Developmental Math Options

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Developmental Math Options"

Rosamund Blake
6 years ago
Views:

1 Developmental Math Options

2 Developmental Math Options Options: 1. Traditional Model 2. Self-Paced, Modularized Approach in a Lab Setting (Emporium Model) 3. Summer Bridge Program (2015) Piloted 2 modes workbook and EdReady (NROC) Assessment & Outcomes Data Future Directions Bottom Line: what works for our students is the fact that they have options Our data do not show that one option is best (or worst) Rather, we are using our data analytics to hone in on the best fit for each student

3 Developmental Math Options 1. Traditional (2 courses) 2. Self-Paced, Modularized, Computer-Mediated (2-3 courses) Fewer credits than traditional Potential for students to accelerate STEM (7 credits) and Non-STEM (6 credits) tracks Lower cost than traditional mode 3. Summer & Winter Bridge (20-hours) ACCUPLACER brush up Note: At MCCC, Intermediate Algebra is a 100-level course and is not in our developmental math sequence

4 Developmental Math Options Traditional MAT 033, Pre-Algebra (4 cr.) MAT 037, Beginning Algebra (4 cr.) Computer-Mediated (Emporium) Accelerated (for some) MAT 041, Foundation Math I (3 cr.; 6 lab hrs) MAT 042, Foundation Math II (3 cr.; 6 lab hrs) MAT 043, Foundation Math III (1 cr; 2 lab hrs) STEM pre-req At MCCC, Intermediate Algebra is a 100-level course and is not in our developmental math sequence

5 Development Emporium Model National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) Conference 2010 Implementation Pilot in Spring 2011 New dedicated labs at both campuses

7 Emporium Model: MAT 041, 042, 043 Teaching model 1 faculty member for 20 students 1 tutor for each additional fraction of 20 students 20 students: 1 professor students: 1 professor + 1 tutor students: 1 professor + 2 tutors Our largest section: 90 students 1 professor + 4 tutors Changes to the courses based on assessment data 15 week to 7 week back to 15 week semester Addition of MAT 043 Software change from Carnegie Learning ( ) to ALEKS (2014-present) Each semester 5-10% of students who start in the lower level complete both levels in the same semester and go on to be successful in college-level math

8 Math Foundations (computer-mediated) What advisors think students do 75 hours in lab 75 hours at home Engaging 1:1 assistance with little to no wait-time MAT in one semester What students actually do What students think they do What faculty actually do

9 Curriculum Aligns to Majors Traditional - MAT 037 Re-Req for STEM and Non- STEM Equations and Inequalities Graphs of Linear Equations and Systems Exponents and Polynomials Factoring and Quadratic Equations Rational Expressions and Radicals Emporium MAT 042 Pre-Req for Non-STEM Equations and Inequalities Graphs of Linear Equations and Systems Exponents and Polynomials Factoring and Quadratic Equations Rational Expressions and Radicals

10 Success Rates in Developmental Math 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% PreAlgebra Beginning Algebra 20% 10% 0% 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall

Math Summer Bridge (2015) Goal: Design a brush-up program to help students who place into developmental mathematics improve their skills and place one or two levels higher Planning started in Fall

11 Math Summer Bridge (2015) Goal: Design a brush-up program to help students who place into developmental mathematics improve their skills and place one or two levels higher Planning started in Fall 2014 Planning team took ACCUPLACER At League for Innovation Conference learned more about NROC/EdReady (March 2015 in Boston) June 1, 2015 Workshop with Bill Coe, designer of the Fast-Track Math program at Montgomery College (MD) (supported by NJCCC Innovation Grant) 8 NJ CCs participated

12 EdReady / NROC Used by 6 million+ students from Middle School to College A non-profit network that you join (not software that you purchase) Regional Membership Manager: Bryan Arvison barvison@thenrocproject.org

Basic Fast Track Workbook (Coe & Lovejoy) supplemented with extra problem sheets Primarily faculty-led

13 Math Summer Bridge (2015) 20 hour program (4 days/week for 2 weeks) We offered 4 sessions (day, evening, each campus) 150 students signed up Piloted 2 formats (concurrent meeting time & place): 1. Basic Fast Track Workbook (Coe & Lovejoy) supplemented with extra problem sheets Primarily faculty-led instruction 2. EdReady Primarily tutor-supported instruction First level students were randomly assigned a format Second level were assigned EdReady

