Upload
efuru
View
28
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tweaking the pilot. A Case Study from DVMT 100 at Frostburg State University Dr. Megan E. Bradley. DVMT 100. 3 credits, does not count toward graduation or GPA* Must take if need MATH 102 (College Algebra) or MATH 106 (Algebra with Calculus – Business majors) About 450 students per year - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Tweaking the pilotA Case Study from DVMT 100 at Frostburg State University
Dr. Megan E. Bradley
DVMT 100• 3 credits, does not count toward graduation
or GPA*
• Must take if need MATH 102 (College Algebra) or MATH 106 (Algebra with Calculus – Business majors)
• About 450 students per year• 1078% increase since inception in 1985• No budget increase
Course Issues• Failure rate with gender gap in DVMT 100:
• 41% failure rate overall• 44% rate for males; 35% rate for females
• Failure rate in next math course:COURSE DVMT DWF RATE
NON-DVMT DWF RATE
DIFFERENCE
MATH 102 56% 39% 16%
MATH 106 43% 33% 11%
Course Issues• Staffing issues
• Relied solely on undergraduate students to teach
• Course Drift• Delivery: ½ sections all face-to-face (f2f); other
½ all computer lab• Different textbook, syllabus, point system• No system for checking reliability of grading
What we did• Emporium Model done right
• 1 large lecture• Rest of time in lab
• Hired new staff member to serve as lead instructor• Undergraduates became ULAs, shifting role to lab
assistant
• Added material to help students in next math class
Pilot – spring ‘11• Traditional lecture
• all face-to-face (f2f) classes• no online work• taught by trained undergraduates• point system for course grade• 1 final exam but could have earned other points with previous
assignments to make final exam not have much weight• Redesign
• Lecture 1x/week by instructor & lab 4x/week with trained Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs) using ASAlgebra by Plato
• 3 modules & corresponding exams• Mastery learning – retake exams until passed
• Pass course by passing all 3 modules with 80% or higher• Extra credit for attending and doing online homework & evaluates
assessment• Pass/Fail rates• Scores on “core questions”
• Questions that show up on the redesign module exams & the final exams for the traditional sections
• Focus groups
Pilot results• Pass/fail
• Historical failure rate: : 41%
• Redesign failure rate: 47.2% which was significantly worse than…
• Traditional failure rate: 22.6%
• Males failed more than females
Pilot results• Core questions
• Difficult to use final grades due to different grading systems
• Considering all core questions, a one-way ANOVA of Type of Classroom (2: Redesign versus traditional) by Core Qs (All) was significant, F = 37.429, p = .000, eta2 = .327.
• Redesign students (X = 87.98%) performed significantly better than traditional students (X = 63.14%).
Pilot results• Core questions
• Below is a breakdown of core questions per module, • Students from the redesign section scored significantly
higher than traditional sections for all three modules:• M1: Redesign (X = 86.20%) > traditional (X=83.66%) • M2: Redesign (X = 84.90%) > traditional (X=74.07%) • M3: Redesign (X = 90.85%) > traditional (X=59.05%)
Pilot results• Regression indicated which of course
activities significantly related to student grade on core questions.• Attendance: correlated but weak• Online homework: correlated but weak• Online evaluates: strongly correlated
• Homework & evaluates: needed 80% to pass and move on• Evaluates: Often only had 4 questions so needed
to get perfect score.
Additional results• We examined students’ time on task and
when they were using software.• Reviewed focus group suggestions.• Compared student performance on certain
items in traditional sections.• Created hypotheses and tested them out as
best as we could.• Reassessed the team
Issues & tweaks1. Students compared DVMT
100 sections.
2. Redesign students did not effectively use their lab time wisely.
3. Redesign students did not have enough deadlines – 1x/module, night before exam.
4. Students fell behind next module while retaking previous module exam.
1. Fall 2011 – full implementation.
2. Changed lab to 2x/wk and used technology to block other sites.
3. Created several deadlines with last deadline before test review day.
4. Added retake week after Mod1.
Issues & tweaks1. The grading system in the
redesign confused students.
