Instructional Program Review Update 2012/13 

Instructional Program Review Update 2012/13 (fields will expand as you type) Section 1 ‐ Program Information 1.0 Name of Program: Mathematics Date: 12/14/12 1.1 Program Review Authors: M. Butler, D. Arnold, T. Matsumoto, K. Yokoyama, M. Haley, T. Olsen, E. Wall, R. Ries, B. Morin, B.Wagner, S. Jackson 1.2 Dean’s Signature:
Rachel Anderson Date: 2/8/13 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees # of Certificates 2 # of Courses 0 # of GE Courses 25 11 The shaded cells below are to be populated by the Program Review Committee as needed. # of Full Time Faculty 2010‐2011 # of Part Time Faculty 2011‐12 2010‐2011 # of Staff FTE 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 Personnel Budget 2010‐2011 Discretionary Budget 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: The Math Department puts student success first by providing outstanding developmental and transfer education. We continually assess student learning to improve our program. 1.3.2 Program highlights/accomplishments: We added edits and improvements to the department authored textbooks. We’ve added a significant number of questions and solutions to the department’s Optimath system enabling students to take online exams, quizzes, assignments, sample exercises, and activities. The Optimath system has also been used for assessment purposes by the department. We have refined and continue improving our assessment tools across all our courses. We are on schedule to assess all our PLOs and CLOs within two years in line with the revisions made at Convocation. We have improved and refined our multiple measures for assessment and placement of new students into the appropriate math level. We adapted and revised Math 194 to accommodate a wider variety of transfer students. Math 15 has been offered in various formats and using new technologies to accommodate diverse student needs. We also continue to revise and improve the Math Jam courses with the help from BSI 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 1 funds. We are able to now staff the Math Lab with substitutes in case of absences to avoid breaks in Math Lab access. Section 2 ‐ Data Analysis 2.1 Enrollment & Fill Rate Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: Select your program and click on: Enrollments & fill rates Enrollment ☐ Comment if checked: At or above district averages. Fill Rate ☐ Comment if checked: At or above district averages. 2.2 Success & Retention Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: Select your program and click on: Success & Retention Success  Comment if checked: In general our success rates are below the district‐level though we are showing a modest gain in success from 2010‐2011 to 2011‐2012. We cut traditional style online courses this past year and piloted a Statistic course that is online but with regular set weekly contact hours with a flipped classroom design. It had a much higher success and retention rate than our traditional online classes did the previous year. Our pre‐transfer level math courses have success rates below the district level and they make up over 2/3 of our enrollments. However, the success rates are on par with state success rates in these courses. There is a pervasive fear of mathematics in our society. Also, we are asking these students to remediate much of what they thought they learned in high school. Students come in viewing this with low interest. We have made some improvements to our multiple measures process to address this, but we still have some work to do. A plurality of our incoming students place in Math 380, which is two levels before college transfer level mathematics. Retention ☐ Comment if checked: At or above district averages. 2.3 Persistence Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: Select your program and click on: Persistence ☐ Comment: At district average. 2.4 Completions Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: Select your program and click on: Completions & Transfers 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 2  Comment: The Liberal Arts Mathematics degree is relatively new and the numbers are very small. For general transfer and completion, students that take college level math are well above district average for these indicators. Student Equity Group Data 2.5 Enrollments Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to Enrollments & fill rates Comment: We comparable to the district since almost all degree‐seeking students are required to take a math course. 2.6 Success & Retention Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to success & retention Comment: We speculate that the majority of our African American students are coming to the college through recruitment by the Athletic Department. Athletes are required to stay enrolled in classes and with the time requirement for athletics, these students may benefit from greater support with time management and college success skills. Also math course meet several times per week often with daily homework assignments and with the athletic traveling schedule they can more easily fall behind. When they lose a foot hold it is difficult to climb back without the aid of some bridge. 2.7 Persistence Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to persistence Comment: Not enough students in the cohort group. Additional Indicators 2.8 Faculty Information Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: Select your program and click on: Faculty (FT/PT) & FTES/FTEF Comment: Based upon the given data it appears the ratio of FT/PT has switched so more classes are being taught by PT faculty than FT faculty which is different from the district. 2.9 Labor Market Data (CTE/Occupational programs only) Refer to the California Employment Development Division:
