From the Frontlines of Next Generation Learning
at America’s Community Colleges
August 4, 2011
The partnership:
The Problem We’re Trying To Address:
Critical shortcomings of U.S. education delivery (K-16)
Instructional design:
 Depersonalized one-size-fits-all curricular and instructional approaches
 Lack of coherence and relevance to unlock students’ engagement and motivation
Achievement goals and measurement:
 Broad, shallow content acquisition at the expense of deeper learning of
sophisticated knowledge and skills
 Time-based progression and expression of accomplishment in seat-time rather
than through a nationally accepted competency-based model
System design/performance:
 Inequitable opportunity to learn for students of low economic means
 Lack of comparability and transferability of data, records and credentials
 Consistently escalating costs with little or no improvement in student outcomes
 Deeply embedded practices, structures, and policies that limit the opportunity and
impact of reform
 Lack of R&D/capital-markets infrastructure to enable reform, relative to other
sectors
3
Core Beliefs and Guiding Assumptions
WHO WE ARE
A partnership designed to leverage the power of technology
to transform education to meet students’ and society’s needs in the 21st century.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
VISION: This goal requires the fundamental transformation of education practices,
policies, and structures. Incremental change will not suffice.
GUIDING ASSUMPTION: Technology has the power to disrupt the status quo,
and is beginning to do so in education.
CORE OPERATING PRINCIPLE: This disruption cannot be “managed” using traditional,
top-down processes. It will arise from field-based innovation and achieve scale
through distributed networking within and across communities of practice.
Our role is to catalyze and support those innovations and that networking.
Today’s Speakers
• Andrew Calkins, Deputy Director, Next Generation
Learning Challenges, EDUCAUSE
• Stella Perez, NGLC Founding Partner, COO, League for
Innovation in the Community College
• Mike Davis, Associate Vice Chancellor,
City Colleges of Chicago
• Russ Little, Manager, Web Systems,
Sinclair Community College
• Geri Anderson, Associate V.P. & Provost,
Colorado Community College System
City Colleges of Chicago
At a glance
• District of 7 college
campuses.
• Over 120,000 in programs
• Roughly 60,500 in college
credit programs.
• Diverse student body
–
–
–
–
67% female (avg. age 27)
44% are African American
20% are Latino/a
31% receive financial aid
Remedial Needs
• 78% of students report
transfer as their educational
goal.
• 95% of incoming high school
students require math
remediation.
• 1% of students that require
remediation in English,
Reading, and Math obtain an
Associates Degree.
Map of Math Courses at CCC
Math Placement
Exam (COMPASS)
Not College Ready
College Ready
Liberal Arts
Pathway
STEM Pathway
(AS)
Pre-Calculus
Math 140 – 143
Calculus
Math 207
(Developmental)
(AA and others)
General Education
Math
118
Math 098
Beginning Algebra
Not College Ready
(Foundational
Studies)
Foundational
Studies 1-4
Math 099
Statistics, Math
for Educators
Intermediate
Algebra with
Geometry
Ready for College
Level Math
Ready for Math
098
Placement and Pass Rates in Math 098 and Math 099
Initial Placements
80% of students who take
COMPASS Algebra and PreAlgebra place into either Math
098 or Math 099. Math 098
students are dramatically less
likely to succeed.
No Remediation
5%
FS Math
15%
Math 099
30%
Math 098
50%
Withdrawal and Completion Rates
80%
70%
60%
50%
Math 098
40%
Math 099
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pass Rate
Drops
In both courses, about 32%
of students receive nongrade designations. Of
those that receive a grade,
initial pass rates are
significantly higher in Math
099 – about 70%, versus
50% in Math 098
How a Student Navigates the Pathway
Success Depends on the Student's Pathway
80%
70%
Placed into 99
60%
Completed 98
50%
40%
30%
Students in 099 coming out of
098 are doing worse overall
than students testing into
Math 099 in the first place,
both in terms of retention and
completion.
Students Reaching Milestones
20%
10%
100%
0%
Pass Rate
Complete Rate
Drop Rate
90%
80%
70%
Completing Math 098 is a major
barrier between a student and
successfully earning a credential or
transfer. 50% of all incoming
students face this barrier, but fewer
than 20% of them will overcome it.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Enroll in Math
98
Complete 98
Successfully
Register for
Math 99
Complete 99
Successfully
9
Math On Demand + Early Alert System
Nature of the Innovation
Intentional fast-track
preparation for student to
move into college level Math
classes.
