Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2008/2009
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)
 All means above 3 (with most above 4).
 Student comments were by and large approving, especially in winter.
 Both terms saw complimentary remarks regarding MathXL (second year of
use). This positive trend supports continued use of the program.
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 71% in 100A, 65% in 100B, and
75% in 100C. Undecided students made up 13%, 12%, and 10%
respectively. For winter term, placement approval was 80% in 100A, 75%
in 100B, and 76% in 100C. Undecided students made up 13%, 13%, and
14% respectively.
 For fall term, course properly prepared student for success in next course
was rated 84% in 100A, 81% in 100B, and 89% in 100C. For winter term,
course properly prepared student for success in next course was rated
93% in 100A, 87% in 100B, and 92% in 100C.
 For fall term, instruction approval was 87% in 100A, 79% in 100B, and
89% in 100C. For winter term, instruction approval was 87% in 100A,
85% in 100B, and 86% in 100C.
The student surveys this year also indicate general approval of advising,
placement, and instruction in our courses. Our lowest results are in the area of
advising but most are at or above ¾ 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 2008-2009 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
(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%
86.6%
72.4%
83.9%
Based on the chart above, success has dipped a bit during the current year,
particularly in 100B. However, passing rates are still reasonable (minimum of
72.4%, otherwise above 80%) and occasional dips are to be expected. We will
watch that the downward trend does not continue.
Goal 2:
The following are the passing rates in subsequent courses (both Math 100 and
college level) from Fall 2002 through Summer 2008 (with Fall 2007 and on being
students using the new Math 100 curriculum).
FROM
100A
100B
100C
TO
100B*
100C*
101
102
130
164
153
2002-2003
84.6%
66.7%
96.9%
100.0%
77.8%
96.3%
69.0%
*Passing with a grade of C or better
2003-2004
92.1%
75.0%
97.6%
70.6%
100.0%
96.8%
96.1%
2004-2005
90.5%
82.8%
93.7%
100.0%
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%
100.0%
87.5%
91.3%
87.7%
2007-2008
64.3%
86.4%
88.6%
80.0%
90.9%
91.7%
79.1%
The results show that for subsequent Math 100 courses we are near our goal of
90% for Math 100B to 100C (86.4%) but are less successful for Math 100A to
100B (64.3%).
For college level coursework, we are seeing an upward trend in many courses.
For 101, 130, and 164, our success rates have improved during the last year and
are near or above our goal of 90%. For 102 and 153, we have seen a moderate
downturn in the past year and are seeing success rates of about 80%.
Goal 4:
Lab Feedback (via suggestion/comment forms)
We received 4 comment/suggestion forms from fall lab attendees and 12 from
winter lab attendees. All questions are rated on a 5-point scale.
4.75
4.38
4.94
5.00
I got the help I needed.
Tutors are available when needed.
The lab location is convenient.
Tutors are friendly and helpful.
Based on these scores, it looks like 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
*Data for Spring 2004 missing, 462 estimated attendance.
It is clear from the chart above that lab attendance has increased dramatically in
the last few years. In 2006-2007, attendance was up almost 63% over the
previous year. In 2008-2009, we set another record with attendance up 10%
from the incredible 2006-2007.
Fall 2008
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
104
130
153/154
164
Calc
311
499E
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
8
8
6
2
9
10
3
11
2
17
4
14
3
20
7
11
7
24
20
28
14
17
17
31
1
18
32
14
14
1
15
17
1
63
80
70
Non-Math
Bus Math
Test Prep
Chem183
Finance
Mgt
Psych
Phys111
Phil201
Stats
IET311
IT374
TOTAL
1
2
3
1
6
4
Unreported
TOTAL
9
78
6
90
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
9
4
5
9
2
7
1
5
5
4
19
23
9
33
20
17
28
1
12
19
16
102
112
76
79
73
17
76
4
5
1
6
2
3
7
8
9
10
1
2
2
2
10
11
19
5
2
8
28
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
7
78
13
117
6
120
1
1
1
1
10
4
1
6
3
89
4
87
3
77
4
1
1
2
19
5
87
Finals
Total
5
4
4
6
6
6
20
51
0
1
52
12
92
60
82
2
1
135
252
1
150
1
1
799
Total
3
5
3
2
2
7
3
9
1
1
1
36
59
894
Winter 2009
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
201
260
274
Calc
311
332
TOTAL
Test Prep
Chem 111
Phil 201
Econ
Stats
IET311
TOTAL
Unreported
TOTAL
1
2
3
3
2
2
1
5
27
1
1
4
1
2
14
30
3
10
6
39
1
1
27
3
90
3
4
5
6
14
3
8
1
10
33
11
2
10
1
9
20
17
2
1
1
8
24
6
36
2
39
2
1
36
78
95
108
7
8
9
Finals
7
2
14
3
13
6
6
2
21
23
10
27
1
16
17
4
21
4
4
2
11
53
2
1
2
1
1
1
70
1
21
23
40
23
7
130
78
123
109
93
1
40
2
1
1
1
1
95
78
1
96
108
1
1
2
3
134
1
81
21
1
322
3
4
944
2
8
1
124
6
104
26
58
8
95
292
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
Total
109
2
95
40
8
960
Spring 2009
Math
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
170
250
265
271
274
Calc
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
2
1
9
27
3
1
2
4
14
25
4
26
1
6
1
8
2
1
23
28
1
24
50
1
1
7
8
9
Finals
2
3
3
1
1
6
22
1
2
2
5
1
1
16
65
2
9
69
4
11
39
Total
4
33
7
14
9
141
377
8
3
1
5
1
10
208
821
2
2
5
5
41
13
839
9
12
2
1
1
1
16
54
10
31
82
17
67
Non-Math
Test Prep
TOTAL
Unreported
TOTAL
2
1
27
53
5
3
3
1
55
2
84
67
1
1
1
27
114
38
99
12
98
27
113
1
1
2
2
3
118
3
104
3
101
113
1
15
52
1
53
14
103
103
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 49
attendees for the year which is about 1.8% 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
well and our impact on student success seems to be very positive.
There is some concern over the drop in performance in Math 100. 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. Students 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 have become more positive and we
are still looking at the long-term impact of this change.
We instituted a new registration process which streamlines advising for students.
We also strengthened our drop-in lab by increasing the frequency of staff
meetings to facilitate dialogue and additional training, especially in rusty content
areas.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Outcomes at Central
Washington University:
None at present.