March 2013 League of Innovations

Bernadette Sandruck, Ed.D.

Division chair and professor of mathematics

Howard Community College, Columbia, MD

What evolved from

10 years of

computerized instruction?

19!

Courses Features as of Fall 2011Arithmetic Interactive videos, electronic quizzes, prescriptive exam

Beginning & Elementary Algebra

Blended lab & recitation sessions, interactive videos, online homework, electronic quizzes & exams, access controlled by gradebook

Intermediate Algebra

Lectures with group work and discovery activities. Recently added video lessons and electronic quizzes in CANVAS site. Students in elementary algebra that finish early can preview this course using the online materials.

College Algebra

1/3 of class time on computer work; ½ of each exam electronic

Other college-level maths

All have some electronic assignments and quizzes. Special programs in statistics and calculus

Current use of computer-assisted instruction

2

Howard Community College Developmental Mathematics

……our first CBI courses

*Prescriptive test

*Complete only topics needed

*Extra lab time available

*Pay for 14 weeks of instruction and earn 2, 4, or 6 credits

Basic Mathematics (2 crd) and Basic Algebra & Geometry (4 crd)

4

Why computer-based instruction?

Educational Reasons*Individualized instruction*More individualized attention*Flexible Scheduling*Focuses Responsibility on Students

Political Reasons*Individualized Instruction*Potential to complete developmental course work sooner*High Tech

If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten.

5

Early Lessons Learned (1994) Students preferred simple navigation, less glitz. new costs for equipment & technicians Great for students who are refreshing their skills; Insufficient for those learning for the first time. Self-pace does not work! Students need a timeline.

.The teachers need

Training on new role On equipment

6

1995 the beginning of constant change

Old Mastery learning strategy vetoed. Intermediate algebra added to the

developmental sequence Deleted geometry course and blended with

algebra Request to switch to a modular program was

rejected• Advising concerns• Registration concerns

Compromise: Just Elementary Algebra (called Review of Integrated Algebra & Geometry) was split into two modules.

7

Modular Experiment 1996

Basic Math ~ 2 crd

Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd

Integrated Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd9 weeks

Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crd 5 weeks

Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours

College-level Maths

+

8

Modular CollapseBasic Math ~ 2 crd

Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd

Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crdWinter, summer…full semester Success = 39-46%

Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours

Integ.Alg. & Geom. II ~ 2 crd 5 weeks Success = 64-65%

Integr. Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd9 weeks Success = 73-77%

Integr. Alg. & Geom. I retry5 weeks Success = 15-20%

Integr. Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd14 weeks Success = 40-49%

9

2 Paths (2001)Basic Math ~ 2 crd

Basic Algebra & Geometry ~ 4 crd

Few Math Skills

Integrated Algebra & Geometry I ~ 3 crd

Integrated Algebra & Geometry II ~ 2 crd

Review of Algebra with Geom. Applications ~ 4 crd

Intermediate Algebra 4 contact hours

Weak Algebra Skills

10

Success Rates & Number of SectionsMATH-064 & 065& 067

IA (no D’s) 2000 2001 2002 2003SPR- 064 68%

(14)62% (17)

37% (9) 54% (12)

SPR-065 45% (13)

47% (14)

64% (6) 81% (6)

SPR-067 57% (9) 58% (10)

FALL-064 70% (20) 39% (7)

39% (9) 40% (7)

FALL-065 48% (19) 41% (7)

59% (8) 48% (7)

FALL -067 45% (13)

61%(15)

55% (14)11

• Teacher Assistance

• Student Aides• Drop-in anytime

Fall 2001 12

Strengths we want to retain

Program Consistency

*Lesson Packets (partial lecture notes)

*Course Schedules

*Division Exams

*Division Grading Policies

13

Rigid Test Schedule Model Must take exams on scheduled date One make-up at the end of the semester Cumulative Content Minimum score on quizzes in cbi courses

(65%)

Progressive Learning vs. Mastery learning effect on Lower ability students Learn what you can first time through Build knowledge on second try

Decisions on structure for cbi

sections

14

1 2 30

20

40

60

80

100

7773

64

7379

63

88 8578

8882 81

Unit Comparison MATH-064 vs MATH-067 ( 2004-2005)

Unit Exams

Mea

n S

core

%

Exponents and Polyno-mials

Radicals

064 MM 064 TL 067 MM 067 TL

Systems of Equations

15

Lessons Learned

Computer-based instruction is a viable format

Resistance to cbi format Faculty, students & counselors

Very little accelerated learning Student Priorities don’t match ours

16

*What’s next?

