Precalculus Course Redesign

Phoebe Rouse

Louisiana State University

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

Goals and Results of LSU Precalculus RedesignFall 2003-Spring 2009

• To reduce personnel costs (savings of 35%)

• To incorporate technology to grade student homework (MyMathLab)

• To provide consistent content presentation (√)

• To continue current success rates (improved)

Redesign Timeline at LSU• Spring 2004 - Planning

• Fall 2004 - Pilot MyMathLab software, join R2R program

• Spring 2005 – Pilot of College Algebra redesign

• Fall 2005 - Partial implementation of College Algebra redesign; opened Pleasant Hall 1st floor lab

• Spring 2006 – Full implementation of College Algebra redesign; pilot of Precalculus (course) redesign

• Fall 2006 - Full implementation of Precalculus (course) redesign; opened Pleasant Hall basement lab; pilot high school redesign program for College Algebra

• Spring 2007 - Full implementation of Trigonometry Redesign; pilot high school redesign program for Trigonometry

• Fall 2007 - All sections of College Algebra, Trigonometry, and Precalculus (course) redesigned; opened Pleasant Hall basement side room; continue high school redesign program for College Algebra

• Spring 2008 – All sections of College Algebra, Trigonometry, and Precalculus (course) redesign; expand high school redesign program for College Algebra and Trigonometry

Redesigned Courses

College Algebra (3 cr. hrs.)• 2200 students per year• 1 hour per week in class of 40 students• minimum of 3 flexible-time hours per week in lab

Trigonometry (3 cr. hrs.)• 1600 students per year• 1 hour per week in class of 40 students• minimum of 3 flexible-time hours per week in lab

Precalculus (5 cr. hrs.)• 400 students per year• 2 hours per week in class of 40 students• minimum of 5 flexible-time hours per week in lab

Pleasant Hall Math Lab

Fall 2005

PH Basement Math Lab Fall 2006

PH Basement Side Room Fall 2007

Lab Features

• 275-seat learning lab open 60 hours each week

• Capacity of 15 students per 1 computer in learning lab

• Test in university testing center

• Staggered due dates for all assignments

• Staggered attendance week for students

• Ratio of 1Tutor/Teachers for each 20 students

• AccuTrack student tracking software

Pedagogical Keys to Math Redesign Using Technology

• Active Learning Experience

• Personalized, Individualized Instruction 

• Immediate Feedback 

• Repetition to Mastery

Final Grade Distribution

10% Participation (5 % class and 5 % lab)

10% Homework (drop lowest 2)

10% Quizzes (drop the lowest 2)

45% Tests (3 - 5 total)

25% Final (replaces lowest test score if higher)

College Algebra Fall Results

Exam Median

# of Studentsenrolled

ABC Rate

Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 73% 3115 66%

Fall 2002 Traditional Sections 70% 3188 64%

Fall 2003 Traditional Sections 72% 3211 68%

Fall 2004 LL Sections with MML 80% 742 66%

Fall 2004 Traditional Sections 76% 2605 72%

Fall 2005 LL Sections with MML 76% 841 66%

Fall 2005 Traditional Sections 64% 743 49%

Fall 2005 R2R Sections with MML 73% 922 48%

Fall 2006 R2R Sections with MML 78% 1724 75%

Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML* 64% 1739 67%

Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML 65% 1772 68%

*Course rigor increased.

TrigFall Results

Exam Median

# of Studentsenrolled

ABC Rate

Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 71% 1277 59%

Fall 2002 Traditional Sections * 1150 56%

Fall 2003 Traditional Sections * 1015 62%

Fall 2004 XLg Lecture w/ MapleTA 76% 892 61%

Fall 2005 XLg Lecture w/ MML * 1350 55%

Fall 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML 72% 1234 63%

Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML 72% 1168 64%

Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML 69% 1231 69%

*No exam median recorded.

