FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
GATES/USU/APLU TRANSFORMATIONAL PLANNING GRANT
UNIVERSITY TRANSFORMATION THROUGH TEACHING (UT3)
FINAL REPORT
June 25, 2015
Submitted by Douglas L. Robertson, Dean of Undergraduate
Education and TPG Principal Investigator
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Plan Documents……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Timeline and Key Steps………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Reflections……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Implementation/Next Steps………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Appendices--Supporting Materials………………………………………………………………………… 27
A. UT3 Related Work Groups and Standing Committees.....………………………………. 27
B. UT3 Critical Gateway Course Reports……………………………………………….…………. 43
C. UT3 Workshop Agendas and Reading Lists………………………………………………….105
D. UT3 Budget…………………………………………………………………………...............................124
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FIU’s University Transformation through Teaching (UT3) Planning Grant has built on FIU’s
national award winning Graduation Success Initiative (GSI) which has helped to raise the
six year graduation rate for First Time in College students (FTICs) by 15 points in its first
four years (http://undergrad.fiu.edu/gsi/gsi-news.html). In 2011, GSI began a universitywide set of interrelated interventions and innovations that involve the following: (a)
advising reform, (b) academic pathways, and (c) teaching and learning. The GSI conceptual
framework is parsimonious, scalable, and replicable regardless of institutional type, size, or
resources. The framework comprises four points: (a) help students to identify their
appropriate major as soon as possible, preferably at admission; (b) provide a clear path to
on-time graduation in that major; (c) provide immediate feedback whether on or off path;
and (d) remove barriers and add supports in the path. Poorly performing gateway courses
are a significant barrier in students’ path to timely graduation, and FIU’s UT3 planning
grant has focused on improving the performance of these gateway courses.
FIU’s UT3 Planning Grant has achieved its four goals:
1. It has added significantly to creating a critical mass of undergraduate curriculum
administrators and teaching faculty who have a sophisticated understanding of best
practices in college teaching.
2. It has identified critical synergies and efficiencies across departments and colleges.
3. It has begun to build an infrastructure to support campus-wide pedagogical reform.
4. It has been integrated into the new FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan
(http://stratplan.fiu.edu/docs/Strategic%20Plan.pdf) and thereby has become a
central part of a multi-year, campus-wide, comprehensive plan to transform the
university teaching culture and performance.
This Final Report provides details regarding UT3’s activities and plans.
3
PLAN DOCUMENTS
Overview
FIU is using a series of leverages to transform the teaching culture at the University in
order to improve student success. FIU began serious work on improving targeted gateway
courses in 2009 when it received a Walmart Minority Student Success Initiative Grant (PI,
Douglas Robertson; $100,000; 2009-2011). Early predictive analytics showed that
students were 75% more likely to graduate on time if they passed College Algebra than if
they failed it. The failure rate had held stubbornly at 70% for a decade or more. The
course had tremendous predictive power and clearly needed attention.
This work on College Algebra was leveraged to a successful Title V Grant, Project Gateways
(PI, Kenneth Furton; Co-PI’s, Douglas Robertson, Suzanna Rose, and Gisela Casines; $2.9 M.;
2010-2015; http://gateways.fiu.edu/news/2013/title-project-gateways-video/). A
modified mastery approach was introduced using both high tech (a computer-based,
emporium style Mastery Math Lab) and high touch (significant use of Learning Assistants).
The result has been a reversal of the pass/fail ratio from 30%/70% to nearly 70%/30%.
In 2013, FIU became one of 13 Founding Institutions to participate in the John N. Gardner
Institute’s Gateways to Completion Project (G2C; http://www.jngi.org/g2c/ ). That work
has involved an exhaustive study of five courses (General Chemistry I, General Biology I,
Finite Math, Introduction to Statistics I, and Writing and Rhetoric I) by five course-specific
groups that included the department chair, course coordinator, teaching faculty, university
faculty development director, university predictive analytics director, and undergraduate
dean (Appendix A).
In 2014, when FIU was selected to participate in the Gates/USU/APLU’s Transformational
Planning Grant (TPG) Project (PI, Douglas Robertson; $275,000; 2014-2015), the
institution expanded the exploration of gateway courses more than three-fold and named
the effort University Transformation through Teaching (UT3). The UT3 has focused on
4
developing a comprehensive, multi-year plan to improve the performance of 17 high
enrollment (>1,600), high failure (>15%), high impact (strong predictor of dropping out or
delayed graduation) courses. In 2013-2014, the combined enrollment for these 17 courses
was 41,557. Seventeen is a small number, and 41,000 is an extraordinarily large number.
GSI’s Phase I focused on a transforming the advising system and creating academic
pathways, and now in Phase II, GSI focuses on transforming pedagogy in 17 critical
gateway courses en route to transforming the teaching culture throughout the University
(Table 1).
Table 1. Seventeen high enrollment, high failure, high impact gateway courses that are
targeted for improvement.
5
Recommendations
The cross-institutional teams assembled to review the G2C’s five courses produced specific
recommendations for improvement. These recommendations in many cases had direct
application to the larger group of 17 gateway courses and became the basis for work
groups (Appendix A), many of which were integrated into the process that produced the
new FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan (approved by the Board of Trustees on March
26, 2015).
The fifteen recommendations are as follows (in no particular order):
1. Convert from adjuncts to full-time instructors in all gateway courses, which will
involve strategic institutional investment over multiple years.
2. Develop early alert systems for all gateway courses, which will include required use
of a Learning Management System by faculty as well as clickers to facilitate
automated attendance recording.
3. Expand the number and use of Learning Assistants (LAs) and create a central office
that coordinates LA recruiting, training, and strategic deployment.
4. Improve gateway course teaching and learning physical environments (e.g., create
discipline-specific gateway course learning resource centers and lounges, increase
the number of active learning classrooms).
5. Expand gateway course bridge programs both in the form of boot camps but also in
terms of collaboration with feeder secondary schools and community colleges.
6. Develop strategic faculty development and awards programs that incentivize and
support exemplary pedagogy in gateway courses.
7. Develop dependable technological support and training for the use of instructional
technology such as Learning Management Systems and clickers which are both
necessary for automated early alert systems.
8. Develop new business models that show the savings produced by improved
retention and on-time graduation and thereby provide a data-based figure that is
available for upfront investment.
6
9. Develop dashboards that provide stakeholders with performance data related to
gateway courses at the section level 24/7.
10. Regularly disseminate predictive analytics to stakeholders.
11. Set up robust and regular communication systems among faculty and
administrators for feeding and receiving courses, programs, and institutions that
provide a basis for curriculum alignment and assessment.
12. Create a teaching initiatives coordinating council that regularly brings together all
groups at the institution who are involved in major pedagogical reform.
13. Incorporate “becoming a university student” learning objectives (e.g., study skills,
reading strategies, writing skills, time management) into gateway courses.
14. Guarantee course availability.
15. Establish learning metrics that demonstrate that improvements in the performance
of gateway courses (e.g., lower DWFI rates) are the result of increased student
learning and not merely grade inflation.
Predictable Choices
In addition to these recommendations, four issues have been identified that do not have
straightforward resolutions and require extended consideration. The following four issues
appear to constitute predictable choices for all institutions working on improving student
success in their gateway courses.
(1) Choosing Change Magnitude - A major issue is the magnitude of the change that is
required by the gateway course faculty. Are the faculty merely elaborating their
current teaching paradigm (first order change), or are they transforming their
whole teaching paradigm (second order change)?
An analysis of over 300 published studies indicates that faculty perspectives on their work
as teachers can be organized into a developmental sequence of three positions (Robertson,
1999, 2000, 2001): (a) Egocentrism (teacher-centeredness), (b) Aliocentrism (learnercenteredness), and (c) Systemocentrism (teacher/learner-centeredness, or learning7
centeredness). Between each position are transition periods that require considerable
time and support. Faculty with less developed teaching perspectives generally have
trouble understanding the approach to teaching taken by faculty with more developed
teaching perspectives. Significant redesign of gateway courses is unlikely to occur with
faculty who see themselves as disseminators of knowledge (Egocentrism) rather than
facilitators of learning (Aliocentrism and Systemocentrism).
Institutions face a critical choice that affects the budget and timeline of the plan to improve
the performance of gateway courses. Do institutions hire full-time gateway instructors
who already have highly developed teaching perspectives and who only need faculty
development to continue to elaborate that perspective? Or do institutions invest in
transforming the teaching paradigms of current faculty who have a poorly developed
teaching perspective? The endeavor to which the second question refers is tantamount to
shifting from seeing the world as flat to seeing the world as round. One cannot simply add
the notion that the world is round to the notion that the world is flat. The process of
making that perspectival transformation is tremendously difficult, highly emotional, and
uncertain in length and success.
FIU has chosen to do both: (a) support pedagogical transformation in current faculty, and
(b) invest over several years in hiring non-tenure earning Lecturers who have highly
developed teaching perspectives and who will focus on gateway courses. By investing in
both, the departmental cultures should transform to become safe places for best practices
in college teaching and research on college teaching (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
SOTL).
(2) Managing Change Processes - In terms of managing change, the issue of
intentionally supporting and guiding the integrated individual and organizational
change processes is critical.
Change managers need to understand that in organizations a histogram in the shape of a
normal curve can be used to express the typical number of adopters over time of a
8
significant change such as changing the institution’s prevailing pedagogical culture: (a)
Innovators, 2.5%; (b) Early Adopters, 13.5%; (c) Early Majority, 34%; (d) Late Majority,
34%; and (e) Laggards, 16% (Rodgers, 2003).
Change managers need also to realize that this institutional histogram comprises
individuals, each of whom goes through a process with three interrelated phases: (a)
Endings (accepting that the old way of doing things is over), (b) Neutral Zone (searching for
the new way), and (c) New Beginnings (discerning the new way and working out what it
means for that individual) (Bridges, 2004).
The two processes always need to be seen together by change managers. At any point in
time, the organization must be understood to comprise individuals who are at different
positions in their individual change processes, and change managers need to act
accordingly.
Because of performance based funding, FIU is making it clear that the old way of teaching is
over while at the same time exercising reasonable (but not unlimited) patience and
providing support for individual faculty to find their pedagogical New Beginnings.
(3) Locating Gateway Courses - Gateway courses often are a part of the general
education curriculum and serve the entire institution.
Institutions have a choice in where to locate these special service courses in the
organization: (a) in departments, or (b) in a university-wide unit such a University College
or Undergraduate College which has responsibilities for managing the general education
curriculum. The choice is pressed when a department persistently over time holds hostage
the welfare of the institution and its students by unresponsiveness to a clearly expressed
need to improve the performance of gateway courses that reside in that department.
At this point, FIU has chosen to locate the administration of gateway courses in the
departments with the exception of College Algebra which had a chronic failure rate of 70%
9
and was a strong predictor of retention and graduation (students who failed the course
were 75% less likely to graduate on-time than those who passed it). Improving the
performance of College Algebra became the focus of a five-year Title V Grant, and the
course has been administered through the Arts and Sciences Dean’s office for the last
several years with a significant reversal of the pass/fail rates (from 70% failing to nearly
70% passing).
(4) Employing Vendors - Student success has become a large national market. Student
success initiatives need to incorporate predictive analytics, tracking tools, early
alert systems, etc.
Institutions can anticipate as each functionality is added that a predictable choice will need
to be made among three alternatives: (a) to employ a vendor for the tool and support, (b)
to build the tool and support internally, or (c) to integrate the two. Like most new
marketplaces, it can be a little wild out there with vapor-ware aplenty. Buyer beware is a
good motto. What can be done internally can easily be overlooked in the pursuit of shiny
objects.
FIU has used all three strategies depending on the tool.
FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan
Successfully integrating the UT3 goals and work groups into the new strategic plan, with
broad by-in and ownership throughout the university, was a major accomplishment of our
work this year in the UT3. This alignment means that institutional infrastructure and
resources will be present for UT3 for the next five years. Additional resources will be
necessary to accelerate the transformation; however, with a prominent place in the
strategic plan, an important institutional commitment is assured.
The strategic plan has four key areas: (a) student success, (b) preeminent programs, (c)
Carnegie very high research designation, and (d) financial base/efficiency. Although all
10
four areas are important, perhaps most significant is student success. Nine out of ten
metrics that the Florida Board of Governors and the Florida State Legislature use to
allocate hundreds of millions of dollars (increasing at a rate of $100 million a year over the
last four years and promising to continue this increase each year until nearly all allocations
are performance based) to its 12 state universities have to do with undergraduate student
success.
FIU’s number one priority in its FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan is as follows:
FIU will be united for student success and nurture a culture with values
centered on effective teaching and enhanced learning in support of
continuously improving student success (p. 18).
Of the strategic plan’s five student success goals, three have to do with UT3. Within those
goals, of the strategic plan’s 22 specific student success strategies, 13 have to do with UT3.
FIU’s commitment to improving undergraduate student success through improved
teaching is unmistakable.
Four examples of UT3’s strong presence in the FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan
include the following specific strategies excerpted below (in their order of presentation in
the strategic plan):

Expand the Center for the Advancement of Teaching (CAT). With only
two full-time staff members, CAT is FIU’s most effective source of support
for faculty innovation, collaborating with faculty in curricular reform and
pedagogical transformation. Although educational and pedagogical reform
efforts are known to pose considerable challenges, particularly at large
institutions, CAT has already played a key role in successful FIU initiatives.
In order to meet the need for course reforms in this plan alone, we must
increase the capacity of CAT.

Hire additional personnel with experience in faculty
development, especially in the STEM fields and hybrid courses.

Create opportunities for faculty to work with CAT either during
the academic terms or over the summer to redesign courses.
11


Reconfigure current CAT space to support learning environment.
Redesign the gateway courses identified as critical for increasing
undergraduate success. FIU has identified certain gateway courses that
have high enrollment, high failure rates, or are high impact in that they are
a predictor of dropout. Redesign will be prioritized based on courses with
the greatest impact on student learning outcomes, and new gateway
courses may be identified as enrollment patterns change.

Redesign will follow national best practices for effective
pedagogical approaches, including the utilization of effective
technology, and be adapted to fit FIU’s needs and culture.

Develop and review data collection and reporting mechanisms to
inform students, faculty and administrator on academic success
measures.

Measure improvement then recalibrate approach every semester
or year to ensure successful interventions.

Convert adjunct positions to instructor lines where possible but
in particular for high-impact courses where instructor
conversions will result in marked improvements in student
learning outcomes.

Math course redesign, discipline-based teams and support from
CAT have already resulted in significant gains in Algebra. The
university will follow a similar approach to develop the optimum
course redesign for all math gateway courses. ….

Improve instruction. The university will considerably increase and
enhance faculty development.

Expand the use of Learning Assistants (LA) and create a central
office that coordinates LA recruiting, training and strategic
deployment.

Provide a development track for adjunct to instructor
conversions.
12

Offer individualized support and consultation by CAT, especially
at the early stage of teaching careers.

Create a teaching initiatives coordinating committee that brings
together regularly all the groups at the institution that are
involved in pedagogical reform. ….

Develop and implement a faculty reward system to incentivize
excellent teaching.

Provide course releases to develop new courses and participate
in discipline-based teams.

Provide stipends to attend course-design workshops.

Communicate effectively the support services available to
faculty.

Develop a fair and comprehensive system for evaluating
teaching effectiveness.

Incentivize effective teaching of faculty as they address critical
lower-division courses. Gateway course instruction should be
understood as a university-wide contribution.

Develop a Top Teachers award and event that would be similar
to the current Top Scholars recognition.

Foster development of departmental and institutional cultures
that recognize and reward excellent teaching. Instructors will be
selected, retained and rewarded based upon their teaching skills.
(FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan, pp. 20-30).
Six implementation teams are currently being formed. Each implementation team will be
chaired by an administrator and a faculty member. A steering committee will be appointed
and will meet quarterly to review progress reports from each of the six implementation
teams. An associate vice provost is staffing the process. The steering committee and
implementation teams will be in place by August, 2015.
13
Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Course-Specific Redesign Teams
The Center for the Advancement of Teaching (CAT) has taken the lead in supporting the
chairs, course coordinators, and faculty to redesign the 17 critical gateway courses. This
progress will accelerate in the coming years with the University’s investments in expanding
CAT and in increasing release time, stipends, and travel for members of the course-specific
redesign teams (Appendix A).
Using course redesign and pedagogy institutes and faculty learning communities (see event
agendas, Appendix C), CAT has facilitated the course redesign process for 110 of 270
faculty (40%) in 11 course-specific redesign teams that cover the 17 critical gateway
courses. If the one-credit First Year Experience course is removed, CAT worked with 100
of the 170 faculty (60%) who teach the 16 academic courses. In addition, CAT facilitates a
monthly luncheon with the chairs of the ten departments that administer the 17 courses.
The process has produced substantive course redesign plans for each of the 17 courses
(Appendix B).
During this year, the teams required considerable structure and support to move forward
on the course redesigns. The work is daunting and effortful, and it is no surprise that the
teams that had previous, longstanding relationships with, and received the most attention
from, CAT faculty developers made the greatest progress in revising the learning designs of
their courses. Intensive encouragement and assistance will continue to be critical in order
to realize the plans.
Importantly, the courses are in decidedly different phases of the redesign process and will
need different levels and types of support. The progress made overall is impressive, but
each course has significantly different needs. Some redesign teams have developed
detailed strategies and have selected instruments for measuring student learning--some
have even already collected baseline data--whereas others have not yet identified good
measures of student learning. Likewise, some teams have already produced clear timelines
for implementation, while others are less certain of their path forward.
14
CAT will continue to work closely with each of the teams, providing assistance and
motivation tailored to their needs. CAT will assist them to identify and implement (in some
cases perhaps produce) effective instruments for gauging student learning and
engagement. CAT will assist the teams to interpret the results they acquire and to act
effectively to continue to improve the courses. CAT will also assist the teams to articulate
their timelines and will follow up to ensure that all teams are moving forward.
CAT will measure the success of the redesign on these critical courses, both in terms of
student success metrics (e.g., DFWI rates, 1st to 2nd year retention rates, on-time
graduation) and in more granular ways (e.g., student performance in subsequent courses).
These data will help us to learn what strategies may best be used in other courses and
which strategies are less powerful.
Also, CAT will assess the effectiveness of its own educational reform efforts using a
framework with six elements (Kreber & Brook, 2001):
1. Participants’ perceptions/satisfaction, measured for example with surveys.
2. Participants’ beliefs about teaching and learning, measured for example with the
Teaching Goals Inventory (Angelo & Cross, 1993) or the Teaching Practices
Inventory (Wieman & Gilbert, 2014).
3. Participants’ teaching performance, measured for example by using a studentcenteredness rubric (Palmer, Bach, & Streifer, 2014) to assess pre- and postredesign syllabi and other supporting materials such as assignments and exams.
4. Students’ perceptions of teaching performance, measured for example by student
evaluations.
5. Student learning, measured by comparing baseline and end-of-course data (for
example, using Concept Inventories developed for their specific fields).
6. Effects on the culture of the institution, measured for example by identifying policy
changes that demonstrate institutional prioritization of effective teaching and by
conducting focus groups with FIU faculty, staff, and students.
15
Florida Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities
The Consortium comprises Florida International University (Miami), University of Central
Florida (Orlando), and University of South Florida (Tampa Bay). These institutions serve
63 percent of the state’s population. The combined economies of the three city-states
constitutes the 4th largest metropolitan economy in the United States and the 31st largest
economy in the world. The three universities currently enroll 162,000 students,
collectively serving nearly half of the students enrolled in the 12-institution State
University System (SUS; Table 2). The Consortium has an operating budget of $325,000
per year, an Executive Director, and staff. In just its first two years, the Consortium has
received $8.3 M. from the State, $500,000 from the Helios Education Foundation, and
$500,000 from the Helmsley Charitable Trust.
Table 2. Consortium contributions compared to the rest of the SUS.
Metrics
FIU-UCF-USF
Rest of SUS
Total Enrollment
47%
53%
Undergraduate
Enrollment
47%
53%
Graduate Enrollment
42%
58%
Undergraduate Minority
Enrollment
54%
46%
Undergraduates Receiving
Pell Grant
50%
50%
New Florida College
System Transfers
60%
40%
16
Degrees Awarded
48%
52%
STEM Degrees
44%
56%
Other Strategic Areas of
Emphasis
49%
51%
% of Florida’s Employed
Baccalaureate Graduates
51%
49%
Degrees Awarded to Pell
Grant Recipients
49%
51%
Degrees Awarded to
Hispanics
66%
34%
Degrees Awarded to
African-Americans
38%
62%
The Consortium’s initial focus is student success and has the following four pillars: (a)
predictive analytics, (b) high tech pathways, (c) targeted support, and (d) career readiness.
The work on improving the performance of critical gateway courses fits quite nicely within
these student success efforts, and the Helmsley award is specifically to support improving
the performance of STEM gateway courses. The three partner universities have made
plans to share best practices and are seeking external funding as a Consortium aimed at
improving the performance in gateway courses.
TIMELINE & KEY STEPS
Summer 2015

Formation of FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan implementation committees.
Improving the performance of critical gateway courses is central to the student
17
success pillar of the strategic plan. The implementation phase of the strategic plan
begins Summer, 2015:
o A standing strategic plan steering committee will be formed and meet on at
least a quarterly basis with the task of assessing and reviewing status reports
from each of the implementation committees and recommending course
modification as necessary.
o Six implementation committees will be formed and co-chaired by faculty and
administrative leads. Implementation strategies will be prioritized by the
steering committee working with the implementation committees.
o Unit strategic plans will align with FIUBeyondPossible2020.
o Funding needed to implement FIUBeyondPossible2020 will be identified from
auxiliary and foundation funds, returned overhead from contracts, and
grants and E&G funding (Education & General base budget).
o Each FIUBeyondPossible2020 strategy will align with one or more of the
critical performance indicator goals
(http://stratplan.fiu.edu/docs/Strategic%20Plan.pdf ).
o Specific annual targets will be set in order to meet the 20 critical
performance indicator goals by 2020.

