1. Redesign of Developmental Mathematics THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA College of Arts and Sciences Department of Mathematics NCAT Redesign Workshop March 17, 2008

2. Setting 2 developmental math courses Intermediate Algebra Remedial Mathematics 1700 students per year Taught in traditional, lecture-based setting Taught entirely by instructors and GTAs

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

4. Problems Courses teacher-centered No support for multiple learning styles Inconsistent coverage of topics No flexibility in instructional pace Lack of student success Very high course repeat percentage Negative impact on student retention Significant drain on resources

5. 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

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

7. Course Format

8. l 30-50 minute “classes” that introduce students to topics and integrate the topics into the overall course objectives l 3-4 hours in Mathematics Technology Learning Center (MTLC) or elsewhere working independently using course software that presents topics covering specific learning objectives l Instructors and tutors available in MTLC 71 hours/week to provide individualized assistance

10. Course Format (continued) l Students review topic material 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

11. Course Format (continued) l Students can do homework multiple times and take quizzes twice, always receiving 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

12. Fundamental Premise Students learn mathematics by doing mathematics

14. Advantages of Course Format Learner-centered Software supports multiple learning styles Consistent presentation of material Individualized tutorial support available Students can work at own pace

15. Advantages of Course Format 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

16. Outcomes

17. Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 199944.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 200053.5%

18. Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 199944.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 200053.5% Fall 2000 50.2% Spring 200135.8% Fall 2001 60.5% Spring 200249.8% Fall 2002 63.0% Spring 2003 41.8% Fall 2003 78.9% Spring 200455.4% Fall 2004 76.2% Spring 200560.1% Fall 2005 66.7% Spring 200656.6% Fall 2006 73.8% Spring 200759.8% Fall 2007 75.2%

19. Success Rate (Subsequent Courses) Cohort MTLC Other F98-Sp99 57.4% 44.3% F99-Sp00 54.6% 40.0% F00-Sp01 58.0% 44.5% F01-Sp0274.6 53.8% F02-Sp0381.4% 46.6% Math 112 - Precalculus

20. Underserved Groups

21. Success Rates by Math Placement Category Math Placement Score Year<200200-250>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%

22. Success 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%

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

24. Math Placement Scores Fall 2001Placement Level Mean<200200-250>250 African- American20841%31%28% Caucasian23020%45%35%

25. Success Rates by Ethnicity (Fall Semesters) F 99F 00F 01F 02 African-American35.0%59.4%60.4%63.6% Caucasian41.1%46.5%60.7%62.3% Overall40.6%50.2%60.5%63.0%

26. Cost Savings

27. 2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students 43 Sections of 35 Students Each 2 FTTI (16 sections) @ $36,250 $72,500 5 GTAs (20 sections) @ $17,565 $87,825 7 PTTI (7 sections) @ $1,655 $11,585 Total Cost $171,910 Cost Per Student $116 Traditional Course Cost

28. Redesigned Course Cost 2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students 18 Sections of 85 Students Each 2 FTTI @ $36,250$72,500 6 PTTI @ $1,655 $9,930 UG Tutors 5760 hrs @ $7/hr $40,320 Total Cost $122,750 Cost Per Student $83

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

30. Cost Savings (Economy of Scale) 955 Students in Math 005 & 112 1 FTTI @ $36,250$36,250 4 PTTI @ $1,655 $6,620 Total$42,870 $45/student

31. Cost Savings (Reduction of Course Repeats) 1480 Students in Math 100 20% increase in success rate = 296 students 296 students @ $116/student = $34,336

32. 2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students Traditional Course 43 Sections of 35 Students Each 43 sections X 3 hr/wk = 129 classroom hours Redesigned Course 18 Sections of 85 Students Each 18 sections X 1 hr/wk = 18 classroom hours Savings = 111 classroom hours (37 3-hr/wk course slots) Cost Savings (Room Availability)

33. 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