Student Success Proposal: Large Lecture Instruction Transformation
Contact person: Maggie Jesse, Senior Director, ITS Instructional Services,
Summary
We propose transforming one or more large courses (>150 students) from a traditional lecture hall format to a hybrid delivery supported by technology. Through this effort we hope to identify sustainable models for alternative large course delivery that increase student engagement and satisfaction, thereby leading to greater student success.
Objective
The primary objective of this proposal is to leverage technology to transform large lecture course delivery in order to provide increased student-centered learning. The technologies and pedagogies chosen will be based upon models that have already proven successful around the country. However, innovations and improvements to those practices will be implemented by the project team in collaboration with the faculty partner.
While the primary objective is to increase the level of student-centered learning, we also hope to develop course delivery models that make more effective use of university resources (faculty time and learning spaces), in turn leading to increased time available to faculty and additional space available for students. Developing some level of efficiency will provide the sustainability needed to implement these new models more broadly across campus, leading to even further gains for students.
This project will provide the necessary support structure to faculty who wish to explore new pedagogies and instructional technologies that will fundamentally change the way that traditional large lecture courses have been delivered. Support will be provided by staff from ITS Instructional Services, the Division of Continuing Education, and the Center for Teaching, as well as local instructional support staff when available and appropriate.
Background
Large lecture courses are a traditional mainstay of any university campus. They have historically provided an extremely efficient way to impart information to the largest number of students with the least amount of faculty resources. However, abundant research indicates that students are better prepared and more engaged when they learn in environments that are interactive and/or provide a more personalized experience (e.g., Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011; Dori, Hult, Breslow, & Belcher, 2007). The very nature of most large lecture experiences for students is antithetical to these findings. One faculty member, facing scores of students, is not much different than students watching a lecture online. Large lectures are also environments that allow some students the opportunity to hide in the crowd, thereby removing themselves from any possibility of engagement.
In recent years new technologies have emerged that provide the efficiencies needed to teach large numbers of students using limited faculty resources, while at the same time creating a more individualized student experience and increasing student engagement. Research has shown that environments that support student-centered approaches increase student success.
· Inquiry-guided teaching/learning – Based on extensive research (including years of NSF-funded research and implementation of POGIL—Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning), this approach to teaching frames in-class questions to students in ways that personalizes and contextualizes the knowledge they have learned. It is the “driving force” that ensures meaningful learning when instructors implement new strategies such as “flipping” (see below).
· Flipped classroom – moves the lecture or knowledge delivery outside of the classroom (online lectures) while homework and interactivity happens in the classroom to apply the knowledge received.
· Hybrid/blended models – students attend small discussion sections while engaging in technology supported interactive modules or problem solving activities supported by technology.
· Cyber Peer-Led Team Learning (cPLTL) – pioneered at the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), this model changes the discussion sections of large lectures from teaching assistant-led sessions to online sessions provided by peer instructors who have been identified through successful completion of previous courses (Gafney & Varma-Nelson, 2008). This approach could be innovated further to include online lectures, along with the peer instruction approach.
· Data-driven course delivery – based on technologies and/or practices similar to those developed by Prof. Eric Mazur at Harvard University. Prof. Mazur’s techniques involve using database and automatic email responses to provide individualized feedback and question response to students (Mazur, 1997). The data is mined daily to provide just-in-time response to student questions during the course lecture, thereby customizing the lecture to meet the immediate needs of the students.
Taking a current face-to-face course and simply putting the content online is not efficient or effective. Instead we propose working side-by-side with faculty partners to identify current or new models for using technology to fundamentally change the delivery of large lectures. In order for this to be successful, a team approach that includes solid instructional design, pedagogy and technology support will be necessary. Many things will need to be taken into consideration including the level of academic challenge for students, active and collaborative learning, faculty/student interactions, and available support for campus services such as technology assistance. Other objectives include helping to determine learning outcomes, student resource needs, and technology implications.
Project Plan
We propose a multi-year, multi-phase approach that provides sufficient time for planning and development, as well as solid assessment methodology throughout the process.
AY 2012/2013
Fall 2012:
A project team will be established including collaborative efforts from ITS-Instructional Services, the Center for Teaching, Division of Continuing Education, University Assessment Coordinator, and participating faculty members. Three colleges have expressed interest in this collaboration; Liberal Arts and Sciences, Business and Engineering. A key role to the success will be a project lead who will help coordinate the work between the units involved as well as the work of an instructional designer and the faculty member. We will also explore opportunities to gain input from students. Planning and development of the course will be completed during the fall semester with plans to teach the first session in spring 2013.
