SLCC’s Epic Emporium
Adventure
Experiences in Developing and Implementing an
Emporium Course
at Salt Lake Community College
Development
 Fall 2010 – the beginning of an idea
SLCC’s Provost attended a Complete College America conference and
subsequently requested an Emporium–style course to quickly mainstream Dev
Ed Math students into college-level math courses
 Spring Semester 2011 – faculty exploration
NCAT Training in Orlando, Florida
Visited programs that had developed & were using an Emporium course
Weber State University – Ogden, Utah
Utah Valley University – Orem, Utah
Creating The Course
Summer & Fall 2011
 The Development Team
John Close – curriculum development
Carla Kulinsky – course creation
Celestina Punzalan – review
 The Delivery System
MyMathLab by Pearson Publishing
Main text – Prealgebra and Introductory Algebra , 3rd edition
by Elayn Martin-Gay
Course Design
General Design
 Math 1, 2, 3 covering 3
semesters
 Self-paced with soft deadlines
 Student must complete
at least 4 modules per
semester
 Student may complete
modules quickly
eliminating one or more
semesters
 Pre-Module – Operations with
single digits
 12 Modules – basic math thru
elementary algebra topics
 Linear progression
Module Design
 Pretest

Each module starts with
pretest

If required percentage is
met, student moves to
next module

If not met, student goes to
the Homework
 Homework
Must complete entire
homework assignment before
taking the Mastery Test
 Mastery Test


Same test as Pretest
Unlimited attempts to pass
Pilot Begins
Spring 2012
Lessons Learned
Student Issues
 Homework
 Must complete entire
homework set
 Lengthy and tedious
 Lose of motivation
 Preparedness
 Lack of study skills
 Lack of reading skills
Instructor Issues
 Course Design
 Length of Homework
 “Mastery” on tests
 Instruction
 Consistency of instruction
 Beginning of semester
 Need of assigned tutor
Changes
Implemented Fall 2013
 Switch to Individualized modules
 Timeline for Transition
 Homework based on Pretest
 Fall 2013 – Math 1
 Additional homework if don’t pass
Mastery Exam
 Increase Master cut‐score to 90% and
limit testing attempts.
 Add 80% mandatory attendance
 Add required project
 Prerequisite for EDU 1020
 First Day Triage – Implemented Spring 2014
individualized, Math 2
and 3 old model
 Spring 2014 – Math 1
and 2 individualized,
Math 3 old model
 Summer/Fall 2014 – all
individualized
Fall 2013 Lessons Learned
– Passing Rates
Students in Math 0001 Fall semester 2013 = 239
Passing Rate = 44%
Of Passing, 71% (75) enrolled in subsequent math course.
Below is the breakdown where students enrolled:
Of Those Who Failed, only 8% enrolled in another math course.
=36% retention rate.
Future Success in Subsequent Math
Course (Early Information)
Fall 2012 Cohort
Average time
to completion
(in semesters)
GPA in
college-level
math
Fall 2013 Cohort
CPMA
Traditional
Sig.
1.8
1.5
p<0.005
2.78
2.34
p=0.047
CPMA
Traditional
Sig.
2.09
2.34
p=.59
Conclusion:
Students are taking longer to get through Developmental
Math coursework using CPMA model.
Further Changes
Implemented Fall 2014
Passing percentages
 Decreased from  90%  to  80% 
Fractions Revamped
Co-requisite for Reading 900 added
Final Exam Comparisons
Mean Face to Face Final =
Mean CPMA Final = 78%; Median = 82%
Future Success
Subsequent Course Grade C or Better C- to DSummer Semester 2013
8
1
Fall Semester 2013
9
9
Spring Semester 2014
34
24
Summer Semester 2014
5
2
Fall Semester 2014
18
5
Grand Total
74
41
E W Total % Pass Sans "W"
2
11
73%
73%
8 3 29
31%
35%
12
70
49%
49%
3 10
50%
71%
1 1 25
72%
75%
23 7 145
51%
54%
Conclusion:
Students are passing College Level course after CPMA
at a rate of 54%, compared to the 990 to 1010 rate of
25%. Individualized Model likely helped significantly.
The Future
Move to OER
Increase Enrollment
Add Intermediate Algebra Level Content
 Re-organization and addition to current content
 Stem vs Non-Stem Track
 Add transition point(s) into face-to-face courses