LSU College Readiness Program Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State

LSU College Readiness Program Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

Precalculus Redesign Program Goals and Keys R 2 R: NCAT Roadmap to Redesign Program (Fall 2004 -Spring 2007) Goals of Redesign 1 -To use technology 2 -To reduce costs 3 -To continue/improve current success rates Pedagogical Keys of Redesign 1 -Active Student Learning Experience 2 -Personalized, Individualized Instruction 3 -Immediate Feedback 4 -Repetition to Mastery

Courses and Enrollment College Algebra (3 credit hours) • 1800 Fall • 400 Spring • 200 Summer Trigonometry (3 credit hours) • 1000 Fall • 1000 Spring • 200 Summer Precalculus (Alg/Trig combo) (5 credit hours) • 400 Fall • 50 Spring

Math Placement Course Number and Name Minimum Math ACT score for entering freshmen College Algebra 20 Trigonometry 25 Precalculus 23 Calculus I Score > or = 70% on placement test

Precalculus Courses - Content Unit Math 1021 1022 1023 CA Trig Precalc Solving Equations and Inequalities x Rectangular Coordinate System, Lines, Circles x x Functions, Graphs, Inverse Functions x x Polynomial and Rational Functions x x Exponential and Logarithmic Functions x x Trigonometric Functions and Their Graphs x x Identities, Formulas, Solving Trig Equations x x Law of Sines & Cosines, Applications x x Polar Equations, Vectors x x Conics, Systems, Parametric Equations x

A. Flexible Lab Model (Fall and Spring only) Class at fixed time • CA – 1 hour per week – 40 students • Trig – 1 hour per week – 200 students • Precalculus – 2 hours per week – 40 students • Review and connecting of concepts, working examples with most difficult skills Lab at flexible times (open 60 hours each week) • CA – 3 hours minimum each week • Trig – 3 hours minimum each week • Precalculus – 4. 5 hours minimum each week • Do homework, do quizzes, read ebook, watch videos

B. Fully Online Model • 1 section each of College Algebra and Trig • Sections capped at 100 students each • No class meetings • Optional lab hours – flexible times • Rigid due dates • Option to work ahead

C. Fixed Lab Model (Summer only) • 2 sections of College Algebra and 2 sections of Trig • Enrollment per section capped at 100 • 8 class days and 16 lab days cycling in order of class, lab, and then repeating • 1. 5 fixed hours in class and 3 fixed hours in lab required per cycle • Lab open 8 hours each cycle

Pleasant Hall Math Lab Fall 2005

Assessments • All homework, quizzes, tests, and final exam using My. Math. Lab • Test in university testing center • Grade Distribution 10% Participation (5% class and 5% lab) 10% Homework (drop lowest 2) 10% Quizzes (drop the lowest 2) 45% Tests (4) 25% Final (can replace lowest test score)

College Algebra Fall Results # of students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 3115 66% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections 3188 64% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections 3211 68% Fall 2004 Traditional & Large Sections with MML 3347 71% Fall 2005 Trad, Large w/ MML, & R 2 R with MML # 2506 54% Fall 2006 R 2 R Sections w/ MML ^ 1724 75% Fall 2007 R 2 R Sections w/ MML * 1739 67% Fall 2008 R 2 R Sections w/ MML ~ 1772 68% Fall 2009 R 2 R Sections w/ MML 1556 72% Fall 2010 R 2 R Sections w/ MML 1744 71% Fall 2011 R 2 R Sections w/ MML 1665 71% Semester and Delivery Model(s) Permanent Changes: # MACT >24 given credit, Katrina/Rita ^ No partial credit on any assessments * Course rigor increased ~ Gustav/Ike

College Algebra Spring Results Semester and Delivery Model(s) # of students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections 1223 50% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections 1191 54% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections 1066 53% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections 1025 64% Spring 2005 Trad & R 2 R Pilot 806 61% Spring 2006 R 2 R Sections with MML ^ 567 59% Spring 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 384 55% Spring 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 418 53% Spring 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 435 55% Spring 2010 R 2 R Sections with MML 315 57% Spring 2011 R 2 R Sections with MML 480 52% Spring 2012 R 2 R Sections with MML 513 58% Permanent Changes: ^ No partial credit on any assessments

Trigonometry Fall Results Semester and Delivery Model(s) # of students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 1277 59% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections 1150 56% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections 1015 62% Fall 2004 XLarge Lecture w/ Maple. TA ^ 892 61% Fall 2005 XLarge Lecture w/ MML # 1350 55% Fall 2006 XLarge Lecture w/ MML 1234 63% Fall 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 1168 64% Fall 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML ~ 1231 66% Fall 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 1209 76% Fall 2010 R 2 R Sections with MML 1095 79% Fall 2011 R 2 R Sections with MML 1159 73% Permanent Changes: ^ No partial credit on any assessments # Katrina/Rita ~ Gustav/Ike

