Implementing OER materials in a quantitativeskills and literacy mathematics course

Tricia Muldoon Brown

Georgia Southern University

January 12, 2018

Abstract

This is report on the activities of a 2016-2017 Affordable LearningGeorgia Textbook Transformation Grant. (Award #210)

Joint with Joshua LambertGeorgia Southern University

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About Armstrong

Public institution with enrollment around 7, 000

Primarily undergraduate (90%) and regional (86% are Georgiaresidents)

Many non-traditional students

average age of an undergrad is 24.366% Full time and 24% Part time

Used to be primarily a commuter school, now about half,56%, of freshman live on campus

57.5% White and 25.5% African American

2/3 female

About 30% are first generation college students

About the ALG TTG

Affordable Learning Georgia Textbook Transformation Grant2016-2017

Adoption for a first-year quantitative skills and literacymathematics course

The course is primarily for first-year, non-science students andover 60% of freshman are recommended to take this course.

Timeline

Spring and Summer 2016 - Review of available OER materialsFall 2016 - First pilot adoption two face to face coursesSpring 2017 - Adoption in face-to-face and online courseFall 2017 - Department-wide adoption

About the ALG TTG

Affordable Learning Georgia Textbook Transformation Grant2016-2017

Adoption for a first-year quantitative skills and literacymathematics course

The course is primarily for first-year, non-science students andover 60% of freshman are recommended to take this course.

Timeline

Spring and Summer 2016 - Review of available OER materialsFall 2016 - First pilot adoption two face to face coursesSpring 2017 - Adoption in face-to-face and online courseFall 2017 - Department-wide adoption

About the ALG TTG

Affordable Learning Georgia Textbook Transformation Grant2016-2017

Adoption for a first-year quantitative skills and literacymathematics course

The course is primarily for first-year, non-science students andover 60% of freshman are recommended to take this course.

Timeline

Spring and Summer 2016 - Review of available OER materialsFall 2016 - First pilot adoption two face to face coursesSpring 2017 - Adoption in face-to-face and online courseFall 2017 - Department-wide adoption

About the ALG TTG

Affordable Learning Georgia Textbook Transformation Grant2016-2017

Adoption for a first-year quantitative skills and literacymathematics course

The course is primarily for first-year, non-science students andover 60% of freshman are recommended to take this course.

Timeline

Spring and Summer 2016 - Review of available OER materialsFall 2016 - First pilot adoption two face to face coursesSpring 2017 - Adoption in face-to-face and online courseFall 2017 - Department-wide adoption

Adoption

Math in Society by David Lippman

Adoption

MyOpenMath LMS

Advantages and Disadvantages - from a faculty perspective

Advantages

Multiple topics

Easy to read

Alignment of book and online content is excellent

Little to no errors

Accompanying videos

Disadvantages

Question bank is small compared with major publishers

Gradebook has a few issues, especially with offline grades

Multiple sections must be changed individually

Inputs are less forgiving

Advantages and Disadvantages - from a faculty perspective

Advantages

Multiple topics

Easy to read

Alignment of book and online content is excellent

Little to no errors

Accompanying videos

Disadvantages

Question bank is small compared with major publishers

Gradebook has a few issues, especially with offline grades

Multiple sections must be changed individually

Inputs are less forgiving

What we added

Pencasts

D2L content

What we added

Pencasts

D2L content

What we added

LaTeX code

What we added

Beamer slides

What we added

Writing projects

Data

We collected data on the students in the pilot courses andfrom the students in our previous year’s courses, includingDFW rates, average GPA, and responses to standardizeddepartmental exam questions.

The pre group of was approximately 153 students and thepilot group had approximately 81 students.

We also collected student opinions in anonymous, optionalend of term evaluations with 47 students participating.

Data

We collected data on the students in the pilot courses andfrom the students in our previous year’s courses, includingDFW rates, average GPA, and responses to standardizeddepartmental exam questions.

The pre group of was approximately 153 students and thepilot group had approximately 81 students.

We also collected student opinions in anonymous, optionalend of term evaluations with 47 students participating.

Data

We collected data on the students in the pilot courses andfrom the students in our previous year’s courses, includingDFW rates, average GPA, and responses to standardizeddepartmental exam questions.

The pre group of was approximately 153 students and thepilot group had approximately 81 students.

We also collected student opinions in anonymous, optionalend of term evaluations with 47 students participating.

