Redesign of Developmental Mathematics

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. CourseFormat

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

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

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

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 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5%

18. 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 56.6% Fall 2006 73.8% Spring 2007 59.8% Fall 2007 75.2%

19. Success Rate (Subsequent Courses) CohortMTLCOther 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

20. Underserved Groups

21. Success Rates by Math Placement Category

22. Success Rates by Gender(Fall Semesters)

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

24. Math Placement Scores

25. Success Rates by Ethnicity(Fall Semesters)

26. Cost Savings

27. 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

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. Cost Savings (Room Availability) 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)

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