An Investigation of Differences in Student Success and Persistence Rates by Course Modality

Celisa Counterman 1, Linda R Zientek 2 *
More Detail
1 Northampton Community College, Bethlehem, PA, USA
2 Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 110-124. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/10976
OPEN ACCESS   2815 Views   825 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Emporium courses have been offered as an option to reduce the amount of time students spend in developmental mathematics courses. This study investigated differences in achievement and persistence in mathematics by course modality for students enrolled in developmental mathematics at a suburban community college in the Northeast United States from fall 2015 through spring 2019. Statistically significant differences existed in final exam score and course grades by course level. For the upper two developmental mathematics courses, achievement measures in emporium courses were comparable to face-to-face courses. Thus, an emporium model that is designed to provide a semi-structured schedule, prompt feedback, and frequent interactions with tutors and faculty is a viable option for middle- and upper-level courses. The emporium modality did not appear to benefit students placed into the lowest level course (i.e., pre-algebra) as grades and persistence rates were lower compared to face-to-face courses. Online course modality was not the best option across all course levels. The results of this study may have implications for post-secondary institutions that want to begin offering developmental mathematics courses in multiple modalities.
Keywords: course redesign, persistence, success, developmental mathematics, course modality

CITATION

Counterman, C., & Zientek, L. R. (2021). An Investigation of Differences in Student Success and Persistence Rates by Course Modality. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 110-124. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/10976

REFERENCES

  • Ashby, J., Sadera, W. A., & McNary, S. W. (2011). Comparing student success between developmental math courses offered online, blended and face-to-face. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3), 128-140.
  • Bahr, P. R. (2008). Does mathematics remediation work? A comparative analysis of academic attainment among community college students. Research in Higher Education, 49, 420-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9089-4
  • Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002
  • Bickerstaff, S., Fay, M. P., & Trimble, M. J. (2016). Modularization in developmental mathematics in two states: Implementation and early outcomes (CCRC Working Paper No. 87). Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Braun, B., Bremser, P., Duval, A. M., Lockwood, E., & White, D. (2017). What does active learning mean for mathematics? Notice of the AMS, 64(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1472
  • Cafarella, B. (2016). Acceleration and compression in developmental mathematics: Faculty viewpoints. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(2), 12-25.
  • Cafarella, B. V. (2014). Exploring best practices in developmental math. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 30(2), 35-64.
  • Chen, X., & Simone, S. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf
  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Washington Center News. http://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf
  • Cousins-Cooper, K., Staley, K. N., Kim, S., & Luke, N.S. (2017). The effect of the math emporium instructional method on students’ performance in college algebra. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9493
  • Fain, P. (2011, December 23). Letting go of lecture. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/23/montgomery-college-follows-remedial-math-revolution
  • Kim, H. Y. (2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 42(2), 152-155. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152
  • Lucas, M. S., & McCormick, N. J. (2007). Redesigning mathematics curriculum for underprepared college students. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(2), 36-50.
  • Mesa, V., Celis, S., & Lande, E. (2014). Teaching approaches of community college faculty: Do they relate to classroom practices? American Educational Research, 51(1), 117-151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213505759
  • National Center for Academic Transformation. (2014). How to redesign a developmental math program using the emporium model. http://www.thencat.org/Guides/DevMath/DMChapterI.html
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
  • Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.
  • Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2013.12001730
  • Northern Virginia Community College. (2020). Developmental math program. https://www.nvcc.edu/academics/developmental/math.html
  • Rutschow, E. Z., & Schneider, E. (2011, June). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving developmental education. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_595.pdf
  • Saxon, D. P., & Martirosyan, N. M. (2017). Improving accelerated developmental mathematics courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(1), 24-27.
  • Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. J. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(3), 4-16.
  • 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 Learning and Reading, 39(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2008.10850311
  • Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sports Sciences, 1(21), 19-25.
  • Twigg, C. A. (2011). The math emporium: A silver bullet for higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(3), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.569241
  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.002
  • Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of online learning within a community college system: An instrumental variable approach (Working Paper No. 56). http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/examining-effectiveness-of-online-learning.pdf
  • Zientek, L. R., Fong, C. J., & Phelps, J. M. (2019). Sources of self-efficacy of community college students enrolled in developmental mathematics. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(2), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1357071
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Chapter 2: Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.