CHOOSING AN= ON-LINE HOMEWORK DELIVERY SYSTEM:
IMPROVING P= ASS RATES THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
Nancy Levei= lle
University = of Houston-Downtown
Computer and Mathematical Sciences Department; S705
One Main St= reet
Houston, Te= xas 77002-1001
U. S. A.
Introduction
In an effort to increase = the time and effort students spend on homework, learning activities, and studying for tests, a College Algebra textbook along with its on-line homework delivery system was recently adopted at a wireless, diverse, mid-sized, urban, open admissions university. The change was part of a major redesign effort to in= clude best practices from current research literature into the course. This paper= describes the selection process and some results from incorporating a publisher's on-= line materials into the course at The University, a pseudonym. Due to our College Algebra success, similar processes are being applied to the selection of textbooks and on-line homework delivery systems for other courses.
The College Algebra Course
College Algebra is a core curriculum requirement for many college degrees. The catalog description for this course includes "topics in algebra including variation, systems of equations and inequalities, nonlinear inequalities, functions and their gra= phs, lines, quadratic equations and functions, the algebra of functions, an introduction to plane analytic geometry and applications" (The Univers= ity, 2007, p. 142). Very few of the students who start their college work at The University place out of this course. A faculty committee annually revises t= he department course materials: (a) syllabus, (b) student syllabus, (c) textbook, (d) suggested homework assignments, (e) final exam review sheet, and (f) requir= ed, comprehensive, 40 multiple-choice question, final examinations. Grades are assigned for averages: 90 - 100 A, 80 - 89 B, 70 - 79 C, 60 - 69 D, and F f= or below 60 or when the final exam score is less than 50. A student passes Col= lege Algebra with at least a D. However, a C or better is the prerequisite for additional mathematics courses.
Longitudinal Study
Two faculty members, unha= ppy with the general lack of student success in their College Algebra sections, star= ted to investigate the pass rate problem in 1994. The semester pass rate is calculated by dividing the number of students who pass the course by the nu= mber of students on the official 12th day rolls. The pass rates, base= d on grades of A, B, or C, for the fall semesters of 1998 through 2004 fluctuated from 35% to 39% with approximately 1000 students in 30 sections each year. = Spring semester pass rates, from 1999 through 2003, fluctuated from 29% to 37% with enrollments around 800 students (Waller 2005).
After reviewing various c= ollege algebra textbooks the two researchers concluded that a simple book change w= ould not be sufficient. The available textbooks in the 1990s seemed similar to u= sing a traditional approach that repeated high school algebra with learning thro= ugh rote imitation of exercises. They decided to develop non-traditional College Algebra curriculum materials. They focused on a motivational approach to the lear= ning process that included: (a) a conceptual orientation, (b) real world applications, and (c) meaningful use of technology as an integral part of t= he course. The teaching materials were continuously revised and made available= to other interested faculty members. In comparison to those using a traditional approach, statistically significantly higher pass rates were consistently obtained by more and more sections as other faculty began using these new materials. For example, one class with 29 students achieved a 55% pass rate= in the spring 2005 semester (Leveille, 2008).
While these efforts were underway, there were other interventions and forces to improve the pass rat= es. As part of The University's accreditation process, in the spring 2006 semester, College Algebra was identified as one of three high enrolment, high-attriti= on courses having a significantly negative impact on student success. The University response resulted in a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) which offe= red various initiatives and interventions designed to improve learning outcomes (The University, 2006). As a result, changes in the course were mandated by= forces outside the department. A change process for College Algebra was developed = over several years in an effort to include all stakeholders in a collaborative effort. Though many aspects of the changes were data driven, choices were decided in the department by the faculty. A major accomplishment of this ch= ange process was the selection of a textbook which includes a motivational appro= ach to learning, similar to the experimental materials that had been successful earlier, as well as on-line technology support.
Choosing a Textbook
In 2006, a mathematics fa= culty committee was formed to select a book that would support the learning objectives listed in the QEP documents, such as: (a) modeling with function= s, (b) reasoning appropriately, and (c) interpreting and using function notati= on (The University, 2006). All mathematics department faculty members were ask= ed for input and 31 different textbooks and/or online homework delivery systems were suggested. The materials came from 8 different publishers. The book co= mmittee members attended conferences and reported on various publisher's textbooks = and on-line products. Meanwhile, at open meetings throughout the year, several publishe= rs presented their books and on-line products to the faculty. It was decided t= hat pilot testing would be necessary to know which books would be successful wi= th our students. A mix of traditional and motivational approach books were cho= sen by the volunteer faculty for the pilots. During the fall 2006 semester, the= re were 9 pilot sections using 4 new books out of 31 sections of College Algeb= ra. In spring 2007, 13 of the 27 sections used 5 new books.
Table 1 shows pass rate d= ata for the pilot study year comparing traditional to on-line homework options. Usi= ng grades submitted to the department by the faculty, the pass rate was calcul= ated based on D or better (60 - 100) grades. Passing rates of 56% and 52% indica= te an improvement over the previous statistics. More importantly, Table 1 highlights the positive impact of on-line technology usage with differences= of 7 - 12% .