Detailed feedback to course-specific redesign teams. CAT will provide each of the 17
critical courses with detailed feedback on their UT3 plans. For example, feedback
will be given regarding the extent to which the plans take into account the eight
essential elements of course redesign identified by the National Center for Course
Transformation (NCAT), thereby encouraging the faculty teams to address each of
these:
o Element #1: Redesign the whole course and establish greater course
consistency.
o Element #2: Require active learning.
o Element #3: Increase interaction among students.
o Element #4: Build in ongoing assessment and prompt (automated) feedback.
18
o Element #5: Provide students with one-on-one, on-demand assistance from
highly trained personnel.
o Element #6: Ensure sufficient time on task.
o Element #7: Monitor student progress and intervene when necessary.
o Element #8: Measure learning, completion, and cost.
Many faculty teams would also seem to benefit from assistance with prioritizing
their many strategies for improvement. CAT faculty developers will help them
develop implementation timelines. CAT faculty developers will also request the
baseline data collected this spring and may use this information to provide
additional suggestions for the improvement plans.

Course redesign. Supported by internal funds, three departments (biology,
chemistry, and psychology) will use the Summer 2015 term to begin implementing
the plans they devised as part of their UT3 efforts. The implementation
requirements are clearly defined. Each participating team will need to provide
evidence that their efforts take into account the eight elements above and will need
to produce three deliverables:
1. Revised course outcomes for students, preferably ones that address both the
cognitive and affective components of significant learning.
2. An assessment map, one that connects course-level outcomes (and possibly
specific learning objectives) to student course work.
3. Learning activities, connected to the assessments and outcomes (not
cookie-cutter lesson plans, but rather a “playbook” of in-class and online
activities that will be used to prepare students to successfully complete the
assignments and attain the course goals).
The teams are also encouraged to articulate one or more research questions to
examine concerning the redesign so as to prepare them to contribute to the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and to help their colleagues from
across the globe benefit from their insights and successes.
19

Advocacy. CAT will share the primary recommendations and strategies across
departments (discussed above) with institutional leaders and strategic plan
implementation team leaders.

Evaluation framework. CAT will develop the evaluation framework described above
so that the effectiveness of current and future faculty development work with
gateway faculty can be monitored and assessed.

External funding. External funding to support implementation of pedagogical
transformation in gateway courses will be sought both through FIU and the Florida
Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities (Florida International University,
University of Central Florida, and University of South Florida).
Fall 2015

Full engagement of strategic plan implementation committees. All committees will
have been formed and will be operating at full capacity.

Continued collaboration. Many of the faculty teams established during UT3 will
continue meeting in Fall 2015, and to the extent that resources allow, CAT will
support the teams. The continued meeting of the teams is notable because most FIU
gateway faculty are accustomed to working independently. Many have realized that
teaching gateway courses is a challenging endeavor best undertaken collaboratively.
An additional benefit of this collaboration that we witnessed with College Algebra is
that faculty slowly begin to feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the
course as a whole as opposed to their individual course sections.

Increased active learning. Based on both the course plans and discussions with
gateway faculty, it appears a major takeaway for workshop participants is that
20
relying primarily on lecture is an outdated model and that, as Terry Doyle puts it, “It
is the one who does the work who does the learning.” Implementation of active
learning strategies will vary tremendously, of course, but it seems likely that many
faculty will attempt or increase their use of in-class group work, discussions, and
perhaps formative assessment using a classroom response system like i>clicker.

Data collection, analysis, and communication. As noted in the individual course
plans, Fall 2015 will also be a time of data collection and analysis. During UT3
activities and discussions, most faculty and department chairs expressed their
gratitude for the data that was shared, and many requested additional data. Many
have come to realize the value of making data-driven curricular and pedagogical
decisions, both at the overall course level and within curricular units, using
formative and summative data. It will be invaluable for this information to be
collected, analyzed, and disseminated.

Team expansion. We had intended to form teams that included stakeholders
outside the unit faculty for each of the 17 critical courses during the UT3 planning
year just as was done with the five G2C courses. However, we were unable to do so.
These expanded teams will be established and will consist of stakeholders from
across campus, for example, an instructional designer or an educational researcher
from the STEM Transformation Institute whose expertise would be useful to the
gateway faculty and department chairs given their specific plans and strategies.

Hiring of gateway faculty. CAT staff will develop suggested guidelines for the hiring
of gateway faculty and expectations upon hiring. For instance, as indicated in the
Precalculus Algebra plans (Appendix B), participation in the gateway faculty team
can be instituted as an expectation of all new hires.
21

Hiring additional CAT staff. The strategic plan includes the explicit strategy of
increasing CAT personnel in order to expand and accelerate the work on improving
the performance of critical gateway courses.

External funding. External funding to support implementation of pedagogical
transformation in gateway courses will be sought both through FIU and the Florida
Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities (Florida International University,
University of Central Florida, and University of South Florida).
Spring 2016

Strategic plan implementation committees. The student success implementation
committees and steering committee will continue their work.

Continual improvement. If faculty continue to collaborate, which will depend
largely on whether their efforts thus far seem effective and they are recognized for
this important work, it seems likely that the faculty teams will proceed similarly to
the College Algebra faculty who began this work several years ago. For instance,
many of the critical courses will begin to look closely at their exams, conducting
item analyses, and working together to develop better exams and exam questions.
Once the overall course design is enhanced, the course teams will begin to work on
what the Algebra team calls “high-touch” elements of effective teaching--the
interpersonal and affective domains which can be especially powerful for our FIU
students’ learning. Subsequently, they will begin to examine their individual class
sessions, developing lesson plans with detailed objectives and evaluating the extent
to which they were attained. They will reflect on and attempt to improve the
dynamics of their own faculty teams as the College Algebra teams intend to do.

External funding. External funding to support implementation of pedagogical
transformation in gateway courses will be sought both through FIU and the Florida
22
Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities (Florida International University,
University of Central Florida, and University of South Florida).
REFLECTIONS
How is your plan transformative from an impact perspective? What does it have
potential to fundamentally change on your campus and across the field?
This plan addresses improving 17 poorly performing gateway courses that enroll more
than 41,000 students each year. By improving the pedagogy in these courses, the success
of literally tens of thousands of FIU students will improve each year. The pedagogical
improvements in these gateway courses will be leveraged to improve pedagogy in courses
throughout the University and will in time dramatically change the teaching culture of the
University for the better.
Most institutions struggle with poor performing gateway courses. The work at FIU will
also be leveraged nationally so that other institutions can improve the performance of
these critical courses.
In addition, this plan is transformative because it addresses not just nuts and bolts of
course design but faculty attitudes toward student learning, their responsibility for student
success, and their power to affect change. The strategies are intended to empower faculty
to commit to doing everything in their power to reach their students and to ensure that
their students flourish. Faculty are encouraged to focus on obstacles to student success
and their own power to remove these barriers rather than on “weeding out” supposedly
weaker students. They are empowered to examine their own role in denying access to
some students.
The plan is also transformative because, as we had intended to do, we engaged a critical
mass of administrators and faculty in discussions of best practices in college teaching.
23
Appendix C includes the primary reading materials that were used for this purpose.
Moreover, UT3 gave CAT staff the opportunity to establish relationships with a large
number of gateway faculty with whom they had not previously worked, and the positive
nature of these relationships make it likely that these faculty will continue participating in
CAT activities and consult with CAT about their specific concerns.
What were the lessons learned? What was the biggest challenge in your planning
efforts and how did you overcome this challenge?
We learned that vertical and horizontal alignment is needed for a large organizational
change, such as transforming the university’s teaching culture, beginning with its gateway
courses, and that reinforcing contingencies must exist for the desired behaviors for all the
players involved, from Trustees to faculty, and across all of the units and personnel who
have anything to do with students and instruction. Connecting the desired change, in this
case pedagogical transformation, to the pressing demands of the external environment,
such as state performance based funding that emphasizes undergraduate student success,
creates the need to change for university leadership who then create the need for change in
reports down the line.
With regard to course redesign, we learned that forming teams was critical to the success
of the projects. It was essential that many minds were exerted on the tasks at hand and that
a course should not “belong” to any one personality. Collaboration and collegiality were
prerequisites for success.
We also learned that the demands on faculty are intense, and extensive support and
structure are required for successful redesign. Time, resources, and incentives must be in
place in order to effect this type of transformation. Although the faculty are brilliant and
willing, they needed assistance, motivation, and resources, in order to do this important
work.
24
The biggest challenge in any change is convincing people that change is necessary. State
performance-based funding provided the necessity. The welfare of the University and its
community is clearly connected to the University’s performance on ten specific metrics,
nine of which focus on undergraduate education. The negative impact that poorly
performing gateway courses have on these metrics was clearly established by the internal
predictive analytics group, Undergraduate Education’s Office of Retention and Graduation
Success. This negative impact has been broadly and persistently communicated vertically
and horizontally to all stakeholders. The natural resistance to change has relaxed
accordingly as the University community realizes the need for pedagogical reform.
How would you articulate the experience of working as a cohort to explore
transformational change? How will you utilize learning and relationships developed
by being a part of the TPG project in the future?
Participating in the TPG project has brought some clear benefits. The positive national
notoriety brings prestige and elevates chances of external funding. Meeting face to face and
electronically with leaders from the other seven participating institutions brings new ideas,
builds the basis for future partnerships, and provides a regular infusion of energy that
comes from connection with others who are involved in this important work of student
success. Participation in the project brings a calendar of deliverables and external
accountability that is useful in keeping the project moving and its progress urgent.
Universities who have embraced the challenges of improving student success manifest
robust formal and informal networks that support sharing of best practices, and the TPG
has helped to add to that network for participants.
IMPLEMENTATION/NEXT STEPS
What are your next steps, what challenges might you face and how can APLU/USU
continue to support your transformational change and student success efforts?
25
Next steps have been discussed above in the timeline and will focus on the plans developed
in the strategic planning process and on the course redesign plans developed by coursespecific faculty teams during this planning year. The biggest remaining challenge is finding
resources to implement the specific recommendations for improving the performance of
the critical gateway courses and then other courses. This sustained change effort will
eventually change the University’s teaching culture but not without the necessary funding
to support the work.
REFERENCES
Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques, 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bridges, W. (2004). Transition, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo/Perseus.
FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan. Miami: Florida International University, 2015.
Kreber, C., & Brook, P. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development
programmes. International Journal for Academic Development, 6 (2), 96-108.
Palmer, M. S., Bach, D. J., & Streifer, A. C. (2014). Measuring the promise: A learning-focused
syllabus
rubric. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 33 (1), 14-36.
Robertson, D. L. (1999). Professors’ perspectives on their teaching: A new construct and
developmental model. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 271-294.
Robertson, D. R. (2000). Professors in space and time: Four utilities of a new metaphor and
developmental model for professors-as-teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
11(1), 117-132.
Robertson, D. R. (2001). Beyond learner-centeredness: Close encounters of the
systemocentric kind. Journal of Faculty Development, 18(1), 7-13.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Wieman, C., & Gilbert, S. (2014). The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for
characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE--Life
Sciences Education, 13 (3), 552-569.
26
APPENDIX A
UT3 RELATED WORK GROUPS AND STANDING COMMITTEES
27
UT3 STEERING COMMITTEE

Douglas Robertson (Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Elizabeth Bejar, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Member, Steering
Committee and Student Success Committee, FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan

Dr. Consuelo Boronat, Director, Office of Retention and Graduation Success,
Undergraduate Education; and Member, Student Success
Committee,FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan

Joann Brown, Chair, Communication Arts: and Chair, University Core Curriculum
Oversight Committee, Faculty Senate

Robert Grillo, Vice President, Information Technology; and Chief Information Officer

Dr. Michael Heithaus, Professor and Dean, Arts & Sciences

Dr. Shane Landrum, Instructor, History Department, and online education specialist

Dr. Joerg Reinhold, Associate Professor, Physics; Chair, Faculty Assembly, Arts &
Sciences; and Vice Chair, Faculty Senate

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching,
Undergraduate Education; and Member, Student Success Committee,
FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan

Kathleen Wilson, Professor, Music; Chair, Faculty Senate; Member, Steering
Committee, and Chair, Student Success Committee, FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic
Plan
28
UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUCCESS CABINET

Dr. Elizabeth Bejar (Chair), Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dr. Joyce Elam, Professor and Dean, University College

Dr. Jeff Gonzalez, Vice Provost, Planning and Institutional Research

Sandra Gonzalez-Levy, Senior Vice President, External Relations

Robert Grillo, Vice President, Information Technology; and Chief Information Officer

Dr. Jaffus Hardrick, Vice President, Human Resources; and Vice Provost, Access and
Success

Dr. Luisa Havens, Vice President, Enrollment Services

Dr. Michael Heithaus, Professor and Dean, Arts & Sciences

Dr. Saif Ishoof, Vice President, Engagement

Sara Lipman, Executive Director, Operation and Strategic Initiative, Business

Dr. Larry Lunsford, Vice President, Student Affairs

Dr. Lesley Northrup, Associate Professor and Dean, Honors

Dr. Douglas Robertson, Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education
29
UNIVERSITY TEACHING INITIATIVES COORDINATING COUNCIL

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Susan Clemmons, Associate Dean, FIU Online; Member, Student Success Committee,
FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan

Dr. Michael Heithaus, Professor and Dean, Arts & Sciences

Dr. Kimberly Harrison, Associate Professor, English Department; Director, Writing &
Rhetoric Program; and Director, Writing Across the Curriculum Initiative

Dr. Laird Kramer, Professor, Physics Department; and Director, STEM
Transformation Institute

Dr. Hilary Landorf, Associate Professor, Teaching and Learning; and Director, Office
of Global Learning Initiatives

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching,
Undergraduate Education; and Member, Student Success Committee,
FIUBeyondPossible2020 Strategic Plan

Dr. Suzanna Rose, Professor, Psychology; and Founding Director, School of
Integrated Science & Humanity, Arts & Sciences

Dr. Leanne Wells, Director, Mastery Math Program and FIU Learning Assistant
Program; and Member, Student Success Committee,FIUBeyondPossible2020
Strategic Plan

Dr. Kathleen Wilson, Professor, Music; Chair, Faculty Senate; Member, Steering
Committee, and Chair, Student Success Committee, FIUBeyondPossible2020
Strategic Plan
30
UT3 CONSULTANTS

Dr. Craig Nelson, Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Indiana

Dr. Vincent Tinto, Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, Syracuse
University
31
UT3 OPERATIONS WORK GROUP

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Convenor and PI), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate
Education

Dr. Ileana Hernandez, UT3 Assistant Research Director, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching,
Undergraduate Education

Dr. Isis Artze-Vega, Assistant Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching,
Undergraduate Education
32
EARLY ALERT AND TEXT ALERT WORK GROUP

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Convenor), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Robert Grillo, Vice President, Information Technology; and Chief Information Officer

Dr. Luisa Havens, Vice President, Enrollment Services

Dr. Michael Heithuas, Professor and Dean, Arts & Sciences

Hugo Jimenez, Director, Office of Academic Advising Technology, Undergraduate
Education

Eduardo Monteiro, Associate Director, University Computing Systems

Carlos Varona, Director, University Computing Systems
33
UT3 ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORK GROUP

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Convenor), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Michael Heithuas, Professor and Dean, Arts & Sciences

Maria Kullick, Director, Center for Academic Success, Undergraduate Education

Dwight Nimblett, Associate Director, Center for Academic Success, Undergraduate
Education

Vicenta Shepard, Reading and Learning Coordiator, Center for Academic Success,
Undergraduate Education

Dr. Jeremy Rowan, Senior Lecturer and Assistant Dean for Advising, Arts & Sciences

Jacqueline Diaz, Assistant Director, Advising Center, Arts & Sciences

Shimon Cohen, Assistant Director, Academic Support Services, Arts & Sciences
34
FLORIDA CONSORTIUM OF METROPOLITAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
PRESIDENTS’ COUNCIL AND STEERING COMMITTEE

Dr. Mark B. Rosenberg, President, Florida International University

Dr. John C. Hitt, President, University of Central Florida

Dr. Judy Genshaft, President, University of South Florida

Dr. Kenneth G. Furton, Provost and Executive Vice President, Florida International
University

Dr. Dale Whittaker, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of
Central Florida

Dr. Ralph Wilcox, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, University
of South Florida

Dr. Douglas Robertson, Consortium Operational Lead and Dean, Undergraduate
Education, Florida International University

Dr. Maribeth Ehasz, Consortium Operational Lead and Vice President, Student
Development and Enrollment Services, University of Central Florida

Dr. Paul Dosal, Consortium Operational Lead and Vice Provost, Student Success,
University of South Florida
35
G2C COURSE-SPECIFIC COMMITTEES
BSC 1010 General Biology I

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Co-Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Timothy Collins (Co-Chair), Professor and Chair, Biological Sciences

Dr. Marcia Kravec, Lecturer and Associate Chair, Biological Sciences

Dr. John Makemson, Professor and Undergraduate Program Director, Biological
Sciences

Thomas Pitzer, Senior Lecturer and General Biology Course Coordinator, Biological
Sciences

Dr. Kristin Bishop, Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences

Dr. Eric Brewe, Associate Professor, Education, Associate Director, STEM
Transformation Institute

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching

Dr. Arlene Garcia, Assistant Director, Office of Retention and Graduation Success
CHM 1045 General Chemistry I

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Co-Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. David Chatfield (Co-Chair), Associate Professor and Chair, Chemistry and
Biochemistry

Dr. Palmer Graves, Senior Lecturer, Associate Chair, and General Chemistry Course
Coordinator, Chemistry and Biochemistry

Dr. Milagros Delgado, Senior Lecturer, Chemistry and Biochemistry

Dr. Joseph Lichter, Lecturer, Chemistry and Biochemistry

Dr. Uma Swamy, Senior Lecturer, Chemistry and Biochemistry

Dr. Suzanna Rose, Professor, Psychology; Associate Dean, Arts and Sciences;
Director, School of Integrated Science and Humanities

Dr. Laird Kramer, Professor, Physics, and Director, STEM Transformation Institute

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching
36

Danilo Le Sante, Research Analyst, Office of Retention and Graduation Success
ENC 1101 Writing and Rhetoric I

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Co-Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Jami Sutton (Co-Chair), Associate Professor and Chair, English

Dr. Kimberly Harrison, Professor and Director, Writing Programs, English

Dr. Vanessa Sohan, Assistant Professor, English

Dr. Paula Gillespie, Associate Professor, English: and Director, Center for Excellence
in Writing

Dr. Michael Creeden, Associate Director, Writing Programs

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching

Danilo Le Sante, Research Analyst, Office of Retention and Graduation Success
MGF 1106 Finite Math

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Co-Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Hamid Meziani (Co-Chair), Professor and Chair, Mathematics & Statistics

Dr. Suzanna Rose, Professor, Psychology; Associate Dean, Arts and Sciences;
Director, School of Integrated Science and Humanities

Dr. Robert Storfer, Senior Lecturer, Finite Math Course Coordinator

Dr. Leanne Wells, Director of Mastery Math Program & FIU Learning Assistant
Program

Dr. Ada Monserrat, Lecturer, Mathematics & Statistics

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching

Dr. Connie Boronat, Director, Office of Retention and Graduation Success
STA 2122 Introduction to Statistics I

Dr. Douglas Robertson (Co-Chair), Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Education

Dr. Hassan Zahedi (Co-Chair), Associate Professor, Associate Chair, and Director,
Statistics Division
37

Dr. Suzanna Rose, Professor, Psychology; Associate Dean, Arts and Sciences;
Director, School of Integrated Science and Humanities

Dr. Leanne Wells, Director of Mastery Math Program & FIU Learning Assistant
Program

