Course Redesign
Our Story
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
Intermediate Algebra – Before Redesign
Problem Areas
Intermediate Algebra – Before Redesign
Problem Areas
• Course was teacher-centered
• Instruction was inconsistent among sections
• No flexibility in instructional pace
• Students have different learning styles
• Lack of student success (D/F/W rates as high as 60%)
• Smaller sections would increase costs
• The University was losing students due to this lack of
success
Intermediate Algebra - The Beginning of
Our Redesign
Intermediate Algebra - The Beginning of
Our Redesign
Action Taken
• Fall 1999
• UA visited Virginia Tech’s Math Emporium
• Spring 2000
• 3 sections of Intermediate Algebra were piloted
• Result
• Increase in the student passing rate (40.6% to
53.5%)
Intermediate Algebra - Choices Made
Intermediate Algebra - Decisions Made
•Decided to use the Emporium Model
•Started with lab containing 70 computers
•Included additional instructors
•Emporium Model was only option for all students
taking Intermediate Algebra
•Students had complete flexibility
• no mandatory lab attendance
• no class meetings
• due dates for assignments were right before each test
Intermediate Algebra - Lessons Learned
Intermediate Algebra - Lessons Learned
•Students resist change.
•Students had to become active learners rather
than passive learners.
•Students realized that if they did their work
they would experience success in the course.
•Students took ownership of their learning and
of the grade they earned.
•Policies were put in place to try to modify
student behavior.
Intermediate Algebra - Current Policies
• Mandatory class meeting once a week (50
min.)
• Mandatory Lab Attendance 3 hours per week
• Includes class meeting time
• 2 deadlines per week for assignments
• Course is divided into MWF and TR classes
with different deadline days
• Tests are somewhat flexible
• Choose a test slot on a particular day
Intermediate Algebra Success
Intermediate Algebra Success
80
70
60
50
Trad Spring
40
Trad Fall
Spring
30
Fall
20
10
0
99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 09 10
Intermediate Algebra - Cost Savings
Intermediate Algebra - Cost Savings
2001-2002 Academic Year
1480 students
Traditional
Redesigned
43 Sections of 35 Students Each
14 Sections of 110 Students Each
2 FTTI (16 sections)
@ $36,250
$72,500
2 FTTI @ $36,250
$72,500
5 GTAs (20 sections)
@ $17,565
$87,825
6 PTTI @ $1,650
$9,930
7 PTTI (7 sections)
@ $1,655
Total Cost
Cost Per Student
UG Tutors 5760 hrs
@ $7/hr
$40,320
$11,585
$171,910
$116
Savings:
Total Cost
Cost Per Student
$33/student (28%)
$122,750
$83
Precalculus Algebra - Present
• Redesign -Fully Implemented since Fall 03
• Current Enrollment: Fa11-Sp12 = 3314
• 31 sections: 60-70 students per section
• 14 large sections: 100 - 136 students per
section
• All courses under Calculus I now have
some type of lab component
Precalculus Algebra
• Course Structure in the Beginning
• Traditional, lecture-based classes taught by
instructors and GTAs
• Rigid Format – common syllabus, presentation
schedule, and tests
• Goal of Redesign
• To experience an increase in student success (as
we had with Intermediate Algebra) without
increasing resource demand.
Precalculus Algebra - Pilot Stages
• Fall 2001
• MTLC established – 240 computers
• 4 sections of Precalculus Algebra used Emporium
model of instruction
• 1 brief lecture per week (50 minutes) on upcoming
material
• 2 different software packages
• Spring 2002
• Half of the Precalculus Algebra classes used the
emporium model and the other half remained
traditional.
• Same 2 software packages were used
Precalculus Algebra – Current Policies
• One required class meeting per week (50-min. lecture)
• Required lab attendance
• 3 hours per week
• Partial points are given on lab hours
• Waived if > 75% on all assignments due that week
• 2 due dates per week
• Usually 1-2 sections of material each due date
• MWF and TR classes
• Different due dates for each
• Testing is somewhat flexible
• Choose a particular time slot on a particular day
Precalculus Algebra Success
80
70
60
50
Trad Fall
40
Spring
30
Fall
20
10
0
'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 09 10
Implementation Issues
Implementation Issues
• “No Teacher” Syndrome
• Student Engagement
• Scheduling Deadlines, Tests, Etc.
• Instructor Buy-In
• Instructor Training
• Detachment From Students
• Staff Scheduling
• Data Management
Contact Information
Jamie Glass
MTLC Lab Coordinator
The University of Alabama
205 348-2592
jglass@bama.ua.edu