Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMyra Cummings Modified over 2 years ago

1
Precalculus Course Redesign Using Technology Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

2
I. National Course Redesign Using Technology

3
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology PCR – Program in Course Redesign Rounds I – III (1999-2002) Funded by Pew Charitable Trust Math: Virginia Tech, Alabama, Idaho, Northern Arizona, Iowa State Statistics: Carnegie Mellon, Ohio State, Penn State Psychology: New Mexico Biology: Massachusetts-Amherst

4
University of Alabama MTLC

5
University of Idaho Polya Lab

6
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology R2R – Roadmap to Redesign (2003-2006) Funded by FIPSE Math: LSU, Georgia State, UNC Chapel Hill and Greensboro, Wayne State, Seton Hall, Missouri-St. Louis Spanish: Alabama, Texas Tech Statistics: UNC Greensboro Psychology: East Carolina

7
Other Math Redesigns Using Technology Reduced class time, small classes, required lab time, assessments technology based... NebraskaArkansasOle Miss Miss StateTowsonULM NichollsUSMSUNY Texas, Arizona, Maryland, Tennessee, and Mississippi state systems paired with NCAT Large classes, no required lab time, assessments technology based... Florida StateFloridaUGA

8
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology C2R – Colleagues Committed to Redesign Rounds I – III (2007-2009) Funded by FIPSE Math redesigns: Hagerstown CC, DePaul, Truman College, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Southeastern Louisiana University, University of Central Florida, St. Leo College, Santa Fe CC Other Disciplines: St. Cloud State, UNC Chapel Hill, West Florida, Arizona State, Auburn, Austin CC, NY Institute of Tech, UMass-Lowell, Univ of W AL, Western Michigan

9
Pedagogical Keys to Math Redesign Using Technology Active Learning Experience Personalized, Individualized Instruction Immediate Feedback Repetition to Mastery

10
II. History of Precalculus Course Redesign at LSU

11
Goals of LSU Precalculus Redesign Fall 2003 To allow for reduced personnel To incorporate technology to grade student homework To provide consistent content presentation To continue current success rates

12
Redesign Timeline at LSU Spring 2004 - Planning Fall 2004 - Pilot MyMathLab software, join R2R program Spring 2005 – Pilot of College Algebra redesign Fall 2005 - Partial implementation of College Algebra redesign; opened Pleasant Hall 1 st floor lab Spring 2006 – Full implementation of College Algebra redesign; pilot of Precalculus (course) redesign Fall 2006 - Full implementation of Precalculus (course) redesign; opened Pleasant Hall basement lab; pilot high school redesign program for College Algebra Spring 2007 - Full implementation of Trigonometry Redesign; pilot high school redesign program for Trigonometry Fall 2007 - All sections of College Algebra, Trigonometry, and Precalculus (course) redesigned; opened Pleasant Hall basement side room; continue high school redesign program for College Algebra Spring 2008 – All sections of College Algebra, Trigonometry, and Precalculus (course) redesign; expand high school redesign program for College Algebra and Trigonometry

13
Pleasant Hall Math Lab – to be Fall 2004

14
Pleasant Hall Math Lab Fall 2005

15
PH Basement Math Lab – to be Fall 2005

16
PH Basement Math Lab Fall 2006

17
PH Basement Side Room – to be Fall 2006

18
PH Basement Side Room Fall 2007

19
Redesigned Courses College Algebra (3 cr. hrs.) 2200 students per year 1 hour per week in class minimum of 3 hours per week in lab Trigonometry (3 cr. hrs.) 1600 students per year 1 hour per week in class minimum of 3 hours per week in lab Precalculus (5 cr. hrs.) 400 students per year 2 hours per week in class minimum of 5 hours per week in lab

20
Redesign Features 40 students per section in class All MyMathLab assessments and local videos 275-seat learning lab open 60 hours each week Capacity of 15 students per 1 computer in learning lab Test in university testing center Staggered due dates for all assignments Staggered attendance week

21
Final Grade Distribution 10% Participation (5% class and 5% lab) 10% Homework (drop lowest 2) 10% Quizzes (drop the lowest 2) 45% Tests (3 - 5 total) 25% Final (replaces lowest test score if higher)

22
Assignment Settings Homework Unlimited attempts prior to due date Help, Examples, Videos, Textbook, and Tutors available Practice Homework for each section without due dates Quizzes Ten attempts for each quiz, 75 minute time limit Restricted re-access Keep best score Not proctored or password protected Tutorials available on review Tests One attempt, 90 minute time limit Non-restricted re-access Proctored and password protected

23
III. Learning Outcomes, Retention Rates, and Graduation Rates

24
College Algebra Fall Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections73%311566% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections70%318864% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections72%321168% Fall 2004 LL Sections with MML80%74266% Fall 2004 Traditional Sections76%260572% Fall 2005 LL Sections with MML76%84166% Fall 2005 Traditional Sections64%74349% Fall 2005 R2R Sections with MML73%92248% Fall 2006 R2R Sections with MML78%172475% Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML*64%173967% Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML65%177268% *Course rigor increased.

25
Trig Fall Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections71%127759% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections*115056% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections*101562% Fall 2004 XLg Lecture w/ MapleTA76%89261% Fall 2005 XLg Lecture w/ MML*135055% Fall 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML72%123463% Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML72%116864% Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML69%123169% *No exam median recorded.

26
Precalculus Fall Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections*34271% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections*44374% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections*55676% Fall 2004 Traditional Sections*59879% Fall 2005 Large Lecture*32160% Fall 2006 R2R Sections with MML59%27764% Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML68%28871% Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML69%28762% * No exam median recorded.

