Precalculus Course
Redesign
Using Technology
Phoebe Rouse
Louisiana State University
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
I. National Course Redesign
Using 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
Miss State
Nicholls
Arkansas
Towson
USM
Ole Miss
ULM
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 Redesign
Fall 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 be
Fall 2004
Pleasant Hall Math Lab
Fall 2005
PH Basement Math Lab – to be
Fall 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 Settings
Homework
•
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
Students
enrolled
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.
Trig
Fall Results
Exam
Median
# of
Students
enrolled
ABC
Rate
Fall 2001 Traditional Sections
71%
1277
59%
Fall 2002 Traditional Sections
*
1150
56%
Fall 2003 Traditional Sections
*
1015
62%
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%
Fall 2004 XLg Lecture w/ MapleTA
*No exam median recorded.
Precalculus
Fall Results
Exam
Median
# of
Students
enrolled
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, Precalculus
Fall Participation Grades
Class and Lab
Participation %
A
B
C
D
F
70-100%
62%
10%
10%
18%
0-69%
W
College Algebra
Spring Results
Exam
Median
# of
Students
enrolled
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%
Trig
Spring Results
Exam
Median
# of
Students
enrolled
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
Students
enrolled
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 PC
Spring Participation Grades
Class and Lab
Participation %
A
B
C
D
F
70-100%
50%
19%
0-69%
7%
24%
W
Retention Rates
Fall 2002 – Fall 2007
Full-time Degree-seeking New Freshman
CA:
F02
F03
F04
F05
F06
F07
A, B, or C
D, F, or W
#
#
% Ret
% Ret
Not taking CA
#
% Ret
1733
87.5
705
64.5
2306
85.3
1875
89.5
704
65.5
2451
86.2
2072
87.4
657
61.5
2578
84.3
1016
88.5
473
62.4
2778
83.9
1105
86.5
251
49.4
2842
86.4
992
87.4
365
65.5
2864
86.4
Graduation Rates
Fall 2001 Cohort
CA Grade
Full-time
6-year
degree-seeking graduation rate
new freshman
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 Rates
Fall 2002 Cohort
CA Grade
A, B, or C
D, F, or W
Not taking
All full-time
degree seeking
new freshman
Full-time
degreeseeking new
freshman
5-year
6-year
grad rate grad rate
1733
705
2734
56%
26%
56%
62%
33%
54%
5172
52%
54%
IV. What It Takes
Redesign Personnel
Program 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 Program
a. Hiring and screening
b. Pre-semester workshop
2. First-Year-TA Tutor Training Program
a. Pre-semester workshop
b. Fall semester Comm Math course
c. Spring semester Comm Math course
3. First-Time-Teaching-Redesign Teacher
Workshop (R2R Manual)
4. Pre-semester Meeting for All Teaching
CA and Trigonometry
Early 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 Trigonometry
Summer 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 Redesign
1.
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 Rouse
Precalculus Mathematics Coordinator
Louisiana State University
Department of Mathematics
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
rouse@math.lsu.edu
NCAT Redesign Scholar
MyMathLab Faculty Advocate