Introduction to Psychology:Northern Arizona UniversityFully implemented, 2009

2000/year foundational, survey-style class

Traditionally, 8-11 uncoordinated sections/year

Issues: Engagement. 63% study < 2 hours per week Student learning and achievement Enrollment pressures and cost. $62/student Consistency. Non-permanent staff, divergent grade

distributions Faculty perception, participation

Background and Overview ABOR/Learner-Centered Education program

PIs: K. Laurie Dickson, Derrick Wirtz Supplemental model

Goals: Promote learning and success, engagement/effort, consistency, full-time staffing, while reducing cost

Measures include knowledge assessment, grades, exam performance, student opinion surveys Primary comparison: Fall 2005, 120-student traditional section

Redesigned course: Team taught F2F section with substantial online supplementation 400 students/section, back to back scheduling, coordination GTA team approach with “early intervention specialist”

Redesigned Course Pedagogy

Web assignments 4 per semester Guided exploration and written reflection on web-based surveys and

other activities Pilot research suggested these effectively complement material

Required, repeatable online quizzes Randomly sampled from test bank (Myers Exploring Psychology)

Student response system Full credit for any answer 10% of course grade

Email contact with struggling students

Fully Online Component

Institutional need for fully-online offering

Cost effectiveness, staffing, and course building were barriers

Co-designed by experienced former adjunct and M. Miller Master content template created collaboratively Staffing varies; adjunct during academic year, full-time in other

sessions

For full description and results please see:Miller, M.D., & Rader, M.E. (2010). Two heads are better than one: Collaborative

development of an online course content template. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 246-255.

Results: Grades• Redesigned course produces similar pattern as traditionally

taught course. Note increased student effort, pattern associated with D and F grades.

But wait…

Could “non-exam” assignments or other factors have inflated grades? How many students would have failed solely on the basis

of exam scores?

What about learning?

Results: Exam Scores Four versus two exams; otherwise comparable

Students in redesigned section scored significantly better better (p < .001). 5.7% difference is about half of one standard deviation

In redesigned section, 6.5% would have failed on exam scores alone

Results: Learning Assessment

Both sections made significant gains (p < .001)

Degree of gain statistically indistinguishable across sections

Other Impacts and Findings Communication and intervention

Email: Strategies for routing, managing and preventing Positive response to proactive email contact Study skills workshops

Student response system Perceptions radically improved from pilot to current version Students endorse SRS usefulness, though logistical problems persist Students strongly endorsed usefulness of repeatable quizzes

Department and faculty impacts Cost: $62 -> $43 Team teaching/coordination approach 90% of teaching done by full-time faculty

For More Information…

michelle.miller@nau.edu, laurie.dickson@nau.edu

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michelle-miller/13/410/a73

http://www.thencat.org/States/AZ/Abstracts/NAU%20Psychology_Abstract.htm

Miller, M.D., & Rader, M.E. (2010). Two heads are better than one: Collaborative development of an online course content template. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 246-255.

Miller, M.D. (2009) What the science of cognition tells us about instructional technology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41, 71-74.