Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2010/2011
Department: University Math Center
1. What outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
Department/program goals 1, 2, and 4 have annual assessment components and
thus are assessed in this report.
Goal 1:
Math 100 courses use innovative teaching strategies to create a challenging
learning environment for students.
Related Divisional Goals: AA1
Related University Goals: USG I, VI
Goal 2:
Math 100 courses successfully prepare students for further personal and
academic pursuits (including future courses in the Math 100 sequence and/or
college-level math courses).
Related Divisional Goals: AA2
Related University Goals: USG I
Goal 4:
The UMC’s Drop-in Help Lab serves a diverse student population.
Related Divisional Goals: AA1, AA6
Related University Goals: USG I, VI
2. How were they assessed?
Methods Used:
Who
Assessed:
When
Assessed:
Goal 1
student surveys &
SEOIs, analyzing effect
of significant changes in
curriculum on student
performance
instructors,
curriculum
data is compiled
each term and
analyzed
annually
Goal 2
tracking grades in future
coursework
students
annually
Goal 4
data collected from signin sheets and feedback
forms/surveys
lab delivery
effectiveness
quarterly and
annually
Criterion of Achievement:
SEOI results are consistently
positive; student surveys indicate
general approval of advising,
placement and instruction;
curriculum changes have a
positive impact on student
success
goal of 90% passing subsequent
course (either Math 100 or
college level)
lab attendance continues to
increase, a large variety of
courses are represented,
changes to delivery are made
based on student needs/feedback
where feasible
3. What was learned?
Goal 1:
SEOI Results (fall/winter)
Fall Quarter
C
AVG
Quarter
AVG
A
AVG
B
AVG
C
AVG
Quarter
AVG
Average
4.83
4.95
3.71
4.50
4.61
4.88
4.51
4.66
4.58
4.84
4.77
3.65
4.42
4.30
4.82
4.41
4.51
4.46
4.89
4.79
3.62
4.43
4.48
4.77
4.26
4.50
4.47
4.80
4.86
4.03
4.56
4.70
4.83
4.51
4.68
4.62
4.77
4.87
3.62
4.42
4.65
4.88
4.56
4.69
4.56
themselves.
4.77
4.72
3.44
4.31
4.70
4.77
4.31
4.59
4.45
Extra help was available when needed.
4.82
4.90
4.19
4.64
4.78
4.84
4.70
4.77
4.70
Course objectives were clearly stated.
4.85
4.75
3.95
4.51
4.39
4.81
4.56
4.59
4.55
The instructor gave clear explanations.
4.80
4.66
3.59
4.35
4.39
4.76
4.35
4.50
4.43
The instructor presented alternative explanations when
needed.
4.76
4.79
3.60
4.38
4.39
4.75
4.30
4.48
4.43
meaningful.
Instructor raised important questions or problems.
4.83
4.82
3.78
4.47
4.57
4.85
4.32
4.58
4.53
4.80
4.64
3.77
4.40
4.61
4.72
4.33
4.55
4.48
Appropriate examples and illustrations were used.
4.74
4.83
3.92
4.49
4.61
4.78
4.53
4.64
4.57
The instructor's speech was clear and easily understood.
4.91
4.84
3.92
4.56
4.70
4.83
4.63
4.72
4.64
Class time was used efficiently.
4.75
4.78
3.74
4.42
4.57
4.81
4.53
4.64
4.53
Instructor was interested in whether students learned.
4.86
4.88
3.96
4.57
4.74
4.82
4.55
4.70
4.63
Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field.
4.71
4.59
3.38
4.23
4.43
4.61
4.26
4.43
4.33
Instructor applied course materials to real-world issues.
4.83
4.45
3.21
4.16
4.65
4.62
4.46
4.58
4.37
Course objectives were met.
4.80
4.73
3.94
4.49
4.65
4.81
4.59
4.68
4.59
Assigned readings and other out-of-class work were
useful.
4.63
4.51
3.61
4.25
4.52
4.46
4.12
4.37
4.31
4.92
4.82
4.00
4.58
4.74
4.78
4.44
4.65
4.61
4.75
4.64
3.91
4.43
4.70
4.59
4.37
4.55
4.49
4.83
4.79
4.10
4.57
4.65
4.76
4.54
4.65
4.61
sex, race or age.
4.92
4.27
4.59
4.59
4.78
4.86
4.79
4.81
4.70
The intellectual challenge presented to you.
4.28
4.12
3.36
3.92
4.30
4.08
3.89
4.09
4.00
course.
4.36
4.24
3.57
4.05
4.43
4.26
4.07
4.25
4.15
Your involvement (doing assignments, attending classes,
etc.).
4.56
4.58
4.09
4.41
4.61
4.61
4.54
4.59
4.50
4.80
4.59
3.42
4.27
4.43
4.54
4.25
4.41
4.34
4.86
4.78
3.61
4.41
4.45
4.70
4.33
4.49
4.45
progress.
