When the administration at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) decided to pilot an adaptive learning initiative targeting equity gaps, one main goal was to build a model or framework that could be replicated beyond the pilot. They hope to extend the use of adaptive learning throughout the institution, which has an enrollment of 25,000 students in 10 colleges and schools.<\/p>\n
With the right on-the-ground champions, the UTEP administration hoped to create an adaptive learning framework that drives institutional change, influences the adoption of digital learning technology across the campus, and creates equitable learning outcomes for Black, Latino, Indigenous, first-generation, and poverty-affected students.<\/p>\n
Related reading \u2014 Championing Adaptive Learning Courseware: One Department Chair\u2019s Story<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n 1. Identify a project leader<\/strong><\/p>\n William Robertson, Provost Faculty Fellow and Professor of Teacher Education at UTEP, was appointed to facilitate the effort. Robertson has experience leading initiatives in hybrid learning, split classrooms, online learning, and course redesign. Laura DaVinci, Associate Director of Every Learner Everywhere\u00ae, says Robertson was a strong, engaged, and well-networked project lead.<\/p>\n Related reading \u2014 The Role of Equity-Minded Leadership in Campus DEI Initiatives<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n 2. Secure funding<\/strong><\/p>\n Next, the administration applied for, and received, a grant from the\u00a0Association of Public & Land-grant Universities<\/a> (APLU) that was targeted to introductory courses with high DFW rates<\/a> (the rate of D and F grades or withdrawals).<\/p>\n Like other institutions that don\u2019t have access to grant funding for projects like this, UTEP also provided resources of its own to support the pilot. As Karen Vignare, Executive Director of Personalized Learning Consortium at the APLU, discusses in\u00a05 Steps to a Successful Implementation of Adaptive Learning<\/a>, \u201cInstructors wear many hats and need time to do course redesign well. Institutions need to look at ways to change faculty workload or obligations to free up needed time for course redesign.\u201d<\/p>\n 3. Identify a program\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n After scanning various departments, the institution identified a grassroots effort by six professors in the Department of Biological Sciences who were looking to redesign their courses. This group was already in conversation about how digital learning technologies could be integrated meaningfully into introductory courses to support student success. The proposed pilot aligned well with their needs. Robertson approached this group with funding, and the project was initiated in the spring of 2019.<\/p>\n Related reading \u2014 Teamwork to Seed Change: How Foreign Language Faculty at the University of Central Florida Are Improving Learning Outcomes<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Having the right combination of experience on the project team can make the difference between success and failure. Robertson says\u00a0establishing the project team<\/a> and process was organic and enjoyable, and he had previously worked with three of the six biology professors.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause this group already wanted to make a change, the team members were well suited to the project,\u201d Robertson says. \u201cMy goal was not to impose but to act as a facilitator.\u201d<\/p>\n As a representative of the Provost\u2019s office, Robertson could identify where resources could be found to support the project, such as additional expertise and technical support. He had a track record for building trust among stakeholders and keeping a project focused.<\/p>\n Jeffrey Olimpo, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences at UTEP, was the faculty lead for the project. He says he and his colleagues were well suited to the adaptive initiative because of their passion for student learning and successful outcomes. Everyone was curious and open minded, and the Department of Biological Sciences, in general, already had a collegial culture that would support the project.<\/p>\n The project team began meeting every two weeks, and Robertson established a project schedule tied to the grant funding milestones. The team set goals, defined objectives, and recorded decisions.<\/p>\n The biology faculty were purposeful in their approach to the initiative. Before the pilot began, they had already been thinking about syllabi, redesigning courses, and the extent to which adaptive learning could be integrated successfully into their courses to improve student achievement and degree progress. But, they hadn\u2019t formalized their goals and objectives.<\/p>\n Olimpo says, \u201cThe idea was already there. You just had to nudge us collectively because we had this deep-seated interest in working toward change. But, we didn\u2019t want to just pick something for the sake of making a change.\u201d<\/p>\n Reducing student costs was also an important objective for the team.<\/p>\n The team reviewed their syllabi. Using a\u00a0backward design<\/a> approach, they focused heavily on learning objectives for their courses. This model recommends defining student learning goals first, then choosing how to assess progress toward those goals and what instructional methods and activities will promote progress.<\/p>\nThree first steps to an adaptive learning framework<\/h2>\n
The right combination<\/h2>\n
Defining goals and objectives<\/h2>\n