Redesigning Developmental Studies to be Efficient and Effective

1
Redesigning Developmental Studies to be Efficient
and Effective

• Innovations 2008 Conference
• March 3, 2008

Dr. Bruce Vandal, Education Commission of the
States, Director Postsecondary Education and
Workforce Development
Dr. Treva Berryman, TN Board of Regents Assoc.
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
2
Developmental Studies Symptom, Not Solution

• High percentage of students in developmental
  education
• 28 of all students, 40 of community college
  students (NCES, 2003)
• Low college attainment rates
• 16 enrolled in remedial reading and 27 enrolled
  in remedial math earn bachelors degree (Adelman,
  2004)
• High cost to students and state
• 1 billion dollars a year dedicated to
  developmental education. (Breneman/Harlow, 1999)
• Focus on higher education/high school alignment
  as panacea
• 31 states involved with Achieve, Inc.s American
  Diploma Project (Achieve, Inc.)

3
Developmental Studies as Solution

• States setting ambitious goals to increase
  college attainment
• 90 of new jobs require postsecondary education
  (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006)
• Enrollment increases from students traditionally
  underserved and under-prepared for postsecondary
  education (WICHE, 2003)
• Research finds that developmental studies works
  for those who complete. (Bettinger and Long, 2006)

4
Who Regulates Developmental Studies?

• States
• Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
  Massachusetts
• Postsecondary Systems
• Tennessee, Georgia
• Individual Institutions
• For most states placement and assessment
  decisions are made by individual institutions

- Education Commission of the States, 2008
5
Barriers to Success Include

• Low completion rates
• Little data about what works
• Non-traditional student attendance patterns
• Student goals not aligned with traditional
  measures of success
• Financial aid, funding formulas and other
  policies which limit innovation in program
  delivery
• Misperceptions from policymakers
• The pressure to run successful programs
  inexpensively.

6
The Challenge

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

7
TBR Developmental Studies Redesign Project
8

• Fall 2006 First-time Freshmen Cohort in the
  Tennessee Board of Regents System
• Total Universities
• 11,155 with 4,511 (40.4) in DSP
• Total Two-Year
• 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3) in DSP
• Grand Total
• 25,983 with 15,226 (58.6) in DSP
•  

9

• 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.

10

• Timeline
• 2006 - Initial Planning
• - Appoint Task Force Members (20-mostly
  faculty)
• - Applied for and awarded 739,000 FIPSE
  3-yr grant
• 2007 - Institutional Involvement (The NCAT
  Process)
• - Two workshops (230 and 100
  participants)
• - Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot
  Interventions
• 2008 - (Spring/Fall) and 2009 (Spring)
  Pilots 6
• 2009 - October (Sub-councils) November
  (Presidents)
• December (Board)
• 2010 - Implement system wide (perhaps in
  phases)

11
From Dr. Kildare to Medical Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
12
From Perry Mason.to Legal Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
13
From Superheroes to Super Teams
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
14
From Flash Gordon to NASA
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
15
From the Stand Alone Teacher of the 1950s
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
16
to the Stand Alone Teacher of the 21st Century
Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
17
VETERANS (63 plus)(Silent Generation)

• 38 Million Americans
• Respect experience
• Duty before pleasure
• Eager to conform to group roles
• Equate age with status and power
• See change as disruptive and undesirable
• Fear new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
18
BABY BOOMERS (43-62)

• 76 million Americans
• Enjoy and value teamwork
• Want to get with the program
• Are willing to go the extra mile
• Have good people skills
• Embrace equity and fairness
• Like to receive credit and public recognition
• Less flexible when it comes to change
• Retiring but want to stay engaged
• Own new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
19
GEN-XERS (26-45)

• 39 million Americans
• Work best with members of their own choosing
• Self-reliant, skeptical of authority
• Embrace alternative workplace structures
• Prefer informal roles and freedom to complete
  tasks their own way
• Willing to challenge higher ups
• Core of the work force
• Technical savvy and creative
• Use of new technologies

Source Dr. Tom Carroll, President National
Commission on Teaching and Americas Future
20
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
21

• Since 1984
• There have been no significant changes in
  developmental studies education in the TBR
  system.
• Yet
• Academic Program Inventory changed.
• Students are very different (Generation X, Y,
  and millennials).
• Careers require different skills.
• Technology changes every 90 days! (software that
  grades written essays, Tegrity, DSP Suite from
  Addison-Wesley, Carnegie Learning Systems, PLATO
  (Academic Systems), MyMathLab, MyReadingLab, etc.)

22

• From Innovation to Transformation
• ?We came to the project with no pre-conceived
  answers. The challenge and opportunity is to 1)
  remain open-minded, 2) think out-of-the-box and
  3) base recommendations on data-driven decisions.
• ?Everything is on the table! This includes the
  concept of courses, assessments, diagnostics,
  placement, delivery methods, funding models and
  more.

23

• 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 expending research
• National Center for Higher Education Management
  Systems
• (NCHEMS) http//www.nchems.org
• Dr. Karen Paulson external evaluation of the
  project

24

• SUBCOMMITTEES OF
• DSP REDSIGN TASK FORCE
• Math Curriculum Revision
• English (reading/writing) Curriculum Revision
• Assessment
• New Funding (and Financial Aid) Model(s)

25
RELATED INITIATIVES

• ?P-16 Statewide Regional Councils
• ?Statewide Teaching Quality Initiative
• ?ACT Statewide Organization /ACT State Council
• ?High School Curriculum Alignment
• ?TN Lottery Rules Regulations
• ?Dual Enrollment and AP Classes
• ?Institutional Community Outreach Programs
• ?American Diploma Project

26

• Task Force has thus far reached consensus on a
  new philosophy for DSP
• What are we remediating for?
• 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.)
• Can we benefit from an emphasis on the positive
  (strengths) rather than the negative
  (weaknesses)? Can remediation be provided just
  in time so that students can take college level
  courses prior to completing all developmental
  studies requirements?

27
Primary Objectives and Outcomes

• Scalable for delivery in multiple settings
• Increase the quality of learning and assessment
• Significant cost savings
• Institutional, Departmental, Individual Student,
  Cost per Student Served, etc.)
• Streamline amount of time to completion
• Maintain commitment to access
• Replicable model (process and product)
• Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and
  enhanced public support

28
Where are We Today?

• 6 funded pilot projects began January, 2008.
• Structure consists of
• Support from Chief Academic Officer on campuses
• Task forces and subcommittees made up of
  primarily faculty have been convened
• A point person on each campus.

29

• QUESTIONS?

Additional Resources ?The National Center for
Academic Transformation http//www.thencat.org
? The Education Commission of the States
http//www.ecs.org/ ? Math Redesign at the
University of Alabama (Results) (Dr. Joe
Benson) http//www.center.rpi.edu/RedesignAlliance
/200720Conference/Presentation20Slides/Benson_Di
sciplinary.ppt ?Dr. Treva Berryman, Associate
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Tennessee Board of Regents (615-366-4442)
treva.berryman_at_tbr.edu
30
Given new innovation in technology what would the
ideal developmental studies program look like?

• What are the challenges?
• What are the opportunities?
• What policies should be adopted?
• What resources are required?

31

• Discussion Questions
• Are there advantages to common assessments,
  placements, and exits to encourage greater
  collaboration across institutions and systems?
• Should developmental studies programs define
  standards for delivery or for outcomes?
• How do we measure student success?
• How do we move from innovation to transformation
  of developmental studies?