Increased access to Tutors and
Advisors during and outside
of class
Math on Demand +
Early Alert
(MOD+)
Increased use of technology in
and outside of classes
Targeted professional
development and common
assessment tools.
Blended Learning Model Approach
• Increases use of technology in and out of the
classroom without relying on it for complete
instruction delivery.
• Flexible model allows for variable resources to deliver
high quality instruction.
• Cost effective, scalable, and sustainable in a large
district.
• Cost savings allow for investments in early alert
systems, and embedded student supports (tutors and
advising).
• Expect to impact 10 sections of 30 students on 6
campuses in the coming year.
What is the Student Success Plan (SSP)?
The SSP is a software system and process for
student success, designed to increase the
persistence, success, and graduation rates of
targeted students.
Through holistic counseling, web-based support
systems, and intervention techniques, students
who are at risk of failing in college are identified,
supported and monitored.
Data is collected and analyzed to make decisions
about future efforts.
Russ Little - Sinclair Community College
Reasons We Created SSP
• Improve at-risk student retention & success
• Increase graduation rate of at-risk students
• Implement a systematic, comprehensive counseling and
intervention process
• Implement an integrated Early Alert intervention process
• Develop and maintain a comprehensive resource of community
and college referral sources for addressing challenges to
student success and retention.
• Develop a web-based counseling record (case) management
system
• Remove silos between offices that support students
• Create self help tools to connect students to resources that help
them overcome challenges to their success
SSP Software System
SSP Case Management Software
• Journal and create Action Plans, review student records
• Historical view of all interactions with student
• Specific tools; Counseling, Disability, Displaced Worker …etc
Early Alert
• Faculty & Staff send early alerts from a roster or search tool
• SSP software notifies and routes alert to Support Staff
• Feed back loop to let Faculty or Staff know the outcome
Student Interface
• Student intake form to collect student data
• Self Help Guides to assist student in finding available resources
• Action Plan / Task List – Monitor student progress
• Connection to Coach – Student contact point to advocate
Student Information System (SIS) Integration
• Connects your student data to SSP
• Builds rosters for faculty members automatically for Early Alert
Example Sinclair SSP Outcomes
• Quarter to Quarter SSP Retention (Fall 09 to Winter 10)
–
•
Fall to Fall SSP Retention (Fall 08 to Fall 09)
–
•
Transitioned SSP students (students who have completed the SSP process) had a
51% higher rate of retention compared to students who qualified for the program but
did not participate and a 30% higher rate of retention than students not designated
“at risk”.
Next Quarter Retention Rate of Minorities
–
•
Transitioned SSP students (students who have completed the SSP process) had a
23% higher rate of retention compared to students who qualified for the program but
did not participate and a 21% higher rate of retention than students not designated
“at risk”.
Minority Transitioned SSP students had an 18% higher rate of retention compared
to minority students not designated “at risk”.
First Term Grade Point Average
–
Transitioned SSP students had an average grade point average of 3.06 compared to
1.65 for students who qualified for the program but did not participate and 2.42 for
students not designated “at risk”.
Transitioned SSP = students who have completed their SSP process and have met the transition criteria
(Challenge issues resolved such as childcare and transportation, decided on a major, GPA 2.0 or higher,
passed 1st quarter Academic Foundation classes )
SSP Student Groups at
Sinclair
• Originally designed to manage “At-Risk”
student populations, SSP has been
expanded to provide Case Management to
many more student groups:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Counseling Services
Disability Services
High School Students
Distance Learning
Specific Campus Locations
Displaced Workers
And many more…..
SSP Awards & Adoption
• 2004 Educause Excellence in Information Technology
Solutions Award
• 2005 Macromedia Higher Education Innovation Award
• 2005 National Council for Student Development Exemplary
Practice Award
• 2005 NCSD and League for Innovation Terry O’Banion
Shared Journey First Place Award
• 2006 MetLife Best Practice College Award
• 2007 Bellwether Finalist Award – CC Futures Assembly
• 2008 NACADA Program Merit Award
• 2008 NASPA Grand Silver and Gold Awards
• 2009 NASPA Grand Gold (for Early Alert)
• SSP has been adopted by 6 Community Colleges
In Sinclair’s Experience Students who
are involved with SSP
• Are more likely to return next term
• Are more likely to complete more
courses successfully
• Have higher GPAs
• Are more likely to be enrolled two
years later
NGLC Grant
• SSP Software to be Open Source!
• Expect to have Open Source version
available in 6-8 months.
• Piloting current version with certain
schools now, inquire if interested.
