1. Michael J. Badolato, EdD, Senior Academic Technology Officer Middlesex Community College | Bedford and Lowell MA

2. RAMP-up Foundations 2  R eview  A chieve  M aster  P rogress

3. RAMP-up Foundations  Inspiration for Redesign American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) 3

4. RAMP-up Foundations 4  Core Team Four faculty members (‘Core Four’) ○ Educational specifications ○ Redesign strategy ○ Curriculum integration ○ Training Two administrators ○ Support Core Four ○ Make it so!

5. RAMP-up Foundations 5  Dean of Math & Sciences Faculty and program administrator Oversee program development Curriculum integration across the college Faculty contract Enrollment management Assessment of educational effectiveness

6. RAMP-up Foundations 6  My Role as SATO Academic technologist and administrator Integration: Academic, IT, Facilities Learning space design and development Project manager Vendor relations Assessment of technology and the learning environment

7. RAMP-up Foundations  Redesign Goals Provide students with the opportunity to progress through the developmental math sequence in fewer semesters Enable students to close gaps in Mathematics knowledge Increase retention, successful completion and content mastery at the 73% level 7

8. RAMP-up Foundations  Redesign Strategy Learner–centered approach Teacher as facilitator Integrated technology Embedded support Increased time on task Convergence of course delivery models 8

9. “Redesign the Experience” 9

10. RAMP-up vs. Traditional Delivery The old steps:The new ramp: Fundamentals Algebra I Algebra II

11. RAMP-up Program Preparation for College Level Math  Launched Spring 2011 – 424 students  Fall 2011 – 1787  Spring 2012 – 1522  Non-lecture format  Students work on math 100% of the time  Students can be working in any module, on any topic, at any time. 11

12. RAMP-up Program 12  Content from the 3-course developmental math sequence is “chunked” into 12 units or modules.  Modules are contained in course shells and mapped to existing math courses: Modules 1-4 ≈ Fundamentals Modules 5-8 ≈ Algebra I Modules 9-12 ≈ Algebra II  Shell Courses: MAT-001, 002, 003  Students are in class 4 hours per week 3 class hours + 1 mandatory lab

13. RAMP-up Program 13  Students must complete at least 4 modules in a semester to receive a passing grade.  Students do not need to redo modules.  Students may complete all 12 modules in one semester and be eligible to enroll in higher-level courses.

14. RAMP-up Program 14 Materials  Pearson MyMathLab - plus  Student Instructional Guide Vocabulary Critical thinking skills  Student Syllabus and Policy Manual  Faculty Training Manual

15. Methods & Structure 15 Laboratory Classroom computer-driven instructor-facilitated Laboratory Classroom computer-driven instructor-facilitated Self-Paced modular mastery-based Self-Paced modular mastery-based Online myMathLab-plus LMS web-based Online myMathLab-plus LMS web-based Embedded Support tutoring mandatory lab Embedded Support tutoring mandatory lab

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20 Convergence

21. The RAMP-up Environment What would you see in a RAMP-up classroom?  Up to 30 students seated at computer pods working in MyMathLab.  Instructor and tutor helping individual students or small groups.  Students helping each other 21

22. The RAMP-up Environment  Educational Specifications Technology intensive Paper, pencil, and workbook No lecture – teacher and tutor as facilitators 30 students per class Provide for small group work Additional testing/overflow stations ADA accommodations (5%) Promote calm and focus 22

23. The RAMP-up Environment 23

24. The RAMP-up Environment 24

25. The RAMP-up Environment 25

26. The RAMP-up Environment 26

27. Institutional Challenges  Curriculum and Teaching  Faculty and Staff Buy-in  Technology and Facilities  Training and Support  Funding  Advising  Program requirements  Long-term Commitment  Ripple Effect 27

28. Collaboration!  Math Department  Academic Technology  Academic Support  Finance  Information Technology  Facilities Management  Enrollment Management 28

29. Commitment!  No turning back!  ROI not initially evident  Iterative process  High tolerance for change required! 29

30. Lessons Learned to Date  More than the curriculum is changed  Learner-centered orientation takes time  Students do not work outside of class  Roles expand as project progresses  Pedagogical culture shifts 30

31. Lessons Learned to Date  Clarity is a work-in-progress  Confusion is imminent  True cross-functional projects actually work! 31

32. Outcomes to Date  Attendance policy successful  Observed increase of time-on-task  Students excited at progress/attitude  Improved self-esteem and attitude  Engagement! 32

33. Outcomes to Date Overall Success Rates (C or Better) 33 Spring 2009Spring 2010Spring 2011 50%49%58% Summer 2009Summer 2010Summer2011 56%61%63% Fall 2009Fall 2010Fall 2011 51%52%68% DEVELOPMENTAL MATHRAMP-UP

34. Outcomes to Date Fundamentals of Math Placement  Traditional Sections, Fall 2010 53% Success Rate (C or Better)  RAMP-up Sections, Fall 2011 68% Succeeded or Exceeded (11%) Success = module set EQUIVALENT to or exceeding highest placement test 34

35. HIGHEST MODULE ACHIEVED N% 08512% 19914% 2223% 3294% 419427% 510414% 6517% 7618% 8365% 9152% 1030% 12274% TOTAL726100% 35

36. HIGHEST MODULE ACHIEVED N% 08512% 19914% 2223% 3294% 419427% 510414% 6517% 7618% 8365% 9152% 1030% 12274% TOTAL726100% 36

37. Outcomes to Date Algebra I Placement  Traditional Sections, Fall 2010 50% Success Rate (C or Better)  RAMP-up Sections, Fall 2011 25% Succeeded or Exceeded Success = module set EQUIVALENT to or exceeding highest placement test 37

38. Outcomes to Date Overall Fall to Spring Persistence  Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: 51%  Fall 2011 – Spring 2012: 60% 38

39. 39 Questions?