LSU Course Redesign Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State University

LSU Course Redesign Phoebe Rouse Louisiana State University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Baton Rouge, LA

Redesign Program Goals and Keys • R 2 R: Roadmap to Redesign (Fall 2004 -Spring 2007) • Goals of Redesign: To use technology To reduce personnel costs To continue/improve current success rates • Pedagogical Keys of Redesign: Active Student Learning Experience Personalized, Individualized Instruction Immediate Feedback 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 (College Algebra and Trig, 5 credit hours) • 400 Fall • 50 Spring

A. Flexible Lab Model (Fall and Spring only) Class at fixed time • CA – 1 hour per week – 40 students • Trig – 1 hour per week – 160 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 – 5 hours minimum each week • Do homework, do quizzes, read ebook, watch videos

B. Early Completion Model (Fall and Spring only) • 1 section each of College Algebra and Trig • Sections capped at 200 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 • 3 fixed hours in lab required per cycle • Lab open 8 hours each cycle

Assessments • All homework, quizzes, tests, and final exam using My. Math. Lab • Test in university testing center • Grade Distribution(modified for EC and Su) 10% Participation (5% class and 5% lab) 10% Homework (drop lowest 2/3) 10% Quizzes (drop the lowest 2) 45% Tests (4/5) 25% Final (can replace lowest test score)

Pleasant Hall Math Lab Fall 2005

PH Basement Math Lab Fall 2006

PH Basement Side Room Fall 2007

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 & LL Sections with MML 3347 71% Fall 2005 Trad, LL with MML, & R 2 R with MML 2506 54% Fall 2006 R 2 R Sections with MML 1724 75% Fall 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 1739 67% Fall 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 1772 68% Fall 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 1556 72%

Trig Fall Results # of students enrolled ABC Rate Fall 2001 Traditional Sections 1277 59% Fall 2002 Traditional Sections 1150 56% Fall 2003 Traditional Sections 1015 62% 892 61% Fall 2005 XLg Lecture w/ MML 1350 55% Fall 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML 1234 63% Fall 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 1168 64% Fall 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 1231 69% Fall 2009 R 2 R Sections with MML 1131 69% Fall 2004 XLg Lecture w/ Maple. TA

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 R 2 R Pilot with MML 61% 196 47% Spring 2006 R 2 R Sections with MML 67% 567 59% Spring 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 71% 384 55% Spring 2008 R 2 R 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/ Maple. TA * 1252 69% Spring 2006 XLg Lecture w/ MML * 1030 57% Spring 2007 R 2 R Sections with MML 60% 967 62% Spring 2008 R 2 R Sections with MML 67% 791 60% *No exam median recorded.

“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

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!

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 DETAILS

Contact Info Phoebe Rouse LSU prouse@lsu. edu NCAT Redesign Scholar My. Math. Lab Faculty Advocate

Precalculus Fall Results # of students ABC enrolled 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 286 81%

Precalculus Spring Results Exam Median # 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 64% 40 48% Spring 2007 R 2 R Section with MML 79% 22 68% Spring 2008 R 2 R Section with MML 73% 37 43% *No exam median recorded.

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 (R 2 R Manual) 4. Pre-semester Meeting for All Teaching

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