Provide a narrative that addresses the following: a. Documentation of labor market demand 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 3 b. Non‐duplication of other training programs in the region c. Effectiveness as measured by student employment and program completions. Narrative: NA Overall, what has been the impact of the change in indicators on student achievement and learning: With success and retention up 5 percentage points and 3 percentage points, respectively, from 2010‐11 to 2011‐12, more students are experiencing success in completing their respective mathematics course work. A small number of students are completing the AA Liberal Arts degrees in Mathematics ‐ too small a number of students to comment on. However, it is not uncommon for students seeking a bachelor degree in mathematics to transfer without completing an AA degree. Further tracking of students through exit surveys by IR would be helpful in accounting for these students. However, enrollments were down in the first calculus course Math 50A in Fall 2013. We are seeing the effects of this at present with fewer students enrolling in the more advanced courses in the major. For example, in Spring 2013 we had to cancel both Math 55 and Math 4 due to low enrollment. Provide narrative on the factors that may have contributed to the improvement or decline in the identified population: The increased dialogue among faculty in assessing student learning outcomes has likely contributed to the improvement in student success and retention. Faculty who are teaching multi‐section courses have a more universal understanding of what is most important for students to understand in these courses. Also, there is more sharing among faculty about the activities, techniques, and presentations that have been shown to increase student achievement of the course learning outcomes. With the decrease in the number of full‐time faculty in the department, we have seen decreased enrollment in our higher‐end, degree‐level courses. Accreditation sanctions may also be contributing to fewer students who are pursuing degrees in higher‐level mathematics and STEM fields from enrolling at CR. The Mathematics Department realizes that to sustain our AA Liberal Arts degree in Mathematics, we need to get back into the local high schools as was done previously when we had additional full‐time faculty in the department. The department is also going to be evaluating our course offerings in the degree sequence by considering the addition or substitution of a introduction to proofs course, which is a common sophomore‐level course across mathematics degree programs in the UC and CSU systems. Section 3 – Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities Curriculum & Assessment Data Are all courses on track for complete assessment of all outcomes in two years? Y/N What courses, if any, are not on track with regard to assessment? Explain. # of PLOs Assessed and Reported during the 2011‐2012 academic year. % of Course Outlines of Record updated 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Y N/A All (4) Page 4 If there is no plan for updating outdated curriculum, when will you inactivate? View curriculum status: click here or go to: Select your program and click on: Curriculum Status Assessment Reporting completed? Y/N Program Advisory Committee Met? Y/N As of May 2012 we were current and in the current year we continue to update. Y N/A 3.0 How has assessment of course level SLO’s led to improvement in student learning (top three): 1. Our discussions about assessment have lead us to a new awareness that we need to look beyond our individual classes towards a more holistic view of student learning on a course level. 2. The writing assignment in Statistics is very important for students to synthesize statistical concepts. 3. We use a variety of technologies in our classes and are moving towards a systematic way to evaluate their effectiveness. 3.1 How has assessment of program level outcomes led to degree/certificate improvement (top three): 1. Students in Math 55, 4, and 45 all do projects which assess PLO #1 and also can assess the other three PLOs. While assessments indicate students have substantially met PLO #1 there has been ongoing timeline revisions associated with these projects to assist students in managing their time and effort to decrease the amount of stress as the final submission date approaches. 2. Because of assessments in Math 45 we revised not only this course’s CLOs but also our PLOs, dropping the CLO and PLO that had to do with proof‐writing since it was determined there is not enough time to teach students the mathematics and programming skills they need for their projects along with enough practice in the art of proof‐writing. There is discussion of developing an Introduction to Proofs course, which is a common sophomore level course in baccalaureate mathematics programs. 3. We are currently revising CLOs in many of our courses that make up our program with an eye for tightening up the relationship between our CLOs and our PLOs which will not only streamline our assessment process but, also keep our courses focused on the skills, concepts, and themes that help our students achieve our PLOs. 3.2 (Optional) Describe unusual assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support: Section – 4 Evaluation of Previous Plans 4.1 Describe plans/actions identified in the last program review and their current status. What measurable outcomes were achieved due to actions completed. Actions Current Status Outcomes Course Outline Updates We updated 11 course outlines, 3 additional were completed Fall 2012, and 4 are in progress. We have a manageable number of CLOs for these courses that better describe the goals of the course. 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 5 Reviewing Previous Assessments for Closing the Loops to address We closed the loops on the following courses: They helped us update our course outlines Math 380, 5, 15, 50A, and 120 and content. Math 376 and Math 380 textbook updates Done Improved materials to address issues raised from assessment activities in these courses. Updating and expanding Optimath test banks We now have test banks for Math 15 and improved solutions in Math 25 and Math 30. These test banks are now being used extensively in these courses to help students understand the course content. Math Jam, review courses designed to improve math placement. Math 301, 302, and 303 are continuing to be updated Every student that completed these courses and chose to take the placement test placed higher than initial placement. A large number of users are using the course materials to review outside of course enrollees. 