DFW Rates

DFW rate improved from 37.5% for 176 students to 24.7% for81 students for the two professors implementing the newmaterials.

By professor:

1: Increased from 14% for 66 students to 19% for 63 students2: Decreased from 51.8% for 110 students to 44% for 18students

DFW Rates

DFW rate improved from 37.5% for 176 students to 24.7% for81 students for the two professors implementing the newmaterials.

By professor:

1: Increased from 14% for 66 students to 19% for 63 students2: Decreased from 51.8% for 110 students to 44% for 18students

Learning Objectives

Learning Objective 1

“Students can develop strategies for solving quantitative problems”

Student understanding increase from 68.53% of 153 students to73.16% for the 80 students. Similar improvements occurred witheach professor involved with the textbook transition.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objective 1

“Students can develop strategies for solving quantitative problems”

Student understanding increase from 68.53% of 153 students to73.16% for the 80 students. Similar improvements occurred witheach professor involved with the textbook transition.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives 2 and 3

“Students can express numbers in a variety of ways (such asdecimals, fractions, percentages, and scientific notation)” and“Students can interpret the uses and abuses of percentages in thereal world (such as taxes, tips, inflation, stock dividends, salaryincreases, etc.)”

These learning objectives saw similar improvements for bothprofessors and a combined increase in student comprehension from65.43% for 147 students to 72.88% for 79 students.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives 2 and 3

“Students can express numbers in a variety of ways (such asdecimals, fractions, percentages, and scientific notation)” and“Students can interpret the uses and abuses of percentages in thereal world (such as taxes, tips, inflation, stock dividends, salaryincreases, etc.)”

These learning objectives saw similar improvements for bothprofessors and a combined increase in student comprehension from65.43% for 147 students to 72.88% for 79 students.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives 4 and 5

“Students can infer key characteristics of a data set given statisticsrepresented graphically” and “Students can interpret keycharacteristics of a variable given data sets and descriptivestatistics”

Student comprehension increased from 66.06% of 141 to 81.73%out of 73 students. Similar results occurred for all the instructorsimplementing the new textbook and materials.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives 4 and 5

“Students can infer key characteristics of a data set given statisticsrepresented graphically” and “Students can interpret keycharacteristics of a variable given data sets and descriptivestatistics”

Student comprehension increased from 66.06% of 141 to 81.73%out of 73 students. Similar results occurred for all the instructorsimplementing the new textbook and materials.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objective 6

“Students can design mathematical models reflecting real-worldphenomena”

Student comprehension slightly decreased from 66.91% for 136students to 64.99% for 72 students.

Learning Objectives

Learning Objective 6

“Students can design mathematical models reflecting real-worldphenomena”

Student comprehension slightly decreased from 66.91% for 136students to 64.99% for 72 students.

GPA

Average GPA rose from 2.05 to 2.48 over the four courses.

By professor:

1: Decreased from an average GPA of 2.74 to 2.672: Increased from 1.56 to 1.82

GPA

Average GPA rose from 2.05 to 2.48 over the four courses.

By professor:

1: Decreased from an average GPA of 2.74 to 2.672: Increased from 1.56 to 1.82

Data Summary

Measure Pre % Post % Change

DFW Rate 37.5 24.7 +

LO1 68.5 73.2 +

LO2, LO3 65.4 72.9 +

LO4, LO5 66.1 81.7 +

LO6 66.9 65.0 –

Average GPA 2.05 2.48 +

We had practical success in 5 of 6 measures.

Data Summary

Measure Pre % Post % Change

DFW Rate 37.5 24.7 +

LO1 68.5 73.2 +

LO2, LO3 65.4 72.9 +

LO4, LO5 66.1 81.7 +

LO6 66.9 65.0 –

Average GPA 2.05 2.48 +

We had practical success in 5 of 6 measures.

Student Opinion of Materials

Question

Was the overall student opinion about the materials used in thecourse positive, neutral, or negative?

Positive: 89 % of 47

Neutral: 11 % of 47

Negative: 0 % of 47

Student Opinion of Materials

Question

Was the overall student opinion about the materials used in thecourse positive, neutral, or negative?

Positive: 89 % of 47

Neutral: 11 % of 47

Negative: 0 % of 47

Student comments

“I was satisfied with the quality of the textbook because itshows multiple step by step examples for different topics andall the more that it was free and open to the public.”

