I designation courses

 

What we are proposing:

A process for adding an “I” designation to existing courses and new courses. Courses that include an “I” designation will fulfill one of the two IPRO course requirements for students. The process will include pre and post assessments to ensure the course is fulfilling the learning objectives (of IPRO specifically and the core curriculum in general).

 

Why are we doing this:

·       For students: simplified pathways. Students will be able to satisfy half of their IPRO requirements through courses that are part of their discipline or major. This will also give them more flexibility to take additional IPRO courses or other electives.

·       Value prop for departments: simplify your students’ curriculum, opening up credits for electives.

·       Value prop for faculty: opportunity to reimagine existing or define new courses. Opportunity co-teach with faculty from other departments.

·       Value prop for the Kaplan Institute: increased departmental and faculty engagement. More faculty and students focused on Innovation and Entrepreneurship

·       Value prop for Illinois Tech: broader participation in Kaplan Institute from faculty and students. More interdisciplinary classes.

 

Key issues addressed through this plan:

·       Decreasing participation by full time faculty. FT Faculty participation in IPRO over the last 10 years has gone from about 60% of IPRO classes taught by FT faculty to less than 15%. There are many factors driving this decline but IPRO, as a signature program of Illinois Tech, should be taught by our best FT faculty. This approach allows the best faculty to simultaneously satisfy departmental teaching loads and IPRO courses. It also allows for more cross listing of classes and course development, allowing faculty to teach in new and interesting ways with colleagues from other colleges. 

·       Lack of technical / interesting IPRO options for students. This is the most frequent student complaint about IPRO: it is not technically challenging for students in their third and fourth year. This approach allows highly technical classes to satisfy the learning objectives of the IPRO program.  

·       Core flexibility. This will allow students to access an additional three credit hours to be used as electives, allowing them to pursue a variety of directions.

 

How we plan to manage the process:

·       Standing UFC committee. The current IPRO committee will expand (add the appropriate number of members) and will serve as the committee to evaluate and monitor the program.  

·       Clear rubrics for selection. We have developed a rubric to help faculty modify their courses to ensure that IPRO and GenEd learning objectives are being met.  

·       Assessment before, during, and after. I courses will need to apply for the designation. Once designated they will be assessed to ensure they are meeting the learning objectives.

·       Juried presentations at I course day. Similar to IPRO day, I course day will require all courses designated with an I to make a public presentation of their work.  

·       Student portfolios. Students in I classes will develop a portfolio that showcases their work and demonstrates how the achieved the learning objectives.  

·       Faculty innovation studio. Faculty developing I courses will have access to professional development and workshops to help with project based learning, project management, and student assessment.  

 

I course committee:

The current UFC IPRO committee will be responsible for evaluation, green lighting, and assessment of the I courses (using the criteria defined above). This committee will include the IPRO academic director and the executive director of the Kaplan Institute. Remaining committee members will include TWO representatives from each college with undergraduate students. This committee will receive and review proposals for I designations. The committee will also, at the end of each semester, use the results from the three assessment strategies to determine if each course will continue to be designated as an I course.

 

Class qualification:

The I course committee will use the following criteria to determine what courses qualify to carry the I designation. The class must…

·       Be project based (course will develop a novel, non-obvious solution to a contemporary issue) Also, at least 70% of the activities outlined in the syllabus (measured by time spent) should be related to planning and completing the project.

·       Be team based (60% of points from team assignments)

·       Include communication (oral and written communications evaluated outside experts, including a juried exhibit presentation at I course day (the day formerly known as IPRO day))

·       Be inter-disciplinary. This is the most important qualification and may require the greatest shift in design for existing classes. Proposing faculty will be expected to outline how their courses will facilitate and benefit from inter-disciplinary collaboration. We expect faculty to be creative and consider how to embed this collaboration into the class curriculum in an authentic and meaningful way. Options could include but are not limited to:  

o   Class is composed of at least 25% of students from other COLLEGES in authentic roles

o   Class is cross listed with a course in a different college (working on the same project)

o   Class spends 25% of class time working with people from outside the discipline in authentic ways, can include workshops with non-IIT community members.

·       Include ethical considerations. 10% of total assignments must include some reflection on the role of the project / research in society or be focused on identifying and de-risking possible harm.

 

Additional requirements:

·       The I course must attend I course day.

·       All students will fill out a common portfolio assignment at the end of the class.

 

When completed, each semester, courses will be assessed using three strategies:

·       Student portfolios. Each student in an I class will complete a portfolio at the end of the semester. The portfolio will be assessed by the faculty member(s) plus at least 2 outside experts (not members of the faculty department but have familiarity the content) using the rubric below (sample portfolio prompts are also below). 90% of scores should be in exemplary / accomplished with less than 5% being beginner / NA. Note that these portfolios may also be used by the HLC assessment committee (a random sample) to assess overall achievement of core curriculum learning objectives. Note: we have piloted the “portfolio” in several IPRO courses – the process is not overly time consuming and creates a useful record of the class for the students and faculty.

·       I course day review. Much like IPRO day, all I courses will present their projects at an open forum attended by visitors, the Illinois Tech community, and invented judges. Judges will use a rubric similar to the IPRO day scoring sheet (courses should score 80% of total points or above). Note: we believe a public presentation of the projects is required but plan on optimizing the format for the diverse set of classes that will fit the I designation.

·       Student peer assessment. A survey instrument will be completed by all students in I courses. They will evaluate if they feel the course achieved the learning objectives. The instrument using a 0 – 5 scoring scale, courses should average 4 or above (a cumulative rating across all questions).  

 

All assessments will be managed by the IPRO office. Faculty will have full access to the results.

 

Process for receiving I designation

1.     Faculty member talks to dean and chair to get approval to propose a course for I designation

2.     Faculty member provides syllabus to I course committee with cover letter (describing why they feel their course should be designated as an I course). A proposal can be submitted at any time. Acceptance will be rolling – once a proposal has been accepted the course will be valid for an I designation the following semester (as long as acceptance was completed two weeks before the first student can register for the following semester).

3.     Committee reviews the proposal. Proposals will be evaluated in the order they are submitted. The committee may ask the proposer for more information or to meet with the committee in person.

4.     Committee votes on the proposal. At least 60% of the committee must vote positively in order for a course to receive an I designation. Meetings where votes are taken will follow the rules of order established and practiced by the UGSC and the UFC.

5.     Once a course has been accepted the IPRO academic director will work with Academic Affairs and the registrar to include the I designation for the course.

6.     Faculty will be repository for any re-writes required to the bulletin related to the course.

 

Process for retaining or losing I designation

1.     At the end of each semester the committee will review a course dashboard assembled by the IPRO team for each I course. This dashboard will include the scores for the three assessment strategies.

2.     Courses scored as acceptable will retain their I designation. No action is needed.

3.     Courses that do not score as acceptable will be reviewed in detail by the committee. This will include a review of the student portfolios and the materials presented at I course day. Courses found to be deficient will be voted on. If 60% of committee membership or higher votes to decertify a course, the course will lose the I designation. This will take effect the semester immediately following the decision (an I designation cannot be rescinded at the time a course is being offered). A course must wait one academic year to reapply for the I designation.

 

Current IPRO learning objectives:

·       Teamwork: How to be an effective member of an interdisciplinary team, adding the expertise of your discipline and working on topics broader than your major field.

·       Communication: How to effectively communicate the technical and non-technical aspects of a project to key stakeholders.

·       Logically correct reasoning: The ability to generate a hypothesis using inductive logic (leveraging creativity and design methods), and then prove/disprove it using deductive logic (leveraging prototyping and scientific thinking).

·       Project management: Deliver a desired, planned outcome with time and resource constraints.

·       Ethics: How to act ethically when conducting research, working in teams, and creating solutions.

 

Rubric for assessing student portfolios:  

 

 

Beginner / NA

Developing

Accomplished

Exemplary

Teamwork

Was absent or did not contribute

Did the minimum amount of work required by the team, did not take an active role

Contributed to the team (both content and positive attitude). Worked well with others.  

Contributed to the team (both content and positive attitude).  Motivated other team members and helped group achieve success.

Communication

Unprofessional, incomprehensible communication

Could clearly  communicate either the technical or non-technical aspects of the project

Could clearly  communicate both the technical or non-technical aspects of the project to an audience of experts.

Could clearly  communicate both the technical or non-technical aspects of the project to both an audience of novices and experts.

Logically correct reasoning

Did not follow or use a process to arrive at the solution / recommendation.  

Used either creativity or scientific thinking, but not both correctly.

Integrated (and correctly implemented)  creative and scientific thinking to arrive at the project outcome

Integrated (and correctly implemented) both creative and scientific thinking to arrive at the project outcome. Correctly used methods beyond the ones taught in class.  

Project management

Did not plan or manage any project related tasks; generally did nothing to structure the work product

Was responsible for one or two aspects of the project management (defining outcomes, outlining tasks, monitoring progress, managing reproduces) but not all (or some incorrectly)

Actively  participated in defining the project outcome, outlining key tasks required to achieve the outcome, monitoring progress and managing resources (including time and budget)

Took on a leadership role that was appreciated by the team. This included helping the team make decisions, prioritize tasks, and resolve conflicts.

Ethics

Does not understand the impact of the solution on key stakeholders and/or society in general.

Can evaluate how the proposed solutions or recommendations  will impact key stakeholders. 

Can evaluate how the proposed solutions or recommendations  will impact key stakeholders. Created ways to reduce potential harm for key stakeholders.

Can evaluate how the proposed solutions or recommendations  will impact key stakeholders AND society. Created ways to reduce potential harm for key stakeholders AND society. Takes a global view, can describe the solution impact at a global scale.

 

Sample portfolio prompts

 

Describe a time in your I course when you were a particularly effective member of an interdisciplinary team, adding the expertise of your discipline and working on topics broader than your major. What role did you play? What was the outcome? Was this a single occurrence or was it common for you to contribute in this way?

 

Describe a time during your I course when you effectively communicated the technical and non-technical aspects of a project to key stakeholders. Please attach a video of your presentation or the document you created.

 

Describe a time during your I course when you had to develop and then test a hypothesis. Attach a document or video that describes the process, tools used, and outcome (a research plan and evaluation is fine). Be specific and clear about what your role was in the experiment.

 

Describe a time when you were able to be creative with your work. What was exciting or difficult about it? Be specific and clear about what your role was in the work.

 

Describe a time during your I course when you had to be very strategic in order to meet all your top priorities and deadlines.

 

Describe a time during your I course when you were faced with an ethical challenge. What did you do to resolve the challenge?

 

Describe your proudest accomplishment during this I course.