4 I was confident in the instructor's knowledge.
5 The instructor was enthusiastic.
6 The instructor encouraged students to express
11 Answers to student questions were clear and
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Cumulative
B
AVG
1 Instructor met class regularly and on time.
2 Class sessions were well organized.
3 The instructor provided useful feedback on student
7
8
9
10
Winter Quarter
A
AVG
21 Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers,
projects, etc.) were fair.
22 Amount of work was appropriate to course level and
credits.
23 Student responsibilities and requirements were clearly
stated.
24 Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of
25
26 The amount of your effort needed to succeed in this
27
28 Course as a whole was:
29 Instructor's teaching effectiveness was:
The SEOI results this year indicate a generally positive response from students
toward our courses in all aspects.
Student Surveys Re: Advising, Placement, Instruction (fall/winter/spring)
Placement approval
Undecided
Course properly
prepared student for
success in next course
Instruction approval
Fall
81%
5%
100A
Winter
70%
Spring
53%
13%
24%
Fall
73%
16%
100B
Winter
81%
Spring
73%
11%
16%
Fall
62%
17%
100C
Winter
73%
Spring
71%
15%
11%
95%
91%
82%
95%
92%
77%
58%
84%
85%
89%
78%
82%
93%
93%
94%
50%
77%
73%
The student surveys this year also indicate general approval of advising,
placement, and instruction in our courses. Our lowest results are generally in the
area of advising but most are at or above 70% approval. One notable exception
is the Math 100C courses in fall quarter. The student satisfaction in these
courses was particularly (and abnormally) low. Half of these sections were
taught by an instructor with unexpected health issues that led to an unusual
number of missed days and substitute instructors. As you will see in the passing
rates, students had a bumpy quarter. Though this was beyond our control, we
will make efforts in the future to maintain continuity in our courses as the lack of it
clearly has a negative impact. As we’ve seen in previous quarters, it is telling
that regardless of how students feel about placement and instruction, at the end
of the term they overwhelmingly feel prepared for the next course.
Curriculum Changes
We began using a new curriculum (new textbook and MathXL) in Fall 2007. The
following data describe trends in course success since 2002. Fall, winter, and
spring quarters of 2010-2011 are included for Math 100A and Math 100B. Only
fall and winter quarters of 2010-2011 are included for Math 100C (spring data is
not yet complete as of June 15). Passing in this data set requires a C or better in
the course (the requirement to move on to the next course).
Passing Rates
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
(Grade of C or Better)
100A
100B
100C
83.3%
85.8%
82.6%
88.9%
85.2%
82.2%
96.0%
91.0%
83.1%
98.0%
87.6%
75.6%
100.0%
89.7%
87.5%
98.1%
86.1%
86.9%
81.7%
72.1%
83.8%
76.5%
78.3%
67.7%
84.8%
89.8%
62.5%
Based on the chart above, success has increased during the current year, except
in 100C. However, Math 100C numbers took a hit during fall quarter when the
pass rate was only 49.4% (as noted above, there were significant discontinuity
issues with half of the instruction). During winter quarter, the pass rate was
76.3%. So while the overall number is less than we’d like, it appears we may be
back on an upswing if spring looks like winter.
Goal 2:
The following are the passing rates in subsequent courses (both Math 100 and
college level) from Fall 2002 through Summer 2010 (with Fall 2007 and on being
students using the new Math 100 curriculum).
FROM
100A
TO
100B*
20022003
85%
20032004
92%
20042005
91%
20052006
89%
20062007
84%
20072008
64%
20082009
56%
20092010
61%
100B
100C*
67%
75%
83%
93%
81%
84%
67%
57%
101
97%
98%
94%
97%
87%
90%
86%
84%
130
100%
71%
95%
76%
88%
91%
78%
63%
164
96%
97%
100%
100%
91%
79%
91%
57%
153
91%
96%
95%
88%
88%
79%
80%
79%
100C
*Passing with a grade of C or better
The results show that for last year’s students in Math 100A, there was an
upswing in future success. Math 100C students have maintained a future
success rate of around 80% for the past three years. Math 100B students have
shown a general downward trend in future success over the past few years. Due
to the low enrollments of Math 100B students in Math 130 and Math 164,
success rates swing dramatically from year to year and little significant data can
be gleaned. The transition from Math 100B to 101 seems to be holding fairly
steady around 85-90% since 2006-2007. However, the transition from Math
100B to 100C is somewhat troubling. We’ve been working to unearth a possible
grade inflation issue. The concern was that the high success rates were due in
part to students following a particular instructor from 100B to 100C rather than
our curriculum or any programmatic issues. This hypothesis appears to bear out
but future success rates from the current year (which won’t be available until
March 2012) will give a clearer picture.
Goal 4:
Lab Feedback (via suggestion/comment forms)
We received 12 comment/suggestion forms from fall lab attendees, 14 from
winter lab attendees, and 7 from spring lab attendees. All questions are rated on
a 5-point scale.
4.67
4.45
4.67
4.91
I got the help I needed.
Tutors are available when needed.
The lab location is convenient.
Tutors are friendly and helpful.
