READINESS CRITERIA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

readiness criteria n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
READINESS CRITERIA PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
READINESS CRITERIA

play fullscreen
1 / 27
READINESS CRITERIA
82 Views
Download Presentation
ross-justice
Download Presentation

READINESS CRITERIA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 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?

  2. WHAT’S NEXT? • Establish institutional teams • January 15, 2008 Deadline for submitting Course Readiness Instrument • February 28, 2008 Workshop #2: Developing the Proposal

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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?

  6. READINESS CRITERION #3Assessment Plan • Which assessment model do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

  7. ASSESSMENT GOAL To establish the degree to which improved learning has been achieved as a result of the course redesign.

  8. ASSESSMENT PLANNING Step 1. Establish the method of obtaining data. Step 2. Choose the measurement method.

  9. ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF OBTAINING DATA • Baseline “Before” (traditional) and “After” (redesign) • Parallel Sections – Compare traditional sections and redesigned sections

  10. 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

  11. READINESS CRITERION #4Cost Savings Plan • Which cost savings strategy do you think would be most appropriate for your redesign? Why?

  12. 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.

  13. WHAT’S YOUR ENROLLMENT SITUATION? • Is your enrollment growing or projected to grow? • Is your enrollment stable or declining?

  14. 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!

  15. 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 RIO SALADO COLLEGEPre-Calculus Math

  16. 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 U OF TENNESSEESpanish

  17. 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!

  18. 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 FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITYGeneral Biology

  19. 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 VIRGINIA TECHLinear Algebra

  20. 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?

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. WHY INSTITUTIONAL TEAMS? • Faculty experts • Administrators • Technology professionals • Assessment experts

  24. READINESS CRITERIA • Course Choice • Redesign Model • Assessment Plan • Cost Savings Plan • Learning Materials • Active Learning • Collective Commitment

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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.