html5-img
1 / 49

Presented at the 2009 National Forum on Education Policy Nashville, Tennessee July 10, 2009

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

lacota-bailey
Download Presentation

Presented at the 2009 National Forum on Education Policy Nashville, Tennessee July 10, 2009

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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%)

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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)

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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?

  13. SHIFTING GEARS INTO REDESIGN

  14. 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)

  15. 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

  16. Improved Learning at Northeast State Student Learning/Performance

  17. 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).

  18. APSU - SLA Components Weekly Faculty/ SLA Leader Coordination Meeting

  19. 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

  20. APSU – SLA Results • Significant increase in student retention from 59.9% to 63.6% • Significant increase in student success rate

  21. APSU - SLA Benefits

  22. S MA RT urvive chieve aster eview ransfer SMART Math Center at Jackson State Community College

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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%

  26. 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

  27. 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%

  28. 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

  29. Mean Scores on Post Test by Modules

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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%

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Can I Get A Witness? Students Discuss Redesign Teachers Discuss Redesign

  40. 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.

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

  42. WHAT NEEDS FURTHER STUDY? • Record-keeping, tuition policy, financial aid • Whole courses vs. competencies • Cost structures, funding models • Approach to modularization • Engaging more students

  43. WHOLE COURSE VS. COMPETENCIES NEEDED • 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?

  44. Before 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%

  45. Before 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%

  46. Before 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%

  47. ENGAGING MORE STUDENTS • 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.

  48. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? • 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!

  49. Final Thoughts • 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

More Related