Choosing a Web Based Homework Delivery System
Nancy Levei= lle
University = of Houston-Downtown
Abstract
&= nbsp; This study presents the implementation process, using best practices, for choosi= ng a web based homework delivery system undergone by one department at a wireles= s, diverse, mid-sized, urban, open-admissions university in the southwestern United Sta= tes. The topics in College Algebra are similar to those in courses taught worldw= ide. Though changes were mandated by outside forces, choices were made by the faculty at the department level. Many aspects of the changes were data driv= en. The process of implementation was developed over several years due to the necessity of making refinements as well as to the desire of including all stakeholders in the collaborative effort. The successful implementation of homework assignments transitioning from hardcopy format to a web based form= at are expected to have at least two worthwhile outcomes: (a) students will be more successful in the course due to the continuous availability of online assistance, and (b) faculty workload will be decreased due to a reduction in the amount of homework grading.
Introduction<= /b>
&nbs= p; Several departments at The University, a pseudonym, have recently adopted web based ho= mework delivery systems. More particularly, several courses in the mathematics department at The University have recently offered faculty the option of assigning student homework in a hardcopy or in a web based format. The proc= ess undergone for choosing the web based homework delivery system for the Colle= ge Algebra course will here be discussed in detail. The change in the homework process was part of a major redesign effort to modernize the course and inc= lude best practices from current research literature. In order to increase the t= ime and effort students spend on homework, study for tests, and work on the cou= rse in general, the use of a publisher's online materials is being incorporated into the course.
Problem
&nbs= p; College Algebra, or our alternate College Mathematics for Liberal Arts, is the Math 1314 minimum core curriculum requirement for baccalaureate degrees in the state's public colleges and universities. During January 1999 the university administration informed the department that the pass rates for the foundati= ons courses, known elsewhere as remedial or developmental, needed to increase t= o at least 60%. The pass rates for the courses were not known by the faculty in = the department. Some, but not all, individual teachers calculate their own pass rates for the sections they teach. However, in order to know the pass rates, they needed to be calculated. The College Algebra pass rates were investiga= ted along with the two foundation courses pass rates (See Table 1 for the known= College Algebra Pass Rates). When the pass rates were reported (Waller, 2004, 2006)=
Table 1
College Algebr= a Pass Rates
______________________________________________________= __________________
Fall 1998 Spring 1999 Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 Fall 2001
37% &= nbsp; 37%<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> = 35% = 29% = 39% = 33% = 37%
N=3D908 N=3D786 = N=3D977 &nbs= p; N=3D595 = N=3D976 N=3D809 &nbs= p; N=3D1036
Spring 2002 &nbs= p; Fall 2002 Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005
32% = 36% = 35% = 39% = 38% = 44%
N=3D801 = N=3D962 &nbs= p; N=3D832 &nbs= p; N=3D1035 &nb= sp; N=3D1053 N=3D1023
______________________________________________________= __________________
there was great concern. There were fluctuations in th= e pass rate for College Algebra, but with such low pass rates, it was acting as a gatekeeper course.
The Process L=
eading
to Change
&= nbsp; Two faculty members, unhappy about the general lack of student success in their= College Algebra sections, had started to investigate the problem in 1994. They concluded that a minor change such as a change in the textbook would not be sufficient because the available textbooks at the time were all very similar and just repeated high school curriculum. They undertook the task of devisi= ng a new college algebra curriculum. Some of their criteria were: (a) a conceptu= al orientation, (b) real world applications, and (c) meaningful incorporation = of technology as an integral part of the course. They wrote new college algebr= a materials with a unifying functions approach and continuously revised them over sever= al years teaching College Algebra. Discussing their materials with others in t= he department, over time they were able to recruit more faculty members to uti= lize their materials. Statistically significantly higher pass rates were consistently obtained in the sections using these modern curriculum materia= ls compared to those whose teachers used a traditional approach. For example, a 55% pass rate with n=3D29 was achieved in the spring 2005 semester by one s= ection using the newly developed curriculum.
&nbs= p; As part of The University accreditation process, in the Spring 2006, a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) was developed that identified College Algebra as one= of the three "key 'bottleneck' courses, i. e. high enrolment, high-attrit= ion courses that have a significant impact on student success" (Waller, 20= 06). In the summer of 2006, a College Algebra Textbook Selection Sub-committee w= as formed by a department Assistant Chairperson. The committee was charged with selecting a book that would meet the needs of new learning objectives outli= ned in the QEP documents (The University, 2006). The accreditation committee's = required changes were based upon current research reports such as "Connecting t= he Dots: Multifaceted Analysis of the Relationship between Student Engagement Results from the NSSE, and the Institutional Practices and Conditions That Foster Student Success" (Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, Shoup and Gonyea, 2007). =
&nbs= p; Changes required by the accreditation agency and proponents for change within the mathematics department were in agreement. The process of changing College Algebra, though mandated for accreditation, met some resistance in the department. The four-member College Algebra Textbook Selection Sub-committe= e proceeded carefully.
The Change Pr=
ocess
&nbs= p; The change process itself had really begun years before the charge to change the textbook. However, the new sub-committee was looking for a textbook with features that support the official learning objectives, mandated in the QEP documents, such as:
(a) modeling with functions, (b) reasoning appropriate= ly, and (c) interpreting and using function notation. A textbook with a modern approach that promotes active learning in college algebra was needed. Suggestions for textbook to be considered were solicited from all department faculty members.