Dr. Gladys Simpson, Lecturer, Decision Science & Information Systems, Business

Dr. Leslie Richardson, Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching

Dr. Arlene Garcia, Assistant Director, Office of Retention and Graduation Success
38
UT3 CRITICAL GATEWAY COURSE REDESIGN TEAMS
All Redesign Teams are facilitated and supported by Drs. Leslie Richardson and Isis
Artze-Vega, Director and Assistant Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching,
Undergraduate Education.
Biology (BSC 2023 Human Biology)
First Name
Last Name
Paul
Sharp
Title
Instructor
Biology (BSC 1010 General Biology)
First Name
Last Name
Javier
Francis-Ortega
John
Cozza
John
Geiger
Kristin
Bishop-Von Wettberg
Ligia
Collado
Marcy
Kravec
Martin
Tracey
Paul
Sharp
Richard
Brinn
Sat
Gavassa
Thomas
Pitzer
Title
Professor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Senior Lecturer
Instructor & Associate Chair Biology
Professor
Instructor
Senior Lecturer
Instructor
Senior Instructor & Director of Biology Lounge
Chemistry (CHM 1045 General Chemistry)
First Name
Last Name
Cem
Karayalcin
David
Chatfield
Joseph
Litchter
Palmer
Uma
Grave
Swamy
Title
Professor
Associate Professor & Chairperson of Chemistry
Instructor
Senior Lecturer & Assistant Chairperson of
Chemistry
Senior
Economics (includes ECO 2023 Microeconomics and ECO 2013 Macroeconomics)
First Name
Last Name
Title
Alan
Gummerson
Senior Lecture
Alfonso
Rodriguez
Instructor
39
Lower Division math (includes MGF 1106 Finite Math, MAC 1105 College Algebra, and MAC
1140 (Pre- Calculus Algebra)
First Name
Last Name
Title
Ada
Monserrat
Instructor
Ali
Rostamian
Senior Lecturer
Angie
Trutie
Professor
Anna
Wlodarczyk
Senior Instructor
Beatriz
Cassis
Lecturer
Jackie
Jacobson
Instructor
Jerry
Hower
Instructor
Kathleen
Guy
Instructor
Kieron
Thomas
Executive
Leanne
Wells
Faculty Administrator
Maydelin
Galvez
Instructor
Michael
Rosenthal
Senior Lecturer
Natalia
Gosteva
Instructor
Philippe
Rukimbira
Professor
Roneet
Merkin
Instructor
Shivanni
Jagussar
Instructor
Solange
Kouemon
Senior Instructor
Surender
Lindley
Instructor
Statistics (includes STA 2122 Introduction to Statistics I and STA 2123 Introduction to
Statistics II)
First Name
Last Name
Title
Bekker
Leonid
Senior Instructor
Dane
McGuckian
Senior Instructor
Dongmei
An
Senior Instructor
Eric
Philias
Lecturer
Florence
George
Associate Professor
Fritz
Morency
Lecturer
Gauri
Ghai
Associate Professor
Gisela
Muniz
Lecturer
Hassan
Zahedi
Associate Professor
Ivanna
Barreiros
Faculty Administrator
Kibria
Golam
Professor
Laura
Reisert
Instructor
Maria
Balius
Lecturer
Nuong
Lein
Lecturer
Ramon
Gomez
Senior Instructor
Zhenmin
Chen
Professor
40
Writing (includes ENC 1101 Writing and Rhetoric I and ENC 1102 Writing and Rhetoric II)
Last Name
Title
Andrew
Golden
Senior Instructor
Charles
Donate
Faculty Administrator
Christine
Gregory
Instructor
Cynthia
Chinelly
Senior Lecturer
Darrel
Elmore
Lecturer
Ehlen
Ethan
Instructor
Assistant Director of the Center for Excellence in
Glenn
Hutchinson
Writing
Jennifer
Bartman
Instructor
John
Wehr
Instructor
Kacee
Belcher
Instructor
Kim
Miles
Instructor
Larissa
Ramos
Instructor
Maheba
Pedroso
Instructor
Michael
Sohan
Instructor
Ming
Fang
Instructor
Nicholas
Vagnoni
Instructor
Patricia
Warman-Cano
Instructor
Paula
Gillespie
Director of the Center for Excellence in Writing
Robert
Saba
Senior Instructor
Shelley
Wick
instructor
Vanessa
Sohan
Assistant Professor
Vernon
Dickson
Associate Professor
Yasbel
Borrero
Instructor
First-Year Experience (SLS 1501 First-Year Experience)
First Name
Last Name
Title
Britgett
Cram
Coordinator Institutional Assessment
Bronwen
Pelaez
Director Student Affairs
Charlie
Andrews
Dir. Academic Advising Ctr.
Drew
Golberg
Student Success Manager
Hazel
Hooker
Assoc. Direc for 1st Yr Prgrms
Jacqueline
Diaz
Asst. Dir CAS Advising Center
Lynne
Miller
Associate Professor
Marc
Mobley
Asst Dir Orient & Parent Programs
Tekla
Nicholas
Grad. Success Research Spec.
Valerie
Johnsen
Dir, Assess, Enroll & Ret Mgmt
41
Religious Studies (includes REL 3308 Studies in World Religion and REL 2011) Religious
Analysis)
First Name
Last Name
Title
Daniel
Alvarez
Senior Instructor
Associate Professor & Chairperson of Religious
Erik
Larson
Studies
Erin
Weston
Instructor
Ivanessa
Arostegui
Lecturer
History (AMH American History)
First Name
Last Name
Amanda
Baralt
Brian
Peterson
Christine
Ardalan
Emma
Sordo
Hilary
Jones
Jen
Bartman
Joyce
Peterson
Michael
Brillman
Mike
Shane
Tovah
Victor
Creeden
Landrum
Bender
Uribe
Psychology (PSY 2012)
First Name
Last Name
Maria
Shpwrik
Paige
Telan
Rachel
Ritchie
Title
Writing Fellow
Associate Professor
Lecturer
Lecturer
Associate Professor
Instructor
Associate Professor
Instructor
Instructor & Associate Director of Writing Across
Curriculum program
Instructor
Instructor
Associate Professor & Chairperson of History
Title
Lecturer
Senior Instructor
Instructor
42
APPENDIX B
CRITICAL GATEWAY COURSE REPORTS
43
Human Biology
I. The Current State of the Course
Where are you now?
ANS. I’m currently the only lecturer teaching Human Biology lecture (BSC 2023) at
the FIU MMD campus since the Summer 2013 semester. I teach 2 sections of
Human Biology lecture for each of the Fall and Spring semesters. One of the
sections is a morning class and the second is a late afternoon class. I also
teach one section of Human Biology lecture during the summer C semester.
The
course consists of 4 exams that are each worth 25% of the students grade.
Students can use the optional cumulative final exam (the 5 th exam) to replace a
missed
exam or their lowest exam grade if they choose to take it. All exams have 2
bonus
questions that come directly from in class material. The bonus questions are
weighted according to their i-Clicker participation. Students who get a majority
of their i-Clicker questions correct in class increase the weight of each of the 2
bonus questions to 5 points per bonus. Students who do not get a majority of
the i-Clicker questions correct get 1 point per correct bonus question. Finally,
students can also participate in PLTL . My PLTL incentive is to average their
PLTL score against their lowest exam score after all of the “in-house” grading
is complete. I have a relatively small proportion of students that do not
complete past 50% of the course material but do not drop the course. The
baseline data below shows preliminary analysis from the Summer 2013
semester onward without the failing students that have not completed past 50%
of the course material.
# of
Semester
students*
Average
%A
%B
Sum. 2013
44
78%
20
27
Fall 2013 U1
162
76%
27
28
Fall 2013 U2
209
75%
21
22
Spr 2014 U1
174
80%
25
29
Spr 2014 U2
126
75%
21
27
Sum. 2014
40
83%
40
20
Fall 2014 U1
187
85%
41
31
Fall 2014 U2
163
77%
25
29
Total
Averages
79%
28
27
*Number of students that completed more than 50% of the course.
%C
30
17
28
26
23
23
17
21
%D
14
12
13
9
12
5
7
12
%F
9
16
16
10
17
13
4
13
23
11
12
What’s working? What’s not working?
ANS. I think that many students are learning a great deal about human biology and
this is
44
indicative of my positive instructor evaluations and their firsthand account of
their
learning in my course based on their written comments. I also know that taking
Human
Biology laboratory concurrently with the lecture is highly beneficial to the
students. PLTL
is also a big plus in helping students to internalize the course material.
However, I do
need to place more attention to the “Roberts” of the course. I would like to
motivate
the underprepared students that give do not complete more than 50% of the
course
material to increase student success and to increase student retention.
What enhancements, if any, have been made recently?
ANS. I have kept my syllabus pretty much the same from the Summer 2013
semester.
How much variation is there currently across sections?
ANS. There is some variation between the morning sections and the late afternoon
sections. The early sections have a higher grade point average than the late
afternoon sections.
What’s the prevailing pedagogy (lecture?), if any?
ANS. My prevailing pedagogy is about 85% class lecture, with 10% i-Clicker, and 5%
think-pairshare.
--Baseline Data:
ANS. For baseline data I can make use of the raw data utilized to generate the
table above. I can utilize PLTL data to examine its effectiveness on student
success. I can use i-Clicker data to examine its benefits on student success.
I would welcome additional ideas regarding the collection of baseline data.
II. Goals
Where do you want the class to be?
ANS. I would like to increase the amount of cooperative active learning in the course,
reduce content and focus on “big picture” concepts for deep learning, and utilize
publisher-provided online learning materials.
What do you want the course to accomplish?
ANS. I want students to leave the course having a conceptual understanding of how
their body functions. I want them to learn about the mechanisms of these
processes, and not just a bunch of facts.
45
How much progress do you want to make on key metrics (like measurements of student
learning and DFWI rates)?
ANS. I want to utilize key metrics to measure student learning so I can determine the
effectiveness of the changes I’m implementing.
III. Strategies
How will you make progress toward your goals?
ANS. I will use a multifaceted approach to engage and challenge all students by
including a
new learning design with a greater proportion of low-stake in class cooperative
active
learning activities along with changes in assessment. I want to utilize publisherprovided
learning materials to get underprepared students engaged in the course material
before
deeper learning activities take place in class.
What key strategies will you use? (Perhaps a total course redesign?
ANS. I will alter my pedagogy, adjust learning goals, change grading practices, and add
new lowstake assignments as explained below.
Adjusting the learning goals?
ANS. I will design more conceptually based learning goals that focus on the “big
picture.” I
want to focus on learning goals are more application based. Application based
learning
goals are more likely to be internalized by students and will be useful in their
everyday
life experiences. They will be able to relate these concepts to previous and future
experiences.
Grading practices?
ANS. I want to reduce the weight of exams from 100% of the students grade to 45%
and
increase the weight of in class participation to 20%. The remaining 35% of a
student’s
grade will be based on publisher-provided online learning materials.
Develop new exams/assessments?
ANS. I hope to reduce the anxiety students may feel toward exams by including
more low-stakes in class assignments which would include i-Clicker and thinkpair-share
or group learning activities.
Ongoing professional development?
46
ANS. Absolutely! I learned a great deal by attending the Gateway Design Institute
during Spring
Break and had an enjoyable time learning with fellow colleagues.
Adjusted pedagogy?
ANS. My adjusted pedagogy would include about 60% class lecture, with 15% i-Clicker,
and
25% think-pair-share or other in class group learning activities.
--Evaluation Plans
I can compare baseline data before and after to evaluate the implementation of
my new
learning design for Human Biology lecture. I think that data collected to track
student
overall success and in class retention would be of greatest importance to
everyone at this
stage in the process.
47
General Biology UT3 Report
I. The Current State of the Course
--Where are you now? What’s working? What’s not working? What enhancements, if any, have
been made recently? How much variation is there currently across sections? What’s the
prevailing pedagogy (lecture?), if any? It might help to use the notes you jotted down on your
GDI handout, and this information can be anecdotal/qualitative.
The current pass rate for General Biology I is 70.9%, which is higher than it was in previous
years. We identified the following items as contributors to this improvement:





Pear-Led Team Learning (PLTL), where students discuss with their peers and interact with
the material in a new way.
Increases in active learning exercises: all sections have adopted i>Clickers. Some sections
devote half or more of class time to active learning.
Better coordination between lecture concepts and lab exercises.
Consistent group of faculty heavily invested in helping our students succeed.
A general trend in all sections shifting from content coverage to concept understanding,
from knowledge to comprehension.
What’s working?


PLTL
Increased student interaction with conceptual material:
o Activities that ‘make real’ the material covered in class
o Stop and re-discuss concepts asking students to come up front and explain graphs
and models
o Clickers
o Short videos, used effectively, bring to life difficult concepts
o Weekly quizzes
What’s not working?



Too much emphasis on exams (summative assessment)
Lack of ongoing formative assessment
Lack of connection between the PLTL leader and course instructors
What enhancements, if any, have been made recently?




Extend office hours the week before exams
Cover less material but with more depth
Increase number of clicker questions
In some sections, short in-class activities that count as extra credit.
How much variation is there currently across sections?




Not much variation as all instructors are using the same active learning techniques
However, some instructors are starting to promote more in class activities, we might
expand this to other sections
All sections share a common syllabus
Each section has its own quiz and exam questions
48
What’s the prevailing pedagogy (lecture?),

Varying proportions, but in some sections: 60% regular lectures, 30% active learning, 10%
examples related to students’ interest
The prevailing methodology is lecture with active learning in the form of i>Clickers.
However, some lecturers include more active learning in the form of short group activities.
There are some pilot sections with flipped and hybrid formats with minimum lecturing
(assessments pending).
There is consistency across sections in the content. We follow the same schedule and
similar syllabus. Every section has some active learning in it. During the workshop we
developed a core list of learning objectives that will not only provide consistency among
the sections, but also across semesters, integrating General Biology I and II. These core
objectives also provide more freedom to faculty, reducing the amount of material that
needs to be covered and instead place emphasis on core principles students must
understand. Thus, each faculty member can focus on different content/examples while still
following the core objectives. As a result of the workshop the faculty plan to meet weekly
and work on implementing these core objectives into the curriculum.
--Baseline Data: This section should also include baseline data that supports the statements
about the current state of the class. SACS or other assessment data could be useful here,
plus any instruments you may administer (like knowledge surveys, etc.). If you find that you
don’t have enough baseline data, please think about what you might be able to collect this
semester, as a point of comparison for evaluating the adjustments to the class. Since the
baseline data is such an important component of the plans, please send me your
initial ideas by Monday, April 6th – two weeks from today.
We are considering using the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI) for assessment. We have
baseline BCI data from one lecture section taught in 2013. We are also considering having a
common Final Exam. For future semesters, we will have some common questions that
faculty will agree to use in exams across all sections.
Assessment data compiled for SACS accreditation is based on the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) Major Fields Test in Biology. Thousands of graduating biology majors around
the nation complete this exam and it is considered a measure of long term learning over the
course of the undergraduate biology degree. The longitudinal data we have collected may
serve as a basis for comparison to the ETS scores of future cohorts (with certain caveats).
II. Goals
--Where do you want the class to be? What do you want the course to accomplish? How much
progress do you want to make on key metrics (like measurements of student learning and
DFWI rates)?
We developed a core list of learning objectives that we want students to achieve over the
semester or full year of General Biology (I & II):
49









Make content relevant to students’ lives
Use evidence to support arguments and evaluate hypotheses
Apply biological principles across different scales (such as time and space)
Be comfortable with not knowing the right answer
Interpret scientific representations (diagrams, graphs, trees, etc)
Explain core concepts in their own words
Apply core concepts to make predictions
Identify trends, patterns & processes
Appreciate and value scientific reasoning
We want to see our students succeed in future courses. We proposed monitoring DFWI
rates in our course but also in future courses that have General Biology as a pre-requisite,
such as Genetics.
We are also considering using the Maryland Biology Expectations (MBEX) Survey to assess
students’ attitudes towards biology, whether they see it connected to their everyday life
and connected to other sciences (chemistry and physics). The MBEX also assesses whether
students see themselves as responsible for their own learning or whether they place this
responsibility on the instructor.
III. Strategies
--How will you make progress toward your goals? What key strategies will you use? (Perhaps
a total course redesign? Adjusting the learning goals? Grading practices? Develop new
exams/assessments? Ongoing professional development? Adjusted pedagogy? New
assignments? Etc…)
We are going to adjust the curriculum to follow our core learning goals. We will hold
weekly meetings to work on the implementation of those goals and foster sharing of
materials and activities. Two instructors in General Biology II are already working on the
design of active learning exercises. We also want to increase involvement of the faculty in
the design and preparation of PLTL exercises.
Other potentialities being discussed:







We have established a Dropbox folder where we can share clicker questions, activities, and
any other material developed.
Having common exams, or designing the exams together, or having a test bank developed by
all instructors.
The possibility of making PLTL mandatory, possibly having PLTL sections specific for each
professor.
Possibly making the Final Exam mandatory, perhaps as a Resurrection Final (replacing
lowest exam grade).
Having i>clickers mandatory as one way to decrease grade dependency on exams.
Having other learning activities be part of the grade, such as post-lecture online quizzes in
addition to the already existing pre-lecture reading quizzes.
Proposed offering practice exams, created by each instructor.
50
--Evaluation Plans—How will you track progress? Here, it would be helpful to heed NCAT’s
advice and collect data that speaks to various stakeholders. In other words, what data
would students find compelling? What would administrators be pleased to hear? What
would mean success to you, the faculty?
Tentative ideas:



