Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The SAT is a test of mathematics achievement taken by many high school students in the USA and used by many colleges in admissions decisions.

References

  • 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 

  • Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, W. A. (1947). An experiment on “borrowing” in third-grade arithmetic. The Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • National Center for Academic Transformation (2005a). Impact on students: Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/PCR/R3/NAU/NAU_FR1.htm.

  • National Center for Academic Transformation (2005b). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/whatwedo.html.

  • National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (J. Kilpatrick, J. O. Swafford, & B. Findell Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council. (2013). The mathematical sciences in 2025. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Skemp, R.R. (1976/2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12(2), 88-95.

  • Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: the case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 565–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2005a). Academic productivity: Decisions, decisions, decisions. Saratoga Springs, NY: The National Center for Academic Transformation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2005b). Increasing success for underserved students: Redesigning introductory courses. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2011). The math emporium: higher education’s silver bullet. Change, 43(3), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum, University of Missouri, 121C Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Corey Webel

  2. Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

    Erin E. Krupa & Jason McManus

Authors
  1. Corey Webel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin E. Krupa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason McManus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corey Webel.

Appendix: Student Questionnaire

Appendix: Student Questionnaire

figure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Webel, C., Krupa, E.E. & McManus, J. The Math Emporium: Effective for whom, and for what?. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 3, 355–380 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0046-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0046-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation