Improving Student Learning Outcomes in Gateway Courses Methodology and Implementation Plans

Improving Student Learning Outcomes in Gateway Courses

Methodology and Implementation Plans

Step 1

• Identify the gateway knowledge, skills and abilities learning outcomes by faculty – The Gateway Initiative coordinator will work with faculty in the college level programs to identify important fundamental knowledge, skills and abilities important to continued student success in the programs that should be learned in introductory or gateway courses.

Step 2

• Mapping the identified knowledge, skills, and abilities outcomes to specific program courses – Faculty Clusters will take the list of identified knowledge, skills and abilities in step one and then identify the courses where they should are introduced, emphasized, reviewed, and utilized.

Step 3

• Selecting Courses – The Gateway Initiative coordinator and the Gateway Initiative Team will select specific courses for learning outcome improvement.

Gateway Courses

Criteria For Selection

Consideration will be given to -

• Whether a given course is a pre-requisite to other courses or a core requirement for programs;

• The number of students enrolled in a given course and to the number of sections scheduled during the Fall and Spring Terms;

• The average section size;

Consideration will be given to -

• The actual number of KSA's introduced or emphasized in a given course;

• College-level courses that serve both AA and AS programs;

• Courses that allow for methods of subsequent assessment, though the lack of actual sequenced follow-up courses should not prohibit a course from selection;

Consideration will be given to -

• Course performance data such as course G.P.A. or course withdrawal rates;

• Utilization of KSA's* in relation to the courses where those utilized KSA's are introduced or emphasized;

*KSA – Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Items Identified in Curriculum Map

Consideration will be given to -

• The relationship of courses to SUS programs that students transfer into (although this might not relate to certain AAS or AS programs with limited or no transfers);

• And, courses chosen for the gateway initiative are not the focus of other initiatives for improving student performance.

Pilot Gateway Courses

Criteria for selection were utilized to select the following as HCC’s pilot Gateway

Courses:

• College Algebra – Mac 1105

• General Psychology – PSY 2012

Program Impact

• MAC 1105 - 54 AAS programs and 43 AS programs

 • PSY 2012 - 54 AAS programs and 46 AS

programs

• Both courses serve to fulfill General Education requirements for the AA program

Enrollment

• PSY 2012*Fall 2004 – 1999 enrolled - 60 sections

*Spring 2005 – 1808 enrolled – 56 sections

• MAC 1105*Fall 2004 – 1776 enrolled – 59 sections

*Spring 2005 – 1786 enrolled – 62 sections

Average Section Size

• PSY 2012 – average section size for the 2004 reporting year – 32 students

• MAC 1105 – average section size for the 2004 reporting year – 30 students

Enrollment

• PSY 2012 had the fourth highest enrollment for HCC classes during the 2004 reporting year.

• MAC 1105 had the sixth highest enrollment for HCC classes during the 2004 reporting year.

MAC 1105

Fall 2004

Course GPA – 2.3

% of ABC grades – 60.5%

7.1% D’s, 5.1 % FX’s, and 10.1% F’s

17.2 % Withdrawals

PSY 2012

Fall 2004

Course GPA – 2.4

% of ABC grades – 66.6%

8% D’s, 4.8 % FX’s, and 9.9% F’s

10.7 % Withdrawals

Level

Both courses are college-level courses, and both fulfill program requirements for the AA program and a number of AS and AAS programs.

KSA’s

MAC 1105 – 28 KSA’s

PSY 2012 - 26 KSA’s

Faculty listed a total of 127 KSA’s in the curriulum map.

Assessment

• Though neither course has a direct sequenced follow-up course, KSA’s from both courses can be assessed in later program courses.

SUS Programs

• Business Management, Education, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Psychology programs are among the top 6 receiving programs at USF for HCC transfers and graduates – all require MAC 1105 or PSY 2012 or both.

Other Initiatives

• At this time, neither course is the focus of another student success initiative at HCC.

Methodology – Step 4

• Faculty will develop student learning outcomes from the identified KSA’s and course objectives. These outcomes will become the focus for improved student learning.

Step 5

• Selecting Lead Faculty- The Gateway Initiative coordinator and the team will select a lead faculty member from those who regularly teach the course to help facilitate the planning process, including course evaluation and strategy experiment procedures.

Step 6

• The Gateway Initiative coordinator and the lead faculty member will coordinate the gateway course evaluation following the specific Gateway Course Evaluation Procedure.

Course Evaluation Process

• The Gateway Initiative coordinator and course lead faculty member will work with the Academic Assessment Specialist to analyze course performance data, segmented by campus, term, and faculty type, with background information on at least one or two sections as cohorts (placement testing information, prerequisite information, and subsequent course performance information on the cohort students)

Course Evaluation Process

• The Academic Assessment Specialist will work with cluster members to establish baseline assessments of the identified student learning outcomes.

Course Evaluation Process

• The Gateway Initiative coordinator will conduct focus groups and utilize questionnaires to solicit information from faculty and students about what course skills and knowledge are of greatest importance as the students’ progress through the programs. This information will be correlated with the previously identified gateway knowledge, skills and abilities.

Course Evaluation Process

• Working with cluster faculty, the coordinator will determine minimal outcome performance levels for continued program success and will identify missing foundation outcomes. The coordinator and lead faculty member will identify foundation outcomes where students are encountering problems with mastery. They will prioritize, if possible, these foundation outcomes.

Course Evaluation Process

• Working with the appropriate faculty cluster, the coordinator will examine prerequisites – both in terms of prerequisite course work and in terms of actual prerequisite abilities.

Course Evaluation Process

• The coordinator will examine the course delivery methods – considering non-traditional delivery methods such as online sections. If only traditional delivery methods are used, the coordinator will analyze the appropriateness of adding additional delivery methods and make appropriate recommendations to the faculty cluster.

Course Evaluation Process

• The coordinator and lead faculty member will inventory existing teaching and learning strategies being utilized by cluster faculty teaching the course.

Course Evaluation Process

• Working with the Library Cluster, the coordinator and lead faculty member will conduct literature review and idea shopping for appropriate teaching and learning strategies for these outcomes. They will then recommend to the appropriate teaching faculty cluster specific strategies and student resources for improving identified student learning outcomes.

Course Evaluation Process

• The Gateway Initiative coordinator and lead faculty member will prepare the experimental procedures for the directed strategies for improvement, following the Gateway Initiative Experimental Model.

Methodology – Step 7

• Recommending Strategies - The Gateway Initiative coordinator and lead faculty member will recommend specific strategies to improve outcomes within course to the appropriate cluster.

Step 8

• Designing the Gateway Course Webpage - The Gateway Initiative coordinator will develop the Gateway Course Webpage with input from the teaching faculty.

Step 9

• Developing the Experiment - The Gateway Initiative coordinator along with the lead faculty member will develop the strategies experiment process specific to the course, but following the Gateway Course Experiment Model.

Experimental Model

• Identify the specific strategy for improvement and identify the specified teaching and learning outcomes to be affected by the strategy.

Experimental Model

• Develop the Hypothesis – what is the expectation for the identified strategy?

Experimental Model

• Provide a detailed explanation of the methodology for implementing the strategy.

Experimental Model

• Develop common assessment instruments for the expected affected outcomes, to be utilized in both the experimental sections and control sections.

Experimental Model

• Identify faculty and sections for the experiment – coordinate with campus deans

– First year sections will only deal with one strategy at a time

– Second year sections will combine strategies.

Experimental Model

• Utilize control sections, administering the same assessment instruments as used in the experiment sections during both terms of the experiment.

Experimental Model

• Explain analysis of assessment process.

• Proceed with experiment.

Methodology – Step 10

• Implementing Student Resources - Following the planning term, the college will implement recommended additional student resources appropriate to the course – all such resources will be listed on the Gateway Course Webpage or linked to the page if they are online resources.

Step 11

• Assessing the Experiment - The Academic Assessment Specialist will work with the Gateway Initiative coordinator at the end of the term to provide analysis of the classroom strategies experiments and of the usage and impact of additional student resources.

Step 12

• Analyzing the Results - Following the initial experiment term, combined strategies experiment sections and control sections will be conducted and analyzed for effectiveness

Finally

• Implementing the Gateway Course, utilizing the effective learning strategies.

Schedule

2004-2006• Developing the QEP • Identifying KSA’s• Curriculum mapping• Selecting two pilot courses• Developing Learning outcomes• Selecting Lead Faculty members• Baseline assessments

Proposed Schedule

2006 2007 Sp

2007 Sum

2007 Fall

2008 Sp

2008 Sum

2008 Fall

Course Evaluation Set 1 Set 2

Course Selection Set 2 Set 3

Develop Learning Outcomes Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Plan experimental models Set 1 Set 2

Baseline assessment Set 1 Set 2 Set 2 Set 3 Set 3

Experimental sections Set1 Set 1 Set 2

Experimental Analysis Set 1

Proposed Schedule

• During the following fall term, the experimental model begins, with 4 terms of experimentation, (fall and spring terms only). Analysis of experiment results will take place during the summer terms.

Proposed Schedule

• Courses are selected in the spring terms. Initial student learning outcomes are developed that term.

• Baseline assessments takes place the following summer and fall terms.

• During the second spring term for a course, the course evaluation and experimental planning begin.

Proposed Schedule

• Following two years of experiment and analysis, final recommendations for improving student learning outcomes will be made.

• Follow-up assessments in later program courses will continue until the completion of the QEP in Spring Term 2012.

Proposed Schedule Example

MAC 1105 and PSY 2012• Spring 2006 – selected, student learning

outcomes developed• Summer and Fall 2006 – baseline assessment,

lead faculty members selected• Spring and Summer 2007 – course evaluation

and experimental planning

Proposed Schedule Example

• Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 – experimental sections dedicated to one strategy

• Summer 2008 – analysis and planning• Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 – combined

experimental sections• Summer 2009 – analysis and recommendations• Fall 2009 – Spring 2011 – follow-up

assessments

Final Report

• The Final Report on the status and success of the QEP will be due to SACS in the Summer Term of 2012.