1 / 61

Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics

Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics. THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA College of Arts and Sciences Course Redesign Workshop October 21, 2006. Setting/Problem Course History Course Format Outcomes. Implementation issues Cost-Savings Conclusions. Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics. Setting.

leonard-meyer
Download Presentation

Redesign of Precalculus Mathematics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

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

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. 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

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

  9. CourseHistory

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

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

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

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

  14. Course History

  15. Course History

  16. CourseFormat

  17. Course Format • 30-50 minute “classes” that introduce students to topics and integrate the topics into the overall course objectives • 3-4 hours in MTLC or elsewhere working independently using course software that presents a series of topics covering specific learning objectives • Instructors and tutors available in MTLC 71 hours/week to provide individualized assistance

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

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

  20. Fundamental Premise Students learn mathematics by doing mathematics

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

  22. 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

  23. Implementation Issues

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

  25. Outcomes

  26. Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5%

  27. Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5% Fall 2000 50.2% Spring 2001 35.8% Fall 2001 60.5% Spring 2002 49.8% Fall 2002 63.0% Spring 2003 41.8% Fall 2003 78.9% Spring 2004 55.4% Fall 2004 76.2% Spring 2005 60.1%

  28. Success Rates Semester Success Rate Semester Success Rate Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5% Fall 2000 50.2% Spring 2001 35.8% Fall 2001 60.5% Spring 2002 49.8% Fall 2002 63.0% Spring 2003 41.8% Fall 2003 78.9% Spring 2004 55.4% Fall 2004 76.2% Spring 2005 60.1% Fall 2005 66.7% Spring 2006 56.5%

  29. Outcomes – Grade Distribution* Semester A B C Fall 1999 13.1% 32.6% 54.2% Spring 2000 12.7% 34.0% 53.3% Fall 2000 18.0% 41.6% 40.4% Spring 2001 11.0% 24.8% 64.2% Fall 2001 17.4% 41.7% 40.9% Spring 2002 11.0% 36.7% 52.2% Fall 2002 21.5% 40.1% 38.4% Spring 2003 17.0% 28.6% 54.4% Fall 2003 42.3% 38.1% 19.6% Spring 2004 22.1% 36.2% 41.7% *Percentages of students successful

  30. Math 121Grade Distributions(Fall 2005 Semester)

  31. Pass Rate (Subsequent Courses) CohortMTLCOverall F98-Sp99 57.4% 44.3% F99-Sp00 54.6% 40.0% F00-Sp01 58.0% 44.5% F01-Sp02 74.6% 53.8% F02-Sp03 81.4% 46.6% Math 112 - Precalculus

  32. Underserved Groups

  33. Pass Rates by Math Placement Category

  34. Pass Rates by Gender(Fall Semesters)

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

  36. Math Placement Scores

  37. Pass Rates by Ethnicity(Fall Semesters)

  38. Course Persistence

  39. Course Persistence(Math 100)

  40. Math 121Course Persistence(Fall 2005 Semester)

  41. Cost Savings

  42. Traditional Course Cost 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

  43. Redesigned Course Cost 2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students 1 Section Each Semester 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

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

  45. 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

More Related