Transcript Document 7308333

Development of an
Integrated Local/Distant
Mathematics Instruction
Program:
A Progress Report
Paul Eakin
Department of Mathematics
University of Kentucky
[email protected]
The work described
here is a collaboration
among:





Dan Chaney
Paul Eakin
Carl Eberhart
K.K. Kubota
Avinash Sathaye




Mary Bond
Jody Fast
Mike McKenna
Laura Spencer
The developers freely share the software, texts,
instructional materials, methodologies, etc. produced in
this project for non-commercial educational use.
Development Strategy:
Develop on-campus versions of
courses which employ the
distance learning tools and
techniques intended for distance
learning
 Unify DL and on-campus
instructional development

Advantages:
Permits DL development with
“safety net”
 Provides conventional course as
reference frame for comparison
 Spreads development cost over
both local and distant instruction
programs.

Program Philosophy
as Aphorism:
“If we can’t make it work
locally we can’t
make it work at a
distance”
Implementation:




Take a large enrollment course and
develop “on-campus” distance learning
version
Add/modify technology incrementally
Compare results, costs to concurrent
conventional course and make certain
two experiences are fully equivalent
Don’t offer off-campus until on-campus
issues arising on-campus are fully
resolved
Two courses in Fall
1999

Ma 123 (1 semester, general studies
calculus course)
– 7 of 30 sections
– All on-campus

Ma 322 (linear algebra)
– 4 of 6 sections
– 3 local and one distant
Development Platform:
Ma123




3 semester hour intro calculus course
General studies
Approx 1200 students per semester in
sections of about 35 first-day enrollment
Course generally not considered a
success
– poor success rate (high dropout/fail rate)
– poorly prepared students
– low student/faculty satisfaction
Ma123: Fall 1999

23 “traditional sections” of about 30
– taught by TA’s, PTI’s, and Faculty

7 experimental sections of about 30
– taught by 2 faculty and 2 TA’s

Instructors were volunteers, students
were not.
Fall 1999 Format: Traditional
format for Ma123
Commercial hardbound text ($70)
 Undergraduates employed as
homework graders ($350 per
section)
 3 (uniform) midterm examinations
plus final
 Class meets three hours per week
of formal lecture by instructor

Fall 1999 Format:
Development format for
Ma123
“Free” text (html, softbound copy
from bookstore ($6) )
 web-based homework system used
only for feedback
 formal lectures on Internet and CD
 3 (uniform) midterm examinations
plus final
 class time (3 hrs per week) used for
recitation, collaborative work, etc.

Current Results in Ma123:
Quite comparable to
“traditional”
Grades about the same
 Student Satisfaction about the same
 Drop-out rate about 10% higher
 Success with non drop outs higher

Ma123 Results
(continued)
weaker students have difficulty with
video-based lectures (compliance)
 Low-level students more responsive
to video lectures done by graduate
students
 Very strong correlation among
scores/attendance/compliance
 High level of acceptance, success
among compliant students

Current Results in Ma322
(linear Algebra)
Grades and student satisfaction high
 High rate of compliance
 Distant section performance same as
on-campus
 Drop rate about same as traditional
(lower for distant section)
 Covered substantially more material
 Students don’t appear to have a
preference among lecturers

Technology Issues:
Very few problems with web-based
homework,
 Video issues:
– lab setup (viewers, sound)
– off-campus bandwidth
– Length of segments
 logistics
 “Too much data”

Costs: Instructional
Effort:
Preparation of materials takes about
four times the effort as simply
teaching the traditional on-campus
class
 Takes less work to conduct
individual section once materials are
in place
 Ma123 close to “break even” on net
instructional effort this semester with
seven sections

Costs: Resources:






ITV Studio (infrastructure)
High speed computer network
(infrastructure)
computers, disk space, CD writer
Software: Adobe Premiere, Maple, WebEq,
Perl, Netscape Composer, Microsoft Word,
Adaptec CD Creator,
Supplies (tapes, CD blanks, printing)
Approximate non-infrastructure costs are
approximately $20,000
Costs: Staff
Software development (staff)
 Production of lecture tapes (staff)
 Post Production conversion to digital
format (staff)
 Post production editing and posting
(graduate students)
 CDs are made by faculty
 Estimated staff costs for fall 1999 are
approximately $30,000 (direct)

Project Description:
Student View
 Faculty User View
 Materials Development Process