For students: students want to see that they have better chances of getting a good grade, so
showing them historical data on grades may help.
For administrators: data on DFWI rates, and other metrics important for the ratings in
performance-based funding
For us, instructors: Biology Concept Inventory, test actual understanding of main biological
concepts.
Future Directions
We have determined that we will meet on a regular basis (weekly) to continue this
discussion toward the refurbishment of the entire GB curriculum and pedagogy. We are
currently examining multiple concept inventories as well as other instruments to assess
our teaching and learning outcomes from our course transformations.
51
UT3: Plan for pedagogical transformation of CHM1045
1. Current state of things
General Chemistry 1 (CHM1045) is the first course in the sequence of general chemistry
courses. In the fall there are usually 6 sections offered (5 on the south campus; 1 on the
north campus) and in the spring there are usually 3 sections offered (2 on the south
campus and 1 at north). The course size is generally either 220 or 300 students
depending on the classroom that is being used (usually either CP145, AHC3-110 or
HM135)
We have 7 faculty that generally teach this course (4 instructors who regularly teach:
Delgado, Graves, Lichter, Swamy; 1-2 professors: Joens, Lopez de la Vega, and
sometimes an adjunct). Of the faculty that teach, the 4 instructors teaching on the MMC
Campus meet regularly during the Fall semester and discuss pedagogy, strategy, and
share the task of writing common exams, which allows for some uniformity in the
CHM1045 courses in that semester. Faculty at BBC and those professors/adjuncts who
teach CHM 1045 in the Spring time are exceptions to this, because the instructors are
split between CHM 1045 and CHM 1046 in the Spring. The teaching style used by the
instructional faculty focuses heavily on active-learning (Swamy/Graves- use fully flipped
class; Lichter/Delgado- partially flipped).
Major concerns for this course are the DFW rates. They fluctuate somewhat by
instructor, faculty, and campus but ranges within the 40-50%. For example, Lichter’s
DFW rate for CHM1045 Fall of 2013 was 41%, for Fall of 2014 was 45%. Delgado’s DFW
rate for CHM1045 for Fall of 2013 40% and fall of 2014 48%.
Over the last 5 years we have made some dramatic changes to the course. Some of
these changes include the introduction of CHM1025 which is a pre-general chemistry
course geared for students who do not get a certain score on the ALEKS math exam
which is now taken by all students entering as freshman. With respect to the course
itself we use common exams between most sections of CHM1045, LAs in CHM1045,
problem based learning activities, a shift from lecture based course to problem-solving
and flipped classrooms, Youtube and Facebook as student resources, and the use of
online homework systems that include preparatory quizzes prior to attending class
(where prior we only had summative assignments).
Looking at some of the improvements we have seen, Delgado has seen some major
improvement in passing since the use of LAs (difference between a passing rate of 36%
(in 2010) to 56% (in 2013).
Swamy has been used a flipped classroom for the first time in Fall 2014. Students
worked on specially created POGIL style worksheets in class with the LAs present in class
every day to help them with the material. She has found that the DFW rate decreased
52
by 5% (from 51% to 46%). Lichter used a partially flipped classroom in the spring of 2015
with the use of LAs in a new manner whereby the LAs were in the class every day and
constantly circulating the room to answer questions from students. The DFW rate for
this course was 26% (which is a dramatic decrease from the Fall of 2014 where the DFW
was 45%).
There is still stuff that needs work. The variation across the campuses is an obstacle for
the students and faculty. DFW rates are still not ideal. The incorporation of active
learning in classrooms that are designed for lecture makes for an additional challenge to
implementing things we are developing. We also need time and support to assess and
analyze whether or not some of the changes we are doing are working. Given that the
instructor pool is the main source of instruction for 1045, and most instructors also
double as lab coordinators, we lack the time to fully measure the effectiveness of our
work. We do have a chemistry education hire in the process which would benefit this
need, but until this occurs we are still lacking in this area.
Baseline data: DFW rates are averaging near 40-45%. We have been using the Chemistry
concepts inventory (an assessment created at UC Boulder) and have pre-post data for
some sections since fall 2013. We have pre and post data for all sections for Spring
2015. We also have used the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey with
some sections pre and post and have this data collected but not yet analyzed. We use
common exams for 5 sections taught on MMC campus in the Fall semester for which we
have the performance data for each instructor (and can correlate with their pedagogy),
yet this has not been fully analyzed.
2. Goals
The main goal is to increase passing rates in CHM1045 while also ensuring student
learning. This should be a uniform increase across all sections and campuses and should
hopefully be produced through changes in the way the course is organized such that it
does not matter who is teaching; the curriculum itself will lend to better student
performance.
Within the course itself, we would like to see uniform goals for the students. Recently
the National Research Council listed a framework for K-12 science education with 3
dimensions of importance: scientific practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
National Research Council. (A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2012.) Below is box S-1 from that document showing the key things within those
dimensions. We would like to ensure that assessments for student are incorporating
these 3 dimensions so that learning is being done.
53
3. Strategies
The first main strategy is for the instructional faculty to meet regularly, especially
summertime prior to the fall, to develop a grading scheme and syllabus that is aligned
across all sections.
Given some of the already existing strategies and pedagogies we employ, we will analyze
some of the data we have to see what is working and what is not. The concept inventory
data as well as the attitudinal surveys should give us a sense of how student conceptual
understanding and morale were either being met or not. We may also look back at our
common exams and see how the student performance on certain questions matched with
the instructional pedagogy used.
54
A key factor for the success of a course is a well-crafted syllabus. In the development of the
syllabus, we intend to look at the main goals for the course and be explicit to the student
with what they need to do in order to learn effectively and to earn the grade they desire.
We also want to incorporate the NRC framework as part of the learning goals in the course.
We will also consider a more balanced grading system (again, uniform throughout all
sections).
Exam writing has already been a combined process between the faculty on south campus,
but we intend to use the NRC framework to guide our writing process. We will continue to
evaluate our colleagues’ questions before we administer the exam to students.
To evaluate what we are doing, we will continue to use the chemistry concept inventory
and CLASS survey to see what concepts are giving the students the most problems and to
evaluate their attitudes. To ensure that FIU administration is aware of the changes and
progress, we will continue to monitor DFW rates and upon seeing changes we will bring
attention to what strategies have worked by presenting our results at national conferences.
Success will be measured by student performance on concept inventory and attitude
surveys.
Success for us as faculty, will be measured by fully attended classrooms with actively
engaged students who are developing their own models for how things work and utilizing
the materials and curriculum that are provided, as their basis for understanding. Our role
has changed from just administering exams and Powerpoints, to being facilitators for
students’ active learning practices and we intend to continue this.
55
Principles of Microeconomics
Current State of the Course
I currently teach three sections of Principles of Microeconomics (ECO2023): an inperson section (U01), capped to ninety seats, where students attend in-person lectures;
an online section for non-online students (RVC); and an online section strictly for online
students (RPC). Both online sections are combined and usually capped to eight hundred
seats. It is noteworthy to point out that U01 can be considered a hybrid between inperson lectures and the same rich set of internet based applications available to online
students (sections RVC and RPC) which are made available via Blackboard.
The lectures from section U01 are recorded on a daily basis by Florida International
University (FIU) Media Technology Services (MTS). These recordings are posted, within
an hour of the initial recording, on Blackboard for sections RVC and RPC to watch. That
is, all the content available to the in-person section is also available to the online sections.
Additionally, both online sections are able to rewatch the course lectures as many times
as necessary, as all videos are retained on Blackboard for the entire semester, a courtesy
not available to the in-person section.
Throughout the semester, all course sections are given three exams on the exact same
date and the exact same subjects. For section U01, exams are given on-campus and are
completed in-person. Exams for sections RVC and RPC are administered online via
Blackboard. The exams are identical in nature, with the same number of questions and
time restrictions. All three courses are assigned homework assignments at the same time
with identical due dates, usually a week after being assigned. All homework assignments,
for all three sections, are administered via Blackboard and are submitted by the student
electronically. There is a homework assignment administered for each chapter covered
in the course. All exams and homework assignments are made up of multiple choice
questions gathered from the test banks provided by the publisher of the course textbook.
Course grades are calculated identically for all three sections: each exam consist of thirty
percent of the course overall score, with the average of the homework assignments
making up the remaining ten percent.
All sections of ECO2023 have access to the same information, same assignments, and
exams. With the only difference coming from the delivery of the course lectures; students
in U01 attend live lectures on set days and times, while students in the online sections,
RVC and RPC, have access to the video recordings of said lectures on demand, which
they may or may not watch at their convenience.
Data
56
Demographic and performance data, for all three sections of ECO2023 for the Fall 2014
term, was gathered from FIU’s Office of Planning & Institutional Research. Summary
statistics of the usual demographic information (age, gender, race, country of birth), along
with university GPA, high school GPA, SAT score, ACT score, and student full-time
status, are reported in Table 1.
Table 1: Baseline Summary Statistics: RVC v. U01, RPC v. U01, and RPC v. RVC.
The data contains high fractions of reportings; the sample sizes for all three sections are
consistent with the official enrollment numbers gathered from FIU’s grade rosters, which
were accessed via Panthersoft. Overall, there are 90 observations for U01, 563 for RVC,
and 52 for RPC. Of the 90 students enrolled in U01, 85% were full-time students; of the
563 enrolled in RVC, 74% were full-time students; and, of the 52 enrolled in RPC, 48%
were classified as full-time students. Students enrolled in U01 have a higher GPA than
those enrolling in sections RVC and RPC, a difference in GPA of 0.23 and 0.38,
respectively. Similarly, their high school GPA also tends to be higher, with a difference
of 0.17 and 0.42, respectively.
57
A measure for student achievement, low-achievers versus high-achievers, based on GPA
is also reported1. Low-achievers registered for the online sections of ECO2023 in higher
percentages than for the in-person section: 61% of students enrolled in U01 have a GPA
higher than the section median, compared to 52% in RVC, and 46% in RPC.
Table 2: Performance Summary Statistics: RVC v. U01, RPC v. U01, and RPC v. RVC.
Summary statistics of student performance in each section of ECO2023 are reported in
Table 2. Homework assignment scores, exam scores, and course overall score are all
on the standard 0 to 100 point scale. The implications of the data are clear, students in
the in-person section outperform their online peers in just about every measure.
On homework assignments, students in section U01 outperform those in RVC by 10.9
points, and outperform those in RPC by 14.7 points. On exams, section U01 outperform
their online counterparts, RVC and RPC, by almost equal measure, 12 points and 17.6
points, respectively. Unofficial drop rates2 are also vastly different between U01 and the
online sections: 2% unofficially drop from U01 compared to 7% and 8% for RVC and RPC,
respectively. It is important to note, that the differences between U01 and both online
sections, RVC and RPC, are statistically significant at the 1 percent and 5 percent levels.
While the differences between RVC and RPC are not.
To visually examine the effects of being in a different course sections, Figure 1 shows
kernel density estimates3 of course outcomes. The blue solid line represents the
1
Low-achievers are classified as having a GPA lower than the median GPA. Conversely, high-achievers
are classified as having a GPA higher than the median GPA.
2 Students who stop all course work but do not officially drop or withdraw from the course with the
registrar’s office.
3 Kernel density estimates for homework and exam averages were derived from ordinary least squares.
While kernel density estimates for course completion and passing percentages were derived from a logit
model.
58
distributions for U01, the red dashed line represents the distributions for RVC, and the
green dotted line represents the distributions for RPC. In all four estimate measures, the
students in section U01 outperform the students enrolled in the online sections. All
differences are statistically significantly different than zero.
Figure 1: Kernel Density Estimates of Course Outcomes
Across all performance variables, students in online sections do not perform as well as
students enrolled in the in-person section; these differences are statistically significantly
different than zero. At this point, I believe it bears repeating that the only difference
between the three sections is the delivery of course lectures: students in section U01
attend in-person lectures, while students in RVC and RPC consume the course lectures
online via video recordings.
Goals
ECO2023 is a course where most topics build on one another, and heavily relies on a
fundamental understanding of core algebraic and geometric concepts. In addition to the
face-to-face contact with the professor afforded by the in-person class, the pre-planned
and disciplined pacing of in-person lectures seem to be particularly beneficial here. Video
59
viewing statistic, gathered from MTS, shows that there is a steady decline in the number
of users accessing the recorded lectures as the semester progresses, see Appendix A.
Online user engagement falls off, with few students persisting and following through till
the end of the term. It may very well be possible that students in the online sections
spend more time studying from the textbook; but, I believe that the disengagement from
the video lectures reduces the overall time students are engaged with the course the
contents thereof.
The evidence shows that in-person students benefit from live lectures relative to their
online counterparts. In order to bring parity to learning outcomes and increase retention
and graduation rates, the department of Economics needs more resources in order to
hire additional faculty members capable of teaching in-person sections of ECO2023.
These sections ought to be relatively small in nature with no more than 100 students
enrolled per section. Learning assistants, 5 per course section or 1 for every 20 students,
should also be used so that the may provide a more personal and direct form of content
delivery to each student. With the two steps outlined above, I am sure learning outcomes
in ECO2023 will drastically improve.
60
UT3 Analysis for ECO-2013: Principles of Macroeconomics
Instructor: Dr. Alan Gummerson, Senior Lecturer
The current format for Principles Macro was adopted in Fall, 2010. It was
adopted after the previous format was yielding rather dismal results. Prior to Fall, 2010,
approximately 10 sections capped at 100 students were being taught each fall and
spring, with additional sections taught in the summer. Most were taught by Ph.D.
candidates in the Department of Economics or by adjuncts, with a handful taught by
regular faculty. The student course evaluations overall were apparently the worst in the
College of Arts and Sciences.
As a result the chair of the department asked me to teach under the new format,
which was modeled on what the University of Florida has been doing for a couple of
decades, and which has been copied by the University of Central Florida. Registration
for the course has varied from 400 to 900, depending mostly on the cap on alternative
online versions. Since there is no room on campus that can accommodate such
numbers, each lecture is captured on video, and is posted to the Blackboard site for the
course, usually within a few minutes after the class finishes. Most students do not
attend in person, but are supposed to keep up by watching the course captures on their
electronic devices.
There are three on-campus exams given during the semester on Fridays. When
students register for the course, they register for one of three different sections which
determine what time on those Fridays—2, 5, or 7:15 pm—they take the exam, usually in
SIPA-125. Each of the three exams is given a weight of .3 in determining the course
grade, so exams make up 90% of the course grade.
Students are also required to do homework for each of the chapters covered in
the course on the website of the publisher of the text. The total score on these
homeworks is given a weight of .1, or 10% of the course grade. These homeworks are
automatically graded with scores recorded automatically on the website. Students pay
about $80 to access this website, which includes an electronic version of the text. The
bookstore also stocks loose-leaf hard copies of the text, which I recommend.
The homework is composed of three parts. The first, Learning Curve, is
interactive, and with enough persistence the student can earn full credit, no matter how
many errors are made along the way. The second is a 20 multiple-choice question quiz
over the chapter. The third, and the most heavily weighted, is an electronic version of
the end of chapter questions in the text, and usually requires students to do
calculations, draw diagrams, and generally get their fingernails dirty in answering the
questions. The homeworks are open book with no time limit, but with only one attempt
allowed and with strict deadlines for submission, usually a few days to a week after we
finish the chapter in class.
Because of the number of students enrolled, the exams consist of 50 multiple
choice questions chosen from the text’s question bank. When I moved from teaching a
61
section of 100 to a section of 400+, I stopped giving exams that were 60% multiple
choice and 40% essay/analysis. The latter were designed to see whether students
could use the simple supply and demand type models used in the course. As a result,
the current exams are easier than previous exams, and I am convinced students do not
learn the material as well as before.
I have usually been assigned 2 or 3 Teaching Assistants per semester. I use
them mostly to monitor the exam sessions and to upload the Scantron exam results to
the Gradebook on the publisher’s website. Next semester I plan to have them use the
Early Alert system to notify advisors that their charges are not doing well on exams or
homework.
In 2010 when the department went to the large enrollment, video lecture format,
it also established an Economics Tutoring Center in VH-136. This is a window-less
room with 4 computers and three additional round tables that can each seat 5. It is
staffed from 9 to 5 five days a week by Ph.D. students in economics who fulfill part of
their Teaching Assistant duties by staffing the Center 5 hours per week. We thought
that since students in the two Principles courses would get little contact with the
instructor that there would be significant demand for tutoring. This has not turned out to
be the case. Few students from my course take advantage of the Tutoring Center.
I have requested data over a week ago at this writing from Broadcast Video
Services which records and posts the video captures, on how many times the video
lectures were accessed by students during the Spring, 2015 semester, and have not yet
received that information. I have little doubt, however, that the data will show, as it did
for the Principles of Microeconomics for Fall, 2014, that by the middle of the semester
very few students were bothering to access the videos. Nor do many students attend
the lectures, the average being about 40 by the last weeks of the semester. Most
students apparently try to do homeworks without studying the chapters and to cram for
the exams without paying much attention to either the text or the lectures prior to last
minute cramming.
Results for the course are dismal. My sections of the course—ECO-2013.U02,
.U03, and .U04 had failure rates of 46.2%, 52.5%, and 61.2% during Fall, 2014. The
differences themselves are interesting, since there is no material difference among the
sections except the times on Fridays—2, 5, or 7:15pm—that the three exams are taken.
All students are free to attend the class MWF at 11am, and all have access to the
course captures via Blackboard. So the differences probably say something about the
time pressures on students.
I suspect those who sign up for the 7:15pm section are those who probably work
during the day, or who signed up very late for the class and could only get into the
evening exam session. My suspicion is that late registration probably correlates highly
with lack of dedication to doing well in the course. The exams are identical regardless
of what time they are given, and are graded by machine in one large batch.
62
Students are not allowed to take copies of the exam when they finish, in order to
minimize cheating. There is little evidence from the failure rates that those taking the
exam at 7:15pm get much help from those who took the earlier exam. Students are
monitored during the exam by the TAs and myself, and must present a picture ID when
submitting the exam, in an attempt to maximize academic integrity.
The text I use is Macroeconomics by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, which I
believe is the 3rd or 4th most widely used introductory text in macroeconomics. The 4 th
edition has just been released. The contents of homework and exams are produced by
the authors and the publisher, Worth. This past Spring semester, a student could earn
a C in the course by averaging as low as 48.05 on homeworks and exams, weighted as
described above.
In other words, a passing grade in the course could be obtained by averaging
less than 50% on multiple choice exams taken from a standard text, augmented by
scores on open-book, no time limit homeworks on the publisher’s website. And yet the
failure rate ranged from 46.2% to 61.2%, depending on what time the exam was taken.
What accounts for these dismal results, and what can be done about them?
Obviously, the instructor could be incompetent. The reader could investigate this
possibility by viewing at random one of the classes captured on video.
Another possibility is that the format of the course does not lend itself to success
with a class composed of 400 to 900 students, most of whom are 1st or 2nd semester
freshmen and women, who are required by their prospective majors to take a course
which requires competence in high school algebra and geometry, in a discipline which
has a reputation of being difficult for many. Naturally, I lean toward this possibility.
What can be done? Several incremental changes may help some. As I
mentioned above, the Early Alert system will be used in the fall so advisors can contact
students who are beginning to get into trouble in the course.
Since many students have difficulty with the high school algebra and geometry, I
will put links to Kahn Academy lessons on these topics on the Blackboard site for the
course. I do not have much faith that those who have not mastered these topics yet will
take advantage of the opportunity to pursue self-directed learning. Perhaps we can
make the Kahn academy lessons part of the graded homework to provide a new
incentive to learn.
I am not optimistic that these incremental changes will do much to improve
student learning outcomes. I think the format of the course must be changed. We
cannot expect much success in a class of 400 to 900 where students are encouraged
not to come to class since there is not enough room for them. To suggest to freshmen
that they can keep up with the lectures by watching videos is to encourage
procrastination and failure. To expect freshmen to be self-directed enough to study a
63
difficult subject for which they are poorly trained in the math prerequisites is to invite
failure.
Students poorly trained in math and required to take a difficulty subject need high
touch, not high tech. Classes must be smaller, so students feel a personal connection
with the instructor, and the instructor has the chance of taking a personal interest in the
student. Smaller classes require more instructors.
The problem is compounded in macroeconomics, since, in my opinion, the best
instructors will be those familiar with U.S. economic history and institutions. (I would
say that, wouldn’t I?) Unfortunately, most of our Ph.D. students are highly math literate
but are foreign students with little knowledge of U.S. economic history and institutions,
and most have difficulty with English as well. This is why we have continued with the
current format despite its dismal results; dependence on graduate student instructors in
the past yielded even worse results. Adjuncts have higher pass rates, but I suspect this
has little correlation with learning.
To get significantly better results, the department of economics must be given
more resources in the form of several instructors who can concentrate on teaching the
Principles courses. Sections should be no larger than 100, preferably smaller. In
addition, undergraduate majors could be used to lead subgroups of 20 in each class.
Undergraduate Learning Assistants were used in the Tutoring Center during the first
couple of years of the current format, and were more effective than the Ph.D. students
in fostering learning. Their use was abandoned when the funding for them was
withdrawn.
When the current format was adopted, several administrators were ecstatic about
the increase in “productivity”. Only after the legislature, governor, and Board of
Governors insisted on tying state funding to retention and graduation rates did concern
about this course begin. That is all to the good. But real improvement will require
reallocating scarce resources toward student learning. I hope we can find a way to
afford it.
64
MAC 1105
College Algebra
I.
The Current State of the Course
Background:
The university’s experience with the Mastery Math Program illustrates the impact effective course
redesign has on student success. A component of FIU’s Project Gateways – a university initiative to
enhance the core competencies of our students through a high-tech, high-touch approach – the Mastery
Math Lab allows all College Algebra and Intermediate Algebra students to do math while having access
to trained Learning Assistants (LAs) as well as their instructors. There are two overarching principles
guiding the instructional and operational choices of the Mastery Math transformation. First, we take
advantage of appropriate technology to maximize the amount of time faculty interact with students and
to maintain an ongoing, inclusive dialogue between faculty and student. Second, we are committed to a
high-touch environment where students and faculty are treated with respect, are agents of their own
success, and communication is clear, engaging, and personal.
The Mastery Math Program began as pilot program in Spring 2011 but by Fall 2012, with the
construction of a new Mastery Math lab with 204 computers, the program was implemented for all
College Algebra and Intermediate Algebra students at MMC. Students attend one or two lectures per
week in a regular classroom setting. In class, faculty pull together the major concepts that the students
are working on outside of class. Students use personal response devices, such as iClickers, to answer
individual and small group questions providing real-time feedback for themselves and their instructors.
Students then practice the concepts presented in class at the Mastery Math computer lab where they
have access to expert help from Learning Assistants (LAs) and their instructors. The LAs are
undergraduates who like math and have coursework and weekly training in subject matter knowledge
and best instructional practices for teaching algebra. LAs also lead weekly problem solving sessions,
called Math Gym, that target concepts, mathematical thinking, and common mistakes. Students are
required to spend a minimum amount of 3 hours per week in the lab and College Algebra students are
required to attend Math Gym while Intermediate Algebra students have optional Math Gym sessions.
Key to the Mastery Math Lab success is a consistent core of full-time instructors who are constantly
engaged in creating and supporting these positive learning environments. The critical faculty roles in
Mastery Math success include:
 ongoing professional development with CAT
o syllabus redesign
o writing course goals and learning objectives
o iClicker question design
o backward instructional design
 weekly working meetings to plan instruction and assessment,
 ongoing attention to and analysis of student learning activities,
 regular personal communication with students when warranted by grades and/or participation
in learning activities,
65



design and use iClicker questions for immediate feedback,
ongoing item analysis and improvement of test questions
faculty ownership of courses and student success.
Dramatic gains have been documented since the lab’s opening: an increased College Algebra
pass rate in face-to-face courses from 33 percent in 2010-11 to 63.7 percent in 2013-14 – a
nearly 31 percent increase. Additionally, a revamped online Algebra course has increased
student pass rates from 10 percent to 64.9 percent, performing at the same level as the bricksand-mortar class.
Additionally, adoption of the Mastery Math model to a Finite Math class in the Fall 2014
semester by a Mastery Math Lab instructor resulted in a pass rate of 88%. Finite Math is the
leading critical math course for non-STEM majors and, although textbook and curricular
changes were made for the Fall 2014 semester, the department-wide pass rate was only 60%.
Finite Math instructors are currently asking for access to the Mastery Math Lab for all sections.
The impact of the Mastery Math is extensive. Between Fall 2012 through Spring 2014, 6598
MAC 1105 and MAT 1033 students visited the lab over 207,888 times for ~320,000 hrs of time
on math tasks.
Current State of the Course:
At this point we have seen excellent progress since the start of the project (see Table 1).
However, College Algebra pass rates have plateaued and in the Spring 2015 semester taken a
drastic tumble. There is need to solidify the positive changes made and to make improvements
so that more students are successful in this foundation course and that they are highly
prepared for the downstream math courses.
Table 1. Pass Rates for Mastery Math in MAC 1105
Semester
Pass %
Pass #
Total #
Spring 2011
39.1%
99
253
Summer A 2011**
69.3%
79
114
Fall 2011
48.3%
168
348
Spring 2012
42.6%
127
298
Summer A 2012
53.8%
57
106
Fall 2012
53.4%
587
1099
Spring 2013
50.2%
303
603
Summer 2013
71.3%
114
160
Fall 2013
63.0%
691
1096
Spring 2014
61.3%
359
586
Summer 2014
64.9%
50
77
Fall 2014
63.2%
579
916
Spring 2015
54.5 %
289
530
48.5%
178
367
AY Results
Spring 2011 – Summer 2011**
66
Fall 2011 – Summer 2012
46.8%
352
752
Fall 2012 – Summer 2013
53.9%
1004
1862
Fall 2013 – Summer 2014
62.5%
1100
1759
Fall 2014 – Spring 2015
60.0%
868
1446
** This number is high due to the Summer 2011 pass rate. The tests that semester were,
according to math faculty, too easy.
Currently, the course has high levels of consistency with assignments designed by all instructors
at weekly meetings, curriculum and assessment design are all determined as a collaborative
effort. Faculty share the responsibility of student success with all instructors scheduled in the
lab throughout the week. Regular telephone and text contact is made with the students.
Faculty participate in the training of the undergraduate peers (called Learning Assistants, LAs)
that staff the lab and are responsible for providing guidance to the LAs when needed. Regular
discussions about the role of faculty in and out of the class/lab environment encourages the
breakdown of faculty cultural norms and sociocultural stereotypes that generally attach blame
to students. Expectations are that the instructors are dedicated to the success of the lab and its
students. This is almost always true.
Inconsistencies exist in the amount of perceived effort a transformed class requires as well as
dedication to the course transformation. The 2014-2015 academic year saw two stalwart
Mastery Math faculty being asked to teach other classes in the department. This was a double
edged sword. While being able influence the structure and design of other classes (ultimately
leading to the upcoming transformation of Finite Mathematics and the introduction of a new
textbook for the precalculus sequence), it halved the lab time of two of its most successful
faculty. In addition, the replacement instructor, while experienced and skilled in traditional
teaching modalities, never became engaged with her colleagues or her students. The Spring
2015 semester saw personal tragedy interfere with the College Algebra course coordinators
ability to do her job to the high levels she had in the past. Currently, the Mastery Math team is
in disarray but are planning a comeback.
The adoption of a new textbook with an overhauled computer-assisted learning environment
will allow the faculty to reinvigorate the curriculum and explore new ways to provide ongoing
feedback to students. As a result of the vertical alignment of precalculus sequence curricula,
the new schedule of topics will allow for additional time on the topics most challenging for our
students – Exponential and Logarithmic Functions. Faculty are extremely interested in working
together to find alternatives to the remediation approach to teaching (ie review, review,
reteach, reteach). Following some successful projects using concurrent precalculus and calculus
offerings at other institutions, College Algebra faculty at FIU are exploring options for just-intime teaching.
Teaching styles are a combination of lecture, small group work, and individual work in class.
Most faculty use powerpoint or smart board. Time with students is limited as faculty meet with
67
students only one day a week. Attention to what is happening in that one hour needs to be the
focus of faculty development in the 2015-2016 year.
There is generally consensus that the purpose of the course is to prepare students for the
calculus sequence. Faculty recognize that students are learning procedures without attaching
understanding and efforts are being made to include more mathematical reasoning in off-line
assignments and assessments. Predicting the nature and form of solutions and defending
solutions and solution paths were incorporated into math gym questions in the Spring 2015
semester and will spread to the classroom and the training of the Learning Assistants in the fall.
Comparisons to other College Algebra courses at sister institutions is ongoing. Examination of
College Algebra tests from The Ohio State University and the University of South Florida
indicate that the level of rigor in College Algebra at FIU is at least as high as at these fine
institutions. Retention and transfer of knowledge is now the focus of the faculty.
II.
Goals
The following are goals that were identified by the College Algebra team:
 Regroup after difficulties of 2014-2015. Work towards community and cohesion as a
faculty group with new instructors.
 Maximize instructional time with students
 Increase student engagement in and out of class
 Prepare students passing College Algebra to recognize when and know how to apply
their newly acquired knowledge and skills.
III.
Strategies
A.
Stabilize Faculty Assignments and Team Meetings
The College of Arts and Sciences are hiring 14 full-time permanent instructors for the
Fall 2015 semester. In Fall 2015, two new full-time permanent instructors will join the
Mastery Math Team. Luckily, both are former adjuncts that worked in the lab during its
development in 2012-2013. The Mastery Math Director will work with Arts and Sciences
and the Department of Mathematics to ensure stable job assignments to the lab for the
foreseeable future.
Faculty teaching College Algebra are required to adopt the full Mastery Math Model of
Instruction including meetings, lab hours, high-touch communication with students, and
faculty development. The Department of Mathematics will strive to schedule instructors
so that they have a maximum of 2 preps each semester and will work to have
instructors remain on at least one course team for at 3 consecutive semesters. This is to
ensure lasting change and continuous improvement.
B.
Improve Instructional Design
Faculty will work with the Mastery Math Director, the faculty developers in the Center
for the Advancement of Teaching and the STEM Transformation Institute to improve the
effectiveness and change the nature of the in-class student experience. This includes:
68






