Summary, Findings, and
Conclusions
|
1.
|
Since 1994 California State University, Los
Angeles (Cal State LA) and California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) have
been using the mediated learning system (MLS)
courseware for remedial mathematics developed by
Academic Systems Corporation. Both campuses have
undertaken various evaluation studies.
|
|
2.
|
Academic Systems' courseware was chosen at the
time because it was the most sophisticated
multimedia program available. It is highly
interactive and provides several layers of student
feedback. The MLS comes with a management system
that captures student responses to questions and
records time on task, thus allowing the instructor
to monitor each student's progress. (The MLS
courseware that was implemented runs in on-campus
computer labs. A new version of the courseware is
now accessible through the Internet.)
|
|
3.
|
By 1996 six additional CSU campuses at Hayward,
Long Beach, Northridge, Pomona, Sacramento, and San
Francisco had also begun implementation of the MLS
courseware.
|
Benefits: Comparative Learning
Outcomes
|
4.
|
Cal Poly has adopted the MLS for all of its
remedial mathematics courses. The courseware is
available in a 60-station computer lab where the
student work is overseen by graduate assistants
under the direction of a faculty member.
|
|
5.
|
Cal State LA has adopted the MLS for the
remedial coursework provided to the most
mathematically challenged students. A three-year
evaluation of the MLS at Cal State LA contains the
following summary statements:
|
(a)
|
As a replacement for regular
classroom instruction the MLS
courseware has the most benefit for
those students who need remediation the
most, where they can take advantage of
the flexibility to repeat a lesson as
often as needed.
|
|
(b)
|
The MLS courseware is not superior
for all remedial students nor is there
any indication that it is inferior.
|
|
(c)
|
An instructor is still essential for
the MLS version of the remedial courses
both as a motivating influence and as a
personal contact for the students.
|
|
(d)
|
From a resource perspective the MLS
allows larger section sizes without a
loss of student performance.
|
|
(e)
|
Other potential benefits include:
more flexible use of student time
compatible with more time on task, more
instructional support outside of
classroom time, completion of course on
a shortened time schedule, more
convenient and user friendly for ESL
students, longer retention of the
material, and availability of Internet
access to MLS supporting distributed
instruction to off-campus
locations.
|
|
|
6.
|
An evaluation of learning outcomes in the
remedial mathematics courses at the eight campuses
was undertaken in fall 1996 at the request of the
CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs.
Over 4,500 students were enrolled in the courses;
approximately 34 percent were enrolled in the MLS
sections, 66 percent in regular classroom
sections.
|
|
7.
|
The MLS courseware was employed differently
across the campuses. In some cases the MLS was used
to supplement the regular weekly scheduled course
meetings, in others it was an integral part of the
course in the sense that its use replaced some, but
not all, of the regular class meetings; at some
sites, the MLS was used to essentially replace the
regular class meetings and become the principal
mode of providing the instruction. For all
campuses, even if the entire course was scheduled
to be delivered using the courseware, instructors
would still call groups of students out of the lab
for short "chalk talks" on particular topics as the
need arose.
|
|
8.
|
Two levels of remedial mathematics courses were
evaluated, elementary and intermediate. Learning
outcomes are measured by course passing rates and
the percent of students completing the course with
a final score of 70 or better. Comparisons of
learning outcomes were made for the regular
classroom (control) sections and the MLS
(experimental) sections of the courses offered at
each campus.
|
|
9.
|
The course passing rate in the elementary course
favored the MLS sections over the classroom
sections at all of the seven sites where control
sections were offered. The difference was
statistically significant at only one site.
|
|
10.
|
The percent of elementary level students with a
final score of 70 or better was in favor of the MLS
sections at four of the seven sites; one of these
differences was statistically significant. Two of
the three differences in favor of the classroom
sections were statistically significant.
|
|
11.
|
The course passing rate at the intermediate
level was in favor of the MLS at four of six sites;
one of these differences was statistically
significant. Of the two sites where the difference
favored classroom sections, one was statistically
significant.
|
|
12.
|
The percent of students with a final score of 70
or better at the intermediate level was in favor of
the MLS sections at three of the six sites; none of
the differences were statistically significant. Two
of the three differences that favored the classroom
sections were statistically significant.
|
|
13.
|
Based upon this evidence it is not possible to
reach a definitive conclusion regarding the
learning outcomes of MLS as compared to classroom
instruction.
|
(a)
|
At Cal State LA there is evidence
that MLS improves the passing rates for
the most mathematically challenged
students who can benefit from a
substantial amount of drill and
practice.
|
|
(b)
|
In the seven-campus study there is
weak evidence that the MLS improves
passing rates in the elementary
courses, but there is no evidence that
it improves passing rates in the
intermediate course or that it
increases the percentage of students
receiving a final score of 70 or better
at either level. To the extent MLS
improves passing rates, and reduces
drop out rates, campuses benefit by
generating more FTE and related
funding.
|
|
(c)
|
Other benefits that may accrue to
MLS include providing students with an
introduction to the use of the computer
as a learning tool, a more
user-friendly learning situation for
ESL students, and the potential to
deliver courses to off-campus
sites.
|
|
Cost
Comparisons
|
14.
|
Certain basic patterns emerge from the
comparison of the cost estimates for the two
instructional modes:
|
(a)
|
At the lower levels of annual course
enrollment, the costs of the MLS
version of the course always exceed
those of the classroom version. This
occurs because of the fixed costs
associated with the MLS course
including the license fee and the costs
of establishing and operating the
initial MLS lab.
|
|
(b)
|
The incremental (or marginal) costs
of additional enrollments in the MLS
course tend to be less than those for
the regular classroom course (assuming
instructor pay rates for the different
course sections are the same). This
result occurs because the MLS fee
revenue offsets some of the course's
staffing cost. Incremental costs are
also reduced to the extent average
enrollment in the MLS sections is
increased.
|
|
(c)
|
Once enrollment grows to the
capacity of the MLS lab, an additional
lab must be added causing a step-up in
MLS costs.
|
|
|
15.
|
At the current levels of campus enrollments in
remedial mathematics courses (ranging between 300
and 1,500 students per year), the estimated direct
costs of the MLS course exceed the costs of
offering the instruction to the same number of
students in the classroom course. For the case
where MLS and classroom sections sizes are both
equal to 30, a cost model developed based upon
"typical" campus data shows a crossover (or
breakeven) enrollment for the MLS exceeding 2,500
students per year.
|
|
16.
|
However, because the marginal costs of the MLS
course tend to be less than those of the classroom
version, with sufficient levels of annual
enrollment and the appropriate combination of cost
and fee factors, the costs of MLS can be less than
the costs of classroom instruction.
|
|
17.
|
The two CSU campuses with the longest experience
with the MLS have demonstrated cost savings by
increasing section size without an increase in
faculty workload (because the MLS is the main
source of instructional materials) and without a
reduction in the quality of student learning
outcomes.
|
|
