A Report on Choosing an Online Homework Delivery System N. Leveille March 3, 2008 CMS Seminar

CMS Seminar March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  University of Houston-Downtown  Wireless campus  Open-admissions  Diverse student population  Urban  Mid-sized (11,297 students Spring 2008)  Mandate to improve from university administration  pass rate  student satisfaction

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  Department course materials for College Algebra Math 1301  student syllabus  textbook  homework assignments  final exam review sheet  required, comprehensive, multiple-choice, 40 question final exam

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  The Process Leading to Change  CMS Faculty criteria for revising curriculum (Stimpson et al., 2001)  A conceptual orientation (MAA-CUPM, 2005)  Real world applications  Meaningful incorporation of technology  Active student participation (Seeley, 2004)  Improved student understanding  In order to increase the time and effort students  spend on homework  study for tests  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) designed by UHD and CMS based on State of Texas Core Competencies for new learning objectives (Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, Shoup, and Gonyea, 2007)  Modeling with functions  Reasoning appropriately  Interpreting and using function notation

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System The change in the homework process was part of a major redesign effort to modernize the course and include best practices from current research literature.  Identified as one of three key bottleneck courses in the university’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)  Data driven  Longitudinal study  Collaborative effort

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System IT concerns  Support personnel neither available nor trained to support potentially large numbers of students needing IT support  Confidentiality and record retention issues Concerns resolved  All publisher finalists were willing to provide ongoing support  All publisher finalists were in the process of upgrading their access and security procedures

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System A sample of publisher web sites:    

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System Math 1301 Pass Rates (Waller, 2005, 2007; *Leveille, 2007) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fall 1998 Spring 1999 Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall % 37% 35% 29% 39% N=908 N=786 N=977 N=595 N=976 Spring 2001 Fall 2001 Spring 2002 Fall 2002 Spring % 37% 32% 36% 35% N=809 N=1036 N=801 N=962 N=832 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006* Fall % 38% 44% 56% 48% N=1035 N=1053 N=1023 N=623

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  College Algebra Pass Rates During Pilot Study  Fall % Traditional Online Homework 51%63%  Spring % Traditional Online Homework 50%57%

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  Comparison in Spring 2007 Pass Rates Students Passing Students Passing % Passing RockswoldSections109/16865% Non- Rockswold Sections248/51848%

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  Available to College Algebra students as of Fall 2007  Supplemental Instruction (Gardner, Barefoot, & Swing, 2001)  Mandatory hours in study sessions (selected sections)  Online practice quiz to obtain chapter study plans  Online homework  Online grade book  Publisher’s online resources

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System  Online materials in development Spring 2008  Additional types of homework problems  Chapter quizzes  Chapter Reviews  Tests

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System The future will show if the department has truly utilized a sustainable approach (Hargreaves, 2007) consistent with changes proposed by such organizations as the  American Mathematical Association (2005)  American Mathematical Association of Two- Year Colleges (2006)  National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000).

March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System References American Association of Two-Year Colleges. (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing mathematics standards in the first two years of college. Memphis, TN: Author. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Notes from the Webinar “Sustainable school improvement.” Retrieved April 9, 2007, from the Kappa Delta Pi e-Chapter Web site: Gardner, J., Barefoot, B., and Swing, R. (2001). Guidelines for evaluating: The first-year experience at four- year colleges (2 nd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition. 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 from the NSSE, and the institutional practices and conditions that foster student success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Bloomington, Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from: Leveille, N. (2007, October 12). Choosing a Web Based Homework Delivery System. Paper presented at the 2007Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Educators in Texas. Mathematical Association of America Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics. (2005). Develop mathematical thinking and communication skills. Retrieved July 6, 2005, from the MAA- CUPM Web site: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council. Seeley, C. (2004). Engagement as a tool for equity. NCTM News Bulletin, 41(4), 3. Stimpson, V., D’Ambrosio, B., Fernandez, C., Grouws, D., Lester, F., Najee-Ullah, D., Reys, R., and Thorpe, J. (2001). Supporting communities of inquiry and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), Waller, W. (2007). Math Houston, TX: University of Houston-Downtown, QEP internal memorandum. Waller, W. (2005). Results. Houston, TX: University of Houston-Downtown, Department of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, internal memorandum.

CMS Seminar March 3, Choosing a Homework Delivery System N. Leveille Research funded by a Quality Enhancement Plan Curriculum Development Grant