Identifying goals of class meetings.
Designing instruction around those goals.
Examining elements of the Mastery Model to produce cohesion
Faculty visit each other’s classes
Improve use of iClickers as feedback tool
Incorporate more questions that require mathematical reasoning into
homework, quizzes, class discussions, and tests
C.
Improve Group Working Environment
With the dysfunction of the Spring 2015 semester behind us, the College Algebra group
will work to ensure a cohesive, supportive environment for all faculty, Learning
Assistants, and students. This will require input from the faculty developers in the
Center for the Advancement of Teaching as well as some group meetings directly
targeting the improvement of the group dynamics.
Suggestions include
 Regular self-checks on health of the group
 Protocols on email (over cc’ing, under cc’ing, work hours, etc)
 More social events for College Algebra faculty
 Appointing a Learning Assistant Ombudsmen
D.
Commit to Data Driven Decisions
Use Existing Education Research. Faculty will use existing education research, cognitive
theory, and successful program designs to inform (not dictate) decisions regarding
course policies, practices, instructional design, and assessment. They also commit to
seeking advice from each other, faculty developers, and members of the math
department. The instructors will also be invited to participate in FIU Discipline-Based
Education Research group.
Collect Data for Ourselves. FIU faculty are no different than faculty at other institutions,
they want to see how our students respond to course transformation and instructional
redesign. The Mastery Math Lab collects data on student satisfaction and experiences in
the class and the lab. The anonymous surveys have large numbers of responses and the
results are used to make adjustments in lab policies and classroom practices. The survey
was designed 6 years ago without reference to existing measures for student attitudes,
experiences and dispositions. With the request from other groups to increase the
amount we know about our classes, it is an appropriate time to redesign the Mastery
Math survey. The College Algebra faculty would also like to have measures of
 Performance on Common Final
 Measures on the effect of the new course practices and materials
 New survey on student dispositions and motivation
 Teaching observations from peers
 Measures of understanding – external concept inventory
69

Why students drop course
Faculty will work with Leanne Wells, the Center for the Advancement of Teaching, the
Department of Mathematics, and the STEM Transformation Institute as well as
University offices to suggest, design, select, collect, and analyze instruments and the
data collected.
70
MGF 1106
Finite Mathematics
IV.
The Current State of the Course
Background:
Identified as the most critical math course, the passing rate for the 2012-2013 was 49% with
approximately half of those that failed the course not return to the university. With almost
3,000 students enrolled in the course in that academic year, the impact was tremendous. MGF
1106 is generally one of only three lower division math course choices that students have when
trying to complete their two-course general education math requirement. It therefore often
becomes essential for them to pass Finite Math.
Beginning in Summer 2014, steps were taken to address the situation. The Office of
Undergraduate Education convened the Finite Math committee. Three key decisions were
taken at that time
A.
Change the order of the curriculum
B.
Change to a more reader friendly textbook
C.
Move to more full-time instructors
Additionally, it was decided to begin encouraging faculty to employ key elements of the
Mastery Model of Instruction as outlined in the College Algebra section. The crucial first
elements of this were faculty student communication and professional learning communities.
Also, two finite math instructors participated in a week-long course redesign workshop led by
the Center for the Advancement of teaching to produce a more student –centered syllabus for
the new curriculum and textbook. Fall 2014 meetings for Finite Math faculty were planned but
did not materialize.
To help to provide the Finite Math team with structure and guidance, the College of Arts and
Sciences appointed Leanne Wells, the Director of the Mastery Math Lab to help faculty begin to
collaborate and to begin thinking about their instructional design. In Spring 2015, 3 full-time
and 1 part-time faculty met each week with three objectives. First, to understand the
commonalities and differences in how the course was being taught. Second, to build
recognition of the value and advantage of working as a team. Third, to build a sense of
ownership of the success of the students and of the course. These Finite Math faculty were
supported in these efforts with three workshops. One over winter break to provide a first
experience in such things as learning theory and sociocultural considerations, as well as
providing with time to think about the overarching and learning objectives within their course.
The second workshop was held over the spring break and offered faculty the chance to work on
student-centered problems that involved conceptual understanding and to discuss course
objectives. The third workshop followed the end of the spring semester and was intended to
serve as a postmortem on the new curriculum and to determine next steps.
This work has given us a solid picture of where the course is now, where we want to go, and
some possible ways to get there.
Current State of the Course:
71
At this point we have seen good progress in improving student success as indicated by the
reduction in the number of students that drop, fail or withdraw from the class (see Table 1).
However, given the large number of students that enroll in this course and the barrier that
failure presents to student progress, we have to ensure continuous improvement with best
practices and redesign elements fully integrated into all sections of the course.
Table 1.
Critical Courses: DFWI Rates from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015
Course Title
Course
Finite Math
MGF 1106
Terms
Sections
2014 15
Students
2012 -13
Students
2013-14
3
33
2708
2560
Students
2014-15
DFWI
Rate
2012-13
DFWI
Rate
2013-14
DFWI
Rate
2014-15
Change in
DFWI
Last 2
Years
1990
47.6%
52.9%
39.1%
13.8%
Notes: Positive percentage shows an improvement in the DFWI rate
Currently, the consistent elements within the course are the departmental final, the textbook,
curriculum coverage, and a syllabus shell. There is a course coordinator that creates the
departmental final. He solicits input from those teaching the course. However, most often,
there is little input as many of the instructors are adjuncts. The instructors do not know what is
on the final until it is given to the students.
Teaching styles range from an active learning classroom that utilizes the Mastery Math Lab,
peer lead learning, and pre-class activities to many sections using straight lecture. The range in
pass rates is as wide as ± 30% of the department average for the course. Approximately half of
the Finite Math sections are taught by adjuncts that cannot attend team meetings and have no
real say in what or how the course is taught. There is only one permanent, full-time and one
full-time visiting instructor that reliably are scheduled to teach the course from semester to
semseter. Inconsistencies within the structure of sections include the number of tests given (3
or 4), the existence/amount of extra credit provided, instructor expectations, level of rigor, and
opportunities for students to be involved in mathematical sense-making.
Moreover, there is little consensus on the purpose of the course. The course coordinator
believes that it is important for students to know mathematical procedures because it is
important to know these things to be a well-rounded person. Another instructor is positing
questions about why topics are in the curriculum if they do not lead to some valuable,
applicable decision making tool that the students can really use.
There are a number of positive elements as well. With the advent of the faculty team planning
meetings, there is more desire from the participating instructors to share course materials,
discuss expectations, design common assessments/assignments, and collaborate in the
redesign of the course. There is also a desire to continue teaching the course and implement
new strategies. 2 of the visiting instructors asked to teach Finite in the Fall 2015 semester so
that they might implement the Mastery Math Model in their classrooms. There is growing
consensus and understanding that student success goals can operate in line with maintaining
academic integrity of the course. Faculty also agree that the new curriculum and text offer a
solid course in Finite Math and that the level of rigor is consistent with their expectations of
what students at this level should be able to do. It is important note, however, that there is no
72
basis for this belief except for the experience of the instructors involved. In the case of the
coordinator, this experience is extensive. In the case of some instructors, they have taught the
course only once.
The team noted in particular that we currently use only two measures to gauge student success
– student pass rates and student evaluations. The Finite Math team is now poised to find and
use multiple measures of our progress.
V.
Goals
The following are goals that were identified by the Finite Math team:
 Increase the involvement of all instructors and faculty teaching Finite Math in the team
meetings
 Ensure consistency and grade equivalence across sections
 Develop clear purpose for the class and have curriculum, instructional design, and
coursework support that purpose
 Understand the needs of the students that take this course and develop policies and
practices that support those needs.
 Increase mathematical literacy of the students.
VI.
Strategies
A.
Stabilize Faculty Assignments and Team Meetings
The College of Arts and Sciences are hiring 14 full-time permanent instructors for the
Fall 2015 semester. This is to provide a stable, secure working environment for the
instructors as well as allow them to actively participate in the professional learning
communities associated with the courses they teach. It is anticipated that being a fulltime, permanent employee, will provide these instructors with a sense of ownership of
the course and a voice at the table.
Participation in the Finite Math team will be an expectation of those teaching Finite
Math. The Department of Mathematics will strive to schedule instructors so that they
have a maximum of 2 preps each semester and will work to have instructors remain on
at least one course team for at 3 consecutive semesters. This is to ensure lasting change
and continuous improvement.
Tenure track faculty that are scheduled to teach Finite Math will be asked to attend the
meetings on a semi-regular basis. As they have research assignments, we are hesitant to
intrude on their time but anticipate that once real changes occur in the classes, they will
want to participate in the ongoing development of the class.
B.
Improve Instructional Design
Make reasonableness and mathematical sense-making explicit in class and in curricular
materials. This includes creating course materials with problems where students
discover or are led to new information that they can then use in class. Increase student
engagement with content and with each other in the classroom. The team meeting time
will be used to create and vet these problems as well as discuss most effective means of
using the materials.
73
Employ more use of the High Touch elements of the Mastery Math Model. This includes
calling and texting students when they miss excessive work or have inconsistent grades.
Teams will working on rewording syllabi and mass emails so that tone and intent are
consistent with a supportive learning environment.
Faculty will also take advantage of Center for the Advancement of Teaching workshops
to improve assessments and develop more meaningful and appropriate goals for the
Finite Math course.
With everyone participating in the team meetings, faculty will collaborate to create the
common final exams as well as create some common questions for each test.
C.
Test Full Mastery Math Implementation
Currently the full Mastery Math Model is used only in 1 or 2 sections a semester by one
visiting faculty. In Fall 2015, that instructor along with another instructor will implement
the full scale Mastery Math Model in 4 sections of Finite Math. See College Algebra
section for full details of what the model entails. The 2 instructors are already working
together this summer to plan course materials and create new assessment questions.
D.
Commit to Data Driven Decisions
Use Existing Education Research. Faculty will use existing education research, cognitive
theory, and successful program designs to inform (not dictate) decisions regarding
course policies, practices, instructional design, and assessment. They also commit to
seeking advice from each other, faculty developers, and members of the math
department. The instructors will also be invited to participate in FIU Discipline-Based
Education Research group.
Collect Data for Ourselves. FIU faculty are no different than faculty at other institutions,
they want to see how our students respond to course transformation and instructional
redesign. As mentioned Finite Math currently only uses pass rates and student Likertscale style evaluations. The Finite Math faculty would also like to have measures of









Mathematical Literacy
Reasoning skills
Performance on Common Final
Student Dispositions
Measures of understanding – external concept inventory, internally validated
pretest,
% of students attending tutoring sessions and review sessions
Some measure other than student evaluations for teaching evaluations
Why students drop course
Student perceptions of the course
Faculty will work with Leanne Wells, the Center for the Advancement of Teaching, the
Department of Mathematics, and the STEM Transformation Institute as well as
University offices to suggest, design, select, collect, and analyze instruments and the
data collected.
74
MGF 1140
Precalculus Algebra
VII.
The Current State of the Course
Background:
Precalculus Algebra was behind only Finite Math and College Algebra on impact on student
success and this only because the course has approximately half as many enrollments. The
passing rate for the 2012-2013 was 39.7%. Precalculus Algebra is core of the precalculus
sequence and is the math course into which most entering STEM transfer students take upon
entering FIU. It is also one of the two courses, along with Trigonometry, that are downstream
for the FTIC students that have passed through College Algebra at FIU. As almost all of the
STEM and STEM related degrees require Calculus, it is essential that this course serves to
prepare students for the calculus sequence.
While major steps had been taken to address College Algebra and the beginnings of course
transformations were stirring for Finite Math, PreCalculus Algebra was largely untouched until
Spring 2015. With the call to address the critical courses, the College of Arts and Sciences and
the Department of Mathematics again followed the course set by the Mastery Math Model by
creating a Precalculus Algebra team that would meet every week beginning in Spring 2015.
Similar to the Finite Math team, the College of Arts and Sciences appointed Leanne Wells, the
Director of the Mastery Math Lab to help faculty begin to collaborate and to begin thinking
about their instructional design. In Spring 2015, 6 full-time and 1 - 2 part-time faculty met each
week with, originally, the same three objectives as Finite.
 to understand the commonalities and differences in how the course was being taught,
 to build recognition of the value and advantage of working as a team,
 to build a sense of ownership of the success of the students and of the course.
However, under the guidance of the proactive course coordinator, the Precalculus Algebra
group began the process of collaborative instructional design immediately following the spring
break. The instructors worked together to produce out-of-class assignment that they designed
to target prerequisite knowledge so that students would be prepared for the introduction of
new material in class. With some guidance on how to present these assignments to students
and how to pull them into class discussions, the faculty that used them found great success.
Faculty also had the opportunity in these meetings to discuss problems spanning the
precalculus sequence. Out of these discussions came a vote and change to a new textbook with
a less jargonized writing style and a meeting to vertically align the precalculus sequence.
75
As with Finite Math, the Precalculus Algebra faculty were supported in these efforts with two
workshops. One over winter break to provide a first experience in such things as learning
theory and sociocultural considerations, as well as providing with time to think about the
overarching and learning objectives within their course. The second workshop was held over
the spring break and offered faculty the chance to work on student-centered problems that
involved conceptual understanding and to discuss course objectives. A third workshop will be
held later in the summer to provide the Precalculus Algebra faculty worktime to design and
implement changes.
Table 1.
Critical Courses: DFWI Rates from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015
Course Title
PreCalculus
Algebra
Course
MAC
1140
Terms
3
Sections
2014 -15
Students
2012 -13
Students
2013-14
Students
2014-15
DFWI
Rate
201213
44
1107
2007
2224
60.3%
DFWI
Rate
201314
DFWI
Rate
201415
Change
in DFWI
Last 2
Years
60.0%
48.1%
11.9%
Notes: Positive percentage shows improvement in the DFWI rate
Current State of the Course:
At this point we have seen tremendous progress in just one semester of work (see Table 1).
However, a good portion of the work in redesigning assignments was done by only a few of the
instructors and a few more used the materials so there is still great deal of room for instructor
buy-in and course improvement.
Currently, the consistent elements within the course are the departmental final, the textbook,
curriculum coverage, and a syllabus shell. There is a course coordinator that creates the
departmental final. She solicits input from those teaching the course. The instructors do not
know what is on the final until it is given to the students. This is identical to the Finite Math
team as it is the structure that the department laid out for the lower division courses. This
made sense when almost all of the lower division math courses were taught by adjuncts. The
course coordinator for Precalculus Algebra has been coordinating courses for the department
for a very long time in this manner and, while having great insight into good teaching and
amazing ability to produce material, it may be a challenge for her to view former adjuncts as
collaborators.
Teaching styles are most lecture with 2 of the faculty, one being the coordinator, working to
introduce active, student-centered activities into the classroom. They have designed and
assigned 4 of the aforementioned out-of-class assignments with students coming together in
class to discuss and defend their work prior to starting the new topic. While several of the
faculty have undergraduate peer tutors assigned to them, none of them use these as assets in
the classroom. Only a few of the Precalculus Algebra sections are taught by adjuncts so there is
a great opportunity to create a cohesive team. Unfortunately, a few of the instructors and
adjuncts have been working independently and without meaningful feedback for a very long
76
time (some for decades) and are set in their practices and beliefs. It will be a challenge to bring
these faculty along. Levels of rigor on assessment vary widely. Conceptual understanding is
mostly seen as secondary to procedural skills with the assumption that “if they can get the
correct answer, they understand the concept.” Little to no reasoning is asked of the students.
Inconsistencies within the structure of sections include the number of tests given (3 or 4), the
existence/amount of extra credit provided, instructor expectations, level of rigor, and
opportunities for students to be involved in mathematical sense-making.
There is generally consensus that the purpose of the course is to prepare students for the
calculus sequence. This is a widely shared notion nationally as well. However, there is
conflicting notions of what the preparation entails. Currently at FIU, this means that the
students can perform algebraic manipulations accurately and can recognize and apply rules,
definitions, and procedures. Some faculty are beginning to ask questions that ask students to
explain their thinking or to defend their answers.
There are a number of positive elements as well. With the advent of the faculty team planning
meetings, there is more desire from some of the participating instructors to share course
materials, discuss expectations, design common assessments/assignments, and collaborate in
the redesign of the course. Faculty also requested and took the lead on vertical alignment of
courses. In a meeting with representatives from calculus, precalculus, trigonometry, and college
algebra, along with Ms. Wells, several changes were made to all 3 of the courses in the
precalculus sequence. These changes include removal of topics, adjustments to the level of
rigor on the assessment of topics in each successive course, identifying optional topics, and
agreement to work toward a more connected sequence of courses with explicit references to
material from previous classes. These changes in the Precalculus Algebra, Trigonometry, and
College Algebra curriclula are taking place in the Fall 2015 semester.
It is important to note that there is no defined precalculus sequence after College Algebra.
Students can take Precalculus Algebra or Trigonometry next. There is not consensus within the
department as to what the best sequence should be. However, university data shows students
are more likely to pass Precalculus Algebra over Trigonometry.
The team also noted that there is limited opportunity for meaningful feedback on their
teaching. Suggestions were made to adopt peer observations using existing protocols or being
guided by the Center for the Advancement of Teaching. There was some unease as faculty are
feeling defensive with all of the changes taking place across lower division instruction.
VIII. Goals
The following are goals that were identified by the Precalculus Algebra team:
 Increase the involvement of all instructors and faculty teaching Precalculus Algebra in
the team meetings and in implementing team products and practices
 Ensure consistency and grade equivalence across sections
 Increase student engagement in and out of class
77

IX.
Improve inter-course communications and vertical alignment of precalculus sequence
Strategies
A.
Stabilize Faculty Assignments and Team Meetings
The College of Arts and Sciences are hiring 14 full-time permanent instructors for the
Fall 2015 semester. This is to provide a stable, secure working environment for the
instructors as well as allow them to actively participate in the professional learning
communities associated with the courses they teach. It is anticipated that being a fulltime, permanent employee, will provide these instructors with a sense of ownership of
the course and a voice at the table.
Participation in the Precalculus Algebra team will be an expectation of those teaching
Precalculus. The Department of Mathematics will strive to schedule instructors so that
they have a maximum of 2 preps each semester and will work to have instructors
remain on at least one course team for at 3 consecutive semesters. This is to ensure
lasting change and continuous improvement.
Tenure track faculty that are scheduled to teach Precalculus Algebra will be asked to
attend the meetings on a semi-regular basis. As they have research assignments, we are
hesitant to intrude on their time but anticipate that once real changes occur in the
classes, they will want to participate in the ongoing development of the class.
B.
Improve Instructional Design
The Precalculus Algebra team identified the following strategies to increase the
likelihood of student success:
Increase student engagement with content during class time





Create problems for in class and out of class – some designed to lead
students to new material and some designed to tie prior knowledge to new
topic or more complex version of old topic (Recall and apply)
Create “conceptual”/”sense-making” questions
Plan shared objectives/questions/level of difficulty of questions for tests
Use of quizzes to encourage work outside of class. Introduce in-class weekly
quizzes; eliminate online quizzes
Have LAs for each section
Increase amount and quality of student work outside of class



Develop and use worksheets for out of class activities to prepare students
for new concepts (Recall and apply) repeated here because it can fulfill to
objectives
Non graded pretesting and just in time intervention/review
Develop plan for Redesign course for use with diagnostics and ALEKS
adaptive learning tools
78

Explore supplemental instruction, possibly make it mandatory
Improve student university survival skills


Faculty need guidance in helping students become better students
Continue departmental reviews before each exam. Have students complete
review packages as entry into the review session
.
C.
Commit to Data Driven Decisions
Use Existing Education Research. Faculty will use existing education research, cognitive
theory, and successful program designs to inform (not dictate) decisions regarding
course policies, practices, instructional design, and assessment. They also commit to
seeking advice from each other, faculty developers, and members of the math
department. The instructors will also be invited to participate in FIU Discipline-Based
Education Research group.
Collect Data for Ourselves. FIU faculty are no different than faculty at other institutions,
they want to see how our students respond to course transformation and instructional
redesign.
The Precalculus Algebra faculty would like to have measures of
 Performance on Common Final
 Measures on the effect of the new course practices and materials
 Student Dispositions and Motivation
 Teaching observations from peers
 Measures of understanding – external concept inventory, internally validated
pretest,
 % of students attending tutoring sessions and review sessions
 Teaching observations from peers
 Why students drop course
Faculty will work with Leanne Wells, the Center for the Advancement of Teaching, the
Department of Mathematics, and the STEM Transformation Institute as well as
University offices to suggest, design, select, collect, and analyze instruments and the
data collected.
79
UT3 Report for STA 2122 & 3123
I.
The Current State of the Course
The introduction to statistics courses: STA 2122 & STA 3123 are “service courses”—that is, ones
designed specifically at the request of other FIU departments. As illustrated in Table 1 below, a
little more than half of students who took STA 2122 & 3123 in Fall 2014 came from three
majors: Psychology, Biology, and Nursing. Combined, more than 4,000 students took these
courses during 2014. Most FTIC students take STA 2122 during their second year, and most FTIC
students take STA 3123 during their third year.
Table 1. Distribution of top 3 majors in
Fall 2014*
STA 2122
STA 3123
(n=835)
(n=914)
#
%
#
%
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
BIOLOGY
155
18.6%
187
20.5%
PSYCH
194
23.2%
441
48.2%
NURSING
105
12.6%
48
5.3%
All 3 top majors
454
54.4%
676
74.0%
*Include
Exploratory and Pre Majors where Applicable
Other Degree Programs represented in much small numbers. Next top 3 were Communications, Criminal
Justice, and Hospital Administration with numbers in the upper 20/low 30 range. Most other degrees a
single digit/low teens. File is attached. Full list of degrees and numbers are on worksheet 3.
In terms of student performance in the courses, DFWI rates are provided in Table 2 below,
which also indicates that these rates have decreased slightly during the last two years—
especially in STA 3123.
Instructors note that many students drop the course without consulting with them first, such
that they often don’t know why students are dropping the course. Conversely, they wonder
why some students choose to stay enrolled in the course when it’s clear they will be unable to
earn a passing grade.
80
Table 2
The courses have a designated coordinator who oversees the course syllabus, such that there is
some level of consistency in the sections taught by instructor and adjunct faculty (particularly in
the topics and material covered). However, the number of course sections, reliance on adjunct
faculty, and the fact that there is not a consistent group of faculty teaching the course makes it
difficult to attain the desired level of consistency across sections.
Other strengths include a great deal of pedagogical expertise among the faculty: For instance,
some instructors have developed extensive online materials used by students within and
outside of FIU.
Pedagogically, it appears there is a great deal of variation across sections, but the prevailing
approach continues to be web-assisted lecture. Most instructors make materials available to
students on the course Blackboard site or on the instructor’s course website. Some faculty have
begun to share detailed notes and/or PowerPoint slides with students prior to class, so that
students do not have to spend the class session copying material from the board, and they
indicate that students appreciate this practice and say it helps them considerably.
STA 2122—MASTERY MATH PILOT
In terms of recent innovations or changes to the course, in Summer A 2014, three faculty
piloted the Mastery Math model with STA 2122. Among the key elements of this approach:



