Department of Mathematics 2002 – 2007 Cycle
College of Science
Program Planning Committee Report to the Provost
October 15, 2010
The Department of Mathematics offers a BA (including a pattern for teacher preparation), a BS,
an MA, and an MS with three concentrations for the BS and two concentrations for the MA. In
addition they offer a minor. The degrees are:
BA Math
BA Math, Preparation for Teaching
BS Applied Mathematics, concentration in Applied and Computational Mathematics
BS Applied Mathematics, concentration in Economics and Actuarial Science
BS Applied Mathematics, concentration in Statistics
MS Mathematics
MA Mathematics
MA Mathematics, concentration in Mathematics Education
Minor in Mathematics
Approx 93% of Math FTES is in service courses to other majors
The Program Planning Committee commends the Department of Mathematics on a thoughtful,
informative, and well-written self study. The report itself and the excellent external reviewer’s
report highlight the quality of the department, and the strength and appropriateness of the
degrees offered. In addition, they make clear that most of the department’s teaching efforts are
directed toward serving the university and other specific majors. It is particularly impressive to
see the attention and effort that the department has put into addressing the low pass rates in some
of these courses. Another impressive feature of the department was the gender and ethnic
diversity of the faculty relative to the data on Ph.D.s earned in mathematics in the US, and the
gender and ethnic diversity of the students relative to the national statistics on math majors.
The self study and the external reviewer report both highlight challenges that are the result of the
relatively small number of majors in both the undergraduate and graduate programs. Of
particular concern was the limitations on offering a sufficient variety of courses frequently
enough to meet students’ needs. In this time of impaction and enrollment management it would
seem that an analysis that tried to establish the minimal viable size for both the undergraduate
and graduate programs would be useful. In addition, enrollment dictates that certain courses
must be offered less frequently than once a year, some departments have found it effective to
publish a two-year anticipated schedule of course offerings so students can plan ahead to be able
to take the courses they want or need.
The College report highlights the progress made in establishing an Assessment Plan. The
mathematics department has made good progress on Goal 3: Students will be able to Perform
Standard Mathematical Computations. Workshops supported by a grant show improved pass
rates for students in calculus and pre-calculus, both of which serve many departments in the
University in addition to serving math majors. The department needs to move beyond this goal,
Page |1
both in assessing student performance on other goals, and in assessing student performance on
the specific learning objectives within Goal 3:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ability to evaluate limits
Ability to calculate derivatives and integrals
Ability to determine regions of convergence
Ability to apply properties of algebraic and transcendental functions
Besides the program plan, the Committee read archived assessment reports to evaluate the state
of student assessment in mathematics programs.
Based on public reports it appears that no faculty are involved in assessment of the BS program
and few are involved in assessment of calculus and pre-calculus, major service courses for the
department. These service courses are measured at the level of course grades only. Reports for
the MS only say that assessment is done, with no process, data, or results reported. All faculty
members should participate in assessment of student learning.
Many departments are doing more for assessment than can be determined from the reports. It
may well be that far more assessment is being done in the Math department than has been made
public. For the good of the University, and the department, reporting specifics of faculty
expectations and student performance is essential.
Because much of the Mathematics Department’s teaching efforts is provided as a service to other
majors, an additional source of indirect evidence of student learning could be obtained by
surveying the faculty in the departments that depend on Mathematics to provide their students
needed skills.
The final step in the program planning process is a meeting with Provost Selter (or his designee),
AVP of Undergraduate Studies Jaehne, AVP of Graduate Studies and Research Stacks, Dean
Parrish, Department Chair Brad Jackson, and AVP of Institutional Research Sutee
Sujitparapitaya. The Chair may invite directors of programs within the department. The
department should contact staff in the Office of Undergraduate Studies to schedule the final
meeting. The following topics for discussion are summarized from the reports:

Determining the appropriate number of majors for the undergraduate and graduate
programs and strategies for attaining those numbers.

Strategies for encouraging participation in research by both undergraduate and graduate
students.

Implications of not being able to follow the five-year hiring plan that was presented in the
self study.

Strategies for dealing with space limitations, particularly space for students.

Issues concerning the relation of the Mathematics Education faculty to the rest of the
Mathematics faculty.

