3. A National Problem: Across the nation, over 40% of students entering college are unprepared for college- level mathematics coursework. 10.9% of students place into remedial math, and 43% fail to successfully complete the course at first try. Over 30% of students place into pre-college- level intermediate algebra; 38% don’t pass. (National Data taken from Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, U.S. Dept. of Education, March 2004.)

4. The Local Problem: 10% of students entering UW-Stout in Fall 2004 placed into beginning algebra (Math 010). Over the four most recent years using the traditional lecture approach, the non-pass rate has averaged 29.0%. 35% of students placed into intermediate algebra (Math 110). Over the four years prior to Fall 2004, the non-pass rate has also averaged 29.2%.

5. Potential Impact on Retention: National and local studies show the single strongest predictor of retention from first to second year of college is taking and passing a math class in the first year. In each of the past three years, nearly 45% of ~1600 first-year UW-Stout students placed into Math 010 or 110. Non-pass rates near 30% therefore put more than 200 students at high risk of dropping out each year based on this risk factor alone.

6. Why are students failing math classes taught using the traditional teaching approach? Not doing homework Not attending class Not using instructors’ office hours Not using available tutoring services

8. The New Approach: Since Fall 2004, for all sections of Math 010/110: Homework is graded daily by computer and counts towards course grade. Daily lectures complement online work, attendance is taken and earns credit points. Instructors hold office hours in classroom. Tutor lab next to classroom is geared specifically to these two classes.

9. Basics of the New Approach: 1. Daily computer-graded homework Counts toward the course grade (~25%) MyMathLab software provides online help for each problem, any time, anywhere Immediate feedback; each problem can be repeated until student gets it right Gives instructor daily information on students’ progress

10. Basics of the New Approach: 2. Regular class sessions Dedicated classroom for Math 010/110 Attendance counts towards grade (~5-10%) In-class lecture complements online work “Live” homework help available in class every day Quizzes/tests must be taken in the classroom Motivated, well-prepared students can work ahead, even finish course early

12. Basics of the New Approach: 3. Open tutor lab for one-on-one help Located right next to regular classroom Specifically targeted to Math 010/110 Staffed 50 hours/week: Each Math TLC instructor holds a portion of weekly office hours in the open lab Specially trained undergraduate student tutors provide peer-to-peer assistance

14. 3-Year Cumulative Results: Median time spent: 95 minutes per day Assignment completion: 95.2% in 110, 96.4% in 010 Average homework score: 93.8% in 110, 96.5% in 010 Number of homework assignments: 110: 35-38 per semester, plus 11 practice quizzes/tests 010: 20 per semester, plus 7 practice quizzes/tests Homework

15. Quiz and Test Results: Math 010: –Quiz Average: 77.1% (5 quizzes) –Test Average: 72.4% (midterm, final) Math 110: –Quiz Average: 71.4% (7 quizzes) –Test Average: 70.0% (4 exams + final)

16. Attendance Results: At lectures: 88.3% for Math 110 88.5% for Math 010 At tutor lab: Weekly visits averaged 150-200 out of total enrollment of ~350. Total visits per semester average ~2800, vs. 80 visits all semester to the campus Tutoring Center for these two courses under the traditional teaching approach in Fall 2003.

18. Results to Date – Math 010: 55% drop in F/W rate for 4 years with Math TLC vs. previous 4 years without ( 528 total students took Math 010 in the Math TLC in the last 8 semesters)

19. Results to Date – Math 110: 40% drop in F/W rate for 4 years with Math TLC vs. previous 4 years without (1802 total students took Math 110 in the Math TLC in the last 8 semesters)

20. Estimated effect on student numbers over the past four years: Math 110: –1802 enrolled students –316 actual F/W (17.5%) vs. predicted 523 (29%) –Net estimated effect: 207 more students passed Math 010: –528 enrolled students –69 actual F/W (13.1%), vs. predicted 153 (29%) –Net estimated effect: 84 more students passed

21. Combined estimated effect of the Math TLC program over the past 4 years: 291 more students passed than predicted vs. the pre-Math TLC F/W rate. This number translates to 3.5% of the entire Stout undergraduate student population over those four years, many of whom would likely have dropped out if they hadn’t passed these math classes.

22. The Big Question : How are these Math TLC students doing in their subsequent math courses compared to those taught previously using the traditional approach?

