COURSE REDESIGN: Increasing
Student Success While
Reducing Instructional Costs
TODAY’S DISCUSSION
The National Center for Academic
Transformation
Proven Models for Successful Redesign
Examples of Successful Redesigns
• Established in 1999 as a University Center at
RPI funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts
• Became an independent non-profit
organization in 2003
• Mission: help colleges and universities learn
how to use technology to improve student
learning outcomes and reduce their
instructional costs
NCAT PROGRAMS
• Program in Course Redesign (PCR)
– 30 institutions
• Roadmap to Redesign (R2R)
– 20 institutions
• Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R)
– 60 institutions
• State and System-based Programs
– 60+ institutions
– AZ, MD, MS, SUNY, TN, TX
TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION
Seminars
Lectures
“BOLT-ON” INSTRUCTION
WHAT’S WRONG
WITH THE LECTURE?
• Treats all students as if they
are the same
• Ineffective in engaging
students
• Inadequate individual
assistance
• Poor attendance and success
rates
• Students fail to retain learning
WHAT’S WRONG WITH
MULTIPLE SECTIONS?
• In theory: greater interaction
• In practice: large class size
• In practice: dominated by the
same presentation techniques
• Lack of coordination
• Inconsistent outcomes
WHAT DOES NCAT MEAN
BY COURSE REDESIGN?
• Course redesign is the process of redesigning
whole courses (rather than individual classes
or sections) to achieve better learning
outcomes at a lower cost by taking advantage
of the capabilities of information technology.
• Course redesign is not just about putting
courses online.
• It is about rethinking the way we deliver
instruction in light of the possibilities that new
technology offers.
PROGRAM IN
COURSE REDESIGN
To encourage colleges
and universities to
redesign their approaches
to instruction using
technology to achieve cost
savings as well as quality 50,000
enhancements.
students
30 projects
WHY REDESIGN?
Look for courses where redesign will have a
high impact:
• High withdrawal/failure rates
• Students on waiting lists
• Students turned away – graduation bottleneck
• Over enrollment of courses leading to multiple
majors
• Inconsistency of preparation
• Difficulty getting qualified adjuncts
• Difficulty in subsequent courses
ACADEMIC AREAS
• Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Anatomy &
Physiology, Physics, Geology
• Humanities: English, Spanish, Fine Arts
• Social Sciences: Psychology, Economics,
Sociology
• Quantitative Area: Math, Statistics, Computing
• Professional Studies: Accounting, Nutrition,
Organizational Behavior, Engineering Statics
ALL TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS
• Public
• Private
• Research Universities
• Comprehensive Universities
• State Colleges
• Community Colleges
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
• 25 of the original 30 showed improvement;
5 showed equal learning
• 24 measured retention; 18 showed
improvement
• All 30 showed cost reduction
• Results in subsequent national and state
and system programs have continued to
show comparable results
WHAT DO THE FACULTY SAY?
• “It’s the best experience
I’ve ever had in a
classroom.”
• “The quality of my worklife
has changed
immeasurably for the
better.”
• “It’s a lot of work during the
transition--but it’s worth it.”
REDESIGN MODELS
• Supplemental – Add to the current structure and/or
change the content
• Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online
activities
• Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting
Fully online – Conduct all (most)
learning activities online
• Buffet – Mix and match according
to student preferences
• Linked Workshop – JIT workshops
linked to college level course
REDESIGN
CHARACTERISTICS
• Redesign the whole course—not just a
single class
• Emphasize active learning—greater
student engagement with the material and
with one another
• Rely heavily on readily available
interactive software—used independently
and in teams
• Mastery learning—not self-paced
• Increase on-demand, individualized
assistance
• Automate only those course components
that can benefit from automation—e.g.,
homework, quizzes, exams
• Replace single mode instruction with
differentiated personnel strategies
Technology enables good pedagogy with large #s of students.
University of Hawaii, Manoa
The course of 600 students annually suffers from
problems typical of multiple-section courses
• course drift and inconsistent learning
experiences for students
• a one-size-fits-all approach
• course material that needs constant updating
• an inability to scale beyond the current
infrastructure.
University of Hawaii, Manoa
• Traditional: 2 lecture section & 20 lab sections
• Redesign: 2 hours in optional lecture and 2 hours
in lab
• Lectures are podcast in 30-minute segments –
students listen to them as they complete lab
exercises & homework
• 5-minute podcasts of chapter summaries are also
available.
University of Hawaii, Manoa
Results
• Scores on Midterm and Final Exams
– Traditional: 66.18 and 68.95
– Redesign: 83.52 and 75.93
• Increase in level of questions asked by
students indicating greater depth of learning in
the redesign
• Greater consistency in grading
• Ability to grow without more staff
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
Issues
• Course is not learner-centered
• Content does not develop problem-solving
skills.
• Course does not ensure that students with a
broad range of learning styles and levels of
preparation will master the content and
succeed.
• Course has high DFW rate, among the 30
highest rates at ASU.
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
• Traditional: 8 lecture sections of ~270 -
2200 students annually
• Redesign in 2 formats
– Replacement: 2 lecture sections of ~299
• One optional lecture each week
• One open, interactive lab each week
• Online resources
– Online: 1 online section of up to 500 students
• Students must pass an online assessment first
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
• All students have
– Interactive online projects
– Discussion board
– Quizzes which are automatically graded
– Web-based, multi-media resources aligned
with the text
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
Learning Results
• Redesign course included more
challenging content
• All failing students had multiple missed
assignments and/or projects
• A very small percentages of students in
the replacement model came to lecture
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
• Students found the course more applied
and valuable
• Final grades
– Increase in # of As in redesigned course:
from 38% to 62%
– Students in both formats did equally well at
all grade levels
Arizona State University
Computing and Information Literacy
Cost Reduction
• One faculty coordinator, rather than 2
instructors
• GTAs: reduced from 2 to 1
• UGAs: replace 6 undergrad graders with 5
undergrad learning assistants working fewer
hours
• Cost-per-student decreased from $50 to $38, a
24% reduction
OTHER REDESIGN EXAMPLES
• Drexel University – Computer
Programming
• State University of New York at Buffalo
– Computer Literacy
• University of Southern Mississippi –
Introduction to Computing
FACULTY BENEFITS
• Increased opportunity to work directly with students who
need help
• Reduced grading
• Technology does the tracking and monitoring
• More practice and interaction for students without faculty
effort
• Ability to try different approaches to meet different
student needs
• Opportunity for continuous improvement of materials and
approaches
A STREAMLINED REDESIGN
METHODOLOGY
“A Menu of Redesign Options”
• Five Models for Course Redesign
• Five Principles of Successful
Course Redesign
• Cost Reduction Strategies
• Course Planning Tool
• Course Structure Form
• Five Models for Assessing
Student Learning
• Five Critical Implementation Issues
• Planning Checklist
COURSE REDESIGN: Increasing
Student Success While Reducing
Instructional Costs
Carolyn Jarmon, Ph.D.
cjarmon@theNCAT.org
www.theNCAT.org