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: BSI Funds have supported Math Jam course development and deployment. Section – 5 Planning 5.0 Program Plans (2012/2013) Based on data analysis, student learning outcomes and program indicators, assessment and review, and your critical reflections, describe the program’s Action Plan for the 2012/13 academic year. If more than one plan, add rows. Include necessary resources. (Only a list of resources is needed here. Provide detailed line item budgets, supporting data or other justifications in the Resource Request). 5.1 Program Plans Action to be taken: Develop a pilot involving Math 376 and/or Math 380 placed first year college students of a streamlined remediate path for students who place below what their high school math experience indicates. 14. cMath Program Review .docx Relationship to Institutional Plans 2012‐2013 Annual Plan IA and IIC 4/23/2013 Relationship to Expected Impact on Assessment Program/Student Learning Majority of our incoming Increase completion rates of students place into Math college‐level math courses for 376 and Math 380, which these students. are 3 and 2 levels respectively below transfer. Completion of a college‐level course rates of students who initially place at these Page 6 Resources Needed Counselors or advisors fluent in mathematics assessment process Evaluate course prerequisites for Math 2012‐2013 Annual Plan IIA 15 and Math 5 in order to consider developing alternative developmental course pathways to address student goals and needs better. levels is very low. Majority of our incoming Increase completion rates of students place into Math college‐level math courses. 376 and Math 380, which are 3 and 2 levels respectively below transfer. Completion of a college‐level course rates of students who initially place at these levels is very low. Staff development funding for activities such as attending conferences, meeting with colleagues at other institutions, and attending State meetings involving articulation. More full‐time faculty needed to assist with development and assessment. More full‐time faculty needed to teach such a course. Continue discussion of options for new 2012‐2013 Annual technical math course. Plan IIA Increase retention and program completion rates of CTE students. Develop a Math Department Technology Plan Continued ability to deliver our customized, essential materials. Failure of these servers would be catastrophic to student learning. Increased enrollment in STEM fields especially those pursing a mathematics degree. An immediate indicator would be an increase in enrollments in 50A. More full‐time faculty needed since current faculty are already stretched thin with assessment and other course Revitalize Mathematics Faculty Outreach Directly to Local High School Students 14. cMath Program Review .docx Developing a more relevant math course to serve students in CTE. (Came out of Spring 2012 Assessment Summit) 2012‐2013 Annual Our developmental Plan IA and IIC course materials (textbooks, optimath, and Math Jam) don’t exist without the math servers. Student projects in our program also depend on this technology. Educational Master Higher level course Plan 1.4 enrollments are down. Enrollments were higher when full‐time faculty visited local high schools and interacted directly with these students. 4/23/2013 Page 7 development. 5.2 Provide any additional information, brief definitions, descriptions, comments, or explanations, if necessary. Section 6 ‐ Resource Requests 6.0 Planning Related, Operational, and Personnel Resource Requests. Requests must be submitted with rationale, plan linkage and estimated costs. If requesting full‐time staff, or tenure‐track faculty, submit the appropriate form available at Requests will follow the appropriate processes. Check One Amount Recurring Rationale Request $ Cost Y/N Linkage Planning Operational Personnel Restore ASC Hours M‐Th to 9pm and F to X $230/wk? Y Student success in evening, 6pm hybrid, and online courses (Goal 1: Educational Master Plan) Tech Support (Apple/IT/server support) X $40,000‐
Y Goal 4: Educational Master $50,000 per Plan year ? Math and Institutional 2012‐2013 Plan IA Y Goal 4: Educational Master Tech Support (Distance Ed) X $40,000‐
Plan $50,000 per year ? Advisors and/or Counselor X Math and Institutional 2012‐2013 Plan IA Math Server X $6000 Every 5 Goal 4: Educational Master years Plan Math and Institutional 2012‐2013 Plan IA Toner Cartridges X $800/yr Y Goal 4: Educational Master Plan Full‐time Math Instructor (Del Norte) X $100,000/yr Y Goal 1 and 3 from the Educational Master Plan 2 Full‐time Math Instructors (Eureka) X $200,000/yr Y Goal 1 and 3 from the Educational Master Plan Back‐Up Power Supply and Back‐Up Hard X $400 N Goal 4: Educational Master Drive Plan Math and Institutional 2012‐2013 Plan IA 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 8 Section 7‐ Program Review Committee Response Do not type in this section. To be completed by the Program Review Committee following evaluation. 7.0 The response will be forwarded to the author and the supervising Director and Vice President: S.1. Program Information: Satisfactory. S.2. Data Analysis: Overall success rates below district level but with a modest gain from the 2010‐11 year. Basic skills students are the largest math population. Only a small number of students declare a math interest. Persistence is good. CSU and GE completions good, but other data numbers are small. All equity groups are lower in math success and retention than district average. Concern that athletics students are lower and would benefit from greater support and college skills. Narrative included suggestions why and plans to remedy. Larger number of associate faculty teach math than full‐time; different from district averages. Satisfactory S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Assessment has led to increased faculty dialog, course revisions, PLO revisions, mapping and looking beyond individual component to a more holistic view of student learning. Satisfactory. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Report on the status of previous plans and outcomes, good. S.5. Planning: Good job tying program plans to annual and institutional planning. Developing multiple measures is spelled out specific plans. The PRC suggests including, in the future, clarification of how the programs intends to implement multiple measures and report out the following year. S.6. Resource Requests: Resource requests are tied to institutional planning and goals. 14. cMath Program Review .docx 4/23/2013 Page 9