Reduce the Number of Courses with Preponderance (20%) of D, W, F Grades

This project will reduce the number of courses with a preponderance (20%) of D, W, and F grades through course redesign. Project Working Group Sukhwant Jhaj and Gary Brown Project Description Establish a Course Redesign Community of Practice focused on redesign, implementation and replication of successful efforts. This project should be housed in OAA, sponsored by the Provost, and supported by the Center for Academic Excellence. Action Items Establish PSUs capacity to redesign courses. Establish a project working-group. Consider membership to NCAT. Establish the RFP process. Implement the RFP process. Establish a Course Redesign Community of Practice. Demographic data analysis for high DWF courses. Course redesign. Assessment of student learning. Program evaluation. Key Barriers Support from department, department chair and the dean for redesign. Implementation in multiple sections. Faculty attitude towards delivery models. Student comfort with various modes of delivery (lecture, hybrid, emporium, on-line)

These actions will reduce

These actions will achieve

Goal 1. Lowering of DWF rates. 2. Enhanced student performance on specific learning outcomes. 3. Higher student satisfaction with the course experience. 4. Students progress in intended majors.
These actions will ultimately lead to

Higher retention and graduation rates.

Council of Academic Deans

Implementing Department

Admissions and Records

Project Working Group

Executive Committee

Input Provider 2

Chairs Meeting

Faculty Senate

VP EMSA

Decision Matrix Key: (R) Recommend, (A) Agree, (P) Perform, (I) Input, (D) Decide. Establish PSUs capacity to redesign courses Establish project working group Consider membership to NCAT Establish the RFP process Implement the RFP process Establish a Course Redesign Community of Practice Demographic data analysis for high DWF courses Course redesign

Website

Provost

UCC

ARC

Assessment of student learning. Program Evaluation Review of unit planning documents Project Structure Vice Provost for Academic Programs & Instruction, Director CAE and Special Assistant to the Provost should establish Portland State Universitys capacity to support successful redesign of high DWF courses. This evaluation should include identification of resources needed to support this initiative. Membership to the Redesign Alliance of National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) should be considered. Redesign of high DWF courses should be prioritized over all other course redesign efforts. PSU should also consider establishing a Course Redesign Community of Practice focused on redesign, implementation and replication of successful efforts. This project should be housed in OAA, sponsored by the Provost, and supported by the Center for Academic Excellence. The Provost should sponsor one Senior Fellow position to support the redesign effort. Courses should be selected only if: there is support from the department, department chair and the dean for redesign; To the course has DWF rate the redesign effort will be implemented in all future course offerings (sections) of the course;be determined above 15% and the total count of students receiving DWF is above 50/year. Gateway courses should be prioritized for redesign. Redesign of high DWF courses should be included in the unit planning documents of the sponsoring department and college. PSU should redesign 5 courses a year. The redesign should be seen as an iterative two-year process. In the first year there should be a focus on understanding the issues involved including collecting and analyzing demographic information, planning the redesign of the course, developing assessment instruments, and implementing course redesign. Year two should focus on assessment and improvements as well as mentoring and sharing with other faculty involved in the redesign. Funding Required Member in NCAT can range up to $25,000. CAE instructional designers should place priority on design work. $20,000 per year for faculty stipends, $10,000/year for consultant and faculty travel to conferences (NCAT?). The initial funding should be sufficient for two years. Amount $25,000 $20,000 10,000 $85,000 Frequency/Duration Purpose NCAT membership Per year Faculty Stipends Per year Travel (Consultants and Faculty) Total Funding required for initial 2 year cycle

Timeframe and Metrics Results of a course redesign effort should be evaluated on the basis of: reduction in DWF rates, increased student learning, and student satisfaction with the course experience as seen by improved faculty/course evaluations. A committee including course redesign fellows, teaching faculty, sponsoring department chair and dean, should conduct program evaluations. Courses Recommended for Redesign 1. Stat 243 Introduction to Probability and Statistics I 2. Stat 244 Introduction to Probability and Statistics II 3. Math 95 Intermediate Algebra 4. Math 111 Introductory College Mathematics I 5. Math 251 Calculus I 6. Math 252 Calculus II 7. Math 261 Introduction to Linear Algebra 8. Math 322 Applied Differential Equations

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

CH CH CH BI BI BI EC ARH BA PS EAS CS ECE BA

221 222 335 341U 101 341U 201 205 211 200 199 162 171 211

General Chemistry I General Chemistry II Organic Chemistry II Introduction to Genetics General Biology Introduction to Genetics Principles of Economics History of Western Art Fundamentals of Financial Accounting Intro to Politics Engineering Problem Solving Introduction to Computer Science Digital Circuits Fundamentals of Financial Accounting

Metric Name/Description DWF Rate Decrease: Year over year comparison of DWF rates for individual, high-risk classes. Success of students after high-risk course completion: Are students doing better overall as a result of succeeding in high-risk courses? Are students doing worse as a result of failing in high-risk courses? DWF Classes: Track the number of classes with 20% DWF Faculty/Staff Support Available: Determine if support is available for faculty and staff to redesign high risk courses High Risk Course Evaluations: Compare course evaluations before and after redesign. Faculty/Staff Awareness: Determine if faculty and staff are more aware of high-risk courses and how to modify them to encourage student success.

Formula # Of DWFs # Of students enrolled in class Qualitative Result

Compare year over year 20% DWF classes are there improvements? Surveys? Informational queries of faculty/staff involved with high risk courses? Are there improvements in satisfaction? Surveys

Status May 2012 This project did not receive the requisite funding. After the merger of administrative units, continuation with this project was not seen as a priority by the merged unit.