A New Model for Faculty Collaboration:
Ensuring Rigorous Curriculum and
Assessment in Dual Credit Courses
Lisa J. Goodnight, Ph.D.
Ralph V. Rogers, Ph.D.
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN
A Call to Action by the State of Indiana:
Assessable, Affordable, Accountable
Indiana Commission of Higher Education (September 2008)
• Moving beyond college access to degree success
• Ensuring college is affordable
• Embracing accountability for results
• In Indiana, only 36% of high school graduates earn a college
degree in 4 years, 57% do so in 6 years.
Gap in Perceptions of High School and
University Faculty
% Answering “Well” or “Very Well”
100%
90%
80%
70%
79%
76%
72%
60%
67%
50%
40%
30%
42%
33%
36%
20%
32%
10%
0%
English /
Writing
Mathematics
Secondary Educators
Reading
Postsecondary Educators
Science
Creation of Dual Credit Courses
 University Lead faculty member paired with a high school
teacher (high school teacher will teach the course under the
supervision of the university faculty member)
 Collaborate on curriculum and pedagogy
 Align the high school course with the university course
 Determine means of assessment/rubrics
Faculty Partnerships
University Faculty
High School Faculty
 Collaborate with high school
 Collaborate with university





faculty to align high school
course with the university course
Instructor of record
Observe the high school teacher
and offer feedback
Engage in blind grading for
inter-rater reliability
Submit final grades to registrar
at university



faculty to align their course
with the university course
Responsible for day-to-day
instruction of the course
Engage in blind grading for
inter-rater reliability
Administer student evaluations
of the course
Submit final grades to the
university faculty member
Process of Collaboration
 Face to face meeting of the “whole”
 Summer workshops
 Fall and Spring workshops
Role of the University Faculty
 Instructor of record at the university
 Paid $3000 or received a course release
 Certify that the course taught at the high school is a




university course
Monitor the progress of the students
Observe the high school teacher and offer feedback
Engage in blind grading for inter-rater reliability
Submit final grades to registrar at university
Role of the High School Faculty
 Collaborate with university faculty to align their course with





the university course
Received a small stipend for this project
Responsible for day-to-day instruction of the course
Engage in blind grading for inter-rater reliability
Administer student evaluations of the course
Submit final grades to the university faculty member
Inter-Rater Reliability
 Krippendorff’s Alpha
 Strength is that computed reliabilities are comparable
across any numbers of coders and values, different
metrics, and unequal sample sizes.
Inter-Rater Reliability
 onOne interpretation of Krippendorff's alpha is:
α=1-
D within units = in error
D within and between units = in total
α = 1 indicates perfect reliability
α = 0 indicates the absence of reliability. Units and the values assigned
to them are statistically unrelated
α < 0 when disagreements are systematic and exceed what can be
expected by chance.
Do is the observed disagreement:
1
Do 
n

c
2
o ck metric ck
k
De is the disagreement one would expect when the coding of units
is attributable to chance rather than to the properties of these unit
1
De 
n (n  1)

c
k
2
n c  n k metric ck
Courses Offered
FY 2009-2010
 Communication/Speech
 Pre-Calculus
 First and Second courses in Chemistry
 English Composition
FY 2010-2011
 Introduction to Sociology
 Introduction to Psychology
 Calculus based Physics
Assessment of Student Learning
PUC Course
Assessment Tool
Inter-Rater Reliability
Communication/Speech
Informative Speech
Fall 2009 .94, Good reliability
Spring 2010 .97, Strong reliability
Pre-Calculus
Problem Set
.96, Strong reliability and .93, Good
reliability for two teachers
Chemistry
Buffer Lab
Fall 2009 .46, Major issues with reliability
Spring 2010 .98, Excellent reliability
English Composition
Literacy Narrative
Critical Review
Reflective Essay
Increased Participation of high school
students
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
 Total=201 students
 Total=228 students
 Communication: 30
 Communication: 37
 Pre-Calculus: 135
 Chemistry: 73
 Chemistry: 73
 English Comp: 248
 86% earned a C- or better
 89% earned a C- or better
In total over 2500 university credits were earned by
students in the first year.
Lessons Learned from 2009-10
Courses taught at the high school were rigorous university
courses and the unique and evolving faculty partnerships
worked to achieve demonstrated and measurable quality
 Ensured quality and integrity of university curriculum
 Rigorous instruction through the unique partnership
 2500 credit hours earned by students
 87% of students earned college credit
 Overall student assessment of learning was excellent!
Lessons Learned, cont.
 Both faculty members must be enthusiastic and willing to






collaborate
Major issues with admission and registration
Cost analysis: What is the true cost to the university for dual
credit? Purdue Calumet’s costs were not covered through student
tuition.
Engaging in marketing research on the price point for dual credit
to northwest Indiana families
Expanded course offerings for 2010-2011: American
Government, Introduction to Psychology, Introduction to
Sociology, and two course sequence in calculus based Physics
Over 350 students enrolled for Fall 2010
Over 600 students enrolled for Fall 2010 at two high schools
Moving Forward
 Can this program be expanded? How many faculty are
needed?
 How can technology assist in faculty collaboration,
strengthening inter-rater reliability, and tracking students?
 How can we drive the costs of the “business” side down?
How do we lower the costs of admission and registration?
New Twists From Indiana Commission
on Higher Education (ICHE)
 State funding for dual credit shall be limited to a set of
priority liberal arts courses identified by ICHE….
 …the rate charged to Indiana students for the identified dual
credit priority liberal arts courses shall not exceed $25 per
credit hour, beginning July 1, 2011
 State support for dual credit funding to public education
institutions shall be identified separately under a formula
prescribed by the Commission
 Incentive Funding
 Dual Credit, on-time degree, low income funding