What evolved from 10 years of computerized instruction?

1. 19! What evolved from10 years of computerized instruction? March 2013 League of Innovations Bernadette Sandruck, Ed.D. Division chair and professor of mathematics Howard Community College, Columbia, MD

2. Current use of computer-assisted instruction

3. Howard Community College Developmental Mathematics

4. Prescriptive test • Complete only topics needed • Extra lab time available • Pay for 14 weeks of instruction and earn 2, 4, or 6 credits Basic Mathematics (2 crd) and Basic Algebra & Geometry (4 crd) ……our first CBI courses

5. If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten. Educational Reasons • Individualized instruction • More individualized attention • Flexible Scheduling • Focuses Responsibility on Students Political Reasons • Individualized Instruction • Potential to complete developmental course work sooner • High Tech Why computer-based instruction?

6. Early Lessons Learned (1994) • Students preferred simple navigation, less glitz. • new costs for equipment & technicians • Great for students who are refreshing their skills; • Insufficient for those learning for the first time. • Self-pace does not work! Students need a timeline. • . • The teachers need • Training on new role • On equipment

7. 1995 the beginning of constant change • Old Mastery learning strategy vetoed. • Intermediate algebra added to the developmental sequence • Deleted geometry course and blended with algebra • Request to switch to a modular program was rejected • Advising concerns • Registration concerns Compromise: Just Elementary Algebra (called Review of Integrated Algebra & Geometry) was split into two modules.

8. Basic Math ~ 2 crd Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crd 5 weeks Integrated Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd 9 weeks + Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours Modular Experiment 1996 College-level Maths

9. Basic Math ~ 2 crd Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd Integr. Alg. & Geom. I retry 5 weeks Success = 15-20% Integr. Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd 9 weeks Success = 73-77% Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crd 5 weeks Success = 64-65% Integr. Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd 14 weeks Success = 40-49% Modular Collapse Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crd Winter, summer…full semester Success = 39-46% Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours

10. Few Math Skills Basic Math ~ 2 crd Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd Weak Algebra Skills Integrated Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd Review of Algebra with Geom. Applications ~ 4 crd 2 Paths (2001) Integrated Algebra & Geometry II ~ 2 crd Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours

11. Success Rates & Number of SectionsMATH-064 & 065& 067

12. Teacher Assistance • Student Aides • Drop-in anytime • Fall 2001

13. Program Consistency • Lesson Packets (partial lecture notes) • Course Schedules • Division Exams • Division Grading Policies Strengths we want to retain

14. Decisions on structure for cbi sections • Rigid Test Schedule Model • Must take exams on scheduled date • One make-up at the end of the semester • Cumulative Content • Minimum score on quizzes in cbi courses (65%) • Progressive Learning vs. Mastery learning • effect on Lower ability students • Learn what you can first time through • Build knowledge on second try

15. Systems of Equations 064 MM064 TL 067 MM067 TL

16. Lessons Learned • Computer-based instruction is a viable format • Resistance to cbi format • Faculty, students & counselors • Very little accelerated learning • Student Priorities don’t match ours

17. What’s next?

18. Resource review • Adopted a two vendor system • ModuMath for lessons • HawkesLearning for online problem solving Constant Experimentation (2008 – present)

19. Major curriculum shift led to elimination of two paths • All classes had some computer work • Search for best prescription for computer assistance Constant Experimentation (2008 – present)

20. Overall success rates for MATH-064, 065 &067 after curriculum change Fall 2008 to 2009

21. Tracking cbi vs. cai

22. Further investigations

23. edesign

24. * Realign content • Blended Learning Approach • Intensive Mastery Learning • Semi-Modular new structure (2012)

25. Before Class: • Watch the Video Instruction / fill-in notebook • Complete Practice Problems • Complete Online Homework • Complete Written Homework During Class: • Attend Teacher Led Instruction • Take WebTests • Take Unit Exams Student view

26. Blended Learning Structure (Fall 2012) • MATH-061 • separate recitation (1.5 hrs) & lab (4 hrs) • recitation (either 47 or 24 students) pay = 1.5 units • large lab (47, with 4 student aides), pay = 5 units • small lab (24, with 1 student aide), pay = 3 units • MATH-067 • Blended lecture & lab • 24 seat computer classroom • one faculty, one student aide; pay = 4 units • lab instructors responsible for student grades

27. Responsibilities of Lab Instructor • Comment on quality of work on written homework assignments and record final grade when it reaches acceptable level • Grade some exam questions where partial credit is allowed and adjust grade in computerized gradebook • Track progress of all students and coach them through the program • Assign attendance grades

28. Mastery Requirements Online honeworks count other 8% of grade *Score needed to take Quizzes ** and Unit Exams

29. Carry over mastered units to next major semester • Summer and Winter extension sessions • (MATH-061E and MATH-067E) • Student who master two or more units in a semester will not fail Semi-Modular

30. Grading Structure

31. Excellent Attendance • Steady diligence • Effort beyond class sessions • Master at least two units within the semester L-Grade requirements

32. Retention @ 10 weeks

33. Success Rates (ABC / ABCDF)

36. Assessment Plans …beyond success in course • First try success on test items compared to previous program • Number of credits to complete developmental sequence • Number of semesters to complete developmental sequence • Success in intermediate algebra • Success in college-level mathematics • Cost analysis

37. Lessons Learned (Fall 2012) • Personnel issues for labs • One faculty and 4 student aides yield inconsistent quality • One faculty and 1 student aide is inefficient • Recitations & blended classroom issues • Faculty preferred recitation before lab • Difficult to meet needs of all students • Faculty blindly followed schedule

38. Expand recitation to MATH-067 • Scheduled 3 concurrent sections • Focus on team teaching • Hired two part-time lab managers • Review criteria for extension courses Phase 2 – spring 2013

39. Created a second developmental lab • Schedule only large sections • hire one lab instructor and one recitation instructor • Rotate students into recitation room • Scheduled some test center time • Hire lab managers • Compromise • Embed recitation within 4 hour structure Phase 3 – fall 2013

40. Insufficient space for overall design Delivering a clear & consistent message on expectations Training for aides and new instructors Building Faculty teams Test & lab security Record-keeping Concerns of athletics department Challenges

41. Questions?