STLF Report to CWSEI and Mathematics Department
STLF: Joseph Lo
Period: 2011-09-17 – 2011-10-14
Submitted: 2011-10-14
Specific activities performed by STLF
1) Professional development
 Attended reading group (Sept 28, Oct 5, 12)
 Discussed in math reading group on “Sustaining integrated technology in undergraduate
mathematics” (Sept 19)
 Attended the CWSEI session on 2-stage exams (Sept 22)
 Attended the demo and the Lunch Series in Teaching and Learning on the Course Archive
Project. (Sept 22, Oct 4)
 Attended the Teaching Seminar on “How do they prepare to teach” (Oct 4)
2) Math SEI general meetings/activities
 Attended weekly STLF meetings (Oct 6)
 Met with Sarah and Math-SEI group to review current projects and discuss future plans (Sept
19)
 Met with Math-SEL group to review current projects and discuss future plans (Sept 27, Oct 5,
12)
 Met with Costanza to review current projects and discuss future plans (Oct 3)
3) Course-specific meetings/activities
MATH 210 – Introduction to Mathematical Computing
 Still working on learning goals as the instructor was away for a few weeks.
MATH 305 – Applied Complex Analysis
 Diagnostic Assignment
o Same 4 questions from last year on series
o Brief notes on series were given along with the diagnostic assignment
o Results were not very different from last year
 Question 1: Is the sum of a sequence that decreases to 0 always convergent?
2010
Correct or almost correct
43%
Correct conclusion with incorrect/irrelevant arguments 12%
Incorrect conclusion
43%

2011
47%
13%
30%
Question 2: Geometric series
2010
Correct or almost correct
40%
Correct conclusion from ratio test but did not calculate the series 55%
Incorrect due to errors in ratio test
0%
Incorrect due to misconceptions of geometric series
3%

Question 3: Finding Taylor series of given functions
2011
35%
48%
6%
10%
2010
Correct or almost correct
71%
Knows the definition of Taylor series, but did not use substitution properly. 21%
Don’t know Taylor series
9%

2011
70%
25%
3%
Question 4: Finding a closed form expression for given power series
Question 1
2010 2011
Correct or almost correct
38% 42%
Incorrect expression
14% 10%
No closed form expression found 16% 13%
Question 2
2010 2011
22% 25%
9%
8%
26% 12%



Students in general have good idea on geometric series and Taylor series
expansion. However, many students do not understand the convergence
criteria of a series.
Midterm 1 on Oct 14. Will gather information afterward.
End-of-term survey: need to ask students about whether they have previous exposures to
series or not, and if so, where they learned series.
MATH 110 – Differential Calculus
 Diagnostic test
o The test consists of 16 questions: 5 new, 11 from last year, all multiple choice
o 9 questions on algebra, 7 questions on other topics (graphs, word problems)
o Brief review was given during the first 3 weeks of classes
o Results:
# students
Algebra (/9)
Graphs + Word Problems (/7)
Total (/16)
Section 001 (8am) Section 002 (4pm) Section 003 (9am)
116
70
77
3.60 ± 0.19
4.24 ± 0.26
3.62 ± 0.25
3.22 ± 0.16
3.46 ± 0.19
3.44 ± 0.22
6.83 ± 0.30
7.70 ± 0.38
7.06 ± 0.40
o Comparison between 2010 and 2011 on 11 common problems:
114
62
Section 003
(diff instructor,
diff lecture time)
86
4.86 ± 0.23
4.90 ± 0.30
3.93 ± 0.28
4.56 ± 0.16
116
70
77
263
4.67 ± 0.21
5.39 ± 0.28
4.73 ± 0.28
4.88 ± 0.15
Section 001 Section 002
# students
2010 Common problems
(/11)
# students
2011 Common problems
(/11)
Overall
262
o Students this year performed marginally better than last year.
o The lecture time of Section 003 changed from 8am last year to 9am this year. This
change might explain the difference in the test results.
o The post-test given at the end of the term will be the same as this test. We would
like to see if the remedial work can help students improve their basic skills.

Remedial assignments
o I am responsible for the creation of the weekly remedial assignments on MathXL.


