1. Pegging the Needle Through
Transformation
David Huckleberry – Purdue University
Debra Dunlap Runshe – Purdue University
February 13, 2017
This presentation leaves copyright of the content to the presenter. Unless
otherwise noted in the materials, uploaded content carries the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which grants
usage to the general public with the stipulated criteria.

2. Session Outline
1. Introduction of Case Study
2. Small Group Activity: Problem Solving
3. Small Groups Report Out
4. Hands-on with the LON-CAPA system
5. Results of Case Study
6. Questions

3. Case Study: Pre-Transformation

4. IMPACT: Instruction Matters
Purdue Academic Course
Transformation
Collaborative initiative involving key partners to
redesign large enrollment, foundational courses.
The expectation is that student success will
improve by creating more student-centered
environments.

5. Collaboration

6. The Path to Success
The Beginnings
∙ Carol Twigg’s National Center for Academic
Transformation
∙ Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles for
Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
∙ Bloom’s Taxonomies
SoTL
∙ What we learned about what worked
∙ Self-Determination Theory

7. Self-Determination Theory
Competence
∙ mastery of content
Autonomy
∙ feelings of volition and choice; endorsements
of behavior, ownership of the learning process
Relatedness
∙ connections with people (instructors, students)
and material

8. Self-Determination Continuum
Extrinsic Forms of Motivation
Coercion Identification
Amotivation Intrinsic
Motivation
(Stick) (Carrot)
Increasing Self-Determination
Adapted from Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

9. Challenges for MA 153
Instructors wanted students to be able to:
∙ access past content for remediation, complete
practice problems and receive real-time feedback;
previously paper and pencil homework
∙ complete open-response assessments in the same
environment as the environment they used for
learning; previously in large lecture halls using
machine-readable scoring sheets to answer multiple
choice questions; students could guess their way to a
“C” on an exam

10. Challenges for MA 153
Instructors wanted students to be able to:
∙ complete more frequent lower stakes assessments;
previously they had 3 major exams and a final
In addition, instructors wanted to:
∙ reduce cheating; they wanted students to learn the
concept not the answer
∙ reduce the cost to of the textbook for students

11. Learning Outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
1. Simplify different types of expressions.
2. Solve different types of equations and solve formulas for
specific variables.
3. Interpret story problems, and set-up equations,
functions, or inequalities which can be solved.
4. Simplify inequalities.
5. Calculate functions values an sketch the graphs of
functions.

12. Alignment
Assessments
Outcomes
Activities

13. Small Group Activity
How would your redesign this course, choosing
student–centered activities that:
∙ address the challenges
∙ align outcomes, assessments and activities
∙ meet the criteria of Self-Determination Theory
(competence, autonomy, relatedness)
Report Out

14. https://goo.gl/6PxMS6

15. Existing Problem
Multiple choice
Static problem
Delayed Feedback

16. Iteration One
Open Response
Static problem
Delayed Feedback

17. Iteration Two
Open Response
Dynamic Problems
Delayed Feedback

18. Iteration Three
Open Response
Dynamic Problems
Immediate Feedback

19. Iteration Four
Open Response
Dynamic Problems
Immediate Feedback
Multiple Tries
Reviewable Tries

20. Iteration Five
Open Response
Dynamic Problems
Immediate Feedback
Multiple Tries
Reviewable Tries
Show correct answer

21. Iteration Six
Open Response
Dynamic Problems
Immediate Feedback
Multiple Tries
Reviewable Tries
Show correct answer
Adaptive hints

22. The Results
So what makes it student-centered?
∙ Access to past content for remediation
∙ Real-time feedback
∙ Practice problems
∙ Assessments in same environment as learning
∙ More frequent lower stakes assessments
∙ Reduced cheating – learn the concept not the answer
∙ Problem specific discussions
∙ Open responses vs. multiple choice
∙ Cost to students reduced to $0 for textbook and system access

23. Transformed Curriculum

24. 82
139
325
313
275
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
A B C D F
NumberofStudents
Letter Grade Grouping
MA 153 Pre- Transformation Grade Distribution – 1,134 Students Fall 2014
MA15300 Pre

25. 82
139
325
313
275
198
281
278
115
149
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
A B C D F
NumberofStudents
Grade Letter Grouping
MA 153 Pre and Post Transformation – Grade Distribution
MA15300 Pre Fall 2014 - 1,134 Students MA15300 Post Fall 2015 - 1,021 Students

26. 0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
MA15300 MA15800 MA16010 MA16020
1.479
2.311 2.296
2.725
2.242
2.495 2.466
2.845
CourseGradePointAverage
Course Number
Course GPA Comparison
Pre - Fall 2014 Post - Fall 2015

27. $-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
2014-2015 AY 2015-2016 AY
$130.00
$0.00
TextbookSoftware Costs
Per Student in MA 15300,1580,16010 and 16020
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
2014-2015 AY 2015-2016 AY
$997,360.00
$0.00
TextbookSoftware Costs
for 7,672 Students in MA 15300,1580,16010 and 16020

28. Questions

29. Graphing Example

30. Graphing Example

31. Calculus II Example