Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Precalculus Course Redesign
Using Technology
Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State
UniversityDEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
I. National Course RedesignUsing Technology
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology
PCR – Program in Course Redesign Rounds I – III (1999-2002)
• Funded by Pew Charitable Trust
• Math: Virginia Tech, Alabama, Idaho, Northern Arizona, Iowa State
• Statistics: Carnegie Mellon, Ohio State, Penn State
• Psychology: New Mexico
• Biology: Massachusetts-Amherst
University of Alabama MTLC
University of Idaho Polya Lab
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology
R2R – Roadmap to Redesign (2003-2006)
• Funded by FIPSE
• Math: LSU, Georgia State, UNC Chapel Hill and Greensboro, Wayne State, Seton Hall, Missouri-St. Louis
• Spanish: Alabama, Texas Tech
• Statistics: UNC Greensboro
• Psychology: East Carolina
Other Math Redesigns Using Technology
• Reduced class time, small classes, required lab time, assessments technology based ...
Nebraska Arkansas Ole MissMiss State Towson ULMNicholls USM SUNY
• Texas, Arizona, Maryland, Tennessee, and Mississippi state systems paired with NCAT
• Large classes, no required lab time, assessments
technology based ...
Florida State Florida UGA
NCAT Course Redesign Using Technology
C2R – Colleagues Committed to Redesign Rounds I – III (2007-2009)
• Funded by FIPSE
• Math redesigns: Hagerstown CC, DePaul, Truman College, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Southeastern Louisiana University, University of Central Florida, St. Leo College, Santa Fe CC
• Other Disciplines: St. Cloud State, UNC Chapel Hill, West Florida, Arizona State, Auburn, Austin CC, NY Institute of Tech, UMass-Lowell, Univ of W AL, Western Michigan
Pedagogical Keys to Math Redesign Using Technology
• Active Learning Experience
• Personalized, Individualized Instruction
• Immediate Feedback
• Repetition to Mastery
II. History of Precalculus Course Redesign at LSU
Goals of LSU Precalculus RedesignFall 2003
• To allow for reduced personnel
• To incorporate technology to grade student homework
• To provide consistent content presentation
• To continue current success rates
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
Pleasant Hall Math Lab – to beFall 2004
Pleasant Hall Math Lab
Fall 2005
PH Basement Math Lab – to beFall 2005
PH Basement Math Lab Fall 2006
PH Basement Side Room – to be Fall 2006
PH Basement Side Room Fall 2007
Redesigned Courses
College Algebra (3 cr. hrs.)• 2200 students per year• 1 hour per week in class• minimum of 3 hours per week in lab
Trigonometry (3 cr. hrs.)• 1600 students per year• 1 hour per week in class• minimum of 3 hours per week in lab
Precalculus (5 cr. hrs.)• 400 students per year• 2 hours per week in class• minimum of 5 hours per week in lab
Redesign Features
• 40 students per section in class
• All MyMathLab assessments and local videos
• 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
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)
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
III. Learning Outcomes, Retention Rates,
and Graduation Rates
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.
Precalculus Fall Results
Exam Median
# of Studentsenrolled
ABC Rate
Fall 2001 Traditional Sections * 342 71%
Fall 2002 Traditional Sections * 443 74%
Fall 2003 Traditional Sections * 556 76%
Fall 2004 Traditional Sections * 598 79%
Fall 2005 Large Lecture * 321 60%
Fall 2006 R2R Sections with MML 59% 277 64%
Fall 2007 R2R Sections with MML 68% 288 71%
Fall 2008 R2R Sections with MML 69% 287 62%
* 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.
Precalculus Spring Results
Exam Median
# of Studentsenrolled
ABC Rate
Spring 2001 Traditional Sections * 72 60%
Spring 2002 Traditional Sections * 56 54%
Spring 2003 Traditional Sections * 51 57%
Spring 2004 Traditional Sections * 41 47%
Spring 2005 Traditional Sections * 48 71%
Spring 2006 R2R Pilot with MML 64% 40 48%
Spring 2007 R2R Section with MML 79% 22 68%
Spring 2008 R2R Section with MML 73% 37 43%
*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%
Retention RatesFall 2002 – Fall 2007
Full-time Degree-seeking New Freshman
CA: A, B, or C D, F, or W Not taking CA
# % Ret # % Ret # % Ret
F02 1733 87.5 705 64.5 2306 85.3
F03 1875 89.5 704 65.5 2451 86.2
F04 2072 87.4 657 61.5 2578 84.3
F05 1016 88.5 473 62.4 2778 83.9
F06 1105 86.5 251 49.4 2842 86.4
F07 992 87.4 365 65.5 2864 86.4
Graduation RatesFall 2001 Cohort
CA Grade
Full-time degree-seeking new freshman
6-year
graduation rate
A, B, or C 1760 61%
D, F, or W 527 30%
Not taking CA 2929 61%
All full-time degree seeking new freshman
5216 58%
Graduation RatesFall 2002 Cohort
CA Grade
Full-time degree-
seeking new freshman
5-year grad rate
6-year grad rate
A, B, or C 1733 56% 62%
D, F, or W 705 26% 33%
Not taking 2734 56% 54%
All full-time degree seeking new freshman
5172 52% 54%
IV. What It Takes
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
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
CA and TrigonometryEarly Completion Sections
• 1 section each of College Algebra and Trig
• Sections capped at 200 students each
• No class meetings
• Optional lab hours
• Due dates same as Wednesday classes
• Option to work ahead
CA and TrigonometrySummer Model
• 2 sections of College Algebra and 2 sections of Trig
• Enrollment per section capped at 100
• 8 class days and 16 lab days, cycling in order of class, lab, lab, and then repeating
• 3 hours in lab required per cycle
• 28 Homework Assignments, 8 Quizzes, 2 Tests, and a Final Exam
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 Information
Phoebe RousePrecalculus Mathematics Coordinator
Louisiana State UniversityDepartment of Mathematics
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
NCAT Redesign Scholar
MyMathLab Faculty Advocate
