University System of Maryland: Maryland Course Redesign Initiative
Bowie State University
Course Title: General Psychology
Contact: Katrina S. Kardiasmenos, P.I.
Project Abstract
Bowie State University plans to redesign the General Psychology course with the aim of
enhancing the quality of course instruction, improving student academic success and reducing
administrative costs. This course is a general education course which is a requirement for the
majority of students at the university. The focus of the redesign will be on reducing the DFW
rate (D’s, failures, withdrawals), enhancing active learning and increasing student learning
outcomes. General Psychology has an average annual enrollment of approximately 600 students
with about 40 students per class. This course is taught by both full-time faculty (80%) and
adjuncts (20%).
It is the general agreement of department faculty that the regular lecture format has not met the
academic needs of our population of non-traditional students with diverse learning styles.
During the past five years, 13% (391/2958 total students) earned Ds, 17% (495/2958 total
students) earned F’s, and 7% (219/2958 total students) withdrew from the course, resulting in a
DFW rate of 37%. Although instructors use the same textbook, there is no standardization of
course content or requirements and there are limited opportunities for active learning across
sections of the course. Many students have poor attendance and are not prepared for class.
Instructors with varying skills spend a great deal of time developing lectures and examinations
resulting in “course drift”. The goal of the redesign is to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the current course by enhancing active learning and increasing student
understanding and retention of course material.
Our redesign plan utilizes the Replacement Model, which will reduce the number of in-class
meetings for each section by replacing some in-class time with laboratory and online interactive
activities. Students will meet for 1½ hours each week for in-class lectures and one hour will be
spent completing activities and assignments in the laboratory. The redesigned course will
include a) modifying the class structure to reduce class time and promote active learning, (b)
increasing the amount of available hands-on instruction, (c) making all the grading standardized,
and (d) monitoring student progress more efficiently. Specifically, lab instruction, interactive
activities, practice quizzes and immediate feedback will be provided. Undergraduate Learning
Assistants (ULAs) and Graduate Assistants (GAs) will assist with peer tutoring and other
learning activities.
The redesigned course will improve the quality of education for our students in several ways.
It will reduce the failure rate and the number of students having to repeat the course while
increasing the excitement of learning the material. The redesigned course will balance
traditional lectures, the ability to master information, and online interactive content. The fact that
students can engage in online discussions, master concepts and material by active participation,
receive personalized feedback on performance and progress, and have special assignments
designed to meet their individual needs will promote student participation that is not widely seen
with the traditional lecture method of teaching. The redesigned course will ultimately yield
significant cost savings for the university. By increasing the enrollment in each of the sections,
utilizing Graduate Assistants (GAs) and Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs), and
minimizing course drift, the number of students served can increase without sacrificing any
quality in instruction. Also, by incorporating web-based activities and mastery quizzes, and
streamlining the student performance review process, instructors’ preparation time will be
reduced appreciably. The subsequent savings may be used to enhance academic offerings
particularly by increasing the number and availability of elective and upper level courses.
Final Report
A. Impact on Student Learning
1. Improved Learning
During the Fall 2011 pilot, five sections of General Psychology were offered: two
traditional sections taught by a full-time lecturer and three redesigned sections taught by
two full-time assistant professors. A General Psychology pre-test and post-test were
given to students in all sections.
Results of the pre- vs. post-test analyses indicated that students in the redesigned sections
scored significantly higher on the post-test (M = 65.27, SD= 10.09) as compared to the
pre-test (M=57.03, SD = 9.76). Students in the traditional sections scored almost the
same on both tests (M = 59.00, SD = 10.17 for pre-test and M = 59.66, SD = 10.35 for
post-test). This indicates that students in the redesigned sections learned the course
content, and retained a greater amount than students in the traditional sections. Students
in both the traditional and redesigned sections took four exams and completed the same
three writing assignments. However, students in the redesigned sections had several
additional assignments to complete. Specifically, students in the redesigned sections
were responsible for LearnSmart study modules, weekly blog posting, weekly chapter
quizzes, and weekly lab activities. It is very possible that students experienced “deadline
disorder” (Mason & Kunz, 1993) in which they made an attempt to complete all the
required work, but did not complete it well. Many students confused various assignment
deadlines and thus failed to submit assignments on time. While students had learned the
course content, it was not reflected accurately in their grades.
During the Spring 2012 full implementation, students in all sections took the General
Psychology pre- and post-test. They scored significantly higher on the post-test (M =
63.01, SD = 12.81) than they did on the pre-test (M = 52.52, SD = 17.64). The
performance on the pre-test vs. the post-test is a measure of retention and these results
indicate that students are learning and retaining the course content. However, to
determine if the course redesign caused this increase in performance on the post-test, it is
important to keep track of pre- and post-test performance from semester to semester.
2. Improved Retention
The average DFW rate for General Psychology was 38% during Spring 2006-Fall 2010.
For the Fall 2011 pilot, it is important to note that the DFW rates in both the traditional
(54%) and redesigned sections (64%) were significantly higher than the DFW rate during
the five years prior to Fall 2011. This unexpected result may be attributed to various
factors such as inconsistent availability of laboratory space and instructional challenges.
There was a significant difference in DFW rates between the Spring 2012 full
implementation semester and the Fall 2011 pilot. In the Spring 2012 redesign, there was
a DFW rate of 32%, while the DFW rates in the Fall 2011 redesigned sections and
traditional sections were 64% and 54%, respectively.
It should be noted that the DFW rate for the Spring 2012 full implementation was lower
than the DFW rate recorded five years prior to the redesign of the course.
3. Other Impacts on Students
During the Spring 2012 full implementation, students were given a Student Satisfaction
Survey at the end of the semester which measured students’ satisfaction with the course
materials and whether they sought assistance during the semester. One hundred and
thirty-seven students (or 61.2%) completed the End-of-Semester Student Satisfaction
Survey. Of those 137 students, 135 of them provided an answer to the question which
asked whether the chapter quizzes accurately measured knowledge of the chapter
material. The results suggested that 90.4% of the students believed the weekly quizzes
accurately measured knowledge of the chapter material. All 137 students responded to
the questions asking whether or not they had used the LearnSmart study modules and/or
practice quizzes. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the students reported that they had used the
practice quizzes, while only 89% of the students reported that they had used the
LearnSmart study modules. Furthermore, when asked how helpful students thought the
practice quizzes were, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most helpful, the average
helpfulness rating was 9.74. Alternatively, when asked how helpful they thought the
LearnSmart study modules were, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most helpful, the
average rating among students was 7.60.
More students reported using the practice quizzes rather than the LearnSmart study
modules, and the average helpfulness rating was higher for the practice quizzes. This is
interesting in light of the fact that students earned points towards their grade for
completing the LearnSmart study modules while practice quiz completion was voluntary.
Students were also asked how many times they had met with the instructor, graduate
assistant, or ULAs outside of class. Interestingly, students reported meeting with the
ULAs almost twice as much as with the instructor or graduate assistant. Students
reported meeting with the ULAs an average of 2.28 times (SD=2.95) while only meeting
with the instructors an average of 1.27 times (SD=2.48) and the grad assistants 1.22 times
(SD=1.83). This provides some evidence that students may prefer meeting with, and
getting assistance from someone whom they consider to be a peer rather than the
instructor of the course.
B. Impact on Cost Savings
The redesign was fully implemented in Spring 2012. As planned, the number of sections
was reduced for the redesign resulting in the elimination of adjunct instructors needed to
teach the course. The cost-per-student was reduced from $ 274 to $164, a 40% decrease
which was a little more than was anticipated by the university.
C. Lessons Learned
1. Pedagogical Improvement Techniques

