 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Impact on Students Drexel University In the redesign, did students learn more, less or the same compared to the traditional format? Improved Learning There was a statistically significant improvement in learning under the redesign, as measured by the students' final grades (p = 0.0130). The results show that students in the combined pilot and redesigned versions of the course had considerably more A and fewer F grades when compared to the traditional course. The traditional course and the redesign pilot, taught in winter 2001-02, and the fully redesigned course taught in winter 2002-03, used the same midterm exams. Midterm scores for the redesigned course were significantly higher than the midterm scores for the traditional version (using t-tests), indicating improved learning in the redesigned course. As a result, the instructors created a more difficult final examination to appropriately challenge and assess the students in subsequent offerings of the redesigned course.
Improved Retention DWF (drop-failure-withdrawal) rates were consistently reduced 10-12% through the redesign. Student numbers were sufficient to compute the statistical significance of these differences in only one set of comparisons (p=0.035), but all were in the same positive direction.
|
 |
Program in Course Redesign Quick Links: Program In Course Redesign Main Page... Lessons Learned: Savings: Project Descriptions: |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||