“I didn’t use the online textbook very much, but when I diduse it, it was -mostly- helpful. It confused me a couple oftimes, but on the whole it provided examples that helpedexplain things and allowed me to learn math how I do, whichinvolves a lot of reverse-engineering.”

“I was very satisfied with the textbook. Not only was it opensource, and free, it had a lot of helpful information.”

Student comments

“I was satisfied with the quality of the textbook because itshows multiple step by step examples for different topics andall the more that it was free and open to the public.”

“I didn’t use the online textbook very much, but when I diduse it, it was -mostly- helpful. It confused me a couple oftimes, but on the whole it provided examples that helpedexplain things and allowed me to learn math how I do, whichinvolves a lot of reverse-engineering.”

“I was very satisfied with the textbook. Not only was it opensource, and free, it had a lot of helpful information.”

Student comments

“I was satisfied with the quality of the textbook because itshows multiple step by step examples for different topics andall the more that it was free and open to the public.”

“I didn’t use the online textbook very much, but when I diduse it, it was -mostly- helpful. It confused me a couple oftimes, but on the whole it provided examples that helpedexplain things and allowed me to learn math how I do, whichinvolves a lot of reverse-engineering.”

“I was very satisfied with the textbook. Not only was it opensource, and free, it had a lot of helpful information.”

Conclusions

The students who responded to the survey were overwhelmingpleased with the course materials.

Data was statistically inconclusive in showing an improvementin numerical metrics of DFW rate, learning objectives, andGPA. However, little to no negative effects were not seen.

Each student saved at minimum $127.50 to purchase theprevious ebook and learning management system. For theArmstrong campus in a typical year, this leads to studentsavings of approximately $70,000.

Conclusions

The students who responded to the survey were overwhelmingpleased with the course materials.

Data was statistically inconclusive in showing an improvementin numerical metrics of DFW rate, learning objectives, andGPA. However, little to no negative effects were not seen.

Each student saved at minimum $127.50 to purchase theprevious ebook and learning management system. For theArmstrong campus in a typical year, this leads to studentsavings of approximately $70,000.

Conclusions

The students who responded to the survey were overwhelmingpleased with the course materials.

Data was statistically inconclusive in showing an improvementin numerical metrics of DFW rate, learning objectives, andGPA. However, little to no negative effects were not seen.

Each student saved at minimum $127.50 to purchase theprevious ebook and learning management system. For theArmstrong campus in a typical year, this leads to studentsavings of approximately $70,000.

My conclusions

There are a lot of quality open-source material available.Before beginning the project, there was a feeling thatopen-source material was limited and of poor-quality.

Besides lower cost, open-source materials allow for muchgreater instructor flexibility. As instructors, open-sourcematerial allows us to choose chapters from many differentbooks or resources and offer different viewpoints and modesof explanation to suit our courses and help struggling studentsunderstand difficult concepts.

The adoption was a success. Even if we didn’t find astatistically significant improvement over our previous text,the students saved a ton of money and remain satisfied.

My conclusions

There are a lot of quality open-source material available.Before beginning the project, there was a feeling thatopen-source material was limited and of poor-quality.

Besides lower cost, open-source materials allow for muchgreater instructor flexibility. As instructors, open-sourcematerial allows us to choose chapters from many differentbooks or resources and offer different viewpoints and modesof explanation to suit our courses and help struggling studentsunderstand difficult concepts.

The adoption was a success. Even if we didn’t find astatistically significant improvement over our previous text,the students saved a ton of money and remain satisfied.

My conclusions

There are a lot of quality open-source material available.Before beginning the project, there was a feeling thatopen-source material was limited and of poor-quality.

Besides lower cost, open-source materials allow for muchgreater instructor flexibility. As instructors, open-sourcematerial allows us to choose chapters from many differentbooks or resources and offer different viewpoints and modesof explanation to suit our courses and help struggling studentsunderstand difficult concepts.

The adoption was a success. Even if we didn’t find astatistically significant improvement over our previous text,the students saved a ton of money and remain satisfied.

Resources

1 Math in Society by David Lippman -http://www.opentextbookstore.com/mathinsociety/

2 MyOpenMath - https://www.myopenmath.com/

3 GSU/Armstrong Resources - Online -http://math.armstrong.edu/faculty/lambert/

QuantitativeSkillsAndReasoningWebpage.html

4 GSU/Armstrong Resources - Traditional - www.math.armstrong.edu/faculty/brown/MATH1001.html