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 Per Student $11, 585 $171, 910 $116 Savings: UG Tutors 5760 hrs @ $7/hr Total Cost Per Student $33/student (28%) $40, 320 $122, 750 $83
Precalculus Algebra - Present • Redesign -Fully Implemented since Fall 03 • Current Enrollment: Fa 11 -Sp 12 = 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
Скачать презентацию Course Redesign Our Story The University of Alabama
019f73b6f7ecb7087851e8f1ba96af3f.ppt