Advertisement

The Math Emporium: Effective for whom, and for what?

  • Corey Webel
  • Erin E. Krupa
  • Jason McManus
Article

Abstract

This study explores three aspects of a math emporium (ME), a model for offering introductory level college mathematics courses through the use of software and computer laboratories. Previous research shows that math emporia are generally effective in terms of improving final exam scores and passing rates. However, most research on math emporia does not investigate 1) whether the emporium serves certain populations differently than others, 2) the nature of mathematical learning that occurs in the ME, or 3) how the emporium is perceived by the enrolled students. In this paper, we used mixed methods to investigate each of these aspects in the case of a single ME serving nearly 300 intermediate algebra students. We found that the emporium appeared to best serve students with higher math achievement, who enjoyed mathematics, and who spent more time taking their exams. In terms of mathematical learning, the emporium appeared to improve students’ ability to recall and use formulas for familiar problem types, but had limited impact in terms of developing meaning for symbols or flexibility in solving unfamiliar tasks. In addition, students expressed mixed feeling about the autonomy provided by the structure of the emporium.

Keywords

Math emporium College algebra Students’ perceptions Computerized learning environments 

References

  1. Aichele, D. B., Tree, D. R., Utley, J., & Wescoatt, B. (2012). Computer-aided instruction: college algebra students’ perceptions. MathAMATYC Educator, 4(1), 54–62.Google Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.Google Scholar
  3. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brownell, W. A. (1947). An experiment on “borrowing” in third-grade arithmetic. The Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cazes, C., Gueudet, G., Hersant, M., & Vandebrouk, F. (2006). Using e-exercise bases in mathematics: case studies at university. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Coxford, A. F., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., Schoen, H. L., Burrill, G., Watkins, A. E., Messenger, M. J., & Ritsema, B. (1997). Contemporary mathematics in context: A unified approach (course 4). Columbus, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report card. Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 88–107.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Krupa, E., Webel, C., & McManus, J. (2015). Undergraduate students’ knowledge of algebra: evaluating the impact of computer-based and traditional learning environments. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 25(1), 13–30. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2014.897660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathematical Association of America (2007). College algebra guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/crafty/CRAFTY-Coll-Alg-Guidelines.pdf.
  15. National Center for Academic Transformation (2005a). Impact on students: Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/PCR/R3/NAU/NAU_FR1.htm.
  16. National Center for Academic Transformation (2005b). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/whatwedo.html.
  17. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (J. Kilpatrick, J. O. Swafford, & B. Findell Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (2013). The mathematical sciences in 2025. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sebrechts, M., Enright, M., Bennett, R. E., & Martin, K. (1996). Using algebra word problems to assess quantitative ability: attributes, strategies, and errors. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 285–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sfard, A. & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and pitfalls of reification – The case of algebra. In P. Cobb (Ed.), Learning Mathematics: Constructivist and Interactionist Theories of Mathematical Development (pp. 87-124). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Skemp, R.R. (1976/2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12(2), 88-95.Google Scholar
  24. Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: the case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (2000). Grade 6 students’ preinstructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, J. M. (2008). The effects of a computerized-algebra program on mathematics achievement of college and university freshmen enrolled in a developmental mathematics course. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: guiding studnets’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Twigg, C. A. (2004). Improving quality and reducing costs: Lessons learned from round III of the pew grant program in course redesign. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
  29. Twigg, C. A. (2005a). Academic productivity: Decisions, decisions, decisions. Saratoga Springs, NY: The National Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
  30. Twigg, C. A. (2005b). Increasing success for underserved students: Redesigning introductory courses. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
  31. Twigg, C. A. (2007). Improving learning and reducing costs: Program outcomes and lessons learned from the roadmap to redesign. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation.Google Scholar
  32. Twigg, C. A. (2011). The math emporium: higher education’s silver bullet. Change, 43(3), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webel, C., Krupa, E., & McManus, J. (2015). Benny goes to college: is the “math emporium” reinventing individually prescribed instruction? The MathAMATYC Educator, 6(3), 4–13.Google Scholar
  35. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning, Teaching, and CurriculumUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Montclair State UniversityMontclairUSA

Personalised recommendations