Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA College of Arts and Sciences Course Redesign Workshop October 21, 2006

Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics l Setting/Problem l Course History l Course Format l Outcomes l Implementation issues l Cost-Savings l Conclusions

Setting 6 Precalculus math courses 6500 students per year Taught in traditional, lecture-based setting Taught entirely by instructors and GTAs

Course Format Courses taught in rigid format Common syllabus Common presentation schedule Common tests

Problems Courses teacher centered No support for multiple learning styles Inconsistent coverage of topics No flexibility in instructional pace Lack of student success D/F/W rates as high as 60% Very high course repeat percentage Negative impact on student retention Significant drain on resources

Issues Tenure-track faculty not invested in precalculus courses Courses damaging to department’s reputation Solutions proposed required significant resources Smaller class size Increased support (graders, tutors)

Solution 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 Selected “Math Emporium” model developed by Virginia Tech Initial application to Intermediate Algebra (Math 100) Approximately 1300 students per year

Course History

Fall 1999Fall 1999 Visited Virginia Tech Began initial planning for course course text/software - Intermediate Algebra by Martin- Gay/MyMathLab (Prentice-Hall)

Course History Spring 2000Spring 2000 Piloted redesigned format in 3 sections of Math 100 (100 students)

Course History Summer 2000Summer 2000 Received $200,000 Pew grant Assigned a 70-seat computer lab to course Mathematics Technology Learning Center (MTLC)Established the Mathematics Technology Learning Center (MTLC) Taught 5 sections of Math 100 (130 students) using redesigned format

Course History Fall 2000Fall 2000 Taught 18 sections of Math 100 in MTLC (1140 students) 1140

Course History

Course Format

l minute “classes” that introduce students to topics and integrate the topics into the overall course objectives l 3-4 hours in MTLC or elsewhere working independently using course software that presents a series of topics covering specific learning objectives l Instructors and tutors available in MTLC 71 hours/week to provide individualized assistance

Course Format (continued) l Students work homework problems that cover defined learning objectives l Homework is graded immediately by the computer providing the student with instant feedback on their performance l After completing homework, students take quizzes that cover learning objectives

Course Format (continued) l Students can do homework and take quizzes multiple times and receive instant feedback l After completing homework and quizzes on a series of topics, students take a section test l Tests are given only in the MTLC l Tests available on demand with a specified completion date

Fundamental Premise Students learn mathematics by doing mathematics

Advantages of Course Format Learner centered Software supports multiple learning styles Consistent presentation of material Individualized tutorial support available

Advantages of Course Format Students can work at own pace 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

Implementation Issues

Instructor Buy-In Instructor Training Detachment From Students Student Engagement “No Teacher” Syndrome Staff Scheduling Scheduling Deadlines, Tests, Etc. Data Management Implementation Issues

Outcomes

Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring %

Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring %

Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring %

Outcomes – Grade Distribution* Semester A B C Fall %32.6%54.2% Spring % 34.0% 53.3% Fall % 41.6% 40.4% Spring % 24.8% 64.2% Fall % 41.7% 40.9% Spring % 36.7% 52.2% Fall % 40.1% 38.4% Spring %28.6%54.4% Fall %38.1%19.6% Spring %36.2%41.7% *Percentages of students successful

Math 121 Grade Distributions (Fall 2005 Semester) ABCDFW Math 121 T10.8%18.6%21.9%5.4%11.9%31.4% Math 121 C17.4%20.4%26.9%11.4%9.6%14.4%

Pass Rate (Subsequent Courses) Cohort MTLC Overall F98-Sp % 44.3% F99-Sp % 40.0% F00-Sp % 44.5% F01-Sp0274.6% 53.8% F02-Sp0381.4% 46.6% Math Precalculus

Underserved Groups

Pass Rates by Math Placement Category Math Placement Score Year< >250 98/9931.5%45.5%66.6% 99/0040.3%43.8%63.2% 00/0132.8%42.0%60.6% 01/0248.9%53.8%71.2% 02/0348.4%54.9%62.0%