14 Math Summer Bridge (2015) Costs: Faculty were paid $800/session Tutors hours (@ ~$10/hr) Pilot was free to students (supported by a $5000 internal grant) Data Collection Attendance Challenge Test (final exam) ACCUPLACER Post-Test # hours in EdReady Math enrollment in Fall 2015

15 Math Summer Bridge Results 150 students signed up 113 students attended at least 6 of 8 sessions Of the 113 who attended: 96 students had pre-test information and at least one post-test score 51 out of the 96 (53%) had their math placement impacted by the program 44 placed out of one level 31 first level to second level 13 second level to 100 level 7 placed out of both levels

16 Workbook vs. EdReady Workbook Results First Level Starting average Computation: 38 Starting average Algebra: out of 27 (56%) moved one level 4 out of 27 (15%) moved two levels Second Level 2 second level students agreed to work on computation for a week. 1 moved to 100 level. EdReady Results First Level Starting average Computation: 37 Starting average Algebra : out of 48 (33%) moved one level 3 out of 48 (6%) moved two levels Second Level Starting average Algebra score: out of 19 (63%) moved into 100 level

17 Math Summer Bridge (2015) How we used results: Bridge Program improvement (for Winter 2016 and Summer 2016 sessions) To answer the big question: which students are candidates for a bridge program vs. a semester-length course To evaluate use for credit courses To evaluate effectiveness for other populations (e.g., high school College Readiness Now II partner) To assess whether to continue our membership with EdReady

18 Summer Bridge Lessons Learned We held some of the sessions too close to the start of the semester students had difficulty getting the classes they needed Session I July 13-23, 2015 Session II August 10-20, 2015 We could not follow up with all the students to make sure they signed up for Math in Fall: Of the 96 who completed, 56 enrolled in a Fall 2015 math class 34 enrolled at Mercer but are not taking math 6 are not attending MCCC in Fall 2015 A hypothesis: Students might take the program more seriously if they paid for it (150 signed up, several were no-shows, only 113 attended 6 or more sessions)

19 Developmental Math Options 1. Traditional Model 2. Emporium Model hour Bridge Program What works for our students is the fact that they have options Our data do not show that one option is best (or worst) Rather, we are using our data analytics to hone in on the best fit for each student And then clearly communicate with students (and advisors) about strengths of each (and cost in time and money) Dev Ed Options Flyer

20 Future Directions We are using what we learned to inform changes: Working on a policy to require students to spend hours on EdReady prior to ACCUPLACER retest (no additional institutional cost beyond membership) Strengthening and Scaling for the 2016 Math Summer Bridge program Future Directions for Dev Ed Math (under discussion): Using EdReady as supplemental instruction for decision zone college-level math (STEM and non-stem tracks) An additional Dev Ed Math pathway aligned to college-level Statistics Feasibility of using only Open Education Resources for all Dev Ed Math

21 Future Directions Conversations about future directions informed by Guided Pathways to Success (GPS) implementation Core Principles for Transforming Remediation with a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy (Nov. 2015)

22 Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy 1. Every student s postsecondary education begins with an intake process to choose an academic direction and identify the support needed to pass relevant credit-bearing gateway courses in the first year. 2. Enrollment in college-level math and English courses or course sequences aligned with the student s program of student is the default placement for the vast majority of students. 3. Academic and nonacademic support is provided in conjunction with gateway courses in the student s academic or career area of interest through co-requisite or other models with evidence of success in which supports are embedded in curricula and instructional strategies.

23 Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy 4. Students for whom the default college-level placement is not appropriate, even with additional mandatory support, are enrolled in rigorous, streamlined remediation options that aligned with the knowledge and skills required for success in gateway courses in their academic or career area of interest. 5. Every student is engaged with content of required gateway courses that is aligned with his or her academic program of study especially in math. 6. Every student is supported to stay on track to a college credential, from intake forward, through the institution s use of effective mechanisms to generate, share, and act on academic performance and progression data.

24 A Success Story

CAAP. Content Analysis Report. Sample College. Institution Code: 9011 Institution Type: 4-Year Subgroup: none Test Date: Spring 2011

CAAP. Content Analysis Report. Sample College. Institution Code: 9011 Institution Type: 4-Year Subgroup: none Test Date: Spring 2011 CAAP Content Analysis Report Institution Code: 911 Institution Type: 4-Year Normative Group: 4-year Colleges Introduction This report provides information intended to help postsecondary institutions better