Spring 2013:
The new course models will be piloted during the spring 2013 semester. During the course, a periodic assessment will take place, giving key feedback on progress, course alterations needed, and general student feedback. At the end of the semester, a full assessment, including student feedback will be done. Assistance from the project team will continue through the pilot course.
AY 2013/2014
Feedback from the assessment will be analyzed. Changes to the course will be made and implemented so that the course may be offered again as a refined and model course. An assessment plan will also be developed and compared to the previous year.
AY 2014/2015
Based on the experience of the pilot courses and assessments, new courses will be identified for change. Faculty members from previous pilots will serve as champions for new models and will share their experiences with others who may be interested in redesigning their courses.
Budget
Description / FY13 / FY14 / FY15 / NotesInstructional Designer / $81,715 / $84,1661 / $86,6911 / Recurring cost w/benefits. This individual may also participate in assessment activities.
Faculty buyout / $45,0002 / $45,0002 / For course redesign for 2 faculty
Faculty Institute / $45,000 / Dissemination and training for other large lectures once successful models are identified
Development/web design / $5,000 / $5,000 / App dev support to create interfaces or applications as identified by the instructional designer and faculty member
Assessment / $10,000 / $10,000 / $10,000 / Cost for shared assessment coordinator and assessment activities – surveys, focus groups, etc.
Total / $141,715 / $144,166 / $141,691
1. Assumes 3% annual salary increase.
2. Assumes course buyout or summer support for three faculty in each of the two years @ ~$15,000.
Assessment
To examine the effectiveness of this program to transform large-lecture courses, an assessment researcher will conduct a mixed-method research study to develop informed conclusions about this innovation in instruction. One major research question will center on the impact of the innovation on student learning outcomes. To investigate this question, the researcher will use several different quantitative as well as qualitative research methods. First, to draw comparisons between the transformed large-lecture course and a traditional large-lecture course, the researcher will include in the assessment study a similar large lecture course (preferably in the same discipline) that is not using the innovation to increase student engagement. The researcher will administer two surveys to each course, one at the beginning and one at the end of the semester, to compare students’ attitudes toward the instructional strategies in their particular courses. These instruments will gather detailed perspectives on both groups’ attitudes toward the type of instruction in their courses, and will also be used as variables in an effort to examine relationships between student learning outcomes and instructional strategies.
We will use hierarchical linear modeling to compare the learning outcomes of students in the newly transformed course with the learning outcomes of students in the traditional course. Specifically, we will test the hypothesis that variables related to the new teaching strategies are significant predictors of student learning outcomes in a model that contains measures of students’ prior learning. We will also conduct interviews with faculty members using the new methods to determine their perspective on how well students succeeded as a result of using the new teaching methods.
We will use additional qualitative research methods, such as classroom observation and student focus groups to learn in detail about the transformed lecture course and how students perceive the usefulness of the instructional innovation.
Outcomes of the assessment will be used to develop a set of lessons learned and best practices thereby providing transfer of these methods to other courses on campus.
Executive Sponsors
Steve Fleagle, CIO
Chet Rzonca, Associate Provost and Dean of Continuing Education
Project Leads
Maggie Jesse, Senior Director, ITS-Instructional Services
Anne Zalenski, Associate Dean Division of Continuing Education
Jean Florman, Director, Center for Teaching
Collaborating Units
Faculty and Staff Member(s) from:
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
College of Engineering
Tippie College of Business
ITS-Instructional Services
Division of Continuing Education
The Center for Teaching
Office of the Provost
Resources
Deslauriers L., Schelew E., & Wieman C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science Science, 332(6031), 862-864.
Dori, Y., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. (2007). How much have they retained? making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 299-323.
Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2008). Peer-led team learning: Evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hein, S. M. (2012). Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. The Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 860–864.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Rangachari, P.K. (1996). Twenty-up: Problem-based learning with a large group. In L. Wilkersn & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice
(pp. 63-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Resnick, L. B. & Klopfer, L. E.(1989). Toward the thinking curriculum. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research(pp. 1-18). Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stanley, C., & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging Large Classes: Strategies and Techniques for College Faculty. Bolton: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Center for Inquiry-Based Learning in its Math, The University of Michigan Department: http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/ibl/index.html
http://fod.msu.edu/oir/lectures-and-large-classes