Changes made from pilot to full implementation. Results from the pilot semester
were disappointing. However, the redesign team made several changes to the
redesign prior to the full implementation in Spring 2012. Specifically, the
following changes were made:
o To minimize “deadline disorder, the redesign team decided to reduce the
out-of-class activities for which students would be responsible and
simplify deadlines.
o The grading process for the weekly quizzes was simplified. Rather than
students earning an all-or-nothing number of points, students will be
awarded the number of points equivalent to the number of questions they
get correct on the quizzes.
o The test banks were revised so that there was more congruence between
the information covered in class and what was covered on the exam.
o To address the challenges in scheduling and taking exams through the
Testing Center, the department of psychology will oversee the scheduling
and proctoring of the PSYC 101 exams.
o The course redesign team decided to implement a study skills tutorial
during the first week of class to assist students in PSYC 101 with adequate
study techniques, test-taking skills and general strategies for succeeding in
the redesigned course.

Minimize “deadline disorder.” In the pilot, students in the redesigned sections
were responsible for completing a number of different assignments including lab
activities, online blog discussions, writing assignments, LearnSmart study
modules, and practice quizzes, in addition to studying for the mastery quizzes.
Despite the reminders that were provided by course instructors, grad assistants, and
ULAs, students still had difficulty completing all the work that was required. The
redesign team believes that this is one reason why there was a difference in pre- vs.
post-test scores in the redesigned sections, but there was a higher DFW rate.
Therefore, the team simplified the number of assignments was reduced by getting
rid of the online blog discussions and lab activities, and making the practice
quizzes optional. After simplifying the number of assignments, students had a
higher completion rate of assignments, and a lower DFW rate.

Simplify the grading process. In the pilot, students had to earn at least 75% on the
mastery quizzes and 80% on the lab activities in order to earn the full 25 points for
each lab. If students met the criteria on one thing, but not the other, they earned
12.5 of the possible lab points. If students did not meet criteria on either, they
earned 0 points for that lab. It was determined by the course redesign team that
this method did not accurately measure what the students knew, but instead
measured what they did not know. Therefore, in the full implementation, students
were given however many points they earned on the mastery quiz (the lab
activities were removed). After simplifying the grading process, students
demonstrated less confusion about the grading process, and less time was spent
trying to explain the grading process.

