Redesign of
Beginning and
Intermediate
Algebra using
ALEKS
Lessons Learned
Cheryl J. McAllister
Laurie W. Overmann
Southeast Missouri State University
Plan
 Develop
a technology based
developmental algebra course to
improve student success rates not only in
this new algebra course but also in future
courses requiring algebra.
Things to address with the new
courses

The wide ability levels and backgrounds of
students taking the courses.




In the traditional lecture model, instructors
directed instruction to the ‘middle’ of this range
of student backgrounds.
There were wide inconsistencies in how the
course was taught, assessed, and
administered.
The responsibility for learning was dominated
by the instructor.
There was minimal one-on-one interaction
during class time with individual students.
Do





Two classrooms were converted to computer
labs specifically for using the mathematics
learning software ALEKS.
Two new courses were developed which used
ALEKS software as the primary content delivery
system (MA101: Beginning Algebra, MA102:
Intermediate Algebra) to replace the traditional
lectures courses (MA090 and MA095).
More than 5000 students have taken MA101/102
since Fall 2009.
The Department of Mathematics faculty and
graduate assistants are involved in teaching
these courses.
Provide extensive training to faculty and
assistants prior to each semester.
Timeline of major and minor
changes to the program
 Fall
2009 – original redesign initiated by
Mathematics Department 2008 Review
Committee



MA090/MA095 traditional courses replaces
with MA101/102 technology supported
courses
Piloted in the spring of 2009 by volunteer
faculty. Full implementation in Fall of 2009.
Faculty training prior to each spring and fall
semester initiated (still happening).
Fall 2009 - continued





Students worked at their own pace on ALEKS
software in a computer lab with one faculty
member and two graduate teaching assistants
per 35 students.
No lectures, all information imparted via the
software or as one-on-one tutoring by teaching
staff.
Final credit/fail grade was based on the number
of objectives ‘mastered’ by the student as
determined by the ALEKS software assessment
program. 70% mastery was considered passing.
This was based on the student’s number after a
single comprehensive assessment given during
finals week.
No attendance policy.
Courses changed from ‘no credit towards a
degree’ to credit bearing general electives.
Fall 2010 – changes made to
original design
These changed were made as a response to data
collection and student evaluations and input from other
constituents.
 Midterm progress reports developed and sent to
academic advisors.
 A second chance final exam was initiated, since the
final exam was the only assessment used to
determine the grade for the students.
 Formula sheets with notes on the back were allowed
during assessments.
 Staffing changed to one faculty member and three
graduate teaching assistants per 70 students.
Experienced graduate students were allowed to
supervise one of the 35 station labs, while the faculty
member staffed, with the less experienced graduate
teaching assistant, the other 35 station lab.
Spring 2011
Attendance policy approved and implemented
based on student success compared to time
logged into the ALEKS program.


Students who miss the equivalent of one week
of class are given a warning by instructor.
Students who miss the equivalent of two
weeks of class are turned into the department
chair for possible withdrawal from the course.
Time on Task Essential

After ALEKS data had been gathered and analyzed, one important
factor in student success was number of hours spent on ALEKS to
master the needed skills. One way of accomplishing this was to make
sure that students attend class and work on ALEKS. Therefore, an
attendance policy was implemented in Spring 2011. The following
table compares average number of hours spent by students and their
success rate.
Initial
Assessment
Final
Assessment
Objectives
Completed
Hours
Spent
Success
Rate
Number
of
Students
Fall 2010
12.19
46.31
34.12
43.32
60.06%
1232
Spring 2011
15.48
59.37
43.88
53.7
77.00%
891
Fall 2011
13.78
54.30
40.52
47.25
76.00%
798

An attendance policy is one of the most
‘effective practices’ that has helped in
significantly improving the success rate.
Summer 2011 – Overmann and
McAllister work on a second redesign
and structuring the courses.




Created UNITS with deadline dates within the ALEKS
software to help students evaluate their progress
through the material and eliminate the tendency to skip
hard material such as word problems and graphing.
Paper and pencil quizzes created to develop and
evaluate students’ ability to organize their
mathematical processes. Graded by the instructor and
partial credit given to off-set credit/no credit grading of
the final exam.
Notebooks to organize the work of students became a
mandatory part of the course.
Final exam is created to replace ALEKS comprehensive
assessment. Final exam aligns with quizzes.
Fall 2011 – Pilot of second redesign
Based on attendance at NCAT conferences, data
collection, experience and concerns from students
and administration.


Overmann and McAllister pilot the course using
the new redesign.
Students in these classes are graded in the
following manner:
 10 Quizzes over units – 10% of grade
 Notebooks collected twice and graded based
on a rubric – 10% of grade
 Final exam created by the redesign team and
administered by ALEKS – 80% of grade.
 Second chance final still provided for students.
Spring 2012 – Full implementation
of second redesign
 Training
for all instructors and graduate
assistants who would be teaching the
courses in the spring semester.
 Staffing changed to one faculty member
and two graduate teaching assistants per
70 students.
Fall 2012
Changes include midterm grade in final grade
for the course, made to encourage students to
improve their approach to the material
throughout the semester.
New course grade breakdown:
 10 Quizzes over units – 10% of grade.
 Notebooks collected twice and graded
based on a rubric – 10% of grade.
 Midterm exam created by the redesign team
and administered by ALEKS – 10% of grade.
 Final exam created by the redesign team and
administered by ALEKS – 70% of grade.
 Second chance final still provided for
students.
Identifying ‘at risk’ students

While analyzing the data to compare the success rates of students who
have taken MA101 with that of MA090, an important finding which came
up was that the success rate of students was dependent on their Math ACT
scores. The following table gives probability of success in MA101 and
MA090 with varying ACT scores.
Math ACT
scores



15
Probability of
Success
in MA101
0.4809
Probability of
Success
in MA090
0.5145
16
0.5149
0.5831
17
0.5487
0.6487
In fall 2012, the Department of Mathematics started a new course –
MA050 (Basic Math Skills) for students coming with a Math ACT subscore
of 14 and below.
This new course also has the same attendance policy as MA101/102.
The students coming from this course to MA101 should be well
prepared, thus increasing the success and retention rate for future
math courses.
Spring 2012
 Only
change was to make the MA102
final grade a letter grade instead of a
CR/F course to encourage students to do
more than the ‘minimum’ necessary to
pass the course.
 This was based on feedback from College
Algebra instructors’ feelings that MA102
students were not prepared for that
course.
Fall 2013 – more changes



It was determined based on data and
students’ comments and evaluations of the
course that having one exam worth 80% of
the student’s grade (midterm and final
exams) with no partial credit was not the best
way to evaluate student learning of the
material.
Students wanted their work on the ALEKS
program to count towards their final grade.
New assessment and grading procedures
put into place and will be evaluated at the
end of the current semester.
Fall 2013 - continued
Design team made the following changes:
 8 Quizzes over units – 10% of grade.
 Notebooks collected twice and graded based on a
rubric – 10% of grade.
 Number of ALEKS objectives completed – 10% of
grade.
 Two ‘Unit’ exams created to replace two of the
Quizzes. Exams will have both an online and a pencil
and paper component – 20% of grade.
 Midterm exam revised to include an online and
pencil and paper component – 20% of grade.
 Final exam administered by ALEKS – 30% of grade.
 Second chance final is eliminated.
 Students no longer allowed to use a ‘notes’ page
during exams and quizzes.
Check

Data about student performance and
attitudes was obtained from ALEKS and
analyzed.

Institutional Research provided data that
were used to identify factors responsible for
student success.

Students, academic advisors, math faculty,
and Learning Assistance Programs staff
provided feedback.
Lessons learned
 Students
don’t do optional.
 An attendance policy is essential for students in a
developmental course.
 Software fundamentally changes the way we
interact with students (good and bad).
 Software gives you information about student
habits, progress, and abilities that we never could
have gathered using the traditional model.
 Software democratizes learning – can’t charm a
computer.