There was a statistically significant difference (a =3D 0.0= 5) for one textbook, with its associated on-line technology, in particular. For the spring 2007 semester, the 65% pass rate for students registered in sections using "The book" was 3.9 standard deviations above the mean, while only 48% of the students passed in other sections. Another corroborating re= sult with "The book" was that the Learners Community section "had= an outstanding C or better passing rate of 82%, with a final exam average of 85" (Waller, 2007). For details about Learners Communities or Suppleme= ntal Instruction, see articles in Gardner, Barefoot, and Swing (2001), Levine (1999), or Martin and Arendale (1994). The textbook committee narrowed the = list for final consideration to the pilot-tested books. The Pre-calculus Committ= ee carefully considered input from the department, the QEP Committee, and curr= ent research literature (American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, 2006; Mathematical Association of America, 2005; National Council of Teache= rs of Mathematics, 2000). They unanimously voted for "The book." The book chosen for the department utilizes a motivational approach and had demonstrated (a) success, (b) adaptability to varying faculty preferences, = and (c) openness to a modern approach that promotes active learning.
Table 1
College Algebra Pass Rates During Pilot Study
_________________________= _______________________________________________
2006 fall pass rate 56%
____________________________________________________________________=
________________________________________
&=
nbsp;
&= nbsp; Traditional Online homework = ; &n= bsp; Traditional Online homework
____________________________________________________________________=
________________________________________
Fall 51% &= nbsp; 63% &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Spring 50% &= nbsp; 57%
N =3D623 194/379 154/244 &= nbsp; N=3D686 232/466 125/220
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; ______________________________________________________
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Other books The book
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 48% &= nbsp; 65%
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 248/518 &= nbsp; 109/168
______________________________________________________= __________________
During the pilot year, as= many of the books had an online component, the Instructional Technology Department = (IT) was consulted. Two main IT concerns were raised. One concern was the potentially large numbers of students who might require IT support if on-li= ne homework were required of all College Algebra students. This was alleviated when the publishers under final consideration agreed to provide training for mathematics department faculty and staff as well as comprehensive student support. Further, the department agreed to support and update its computer = labs as necessary. The second concern was with confidentiality and records reten= tion issues. This was resolved when the publishers under final consideration upgraded their access and security procedures.
Some First Year Results
Before the start of the f= all 2007 semester, many faculty, staff, and Supplemental Instruction Leaders attended various training sessions in order to become familiar with the new on-line homework system. The department student syllabus was revised to contain both the textbook homework and the on-line homework directions. A department on-= line coordinator course was developed to include chapter quizzes for obtaining individualized study plans, homework, grade book, and other publisher's resources. Faculty copied and made the department on-line course materials = available to students in all 26 sections offered that semester. For those faculty who= initially did not choose to incorporate the on-line materials, student requests for a= ccess proved sufficiently motivating to obtain and provide a Course ID code for t= he section to the students. As it was the only new course intervention, the on-line materials are assumed to have contributed to the upward trend in the Final Exam Average as seen in Figure 1. A course Final Exam average of 68 in the fall 2007 semester was the latest available and highest.
Figure 1
Individualized training w=
as
provided in the spring 2008 semester for faculty new to the chosen publishe=
r's
on-line materials. Additional types of homework problems, quizzes, reviews,=
and
tests were incorporated into the on-line materials. Again the department
on-line coordinator course was copied and made available to students in all=
27
sections. Faculty in 16 of the sections are now counting the on-line homewo=
rk
grade in their course average. With the on-line homework counting for 0-17%=
of
a student's grade, there was a great variability in implementing the on-line
homework component of the course. Since various homework assignment and gra=
ding
philosophies still co-exist in the department, the faculty acceptance of
on-line support is not universal. With students embracing the on-line
technology, regardless of faculty orientation, the Spring 2008 College Alge=
bra
grades (N =3D 729) are 9% A, 12% B, 20% C, 12% D, 35% F, and 12% W. These r=
esult
in a 41% A, B, or C pass rate along with a 53% A, B, C, or D pass rate.
References
American Mathematical Ass=
ociation
of Two-Year Colleges. (2006). Beyond
crossroads:
= ; Implementing mathematics standards in the first two years of college. Memphis,
<= /span>TN: Author.
Gardner, J., Barefoot, B.=
, and
Swing, R. (2001). Guidelines for
evaluating: The first-year
= ; experience at four-year colleges (2nd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South
<= /span>Carolina , National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students
<=
/span>in
Transition.
Leveille, N. (2008). Choo=
sing a
web based homework delivery system. ACET
Journal of
= ; Computer Education and Research, 5(1). Retrieved May 13, 2008, from &= nbsp; http://www.texasacet.org/journal/ACETJournal_Vol5/ACETJournalVol5.html=
Levine, J. (Ed.). (1999).=
Learning communities: New structures, =
new
partnerships for
= ; learning (Monograph No. 26). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
<= /span>National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience.
Martin, D., and Arendale,=
D.
(Eds.). (1994). Supplemental instru=
ction:
Increasing
= ; achievement and retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mathematical Association =
of
America. (2005). Develop mathematic=
al
thinking and
= ; communication skills. Retrieved July 6, 2005, from the MAA-CUPM Web site:
<= /span>http://www.maa.org/cu= pm/ill_ref/part1/2.html
National Council of Teach=
ers of
Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
standards for
= ; school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
The University. (2006). Revised quality enhancement plan: Stud=
ent
engagement through
= ; active learning strategies, August 2006. Houston, TX: Author.
The University. (2007). Catalog. Retrieved May 14, 2008, f= rom = http://global.dt.uh.edu:8080= /catalog/
Waller, W. (2005). Results. Houston, TX: The Universi= ty, internal memorandum.
Waller, W. (2007). Math 1301. Houston, TX: The Univer= sity, QEP internal memorandum.