23. More students are passing Math 110 since the start of the Math TLC. (The cumulative F/W rate since Fall 04 is 17.5%, vs. 29% in the four years prior to the Math TLC.) This has occurred despite the institution of tougher standards. (Passing now requires a "C" grade; homework is assigned and graded every day, and quizzes and tests are more frequent and more rigorous than in most pre-Math TLC sections of Math 110.) Although more students are passing, grade inflation in Math 110 has not occurred. (The average GPA for Math 110 in the two year pre-Math TLC was 2.79, average for first two years of Math TLC was 2.40.) Results for Intermediate Algebra:

24. Results for Intermediate Algebra (ct’d): Although more students are passing Math 110, there has been no reduction in the proportion of Math 110 students who go on to take a Level 2 math class in the subsequent semester. –51% are going on to take Math 120 [College Math 1] the next semester, vs. 50% pre-Math TLC; 14% are going on to take Math 123 [Finite Math], vs. 16% pre-Math TLC. –Consequently, a higher number of students are now able to choose STEM or business majors requiring math beyond Level 1. Even though many more students are now passing Math 110, the average grade of Math TLC-Math 110 students who go on to take Math 120 next has actually increased slightly. –The average subsequent Math 120 grade for first-year students who took Math 110 in Fall 2002 or 2003 (pre-Math TLC) was 2.24  1.09 (SD, n = 51) vs. 2.38  0.97 (SD, n = 160) for first year students who took Math 110 in the Fall of 2004 or 2005.

25. Results for Intermediate Algebra (ct’d): Some students who take Math 110 do opt to take Math 118 (Concepts of Math, a Level 1 course) as their subsequent math class, due to a change of major and/or a lack of success in Math 110. For these students: –The grade in the subsequent Math 118 course has been much higher since the Math TLC (2.73 vs. 2.38 pre-Math TLC) –This occurred even though Math 110 students opting for Math 118 are coming out of Math 110 with lower average grades than before the Math TLC (Math 110 average grade = 1.67 post vs. 2.48 pre.) Of those Math 110 students who go on to take Math 123 (Finite Math) in the following semester: –The subsequent course grade is similar for Math TLC students (2.80  0.83 [SD, n = 43]) vs. pre-Math TLC ( 2.91  0.61 [SD, n = 16] ). –The Math 123 grades earned by Math TLC Math 110 students are much more highly correlated with their Math 110 grade (R = 0.47, p = 0.0019) than for the pre-math TLC students (R = 0.02, p = 0.94).

26. Results for Intermediate Algebra (ct’d): Of those who failed Math 110 under the Math TLC program and went on to repeat it the next semester, 75% passed the course on the second try. Also, those who fail Math 110 now are much more likely to take the course again. –20 failed students repeated the course the next semester in the first two years of the Math TLC program, vs. only one such student in the two years pre-Math TLC. –This indicates that many of those who fail under the new system are still experiencing enough success to want to try the course again right away, and to pass it on the second attempt.

27. More students are passing Math 010 since the start of the Math TLC. The cumulative F/W rate since Fall 04 is 13%, vs. 29% in the four years prior to the Math TLC. Results for Beginning Algebra: This has occurred despite a decline in the math skills of these students coming in to the course, as measured by Math ACT scores.

28. Results for Beginning Algebra (ct’d): Although more students are passing, grade inflation in Math 010 has not occurred. (The average GPA for Math 010 pre-Math TLC was 3.08, average for first two years of Math TLC was 2.83.) Although retention data has not yet been completely analyzed, a recent report from the UW- Stout Budget, Planning and Analysis office noted that the fall-to-spring retention of the Fall 2007 cohort of first-year students who took Math 010 was 93.6%, exceeding the retention rate for all incoming first-year students.

29. Results for Beginning Algebra (ct’d): The average subsequent course grade for Math 010 students who go on to take Math 110 the following semester dropped by similar amounts for Math TLC students (average drop = 0.90 grade point) compared to pre-Math TLC (average drop of 0.85.) The average subsequent course grade for Math 010 students who go on to take Math 118 the following semester was somewhat lower for Math TLC students (average Math 118 grade = 2.49 compared to 2.88 pre- Math TLC, but the grades in the subsequent Math 118 course were much more highly correlated with the Math 010 grade for Math TLC students (R = 0.34, p = 0.027) than for the pre-Math TLC students (R = 0.03, p = 0.93).

30. Student Survey Comments: –I REALLY like the way this class operates thus far, and let it be known that I can’t even remember “not minding” a math class since Jr. high school! –I want to fulfill my math requirements at Stout before I transfer because the computer was such an invaluable tool. – I thought doing math homework on a computer would be pretty difficult, but as it turns out…It’s really not. I even somewhat enjoy it!

31. More Student Comments: –This class completely changed my views on math. Before this class I hated math and never wanted to do it. I hated math even in grade school! After this course I LOVE math and am considering a math minor. I’m even thinking of being a tutor in the Math TLC next year. I would never have imagined ME teaching and helping others with math. –I just really appreciate all your help. Thank you for making me come to class every day. –I learned more in this one course than I learned in all my math classes in high school.

32. Student Comments on the Software: –I loved Course Compass homework. –Very good, you got to see what we did wrong. –Was the best helpful tool ever. –Figuring it out on my own really helped me to understand it. Using the “Show Example” and “Help Solve” features were nice to have. –Course Compass is sweet. –The online videos and examples helped. –I loved the online homework and tests/quizzes. I believe that helped me a lot! –Very, very helpful, you could look to see how to do the problem if you just couldn’t figure it out. –It was very helpful, with step by step instructions and online book. –Don’t get rid of it!