Faculty assigned homework using the MyStat lab package
Students attended three 50 minute classes per week and one 3-hour lab
Learning Assistants (LAs) assisted students
In her report on the implementation and results for the semester, Director of the Mastery Math
Lab Leanne Wells wrote:
“The overall response from students to the lab was positive… Many students responded
that the lab is what enabled them to pass the class. Of the 125 students enrolled in the
81
3 sections, 56% met or exceeded the lab hour requirement at 5 of the 6 weeks. Table 1
below indicates that students meeting the lab requirement at least 5 of the 6 were at
least twice as likely to pass the class as those that met the requirement 4 or fewer
weeks.
Table 1. Pass Rate by Lab Attendance
Weeks Met lab
# of Students that
# of Students that
% of students in Lab Attendance
requirement
Pass
D/F/W
Category that PASS
0
2
5
28.57
1
4
8
33.33
2
4
8
33.33
3
6
8
42.86
4
6
8
42.86
5
23
4
85.19
6
39
4
90.70
The 125 students enrolled in STA 2122 in Summer A visited the lab 1576 times for a
total of 2117.5 student lab hours. The median stay in the lab was ~ 1.2 hours. A number
of students stayed a brief period of time – just long enough to complete and assignment
and leave. These students did not meet lab hour requirements and as indicated in the
chart above were far less likely to pass the class.
Overall results for Pass Rates are 65% for Mastery Math pilot. This compares to an
overall STA 2122 pass rate average of 63%. Although not much different overall there
were distinct differences for the particular faculty pass rates as compared to their
historical data.”
II.
Goals
STA 2122 & 3123 hope to attain a high level of consistency across sections, specifically in course
goals and faculty course policies. The course would also like to see more collaboration among
its faculty, so that they can share resources, discuss common challenges, successes, etc.
STA 2122 & 3123 would also like to progress toward course goals that are more conceptual
than procedural. Faculty concur with the American Statistical Association’s Guidelines for
Assessment and Instruction in Statistical Education that the goal of an introductory statistics
course is to “produce statistically educated students, which means that students should
develop statistical literacy and the ability to think statistically.” Having a dedicated stats lab will
be essential to the future implementation and success of this goal.
The courses would also like to ensure that they fulfill the expectations of the departments for
which the course is a service course.
82
It also hopes to minimize the ways in which the course unintentionally obstructs student
success (for instance, overly-rigid policies).
III. Strategies
A. Collect Data
STA 2122 & 3123 recognize that they will need to collect additional data before proceeding.
For instance, faculty sense that student performance varies considerably based on the time
of day the course is offered, and want to know if data support their suspicion.
The department will also need to collect more data to determine if students are attaining
the course learning goals. Faculty recognize that student performance in subsequent
courses provides important information about the extent to which the course is “working,”
so this information too will be sought and analyzed more extensively.
Finally, it will be important to meet with representatives from the psychology, biology, and
nursing, etc. departments more often to attain further clarity on each department’s goals
and expectations for students who complete these courses.
A. Increase Communication
Among faculty. Faculty will need more opportunities to collaborate and share ideas,
develop materials, etc. Given that many STA 2122 & 3123 instructors are adjunct faculty, it
would be helpful to provide them with on-campus space and to incentivize them to come to
campus and participate in professional development opportunities. Together, faculty can
address common challenges like students’ statistics anxiety, and they can also collaborate
to determine the best ways to move toward helping students attain a more-conceptual
understanding of statistics.
As mentioned above, many faculty have developed materials for their courses and students,
including a great deal of online material like videos. Similarly, the University Learning Center
at FIU’s Biscayne Bay Campus has worked with its undergraduate tutors to identify the most
frequent difficulties faced by tutors when assisting statistics students. Together, they
developed a comprehensive document describing these difficulties. A mechanism for
streamlining the ability to share materials like these among colleagues would seem to help
tremendously.
However, in the long term, the dependency on adjuncts needs to be decreased by hiring
more regular full-time, highly-qualified faculty.
With advisors. In addition, faculty recognize the important of communicating with
advisors, so that students are given accurate and consistent messages about which courses
83
to take, the appropriateness and implications of dropping a class, etc. Particularly, students
should not be advised to take a course for which they are not prepared.
With students. More communication with students will also prove invaluable, especially
given that “statistics anxiety” and overall fear may be affecting student performance in the
class. Instructor immediacy is known to minimize the negative impact of statistics anxiety,
so it will be important for faculty to work on conveying to students that they are accessible
and approachable. One faculty member shared that she does this by sending her students
emails them twice a week, encouraging them in the messages and letting them know what
resources are available.
Another important component of communicating with students will be, early in the
semester, to help them see that succeeding in the course will require a great deal of time
and effort, so that students allocate sufficient time to the course.
With students and advisors. Faculty will also use the newly-implemented Early-Alert
System to let students know when their performance or attendance in the course is
problematic. The goal will be to achieve more consistency in the messages students hear
from faculty and advisors.
B. Use More Active Pedagogy/Encourage More Time on Task
Faculty will find ways to get students to collaborate during and after class sessions.
Classroom response systems like i>clicker might also be helpful to engage students during
class sessions. Faculty agree that the additional time-on-task required by the summer pilot
helped students learn, but they would like to seek an alternative software (not MyStatsLab).
Having learning assistants (LAs) will be a great help to achieve this goal.
Instructors would also like to explore the possibility of requiring students to attend their
class, as many have discerned a correlation between attendance and success in the course.
In larger sections, this could possibly be realized by using i>clicker questions.
Assigning more graded homework is another way to encourage additional time on task, but
the department will need more teaching assistants (TAs) to assist with grading.
C. Revise Course Policies
Rigid course policies will be identified and revised, so that the course grade better reflects
student’ attainment of the learning goals. The faculty will discuss to determine the possible
merits of offering a common exam. Grading policies might also be adjusted, so that the
stakes for students are lowered, especially for their first exam. For instance, one instructor
currently allows students to replace their lowest exam grade with their grade on the final
exam, as he has found that this drastically minimizes the number of students who drop the
course.
84
ENC 1101 & ENC 1102
I. The Current State of the Course
--Where are you now? What’s working? What’s not working? What enhancements, if any, have
been made recently? How much variation is there currently across sections? What’s the
prevailing pedagogy (lecture?), if any? It might help to use the notes you jotted down on your
GDI handout, and this information can be anecdotal/qualitative.
Where We Are Now
Overall, the current pass rate for ENC 1101 Writing and Rhetoric I is 85.7%. We identified the
following items as contributors to this high pass value:
 Based on our reading of SACS assessment data, we revised the first year sequence to
focus on rhetoric in 1101 while moving more challenging research into ENC 1102;
 Recent hiring (including 7 new hires starting Fall 2015) has allowed us to staff courses
with more full-time faculty;
 Additional training made possible by Title V grant has better prepared faculty for
working with second language learners;
 The use of technology (Moodle resource shell, Blackboard course templates, increasing
numbers of QM certified courses) allows us to provide new faculty and TAs with plenty
of resources upon which to build their teaching.
What’s Working?
 The vast majority (90%) of students who completed the final assignment in 1102 achieve
the outcomes of the FYC sequence, as measured by our SACS assessment;
 The faculty mentoring program provides new adjuncts with one semester of mentoring
when they begin teaching at FIU;
 The TA training program provides teaching assistants (including Interdisciplinary TAs)
with training in writing pedagogy along with a practicum and one-two semesters of
work with experienced full-time faculty members in hybrid sections of FYC. When they
begin teaching their own classes, TAs get two semesters of mentoring;
 Although their assignments are generally limited to teaching and service work, many
full-time faculty regularly attend conferences and maintain awareness of current
pedagogical developments in the field. Some have even published in field journals in
recent years.
What’s Not Working?
Research has shown that engagement with faculty, peers, and curriculum are three crucially
important factors for student retention, particularly for historically underrepresented students.
However, constraints imposed by our context make it challenging to incorporate these best
practices.
85




Even with recent and planned hires, the writing program still relies heavily on adjunct
faculty. Despite the fact that many are extremely dedicated teachers, their teaching
schedules at multiple universities prevent them from being able to offer the kind of
content time that struggling students need. Furthermore, the seven new full-time hires
were partially offset by the departure of three other full-time faculty;
Our course caps are the highest in the State University System and among the highest
in the country. High caps prevent faculty and students from engaging in studentcentered learning, decrease the amount of writing we can require on a
weekly/semester-long basis, and also prevent faculty and students from engaging in
meaningful writing-centered class discussions;
Lack of Time. The high caps also impede adjunct faculty’s capacity to attend
conferences and participate in ongoing professional development opportunities in areas
such as Wise Feedback, project-based learning, and community-oriented learning (all
key areas of focus discussed in the Goals section). Many faculty have insufficient time
left over from teaching to attend professional development workshops. Even with
access to Title V stipends, for example, adjunct faculty were often unable to participate.
These institutional obstacles make it very hard for adjunct faculty to stay current with
pedagogical trends in the field, which contributes to a two-tiered system (part-time vs.
full-time) of access to professional development;
Lack of Space. The writing program doesn’t have a central location, which inhibits the
development of a culture of writing and positive morale for students. Each semester,
the program struggles to find space for classrooms (technology-equipped or not), for
meetings and special events, and for faculty offices.
What enhancements, if any, have been made recently?
 Curriculum revision of First Year Composition assignment sequence to provide students
with a rhetorical foundation in ENC 1101 before they move into research and text
analysis in ENC 1102;
 Title V-funded initiatives designed to improve writing instruction for multilingual
students by providing:
o Multilingual teaching consultants to train faculty in best practices;
o Online training modules to reinforce training and allow later hires to benefit
from training;
o Revisions to first-year writing curriculum to better address the needs of Englishas-a-second-language (ESL) and resident ESL student writers;
 Recent hiring of seven new full-time faculty will help, but these new hires don’t start
until Fall 2015;
 One of the new faculty hires will coordinate the Digital Writing Studio, which will aid our
goal of incorporating multimodal assignments into the core curriculum of the first-year
writing sequence.
How much variation is there currently across sections?
86
The writing program employs a standard text and assignment sequence, and it provides a rich
collection of teaching resources via a faculty development course in Moodle. Faculty are
encouraged to modify the resources and the assignment sequence based on their teachings
styles and interest, but the assumption is that all students in FYC are learning the same things.
What’s the prevailing pedagogy?
The student-centered classroom is the goal, and most faculty run their classes using some form
of active learning. Students frequently collaborate through peer workshopping. Based on our
review of national trends in first year composition and contemporary literacy demands
associated with an increasingly digital society and economy, we want to incorporate more
multimodal approaches into the core curriculum. Considering the obstacles delineated above,
however, actualizing this goal will require providing both greater time AND financial incentives
for professional development (stipends, course releases, lower caps), particularly for faculty
overburdened by large caps and total number of sections taught per semester.
Baseline Data:
This section should also include baseline data that supports the statements about the current
state of the class. SACS or other assessment data could be useful here, plus any instruments
you may administer (like knowledge surveys, etc.).

Program Scope and Challenges
Core ENC courses serve 8,000 students a year; over half are multilingual students
(generation 1.5 or resident ESL). Our courses are ideal ones to “teach for retention,”
helping students connect to their instructor and to the FIU community. But, while we
are innovative and dedicated, we lag behind SUS and other benchmark programs in two
important factors, both of which are tied to student retention and success: class size
and numbers of full-time vs. adjunct faculty.

Class Size
At FIU, the FYC Class size is among the highest in the nation: sections of 1101 are
capped at 27, with 1102 capped even higher at 30. According to national surveys, the
average class size is 21. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) recommends
15-20 for courses with multilingual writers.

Impact of class size on faculty workload
Instructors teach 120 students a semester, in contrast to colleagues at benchmark
universities whose load is closer to 80. If an ENC 1102 instructor with 30 students
assigns four essays and responds to each final essay and early draft, she will have to
read and comment on 240 essays a class. Full-time instructors teaching a 4/4 load would
have to read 960 essays a semester.

Number of FT Faculty
Despite recent hires, the majority of first year students are still being taught by adjunct
faculty. During the Fall 2014 semester, 56% (99 sections) of FYC were taught by adjuncts
87
while 32% (57 sections) were taught by FT. In terms of fulltime staffing, the Writing and
Rhetoric Program lags behind its SUS counterparts. In Fall 2014, we had 17 NTT FT
faculty and 5 Tenured/TT faculty. UCF employs 50 Full-time FT NTT writing program
faculty and only 6 adjuncts. FAU, while considerably smaller than FIU, employs 8 more
FT faculty than FIU.

Impact of faculty breakdown on the reach of initiatives
Because adjunct faculty are stretched so thin, often teaching up to 8 courses per
semester on three different campuses, they are often unable to take advantage of
training and workshops that would help their teaching, even for workshops that provide
incentives for attendance. For example, during this past spring’s Title V training, 95% of
fulltime faculty who were teaching FYC attended training, while only 27% of qualifying
adjuncts attended.
II. Goals
Where do you want the class to be? What do you want the course to accomplish? How much
progress do you want to make on key metrics (like measurements of student learning and DFWI
rates)?
 Build on our good pass/fail numbers by continuing to reduce the DFWI rate;
 Establish the first year composition classroom as a place that introduces students to the
opportunities available to them as writers at the university--and beyond--and that
defines the university as a place where they want to be;
 Make the course as engaging as possible for all students, using strategies such as
project-based learning, community writing, and digital writing and literacies;
 Build on strengths of the current curriculum by incorporating a “wise feedback”4 model
that reaches all students where they are, sets high standards for everyone, and mentors
students so that they feel they can meet those standards;
 Provide students with greater access to faculty by continuing to hire full-time faculty,
which would bring our staffing into sync with national standards;
 Reduce caps so that they are more in line with national standards (20-22 per class).
III. Strategies and Ideas for Evaluation
--How will you make progress toward your goals? What key strategies will you use? (Perhaps a
total course redesign? Adjusting the learning goals? Grading practices? Develop new
exams/assessments? Ongoing professional development? Adjusted pedagogy? New
assignments? Etc…)
 To improve pedagogical training of adjunct and full-time faculty, build a MA degree in
writing studies by Fall 2017; currently no such MA program exists in Miami-Dade
County, and the only program in South Florida (at Nova Southeastern) does not
emphasize writing pedagogy or composition and rhetoric;
4
Providing feedback in a way that emphasizes high standards while expressing a belief that students are
capable of meeting those standards. Cohen, Steele, Ross.
88










Provide incentives (stipends and course releases) for faculty to participate in teaching
circles, reading groups, workshops;
In keeping with best practices on student retention and engagement, add multimodal,
project-based, and/or community-oriented assignments to FYC curriculum;
Conduct workshops designed to assist faculty in working with students whose
performance in the class has triggered an Early Alert;
Enhance our program’s Digital Writing Studio; add interns or tutors to provide faculty
support for building multimodal assignments and student support for completing these
assignments;
Conduct funded studies on stereotype threat and the impact of class size on retention;
Increase student engagement with 21st-century literacies that are most relevant to their
lives and future careers:
o Critical Consumption of Information
o Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning
o Digital Divides and Digital Participation
o Global Consciousness
o Network Awareness
o Design
o Ethics
Increase student opportunities for investigating, analyzing, and intervening in issues
relating to the campus community;
Hold annual retreats like the two-day workshop just concluded to provide faculty with
opportunities for renewal and reengagement in teaching;
Enhance partnerships with local schools (really needs grad program);
Improve DFWI rates.
Evaluation Plans
How will you track progress? Here, it would be helpful to heed NCAT’s advice and collect data
that speaks to various stakeholders. In other words, what data would students find compelling?
What would administrators be pleased to hear? What would mean success to you, the faculty?



For students: Students want to see that these courses will aid them in their collegiate
and career paths, so showing how writing is used for so many purposes will speak to
them. Increasing course retention will also speak to students;
For administrators: data on DFWI rates, and other metrics important for the ratings in
performance-based funding;
For faculty: Continuing to build on program strengths and creating further opportunities
for pedagogical exchanges will help sustain positive morale.
89
UT3 Plans: SLS 1501
I. The Current State of the Course
FIU’s First-Year Experience course: SLS 1501 was included on the list of critical courses primarily
because of its high enrollment. In 2012-13, 4,213 students took the course. Of these, only 8%
failed (n=148), but the Office of Retention and Graduation Success found that 47% of those
who dropped this course withdrew from the University altogether. This may not mean
causation, but this strong correlation together with the high enrollment suggest that the course
is worthy of attention.
Since FYE reaches so many students, varied units and departments have tried to use the class—
and in particular, its textbook—as a vehicle through which to reach a large student population.
As a result, during its existence, the FIU-specific course text has grown to include far more
topics than can be addressed in a 1-semester course. As in many introductory courses, there is
so much material to “cover” that insufficient time is left for students to spend time on the areas
most crucial to their college success.
One considerable challenge is that a total of 101 different instructors teach the course, as most
individuals teach only 1 section, and some only teach during one semester per year. In Spring
2014, FIU offered 19 sections, taught by 19 instructors; in Summer B 2014, we offered 63
sections, taught by 59 instructors; and in Fall 2014, we offered 128 sections taught by 89
instructors.
A related challenge is that many of those who currently teach the class have no prior teaching
experience, and correspondingly, that those who oversee the course do not have expertise in
faculty development.
In addition, the course is closely wedded to FIU’s Common Reading Program. Since a new book
is selected every year, instructors (even veteran instructors) must also read a new book and
integrate it into the assessment and pedagogy of this 1-credit class. This added variable is not
only a pedagogical complication; it also makes it more difficult to assess the effectiveness of the
course.
With respect to the effectiveness of the teaching, student ratings of their instructors are
currently being compiled and examined. It is difficult to know what the prevailing pedagogy is,
and there is a sense that this varies by section. A combination of lecture, discussion, and group
work is likely, and the student feedback may offer more detail.
Strengths
Despite the logical challenges implicit in teaching any class required of all incoming students—
and the number of sections this requires—the University has established excellent systems for
not only coordinating the course; but also requiring and providing ongoing development to all
90
instructors.
Other strengths include the small class size (which is essential to the course goals) and the fact
that many dedicated staff members teach the course, exposing students to varied areas of FIU
administration and providing their expertise on such topics as career planning.
The course text and accompanying materials also include many interactive assignments and inclass activities that have stood the test of time. We’re not starting from scratch.
Opportunities
In addition to being included in the list of the 17 critical courses, FIU’s First-Year Experience
course was also featured in FIU’s strategic planning process. The Student Success Committee
established a First-Year Experience subcommittee to imagine ways to improve this course, so
that it might better attain its intended goals. The committee’s recommended strategies are
included below.
II. Goals
The overall purpose of the class is to help FIU students transition effectively academia and FIU,
such that they feel they belong here and have the key academic and non-academic
competencies with which to graduate in a timely manner. Therefore, the primary goal at hand
is to determine the extent to which the course is currently fulfilling its purpose, and to redesign
the course so that it can maximize its effectiveness.
More specific goals are currently being articulated by a FYE Redesign Steering Committee, and
these will be informed by both research on first-year experience courses, and FIU-specific
research on our first-year students and the barriers to their success.
Just last month (2015, May 21), FIU’s Office of Retention & Graduation Success released the
findings of a study on our first-year students: “Freshmen Face Unexpected Challenges: Findings
from FIU Focus Groups.” This study found that
Freshmen had very high academic goals and aspirations, but did not have a clear
understanding of what it would take to achieve these goals. Many were unsure of their
majors. By the middle of their first semester, students were finding that classes were
more difficult and required much more work than they had expected; however, their
confidence in their ability to do well remained
intact, perhaps unrealistically. The freshmen found university systems confusing and did
not feel that they had someone to help guide them through the systems. Many students
felt isolated and expressed a strong desire to connect with students who shared their
interests, but found groups on campus to have overly burdensome membership
91
requirements. Many did not have friends on campus and did not talk to other students
in their classes.
Recommendations include focusing on students’ needs for more and better communication,
and increased social support—all of which will inform the redesign of this course.
III. Strategies

First, a Steering Committee was formed, and this group has already met for 15+ hours to work
on a complete course redesign using L. D. Fink’s framework for developing courses for
significant learning.

This committee also formed subcommittees which are focusing on such areas as the use of peer
mentors in the class, evaluation of the course and individual student attainment of course goals,
a faculty advisory committee, and instructor development/training.

