STLF Report to CWSEI and Mathematics Department
STLF: Joseph Lo
Period: 2012-01-07 – 2012-02-10
Submitted: 2012-02-11
Specific activities performed by STLF
1) Professional development
 Attended reading group (Jan 12, Feb 2)
 Discussed in math reading group on “Calculus Students’ Ability to Solve Geometric RelatedRates Problem” (Feb 7)
2) Math SEI general meetings/activities
 Met with Sarah and Math-SEI group to review current projects and discuss future plans (Jan 9)
 Attended weekly STLF meetings (Jan 11, Jan 25, Feb 1)
 Met with Costanza to review current projects and discuss future plans (Feb 1)
 Met with Math-SEI group to review current projects and discuss future plans (Jan 11, 18, 25,
Feb 1, 8)
 Met with Jim Carolan to review current projects and discuss future plans (Jan 20)
3) Course-specific meetings/activities
MATH 210 – Introduction to Mathematical Computing
 Demographic (45 students in total)
Year of study # Students
2nd year
15
3rd year
17
4th year
12




Major
# Students
Math
33
Statistics
6
Math + Stat
1
Other
5
Course materials on Maple were completed. Outline as follows:
o Basic command and precalculus – 5 lectures
o Differentiation and integration – 6 lectures
o Differential equations – 7 lectures
MATLAB materials are being developed by the TA and the instructor.
A diagnostic test on series was given on Jan 6 in class. Details about the diagnostic are
listed below towards the end of the report.
Midterm survey was given on Feb 8. (33 responses in total)
o Students’ experiences with computer programming
Have you had experience with Maple and MATLAB before taking this course?
Both
Maple
MATLAB
Neither
1
1
5
26
What other programming languages and mathematical software have you had experience with?
Java
10
DrRacket
7
Wolfram Alpha or Mathematica
C++
No experience with any computer programming languages
3
2
12
o About the course
Why are you taking this course?
Required
Elective
32
1
How much time do you usually spend on assignments?
0 to 3 hours
3
3 to 6 hours
21
6 to 9 hours
3
>9 hours
4
The level of difficulty of the assignments are in general
Reasonable
9
Slightly too hard
16
Way too hard
8



Questions emphasize more on problem solving rather than routine
calculation and command usage.
 Some students indicated that they have not done calculus and differential
equations for a long time and is difficult for them to pick up ideas discussed
in class.
o Other comments
 Like:
 The power of Maple allows them to illustrate and solve problems
that they cannot solve previously (9)
 The usage of computers in math (5)
 About the course materials (4)
 Dislike:
 Level of difficulty on assignments (7)
 Level of difficulty on course materials (6)
 Requires knowledge from other courses (3)
 Amount of materials (2)
 Coding (2)
 Availability of the lab (2)
 There are also some complaints about using programs (Maple and
MATLAB) that are not free of charge.
I have been and will be attending all classes and labs. Short discussion with the instructor
will be made every class.
I have been substituting for the instructor since Feb 1 until Feb 17. One assignment and a
few in class activities were created during this period.
MATH 110 – Differential Calculus
 Remedial assignments
o I am responsible for the creation of the weekly remedial assignments on MathXL.
o Remedial assignments consists of two parts:
 Part A: algebra (for those who failed the algebra part of the diagnostic)

Part B: graphs and applications (for those who failed the remaining part of
the diagnostic)
o Students in general spent approximately 20 to 30 minutes on each part.
o % of students who are assigned the remedial work actually did the work (got a mark
of 20% or more)
Term 1
1st asmt 2nd asmt 3rd asmt 4th asmt 5th asmt 6th asmt
Part A (117 students)
91%
81%
60%
67%
56%
65%
Part B (91 students)
91%
79%
67%
67%
58%
63%
Term 2
1st asmt 2nd asmt 3rd asmt 4th asmt 5th asmt
Part A (117 students)
53%
50%
47%
44%
41%
Part B (91 students)
53%
52%
47%
46%
46%

 Participation rate continues to drop in Term 2.
Online assignments (MathXL)
o Submission rate by midterm 1 grades (those who received >20% in an assignment
are considered submitted)
#
Students
Submission rate
before MT1
Submission rate
between MT1 and E1
Dropped
by
56
95.5%
94.1%
1.4%
61
97.5%
89.3%
8.3%
61
90.6%
81.7%
8.9%
Top third
(>28.5/40)
Middle third
(22.5/40 to 28.5/40)
Lower third
(<22/40)

The drop of the submission rate is more serious for middle-third and lowerthird students.
o Submission rate by Dec exam (E1) grades
Top third
(>38/70)
Middle third
(25/70 to 38/70)
Lower third
(<25/70)

#
Students
Submission rate
between MT1 and E1
Submission rate
between E1 and MT2
Dropped
by
59
94.5%
91.9%
2.6%
63
91.9%
88.9%
3.0%
57
77.7%
66.3%
11.4%
 The drop is much more serious for lower-third students.
Workshops attendance
o Attendance by time (Term 1)
2011
2010
# Students Attendance # Students Attendance
09:30
61
73.2%
53
83.7%
12:30
72
84.0%
77
84.1%
15:30
110
71.1%
117
78.4%
 Attendance in 9:30 and 15:30 workshops is lower. This is not seen in 2010.
 Attendance is slight lower than in 2010.
o Attendance by midterm 1 grades (Term 1)
#
Students
Attendance before
MT1
Attendance after
MT1
Dropped
by
Top third (>28.5/40)
Middle third (22.5/40 to
28.5/40)
Lower third (<22/40)
75
86.7%
79.3%
7.3%
88
84.3%
71.0%
13.3%
78
73.6%
62.4%
11.2%