35. Minority Student Results:

36. The Math Lab Rap Song by Marvin Ealy, aka: Eknolege Graduate of Math 010 and110 On YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VcE2RvG87Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VcE2RvG87Q Streaming video on UW Stout Math TLC web site: http://www.uwstout.edu/lts/multimedia/streams/foleyj/mathlab.wvx http://www.uwstout.edu/lts/multimedia/streams/foleyj/mathlab.wvx

37. "I Will Derive" from MindofMatthew; posted to YouTube 5/8/2008 Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9dpTTpjymEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9dpTTpjymE

38. The Math Lab Rap Song by Marvin Ealy, aka: Eknolege Graduate of Math 010 and110

39. Impact on Non-Traditional Students : –Non-traditional students comprised over half of the 3rd quarter Math 010 class in Spring 2005. –Time since last math class ranged from 4 to 35 years for this group (average 13 years). –Combined F/W rate: 4% (1 out of 23)

40. Impact on Non-Traditional Students: Quote: Two years ago my life forever changed having enrolled as a full-time student at UW-Stout. As a non-traditional student out of high school for 20 years, anxiety ensued thinking about completing the algebra credits needed for my program. Given my history, I believe that I am predisposed to and suffered from 'Algebra Anxiety Syndrome'. Learning algebra has been the biggest challenge of my college career thus far. Aside from the psychological road blocks; I had to start at ground zero with my algebraic inadequacies. As a student and former permanent fixture in the Math TLC Lab, I have been absolutely blessed... The Math TLC Lab is an invaluable asset to our university for people like me thanks to the caring and dedicated staff.

41. New Developments: Incorporated MyMathLab software into some sections of six additional courses: College Math 1 & 2 Concepts of Math Finite Math Calculus 1 Elementary Statistics Developed new targeted tutoring program for College Math 1.

42. Grant Funding We are currently in the second year of a 3-year FIPSE grant from the U.S. Department of Education to study the impact of the Math TLC approach on subsequent course performance and retention and to offer workshops like this one for other institutions. We just received word that the UW System has funded our proposal for a two-year project to adapt portions of the Math TLC program for a new initiative to reduce the achievement gap between minority and non-minority students. Previous funding includes small grants from the Stout Foundation and the NSF-funded Wisconsin Alliance for Minority Participation.

43. Program Costs: A. Startup (first year) Program Development Summer salaries for training/course redesign work Program Director/Administrator At least 1/4 time, preferably half time for first year, especially if grant- writing is involved Facilities (mostly a startup cost) Classroom: Dedicated classroom makes a big difference, especially if equipped with computer access Tutor lab: Key feature is convenience of location, near classroom and teacher’s offices Software/Textbooks (for institutions where this cost is not borne by students) Student Tutors (Our first year total was ~ $60,000, mostly via special allocation from the Chancellor’s office)

44. Program Costs: B. Ongoing Costs (subsequent years) Program Director/Administrator –Minimum ¼ released time during academic year –Summer salary for course revision and evaluation Student Tutors/TAs Software Access Codes –NOTE: No new code needed for Subsequent course with same book Repeating a course with same book Miscellaneous –printing, spare calculators, bulletin board, frames, etc.

45. Program Savings: Immediate savings from decreased failure rates: Using the pre-Math TLC rates, the projected number of drops and withdrawals for Fundamentals of Algebra for Fall 2006 would have been 19 students and for Intermediate Algebra 83 students. The actual number of drops and withdrawals were 4 and 40 respectively, a decrease of 15 students in Fundamentals and 43 in Intermediate Algebra. FTE Savings: –Based on these numbers the University saved 0.5 teaching position for the Fall, 2006 semester. The corresponding salary savings were approximately $8,750 plus $3894 in benefits, for a total of $12,644. Software Savings: –The department saved approximately $2000 in its service and supply budget by not having to purchase access codes to the software used for these courses. Tuition Savings –Students also benefitted from the higher pass rates. Since current tuition is $232.11 per credit, the tuition saved by students during the Fall, 2006 semester was $6,963.30 for Fundamentals of Algebra, a two credit course, and $39,922.92 for Intermediate Algebra, a four credit course. Estimated combined annual savings for 2006-07: $120,000

46. Program Savings: Other Potential Savings and Benefits: Higher Retention Rates: –Saves tuition dollars –Reduces costs for student recruitment Program Reputation: –Can serve as a marketing tool for student recruitment, especially in underserved populations, both by official university channels and by word of mouth from satisfied students. –Long-term potential for attracting corporate and alumni financial sponsorship Basis for Grant Funding: –Proven results from pilot studies make good case for future funding

48. Coming up Next: 10:45 - 11:15: Session 1B: Software Registration and Course Creation 11:15 - 12:15: Session 1C: Syllabus Development 12:15 - 1:30: Lunch at Ted’s Pizza ( Courtesy of Pearson Education/ MyMathLab)