Test bank revisions. In the pilot, students in both the redesigned and traditional
sections reported disconnect between what was covered in class, and the questions
that appeared on the exams. To minimize this disconnect, the test banks were
revised to remove obscure questions (e.g., the ones that referred to single sentences
in the book or ones that referred to information contained in a sidebar/sidenote).
After revising the test banks, students were able to finish the exams and quizzes
more quickly, and were earning higher scores. Students also did not report the
same disconnect that was reported during the pilot.

Exam scheduling. In the pilot, students in both the redesigned and traditional
sections reported difficulty in scheduling and taking their exams through the
University Testing Center. To minimize this difficulty, the redesign team took
over the testing scheduling and proctoring for the full implementation. There were
fewer complaints from students, and, overall, higher student satisfaction.

Study skills tutorial. Given that many students taking PSYC 101 are lowerclassmen, the course redesign team thought that many of them were not proficient
in the study skill necessary to be successful in a college-level course. By
implementing the study skills tutorial, and having the ULAs review it with the
students, the students were able to hear, from successful students, what it would
take to be successful. The tips were such that they could be used in other classes,
as well. Furthermore, we gave students a “What Type of Learner am I?”
questionnaire so that they could better understand what type of learners they were,
and what would benefit them the most when it came to studying.
2. Cost Reduction Techniques
 Use of one textbook: One textbook was used for all sections of the course. This
meant that students could purchase used copies at a reduced price which was
considerably lower than the price of a new textbook. Students also had the option
of purchasing an e-book or renting the text which was less expensive than a new
text.

Standardization of the Course: In addition to the use of one textbook, all
instructors in the redesigned course used a common syllabus and similar
PowerPoint presentations. Examinations were developed from a common pool of
questions and laboratory activities were standardized for all sections. This
reduced the number of instructor hours needed for course development activities.

Reduction in Course Sections: The number of students per section was increased
from 25 to 50 which resulted in a reduction in the number of sections offered
overall. The course sections were reduced from 16 to 12 sections per year thereby
reducing the number of full-time faculty needed to teach the course and
eliminating the need for adjunct faculty.
3. Implementation Issues

Departmental buy-in. Before starting the redesign process, the department
discussed the redesign process, the purpose of the redesign, and the goals, and the
department committed to supporting it. This support freed the team to work on
the redesign efforts.

Team approach. The team was formed so that instructors teaching PSYC 101
were included, as well as the chair of the department, the assessment coordinator
for the department, instructional design specialist, and head of course redesign for
the University. These team members were selected so that we could incorporate
the best practices, on all levels, as we redesigned the course.

Publisher materials. McGraw-Hill provided resources that were useful for PSYC
101. These resources allowed the team to focus on the redesign instead of
developing classroom activities. Connect and LearnSmart study modules were an
excellent resource that provided reports that allowed the team to track student
activity. Students in the full implementation reported that the LearnSmart study
modules were helpful, and a majority of the students utilized this resource.

ULAs and Grad Assistants. Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs) and
Graduate Assistants were utilized not only as a cost-saving measure, but also to
provide more individualized assistance to students. Students felt more
comfortable seeking assistance from the ULAs especially. This was supported by
the data collected during the full implementation which showed that students went
to the ULAs for assistance twice as much as they did the instructors and grad
assistants.

Computer Lab. In order to facilitate participation in interactive activities that are
meant to enhance learning, a required weekly computer lab was utilized.
Furthermore, students were able to receive the more personalized, one-on-one
instruction in these computer labs as each was facilitated by one graduate assistant
and two to three ULAs. This allowed for a student- to- facilitator (graduate
assistant or ULA) ratio of about 6 to 1. This, in turn, compensated for the
student- to- instructor ratio for each section which was 50 to 1.
D. Sustainability
The course redesign has been supported consistently by the department and by the Academic
Affairs office at the university. One full-time member of our initial team has left the
university but she has been replaced by another full-time faculty member with no
complications.
The redesigned course will be updated frequently in terms of new test banks and learning
materials and adjustments will be made in order to utilize fully all available resources. One
of the major concerns of the redesign was compensation of graduate assistants who were paid
by the USM grant. However, this concern has been addressed through a collaboration with
the office of tutoring and supplemental instruction at the university who will hire graduate
tutors to conduct the laboratory instruction for the course. In addition, the introduction of a
new three-credit course for the ULAs will ensure a ready supply of students who can assist
the instructors with tutoring, mentoring and laboratory activities.
Maintaining adequate laboratory space with functioning equipment has been a challenge over
the past year. The team has been creative in coping with this challenge and is working with
the administration to secure additional laboratory space that may be maintained by the
department.