The attendance drop for middle-third and lower-third students are more
serious than top-third students. We saw a similar trend in assignment
submission rate.
Workshop survey (147 responses)
o A survey was given during the last week of classes in Term 1.
Workshop problems are related to materials covered
in class.
Workshop problems provide useful practice for
solving problems on assignments/quizzes/tests.
Workshops helped me improve my problem-solving
skills (coming up with a plan to attack a novel
problem).
Workshops helped me improve my reasoning skills
(coming up with logical explanations).
Group work in the workshops is helpful for my
learning
Agree
Neutral Disagree
75.5%
19.7%
4.1%
73.5%
17.0%
8.8%
69.4%
23.1%
7.5%
73.5%
20.4%
5.4%
85.0%
9.5%
4.1%
 In general students find workshops useful.
o Some students find the workshop problems difficult.
The problems in each workshop are in general overly
difficult.

Agree
Neutral Disagree
44.9%
36.7%
15.6%
o Like:
 Group work (79)
 Reviews during the workshop (15)
 Improve their skills (14)
 Workshop format (10)
o Dislike:
 Disconnect from other course components (25)
 Not satisfy with their groups (11)
 Problems are too long (10)
 Problems are too difficult (8)
 Explanation from TAs (7)
Some plans for next year
o The instructor wants to provide students free online materials next year. This
includes
 a free online textbook (the instructors, Warren, Greg Meyer and I will be
involved in making the choice of the textbook)
 practice problems on WeBWorK,
 a reference consists of all theorems and formulas but no worked examples.
o At this point I am responsible in finding and suggesting an appropriate textbook.
o The instructors want to find out how students use their textbook. This could be done
by holding focus groups. Further discussion with the instructors is necessary.
Series Diagnostic Test
 This is part of the series skill tracking project. I am working closely with Greg Mayer who
is in charge of the online Infinite Series Module.
 The test consists of 4 open questions.
o Question 1: Does a series with terms converging to 0 always converge?
o Question 2: Does sqrt(x) have a Taylor series at x = 0?
o Question 3: Choose a Taylor series that describe the function shown on a graph.
o Question 4: About the use of the ratio test.
 The diagnostic was given to Math 210 during class on Jan 6.
o We compare students who completed at least one of Math 120, 226, 257, 300, 316,
320 (courses with series) and those who did not.
Completed courses listed above
# students
Q1
Q1 explanation
Q2
Q2 explanation
Q3
Q3 explanation
Q4
Q4 explanation
Total Score (out of 8)
Yes
No
15
24
Correct
Blank
Correct
Blank
80%
7%
58%
17%
67%
20%
4%
42%
53%
13%
38%
29%
47%
27%
13%
63%
33%
7%
25%
4%
13%
40%
2%
50%
16%
27%
10%
58%
20%
27%
13%
71%
3.30 ± 0.57
1.63 ± 0.24


These results and the results from Math 257/316 given below cannot be
compared, because the diagnostic is done in class for Math 210, whereas it
is done at home for Math 257/316.
 Students who previously completed a course with series did better than
those who did not for Questions 1 and 2. They only did marginally better for
Questions 3 and 4.
The same diagnostic was given to Math 257/316 as an assignment.
o We compare students who completed at least one of Math 120, 226, 300, 320.
Completed courses listed above
# students did not write the
diagnostic/did not put their
names
# students wrote the diagnostic
Q1
Q1 explanation
Q2
Q2 explanation
Q3
Q3 explanation
Q4
Q4 explanation
Total Score (out of 8)

Yes
No
7
118
16
Correct
100%
88%
81%
81%
88%
44%
34%
50%
5.91 ±
0.57
51
Correct
49%
13%
25%
14%
45%
23%
12%
16%
2.10 ±
0.26
Blank
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
13%
13%
13%
Anonymous
Blank
8%
16%
41%
49%
25%
39%
45%
51%
53
Correct
34%
10%
21%
9%
38%
13%
8%
11%
1.50 ±
0.23
Blank
30%
42%
58%
64%
30%
51%
72%
75%
The instructor gave students a choice to whether they put their name or not
on the diagnostic.



The difference between these two groups of students is large.
For Question 3, many of the students who chose the correct Taylor series
with a wrong reason. Many tried to match the Taylor series with the given
curve as a whole. They missed the fact that Taylor series is constructed
based on the function at only one point.
 For Question 4, students are not clear on how the ratio test works. A lot of
students made algebraic mistakes when applying the ratio test.
o A post-test will be given later in the term.
Only 3 students in total completed Math 101 in Spring 2011 (when series is incorporated in
the course) and none completed later.
Current project status (material prepared by either STLF or other members of the MATH SEI)
MATH 110:
Learning Goals: 3rd draft of learning goals is complete.
Assessments: Workshop survey given at the end of Term 1.
New Methods/Materials: New problem-solving based workshops, remedial work on basic skills
MATH 210:
Learning Goals: Complete
Assessments: Series diagnostic test done. Midterm survey done.
New Methods/Materials: The MATLAB module is new. Redevelopment of course materials on
Maple is complete.
MATH 305:
Learning Goals: Complete
Assessments: Final exam done.
New Methods/Materials: None at this point
Plan for immediate future work
MATH 110:
1. Continue with the creation of remedial assignments.
2. Record marks from MT2.
3. Find a possible online textbook for next year.
4. A second attitude survey will be given after reading break.
MATH 210:
1. Continue substituting for the instructor.
2. Continue attending lectures and workshops after the instructor is back.
MATH 305:
1. Process the end-of-term surveys.
Series Diagnostic Test:
1. Give a post-test for Math 257/316
2. Develop some future plans based on the results of the test.