modularization

  • Engaging more students


Whole course vs competencies needed l.jpg
WHOLE COURSE VS. COMPETENCIES NEEDED someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

  • Cleveland State: Whole course

  • Austin Peay: Competencies for two specific courses

  • Jackson State: Competencies needed for 40 programs of study

    • 31 required 7 of 12 modules

    • 2 required 8 of 12 modules

    • 7 required all 12 modules

  • What impact do these different structures have on student success and cost?


Cleveland state cost reduction l.jpg

Before someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

Section size = 24

55 sections (Fall/Spring)

45 by FT faculty

10 by adjuncts

Faculty load = 10 sections

Faculty cost = $256,275

Adjunct cost = $14,400

Total cost = $270,625

After

Section size = 18

77 sections (Fall/Spring)

77 by FT faculty

0 by adjuncts

Faculty load = 20 sections

Faculty cost = $219,258

Adjunct cost = $0

Total cost = $219,258

CLEVELAND STATE COST REDUCTION

Savings = $51,418 or 19%


Jackson state cost reduction l.jpg

Before someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

Section size = 20

102 sections (Annual)

80 by FT faculty

22 by adjuncts

Faculty load = 5 sections

Faculty cost = $386,000

Adjunct cost = $31,966

Other personnel = $4,885

Total cost = $422,851

After

Section size = 30

73 sections (Annual)

42 by FT faculty

31 by adjuncts

Faculty load = 5 sections

Faculty cost = $202,650

Adjunct cost = $45,043

Other personnel = $12,856

Total cost = $260,549

JACKSON STATE COST REDUCTION

Savings = $162,302 or 38%


Northeast state cost reduction l.jpg

Before someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

Section size = 17

24 sections (Fall/Spring)

12 by FT faculty

12 by adjuncts

Faculty load = 3 sections Faculty cost = $61,428

Adjunct cost = $19,404

Other personnel = $0

Total cost = $80,832

After

Section size = 275 & 137

2 sections (Fall/Spring)

2 by FT faculty

0 by adjuncts

Faculty load =.5 section Faculty cost = $30,714

Adjunct cost = $0

Other personnel = $8,925 Total cost = $39,639

NORTHEAST STATE COST REDUCTION

Savings = $41,193 or 51%


Engaging more students l.jpg
ENGAGING MORE STUDENTS someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

  • Students who “do the work” succeed.

  • That leads to a big difference in learning outcome averages and improvement in completion rates .

  • This means a higher percentages of As & Bs.

    • CSCC Elementary Algebra – 34% (T) vs. 66% (R)

    • CSCC Intermediate Algebra – 38% (T) vs. 69% (R)

  • The issue is, how to engage those who don’t engage.

    • CSCC = 26%

    • JSCC = 41% There are still too many students not engaged.


What have we learned l.jpg
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

  • The Emporium Model works and the Linked Workshop Model works.

  • Modularization works.

  • It’s possible to improve quality while radically reducing costs in developmental studies.

  • Developmental studies students will flourish by using technology appropriately—both traditional and non-traditional students.

  • Students who previously feared math can love math!


Final thoughts l.jpg
Final Thoughts someone talk about doing math. The same is true for reading and writing.

  • Re-design (not redesign)

    • Tweaking lectures will give you tweaked results

    • Significant change can give you significantly different results

  • Move Forward and Don’t Look Back

    • If you redesign, spend your energy making it work

    • Don’t hang on to “the way it has always been done” (i.e. lecture)

    • Ask the right questions: How do we. . .? not Why can’t we. . . .?

  • Goal: Transformation

    • Lakeisha before redesign and after


ad