1. Math Emporium Pilot Project at Kapiolani CC Co-coordinators Sang Chung (schung@hawaii.edu)schung@hawaii.edu Mary Ann Esteban (marye@hawaii.edu)marye@hawaii.edu Evan Yoshimura (eyoshimu@hawaii.edu)eyoshimu@hawaii.edu

2. Redesigned courses PCM 23 (Pre-college Math) Fall 2010: 373 students 2 classes (75 min) + 3 additional lab hours per week 22 sections (15 seats each) offered in Fall ‘10 compared to 16 sections (15 seats each) in Fall ‘09 Classroom/lab with 40 computer stations + extra tables for laptop users Lab available M-Th 7:45-7:15 Used MyMathLab with Martin-Gay text Contact Mary Ann Esteban for course details Math 24 (Elementary Algebra I) Fall 2010: 412 students 2 classes (50 min) + additional lab hour per week 21 sections (23 seats each) offered in Fall ‘10 compared to 17 sections (28 seats each) in Fall ‘09 Classroom/lab with 40 computer stations + extra tables for laptop users Lab available M-Th 8-8, F 9-3 Used MyMathLab with Lial, Hornsby, McGinnis text Contact Sang Chung or Evan Yoshimura for course details

3. Math 24/25 Hybrid Summer ’10: 75 Math 24 students, 109 Math 25 students Summer version: 5 classes (110 min) per week, Spring ‘10 version: 4 classes (50 min) per week (alternated lecture and lab) Classrooms had either computer stations or laptops available for students. Both used MyMathLab with Lial, Hornsby, McGinnis text First part of class consisted of a lecture (30-45 minutes), then students given remaining time to complete assigned activities. Not self-paced, but accelerated (6 weeks with sections taught in first and second summer sessions). Spring pilot ran through entire 16 weeks. Still used chapters from text instead of modules. Used in conjunction with Summer Bridge Program in an attempt to allow incoming students (high school graduates) who test into developmental math classes to get a jumpstart.

4. Hybrid Results The Spring ’10 hybrid Math 24 class ended up with 17 students at the end of the semester (2 W’s) and had a pass rate of 41.2%. The hybrid Math 25 ran 2 sections that ended up with 37 students at the end of the semester (4 W’s) and had an overall pass rate of 62.2%. It should be noted that most of the students chose the traditional model because it required less class hours, hence, the low enrollment. We will be offering this model again in Fall 2011 as an alternative to emporium model so we can compare their effectiveness. We ran a Summer Hybrid Math Pilot in Summer ‘10 with very positive results. The Math 24 sections (75 students) had a pass rate of 75%, 46 of these students continued on to another math class in Fall ‘10 (Math 25 or 100) with a pass rate of 48%. The Math 25 sections (109 students) also had a pass rate of 75%, 64 of these students continued on to another math class in Fall ‘10 (Math 100 or 103, Phil 110) with a pass rate of 64%. We will be using this model again for both courses in Summer ’11.

5. PCM 23 Setup  Material from 7 chapters reordered into 7 modules (4-9 sections each)  Section homework (100%), section quizzes (90% min), module review (100%), written module practice test (100%), module test (80% min), written midterm (80% min), written final (80% min).  Students allowed a 2 nd attempt at midterm or final at the discretion of instructor; everything else has unlimited attempts or students are allowed to make corrections. Everything except practice test, midterm and final are online (MML).  Portfolio contains notes, written work, and handouts, lab log, and item checklist. Checked regularly by instructors.  Students either finish the course or receive an NP grade at the end of the 16 week period. At the start of the following semester, instructors make a decision whether to allow students to continue from where they left off or to have students start over.  Students who finish PCM 23 early are given the option of starting Math 24 right away in emporium model.

