Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2009/2010
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)
 Nearly all means above 4 (only seven below 4, each of which was above
3.75).
 Student comments were by and large approving with continued
complimentary remarks regarding MathXL (third year of use).
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)
 For fall term, placement approval was 78% in 100A, 69% in 100B, and
66% in 100C. Undecided students made up 5%, 14%, and 20%
respectively. For winter term, placement approval was 69% in 100A, 76%
in 100B, and 61% in 100C. Undecided students made up 13%, 15%, and
17% respectively.
 For fall term, course properly prepared student for success in next course
was rated 88% in 100A, 89% in 100B, and 83% in 100C. For winter term,
course properly prepared student for success in next course was rated
81% in 100A, 91% in 100B, and 75% in 100C.
 For fall term, instruction approval was 90% in 100A, 86% in 100B, and
75% in 100C. For winter term, instruction approval was 69% in 100A,
96% in 100B, and 63% in 100C.
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. 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 and winter
quarters of 2009-2010 are included. 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
(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%
72.4%
83.9%
80.6%
82.6%
61.2%
Based on the chart above, success has dipped a bit during the current year,
particularly in 100C. But it is encouraging to note that last year’s dip in 100B has
reversed itself. Passing rates are still reasonable and occasional dips are to be
expected. We will watch that the downward trend does not continue in 100C.
Goal 2:
The following are the passing rates in subsequent courses (both Math 100 and
college level) from Fall 2002 through Summer 2009 (with Fall 2007 and on being
students using the new Math 100 curriculum).
FROM
100A
100B
100C
TO
100B*
100C*
101
130
164
153
2002-2003
84.6%
66.7%
96.9%
100.0%
96.3%
90.5%
2003-2004
92.1%
75.0%
97.6%
70.6%
96.8%
96.1%
*Passing with a grade of C or better
2004-2005
90.5%
82.8%
93.7%
95.2%
100.0%
94.9%
2005-2006
88.6%
92.6%
97.3%
75.9%
100.0%
88.0%
2006-2007
84.0%
80.8%
87.0%
87.5%
91.3%
87.7%
2007-2008
64.3%
84.0%
89.5%
90.9%
78.6%
79.1%
2008-2009
56.8%
68.3%
88.2%
66.7%
88.9%
83.2%
The results show that for last year’s students, in general, there was a downward
trend in future success. This coincides with the general downward trend for
those same students in success in Math 100. This is concerning but may
reverse itself as success in Math 100 did. The areas of greatest concern are
Math 100A to 100B, Math 100B to 100C, and Math 100B to Math 130. The other
sequences dipped only slightly or increased in success rates.
Goal 4:
Lab Feedback (via suggestion/comment forms)
We received 20 comment/suggestion forms from fall lab attendees and 6 from
winter lab attendees. All questions are rated on a 5-point scale.
4.85
4.83
4.69
4.92
I got the help I needed.
Tutors are available when needed.
The lab location is convenient.
Tutors are friendly and helpful.
We also conducted a survey this spring regarding lab hours and locations. A
total of 286 completed surveys were collected from various math and general
education classes. These survey results, as well as the numbers above, 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
*Data for Spring 2004 missing, 462 estimated attendance.
It is clear from the chart above that lab attendance increased dramatically four
years ago and has roughly maintained that level of attendance ever since. To
put the numbers in perspective, we served approximately 157% more students
this year than we did in 2002-2003.
Fall 2009
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
250
260
264
265
272
311
331
HS Calcu
499E
TOTAL
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Finance
Mgt
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 311
IT 374
Unreported
TOTAL
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
13
26
8
20
1
2
13
20
4
24
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
3
5
14
32
1
26
4
2
9
2
12
5
12
31
2
25
5
6
8
3
17
6
2
9
1
1
12
26
2
27
2
10
19
2
15
1
7
1
4
1
9
3
15
9
7
14
2
8
9
20
2
12
4
1
3
4
19
23
2
9
3
8
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
10
4
16
6
19
3
22
11
7
22
6
3
3
Finals
6
4
4
1
1
13
6
7
3
2
2
77
72
87
100
108
65
69
102
12
122
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Finals
1
Total
0
1
1
3
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
47
25
895
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
78
3
80
1
88
4
106
2
110
2
69
2
71
1
103
12
9
131
Total
17
83
21
82
17
132
213
41
193
16
19
19
0
2
0
2
2
0
859
Winter 2010
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
250
260
264
265
272
311
331
HS Calcu
499E
TOTAL
1
47
55
86
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Finance
Mgt
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 311
IT 374
Other
Unreported
TOTAL
1
2
3
GRAND
TOTAL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
5
7
1
12
28
23
2
11
17
16
12
10
9
6
31
10
1
10
8
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
5
5
3
9
13
3
3
17
6
36
17
7
18
16
6
1
8
22
1
7
13
15
1
7
11
27
5
15
8
17
11
21
10
14
14
16
9
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
4
104
4
96
59
77
66
92
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
11
3
3
1
1
4
6
1
9
1
1
3
1
2
5
3
4
1
3
5
1
3
6
58
58
90
113
99
64
81
71
98
Finals Total
7
7 123
2
63
1
98
1
6
95
8 192
7
2
98
2
5
1
8
0
1
5
5
0
3
0
29 711
Finals Total
0
6
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
3
0
0
0
2
14
1
22
5
55
34
766
Spring 2010
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
Calc
250
260
264
265
272
311
331
HS Calcu
499E
TOTAL
1
52
47
59
57
80
Non-Math
Bus Math
Biology 213
Test Prep
Chem 181
Chem 183
Finance
Mgt
Psych 302
Phys 106
Phys 111
Phil 201
Stats
IET 311
IT 374
Other
Unreported
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
GRAND
TOTAL
2
1
1
6
4
27
12
3
5
5
9
20
1
7
4
4
7
3
5
30
1
8
5
6
20
1
5
9
3
1
9
33
4
4
6
4
17
6
7
8
12
4
10
8
8
22
1
5
1
1
7
12
1
13
37
3
11
9
2
2
5
7
2
5
12
42
1
7
1
29
6
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
74
88
81
52
6
7
8
9
1
1
4
15
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
6
3
1
5
6
8
1
8
11
1
8
9
1
8
9
1
6
8
3
3
2
6
10
58
52
67
68
89
83
96
84
62
Finals Total
4
27
2
43
9
81
1
14
3
70
10 270
13
1
62
0
0
0
1
1
3
7
2
24
0
0
29 619
Finals Total
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
2
16
2
49
5
74
34
693
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 69
attendees for the year which is about 3% 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 some concern over the drop in performance in Math 100 and a few of
the subsequent courses. We will be following this trend closely to see if it signals
a needed change or if it is simply part of the ebb and flow of a changing student
body.
The impact of our curriculum change is still being measured with only two full
years of subsequent course data. Students (and faculty!) seem to be adapting to
MathXL, finding it a useful tool for learning. As more students complete college
level courses, we’ll be better able to track future success based on the current
curriculum.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s
assessment information?
We continued using the new curriculum (including MathXL) since no negative
impact was observed. Student responses continue to be generally positive and
we are still looking at the long-term impact of this change.
The dip in success rates in Math 100 courses was closely watched and we are
happy to see that rates are back up in those courses that were declining.
We also continued with weekly staff meetings for tutors to facilitate dialogue and
additional training, especially in rusty content areas. This was especially
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.