College Algebra, Trig, PrecalculusFall Participation Grades

Class and LabParticipation % A B C D F W

70-100%62%

10%

0-69%10% 18%

College Algebra Spring Results

Exam Median

# of Studentsenrolled

ABC Rate

Spring 2001 Traditional Sections 68% 1223 50%

Spring 2002 Traditional Sections 69% 1191 54%

Spring 2003 Traditional Sections 68% 1066 53%

Spring 2004 Traditional Sections 68% 1025 64%

Spring 2005 Traditional Sections 71% 610 66%

Spring 2005 R2R Pilot with MML 61% 196 47%

Spring 2006 R2R Sections with MML 67% 567 59%

Spring 2007 R2R Sections with MML 71% 384 55%

Spring 2008 R2R Sections with MML 61% 418 53%

TrigSpring Results

Exam Median

# of Studentsenrolled

ABC Rate

Spring 2001 Traditional Sections 69% 1304 65%

Spring 2002 Traditional Sections * 1451 63%

Spring 2003 Traditional Sections 64% 1490 63%

Spring 2004 Traditional Sections * 1477 69%

Spring 2005 XLg Lecture w/ MapleTA * 1252 69%

Spring 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML * 1030 57%

Spring 2007 R2R Sections with MML 60% 967 62%

Spring 2008 R2R Sections with MML 67% 791 60%

*No exam median recorded.

College Algebra, Trig, and PCSpring Participation Grades

Class and Lab Participation % A B C D F W

70-100% 50% 19%

0-69% 7%

24%

Redesign PersonnelProgram Management• Overall program administrator• Course coordinators for each course• Tutor supervisor• Time clock manager

Teaching• Instructors• Upper level math graduate students

Lab Tutoring• Instructors• Upper level math graduate students• First-year math graduate students• Ugrad math majors

Tech support• Ugrad students from LSU ITS

Assignment SettingsHomework• Unlimited attempts prior to due date• Help, Examples, Videos, Textbook, and Tutors available• Practice Homework for each section without due dates

Quizzes• Ten attempts for each quiz, 75 minute time limit• Restricted re-access• Keep best score• Not proctored or password protected• Tutorials available on review

Tests• One attempt, 90 minute time limit• Non-restricted re-access• Proctored and password protected

Tutor and Teacher Training

1. Ugrad Tutor Training Programa. Hiring and screeningb. Pre-semester workshop

2. First-Year-TA Tutor Training Programa. Pre-semester workshopb. Fall semester Comm Math coursec. Spring semester Comm Math course

3. First-Time-Teaching-Redesign Teacher Workshop (R2R Manual)

4. Pre-semester Meeting for All Teaching

Elements of a Sustained Redesign

• Detailed course syllabus and individual daily schedules

• Online assessments and carefully chosen assignment settings

• Settings for individual students

• Process for importing into and exporting from the gradebook

• Precise password management

• Allowance for open homework

• Rotating lab and efficient time clock management

• Well-trained teachers and tutors and constant tutor supervising

• Attention to lessons learned

Do’s and Don’ts

• Do stagger student assignment deadlines to avoid an overloaded lab

• Do set up homework and quizzes to be due before the new material is taught.

• Do establish credit hour equivalencies prior to assigning teacher’s schedules.

• Do increase administrator/coordinator release time to run program.

• Do designate a person to manage data, a person to prepare the lab schedule for tutors and train them, and a person to become expert at using the time clock.

• Do prepare for the unexpected.

• Don’t give up!

“Must Haves” for Redesign1. The support of both the department administration

and the upper administration

2. A strong-willed, thick-skinned program director

3. A core group of instructors and professors dedicated to working hard to make the redesign succeed

4. Space and computers for a learning lab

5. A willingness on the part of everyone involved to be flexible and CHANGE

6. A purpose and an overall plan for redesign

Contact Info

Phoebe Rouse LSU

prouse@lsu.edu

NCAT Redesign ScholarMyMathLab Faculty Advocate