Emporium-Style Math Disappoints

The emporium model of math instruction burst upon the scene 20 years ago, most notably at Virginia Tech. The idea is to assemble students in a large room, with each student in front of a computer, working through software problems at their own pace. Instead of lecturing, the instructors roam around to help students when they get stuck.

Well, it appears the model works fine for academically strong students, but not for those who need developmental instruction, as reported by Beth McMurtrie in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The article cites studies at community colleges in Kentucky and Tennessee. Please have a look, especially if you are in the field of mathematics. But the emporium model has been touted for other subjects as well.

As reported here often, Texas is moving toward full participation in co-requisite remediation, but there is no reason why the emporium model couldn’t be used as a component as well. The article may give those who might want to try it second thoughts.

One of the reasons given by authorities for the lack of success with the emporium model for developmental students is that the strategy requires students to pass each module before advancing. In a traditional class, students can do poorly on one exam, but improve on the next one. One commentator notes that weaker students need personal contact with the teacher and fellow students. A sense of belonging matters and students profit by watching each other succeed. This finding dovetails with many studies emphasizing the importance of student “engagement.”

Here is an interesting passage concerning a school in Texas:

Denise Lujan, director of the developmental=math program at the University of Texas at El Paso, agrees with this assessment. Her campus tried the emporium model a few years ago, “and it was a disaster,” she says. “We had one of the largest fail rates we ever had.”

“Students would have an unrealistic view of how long it would take them to get it done,” she says. “They would leave it to the last minute and they just wouldn’t do it.”

Her developmental-math classes are still computer based. But they have much more structure than the ones using the emporium model. Classes meet every other day, and attendance is mandatory. Instructors work more as tutors than as lecturers, but if students fall behind on benchmark goals, the instructor steps in to get them back on track. “I know more about my students in this model than I did when I was lecturing,” says Lujan. “You know each person and you know what they’re struggling with.”

As a result, she says, pass rates have increased to 80 percent, compared with 40 percent under the emporium model.