• For more information / demo
russ.little@sinclair.edu
NORTH AMERICAN
NETWORK OF
SCIENCE LABS
ONLINE (NANSLO)
Remotely Accessible Laboratory
Experiments Extending First-year
STEM Opportunities
Next Generation Learning Challenges
 The North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO) was
selected from more than 600 pre-proposals and 50 finalists.
 15-month, $750,000 grant.
 The only international project funded.
 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation helped design Next Generation Learning Challenges and fund
the initiative.
 Multiyear, collaborative initiative focused on identifying and accelerating
the growth of effective education technology that can help improve
college readiness and completion in the United States, especially among
low-income individuals.
 NGLC is focused on early-stage innovations that look promising but
require significant technology investments.
 EDUCAUSE, dedicated to advancing higher education through the use of
technology, leads the NGLC initiative.
The Numbers: Online Learning
 21% growth rate for online enrollment far exceeds the 2%
growth in the overall higher education student population
 2010 Sloan Survey of Online Learning* interviewed 2,500 colleges
and universities nationwide.
 Approximately 5.6 million students were enrolled in at least one
online course in fall 2009.
 Nearly 30% of all students take at least one online course.
 Over 75% of surveyed academic leaders in public institutions
report that online instructions is as good as or better than
face-to-face instruction
Allen, Elaine, and Jeff Seaman. Class Difference$. Rep. BABSON Survey Research Group, Nov. 2010. Web. 26 Aug. 2011.
<http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences>.
Remote Access to Scientific
Instrumentation
 Remote access to scientific instrumentation has been
in practice for many years
 NASA Mars Rover and Space Station
 Remote Sensing in Oceanographic Study
Remote Access to Scientific Laboratories
 Remote access to science lab equipment started in
the mid-1990s in higher education
 Wide-spread adoption is slow
 Perception that “remote” is not “real”
 Initial cost of equipment and maintenance
 Technical complexity
 Strong student outcomes challenge perceptions
 Remote lab pedagogy is evolving
Benefits of Remote Laboratories
 Remote access benefits underserved students
 Rural, disabled, and working students with difficult schedules
can access scientific experiments 24x7
 Networked laboratories promote efficiency
 Expensive scientific resources are shared by multiple
institutions and scheduled for maximum efficiency
 Students enjoy benefits of remote access
 Extended opportunity for repeated experimentation
 Preferred over use of simulations
 Equipment and materials are controlled
 Access to expensive or dangerous materials
Remote Labs Around the World
 Networks of laboratory experiments are available
world-wide
 iLabs, MIT-based global consortia (Europe, Africa, Asia)
 Labshare , a consortium of five Australian universities
 Lila Project, (Library of Labs) a consortium of eight
European universities
 iLough-Lab, University of Loughborough (UK)
 iSES, internet School Experiment System (Czech Republic)
 NANSLO, North American Network of Science Labs Online
NANSLO Mission Statement
 NANSLO provides a consortium approach to the
development and deployment of high-quality,
modular, openly licensed courseware integrating
learner-centered and immersive web-based labs
using software, video and robotics for the study of
science courses.
NANSLO Partners
 Eight primary partners in the NANSLO project.
 Two partners, BCcampus and Colorado Community
College System, bring consortium members to the
project.
 WICHE serves as the coordinating and fiscal agent.
 Five other partners contribute to academic review of
curriculum.
NANSLO Project Objectives
 Developing high-quality first-semester core
curriculum for Biology, Chemistry, & Physics.
 Designing comprehensive laboratory learning
experiences which meet learning outcomes while
accommodating flexible delivery options.
 Integrating innovative technologies for mediating
science learning.
 Remote Web-based Science Laboratories
 Lab kits
International Collaboration
 Leverage BCcampus Creative Commons License
 Modify the existing Open Courseware to create NANSLO
laboratory curriculum
 Integrate NANSLO curriculum elements into Colorado
Community College System courseware
 Partner with BCcampus to replicate technical
demonstration results
 North Island College RWSL implementation and Creative
Commons curriculum
Lab Kits for Remote Student Use
 Students are provided
with all laboratory
equipment necessary
for remote
experimentation
Physics lab kit example
Remote Web-Based Science Laboratories
• Software and robotic interface controlled over the
Internet by students.
• Students interact with and manipulate remote
scientific laboratory equipment.
• Class works online in small groups or individually to
collect authentic real-world scientific data in real
time.
• Allows participation in laboratory experiments for
students who may otherwise be unable to attend a
traditional classroom/laboratory setting.