Other core strategies include offering sections of the course with a disciplinary focus, and
expanding the use of peer mentors in the course, so that students have someone with which
they can identify.
The recommendations of FIU’s ByonbdPossible2020 strategic plan are as follows:
“Revamp First-Year Experience into an FIU Experience course aimed not only at incoming
freshmen but also first-time transfer students to build affinity for FIU, facilitate personal
development, and teach and reinforce the skills needed for success at FIU.
• Redesign SLS 1501 to standardize class styles and experiences. This includes
curriculum redesign, with built-in classroom and out-of-classroom experiences with
both the faculty member and peer mentor, and online modules and activities.
• Group students into sections based upon common majors and/or broad-based areas
of interest.
• Focus on metacognitive and learning awareness skills.
• Incentivize faculty to teach discipline-specific cohorts of 20-25 students of similar
majors to build relationships with peers and peer mentors.
• Train peer mentors in a way similar to learning instructors.
• Incorporate athletic and cultural events into mandatory out-of-classroom experiences.
92
The Steering Committee is examining the merits and feasibility of each of these, and will infuse
them into the redesign plans.
Robust evaluations of the overall course, instruction, and student attainment of course goals
will be developed. As a starting point, the evaluation subcommittee has determined that the
evaluation plans will respond to the following questions, together with a list of possible
mechanisms/instruments:
- What?
o Changes in attitudes/behaviors
o Knowledge of services
o Ability to achieve course objectives
- How?
o Direct Measures
 Embedded assignments
 Aligned with the course objectives
 Formative and summative
 Use rubrics
 ETS proficiency profile
 CLA (Collegiate learning assessment)
 Pre-/post-test (knowledge)
o
o
o
o
o
o
Indirect Measures
NSSE (administered every 2 years, next administration Spring 2016)
CIRP (administered every two years, next administration Summer 2016)
YFCY (not currently administered)
Customized student satisfaction survey
Interviews/focus groups
Pre-/post-test (for attitudes/behaviors)
- Where?
o FYE Course
- When?
o Beginning of course
o During course
o End of course (either semester/year)
93
Academic Improvement Plan: REL 2011 & 3308
Department of Religious Studies
May 2015
Introduction
The Department of Religious Studies has two courses that fall within the critical
indicators of success category: REL 2011 Introduction to Religion and REL 3308
Studies in World Religions. In a normal year, we will have about twenty professors,
instructors and adjuncts involved in teaching these two courses. The large majority of
the sections are taught by adjuncts, however, and most of our adjuncts sections of
teach both courses in a given year. The total number of students enrolled in REL 2011
last year (including summer) was 1675 and the total number of students in REL 3308
was 1550.
Current State of the Courses
REL 2011
REL 2011 is a Gordon-Rule course and hence writing intensive. We keep caps at 35
and any sections over that are supplied with either TAs or graders to help handle the
workload. Assigning TAs has been good for the faculty members because part of the
strategy is for them to teach the TAs how to teach and that causes faculty to be more
reflective and thoughtful of what they are doing. The same is true for the sections with
graders since the faculty members know that someone else is seeing what goes on.
REL 2011 is intended to be an introduction to methods of studying religion. We usually
cover historical, sociological, and anthropological methods. We also introduce the
students to the concepts of sacred writings, myths, rituals, etc. Beyond this, our
department gives faculty members flexibility in designing the structure and contents of
their sections. They may also choose the textbook or books that they would like to use.
For about 10 years now, the department has offered sections of REL 2011 online. The
course was designed to use the special knowledge of our full-time faculty members,
with each expert contributing a unit relevant to his or her area of expertise. The online
sections are thus very homogenous. The material is updated periodically, however.
Since fall 2010, REL 2011 has been a Global Learning Course. As a consequence, we
had to create specific Student Learning Outcomes for the course that match the general
SLOs established for Global Learning Courses. At that time, we outlined for the
professors teaching the courses example of specific assignments that would meet each
SLO. Since the Global Learning assessment takes place yearly, faculty members stay
very aware of the requirements. Although faculty members have freedom to create their
own assignments to assess each SLO, it has been interesting to note that most of the
94
faculty stick with the examples that were provided long ago. One unintentional result of
this has been to introduce a greater degree of homogeneity to the course across the
sections.
Four years ago, the department instituted twice-yearly meetings were for adjuncts (full
time faculty members go to monthly meetings). The goal of the adjunct meetings was
make them feel more connected to the department by informing them of the latest
developments and allowing them to discuss common interests and concerns. From time
to time, these meetings touched on teaching strategies, sometimes by having guest
speakers and sometimes by sharing ideas.
REL 3308
REL 3308 is part of the core curriculum at FIU and meets the Societies and Identities
requirement. Since fall 2010 this course has also met the Global Learning requirement.
We keep caps at 50, but have some larger sections that, like REL 2011, have TA or
grader support.
When most people think about religions, they think in terms of distinct traditions such as
Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam. This is the approach taken in REL 3308, and it makes the
course very user-friendly and accessible. While the expectation of the department is
that the course will cover the “major” religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, we also leave room for choice
on the part of the faculty members to include other “smaller” traditions. For example,
some choose to explore African or Native American religions. Many add a unit on
Jainism. And some deal with new religious movements. Faculty members are free to
choose a textbook that fits with their plan for the course.
As with REL 2011, we also have online sections of REL 3308 that follow a format
designed collectively by the full-time faculty members. But from time to time we have
had faculty members who wanted to design their own online version of the course, and
the department has always allowed them to do so.
Since REL 3308 is a Global Learning course, the same yearly assessment model has
been used to the required SLOs. In a similar fashion, this process has produced more
uniformity in course design as far as student activities. For example, we often use site
visit exercise where students are asked to attend a worship service from a religion
different from their own and then are to observe what happens. We encourage them
speak with worshipers, look at what people are wearing, and notice how they behave.
We ask them to correlate their observations with what they have learned in class and
then discuss whether any changes are made due to the fact that the service is being
held in the United States rather than the religion’s country of origin.
Goals
95
The department would like to achieve the following goals in the following year:
A. Data. We have some data for our two courses that are part of the UT3 initiative. In
fall 2014, the average failure rate for REL 2011 was 22.4%. But there were some
sections that had failure rates in the range of 42-57%. Similarly for REL 3308, the
average failure rate was 20.3%, with the highest sections have 25-33%. The variation is
much smaller in REL 3308 than in REL 2011.
We would like to continue tracking this data to see whether consistent trends are
noticeable. We would also like additional data, if possible, correlating DWFI rates with
retention rates.
B. Awareness. Starting in the fall, we will make all faculty members teaching REL 2011
and 3308 aware of the passing and failing rates. Those with consistently high failure
rates will be challenged individually. But hopefully by becoming aware of the numbers,
we will begin to reduce the failure rates through collective action as well.
C. Involvement. We want to engage faculty members in the process of course
transformation. Faculty buy-in is very important to meaningful and lasting change. We
will begin a collegial process to outline common goals (including reducing failure rates
and improving retention rates), identify effective teaching strategies, and decide what
common elements we would like to see across all course sections.
D. Continuous Improvement. We will set up a regular process for reviewing the data and
making changes to course design. Training sessions will be provided to faculty
members collectively in the department and by encouraging them to attend workshops
hosted by CAT.
E. Active Learning. Faculty members will be encouraged to implement active learning
techniques into their classes. Opportunity will be given to share success stories as well
as challenges.
Strategies
A. Implement pre- and post-course student assessments to measure student success.
Hopefully we will see a correlation between active learning techniques and student
success.
B. Hold meetings with faculty members that allow them a say in course design.
C. A sub-committee of those faculty members who attended the spring 2015 Gateway
Course Institute will review the SLOs for each course to ensure that they are clear and
coherent. The committee will also come up with detailed active learning exercise that
put into practice active learning techniques.
96
D. Establish accountability by connecting student success in adjunct evaluations by the
department chair.
Action Plan
1. June 2015. Design a pre-test and post-test for professors to give out to students.
Test-run during summer B. Main run at beginning of fall.
2. August 2015. Circulate data and improvement plan to faculty.
3. September 2015. Hold training meetings for instructors. Erin Weston, Ivanessa
Arostegui, Daniel Alvarez, and Erik Larson will explain the principles of active learning
based on what we learned at the spring 2015 Gateway Course Institute. We will provide
examples of activities for instructors to use.
3. September 2015. Instructors brainstorm to come up with their own activities.
4. December 2015. Hold meeting/celebration with instructors to de-brief and to hear
about successes and challenges.
5. January 2016. Hold discussions about future course development and monitoring.
One option is that we aim for unity across sections. Another option is that each adjunct
instructor comes up with his or her own improvement plan that is updated every other
year and reviewed with the chair as part of the regular evaluation process.
97
Redesigning Introduction to Psychology (PSY 2012)
PSY 2012 (Introduction to Psychology) is a gateway course taken by approximately 2,500-3,000
students each year, mostly freshmen. Current passing rates in PSY 2012 are around 85%, so the
decision to redesign this course was not driven by high failure rates. Instead, it came from
realization that the course could, and should, be taught better. There are also data showing that
students who fail PSY 2012 are more likely to drop out of a university after their first year,
which is another reason we are planning to redesign the course.
We are planning to increase engagement of students with the material and each other, mainly by
spending most class time on structured group work. Creating a culture of small groups will not
only help students engage with the material and learn better but will also facilitate formation of
social connections, which is a crucial element for freshmen students and is expected to lower the
number of students who drop out after the first year.
Current State of the Course
There are several sections of the course taught each Fall, Spring, and at least one of the summer
semesters. There is currently only one full-time faculty member who teaches this course
consistently every Fall and Spring. There are several adjunct faculty (and one Associate
Professor) who have taught the course multiple times.
Course content is fairly standardized, with all instructors expected to cover the same mandatory
topics. The order of topic coverage is not restricted and instructors are free to use whatever
methods of content delivery they prefer. The course is currently taught mostly in “interactive
lecture” format that includes PowerPoint slides interspersed with class discussion and videos.
Some instructors use classroom response system (i>clickers) some semesters but it is not
standard practice across sections.
Both grading scheme (proportional weight of all course requirements) and grading scale (final
grade percentage corresponding to each letter grade) are the same in all sections. The textbook
and publisher-provided online assignments are the same in all sections as well.
Students are required to complete online assignments that assess their understanding of textbook
material. These assignments are supposed to be due before each chapter is covered in class, to
ensure student preparation for class discussion.
There haven’t been any major changes to the course recently.
Current passing rates in PSY 2012 are around 85% and frequently 50% or more of students each
semester get As.
Current Problems
1. Students are, for the most part, unprepared for class discussion, even after completing
online assignments that are supposed to promote reading of the textbook. Many students
lack effective study skills, understanding of how memory works, and basic skills of
effective reading. Additionally, many of them are unprepared for independent work in a
university setting (they may feel confused, overwhelmed, isolated).
98
2. Some instructors do not make online assignments due before chapter coverage starts in
class. They believe that students need exposure to class lecture in order to complete those
assignments. This practice totally defeats the purpose of these assignments, which is to
promote students’ reading of the textbook and better preparation for class discussions.
This practice also creates discrepancies between sections in terms of student expectations
and academic rigor of the course.
3. Given the vast amount of material, many instructors acknowledge that they struggle to
cover it all in class.
4. Class discipline is horrendous across sections. There is talking, texting, and inappropriate
laptop use, as well as students coming in late and leaving early.
5. Attendance is also dismal in many sections that do not use i>clickers to keep track of
student participation. (In some sections, only about 20% of enrolled students come to
class on a regular basis after the first few weeks of the semester.)
6. Both discipline and attendance are related to a third, probably most important, factor:
lack of student engagement.
Our proposed course redesign is expected to address most of these challenges.
Goals of Course Redesign
1. Increase consistency of content delivery, pedagogy, and assessment across sections. Have
a group of full-time faculty who consistently teach the course every semester.
2. Deliver most course content outside of class, online, using a variety of methods.
3. Use class time for Active Learning activities, completed in groups and facilitated by
instructors and Learning Assistants (LAs).
4. Create a uniform cumulative assessment to be administered at the end of the semester in
all sections.
Strategies
The plan is to make the course more consistent across sections, with the same content and
assessments. We believe that having a “core” of several full-time faculty teaching the course
regularly will help keep course pedagogy and administration consistent. There are ten mandatory
chapters that need to be covered and the plan is to have all instructors cover them in the same
order, possibly adding some extra content as desired and as time permits. All instructors will be
required to adhere to the established standards of content delivery, homework assignment, and
in-class activities.
Because content coverage, assignments, and assessments will be more standardized and
consistent, all students taking the course will have the same expectations and opportunity to
achieve the same outcomes. We believe such uniformity will improve the quality of the course
and will thus be beneficial to students, the department, and the university.
We are considering making PSY 2012 a hybrid course, with most of the content delivery and
some portion of student work done outside of class time. We have some of that now, with online
homework using publisher-provided assignments, but to make the course truly hybrid we plan to
assign more varied homework and to require students to meet outside of class for group work
and/or material review. (We hope to be able to hire Learning Assistants who will lead or
facilitate these out-of-class meetings.)
99
To make class time more meaningful, we plan to assign individual and/or group written work in
class. Students will be assigned to groups and will be expected to write freely and/or answer
questions and complete worksheets that illustrate some aspect of course material. During class
time, Learning Assistants and instructors will facilitate group work by observing group
discussions, asking questions to stimulate idea exchange, and offering meaningful feedback. We
expect that this format will drastically improve student engagement with the material and student
mastery of course content.
Because class time will be spent on more active engagement with the material, we want to ensure
that students have been adequately exposed to chapter content before class. To that end,
publisher-provided assignments will continue being assigned as homework. Additionally, we
will provide chapter content to students via audio- and/or video-recorded lectures, PowerPoint
slides with recorded voice-over, and/or other methods such as Respondus StudyMate generated
activities (crossword, fill-in-the-blank, flashcards, etc.) and personality self-assessments. Some
videos, activities, worksheets, and/or questions may be assigned as homework, so that students
are better prepared for in-class discussion.
Moving the majority of content coverage to outside of class will free up class time for engaging,
hands-on group work that will promote mastery of the material, as well as general critical
thinking skills and social interaction skills. If in-class work is given sufficient weight in terms of
grading, students will be motivated to attend class. Because graded in-class work will require
sufficient knowledge of content material, students will be more likely to complete the reading
and homework. If students are engaged, it is expected that discipline will improve, as students
will be kept busy during the majority of class time. Being part of a permanent group will provide
students with social resources and is expected to ease social isolation.
Assessments
Currently, no good assessment exists to measure student learning in the course. There is a short,
end-of-semester cumulative test that is administered in some sections, as required for course
accreditation. However, it is not a good representation of course objectives. There are also four
unit exams that are different in all sections and reflect the specific content covered by a particular
instructor. Given that PSY 2012 is a “gateway” and a high-enrollment course, we believe that
uniform, high-quality assessment across all sections is needed.
We plan to administer a standardized end-of-semester assessment in all sections. This will be a
cumulative exam assessing mastery of course content. Because mandatory course content is
planned to be identical across sections, the same cumulative assessment can be administered in
all sections. Our team of PSY 2012 instructors will carefully construct this end-of-term
assessment and will continuously modify it as necessary, based on student performance results
from each semester. We are hoping to develop the first draft of this assessment this summer and
pilot-test it in PSY 2012 sections taught in Summer B 2015.
As end-of-semester assessment is modified and fine-tuned over several semesters, we expect that
student scores on it will improve, which will be an indication of course redesign success to all
stakeholders: students, instructors, and administrators.
100
In addition to end-of-semester assessment, there will be other assessments throughout the
semester. There will be unit exams, each covering 1-3 chapters. Students’ group and/or
individual written work will be graded consistently. Students will be receiving lots of formative
feedback when their group work will be graded, which is expected to promote more effective
long-term learning.
We plan to administer a “mid-semester check” – a brief, anonymous questionnaire for students
about their perceptions of the course. This quick check will allow instructors to get a sense of
how the class is going and to possibly correct issues that many students may find problematic.
We expect (and hope) that over time, students will embrace the new format of the course and
will indicate their satisfaction in end-of-semester evaluations of the course and instructors. This
will be a good indicator to the department and university that course redesign is achieving its
proposed goals.
It is also our hope that assigning students to groups will give them opportunities to connect with
their peers and expand their social networks. This should help students feel less overwhelmed
and isolated and is expected, in turn, to reduce the number of students who drop out after their
first year and to increase graduation rates.
101
Report on History Department UT3 Project
Introduction
When the History Department was notified that WOH 2001 had been identified as one
of the 17 critical courses for the University Transformation through Teaching Project we were
already engaged in a project to transform all of our Core Curriculum Gordon Rule courses, have
them recertified as Gordon Rule for the New Core, and revise our SACS assessment process to
align it more closely with our course objectives in these courses. We believed that WOH 2001
shared characteristics and student success statistics with our other Gordon Rule courses and,
with the approval of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching (CAT), decided to include all
of them in our UT3 project.
Current State of History Gordon Rule Courses
History currently teaches 7 Gordon Rule History courses:
AMH 2041
AMH 2042
EUH 2011
EUH 2021
EUH 2030
LAH 2020
WHO 2001
(AMH 2042 was not included in the project as it is replaced in the new core by AMH
2020 which was included.)
CAT provided us with data indicating the rate of Drops, Failures, Withdrawals, and Incompletes
in WOH 2001 (see attachment.) In addition we gathered more discrete data to help us
understand what might lead to better student retention and student success. This data is
included in attachments named Fall 2014 History Courses and SACS Data. In brief, we found the
following:
 Average rate of passing in History Gordon Rule courses is 80%
 DFWI rate is 20%
 First year students (freshmen) rate of passing is 63%
 Only 5% of students in History Gordon Rule are first year students making impact on
second year retention minimal
 There was a significant difference in student success between those taking courses fully
on-line (58%,) in hybrid format (78%,) and in traditional face-to-face classes (87%.)
 SACS data indicates that of our 3 assessment areas (critical thinking, written
communication, content knowledge) critical thinking is where students have the most
difficulty
These courses are all writing intensive and successful completion of writing assignments is the
largest component of a student’s grade. Writing is an important component in many courses
102
beyond History’s Gordon Rule courses. It may well be, then, that a student’s success or failure
in mastering the writing skills required in our courses will affect success or failure in subsequent
courses taken at FIU. We have no data on this, but we speculate it is true and it motivates us to
take writing instruction very seriously. The extent to which writing as a process is actually
addressed within different sections of History’s Gordon Rule courses varies. It needs to be
addressed in all of them.
Goals
In general our goal is to improve the writing skills of our students with particular
attention to the critical thinking required to develop thesis driven, argumentative essays.
 Raise average pass rate from 80% to 85% within 3 years
 Raise SACS assessment of critical thinking from 70% to 80% within 3 years
 Improve rate of passing for first year students from 63% to 70% within 3 years
 Make sure that each semester we provide information to everyone teaching Gordon
Rule courses that includes
Strategies
We have revised all of our Gordon Rule courses using a grant from Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) that enabled us to provide small stipends for 5 faculty members. This project
was led by Tovah Bender and Joyce Peterson and included participation from 1 associate
professor, 2 instructors and 2 adjuncts (we thought it important to include adjunct instructors
in this process since they teach many of the Gordon rule sections.) All of those involved in the
revision of courses also participated in the following:
 attended a workshop led by Bender and Peterson to explain the project and discussed a
syllabus template for all Gordon Rule courses
 attended a workshop led by WAC on goals of Gordon Rule
 attended a one day workshop led jointly by WAC and CAT to which the entire History
Department was also invited. This workshop included strategies for teaching writing and
critical thinking as well as strategies for improving student retention and student
success
 attended a wrap-up discussion of how to apply what had been learned to the syllabi
they were creating
 prepared a sample syllabus for a particular course using the WAC Gordon Rule check list
 prepared sample writing assignments for their course
 prepared all materials necessary for submission to the curriculum approval process as
Gordon Rule courses
In addition Peterson and Bender devised a syllabus template suitable for any Gordon Rule
course regardless of content which includes the following:
 goals and objectives that synchronize with our SACS goals
 all the items included in the WAC checklist for Gordon Rule courses
103



need for writing assignments to be on separate sheets and clearly articulated
expectation that syllabus will include class time spent on writing instruction
inclusion of all items on the Provost’s list of what a syllabus should include
Our plan going forward is:
 Each semester remind all those teaching Gordon Rule courses to follow the syllabus
template in preparing their individual syllabi. Make sure that this includes adjuncts and
graduate students.
 Stress the importance of clear writing assignments and grading criteria.
 Create an informal teaching discussion group within the department.
 Remind faculty to check class rolls and make sure that any first year students have
already successfully completed ENC1101 and1102. If not they should not be in the
course.
 Encourage faculty to pay attention to any first year students in the course and make
sure they are keeping up with the work.
 Enlist the assistance of the early alert system for students who are not submitting
written work in a timely fashion.
 Utilize a new SACS checklist (already created) that measures success in the same goals
that are articulated in every Gordon Rule syllabus.
Resources to aid in Student Retention and Success
Individual tutoring to help students improve their writing has proved very successful. As a result
we recommend the following:
 Restore funding for Writing Fellows.
 Add funding for on-line Writing Fellows. This might help reduce the difference in success
between students taking courses online and in class.
 Provide funding for undergraduate mentors to assist in large classes.
104
APPENDIX C
UT3 WORKSHOP AGENDAS AND READING LISTS
105
Workshop Agendas
Lower-Division Math Institute
March 9 – 11, 2015
Monday
10 - 10:30am
Brief Intros & Why We’re Here (overview & goals, maybe let them know
that on Wednesday they’ll share with the group their course-specific
plans for next steps--Leanne & Leslie)
10:30 – noon
How & Why Should We Work on Student Retention? Why the First Year is
So Important, plus Keys to First-Year Student Success (maybe followed by
brainstorming on the kinds of practices they might use in light of this
retention research—Does the Krantz chapter on social problems of
teaching still fit here?, plus Zucker response)
Noon - 1:00
Working Lunch: Building on our Successes (taking stock, first as a whole,
then by course?)
1:00 – 3:00
The Learning Design Makes the Most Difference (C. Nelson)
3:00 - 4:00
Group work on the plan? (It would be better if this were woven into the
Learning Design section vs. stand-alone)
Tuesday
10 -
Noon-ish?
What does it mean to learn? What is conceptual understanding, and why
is it a worthwhile goal? (discussion of Mason article—maybe C. Nelson??)
Working Lunch: Developing exercises for class, including ones that
promote and evaluate conceptual understanding
Vertical alignment (might be useful to use the large post-its to visually
see connections among the courses)
Possible something about the effective use of technology sometime on
Tuesday?
Wednesday
10 – 11
11 – 12:30
12:30- 1:30
1:30 – 3:30
3:30 – 4:00
Pedagogy discussion using Trigueros & Jacobs piece??
Work in Groups on Plans for Each Course
Gateway Faculty Lunch Celebration
Presentation & Feedback
Some kind of wrap-up
106
Gateway Design Institute
March 11 - 13, 2015
Wednesday
10 - 10:30am
10:30 – 11:30
11:30 - 12:30
12:30- 1:30
1:30 – 4:00
Thursday
10 – 11:30
11:30 -12:30
12:30 -1:30
1:30 – 2:30
2:30 -4:00
Friday
10 – 11:00
11 – noon
Noon – 1:00
1:00- 4:00
Brief Intros & Why We’re Here (overview & goals, let them know that on
Friday they’ll share with the group their course-specific plans for next
steps—Isis & Leslie)
How & Why Should We Work on Student Retention? Why the First Year is
So Important, plus Keys to First-Year Student Success
Building on our Successes (taking stock, by course)
Gateway Faculty Lunch Celebration
The Learning Design Makes the Most Difference (C. Nelson)
(brief 2:45 break for coffee/snacks)
Learning & Helping Students Become Better Learners—discussion of
readings
More taking stock/baseline data: Reviewing of G2C recommendations
and findings, plus other data
Working lunch: Discussion of NCAT’s Essential Elements of Course
Redesign
Element #1: Redesign the whole course and establish greater course
consistency.
Element #2: Require active learning.
Element #3: Increase interaction among students.
Element #4: Build in ongoing assessment and prompt (automated)
feedback.
Element #5: Provide students with 1-on-1, on-demand assistance from
highly trained personnel.
Element #6: Ensure sufficient time on task.
Element #7: Monitor student progress and intervene when necessary.
Element #8: Measure learning, completion, and cost.
Discussion of conceptual understanding
Snack & coffee break, Continue course-specific planning
Grading & evaluating (to counter dysfunctional illusions of rigor)- C.
Nelson?—using grading reading
Course-specific Planning
Working lunch: Continue work on plans & presentations
Presentations & feedback
(2:30 snack and coffee break)
107
FYE Steering Committee Breakfast
April 14, 2015
Goals & Plans
Upon successful completion of the session, participants will…
…recognize that this project is a unique and powerful opportunity to help students become
successful
Welcome
…be able to describe what this group will be working on (i.e., FYE course redesign) and several
reasons why we’re working on this now
---- Including, but not limited to: the course’s inclusion in the list of 17 critical courses
because it's a high-enrollment and high-impact course, its inclusion in the strategic plan,
a general sense that it needs revision, especially given that 1st to 2nd year persistence is a
metric in performance-based funding
Why we’re here



I’ll start with UT3 since it bought us breakfast =)
o FYE was identified by FIU’s Office of Retention as a “critical course”—that is,
ones for which student performance is strongly correlated with their retention.
To improve our retention numbers FIU, applied for and received funding from
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Transformational Planning Grants
Program, administered by APLU.
Student Success Subcommittee of our Strategic Plan
Performance-based funding in Florida
Why CAT is involved (redesign)
Why they were brought in—“dream team”—thank them again!
Any questions at this point???
108
Share plans for the rest of the meeting: Introductions, talk a bit about the first-year seminars in
general, next work on phase 1 of course design or redesign which is to examine some of the
most important “situational factors” we have to take in to account, and finally, decide on some
next steps. Sound ok?
…know who is around the table and start to grasp what each person brings to the project

Introductions, plus nature of relationship to first-year students and/or the course:
Taught it before, work with first-year students, etc
…be able to describe why first-year seminars arose, what they hope to accomplish (broadly),
and prevalent course types (using discussion of the assigned reading)
I sent you a chapter from Challenging and Supporting the First-Year Student because I wanted
to make sure everyone had a sense of why these types of courses arose and what they hope to
accomplish, in broad terms—so I’d like for us to discuss this for a bit.



