Redesigning Developmental Studies to be Efficient and Effective in Tennessee Funded by FIPSE Dr' Pau

1
Redesigning Developmental Studies to be
Efficient and Effective in Tennessee Funded by
FIPSEDr. Paula Myrick Short, Principal
InvestigatorVice Chancellor for Academic
AffairsPRESENTERDr. Treva Berryman, Project
FacilitatorAssociate Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs

• Presented at the National Conference for State
  Legislators
• February 28, 2009
• Scottsdale, AZ

Tennessee Board of Regents
2
TBR - DSP History

• In 1984, the Tennessee Board of Regents mandated
  a program of remedial and developmental studies
• comprehensive mandatory assessment procedure
• mandatory placement of underprepared students by
  
• level of deficiency
• comprehensive support system with prescribed
  courses
• with up to 24 SCH

3

• Colleges Spend Billions to Prep Freshmen
• A new report from Strong American Schools,
  Diploma to Nowhere, estimates the costs to bring
  students up to speed for college work to be
  between 2.3 billion and 2.9 billion annually

4

• First-Time Freshmen
• Remedial and Developmental Classes
• Universities
• 2006 -11,155 with 4,511 (40.4)
• 2007-11,559 with 4,809 (41.6)
• Community Colleges
• 2006 - 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3)
• 2007 14,852 with 11,235 (75.6)
•  

5
Persistence An Issue
2000 First-Time Freshman Cohort. Rates based on
returning to or graduating from initial enrolling
institution.
6
NEXTERS (25 and under)GEN Y or MILLENNIALS

• Diversity as a norm
• Idealistic
• Collaborative
• Communication is constant
• Open to new challenges
• Prefer a flattened hierarchy
• Wired grew up digital
• Embrace new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
7

• TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan
• Objective A8
• Increase speed and success of remedial/
  developmental work for students requiring them to
  become college-ready.
• Strategy A8
• Establish a best practice, system-wide,
  community-college-based remedial/developmental
  program that is substantially technology driven,
  composed of language arts and mathematics, and
  allows students to identify and focus on the
  academic areas where they are deficient.

8

• The Challenge
• Review what we have learned in the past 25 years
• Consider the current research and new
  technologies
• Realize that we have different careers, different
  academic programs, and very different students
  than we had 25 years ago
• Design a program to meet the needs of
  under-prepared students with the assumption that
  nothing already exist
• Question everything- do not let current practice,
  policy, or resources limit ideas

9
DSP Redesign Initiative

• Replicable/Scalable model for multiple settings
• Improve the quality of learning and assessment
• Significant cost savings
• Increase retention
• Decrease time to completion
• Maintain commitment to access
• Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and
  enhanced public support

10

• Partners and their Role
• National Center for Academic Transformation
• (NCAT) www.thencat.org
• Dr. Carol Twigg redesign funded pilots
• Education Commission of the States
• (ECS) www.ecs.org
• Dr. Bruce Vandal expanding research to guide
  public policy
• National Center for Higher Education Management
  Systems
• (NCHEMS) http//www.nchems.org
• Dr. Karen Paulson external evaluation of the
  project

11

• Timeline
• 2006 Initial Planning
• - Appointed Task Force Members (20
  faculty)
• - Applied for and awarded 739,000 FIPSE
  3-yr grant
• 2007 Institutional Involvement- The NCAT
  Process
• - Two workshops (330 total
  participants)
• - Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot
  Interventions
• 2008 Pilots 6 funded
• 2009 Draft recommendations by the end of the
  year
• 2010 - Implement system wide fall semester

12

• From Innovation to Transformation
• Three Keys
• Think out-of-the-box
• Base recommendations on data-driven decisions
• Focus on what is best for student success

13

• DSP REDESIGN TASK FORCE
• Representatives include a President, Chief
  Academic Officer, Student Affairs Officer,
  Director of Admissions, University Vice
  President, Developmental Studies Directors, and
  Faculty
• TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES
• Math Curriculum Review
• English (reading/writing) Curriculum Review
• Assessment
• Funding/Financial

14

• Consensus on a new philosophy for DSP
• Change of focus from the pastto the future.
• In the future, we will remediate for whatever
  is needed to prepare the student to succeed in
  the curriculum of their chosen field of study.
  If the student changes the career goal,
  additional remediation may be needed.
• Question
• Can remediation be provided just in time so
  that students can take college level courses
  prior to completing all developmental studies
  requirements?