Trigonometry Spring Results Semester and Delivery Model(s) # of students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections 1304 65% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections 1451 63% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections 1490 63% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections 1477 69% Spring 2005 XLarge Lecture w/ Maple. TA ^ 1252 69% Spring 2006 XLarge Lecture w/ MML 1030 57% Spring 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 967 62% Spring 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 791 60% Spring 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 1073 65% Spring 2010 R 2 R Sections with MML 749 65% Spring 2011 R 2 R Sections with MML 801 74% Spring 2012 R 2 R Sections with MML 846 71% Permanent Changes: ^ No partial credit on any assessments

Precalculus Fall Results Semester and Delivery Model(s) # of students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 342 71% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections 443 74% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections 556 76% Fall 2004 Traditional Sections 598 79% Fall 2005 Large Lecture 321 60% Fall 2006 R 2 R Sections with MML ^ 277 64% Fall 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 288 71% Fall 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 287 62% Fall 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 310 79% Fall 2010 R 2 R Sections with MML 384 77% Fall 2011 R 2 R Sections with MML 392 68% Permanent Changes: ^ No partial credit on any assessments

Precalculus Spring Results Semester and Delivery Model(s) # of students enrolled ABC Rate Spring 2001 Traditional Sections 72 60% Spring 2002 Traditional Sections 56 54% Spring 2003 Traditional Sections 51 57% Spring 2004 Traditional Sections 41 47% Spring 2005 Traditional Sections 48 71% Spring 2006 R 2 R Pilot with MML^ 40 48% Spring 2007 R 2 R Section with MML 22 68% Spring 2008 R 2 R Section with MML 37 43% Spring 2009 R 2 R Section with MML 35 40% Spring 2010 R 2 R Section with MML 39 56% Spring 2011 R 2 R Section with MML 38 61% Spring 2012 R 2 R Section with MML 41 68% Permanent Changes: ^ No partial credit on any assessments

College Algebra Grades by MACT and Lab Times A Math ACT # 14 . 15 1 16 2 17 7 18 25 19 44 20 51 21 77 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 . 73 82 94 8 5 4 3 4 2 LAB HOURS Mean. 3. 09 3. 25 3. 11 3. 25 3. 29 3. 09 3. 11 3. 08 2. 99 2. 78 2. 84 3. 16 2. 97 2. 95 2. 09. # . . 3 18 29 56 83 87 10 1 83 65 4 6 1 1 . B LAB HOURS Mean. . 3. 22 3. 17 3. 25 3. 02 3. 11 2. 98 2. 85 2. 83 2. 70 2. 67 2. 84 3. 31 2. 61. . . # . 1 4 14 23 32 47 41 35 30 1 2 1 1 1. 1 C LAB HOURS Mean. 3. 03 2. 45 2. 90 2. 65 2. 70 2. 69 2. 65 # 1 2 3 6 24 12 29 22 2. 55 2. 60 2. 35 2. 32 0. 86 1. 74. 1. 89. 1. 55 20 17 17 3 1. . . D LAB HOURS Mean 2. 96 3. 13 2. 68 2. 72 2. 39 2. 26 2. 39 2. 21 2. 46 2. 39 1. 86 1. 64 0. 12. . . # . 1 3 10 14 13 24 14 19 13 16 3 1 1. . F LAB HOURS Mean. 1. 34 2. 38 2. 49 1. 77 1. 56 1. 48 1. 69 2. 26 1. 02 1. 45 1. 50 0. 22 1. 56. . # . 3 6 5 12 10 19 15 18 11 11 3 1. . W LAB HOURS Mean. 0. 90 0. 81 1. 14 1. 18 0. 57 0. 89 0. 72 1. 07 0. 81 0. 74 1. 07 0. 66. . .

Average Hours Spent in Lab Weekly College Algebra Grades by MACT and Lab Time 3. 50 3. 40 3. 30 3. 20 3. 10 3. 00 2. 90 2. 80 2. 70 2. 60 2. 50 2. 40 2. 30 2. 20 2. 10 2. 00 1. 90 1. 80 1. 70 1. 60 1. 50 1. 40 1. 30 1. 20 1. 10 1. 00 0. 90 0. 80 0. 70 0. 60 0. 50 0. 40 0. 30 0. 20 0. 10 0. 00 19 20 A 21 22 Math ACT Score B C D 23 F 24 W

