Purpose and History Behind the Digital Learning Course Redesign Initiative (DL CRI)
Funded by the UCF Board of Trustees, the Division of Digital Learning and Division of Student Learning and Academic Success were tasked with establishing and supporting the Digital Learning Course Redesign Initiative (DL CRI) along with university stakeholders.
Partnerships included individuals from the:
- Pegasus Innovation Lab (iLab)
- Center for Distributed Learning (CDL)
- Research for Instructional Effectiveness (RITE)
- Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning (FCTL)
They were tasked to accomplish a specific set of goals to redesign online and blended courses across a three-year period (2018-2020).
DL CRI Goals
Aligned with the university’s Collective Impact objectives in 2017, this project was designed to increase learning gains by:
- Increasing successful completion rates in benchmark courses
- Improving student success, retention, and satisfaction
- Targeting key courses such as success marker, foundation, general education, and STEM
- Increasing classroom utilization
The goal of this initiative was to impact student learning by increasing successful course completion (reduced DFW rates – D/F/Withdraw), particularly in GEP & STEM courses. Additionally, they sought to improve FTIC & Transfer student persistence through a strategic course redesign process that leverages the benefit of online, blended, adaptive, and active learning.
To accomplish these goals, the initiative had distinct promises to accomplish within the next three years:
- Transform 100 courses
- 50 online or blended
- 50 adaptive*
- Train up to 120 faculty through professional development
- Impact up to 50,000 student enrollments
- Partner strategically with five colleges and departments
- Transform eight traditional classrooms into technology-enhanced active learning spaces (representing approximately 400 seats)
*UCF has its own standard of determining what is a personalized adaptive learning (PAL) course. The most common PAL platform utilized by UCF is Realizeit.
The whole summer, I was in different webinars with American council for teacher of Foreign languages (particularly Russian sections) and no one had the same project in their schools as we have at UCF, and also no one had this experience as I do to work with the instructional designer one on one to develop a new course.
Faculty Selection and Timeline
There were three official cycles of the DL CRI, with an additional extension cycles. These followed a cyclical nature.
Each semester, faculty could:
- Opt into any necessary faculty development training
- Attend optional cohort meetings that were offered every Spring and Fall
- Submit their Summative Course Review (SCR) for their completed redesign
To kick off the initiative, a committee made up of individuals from various stakeholders came together to strategically plan the initiative, its processes. We reached out to targeted individuals who met the initiative’s goals as potential candidates for this project.
In the next two cycles of the DL CRI, a Call for Proposals was announced to recruit additional faculty participants.
While the first three cycles were stretched across the original three-year period with the intention of ending in the Fall of 2020, the semester extension (cycle four) was granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and switch to remote teaching and learning. This allowed faculty more time to complete their redesign projects if needed.
For me it is finding the time to set aside for the project. My ID is fantastic. Just juggling with the time…
Faculty Incentives, Support, & Reviews
To help incentivize faculty to participate in this initiative, as well as support them in successfully completing their course redesign projects, various resources were provided throughout the duration of the program.
Incentives
By opting into this initiative, all projects were faculty driven redesigns. There were no prescriptive designs that faculty were required to adhere to, and faculty had complete autonomy over their content.
During the proposal process, faculty were able to choose the modality and components of their redesign project based on what they were trying to accomplish through their redesign.
- Modalities
- Fully Online (W)
- Mixed-Mode/Blended (M)
- Limited Attendance (RS)
- Video (V)
- Face-to-Face (P)
- Additional Components
- Adaptive Learning (PAL)
- Active Learning
- Open Educational Resources (OER)
- eTextbooks
Funds were also provided to faculty after the successful completion of the SCR, in addition to some financial support.
- Faculty could select a semester of their choosing (with approval from their department chair) for a course release, or they would receive an equivalent amount of funds for travel/research.
- Funds were based on their department’s standard adjunct rate with a cap of $5,000.
- They were allowed to be used for other expenses except for direct compensation.
- An additional $1,000 travel/research funds were provided for new blended (M or RS) course redesigns. Faculty received these funds the semester the redesigned course was taught in the new modality.
- Faculty received a $2,500 stipend for completing IDL6543 or DL STEM Institution development training (if not previously completed).
- Starting in 2019, faculty were able to request $1,500 for a Course Assistant if they were redesigning an adaptive PAL course.
Support
Throughout the redesign process, faculty were provided multiple avenues for support to help them accomplish their goals.
- Professional development training for faculty
- CDL services from all teams
- FCTL Active Learning Support
- Evaluation research and reporting assistance through RITE
- Semesterly, optional cohort meetings co-facilitated with FCTL, Instructional Design (ID) representatives, and iLab, with guest speakers from:
However, despite that change [in regard to the switch to remote teaching], the fact we did the digital redesign for Bio 2 ended up being a very lucky situation since I was much better trained and primed to be able to continue the course with minimal changes.
Summative Course Review (SCR)
To ensure that the course redesign project had been completed and to gather the final details of the project, faculty were required to submit the Summative Course Review (SCR). This allowed the CRI Committee to provide constructive feedback. The approval of the SCR by the CRI Committee also triggered the funds to be released to the faculty member. The SCR was a Word document that was akin to the call for proposals as it asked the faculty to confirm the various details of their completed redesign project:
- The course details (name, new modality, attributes, new semester being taught)
- A brief, written reflection explaining how their redesign will impact students; how they will implement online, blended, adaptive, and/or active learning strategies; and which goals of the initiative are reflected in their redesign
- Providing an updated syllabus and direct links that demonstrated aspects of the redesigned content
- A consultation with their Instructional Designer to ensure everything had been completed, along with an optional testimony from the Instructional Designer about their project
Summary Report of the CRI Redesign Projects
Data was collected each semester from Fall 2018 to Spring 2021, including:
- Institutional data (i.e., SPIs) for course comparison
- Survey data from the faculty participants and the students in the redesigned courses
A final cumulative report was collected at the end of the initiative. The PDF below is a summary of this final report with additional insights from the CRI Committee.
CRI Data Report