Student response
to Ma123 as
reported in the
student paper
Primary Student
Interface: Instructor’s
Web Page




syllabus
links to html text
links to chat system and FAQ systems
links to “WQS” system for course
materials (e.g. homework, review
materials, video lectures, etc)
Student Interface: Instructor’s Web Page (part 1)
System tutorial
Course syllabus
Visual class rolls
Exam schedule
Class Roll:
Instructor’s Web Page
(part 2)
Link to wqs system
server
Student emails
from homework
system
with responses
Links to lecture
notes for video
lectures
Responses to Student
Questions:
Page references
particular
assignment
Student query
Instructor
response
Instructor Web Page
(part 3)
Link to wqs
system
Link to online
text
Links to lecture
slides for video
lectures by
chapter
WQS System: current
login screen
Students select
video lectures
menu
or their class
homework
menu
Group logins and
work are
encouraged
Typical Section Menu
Chapter 1 homework
Review for test II
Homework Page: Current
Format
System
response
Student
answer
System
answer
Problem
and
answers
Email
window
Most students print the problem sets out
and record their solutions or solutions
from class directly on the printouts
Video Lectures Menu
Lecture Slides (html)
Video of lecture
segment (10-30 min)
How students watch
the videos
Test Review with
video solutions
Problem
statement
with
diagram
Link to
video
solution
Maple worksheet
With links exported
to html
Data Logs
Every student action is logged with
time stamp
 All activity credited to each member
on group login
 Total number of answers submitted
(right or wrong) correlates very well
with performance on tests

Log Data
WQS Video
Materials prepared by faculty
 lectures by faculty and graduate
students
 tapes converted to ASF and edited by
grad students and staff
 separate video and homework
(original system)
 text/homework/video merged in next
edition

Graduate Student Editing
Video Files
WQS and Video Lecture
Materials Preparation
Materials developed by faculty using
a variety of standard tools (e.g.
Maple, LaTeX, Perl).
 Individual item described by a file
called “data” in directory specific to
item. It describes how construct the
item.
 locations placed in control file called
wqs-dirs which is known to server
and describes the section menu page

Faculty Preparing
Materials
CD burner and
Blank CDs
food
coffee
WQS CDs




Natural corollary of HTML format
– easily made at faculty desk, cheap
– Students copy in lab on their own
blank (15 min, $1)
Originated through necessity
Strongly favored by upper-level students
who tend to live off-campus
Not used much by lower level students
who tend to live on campus
Maple Source: Homework
Problem
Question
Tag:( Q_ )
“SKIP”
Tags
Code for
Figure
(section)
Answer Tags:
( A_ )
Correct
Answer Tag
SAMPLE WQS TAGS





Q_
Question starts and runs to next
tag
T_
Text starts and runs to next tag
A_
Answer choice for current
question
A_ANS Correct answer for current
question
SKIP Omit from here to next tag
To create and “post” a
simple wqs homework
set:
Source document is exported to html
from Maple menu
 exported html document is
processed by a Perl script to:

– create a “data” file which describes
the final document to the server
– place an entry in a control file which
describes the menu
The “data” file which
describes the final
document
These correspond
to tags in source
document
These correspond
to segments of
html in exported
document which
were delimited by
the tags
Sharing Materials: Paul’s
control file
Ken made
homework set
number 8
Paul made
homework set
number 7
Sharing:



Instructor A can use instructor B’s entire
menu simply by copying B’s control file
(with permission)
Instructor A can use any item in instructor
B’s menu simply by copying the
corresponding entry from B’s control file
(with permission)
In either case student email from A’s
students will be routed to A and activity
logged for A
LOAD
SHARING
Student login 1
To B’s class
5
5
B’s Files
2
ma123 homework
control
3
2
4
materials
wqs
Wqs
system
lecture
3
A’s Files
wqs
ma123
control
1
Student
Login To
A’s class
Sharing: Laura’s Ma123 Control File
and class menu uses materials
developed by Ken and Paul
Sharing: Laura and Jody Do
Ma123 lectures for all sections
Sharing: Control File for Joe
Mahoney’s Paducah, KY Section
of Ma322
Carl Eberhart created the homework
for the Ma322 sections
Joe Mahoney and Avinash
Sathaye did Videos for
MA322
Planned changes for
Spring 2000
Re-written, expanded text as
multimedia document including
homework, videos, reviews, etc.
(unified format)
 Continuous reporting of log data to
students,
 CDs available to students in
advance

Unified Format:
Video link
LaTeX
math
formatting
Web homework is part
of text in unified format
Unified Format





Puts all services (text, video lecture,
homework, reviews, etc.) on one page
Moves “login” to end of process: gets
students immediately to the subject
matter
Nicer text through use of LaTeX
Shorter video segments
Development more complex
Paul Eakin
Department of Mathematics
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40606
[email protected]
http://www.ms.uky.edu/wqs