These results indicate that the lab is providing a valued service to students
when/where they need it.
Lab Attendance
Math Lab Attendance
Fall
Winter
Spring
Total
02-03
227
267
423
917
03-04
410
497
*462
907
04-05
464
470
267
1,201
05-06
446
528
528
1,502
06-07
824
850
769
2,443
07-08
866
722
830
2,418
08-09
894
960
839
2,693
09-10
895
766
693
2,354
10-11
680
776
911
2,367
*Data for Spring 2004 missing, 462 estimated attendance.
We’ve been hovering around the 2500 visit mark for about 5 years. This number
is manageable—any increase in visits would require more space (if not room
size, then at least increasing the hours it is open) and staff.
Fall 2010
Math
1
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
232
250
260
264
265
272
311
331
HS Calcu
Diff Eq 376
2
2
6
9
21
2
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
4
8
4
14
6
2
1
8
26
4
5
7
4
7
7
3
5
2
4
5
4
10
25
12
22
7
20
9
18
16
20
20
1
19
20
1
4
26
25
5
25
7
4
9
10
Finals
2
6
11
9
2
1
3
1
10
8
7
11
3
11
4
2
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
4
2
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
TOTAL
52
67
60
81
80
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 311
IT 374
TOTAL
1
2
3
2
4
5
1
5
0
2
1
1
Other
Unreported
3
3
63
2
1
70
1
1
64
1
2
85
2
3
86
TOTAL
1
77
61
64
8
43
44
6
7
8
9
10
Finals
1
0
1
Total
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
11
45
15
17
680
1
4
Total
0
48
56
34
3
82
205
9
150
1
2
10
17
11
1
5
0
2
1
637
1
1
0
0
0
1
4
2
70
1
2
79
1
1
63
10
2
45
Winter 2011
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
232
250
260
264
265/365
272
311
331
Diff Eq 376
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
13
29
1
17
1
1
1
1
13
22
1
7
6
4
4
3
11
42
2
10
9
3
5
4
10
34
1
17
2
6
20
27
1
16
2
3
5
3
2
2
4
6
1
11
5
1
6
6
53
7
2
5
21
8
1
5
5
4
2
8
41
9
3
7
2
4
5
13
33
19
5
19
21
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
Finals
1
1
3
3
4
6
6
1
5
Total
6
47
26
26
36
105
308
5
136
0
0
0
0
10
20
4
0
0
729
TOTAL
75
52
85
88
77
104
41
87
90
30
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Geology 107
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 311
IT 374
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Finals
1
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
Other
Unreported
3
3
82
4
2
58
3
90
2
3
96
1
2
80
3
107
41
4
6
97
4
1
95
30
18
23
776
TOTAL
1
1
3
1
Spring 2011
Math
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Finals
3
2
6
3
5
40
3
3
5
8
2
2
17
7
4
7
6
2
8
3
1
8
7
1
11
7
8
6
7
31
4
4
6
3
10
30
18
35
10
46
14
46
7
37
15
67
2
4
37
5
27
16
17
19
15
11
12
3
9
3
3
1
13
5
1
1
15
2
1
6
1
3
2
3
1
1
4
2
5
1
TOTAL
80
84
82
86
103
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Geology 107
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 301
IT 374
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
0
1
0
Other
Unreported
7
1
88
7
1
93
2
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
232
250
260
264
265/365
272
311
331
Diff Eq 376
TOTAL
3
2
2
3
1
103
90
114
73
50
5
6
7
8
9
Finals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
106
3
1
107
1
2
93
4
3
121
1
4
78
2
3
89
1
84
52
Total
0
77
47
27
8
95
396
0
108
0
44
1
0
9
25
0
0
0
865
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
28
17
911
The course breakdown of lab attendees shows that we are serving students from a
wide variety of math courses. Our total for non-math content courses is 18
attendees for the year which is about 1% of the population.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
We are pleased with the results in general. Our program seems to be functioning
fairly well and our impact on student success seems to be generally positive.
There is still some concern over the performance in Math 100, particularly in our
future success rates for 100A and 100B students. We plan to reinstitute (budget
allowing) the individual tutoring program for students in Math 100 to provide them
extra help. Changes in staffing next year may also have a significant impact in
success rates in Math 100C.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s
assessment information?
To increase future success rates for Math 100A and 100B students, we ran study
group sessions for Math 100B and 100C courses. These sessions met two or
three times a week. Math 100B study sessions ran all three quarters (fall, winter,
spring) while the Math 100C study sessions began winter quarter and were
continued in the spring. Attendance was very low in fall and winter—while the
data did suggest an impact on GPA for Math 100C students who attended, the
data set was too small to make any useful conclusions. The GPA data for spring
students is not yet available.
Though budgetary concerns limited the number of meetings, we continued with
regular staff meetings for tutors to facilitate dialogue and additional training,
especially in rusty content areas. This remained important during the past year
as our CRLA certification course seems to have gone defunct and tutors have no
formal training opportunities on campus.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Outcomes at Central
Washington University:
None at present.