If someone who has never heard of them asked you, “What is a first-year seminar?”
how would you respond?
Why were first-year seminars “invented”? Where did they come from?
In one sentence, what do they hope to accomplish?
…articulate the main situational factors to consider before redesigning the FYE course
Distribute pages from Fink guide—let them know that we’re asked to “stay true to the spirit” of
what was included in the strategic plan—distribute copies of that too
…determine most useful next steps in the project
–and ask for volunteers to work on key areas


learning goals will need to be drafted, benchmarking with peer institutions, review of
existing data: survey results, Tekla’s research, Musoba article…
To continue working on the project, we want to be able to offer you a stipend—but we
can’t if we do this during regular work hours. That leaves us with two options: vacation
time or weekend.
109
Workshop on Gordon Rule History Courses and
Student Success
Friday April 24 in GL154
10:00AM to 3:00 PM
Agenda
Morning Session 10:00 to12:00: Writing Across the
Curriculum
 Introduction to Gordon Rule Writing and the Course
Approval Process
 Using Writing to Teach Course Content and Critical
Thinking
 Assignment Design and Developing Clear Grading Criteria
 Sequencing Assignments
Afternoon Session 12:00-3:00: Center for the
Advancement of Teaching
 Working Lunch-What is the UT3 Grant?
 Student Retention and Discussion of Attached Readings
 Current State of History Gordon Rule Courses
 History’s Goals for Gordon Rule Courses
 Strategies for Student Success in Gordon Rule Courses
 Resources Needed to Help Students Succeed
110
Gateway Course Institute for First-Year Composition: May 7-8
Thursday, May 7: Keys to Retention: Building Relationships
Readings
--Twenty-First Century Literacies: A Checklist.
--“The Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide.”
Recommended
--Keys to First-Year Student Persistence.
--“There’s No Easy Fix for Graduation Rates.”
9:00-9:15
Why We Are Here
Very brief into on why we are here (grant, numbers, correlations, etc).
9:15-10:00
Intro to Workshop and Format
3Rs: Self-determination theory, autonomy, purpose, mastery
Appreciative Inquiry approach to workshop and teaching
Storytelling:
Tell how each of us is navigating the challenges before us. Introduce
concept of storytelling and how it will be a big part of the two days.
Paul: Promoting engagement, giving students reasons to want to slow
down….
Mike: Making connections between college and post-college writing,
writing as a marketable skill.
10:00-10:15
Disarm: Core Nickname
Meet with your team and come up with a team name that embodies
your collective strengths as instructors. Think metaphor or acronym.
Appoint a scribe for the team.
Share names with the full group
10:15 -11:00
Discovery of Priorities for Teaching 21st Century Literacies
In Teams:
Team members each present their list with justifications. Challenge to
group: come to a consensus and justification for your group’s top five.
Post to Moodle Discussion Forum.
Team Sharing:
Each team shares with the full group.
111
11:00 -11:45
Dream: Enhancing Our Vision of 21st Century Literacies
Full Group Discussion:
What resonates with you about these lists?
What, if anything, is surprising about them?
To what extent are students already engaging these literacies in 1101
and 1102?
11:45 – 12:30
Dream: Teaching 21st Century Literacies in FYC @ FIU
15 Minute Individual Freewrite (to prep for Dream Activity below):
What’s the most interesting, engaging, and creative way you can think
of to further engage students in these literacies, or at least in some of
these literacies?
Full Group Discussion of Freewrites:
A scribe will take notes on the screen.
12:30 – 1:30
Working Lunch
Design:
Meet with your teams over lunch and try to turn one of the Dream ideas
into an assignment or a sequence of assignments for 1101 or 1102.
1:30 – 2:00
Delivery: Teams Report Back on Their Designs
2:00 – 2:30
A scribe will take notes onscreen.
Affirmative Inquiry Topic #1: Relationships
2:30 – 3:30
Discuss the Mentor’s Dilemma as a Full Group:
Guiding Questions. Discuss the Mentor’s Dilemma and the concept of
wise feedback as a way to build a sense of trust between teachers and
students, especially for the students who are most likely to drop out.
Discover: Wise Feedback and/or Mentorship Stories
Individual Writing:
Tell a story about feedback that relates to the concepts of wise
feedback in some way. What does wise feedback mean to you? Can
the same feedback be wise or unwise depending on the context?
Full Group Storytelling:
Selected people share the stories they wrote.
Dream: Full Group Takeaway Principles
What might it look like to have wise feedback and effective mentoring
be the normal experience for all students in 1101/1102?
Team Scribes: Take notes to post your group’s list of takeaway
principles for Wise Feedback and Mentorship.
112
3:30-3:45
Snack Break (Re-energize for the last part of the day!)
3:45 – 4:45
Don’t Settle!
Individuals reflect and write about their biggest takeaways from the day.
Based on group preference and time, participants will either share in
teams and then report back to the larger group or just begin sharing
with the larger group as a scribe takes notes.
Friday, May 8:
Keys to Retention: Rigor and Relevance
Readings
--“Why is It So Hard for Students to Understand Abstract Ideas?”
--College Writing and Beyond. Appendix A (focus on 177-185)
--College Writing and Beyond: Five Years Later.
--Involvement Chapter from Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action.
9:00-9:30
Disarm: Flow
Introduce the concept of flow, using the excerpt from Paul’s “Flow
Narrative” assignment. Ask people to share a few stories about when they
have experienced flow in their lives (preferably not related to schoolwork or
their jobs, because that will come later).
Prompt: Write about a time when you experienced “Flow.” Try to relate
this as a story.
Full Group Discussion: Sharing of some Flow Narratives
9:30-10:15
Affirmative Inquiry Topic #2: Rigor
Discovery:
Relationship Between Writing and Learning – Jen:
Topics Covered:
1. What learning is and how writing can accomplish learning.
2. How, in order for learning (and transfer) to happen, we need to think
about the zone of proximal development (mentioning “goldilocks zone”
so we can refer back to that term later). Connect Goldilocks back to some
of what was just discussed regarding "Flow."
3. How writing can be used to teach specific critical thinking skills,
including metacognition.
Final thought: Metacognitive Teaching.
10:1511:15
Dream and Group Share
Team Discussion (25 min for Discussion and Writing Up Ideas):
113
In light of the previous discussion and Beaufort’s two readings, work as a
team to consider and write about how we might adopt the suggestions in
Beaufort’s Coda to develop subject matter knowledge that is focused and
contextualized:
1. Choose a theme. Consider themes that can allow a diverse
number of tangents students might pursue and are
developmentally appropriate. What are some workable
themes for FYC classes?
2. Consider what discourse community or discourse
communities the course will be exposing students to and how
to teach the features of these discourse communities. What
discourse communities would work best with our
students?
3. Develop three or four “essential questions” to guide the
intellectual exploration for the course and to eliminate the vast
amount of subject matter that can’t be adequately addressed
within the time constraints of the length of the course. What
are your three or four essential questions?
Have a scribe take notes for posting later, and to refer to during full group
discussion.
Full Group Discussion (25 min):
Sharing of plans. Post when you can.
Wrapup (10 minutes)
11:1512:00
Affirmative Inquiry Topic #3: Relevance
Discussion of Tinto’s Involvement Chapter:
Key Terms: Activities that are meaningful and validating. Pedagogies of
engagement (ideally problem- or project-based), learning communities,
service learning. If time, ask people from the Community Writing
Committee to share experiences incorporating community engagement into
their classes.
12:0012:15
12:15-1:15
Introduce the Concept of FedEx Time
Lunch: FedEx Time
Meet someone or some people outside your team and take some FedEx
time… Think about everything we have talked about yesterday and today
and come up with the most far-out idea you can that would make
1101/1102 students think of the university as a place where they want to
stay. Prepare to share with the larger group after lunch.
114
1:15-1:45
FedEx Reports
Share people’s ideas with a scribe taking notes. Bask in our collective
creativity.
1:45-2:45
Discover/Dream
Individual writing:
Write about an experience in which you either gave or were given an
assignment (ideally a writing assignment, but it doesn’t have to be) that you
immersed yourself in—i.e., for its own sake, beyond the prospect of getting
a good grade—or that you feel students immersed themselves in.
(Depending on time) Individuals with first share in teams or begin sharing
directly with the whole group
Dream:
Building Pedagogies of Involvement/Engagement
As a full group, let’s consider the question--to what extent are our students
having these experiences in 1101/1102 already and how can we make
them even more consistent? Have a scribe take notes onscreen
2:45-3:00
Snack Break
3:00-4:00
Design:
In Teams:
Working in your teams, think about an assignment or sequence of
assignments for 1101 or 1102 that would increase students’ sense of
engagement/involvement with the course, with their peers, and the
institution. Post designs on discussion forum.
Full Group Discussion:
Teams report back
4:00 – 5:00
Don’t Settle!
Individual Freewrites:
These are some of the various concepts we have addressed over the last
two days:
--21st-century literacies
--Wise Feedback and Mentoring
--Flow
--Goldilocks Zones, Deep Knowledge, and Metacognition
--FedEx ideas
--Engaged assignments
In light of these ideas, consider and write for 15 minutes about these
questions:
--How might these concepts improve retention/student success?
115
--What concrete actions can we take to further incorporate some of these
concepts in 1101 and 1102?
--What support can the writing program provide for facilitating such
incorporations?
--What kinds of opportunities for sharing teaching practices would you like
to see in the future?
Full Group Takeaways:
Individuals share takeaways with the full group as a scribe takes notes
116
Statistics Summer Workshop for UT3 Courses (STA 2122 & 3123)
Friday, May 15, 2015
AGENDA
10-11 Introductions, why we’re here, goals for the day
--Go around the table, so that everyone can introduce themselves, perhaps (to
set a positive tone) indicating the one thing they love most about FIU students
(or something else that they can report briefly—since we’re pressed for time.
Jerry and Kristin, any suggestions??)
--Let them know that we wish we had more time with them…
--Why we’re here: To have an honest and open conversation about what brings
us here: your important courses and how we might improve them, in light of
several forces…
--So our plans are to 1) share information and make sure we’re all aware of what
the expectations are for the course--and why, 2) ask you to take stock; that is, to
think about the courses: what’s working, where you think there’s room for
improvement, 3) talk a bit about setting the tone, 4) share ideas about engaging
students in class, and 5) think about the most useful next steps.
--Share information:
National conversation and priorities: Jerry, if you think it would help and feel
comfortable doing so, you can tell them about “A Common Vision for the
Undergraduate Mathematics Program in 2025”:
http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CommonVisionAMS.pdf
In Florida, as they know, one result of performance-based funding is that we are
paying much more attention to student retention and graduation.
Two of the goals in the strategic plan are improving our first-to-second-year
retention and our 6-year graduation rates.
In preparation for this meeting, we also tried to find out as much as we can
about what the expectations might be for your courses, specifically. Here, we can
ask Hassan to share his version of this, and we can add that it seems likely that
they will be asked to
 Meet regularly to collaborate, redesign as necessary, share resources,
etc.
117
 Achieve consistency across sections: esp. learning goals, number of and
shared questions in major assessments
 Use elements of active learning
One bit of good news: that the strategic plan recognizes that this will require
converting adjunct positions to instructor lines where possible; in particular for
high impact courses where instructor conversions will result in marked
improvements in student learning outcomes.
Use College Algebra, Finite, Pre-calculus, and Social Choice as points of reference.
Per Dane’s suggestion that FIU should respect their autonomy and academic freedom,
yet hold “departments accountable to standards and goals,” ideally by “set[ting] the big
picture goals and allow[ing] the individual faculty to meet those goals in their own way,”
Jerry can debunk the myth that there’s no autonomy left and describe how they
collaborate…
They might be feeling scared at this point, blindsided, perhaps—so it will be important
to give them enough time and opportunities to vent, ask questions, etc.—even if it
delays the other agenda items. We’d rather they hear it from us in a safe space, and
with opportunities to ask about the implications, etc. than later on and feel that we
somehow lied to them or withheld information. It will also be important for them to
recognize that this was not our idea, but we’ve seen these practices work effectively in
other units and we’re here to support them.
11—noon
Taking stock: What’s working? Where is there room for improvement?
Individual work on worksheet, followed by small-group discussions (Each of us will
work with a group of 3-4)
During this session, it will be important for them to think about the drop and failure
rates for their sections and for the courses. We’ll share the course-level data, and we
can make them copies of the section-level charts if they want to see them.
Noon—1
Working lunch: Debrief on taking stock discussions
Each group can report on the main points raised, with an emphasis on courselevel points (as opposed to, “In my class, I do X activity… and they love it”) and
on course learning goals
It would be helpful if they realize what their course is intended to accomplish as
relates to the departments for which it’s a “service course”
118
This might be the appropriate time to try to convey the message that changes in
course design actually can result in improved learning and retention. Jerry and
Kristin can share examples from their courses. The statistics anxiety article might
help here and be a good segue to the next agenda item.
1—2
Setting the tone
Course description exercise: 1st individually with worksheet, then in small groups. The
goal is to find language that they could use to set the tone for the class, convince
students of its utility, minimize their anxiety, etc. The goal is also to convey that this is
the kind of language that would be useful on the first day of class.
2—3
Active classrooms & next steps
They asked specifically about clickers, group work, getting students to participate
and attend class, so we want to make sure they get some of this =)
We can ask them to discuss what they’re currently doing to engage students
during class, and offer suggestions…
To wrap up, we should use the last 20 minutes to ask them to think about next
steps: For instance, we hope that one next step will be to meet with psych and
bio to discuss each department’s expectations for students who take STA 2122
Ambitious goals for the workshop:
By 3:00 on Friday, we’d like for participants to…
•
•
•
…know what the University expectations are for these courses—and why
…feel comfortable enough to vent and speak freely about their frustrations, fears, etc.
…see CAT as a trustworthy and useful ally, one that respects their autonomy and
academic freedom (so that we can continue to work with them)
•
…have taken stock: reflecting on what’s working, where there’s room for improvement,
and determining useful next steps o To this end, it would be helpful if they realize what
their course is intended to accomplish as relates to the departments for which it’s a
“service course”
o In “next steps,” it would help if they determined who will take the lead on each
class, who will meet with Psych and Bio, etc.
…realize that there is room for improvement (and that current pass and drop rates are
problematic),
•
119
•
…start to realize that there’s a lot they can do (in course design, interactions with
students, etc.) to improve student success (vs. student success depends entirely on
students and their motivation, background knowledge, etc.)
•
…start to realize that they will make much more progress if they work together—but
that working together ≠ cookie-cutter
•
…start to see themselves as members of a community with a responsibility to the whole
course, not simply their class(es)
•
…leave with a few concrete suggestions for improving their course
Goals
Signs that it
worked
Activities
…know what the University
expectations are for them—and
why
Maybe they can
write on a
worksheet their
version of what’s
being asked?
Share this information—all lower-division courses
will need to do x, y, z. Use College Algebra, Finite,
Pre-calculus, and Social Choice as points of
reference. Jerry can debunk the myth that there’s
no autonomy left and describe how they
collaborate…
…feel comfortable enough to vent Venting,
and speak freely about their
complaining,
frustrations, fears, etc.
heated discussion
We need to listen, avoiding the impulse to preach
or point out the flaws in their argument. We will
need to ask questions that will elicit their
frustrations, fears, and questions.
…see CAT as a trustworthy and
useful ally, one that respects
their autonomy and academic
freedom (so that we can continue
to work with them)
They come back,
email us for help,
join a book group,
etc.
In addition to listening and conveying verbally and
non-verbally that we understand where they’re
coming from—none of us signed up for this; we
must also let them know how we were brought to
this conversation, that we did not make the list of
the 17, and that we have no control and will not
be prescriptive—have no hidden agenda.
…have taken stock: reflecting on
what’s working, where there’s
room for improvement, and
determining useful next steps
They take
action—do not
continue as if the
workshop hadn’t
happened
Develop an activity and/or handout to facilitate
this process and discussion, using the course
objectives we shared via email
120
…realize that there is room for
improvement (and that current
pass and drop rates are
problematic),
They take
action—do not
continue as if the
workshop hadn’t
happened
Share course-level data with them, ask them if
they want to see anonymous, section-specific
data.
…start to realize that there’s a lot
they can do (in course design,
interactions with students, etc.)
to improve student success (vs.
student success depends entirely
on students and their motivation,
background knowledge, etc.)
They take
action—do not
continue as if the
workshop hadn’t
happened
Share examples of efforts in which course design
improvements resulted in improved outcomes
(perhaps the statistics anxiety studies)
…start to realize that they will
They try to meet
make much more progress if they again to
work together—but that working collaborate
together ≠ cookie-cutter
Ask them to do something challenging in small
groups: work on the course description taking into
account statistics anxiety. Also, Jerry’s description
of how they collaborate should help. Kristin can
provide the Bio version of the benefits of
collaboration.
…start to feel a sense of
responsibility to the whole
course, not simply their class(es)
Time will tell =)
It would be best of Jerry and/or Kristin said
something about this and how they’ve reconciled
this for themselves
…leave with a few concrete
suggestions for improving their
course
They take notes,
ask for a ref. or
more reading
material, ask how
to set up clickers,
etc.
On Friday, synthesize key strategies from clicker
articles. Share articles in binder.
121
Reading Lists
Gateway Course Design Reading List
Ambrose, S. (2014). Who do students learn? In Chambliss, D. F., & Takacs, C. G. (Eds) How
College Works (pp. 67-78).
Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (2014). Applying science of learning in
education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from the
Society for the Teaching of Psychology web
site: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
Brown, P. C. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning.
Carlson, M. P., & Rasumussen, C. (2008). Making the connection: Research and teaching in
undergraduate mathematics education. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association
of America
Chew, S. (2014). Helping students get the most out of studying. In V. A. Benassi, C. E.
Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing
psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 215-224). Retrieved from the Society
for the Teaching of Psychology web site:
http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
Erikson, B., & Strommer, D. (2005). Inside the first-year classroom. In In Upcraft, M. L.,
Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds). Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp.241-248). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ishler, J., & Upcraft, M. (2005). The Keys to First-Year Student Persistence. In Upcraft, M. L.,
Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds). Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (27-46). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Kober, N. (2015) Reaching Students: What research says about effective instruction in
undergraduate science and engineering. Board on Science Education , Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Krantz, S. (1993). How to teach mathematics. Providence, Rhode Island: American
Mathematics Society
122
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the firstyear student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ishler, J., & Upcraft, M. (2005). The Keys to First-Year Student Persistence. In Upcraft, M. L.,
Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds). Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (27-46). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
ENC 1101 & ENC1102: Required Pre-Workshop Readings
The Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide. Geoffrey L. Cohen,
Claude M. Steele, Lee D. Ross. Stanford University.
Involvement Chapter from Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action. Vincent Tinto.
Twenty-First Century Literacies: A Checklist. Cathy N. Davidson
College Writing and Beyond. Anne Beaufort.
College Writing and Beyond: Five Years Later
If the above hyperlink doesn't work:
http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/college-writing-beyond.php
Recommended Readings (for context):
The Keys to First-Year Student Persistence. Jennifer L. Chrissman Ishler, M. Lee Upcraft
There’s No Easy Fix for Graduation Rates
If the above hyperlink doesn't work:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/education/there-s-no-simple-fix-for-lowgraduation-rates-20150408
123
APPENDIX D
UT3 BUDGET
124