o The diagnostic test is worth 5% of their term grade. Those who pass the test will get
the full 5%. Those who failed need to complete at least 75% of the remedial
assignments to make up the 5%.
o The assignments consist of two parts:
 Part A: algebra
 Part B: graphs and applications
 Students who get 4/9 or less in the diagnostic test on the part with algebra
need to do Part A.
 Those who get 3/7 or less on the part with graphs and word problems need
to do Part B.
 Those who get an overall mark of 8/16 or higher on the diagnostic test do
not need to do the remedial assignments.
o In Term 1, students will be given questions on a topic each week. Topics include
 Part A:
 Multiple/division/simplification of rational expressions
 Addition/subtraction of rational expressions
 Complex rational expressions
 Equations and simple inequalities involving rational expressions
 Laws of exponents and expressions involving exponents
 Manipulations of radical expressions, rationalization of radicals
 Part B:
 Reading graphs, relationship between graphs and functions
 Graphs of simple functions, transformation of graphs
 Composition of functions
 Geometry, areas and volumes
 Triangles and shapes related to triangles
 Setting up equations from word problems
 Distance and velocity
o In Term 2, questions on the above topics will be given in a random manner each
week. I hope this could improve student retention on these basic skills.
o We will examine the effectiveness of these remedial assignments by comparing the
performance in the post-test between students who did the remedial assignments
and those who did not.
Workshops
o Format:
 Introductory problem – 5-10 minutes
 TA discussion: introductory problem + another example – 20 minutes
(ideally)
 Group work: students work in groups and solve a problem – 50 minutes
 Students need to hand in their full solutions at the end of the workshop.
o I am responsible for the observations in the workshops. Each week I will report my
feedbacks to the instructor during our regular meeting and to the TAs in weekly TA
sessions.
o So far student engagement is not bad. However, since the workshop problems are in
general more difficult and involving than lecture example and assignment problems,
students tend to depend on the TAs when they are stuck.
o I will involve in the mid-term TA training during the week of Oct 16.
I received 2010 course grades from Rajiv Gupta and did some analysis on how students
from Math 110 did in Calculus II courses.
o Number of Math 110 students who subsequently completed Math 101 or 105:
Math 110 (2008, 74 students)
Math 110 (2009, 270 students)
Math 101 Math 105
1
14
15
57
 There are much more Math 110 students taking Math 105 than Math 101.
o In the following analysis, we focus on students who took Math 110, 180 or 184
(Calculus I, or CA1) before taking Math 101 or 105 (Calculus II, or CA2). Their
average grades in CA1 and CA2 were used for comparison.
o From CA1 to Math 101
CA1 course
M110
M180
M184
CA1 → M101 2010S CA1 → M101 2010W2
Course avg = 56.8%
Course avg = 62.9%
71.0% → 54.4%
59.8% → 54.0%
2009
(9 students)
(6 students)
Course avg = 56.2%
2009W1
60.8% → 59.2%
57.5% → 42.3%
Course avg = 60.2%
(5 students)
(6 students)
71.0% → 49.0%
2010S
75.8% → 56.8%
(13 students)
(8 students)
Course avg = 64.0%
2010W1
67.8% → 56.7%
Course avg = 58.5%
(145 students)
2010W1
74.9% → 64.4%
Course avg = 64.2%
(10 students)
Term
o From CA1 to Math 105
CA1 course
M110
M180
M184
CA1 → M105 2009W2 CA1 → M105 2010S CA1 → M105 2010W2
Course avg = 69.4%
Course avg = 78.7%
Course avg = 71.2%
2008
66.7% → 58.0%
Course avg = 54.9%
(7 students)
2009
73.0% → 78.4%
67.2% → 59.6%
Course avg = 56.2%
(21 students)
(36 students)
2009W1
67.2 → 66.6%
60.8% → 67.5%
Course avg = 60.2%
(71 students)
(10 students)
2010S
74.5% → 54.8%
Course avg = 64.0%
(4 students)
2010W1
63.1% → 65.8%
Course avg = 58.5%
(47 students)
2008W1
65.8% → 61.0%
Course avg = 60.5%
(25 students)
2009S
69.4% → 56.4%
Course avg = 64.0%
(53 students)
2009W1
70.4% → 68.0%
74.0% → 81.0%
70.1% → 65.4%
Course avg = 63.2%
(149 students)
(16 students)
(30 students)
2010S
69.2% → 79.0%
69.9% → 65.9%
Course avg = 62.8%
(20 students)
(34 students)
2010W1
69.6% → 69.8%
Course avg = 64.2%
(136 students)
Term
o Shaded cell indicates that the separation time between CA1 and CA2 is short.
o From the above table we see that students taken Math 110 performed similarly in
CA2 course compared to those taken Math 180 and 184. Does it suggest that Math
110 can bring students with weaker math background to a level comparable with
Math 180 or 184 students?
MATH 184 – Differential Calculus with Applications to Commerce and Social Sciences
 Costanza, Warren, Katya and I were involved in running oral assessments during
workshops (Oct 11-13)
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: Diagnostic test and attitudinal survey given.
New Methods/Materials: New workshops… Problem-solving based.
MATH 210:
Learning Goals: In progress.
Assessments: Not started
New Methods/Materials: The MATLAB module is new.
MATH 305:
Learning Goals: 1st draft is used.
Assessments: Diagnostic assignment done.
New Methods/Materials: None at this point
Plan for immediate future work
MATH 110:
1. Continue with the creation of remedial assignments.
2. Continue with workshop observations and gather feedback from students.
MATH 210:
1. Work on learning goals for the MATLAB module.
2. Work on course materials after the learning goals are created.
MATH 305:
1. Record the grades and gather some information from Midterm 1.