Upload
lily-carpenter
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Redesign of Redesign of Intermediate AlgebraIntermediate Algebra
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMATHE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMACollege of Arts and SciencesCollege of Arts and SciencesDepartment of MathematicsDepartment of Mathematics
NCAT Redesign Alliance ConferenceNCAT Redesign Alliance ConferenceMarch 23, 2009March 23, 2009
SettingSetting(1999-2000 Academic Year)(1999-2000 Academic Year)
• Two developmental math courses
• Remedial Mathematics
• Intermediate Algebra• 1700 students per year• Taught in traditional, lecture-based setting• Taught entirely by instructors and GTAs
Course FormatCourse Format
• Courses taught in rigid format• Common syllabus
• Common presentation schedule
• Common tests
ProblemsProblems
• Courses teacher-centered• No support for multiple learning styles• Inconsistent coverage of topics• No flexibility in instructional pace• Lack of student success• Very high course repeat percentage• Negative impact on student retention• Significant drain on resources
SolutionSolution
• Identify an alternative structure that:• Had faculty and instructor support• Was learner centered• Supported multiple learning styles• Provided consistent presentation of
material• Allowed students to work at own pace• Increased student success• Reduced resource demands
Approach SelectedApproach Selected
• “Math Emporium” model developed by Virginia Tech
• Initial application to Intermediate Algebra (Math 100)• Approximately 1300 students per year
CourseCourseFormatFormat
Course FormatCourse Format 30-50 minute “classes” that introduce students to
topics and integrate the topics into the overall course objectives
3-4 hours in Mathematics Technology Learning Center (MTLC) or elsewhere working independently using course software that presents topics covering specific learning objectives
Instructors and tutors available in MTLC 71 hours/week to provide individualized assistance
Course Format (continued)Course Format (continued) Students review topic material Students work homework problems that
cover defined learning objectives Homework is graded immediately by the
computer providing the student with instant feedback on their performance
After completing homework, students take quizzes that cover learning objectives
Course Format (continued)Course Format (continued) Students can do homework multiple
times and take quizzes twice, always receiving instant feedback
After completing homework and quizzes on a series of topics, students take a section test
Tests are given only in the MTLC Tests available on demand with a
specified completion date
Fundamental PremiseFundamental Premise
Students learn mathematics by doing mathematics
Advantages of Course FormatAdvantages of Course Format
• Learner-centered• Software supports multiple learning
styles• Consistent presentation of material• Individualized tutorial support available• Students can work at own pace
Advantages of Course FormatAdvantages of Course Format
• Students can work in lab or at home• Software provides instant feedback on
work• Homework, quizzes, tests, & exam
computer graded• Software records all student activity
OutcomesOutcomes
Success RatesSuccess RatesSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateSemester Success Rate Semester Success Rate
Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5%
Success RatesSuccess RatesSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateFall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5%Fall 2000 50.2% Spring 2001 35.8%Fall 2001 60.5% Spring 2002 49.8%Fall 2002 63.0% Spring 2003 41.8%Fall 2003 78.9% Spring 2004 55.4%Fall 2004 76.2% Spring 2005 60.1%Fall 2005 66.7% Spring 2006 56.6%Fall 2006 73.8% Spring 2007 59.8%Fall 2007 75.2% Spring 2008 57.3%Fall 2008 78.1%
Underserved GroupsUnderserved Groups
Success Rates by Math Success Rates by Math Placement CategoryPlacement Category
Math Placement Score
Year <200 200-250 >250
98/99 31.5% 45.5% 66.6%
99/00 40.3% 43.8% 63.2%
00/01 32.8% 42.0% 60.6%
01/02 48.9% 53.8% 71.2%
02/03 48.4% 54.9% 62.0%
Success Rates by GenderSuccess Rates by Gender(Fall Semesters)(Fall Semesters)
F 98 F 99 F 00 F 01 F 02
Females 54.7% 48.9% 53.0% 66.7% 68.2%
Males 39.1% 31.8% 45.9% 55.8% 57.6%
Overall 47.1% 40.6% 50.2% 60.5% 63.0%
Success Rates by EthnicitySuccess Rates by Ethnicity(Fall Semesters)(Fall Semesters)
F 99 F 00 F 01 F 02
African-American 35.0% 59.4% 60.4% 63.6%
Caucasian 41.1% 46.5% 60.7% 62.3%
Overall 40.6% 50.2% 60.5% 63.0%
Cost SavingsCost Savings
2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students43 Sections of 35 Students Each
2 FTTI (16 sections) @ $36,250 $72,5005 GTAs (20 sections) @ $17,565 $87,825 7 PTTI (7 sections) @ $1,655 $11,585
Total Cost $171,910Cost Per Student $116
Traditional Course CostTraditional Course Cost
Redesigned Course CostRedesigned Course Cost
2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students18 Sections of 85 Students Each
2 FTTI @ $36,250 $72,5006 PTTI @ $1,655 $9,930UG Tutors 5760 hrs @ $7/hr $40,320
Total Cost $122,750Cost Per Student $83
Cost SavingsCost Savings
Traditional Course $116/studentRedesigned Course $83/studentSavings $33/student (28%)
Cost SavingsCost Savings(Economy of Scale)(Economy of Scale)
955 Students in Math 005 & 112
1 FTTI @ $36,250 $36,250 4 PTTI @ $1,655 $6,620
Total $42,870
$45/student
ConclusionsConclusions• Based on our experience, we are confident
that computer-based instruction in precalculus mathematics courses can:• Enhance student learning• Increase success rates, particularly for
underserved students• Reduce resource demands