27
College Algebra, Trig, Precalculus Fall Participation Grades Class and Lab Participation %ABCDFW 70-100% 62% 10% 0-69% 10%18%

28
College Algebra Spring Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections68%122350% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections69%119154% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections68%106653% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections68%102564% Spring 2005 Traditional Sections71%61066% Spring 2005 R2R Pilot with MML61%19647% Spring 2006 R2R Sections with MML67%56759% Spring 2007 R2R Sections with MML71%38455% Spring 2008 R2R Sections with MML61%41853%

29
Trig Spring Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections69%130465% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections*145163% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections64%149063% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections*147769% Spring 2005 XLg Lecture w/ MapleTA*125269% Spring 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML*103057% Spring 2007 R2R Sections with MML60%96762% Spring 2008 R2R Sections with MML67%79160% *No exam median recorded.

30
Precalculus Spring Results Exam Median # of Students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections*7260% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections*5654% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections*5157% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections*4147% Spring 2005 Traditional Sections*4871% Spring 2006 R2R Pilot with MML64%4048% Spring 2007 R2R Section with MML79%2268% Spring 2008 R2R Section with MML73%3743% *No exam median recorded.

31
College Algebra, Trig, and PC Spring Participation Grades Class and Lab Participation %ABCDFW 70-100%50%19% 0-69%7% 24%

32
Retention Rates Fall 2002 – Fall 2007 Full-time Degree-seeking New Freshman CA: A, B, or CD, F, or WNot taking CA #% Ret# # F02 173387.570564.5230685.3 F03 187589.570465.5245186.2 F04 207287.465761.5257884.3 F05 101688.547362.4277883.9 F06 110586.525149.4284286.4 F07 99287.436565.5286486.4

33
Graduation Rates Fall 2001 Cohort CA Grade Full-time degree-seeking new freshman 6-year graduation rate A, B, or C176061% D, F, or W52730% Not taking CA292961% All full-time degree seeking new freshman 521658%

34
Graduation Rates Fall 2002 Cohort CA Grade Full-time degree- seeking new freshman 5-year grad rate 6-year grad rate A, B, or C173356%62% D, F, or W70526%33% Not taking273456%54% All full-time degree seeking new freshman 517252%54%

35
IV. What It Takes

36
Redesign Personnel Program Management Overall program administrator Course coordinators for each course Tutor supervisor Time clock manager Teaching Instructors Upper level math graduate students Lab Tutoring Instructors Upper level math graduate students First-year math graduate students Ugrad math majors Tech support Ugrad students from LSU ITS

37
Tutor and Teacher Training 1.Ugrad Tutor Training Program a. Hiring and screening b. Pre-semester workshop 2.First-Year-TA Tutor Training Program a. Pre-semester workshop b. Fall semester Comm Math course c. Spring semester Comm Math course 3.First-Time-Teaching-Redesign Teacher Workshop (R2R Manual) 4. Pre-semester Meeting for All Teaching

38
CA and Trigonometry Early Completion Sections 1 section each of College Algebra and Trig Sections capped at 200 students each No class meetings Optional lab hours Due dates same as Wednesday classes Option to work ahead

39
CA and Trigonometry Summer Model 2 sections of College Algebra and 2 sections of Trig Enrollment per section capped at 100 8 class days and 16 lab days, cycling in order of class, lab, lab, and then repeating 3 hours in lab required per cycle 28 Homework Assignments, 8 Quizzes, 2 Tests, and a Final Exam

40
Elements of a Sustained Redesign Detailed course syllabus and individual daily schedules Online assessments and carefully chosen assignment settings Settings for individual students Process for importing into and exporting from the gradebook Precise password management Allowance for open homework Rotating lab and efficient time clock management Well-trained teachers and tutors and constant tutor supervising Attention to lessons learned

41
Do’s and Don’ts Do stagger student assignment deadlines to avoid an overloaded lab Do set up homework and quizzes to be due before the new material is taught. Do establish credit hour equivalencies prior to assigning teacher’s schedules. Do increase administrator/coordinator release time to run program. Do designate a person to manage data, a person to prepare the lab schedule for tutors and train them, and a person to become expert at using the time clock. Do prepare for the unexpected. Don’t give up!

42
“Must Haves” for Redesign 1.The support of both the department administration and the upper administration 2.A strong-willed, thick-skinned program director 3.A core group of instructors and professors dedicated to working hard to make the redesign succeed 4.Space and computers for a learning lab 5.A willingness on the part of everyone involved to be flexible and CHANGE 6. A purpose and an overall plan for redesign

43
Contact Information Phoebe Rouse Precalculus Mathematics Coordinator Louisiana State University Department of Mathematics Baton Rouge, LA 70803 rouse@math.lsu.edu NCAT Redesign Scholar MyMathLab Faculty Advocate

Similar presentations

OK

REDESIGNING STUDENT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. TODAY’S DISCUSSION Overview of the Methodology and Findings of the Successful Redesign Projects Proven.

REDESIGNING STUDENT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. TODAY’S DISCUSSION Overview of the Methodology and Findings of the Successful Redesign Projects Proven.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on pin photodiode Ppt on places in our neighbourhood health Ppt on paintings and photographs related to colonial period clothing Ppt on limits and derivatives for class 11 Ppt on indian politics quotes Ppt on power grid failure drill Ppt on cross-sectional study research questions Ppt on crop production and management Ppt on tata steel company Ppt on bond length and strength