Constant Experimentation (2008 – present)

Resource review Adopted a two vendor system

ModuMath for lessons HawkesLearning for online problem solving

18

Constant Experimentation (2008 – present)

* Major curriculum shift led to elimination of two paths

* All classes had some computer work

* Search for best prescription for computer assistance

19

Overall success rates for MATH-064, 065 &067after curriculum change Fall 2008 to 2009

Grades

064 065 067 New 067

Fa’08n = 160

Fa’08n=68

Fa’08n =395

Fall 2009 n = 600

%ABC 48.8 60.3 48.9 58

%D/F 51.2 39.7 51.1 42

%W14.9

n =18815

n =8016.9

n =47516

n = 71520

Tracking cbi vs. cai

MATH-067 ABC Success Rates, N = ABCDF

Term Lecture w/CAI CBI both

n % n % n %

Fa 09 326 62.0 274 53.3 600 58

Fa 10 319 54.2 305 50.5 624 52.4

Spr 10 256 57.0 202 53.0 458 55.2

Spr 11 242 55.4 240 50.0 484 52.721

Further investigations

4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2a 6.7a 6.4 6.7b 6.2b 7.1b 7.1c 7.4 7.2 7.3a0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Online Homework Completion %Teacher-led (TL) versus Computer-based (CBI)

As of Week 8 of 2011SP TL %

As of Week 8 of 2011SP CB %

22

edesign

23

*new structure (2012)

* Realign content

* Blended Learning Approach

* Intensive Mastery Learning

* Semi-Modular

24

Student view

Before Class:Watch the Video Instruction / fill-in notebook

Complete Practice ProblemsComplete Online HomeworkComplete Written Homework

During Class:Attend Teacher Led InstructionTake WebTestsTake Unit Exams 25

Blended Learning Structure (Fall 2012)

MATH-061 separate recitation (1.5 hrs) & lab (4 hrs)

recitation (either 47 or 24 students) pay = 1.5 units large lab (47, with 4 student aides), pay = 5 units small lab (24, with 1 student aide), pay = 3 units

MATH-067 Blended lecture & lab

24 seat computer classroom one faculty, one student aide; pay = 4 units

lab instructors responsible for student grades

26

Responsibilities of Lab Instructor

Comment on quality of work on written homework assignments and record final grade when it reaches acceptable level

Grade some exam questions where partial credit is allowed and adjust grade in computerized gradebook

Track progress of all students and coach them through the program

Assign attendance grades 27

Mastery Requirements

Minimum % of Grade

80% Each Topic Quiz 10%

75% Each Unit Exam 72%

70% Written Homework Average**

8%

90% Class Attendance* 2%

Online honeworks count other 8% of grade*Score needed to take Quizzes ** and Unit Exams

28

Semi-Modular

Carry over mastered units to next major semester

Summer and Winter extension sessions (MATH-061E and MATH-067E)

Student who master two or more units in a semester will not fail

29

Grading StructureMastered Grade Next semester

No Units F, WSame course, start over

One Unit F, W

Two Units L*

Pass extension, take next course

Same course, start with next unit and continue on

Three or more Units

Based on Work

Take next course

Six units Clearance to jump a course

30

L-Grade requirements

Excellent Attendance Steady diligenceEffort beyond class sessionsMaster at least two units within the semester

31

Retention @ 10 weeksMATH-061 N % taking

First Exam%W

Fall 2011 588 86% 12.1%

Fall 2012 500 83% 12.3%

MATH-067 N % TakingFirst Exam

%W

Fall 2011 740 94% 11.1%

Fall 2012 787 89% 11.6%

32

Success Rates (ABC / ABCDF)

MATH-061 N, n % ABC % L’s

Fall 2011 588, 513 51% 0%

Fall 2012 495, 311 64% 23%

MATH-067 N, n %ABC % L’s

Fall 2011 738, 651 57% 0%

Fall 2012 783,437 64% 32%

Completed both n % increase

Fall 2011 6

Fall 2012 43 616%33

Success Rate Pass RateABC/ABCDF ABC/TOTAL

51%

43%

68%62%

53%

44%

51%45%

84%

75%

54%47%

64%

40%

86%

49%

65%

41%

MATH-061

FA'10 WI'11 Both Series4 FA'11 WI'12Both Series8 FA'12 WI'13 Both

34

Success Rate Pass RateABC/ABCDF ABC/TOTAL

53%43%

59% 55%53%44%

57%51%

77%71%

59%53%

64%

36%

96%88%

68%

40%

MATH-067

FA'10 WI'11 Both Series4 FA'11 WI'12Both Series8 FA'12* WI'13 Both

35

Assessment Plans …beyond success in course

First try success on test items compared to previous program

Number of credits to complete developmental sequence

Number of semesters to complete developmental sequence

Success in intermediate algebraSuccess in college-level mathematicsCost analysis

36

Lessons Learned (Fall 2012)

Personnel issues for labs One faculty and 4 student aides yield inconsistent

quality One faculty and 1 student aide is inefficient

Recitations & blended classroom issues Faculty preferred recitation before lab Difficult to meet needs of all students Faculty blindly followed schedule

37

*Phase 2 – spring 2013

Expand recitation to MATH-067 Scheduled 3 concurrent sections Focus on team teaching Hired two part-time lab

managers Review criteria for extension

courses

38

*Phase 3 – fall 2013

Created a second developmental lab Schedule only large sections

hire one lab instructor and one recitation instructor

Rotate students into recitation room Scheduled some test center time Hire lab managers

Compromise Embed recitation within 4 hour

structure39

*Challenges

1. Insufficient space for overall design

2. Delivering a clear & consistent message on expectations

3. Training for aides and new instructors

4. Building Faculty teams

5. Test & lab security

6. Record-keeping

7. Concerns of athletics department40

*Questions?

41