Getting Started on Course Redesign 1 February 2013

A Traditional Introductory Course for Non-majors • Three hours of lecture and two hours of lab per week • Lecture sections of 72–96 students • Lab sections of 24 students • Common lab syllabus • Not a bottleneck like some courses (e.g., Anatomy and Physiology), but…

• Course drift and duplication of effort in lecture • Extensive faculty resources dedicated to course, including frequent need for overload pay • Heterogeneous faculty investment in course • Lab time not as productive as possible • Student engagement • Faculty engagement

• How effective is the traditional lecture?
– Is anyone listening?
– Is everyone listening?

2006 –2009

• • • • • • • • • • • • • Clem Counts Mark Frana Sam Geleta Ron Gutberlet Mark Holland (Dept Chair) Wanda Kelly Joan Maloof Claudia Morrison-Parker Wanda Perkins Betty Lou Smith Bob Tardiff (Assoc Provost) Dr. Les Erickson, learning technology guru (left) Melissa Thomas (IT) Enhancement of online learning in Biology 210 – Kim Hunter, Richard Hunter

• Assigned time to prepare and implement pilot section of redesigned course • Department faculty and university administration supportive and encouraging • Support (advice, implementation, etc.) from our Instructional Technology group • NCAT strategies and mentoring – Carol Twigg and Carolyn Jarmon • USM – Don Spicer, Nancy Shapiro, Stan Jakubik

Benefits • Opportunity to evaluate and focus course goals • Counteract course drift • Capture the best that each instructor has to offer • Reduce duplication of effort • Meaningful and interesting faculty interaction

Challenges • Compromise and consensus building • Instructor buy-in across all sections • Time needed for team-building • Probably can’t be forced “from above” • Variation in faculty attitudes toward technology

• Did information transfer still require a lecture in 2006?
• Were traditional lectures serving our course goals?
• Can we do a better job of “priming” students for class?
– Is anyone reading the textbook?

• Use of Blackboard to deliver online content that partially replaces traditional lectures – Weekly instructions – Study guide (outline of key content; questions, fill in blank) • Reading assignments • Online animations • Online practice activities – Online quiz • Maximize use of lab time for activities, discussion, team contests • Use of clickers to engage more students, to initiate discussions, and to automate some grading

Benefits • Multiple ways for students to engage with the course material • Students decide when to work on the course material, within the framework of scheduled deadlines • Students held accountable for assigned work

Challenges • Significant paradigm shift, natural skepticism • What to do with that uncomfortable feeling that you are failing to complete a critical transaction if you do not say something out loud to a room full of students?
• Is anyone listening?
• Is everyone listening?

Spring 2008 • Learned that “lecture” time could probably be reduced to one hour per week • Learned that limited traditional lecturing is probably beneficial • Developed online course component • Single instructor • Student feedback prior to full implementation • Evidence for skeptical faculty

Replacement Model • One hour of “lecture” and two hours of lab per week • Large “lecture” sections (120 students) • Small lab sections (24 students) • Shared online component (Blackboard) • Workload discussions

Traditional Initial Redesign Full Redesign “Lecture” hrs/week students/section sections Lab hrs/week students/section sections 3 72-96 6 2 24 20 1.5
96 6 2 24 20 1 120 4 2 24 20

• The same instructor now teaches all of the lab sections (5) from their “lecture” section.
• One section of Biology 101 with its 5 labs is a full teaching load.
• Course Coordinator • Lab Coordinator

• Complete revision of lab manual during summer 2008 • Academic value of lab time is maximized— activities and small group discussion.
• Revision of online materials based on student and instructor feedback; cost savings for students.
• Course drift minimized through use of common online materials and faculty cooperation and compromise (summer and fall 2008).

• Three surveys – Midsemester survey – End-of-semester survey – Course evaluations • Embedded exam questions – Same instructor, different semesters – Same semester, different instructors • DFW rates – Same instructor, different semesters

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning —The Good • “I liked the online style of the course.” • “Online quizzes were helpful.” • “I usually do not like bio but it quickly became my favorite this semester.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning —The Good • “…easy to want to come to class every time and not fall asleep.” • “This was my favorite course this semester.” • “I like the way this class is conducted better than my friend’s bio classes.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning —The Good • “I really like the mix between online work and class time.” • “It is new and a little hard to get used to, but I like it!” • “I never really liked bio until now.” • “I like the online material…it makes class easier to attend.” • “The breakdown of DNA and protein synthesis is interesting and never taught in my high school.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning —The Bad • “I would prefer a hard covered textbook.” • “YouTube usually doesn’t work on my computer.” • “The only thing I don’t like about the lessons is it goes into a great detail and covers things we don’t need to know for the exam.”

Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning —The Ugly • “Hybrid class sucked b/c I didn’t learn anything from e-book or learning modules, time consuming or annoying.” • “If you taught as much as you were supposed to, I’d understand the topics better.”

Embedded Questions —Same Semester Number of questions answered correctly by a higher percentage of students.
Pilot Tie (± 5%) Traditional Exam 1 5 2 2 Exam 2 2 5 2

Embedded Questions —Same Instructor Number of questions answered correctly by a higher percentage of students.
Exam 1 Pilot 5 Tie (± 5%) 3 Previous Semester 1 Exam 2 4 4 1

• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the online lesson?
– less than 1 hour – 1-2 hours – 2-5 hours – more than 5 hours 10 (24%) 27 (64%) 5 (12%) 0 (0%) • The online lesson helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
– Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree 12 (29%) 30 (71%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the study guide?
– less than 1 hour – 1-2 hours – 2-5 hours – more than 5 hours 7 (17%) 24 (57%) 11 (26%) 0 (0%) • The study guide helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
– Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree 30 (71%) 12 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

• I understand the material that we have covered so far in Biology 101.
– Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree 11 (26%) 32 (74%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%) • I have learned new things about biology this semester.
– Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree 21 (51%) 20 (49%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

• I can see how the topics we are covering are relevant to my life and my education.
– Strongly agree – Agree – Disagree – Strongly disagree 9 (21%) 30 (70%) 4 (9%) 0 (0%) • Which of these best matches your feelings about the course?
– I’d prefer a traditional lecture with no online component. 5 (13%) – I like having a mix of online work and class time. 33 (83%) – I’d prefer to have more online work and less class time. 2 (5%)

Pilot Previous Semester Withdrawals 0/48 4/87 F’s D’s 0/48 3/48 1/87 5/87

Fall 2006 (Traditional) Spring 2009 (Redesign) Fall 2009 (Redesign) $10,370.48
$1196.00
$0

Traditional (Spring 2007) $329 Redesign $155

• Comfort level of instructors improves significantly after one semester.
• Student attitudes and expectations evolve quickly.
– Some resistance (very limited) to course design during pilot – Format of redesigned course is now expected by students and taken in stride

• “In class is my favorite way of learning, but the online is like homework and reinforces what I’ve learned.” • Only 1 or 2 of 48 pilot students had a strong negative reaction to the course format.
• 5 students from pilot changed their major to Biology

• Online learning tools • Staffed computer labs • Peer learning assistants • Small group meetings – Discussion sections – Laboratories • Supplementary instruction programs • Online discussion tools

• Online quizzes • Clickers in the classroom

• Track the time that students spend online doing coursework (Blackboard, publisher software) • Incorporate periodic assessments to encourage completion of online work – Weekly online quizzes in Biol 101 • Design an intervention strategy for students who are performing poorly on assessments or who are not spending sufficient time on task – A job for peer learning assistants?

• Redesign the Entire Course • Encourage Active Learning • Provide Students with Individualized Assistance • Build in Ongoing Assessment and Prompt (Automated) Feedback • Ensure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress

• Improve biological literacy of our students • Demonstrate relevance of biological science to all citizens • Create a positive experience of biology, doing justice to the amazing natural world • Distinguish science from non-science • Share practical information about personal and environmental health

2006 –2009 This initiative is consistent with the recommendation of the Spellings Commission on The Future of Higher Education: "We urge states and institutions to establish course redesign programs using technology- based, learner-centered principles drawing upon the innovative work already being done by organizations such as the National Center for Academic Transformation." The USM will be the first System-wide initiative adhering to this recommendation. Each USM institution will be redesigning at least one pilot course during a 3 year period starting in 2006. It is expected that by the end of this period there will be internal capacity to redesign other courses as appropriate.

• Adequate coverage of course content – Positive effect of the online structure • Technology – Browser compatibility with publisher materials – Clicker glitches (batteries, participant list, students forget) • Faculty development and support (very good) – Assigned time – Blackboard training sessions • Student attitudes and reactions – Mostly very positive – Some (limited) perception that redesign’s purpose is for the instructor to get out of work – eBook was not popular

• Student surveys – Response to course is generally positive – Students spend more time working on course material • Embedded exam questions – Student performance has improved or stayed the same • DFW rates – Decrease from 11 to 6% for one instructor – Heterogeneous results during fall 2008 • Full implementation in spring 2009 – Analysis pending