Redesign of Redesign of Intermediate AlgebraIntermediate Algebra

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMATHE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMACollege of Arts and SciencesCollege of Arts and SciencesDepartment of MathematicsDepartment of Mathematics

NCAT Redesign Alliance ConferenceNCAT Redesign Alliance ConferenceMarch 23, 2009March 23, 2009

SettingSetting(1999-2000 Academic Year)(1999-2000 Academic Year)

• Two developmental math courses

• Remedial Mathematics

• Intermediate Algebra• 1700 students per year• Taught in traditional, lecture-based setting• Taught entirely by instructors and GTAs

Course FormatCourse Format

• Courses taught in rigid format• Common syllabus

• Common presentation schedule

• Common tests

ProblemsProblems

• 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

SolutionSolution

• 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

Approach SelectedApproach Selected

• “Math Emporium” model developed by Virginia Tech

• Initial application to Intermediate Algebra (Math 100)• Approximately 1300 students per year

CourseCourseFormatFormat

Course FormatCourse 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

Course Format (continued)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

Course Format (continued)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

Fundamental PremiseFundamental Premise

Students learn mathematics by doing mathematics

Advantages of Course FormatAdvantages of Course Format

• Learner-centered• Software supports multiple learning

styles• Consistent presentation of material• Individualized tutorial support available• Students can work at own pace

Advantages of Course FormatAdvantages 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

OutcomesOutcomes

Success RatesSuccess RatesSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateSemester Success Rate Semester Success Rate

Fall 1998 47.1% Spring 1999 44.2% Fall 1999 40.6% Spring 2000 53.5%

Success RatesSuccess RatesSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateSemester Success Rate Semester Success RateFall 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% Spring 2008 57.3%Fall 2008 78.1%

Underserved GroupsUnderserved Groups

Success Rates by Math Success Rates by Math Placement CategoryPlacement Category

Math Placement Score

Year <200 200-250 >250

98/99 31.5% 45.5% 66.6%

99/00 40.3% 43.8% 63.2%

00/01 32.8% 42.0% 60.6%

01/02 48.9% 53.8% 71.2%

02/03 48.4% 54.9% 62.0%

Success Rates by GenderSuccess Rates by Gender(Fall Semesters)(Fall Semesters)

F 98 F 99 F 00 F 01 F 02

Females 54.7% 48.9% 53.0% 66.7% 68.2%

Males 39.1% 31.8% 45.9% 55.8% 57.6%

Overall 47.1% 40.6% 50.2% 60.5% 63.0%

Success Rates by EthnicitySuccess Rates by Ethnicity(Fall Semesters)(Fall Semesters)

F 99 F 00 F 01 F 02

African-American 35.0% 59.4% 60.4% 63.6%

Caucasian 41.1% 46.5% 60.7% 62.3%

Overall 40.6% 50.2% 60.5% 63.0%

Cost SavingsCost Savings

2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students43 Sections of 35 Students Each

2 FTTI (16 sections) @ $36,250 $72,5005 GTAs (20 sections) @ $17,565 $87,825 7 PTTI (7 sections) @ $1,655 $11,585

Total Cost $171,910Cost Per Student $116

Traditional Course CostTraditional Course Cost

Redesigned Course CostRedesigned Course Cost

2001-2002 Academic Year - 1480 Students18 Sections of 85 Students Each

2 FTTI @ $36,250 $72,5006 PTTI @ $1,655 $9,930UG Tutors 5760 hrs @ $7/hr $40,320

Total Cost $122,750Cost Per Student $83

Cost SavingsCost Savings

Traditional Course $116/studentRedesigned Course $83/studentSavings $33/student (28%)

Cost SavingsCost Savings(Economy of Scale)(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

ConclusionsConclusions• 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