Pass Rates by Gender (Fall Semesters) F 98F 99F 00F 01F 02 Females54.7%48.9%53.0%66.7%68.2% Males39.1%31.8%45.9%55.8%57.6% Overall47.1%40.6%50.2%60.5%63.0%

Outcomes By Ethnicity Demographics Caucasian – 81% African-American – 15% Other – 4%

Math Placement Scores Fall 2001Placement Level Mean< >250 African- American20841%31%28% Caucasian23020%45%35%

Pass Rates by Ethnicity (Fall Semesters) F 98F 99F 00F 01F 02 African-American46.2%35.0%59.4%60.4%63.6% Caucasian46.9%41.1%46.5%60.7%62.3% Overall47.1%40.6%50.2%60.5%63.0%

Course Persistence

Course Persistence (Math 100) Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Final Fall %89.3%83.8%81.6%78.6% Fall %89.7%84.7%79.4%77.2% Fall %91.2%88.6%86.3%85.8% Fall %92.2%90.0%86.6%86.4% Fall %89.7%82.7%79.7%80.1%

Math 121 Course Persistence (Fall 2005 Semester) Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Final Math 121T88.4%83.0%67.0%64.9%67.3% Math 121C94.6%92.2%85.6%82.6%81.4%

Cost Savings

Academic Year Students 43 Sections of 35 Students Each 2 FTTI (16 $36,250 $72,500 5 GTAs (20 $17,565 $87,825 7 PTTI (7 $1,655 $11,585 Total Cost $171,910 Cost Per Student $116 Traditional Course Cost

Redesigned Course Cost Academic Year Students 1 Section Each Semester 2 $36,250$72,500 6 $1,655 $9,930 UG Tutors 5760 $7/hr $40,320 Total Cost $122,750 Cost Per Student $83

Cost Savings Traditional Course$116/student Redesigned Course$83/student Savings$33/student (28%)

Cost Savings (Economy of Scale) 955 Students in Math 005 & $36,250$36,250 4 $1,655 $6,620 Total$42,870 $45/student

Cost Savings (Reduction of Course Repeats) 1480 Students in Math % increase in success rate = 296 students 296 $116/student = $34,336

Student Perceptions of Computer-Based Instruction

Perceived Advantages l Flexibility in scheduling l Ability to move at own pace l Instant feedback l Availability of individual help l Equality of presentation l Equality of testing l Elimination of language problems

Perceived Disadvantages l Technical problems frustrating l Confusion regarding course policies l Lack of a “teacher” l Inconsistent availability and quality of help l Necessity of self-discipline

Worked More or Less Than Traditional Course SemesterMoreSameLess Sp %30.3%36.4% Fall %29.3%24.6% Sp %28.6%28.2% Fall %37.0%20.4% Sp %38.9%24.1%

For each section, what do you typically do first. Percent Learning Activities5.0% Practice Problems9.4% Graded Homework81.8% Quiz1.7% Talk With Tutor1.8%

Learning Compared to Traditional Class SemesterLessSameMore Fall %68.5%13.2% Sp %31.6%27.6% Fall %34.8%36.4% Sp %40.9%26.4% Fall %39.0%36.4% Sp % 29.6%

Correlation to Active Learning Question Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. This course helped me learn to work through a process to solve math problems 32.5%47.2%14.8% 5.5% 2. This course encourages me to take responsibility for my own learning 45.2%42.3% 8.9%3.6% 3. This course encourages me to search for answers myself rather than asking others 38.9%49.9% 7.4%3.8% 4. It is easy to pay attention in this class 34.0%46.4%14.5%5.1%

University of North Carolina Survey “This course is a good fit with my learning preferences.” Redesign Strongly Disagree45.3% Disagree21.8% Neutral17.3% Agree11.7% Strongly Agree3.9%

University of North Carolina Survey “This course is a good fit with my learning preferences.” RedesignTraditional Strongly Disagree45.3%26.6% Disagree21.8%54.0% Neutral17.3% Agree11.7%2.1% Strongly Agree3.9%0.0%

Conclusions 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