TNADE 2006
22 nd Annual Conference
Gatlinburg, TN
October 30, 2006
1

Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle?
Presenter Information
Pat Perdew, Associate Professor of Developmental
Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, perdewp@apsu.edu
Kay Haralson, Associate Professor of Developmental
Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, haralsonk@apsu.edu
Jennie Preston-Sabin, Associate Professor of
Developmental Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, sabinj@apsu.edu
Shirley Hagewood, Associate Professor of Mathematics,
APSU, Clarksville, TN, hagewoods@apsu.edu
2

 State supported liberal arts 4-year institution
 Located in Clarksville, Tennessee
 Approximate enrollment of 9000 students
 1100 students tested into developmental mathematics Fall 2006 on main campus and Ft. Campbell campus
 No community college in immediate area
3

 Controversial decision to convert to computerbased delivery
 Controversial implementation of computer-based delivery
 Other institutions using similar methods of delivery were observed before a program was chosen.
 Addison-Wesley text chosen based on
“packaged” computer-based options; used for both courses
 Text packaged with computer code providing access to Course Compass website
 Courses utilize MyMathLab resources
4

 Students required to enroll in developmental courses during their first semester
 Students registered for assigned class times
 Class attendance required, even though courses are predominantly on-line
 A “coordinator” course was developed for each course to serve as a “master” course to copy for individual class sections
 For the first semester, faculty were assigned 30 lab hours weekly, no specific sections
 Faculty served as facilitators to students in the computer classrooms
5

 Announcement page for each section, customized with links to course syllabus, schedule, objectives, DSP placement criteria, course materials, gradebook, etc.
 Video lectures on computer or through web-site
 On-line textbook, solutions manual, graphing calculator manual
 TI-Smart View demonstration screen fed to student computers through Net-Op program
 On-line homework; problems chosen by faculty from a computer bank of problems
 On-line example within homework assignments, with view an example option
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

 On-line practice tests for each test and final exam; developed by faculty
 On-line multiple choice quizzes, tests, and final exam; developed by faculty using Test Gen
 MyMathLab Gradebook available for students to view grades and review quizzes and tests
 Study Plan available through Gradebook to identify concepts still to be mastered
 Course Evaluation Survey, developed by faculty, completed before Final Exam
 Instructor Homepage and Course Management
Screen to edit computerized course components
 Instructor Gradebook of student grades, grade distributions, item analysis of test question
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Video Lectures
 15-20 minutes per section
 30 to 60-second clip for some practice problems
 Personal headphones needed
On-line Homework
 Chosen by faculty, does not count in course grade
 Help me solve this feature
 View an example feature
 Textbook pages for the section
 Audio-video animation on some problems
 Students can view homework score in Gradebook
27

On-line Practice Tests
 Five practice tests, highest grade on each counts
10 points for course grade
 Created by faculty from problem bank
 No password required, can be taken multiple times, from any computer with required plug-ins
Quizzes, Tests, and Final Exam (password required)
 Ten 10-point quizzes, 20 min each, taken in class
(Because of the 8 week terms, FC campus has only 5 quizzes.)
 Four 100-point tests, 55 min, taken in class
 Comprehensive Final Exam,100 points, 2 hrs, taken in class
28

MyMathLab Grade Book
 Shows grades on homework, quizzes, practice tests, and tests
 Shows date and time spent on each activity
 Creates a study plan based on objectives not mastered on quizzes and tests
 Study plan is linked to homework problems similar to un-mastered objectives
 Provides access to review tests and quizzes taken
29

Fall 2005 - Initial Semester of Computer-Based
 Self-paced schedule, with minimum deadlines, designed for students to complete work early
 Course delivery solely through Course Compass
 Faculty provided no lecture or additional materials
 Faculty were not assigned specific sections (MC)
 Two attempts allowed on tests
 Practice tests and homework were very long
 Watching video lectures was encouraged, but not stressed
 Implemented on main campus before Ft. Campbell
30

Spring 2006 - Changes based on faculty/student feedback
 Faculty assigned specific sections (5 MC, 4 FC)
 Faculty allowed to give a brief lecture over daily material
 Faculty distributed handouts or provided power point material
 A review before quizzes and tests was provided
 Only one attempt allowed on tests; 2 nd attempt on tests replaced with 10-point practice tests
 Last day of class used for makeup/retest on 1 test
 Change to computer-based began at FC campus
31

Fall 2006 Changes by administration or faculty
 Faculty assigned specific sections (8 MC, 4 FC)
 Lecture portion modification discontinued
 Internet links to handouts and power point material encouraged
 The review before quizzes and tests was continued
 Video lectures strongly recommended
 Class attendance mandatory, over 3 unexcused absences results in an F for the course.
 Practice tests required before test day
 Decrease in length of practice tests and homework
 Increased the number of quizzes from 5 to 10 MC
32

Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses
Technical Issues
 Internet problems with Course Compass website, campus server, bandwidth issues, upgrades to MathXL, Test Gen
 Loss of grades when submitted in Course Compass
 Iterations of Test Gen created tests produced problems with incorrect answers, two correct answers, etc.
 Student format of homework and practice test answers not matching computer’s expected answers
 Students unable to purchase text or computer code during first few days have no access to the course
 Computer hardware, updates, virus problems
 Lack of computer labs on campus with necessary plug-ins to work in MyMathLab
 Lack of computer services personnel to deal with problems in a timely manner
33

Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses
Student Issues
 Absenteeism
 Unwillingness to watch video lectures
 Frustration with lack of real teacher instruction, no partial credit on quizzes and tests
 Lack of exposure to appropriate mathematics terminology
 Failure to connect mathematical concepts
 Lack of motivation to take advantage of all computer resources to be successful in the course
 Lack of proper classroom behavior
 Procrastination in completing work; getting behind the expected schedule
34

Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses
Format Issues
 Implemented too quickly
 Infrastructure of campus internet service not sufficient when transition was made
 No flexibility in delivery; students given no other option
 Not enough faculty to adequately monitor or facilitate learning of all students
 Faculty answer the same questions multiple times for individual students, rather than the entire class
 Course is not easily adapted to visual or hearing impaired students
35

 Success rate in lecture-based Intermediate Algebra
2004-2005 was 61% MC; Fall 05 FC was 50%
 Success rate in computer-based Intermediate
Algebra 2005-2006 was 41.4%; Spring 06-Fall I 06
FC was 54%
 Success rate in lecture-based combined
Elementary/Intermediate Algebra (2004-2005) was
38.1%; both requirements finished in one semester.
 Success rate in lecture-based Elementary Algebra
FC Fall 05 was 61% (combined course not offered at FC)
 Success rate in computer-based Elementary
Algebra (2005-2006) was 44.6%; only one course finished in one semester; Spring I-Fall I 06 FC was
51%
36

 50.1% of all students finished all DSP requirements in one semester with lecture-based courses 2004-
2005 Intermediate Algebra, or Combined
Elementary/Intermediate Algebra)
 22.9% of all students finished all DSP requirements in one semester with computer-based courses
(2005-2006 Intermediate Algebra only)
 64.9% of students completing DSP math Fall 2004 with lecture-based classes, passed CORE math
Spring 2005 ( 135 students)
 75.8% of students completing DSP math Fall 2005 with computer-based classes, passed CORE math
Spring 2006 ( 75 students)
37

 Over 50-57% (MC) and 28-60% (FC) of all students indicated they disagree or strongly disagree that learning mathematics in a computer-based classroom was successful for them.
 Over 34-44% (MC) and 22-53% (FC) of all students indicated they disagree or strongly disagree that the computer-based course, with the help of lab personnel, provided the explanations necessary to successfully complete the course.
 50% (MC) and 70-90% (FC) of all students indicated they watch the video lectures for the courses.
 Only 50-60% of all students indicated they utilized the instructor or tutor in the computer classroom.
38

Positive
 Some students find this delivery method meets their needs very well. Students at the Ft. Campbell campus have more positive evaluations of the courses.
 Students are able to view video lectures, work online homework and access course resources from their personal computers
 Students who successfully complete the computerbased courses learn self-motivation and discipline
 DSP completers of computer-based courses have success rates in most CORE mathematics courses as good or better than students completing a lecture-based course
 Completers seem to be better prepared for other math courses using computer formats
39

Negative
 Less successful – student success rates are less than lecture-based courses
 Less efficient – fewer students complete both courses in one semester, compared with completion rate in combined 5 hour class previously offered.
Does not provide a choice of delivery methods
 Cost of delivering courses has not decreased
 Student satisfaction with course format is very low
 Frustration level of students is very high
 Frustration level of faculty is even higher!!
40

 Management of DSP mathematics courses should take place in mathematics department
 Smaller class size (currently 24/36 in two rooms, main campus, 30 per room at FC)
 Faculty be responsible for fewer sections to allow more one-on-one assistance
 Offer a hybrid course format- 1 day of lecture, 1 day lab; MW or TR; faculty available for individual help on Fridays
 Offer an on-line format with no class attendance for students who cannot take on campus classes.
This is especially important for active duty military.
 Offer a combined Elementary/Intermediate computer-based or hybrid course
41

Future of DSP in Tennessee and at APSU
 Uncertain if computer-format will continue
 Uncertain if DSP courses will be offered at 4-year institutions
 Uncertain what will happen to under-prepared students if courses are not offered
 Uncertain future for DSP tenured faculty
42

To obtain a copy of this power point presentation go to: www.apsu.edu/haralsonk and click on
Computer-Based Algebra - TNADE or email Pat at perdewp@apsu.edu
,
43