15
A Different Approach

• Six funded pilots began January, 2008. We are
  now in the
• second of three semesters of pilots.
• Each redesign pilot is unique.
• APSU Structured Learning Assistance Model
  (SLA) (math)
• ClSCC and JSCC Emporium Model (math)
• CSTCC Replacement Model (math)
• NSTCC Emporium Model (reading)
• CoSCC Replacement Model (reading and
  writing)

16
Austin Peay State University

• Structured Learning Assistance (SLA) with just
  in time remediation, placing students in college
  level courses with supplemental instruction
  (positive results)
• First Semester Pilot Reported
• ? Student success increased by 37 (Math
  1010) and 29
• (Math 1530)
• ? Withdrawals decreased from 20 to 10
• ? Challenges Preparing and validating
  pretests
• Timing of remediation
• BANNER implementation
  and reporting
• SLA Leader Training

17
Cleveland State Community College

• Scope of Project
• 3 Developmental Math Courses
• 3 College Level Math Courses
• 2 Computer Labs, 4 Computer Classrooms (at 3
  locations)
• Timeline
• Spring 2008 Elementary Algebra and Intermediate
  Algebra
• Fall 2008 Basic Math, College Algebra,
  Statistics, Finite Math
• Approximately 1000 students enrolled in 6 courses

18
Cleveland State Community College

• Course Layout
• Each course consists of 10 12 modules
• 1 hour class meeting each week students work in
  class
• 2 hours work outside class each week at least 1
  hour in lab
• Students expected to complete at least one module
  each week
• Course Grade
• 10 Attendance Grade - class and lab attendance,
  module completed
• 30 Homework Sets 2 to 4 sections per module
• 50 Quiz Grades 1 quiz each module
• 10 Exam Grades 1 or 2 exams each course
• Course Standards
• Students must complete every homework set (70 or
  better)
• Students must pass every module quiz and exam
  (70 or better)
• Students must pass attendance grade (70 or
  better)
• Students may take each quiz and exam multiple
  times

19
Cleveland State Community College Results from
First Semester Pilot

• Before After
• Elementary Algebra
• Completion (ABC/ABCFW) 50.3 69.5
• Passing (ABC/ABCF) 61.9 79.8
• Course GPA 1.90 2.88
• Intermediate Algebra
• Completion (ABC/ABCFW) 57.2 70.8
• Passing (ABC/ABCF) 67.8 80.5
• Course GPA 2.05 2.85

20
Jackson State Community CollegeSMART Math Center
21
SUCCESSES

• Did it work better for some course content areas
  than others?

22
Northeast State Technical Community College

• Reading Emporium
• Web-based learning materials
• No regular weekly class meeting held
• Three mandatory weekly hours in the Reading
  Center
• Online Learning Communities through D2L and
  Tegrity
• MyReadingLabWeb-based, interactive, and
  modularized
• Individualized study plan based on diagnostic
  pre-test
• Multiple sets of practice and module tests
• Automatic tracking and grading

23
Advantages of Redesign as Reported by Faculty

• Student and Faculty Engagement Increased
• Scheduling Advantages
• Scheduling roadblocks reduced for
  students/faculty workload flexibility
• Student and Faculty Attitudes Improved
• Students trying for an A -- not a C
• Math self esteem of students increased
  dramatically
• Faculty view of students improved

24
Advantages of Redesign

• Improved Results
• Student learning increased Student success
  increased
• Standards were raised (plus instruction and
  grading was more consistent)
• Faculty Approach to Education Changed
• Curriculum updated
• Faculty roles shifted
• Less Time in Office, More Time Helping Students
• Faculty Serve as Coach, Guide, Helper
• Prep and Grading Time Replaced with Daily Record
  Keeping
• Decrease in cost per student

25
What The Faculty Observed

• Students Worked Harder, Performed Better, and
  Learned More
• Students on task - arriving early and staying
  late
• Students keep studying and working even after
  passing quizzes
• Improved Attitudes and Self Esteem for students
• Before What do I need to pass?
• After I want an A.

26
What The Faculty Observed

• Attendance Problems Reduced, Student Performance
  Increased
• This Approach Works
• Faculty were amazed at improvement in student
  attitudes and performance.
• With the most successful pilots faculty that were
  skeptical at beginning, but not any more.

27
Critical Components for Success

• Steadfast System Level Leadership
• Empower Broad-Based Action
• Provide a mechanism, a model
• Establish an environment for change.
• Make needed resources available
• Establish open communication and trust
• Provide support and recognize progress

28
Points to Ponder
Policies ? Federal Financial Aid Policies based
on credit ? Funding Models that reward enrollment
vs. outcomes ? Classroom and Department Policies
Impact of Changing Technologies and
Workforce Needs Tapping into other resources
through collaboration partnerships
29
Connection to P-20

• Aligning State and System Policy with
  Institutional Practice to Deliver Developmental
  Studies Effectively and Efficiently

Area of Focus
Retention and successful completion of degree or
certificate program
Initiatives to increase freshman enrollment
8th - 11th grade testing 12th grade intervention
Strategies to increase awareness at all grade
levels
30
Additional Resources ?The National Center for
Academic Transformation http//www.thencat.org
? The Education Commission of the States
http//www.ecs.org/ ?Dr. Paula Myrick Short,
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and
Principal Investigator for FIPSE grant
(paula.short_at_tbr.edu) ?Dr. Treva Berryman,
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Tennessee Board of Regents (treva.berryman_at_tbr.edu
)