SLCC’s Epic Emporium Adventure

Experiences in Developing and Implementing an Emporium Course

at Salt Lake Community College

Development

Fall 2010 – the beginning of an idea

SLCC’s Provost attended a Complete College America conference and subsequently requested an Emporium–style course to quickly mainstream Dev Ed Math students into college-level math courses

Spring Semester 2011 – faculty exploration

NCAT Training in Orlando, Florida

Visited programs that had developed & were using an Emporium course

Weber State University – Ogden, Utah

Utah Valley University – Orem, Utah

Creating The CourseSummer & Fall 2011

The Development Team

John Close – curriculum development

Carla Kulinsky – course creation

Celestina Punzalan – review

The Delivery System

MyMathLab by Pearson Publishing

Main text – Prealgebra and Introductory Algebra , 3rd edition

by Elayn Martin-Gay

Course Design

General Design

Math 1, 2, 3 covering 3 semesters

Self-paced with soft deadlines

Student must complete at least 4 modules per semester

Student may complete modules quickly eliminating one or more semesters

Pre-Module – Operations with single digits

12 Modules – basic math thru elementary algebra topics

Linear progression

Module Design Pretest

Each module starts with pretest

If required percentage is met, student moves to next module

If not met, student goes to the Homework

Homework

Must complete entire homework assignment before taking the Mastery Test

Mastery Test

Same test as Pretest

Unlimited attempts to pass

Pilot BeginsSpring 2012

Lessons Learned

Student IssuesHomework

Must complete entire homework set

Lengthy and tedious

Lose of motivation

Preparedness

Lack of study skills

Lack of reading skills

Instructor IssuesCourse Design

Length of Homework

“Mastery” on tests

Instruction Consistency of

instruction

Beginning of semester

Need of assigned tutor

ChangesImplemented Fall 2013

Switch to Individualized modules

Homework based on Pretest

Additional homework if don’t pass Mastery Exam

Increase Master cut‐score to 90% and limit testing attempts.

Add 80% mandatory attendance

Add required project

Prerequisite for EDU 1020

First Day Triage – Implemented Spring 2014

Timeline for Transition

Fall 2013 – Math 1 individualized, Math 2 and 3 old model

Spring 2014 – Math 1 and 2 individualized, Math 3 old model

Summer/Fall 2014 – all individualized

Students in Math 0001 Fall semester 2013 = 239Passing Rate = 44%

Of Passing, 71% (75) enrolled in subsequent math course.

Below is the breakdown where students enrolled:

Fall 2013 Lessons Learned – Passing Rates

Of Those Who Failed, only 8% enrolled in another math course.

=36% retention rate.

Future Success in Subsequent Math Course (Early Information)

Conclusion: Students are taking longer to get through

Developmental Math coursework using CPMA model.

Fall 2012 Cohort Fall 2013 Cohort

CPMATraditiona

l Sig. CPMATradition

al Sig.Average time to completion (in semesters)

1.8 1.5 p<0.00

5     

GPA in college-level math

2.78 2.34p=0.04

72.09 2.34 p=.59

Further ChangesImplemented Fall 2014

Passing percentagesDecreased from to

Fractions Revamped

Co-requisite for Reading 900 added

90% 80%

Final Exam Comparisons

Mean Face to Face Final =

Mean CPMA Final = 78%; Median = 82%

Future Success

Conclusion: Students are passing College Level course after CPMA at a rate of 54%, compared to

the 990 to 1010 rate of 25%. Individualized Model likely helped

significantly.

Subsequent Course Grade C or Better C- to D- E W Total % Pass Sans "W"Summer Semester 2013 8 1 2 11 73% 73%Fall Semester 2013 9 9 8 3 29 31% 35%Spring Semester 2014 34 24 12 70 49% 49%Summer Semester 2014 5 2 3 10 50% 71%Fall Semester 2014 18 5 1 1 25 72% 75%Grand Total 74 41 23 7 145 51% 54%

The Future

Move to OER

Increase Enrollment

Add Intermediate Algebra Level ContentRe-organization and addition to current

content

Stem vs Non-Stem Track

Add transition point(s) into face-to-face courses