&nbs= p; The response to the sub-committee's request for faculty to volunteer for a pilot study using new books was very positive. In the fall 2006 semester, four new books were used by a total of six different faculty members in a total of n= ine different sections. That left about two-thirds of the sections to use the traditional, official department textbook. In the spring 2007 semester, six= new books were used by a total of eight different faculty members in a total of= 13 sections which was about half of the total sections offered. The committee reviewed the 31 textbooks on the official October 30, 2006 list and several added in the spring semester. The listed books came from eight different publishers. The sub-committee chairperson, and others, attended presentatio= ns of the publishers' on-line products at several conferences and reported bac= k to the committee. Meanwhile, several publishers presented their books and on-l= ine products to the faculty at department meetings throughout the year.
&nbs= p; There were two main concerns from the Instructional Technology Department. First, personnel were neither available nor trained to support the potentially lar= ge number of new students who might require IT support due to the availability= of a new online homework system for College Algebra. Second, the publisher wou= ld have full control over student data and thus there were confidentiality and records retention issues. The first concern was alleviated because all the publishers under final consideration were willing to provide training for mathematics department faculty and staff. The mathematics department agreed= to support and update its computer labs as needed. The second concern was reso= lved because the publishers upgraded their access and security procedures.
Results
&= nbsp; The College Algebra pass rates during the year of pilot-testing new textbooks showed dramatic differences ( See Table 2). With one section of College Alg= ebra per semester listed in the course offerings as a Computer Based Section, mo= st students randomly select their course sections. Though students may prefer = to study with a teacher
Table 2
College Algebr=
a Pass
Rates During Pilot Study
______________________________________________________= _________________
Fall 2006 = &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Spring 2007
56 % = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; 52%
______________________=
_______________________ &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; _____________________________________________
On-line Homework = Traditional &= nbsp; &nbs= p; On-li= ne Homework = ; Traditional
63% &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = 51% &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 57% &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 50%
______________________________________________________= __________________
they have been successful with in previous courses, the choices are made with consideration mainly for their work and family commitments. Faculty rotate through the departments course offerings with a= few specializing in College Algebra as one of their courses.
&nbs= p; This was an especially successful year due to either a strong student population, the Hawthorn effect, or some other factors that have not yet been investiga= ted. A more detailed look at the pass rates show a statistically significant difference (a=3D0.05) for one tex= tbook in particular (See Table 3). With a pass rate of 65%, sections using the Rocks= wold textbook with MyMathLab Homework assignments were 3.9 standard
Table 3
Rockswold with
MyMathLab Comparison for Spring 2007
______________________________________________________= __________________
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Number of Students Passing = % Passing =
Rockswold Sections&nbs= p; &= nbsp; 109/168 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 65%
Non-Rockswold Sections= 248/518 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 43%
______________________________________________________= __________________
deviations above the 50% mean of the pass rates. This = result was not known at the time of the sub-committees' decision.
&nbs= p; The choice of department text book was made before the spring semester course results were known in order to place the book order for the fall 2007 semes= ter. Department members were solicited for input via an On-line Mathematics Materials Comfort Survey and all current College Algebra faculty were asked for input through the Math 1301 Textbook Questionnaire 200720. The sub-committee met = at the end of the academic year and agreed to narrow the list for final consideration to those books that had been pilot-tested. It was from this l= ist that the sub-committee unanimously voted for the Rockswold book to become t= he department textbook starting in the fall of 2007. Their decision was made a= fter careful consideration of input from the department, the QEP Committee, and = current research literature (American Association of Two-Year Colleges, 2006; Koller & Baumert, 2001; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000).
&= nbsp; Faculty, staff, and Supplemental Instruction Leaders attended various training sessi= ons in order to become familiar with the new on line homework system for the fa= ll semester. The department coordinator course is being copied and utilized in= 23 of the 27 sections of College Algebra offered this semester. The future will show if the department has truly utilized a sustainable approach (Hargreave= s, 2007).
References
American Association of Two-Year Colleges. (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing
&= nbsp; mathematics standards in the first two years of college. Memphis, TN: Author.
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Notes from 5-9-07 Webinar "Sustainable school improvement."
&nbs= p; Retrieved April 9, 2007, from the kappa Delta Pi e-Chapter Web site: http:
&= nbsp; www.kdp.org
Koller, O., and Baumert, J. (2001). Does interest matt= er? The relationship between
&nbs=
p; academic
interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal
for Research in
&= nbsp; Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448-470.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., and Gonyea,=
R.
(2007). Connecting the dots: Multi-faceted
analyses of the relationship between student engagement results
&=
nbsp; from
the NSSE, and the institutional practices and conditions that foster studen=
t
&= nbsp; success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Bloomington, Center for
&nbs= p; Postsecondary Research. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from: http://nsse= .iub.edu/pdf/connecting_the_dots_report.pdf
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for
&= nbsp; school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
Rockswold, G. (2006).= College algebra with modelin= g and visualization (3rd ed.), Boston:
&nbs= p; Pearson.
The University. (2006). Revised
quality enhancement plan: Student engagement through
&= nbsp; active learning strategies, August 2006. Houston, TX: Author.
Waller, W. (2004). Course Statistics. Houston, TX: The University, Department of
&nbs= p; Computer and Mathematical Sciences, internal memorandum.
Waller, W. (2006). QEP
Bottleneck Course/Supplemental Instruction Formative
&= nbsp; Symposium. Houston, TX: The University, internal memorandum.