Precalculus Course
Redesign
Phoebe Rouse
Louisiana State University
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
Goals and Results of LSU
Precalculus Redesign
Fall 2003-Spring 2009
• To reduce personnel costs (savings of 35%)
• To incorporate technology to grade student
homework (MyMathLab)
• To provide consistent content presentation (√)
• To continue current success rates (improved)
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
Redesigned Courses
College Algebra (3 cr. hrs.)
• 2200 students per year
• 1 hour per week in class of 40 students
• minimum of 3 flexible-time hours per week in lab
Trigonometry (3 cr. hrs.)
• 1600 students per year
• 1 hour per week in class of 40 students
• minimum of 3 flexible-time hours per week in lab
Precalculus (5 cr. hrs.)
• 400 students per year
• 2 hours per week in class of 40 students
• minimum of 5 flexible-time hours per week in lab
Pleasant Hall Math Lab
Fall 2005
PH Basement Math Lab
Fall 2006
PH Basement Side Room
Fall 2007
Lab Features
• 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 for students
• Ratio of 1Tutor/Teachers for each 20 students
• AccuTrack student tracking software
Pedagogical Keys to Math
Redesign Using Technology
• Active Learning Experience
• Personalized, Individualized Instruction
• Immediate Feedback
• Repetition to Mastery
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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 Info
Phoebe Rouse
LSU
prouse@lsu.edu
NCAT Redesign Scholar
MyMathLab Faculty Advocate