Equipment for Remote Access
 Hardware
 Frame, Robotic Slides and Tables Robotic Positioning Slides
and Rotary Tables, Robotic Arm, Spectrometer, Digital
Microscope, Air Track
 Software
 National Instrument’s LabVIEW, Hardware Control Server
 Video/Audio
 Cameras, Capture Card, , Video Multiplexer, Streaming
Server
RWSL Overview
Observation
Students
Observation
Physical
Manipulation
Manipulation
Internet
RWSL
Lab
Equipment
Data
Communications
Data Acquisition
35
Text Chat
Skype
Elluminate
35
Observation
Pan Tilt Zoom Camera
Video Streamer
Video Mixer
36
Physical Manipulation
Robotic Arm
Linear Slides
Rotary Tables
Slide Loader
37
Data Acquisition
Chemistry/Physics
Spectrometer – properties
of light such as intensity,
polarization, wavelength
LabVIEW Software
38
How NGLC Organizes Its Work
Strategy 1: INVEST IN INNOVATION
$39 million across three waves of
grantmaking
Strategies 2 and 3: MULTIPLY IMPACT
Increase the probability and size of grantee impact through:
Building
evidence and a
knowledge base
Enabling networking and
communities of next
generation learning practice
Strategy 4: ACCELERATE ADOPTION
Advance public and leadership awareness and action
towards adoption and system change
Wave I: Building Blocks for
College Success
Wave II: Building Blocks for
College Readiness
Wave III: Next Gen Learning
Models for College
Readiness & Success
April 2011 – September 2012
June 2011 – December 2012
January 2012 – June 2014
Innovations at post-secondary
level in deeper learning,
analytics, blended learning, and
open core courseware
NGL content and assessment
modules to help students master
7th -9th grade math and literacy,
aligned to Common Core
standards
Innovative, blended whole
school models with radically
higher student success at an
affordable price
Example: UCF’s Blended
Learning Toolkit that includes
best practices, course models,
assessment and data collection
protocols and “train the trainer”
materials
Examples: Imagine Education’s
Ko’s Journey, a game-based
pre-algebra program; or iCivics’
argumentation modules to
advance content-based literacy
and critical thinking
Examples (K-12): Quest to
Learn, Carpe Diem, Rocketship
Examples (H.E): Kentucky
Community Technical College
On-line/On-demand, Western
Governors University, Rio
Salado Community College
Wave I: Building Blocks for College Completion
The Call: Solutions to improve course completion, persistence,
and college completion through blended learning, deeper
learning and engagement, learner analytics, and open core
courseware.
$10 million distributed among 29 grantees
• 15-month grants, awarded April 2011
• $500,000 for open core courseware
• $250,000 for blended learning, deeper learning,
and learner analytics
Wave I by the Numbers:
600 pre-proposals
78 community colleges
29 grants
200 institutions in all
117,000 students currently served
304,585 students by grant end
$10 million in funding
$5 million for follow-up
Wave II: Building Blocks for College Readiness
The Call: Interactive modules focused on 7th-9th grade Common
Core Standards in math and literacy that can capture real-time
performance data
$7 million invested across 19 grantees
• 15-month grants, awarded June 2011
• $250,000 for proof of concept
• $500,000 for early stage adoption
Wave II by the Numbers:
240 pre-proposals
19 grantees
85 organizations in all
176,000 students by grant end
2.15 million students served 5 years later
$7 million in funding
Wave III: Breakthrough Models
For College Readiness and Completion
The Call: Accelerate the development of next generation school
and college models that leverage technology to significantly
increase student success at equal or lower costs than current
norms.
$12 million ($6 million for K-12, $6 million for higher ed)
• To be announced on October 5, 2011
• Twenty $150,000 incubator grants for
middle/secondary models with $300,000
challenge match to follow
• Six $1,000,000 grants to higher education models
Wave III: Design Parameters for New Models
Instructional Design
 Integration/blending of web-based learning (high priority: substantial
percentage – perhaps 25% -- of instruction delivered online)
 Incorporation of Common Core standards in ways that lead to deeper
learning and 21st-century skill development
 Personalization/adaptation
Achievement Goals and Measurement
 Competency/standard-driven curriculum
 Mastery-based progression/modularization
 Analytics, imbedded assessment, and frequent feedback
System Performance and Scalability
 Highly scalable design/low adoption barriers
 Sustainable funding model within three years
 High productivity staffing model/organizational structure
 Integration of secondary and postsecondary (a priority, not a requirement)
Red = non-negotiable
www.nextgenlearning.org
August 4, 2011