Carnegie Course Redesign Final Report
Cohort 2
Towson University
MATH 115, Basic Mathematics for the Sciences
PI: John Grant, Professor, Mathematics Department
Co-PI: Raouf Boules, Chair, Mathematics Department (mainly provided administrative support to
the redesign team that was led by John Grant.)
Brief Description
The main issues that needed to be resolved
 Relatively high DFW rate.
 Course drift.
Redesign model
 “Replacement model” with one hour per week moved to an open computer lab.
 Active and mastery learning emphasized. During the lab hour, the student has a
chance to interact actively with computer-based learning resources for mastery
learning. The lab is staffed by Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULA’s) and
instructors.
 Incorporating the tools provided by technology helps the student reach the desired
mastery levels.
 New 30-seat computer lab was established for this purpose.
A. Impact on Student Learning
1. Improved Learning
The impact on the pass rate was remarkable. We compared pass rates for the spring 2103
semester where the full implementation of the redesign took place with rates from spring
2010, 2011 and 2012 semesters. In the last three spring semesters before the redesign,
the pass rate was consistent and between 74% and 75%. With the redesign, the pass rate
reached 86%. We also compared the average GPA for the entire group of students in Math
115 across the four semesters. The average GPA ranged from 2.5 to 2.7 in the three
spring semesters preceding the redesign. That went up to 3.1 in spring 2013 with the
redesign model. The two graphs below summarize the results. We also attach the NCAT
Final Assessment Form which shows a more formal comparison test results (t-test for a
difference between two means) which was performed for the difference in GPA
means/averages between spring 2013 (full implementation of Course Redesign) and spring
2012 as a representative of a traditional offering outcome. The test shows strong statistical
significance for improvement at the 99% confidence level.
2. Improved Retention
The DFW rate also dropped 10 percentage points (see graph above and the attached
NCAT Full Implementation Course Completion Form).
3. Other Impacts on Students
The Mathematics Department hired a professional assessment expert, Dr. Virginia
Anderson, for this project. Dr. Anderson compared student attitudes towards the course
and the use of the computer lab through two surveys administered at two different times
during the semester. The results showed favorable attitudes towards the redesign format.
In her assessment report, Dr. Anderson indicated “Here are three preliminary implications:
(1) The entering profile for students in Math 115 are extremely consistent. The large
number of prospective nursing students enrolled in the course explains the high female to
male ratio in the course. (2) 72% of the redesign math students concluded that the online
homework system helped them learn the material better. (3) Both groups of student
selected “doing mathematics” strategies as most useful; 38% of the traditional math
students found working more problems most useful and 49% of the redesign math students
found working repeated examples more useful.
B. Impact on Cost Savings
The model that Towson University adopted relies on increasing the class size to achieve
cost saving to the institution. The figure below shows the mean course section size for
Math 115 during the spring semesters of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The latter is the
course redesign full-implementation semester. The class size was increased by about 35%
and yet the student performance improved. We offered 13, 13, 14 and 10 course sections
during these four semesters, respectively. Had the traditional offering of Math 115
continued with the same average class size, 14 course sections would have been needed
in spring 2013. Assuming that all sections are staffed by adjunct faculty, the cost of running
14 sections would be $45,360. With the redesign, the cost of offering 10 sections includes
the instructor salaries ($32,400) plus the ULA salary (140 hours per semester times
$10/hour = $1400). This adds up to $33,800 for a total saving of 25.5%. This is slightly
higher than what we anticipated in the initial proposal (18%).
C. Lessons Learned
1. Pedagogical Improvement Techniques
 With the introduction and use of an open computer lab-based component for this
course, students were able to practice problem solving in a supervised environment
where immediate feedback and on-time assistance are available.
 A faculty team was created for this course and was headed by a coordinator/team
leader. The team met regularly and communicated continuously about course
material, and implementation and assessment issues. This added another level of
coherence which was not available before.
 Rethinking of testing and the creation of common tests that are based on inputs from
all instructors for this course helped minimize course drift; a problem that existed
before the redesign.
2. Cost Reduction Techniques
 Cost reduction is attained through the increase of the average class size. The
computer lab is partially staffed by ULAs, which represents a moderate added cost.
However, the overall cost saving achieved by this model is about 25% as indicated
above. The cost of the course material to the student is the same.
3. Implementation Issues
 The only issue reported by the Course Redesign team was the small size of the
computer lab (30 seats) compared to the intended class size (40 students). This
discrepancy made it difficult to schedule testing in the lab and required more work for
the team leader and members to make that happen smoothly. A bigger lab would
have made this task much easier.
D. Sustainability
 The large success experienced by the redesign of this course has demonstrated to
the faculty and the institution the utility of this approach for certain mathematics
courses (those which rely heavily on drill and practice and tend to be lower-level).
 The existence of a working computer lab will assist in sustaining this model.
 We have built a committed team of faculty which forms a strong base for sustaining
this model. In the words of Dr. Anderson, our assessment consultant, “In the 6+
committee meetings and the various computer lab visits I attended, it was clear that
the REDESIGN faculty was highly engaged in the project. Having worked with faculty
from over 200 colleges and universities on assessment, I found the TU Math 115

REDESIGN Committee members’ candor, cohesiveness, and genuine concern for
student learning and academic quality to be exceptional”.
With the redesign of several courses in the TU Mathematics Department, using the
same model, a critical degree of consistency has been reached, with which
sustainability will be expected. Students and faculty alike now expect this model for
certain courses.