Download
1 / 43
430 likes | 560 Views
Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle?. TNADE 2006 22 nd Annual Conference Gatlinburg, TN October 30, 2006. Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle?. Presenter Information
E N D
Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle? TNADE 2006 22nd Annual Conference Gatlinburg, TN October 30, 2006
Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle? Presenter Information Pat Perdew, Associate Professor of Developmental Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, perdewp@apsu.edu Kay Haralson, Associate Professor of Developmental Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, haralsonk@apsu.edu Jennie Preston-Sabin, Associate Professor of Developmental Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, sabinj@apsu.edu Shirley Hagewood, Associate Professor of Mathematics, APSU, Clarksville, TN, hagewoods@apsu.edu
State supported liberal arts 4-year institution • Located in Clarksville, Tennessee • Approximate enrollment of 9000 students • 1100 students tested into developmental mathematics Fall 2006 on main campus and Ft. Campbell campus • No community college in immediate area
Computer-based Course Development • Controversial decision to convert to computer-based delivery • Controversial implementation of computer-based delivery • Other institutions using similar methods of delivery were observed before a program was chosen. • Addison-Wesley text chosen based on “packaged” computer-based options; used for both courses • Text packaged with computer code providing access to Course Compass website • Courses utilize MyMathLab resources
Computer-based Course Development • Students required to enroll in developmental courses during their first semester • Students registered for assigned class times • Class attendance required, even though courses are predominantly on-line • A “coordinator” course was developed for each course to serve as a “master” course to copy for individual class sections • For the first semester, faculty were assigned 30 lab hours weekly, no specific sections • Faculty served as facilitators to students in the computer classrooms
Computer-based Course Components • Announcement page for each section, customized with links to course syllabus, schedule, objectives, DSP placement criteria, course materials, gradebook, etc. • Video lectures on computer or through web-site • On-line textbook, solutions manual, graphing calculator manual • TI-Smart View demonstration screen fed to student computers through Net-Op program • On-line homework; problems chosen by faculty from a computer bank of problems • On-line example within homework assignments, with view an example option
Computer-based Course Components • On-line practice tests for each test and final exam; developed by faculty • On-line multiple choice quizzes, tests, and final exam; developed by faculty using Test Gen • MyMathLab Gradebook available for students to view grades and review quizzes and tests • Study Plan available through Gradebook to identify concepts still to be mastered • Course Evaluation Survey, developed by faculty, completed before Final Exam • Instructor Homepage and Course Management Screen to edit computerized course components • Instructor Gradebook of student grades, grade distributions, item analysis of test question
Course Components Specifics Video Lectures • 15-20 minutes per section • 30 to 60-second clip for some practice problems • Personal headphones needed On-line Homework • Chosen by faculty, does not count in course grade • Help me solve this feature • View an example feature • Textbook pages for the section • Audio-video animation on some problems • Students can view homework score in Gradebook
Course Components Specifics On-line Practice Tests • Five practice tests, highest grade on each counts 10 points for course grade • Created by faculty from problem bank • No password required, can be taken multiple times, from any computer with required plug-ins Quizzes, Tests, and Final Exam (password required) • Ten 10-point quizzes, 20 min each, taken in class (Because of the 8 week terms, FC campus has only 5 quizzes.) • Four 100-point tests, 55 min, taken in class • Comprehensive Final Exam,100 points, 2 hrs, taken in class
Course Components Specifics MyMathLab Grade Book • Shows grades on homework, quizzes, practice tests, and tests • Shows date and time spent on each activity • Creates a study plan based on objectives not mastered on quizzes and tests • Study plan is linked to homework problems similar to un-mastered objectives • Provides access to review tests and quizzes taken
Course Modifications Since Inception Fall 2005 - Initial Semester of Computer-Based • Self-paced schedule, with minimum deadlines, designed for students to complete work early • Course delivery solely through Course Compass • Faculty provided no lecture or additional materials • Faculty were not assigned specific sections (MC) • Two attempts allowed on tests • Practice tests and homework were very long • Watching video lectures was encouraged, but not stressed • Implemented on main campus before Ft. Campbell
Course Modifications Since Inception Spring 2006 - Changes based on faculty/student feedback • Faculty assigned specific sections (5 MC, 4 FC) • Faculty allowed to give a brief lecture over daily material • Faculty distributed handouts or provided power point material • A review before quizzes and tests was provided • Only one attempt allowed on tests; 2nd attempt on tests replaced with 10-point practice tests • Last day of class used for makeup/retest on 1 test • Change to computer-based began at FC campus
Course Modifications Since Inception Fall 2006 - Changes by administration or faculty • Faculty assigned specific sections (8 MC, 4 FC) • Lecture portion modification discontinued • Internet links to handouts and power point material encouraged • The review before quizzes and tests was continued • Video lectures strongly recommended • Class attendance mandatory, over 3 unexcused absences results in an F for the course. • Practice tests required before test day • Decrease in length of practice tests and homework • Increased the number of quizzes from 5 to 10 MC
Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses Technical Issues • Internet problems with Course Compass website, campus server, bandwidth issues, upgrades to MathXL, Test Gen • Loss of grades when submitted in Course Compass • Iterations of Test Gen created tests produced problems with incorrect answers, two correct answers, etc. • Student format of homework and practice test answers not matching computer’s expected answers • Students unable to purchase text or computer code during first few days have no access to the course • Computer hardware, updates, virus problems • Lack of computer labs on campus with necessary plug-ins to work in MyMathLab • Lack of computer services personnel to deal with problems in a timely manner
Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses Student Issues • Absenteeism • Unwillingness to watch video lectures • Frustration with lack of real teacher instruction, no partial credit on quizzes and tests • Lack of exposure to appropriate mathematics terminology • Failure to connect mathematical concepts • Lack of motivation to take advantage of all computer resources to be successful in the course • Lack of proper classroom behavior • Procrastination in completing work; getting behind the expected schedule
Difficulties with Computer-Based Courses Format Issues • Implemented too quickly • Infrastructure of campus internet service not sufficient when transition was made • No flexibility in delivery; students given no other option • Not enough faculty to adequately monitor or facilitate learning of all students • Faculty answer the same questions multiple times for individual students, rather than the entire class • Course is not easily adapted to visual or hearing impaired students
Statistical Information • Success rate in lecture-basedIntermediate Algebra 2004-2005 was 61% MC; Fall 05 FC was 50% • Success rate in computer-based Intermediate Algebra 2005-2006 was 41.4%; Spring 06-Fall I 06 FC was 54% • Success rate in lecture-based combined Elementary/Intermediate Algebra (2004-2005) was 38.1%; both requirements finished in one semester. • Success rate in lecture-basedElementary Algebra FC Fall 05 was 61% (combined course not offered at FC) • Success rate in computer-basedElementary Algebra (2005-2006) was 44.6%; only one course finished in one semester; Spring I-Fall I 06 FC was 51%
Statistical Information - MC • 50.1% of all students finished all DSP requirements in one semester with lecture-basedcourses 2004-2005 Intermediate Algebra, or Combined Elementary/Intermediate Algebra) • 22.9% of all students finished all DSP requirements in one semester with computer-based courses (2005-2006 Intermediate Algebra only) • 64.9% of students completing DSP math Fall 2004 with lecture-based classes, passed CORE math Spring 2005 (135students) • 75.8% of students completing DSP math Fall 2005 with computer-based classes, passed CORE math Spring 2006 (75students)
Course Evaluation Survey Results • Over 50-57% (MC) and 28-60% (FC) of all students indicated they disagree or strongly disagree that learning mathematics in a computer-based classroom was successful for them. • Over 34-44%(MC) and 22-53% (FC) of all students indicated they disagree or strongly disagree that the computer-based course, with the help of lab personnel, provided the explanations necessary to successfully complete the course. • 50% (MC) and 70-90% (FC) of all students indicated they watch the video lectures for the courses. • Only 50-60% of all students indicated they utilized the instructor or tutor in the computer classroom.
Observations/Conclusions Positive • Some students find this delivery method meets their needs very well. Students at the Ft. Campbell campus have more positive evaluations of the courses. • Students are able to view video lectures, work on-line homework and access course resources from their personal computers • Students who successfully complete the computer-based courses learn self-motivation and discipline • DSP completers of computer-based courses have success rates in most CORE mathematics courses as good or better than students completing a lecture-based course • Completers seem to be better prepared for other math courses using computer formats
Observations/Conclusions Negative • Less successful – student success rates are less than lecture-based courses • Less efficient – fewer students complete both courses in one semester, compared with completion rate in combined 5 hour class previously offered. Does not provide a choice of delivery methods • Cost of delivering courses has not decreased • Student satisfaction with course format is very low • Frustration level of students is very high • Frustration level of faculty is even higher!!
Suggestions for Improvement • Management of DSP mathematics courses should take place in mathematics department • Smaller class size (currently 24/36 in two rooms, main campus, 30 per room at FC) • Faculty be responsible for fewer sections to allow more one-on-one assistance • Offer a hybrid course format- 1 day of lecture, 1 day lab; MW or TR; faculty available for individual help on Fridays • Offer an on-line format with no class attendance for students who cannot take on campus classes. This is especially important for active duty military. • Offer a combined Elementary/Intermediate computer-based or hybrid course
Future of DSP in Tennessee and at APSU • Uncertain if computer-format will continue • Uncertain if DSP courses will be offered at 4-year institutions • Uncertain what will happen to under-prepared students if courses are not offered • Uncertain future for DSP tenured faculty
Computer-Based Algebra Instruction: Mayhem or Miracle? To obtain a copy of this power point presentation go to: www.apsu.edu/haralsonk and click on Computer-Based Algebra - TNADE or email Pat at perdewp@apsu.edu, Thank you for your attention!
