1. SLCC’s Epic Emporium Adventure Experiences in Developing and Implementing an Emporium Course at Salt Lake Community College

2. Development  Fall 2010 – the beginning of an idea SLCC’s Provost attended a Complete College America conference and subsequently requested an Emporium–style course to quickly mainstream Dev Ed Math students into college-level math courses  Spring Semester 2011 – faculty exploration NCAT Training in Orlando, Florida Visited programs that had developed & were using an Emporium course Weber State University – Ogden, Utah Utah Valley University – Orem, Utah

3. Creating The Course Summer & Fall 2011  The Development Team John Close – curriculum development Carla Kulinsky – course creation Celestina Punzalan – review  The Delivery System MyMathLab by Pearson Publishing Main text – Prealgebra and Introductory Algebra, 3 rd edition by Elayn Martin-Gay

4. Course Design General Design  Math 1, 2, 3 covering 3 semesters  Self-paced with soft deadlines  Student must complete at least 4 modules per semester  Student may complete modules quickly eliminating one or more semesters  Pre-Module – Operations with single digits  12 Modules – basic math thru elementary algebra topics  Linear progression Module Design  Pretest  Each module starts with pretest  If required percentage is met, student moves to next module  If not met, student goes to the Homework  Homework Must complete entire homework assignment before taking the Mastery Test  Mastery Test  Same test as Pretest  Unlimited attempts to pass

5. Pilot Begins Spring 2012

6. Lessons Learned Student Issues  Homework  Must complete entire homework set  Lengthy and tedious  Lose of motivation  Preparedness  Lack of study skills  Lack of reading skills Instructor Issues  Course Design  Length of Homework  “Mastery” on tests  Instruction  Consistency of instruction  Beginning of semester  Need of assigned tutor

7. Changes Implemented Fall 2013  Switch to Individualized modules  Homework based on Pretest  Additional homework if don’t pass Mastery Exam  Increase Master cut ‐ score to 90% and limit testing attempts.  Add 80% mandatory attendance  Add required project  Prerequisite for EDU 1020  First Day Triage – Implemented Spring 2014  Timeline for Transition  Fall 2013 – Math 1 individualized, Math 2 and 3 old model  Spring 2014 – Math 1 and 2 individualized, Math 3 old model  Summer/Fall 2014 – all individualized

8. Students in Math 0001 Fall semester 2013 = 239 Passing Rate = 44% Of Passing, 71% (75) enrolled in subsequent math course. Below is the breakdown where students enrolled: Fall 2013 Lessons Learned – Passing Rates Of Those Who Failed, only 8% enrolled in another math course. =36% retention rate.

9. Future Success in Subsequent Math Course (Early Information) Conclusion: Students are taking longer to get through Developmental Math coursework using CPMA model. Fall 2012 CohortFall 2013 Cohort CPMATraditionalSig.CPMATraditionalSig. Average time to completion (in semesters) 1.81.5p<0.005 GPA in college-level math 2.782.34p=0.0472.092.34p=.59

10. Further Changes Implemented Fall 2014  Passing percentages  Decreased from to  Fractions Revamped  Co-requisite for Reading 900 added

11. Final Exam Comparisons Mean Face to Face Final = Mean CPMA Final = 78%; Median = 82%

12. Future Success Conclusion: Students are passing College Level course after CPMA at a rate of 54%, compared to the 990 to 1010 rate of 25%. Individualized Model likely helped significantly. Subsequent Course GradeC or BetterC- to D-EWTotal% PassSans "W" Summer Semester 2013812 11 73% Fall Semester 2013998329 31%35% Spring Semester 2014342412 70 49% Summer Semester 201452 310 50%71% Fall Semester 20141851125 72%75% Grand Total7441237145 51%54%

13. The Future  Move to OER  Increase Enrollment  Add Intermediate Algebra Level Content  Re-organization and addition to current content  Stem vs Non-Stem Track  Add transition point(s) into face-to-face courses