2. Redesign students found and exploited a loophole about retaking modules next semester.
3. Lab assistants were scattered across different labs.
4. No pedagogy to address gender gap.
1. Revised to be based on weights that required and rewarded important course aspects.
2. Modified retaking of modules.
3. Assigned lab assistants.
4. Created Train Your Brain Program
Issues & tweaks1. Failure rate on first
version of module exam was very poor:
• Mod1 = 27% passed• Mod2 = 20% passed• Mod3 = 17% passed
1. Implemented PreModule Exam
• Earn 85% or higher – no need to take Module exam
• Reward studying & doing well
•Fall 2011 pass/fail rate• 20.3% failure rate overall• 19.7% rate for males; 21.3% rate for females• Gender analyses NOT statistically significant.
Full implementation results
• Remember this?• Failure rate with gender gap:
• 41% failure rate overall• 44% rate for males; 35% rate for females• Pilot redesign failure rate: 47.2%
W FX F NC P0
102030405060708090
GRADE
GRADE
Why Stop There?
assessment• Score on pre-test in next math class
• Non-DVMT• Redesign DVMT• Traditional DVMT
Pre-Test in Next Math Course
Math Level Student Type Pre-Test Score
ML 3, 4 Eligible for Pre-Cal or Calculus 63%
ML 2 Eligible for College Algebra Repeating the Course 67%
ML 2 Eligible for College AlgebraFirst Time Students 62%
ML 1 DVMT 100 Redesign Graduates 60%
ML 1 Traditional DVMT 100 Graduates 51%
Why Stop There?
assessment• Final grades in next math class
• Who passed with a C or higher?
ALL S
TUDEN
TS
NON-DVMT
TRAD
ITIONAL
DVMT
DVMT R
EDES
IGN
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
0.56
% PASSED
% PASSED BY GROUP
ALL S
TUDEN
TS
NON-DVMT
TRAD
ITIONAL
DVMT
DVMT R
EDES
IGN
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
56%
35%
% PASSED
% PASSED BY GROUP
ALL S
TUDEN
TS
NON-DVMT
TRAD
ITIONAL
DVMT
DVMT R
EDES
IGN
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
56%
35%24%
% PASSED
% PASSED BY GROUP
ALL S
TUDEN
TS
NON-DVMT
TRAD
ITIONAL
DVMT
DVMT R
EDES
IGN
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
56%
35%24%
41%
% PASSED
% PASSED BY GROUP
HIST
ORIC
AL N
ON-D
VMT
NON-
DVMT
HIST
ORIC
AL D
VMT
DVMT
RED
ESIG
N
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
0.380.56
FAILURE RATE MATH 102
FAILURE RATE FOR MATH 102
HIST
ORIC
AL N
ON-D
VMT
NON-
DVMT
HIST
ORIC
AL D
VMT
DVMT
RED
ESIG
N
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
38%53% 56%
42%
FAILURE RATE MATH 102
FAILURE RATE FOR MATH 102
Impact of changes• Deadlines = large % students completed
deadlines• Weights & lab changes = better attendance
and time on task• Train Your Brain = no gender gap, better
performance overall
Impact of changes1. Failure rate on first
version of module exam was very poor:
• Mod1 = 27% passed• Mod2 = 20% passed• Mod3 = 17% passed
1. PreModule Exam results• Module 1
• Premod: 36% passed• Version 1: 72% passed
• Module 2• Premod: 16.2% passed• Version 1: 60% passed
• Module 3• Premod: 18.3% passed• Version 1: 53% passed
Overall recommendations
• Look, look, look.• Add structure.• Improve based on evidence (from pilot, from
other redesigns, from published research)• Add psychology
• Provide incentives• Spacing effect• Practice effect• Mastery learning
Your reward