6. PCM 23 Results The pass rate for PCM 23 in Fall ‘09 using a traditional lecture model was 44.19%. At the end of the Fall ‘10 semester, the new emporium model produced a pass rate of 25.4% (pending). Note that this figure does not include those students who continued working in Spring ’11. This means that the final pass rate for the course is being redefined and takes away from a direct comparison to the previous model. That being said, the PCM instructors will evaluate their results after the Spring ‘11 semester to decide which direction is best for their students. Based on the amount of individual attention these students need, the emporium model might not be the best choice here.

7. Math 24 Setup  Material from 4 chapters split into 10 modules with 2-3 sections each.  Section homework (95% min), section quiz (90% min), module test (80% min), written midterm (70% min), written final (60% min)  Homework, quizzes, module tests have unlimited attempts (modified score if taken multiple times); 2 attempts allowed for midterm & final exams (minimum score given if taken more than once). Everything except the midterm and final are online (MML).  Portfolio contains notes, written work, handouts, lab log. Checked roughly every 2 weeks.  1-on-1 conferencing with students during class meetings (if needed) otherwise instructor floats around class helping students.  If student makes decent progress in a semester, they are allowed to continue working into the next semester without having to start over (pass midterm = NP grade, finish at least 8 modules = Incomplete)  If student finishes early, offered the opportunity to start Math 25 right away in emporium model (only available to emporium students).

8. Math 24 Results The pass rate for Math 24 in Fall ‘09 using the traditional lecture model was 48.70%. At the end of the Fall ‘10 semester, the new emporium model produced a pass rate of 32.77% (pending). Note that this figure does not include those students who received an incomplete grade (133 students, 32.28%). We expect roughly 51 of these students to complete the course by the deadline (first 8 weeks of Spring ‘11). Thus our final pass rate will be likely end up at 45.1%. As with PCM 23, our definition of pass rate is being modified to fit this model. Another result of the redesign is that in Fall ’10 we had 41 W’s as compared to the 61 W’s in Fall ‘09. So 91% of Math 24 students stayed in the course until it’s completion in Fall ‘10 compared to the 87% in Fall ’09. These numbers prompted the Math 24 instructors to come up with strategies to increase the number of students who finish the course within the standard 16 week semester.

9. Resources $85,000 initial cost per room (network, electrical, computers, furniture) $9,500 per semester for a lab attendant (registration/tutor/lab monitor) Our model allows us to service roughly the same number of students with more sections that have less students per section compared to traditional lecture-based model. Faculty is getting paid 2.5 credits per class since the workload is different (may change if more responsibilities added). Moved all PCM 23 and Math 24 sections into one room each. Instructors do not lecture but help students more on a 1-on-1 or small group setting. For each section taught, instructors also required to have 2 lab hours (to ensure help in lab is available during hours of operation). We were fortunate to have donations in the form of furniture, manpower (lab coverage with tutors/mentors).

10. General advice for starting out Be sure to have a troubleshooter on your redesign team since problems you didn’t anticipate can AND will pop up when you start out. – Registration/financial aid, credit/workload, privacy (FERPA) issues – Transferring students mid-semester/handling students who need more than 16 weeks to finish Figure out what issues are most important to your situation BEFORE starting on the actual redesign process so that you can address them as you go. – What happens if students finish early? – How do you want to check that students can write math properly? – Should attendance be mandatory and if so, how often do classes meet? Make sure instructors who will be teaching in the new model can adapt to an unfamiliar system and are willing to change their approach to teaching/tracking student progress for the benefit of their students. Caring and outgoing instructors are a better fit in our model as compared to those who aren’t approachable or are unwilling to go the extra mile for their students. You probably won’t see immediate improvement as minor (sometimes major) adjustments will have to be made during the first year or so of a redesign. Be prepared to deal with students who don’t get the redesign and/or are unhappy with the change.

11. Mahalo Nui Loa Best wishes to our fellow collaborators in the math redesign effort within the UHCC system. For those who will be joining the group in the near future… …Good luck and keep in touch so we can share ideas.