College Algebra Success Data Without & With MML and Redesign % % % % Total making making MACT 19 -24 students A B C ABC D* F* W* DFW Fall 20002004 9856 18. 6% 28. 3% 23. 3% 70. 2% 9. 9% 6. 3% 13. 5% 29. 7% Fall 20062009 5601 19. 2% 32. 1% 22. 7% 74. 0% 10. 2% 7. 5% 8. 2% 25. 9%

College Algebra Success Data Without & With MML and Redesign

Graduation Rates College Algebra Grade A, B, or C D, F, or W Not taking All full-time degree seeking new freshman Full-time 5 -year 6 -year degreegrad rate seeking new (Sp 07) (Sp 08) freshman 1733 705 2734 56% 26% 56% 62% 33% 60% 5172 52% 54%

Subsequent Course Success Data Without & With MML & Redesign Success (A-B-C) in Second Course (within 3 semesters) Based on First Course Grade First Course Second Course % making A-B-C in second course % making A-B-C who made an in second course MACT A or B who made a C Group Filter in the first course Falls of 2001 -2004 (before redesign) / Falls of 2006 -2010 (after redesign) CA Trig [20, 24] 83% / 87% 58% / 53% CA Biz Calc [20, 24] 79% / 87% 51% / 53% Trig Calc I [25, 36] 81% / 82% 31% / 50% Precalc (A/T) Calc I [23, 36] 84% / 83% 54% / 49%

LSU College Readiness Program Overview • • High school teachers become “certified” in the program by successfully completing the summer workshop training requirements. Teachers have access to online content for their students for the specific course they specialize in at the workshop. Content is available online in MML for high school Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Advanced Math/Precalculus, Calculus, and 6 -8 th grade math. Teachers “certified” in Advanced Math/Precalculus have the option to complete additional workshops (1 fall and 1 spring) and teach courses for dual credit.

College Readiness Program Summer Workshop • Professional Development for 8 -days during the summer in LSU Math Lab The Plan • LSU faculty facilitator and 5 high school mentor teachers • Workshop content 1. Technology: My. Math. Lab by Pearson Education 2. Pedagogy: Redesigned course delivery 3. Content: Math homework for teachers

College Readiness Workshop Summer 2008

College Readiness Workshop Summer 2009

College Readiness Workshop Summer 2010

College Readiness Workshop Summer 2011

College Readiness Program Teachers Completing Training Summer 2006 - 2011 Su 06 Su 07 Su 08 Su 09 Su 10 Su 11 Course Adv Math Alg II AP Calc Geometry 8 th grade 7 th grade 6 th grade Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Total 4 12 22 19 6 4 67 1 12 20 5 38 4 9 12 4 29 19 6 5 30 12 4 16 2 77 79 2 1 3 1 2 3 TOTALS 4 12 27 59 61 102 265

Algebra I Post-Test Data Fall 2008 -Spring 2009

Algebra I EOC Data Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 60% 50% 2010 Traditional Model 40% 2011 LSU CRP with MML 30% 20% 10% 0% Scale- score Ranges 739 -800 700 -738 668 -699 600 -667 Achievement Level Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement

Dual Enrollment • The contents of the year-long high school Advanced Math/Precalculus course very closely align with the one semester 3 -credit-hour LSU Math 1021 College Algebra and the one semester 3 -credit-hour LSU Math 1022 Trigonometry. • Two additional courses are now being piloted on a limited basis: Math 1431 Business Calculus Math 1029 Contemporary Mathematics

Dual Enrollment • Students have same Homework, Quizzes, Tests, and Final Exam as LSU students using My. Math. Lab • Teachers present 1/3 of the face-to-face classroom time; students work 2/3 of the face-to-face time in a computer lab environment with teacher support

Dual Enrollment Fall 2006 – Fall 2011 # of high # of students # earning credit % earning credit schools teachers enrolled for in CA or Trig credit Fall 2006 3 3 41 27 66% Spring 2007 4 7 77 60 78% Fall 2007 11 14 397 242 61% Spring 2008 12 15 260 124 48% Spring 2010 2 2 28 22 79% 11 11 163 141 87% Spring 2011 11 12 179 147 82% Fall 2011 11 12 225 192 85% Fall 2010

Dual Enrollment Spring 2008

Elements of a Successful Redesign/Readiness/DE Program 1. Fixed, Structured Curriculum – course(s), contents, setup in MML, grading plan, dual credit, alignment 2. Stable, Sustained Delivery Method – appropriate 1: 2 ratio for lecture: lab plan 3. Extensive Teacher Training – multiple workshops, academic year follow-up 4. Well-defined Logistics Plan – administration, communication, student registration 5. Strong Institutional Support – roles, monitoring, release time for faculty 6. Adequate Technology – cost and setup of computer labs, purchasing of access codes 7. Scaling Options – piloting, growing, and expanding

Phoebe Rouse Precalculus Mathematics and College Readiness Program Director Louisiana State University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS