Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2007/2008
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?
Who
Methods Used:
Assessed:
student
surveys
&
instructors,
Goal 1
When
Assessed:
data is compiled
each term and
analyzed
annually
SEOIs, analyzing effect
of significant changes in
curriculum on student
performance
curriculum
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 (including non-math
content 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 4 in fall, above 3 in winter (with most above 4).
 Student comments were generally positive.
 Negative comments regarding MathXL (online homework system making
its debut this academic year) were few in fall and fewer in winter, likely
due to the fact that instructors were becoming more comfortable with the
program and thus creating a more positive experience for students.
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 95% in 100A, 64% in 100B, and
64% in 100C. Undecided students made up 5%, 13%, and 8%
respectively. For winter term, placement approval was 67% in 100A, 71%
in 100B, and 77% in 100C. Undecided students made up 20%, 12%, and
9% respectively.
 For fall term, course properly prepared student for success in next course
was rated 95% in 100A, 88% in 100B, and 88% in 100C. For winter term,
course properly prepared student for success in next course was rated
93% in 100A, 79% in 100B, and 91% in 100C.
 For fall term, instruction approval was 100% in 100A, 92% in 100B, and
88% in 100C. For winter term, instruction approval was 94% in 100A,
84% in 100B, and 92% 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 we are still roughly around 2/3 or better approval.
Curriculum Changes
We began using a new curriculum (new textbook and MathXL) in Fall 2007. The
following data describes trends in course success since 2002. All of 2007-2008
is included (fall/winter/spring). Passing in this data set requires a C or better in
the course (the requirement to move on to the next course).
Academic
Year
Pass Rate
100A
Pass Rate
100B
Pass Rate
100C
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
85.7%
88.9%
96.0%
98.0%
98.0%
98.1%
87.9%
85.8%
91.0%
89.0%
90.4%
86.3%
83.7%
86.1%
85.6%
81.2%
89.5%
87.2%
Passing Rate in Developmental Math Classes
Pass Rate**
100%
80%
100A
100B
100C
60%
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08*
Academic Year
Based on the chart above, there are no significant changes in student
performance with the new curriculum, either positive or negative. All rates are
above 85% this year so we’ll see what happens in the next year both in passing
rates for each course and passing rates in subsequent courses.
Goal 2:
We’ve only been able to track Fall 2007 students with the new curriculum as
there hasn’t been enough time yet for winter and spring students to see results in
their next course. The following are the passing rates in subsequent courses
(both Math 100 and college level) from 2002 through Fall 2007.
Next Math
100 Course
Next College
Level Course
Academic
Year
100B
02-03
88.0%
03-04
91.9%
04-05
92.5%
05-06
94.9%
06-07
94.9%
07-08
72.2%
100C
100.0%
100.0%
90.9%
91.3%
96.4%
90.9%
101
102
130
164
153
98.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
94.7%
100.0%
100.0%
91.3%
100.0%
97.8%
90.3%
94.5%
84.2%
100.0%
99.4%
73.7%
100.0%
97.6%
90.6%
100.0%
100.0%
95.2%
87.5%
87.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
89.7%
Passing Rate in Next Developmental Math Course
Pass Rate**
100%
80%
100B
100C
60%
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08*
Academic Year
Passing Rate in Next College Level Math Course
Pass Rate
100%
101
102
80%
130
164
153
60%
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
Academic Year
06-07
2007-2008
The results show that for subsequent Math 100 courses we are meeting our goal
of 90% except for Fall 2007 100A students who scored unusually low in 100B.
For college level coursework, we are near or above our goal of 90%. We are
seeing great results for 102, 130, and 164—and that’s fantastic news for 130
because we were previously on a downward turn. For 153, we were just shy of
90% but improved over last year for fall quarter 100C students. Math 101 fell shy
of the goal by 2.5% for fall quarter 100B students. If this trend continues with the
new curriculum, we may need to study the alignment of 100B and 101.
Goal 4:
Lab Feedback (via suggestion/comment forms)
We received 17 comment/suggestion forms from fall lab attendees and 8 from
winter lab attendees. All questions are rated on a 5-point scale.
4.84
4.68
4.76
4.96
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
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
Fall
227
410
464
446
824
866
Winter
267
497
470
528
850
722
Spring
Total
423
917
*462
907
267
1,201
528
1,502
769
2,443
830
2,418
*Data for Spring 2004 missing, 462 estimated attendance.
Math Lab Attendance
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
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 2007-2008, we had a rough winter term where attendance was
unusually low but overall for the year we were only down about 1% from the
previous year’s record setting numbers. Fall term we were up 5% and spring
term we were up 8%.
Fall 2007
Math Courses
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
170
172/173/272/273
260
265
311
376
411/413
471
499E
Unknown
Total
Non-Math
Courses
Psych 362
Stats 311
Soc 364
Bus 221
Bus 271
Chem
Physics
Accounting
Geography/olgy
Other
Total
Grand Total
Week
1
Week
2
11
10
19
2
3
1
3
1
14
42
1
14
38
1
Week
5
1
7
1
4
1
12
29
2
13
13
27
28
1
1
2
3
4
72
1
19
Week
3
Week
4
4
Week
6
Week
7
Week
8
Week
9
5
1
4
7
12
61
3
10
1
2
1
17
19
1
5
1
2
1
12
21
2
2
11
24
31
23
4
1
1
1
4
87
3
70
3
22
Week
10
6
1
1
3
15
27
6
31
1
1
Finals
5
2
2
3
19
1
12
1
1
1
1
1
100
2
53
1
2
1
1
78
1
96
85
1
119
1
3
94
2
48
Total
1
54
7
27
15
115
358
20
0
225
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
19
852
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
3
104
57
79
97
88
1
1
119
87
70
22
95
1
14
48
866
Winter 2008
Math Courses
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
170
172/173/272/273
260
265
311
376
411/413
471
499E
Unknown
Total
Non-Math
Courses
Psych 362
Stats 311
Soc 364
Bus 221
Bus 271
Chem
Physics
Accounting
Finance
Other
Total
Grand Total
Month
Total
1
2
3
4
4
21
1
1
7
1
16
26
4
10
31
3
1
1
3
12
3
16
35
5
5
11
6
20
39
4
70
61
3
99
4
1
3
1
1
9
5
6
13
3
6
1
9
34
1
25
31
2
13
9
80
8
4
4
83
7
8
Finals
2
3
10
3
5
7
4
3
30
32
3
17
24
2
4
17
13
18
8
2
95
37
7
699
61
100
69
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
10
4
23
3
42
73
38
722
1
61
January
276
6
1
3
1
4
100
84
1
46
19
53
6
125
222
19
11
3
3
1
1
1
Total
8
3
9
1
15
12
1
1
9
1
7
1
1
1
1
2
90
62
101
71
February
337
March
109
Total
722
Spring 2008
Math Courses
100A
100B
100C
101
102
130
153/154
164
170
172/173/272/273
250
265
311
376
411/413
473
499E
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Finals
Total
1
11
1
5
1
6
20
1
7
1
5
8
10
19
4
7
16
2
15
6
10
39
32
29
1
7
7
19
7
39
1
11
3
7
35
3
9
13
6
13
3
9
3
8
35
8
13
1
6
2
9
9
168
10
85
30
85
229
37
11
8
19
5
10
12
3
13
9
9
7
2
5
3
1
96
29
2
2
5
1
4
15
3
8
8
6
15
25
5
14
4
1
37
64
Non-Math
Courses
Psych 362
Stats 311
Soc 364
Bus 221
Bus 271
Chem
Physics
Accounting
Finance
Other
Total
78
78
1
1
1
1
105
92
108
81
87
1
44
3
3
4
2
5
2
9
2
2
774
Unreported
2
5
5
1
7
3
11
9
3
1
47
Grand Total
39
69
84
80
112
97
119
95
90
45
830
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 46
attendees for the year which is about 1.9% of the population. We have work to do in
this area, but it is certainly a challenge to be prepared for non-math content courses
when they vary so widely in content and in their presence in the lab.
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.
Based on student feedback, perhaps our lowest student satisfaction rating is in
advising. However, the success rates suggest that placement is appropriate in
most cases. It might be beneficial for us to dig into the archives and look at
survey results from previous years regarding advising and see if a change has
occurred in student ratings. This could be tracked on future annual reports.
The impact of our curriculum change is hazy at present. No red flags have
popped up so we will continue with it for another year. By the end of year two,
we should have enough data in order to make decisions about its effectiveness,
particularly on success in college level coursework.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s
assessment information?
The big change from last year was in our curriculum. We decided to change our
textbook to better fit our course outcomes which also allowed us to add a
technology piece in the form of MathXL. Students have more accountability for
homework now (which is vital to success) and better feedback on their progress
with daily practice.
We also strengthened our drop-in lab by boosting staffing during peak hours,
adding additional lab hours (Sunday evenings), and developing a regular staff
meeting schedule to facilitate dialogue and additional training.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Outcomes at Central
Washington University:
None at present.