Collaboration with departments your courses service
If the Department wants to propose other issues for the meeting, please discuss the
appropriateness of the topics with Dean Parrish.
Page |2
The Program Planning Committee recommends acceptance of the Program Plan. The Program
Plan provided a good examination of the issues and explanation of plans for subsequent
reviewers. The next Program Plan for all programs in the department is due to the College Dean
in spring 2013
Fall 2010 members:
Debra Caires, Chair
Lisa Oliver
Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan
Elaine Collins
Tina Peterson
Ashwini Wagle
Robert Cooper
Annabel Prins
Chunlei Wang
Beverly Grindstaff
Jackie Snell
Wenbin Wei
Xiaolu Hu
Pam Stacks
Charles Whitcomb
Dennis Jaehne
Gary Stebbins
Yasue Kodama Yanai
Susan McNiesh
Sutee Sujitparapitaya
CC:
Brad Jackson, Chair, Department of Mathematics
Michael Parrish, Dean, College of Science
Herbert Silber, Associate Dean, College of Science
Malu Roldan, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Dennis Jaehne, AVP Undergraduate Studies
Pam Stacks, AVP Graduate Studies and Research
Charles Whitcomb, Vice Provost for Academic Administration & Personnel
Sutee Sujitparapitaya, AVP Institutional Research
Page |3
Appendix
Department of Mathematics Program Plan, March 2007
The Department of Mathematics provides remedial math instruction, GE math courses, higher-level math
service course for other disciplines, and undergraduate and graduate degree programs. It offers a BA
(including a pattern for teacher preparation), a BS, an MA, and an MS with three concentrations for the
BS and two concentrations for the MA.
Faculty
There were 32 tenured/tenure-track faculty, 4 faculty on FERP, and 30 part-time faculty at the time of the
Program Plan. Of the T/TT faculty (including FERPs), there were 25 professors, 4 associate professors,
and 7 assistant professors. Roughly a third of the T/TT faculty were women, and 20% were minorities.
This is above the US average for doctorates in math for both categories. All of the developmental math
classes and 20% to 25% of the other math classes are taught by part-time instructors. Their five-year
hiring plan proposed one new TT hire for each of the five years following completion of the Program
Plan. Probationary faculty have a nine-unit teaching load. Tenured faculty can opt to teach somewhat
larger classes (40 rather than 35) and reduce their annual load to 7 sections rather than 8, and since active
researchers also often receive 3 units of assigned time for research, many also enjoy a 9-unit teaching load
per semester.
Students
Mathematics has the highest FTES in the College of Science. It peaked in 2001 at 1426, fell to 1050 in
2005, and has recovered to about 1150 in fall 2010. Because of its large service function, most of the
FTES are lower division. In the period 2001 to 2005 the number of undergraduate majors increased from
108 to 136, and graduate majors from 29 to 43. In fall 2009 the numbers were 100 and 35 respectively.
Like the faculty, the majors are diverse with respect to gender and ethnicity: approximately 44% female
and 33% ethnic minorities. The FTES generated by the department are spread across a variety of
different types of classes: Developmental math 24% - 28%, GE and Quantitative Literacy 3% to 8%,
Precalulus/calculus 28% to 33%, Business and Economics majors 9% to 12%, Physics, Computer
Science, Computer Engineering, and ISE majors 10% to 16%, Math Education 6% to 9%, Upper division
math majors 5% to 6%, and Graduate 1% to 1.5%.
Assessment
The department has established a set of learning goals for each of the degrees offered. The assessment
plan is to assess specific goals within specific required classes. They have established a schedule for
when the BA and BS goals are to be assessed. It is unclear how student learning is actually measured.
Curriculum
The Mathematics Department continues to modify and expand its curriculum to meet student and societal
demands. The BS concentration in Applied and Computational Mathematics has been modified to
conform more closely to the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematicians guidelines. A new
concentration under this degree in Economics, Finance, and Actuarial Science has been added. The
department has added one-unit workshops to the pre-calculus/calculus courses to increase passing rates.
Page |4
Concerns Raised
The Department is concerned about space which they judge to be inadequate both for faculty (who share
offices) and students (who have too little space for activities like the Math club). The Program Plan also
documents concern about there being too little budget to meet demand for developmental courses and
courses required by other majors.
External Reviewer Report: Sheldon Axler, April 2009
Dr. Axler was very complimentary of the quality of the Mathematics faculty, the quality of the
curriculum, and the ongoing progress that the department has been making. He felt that there is generally
a very positive feeling among the faculty and students in the Department. He had many very specific
comments and recommendations.
Teaching load
He was very positive about the 9 unit teaching load for assistant professors. He noted that an even lower
load would be better, but in the context of the standard CSU load he thought this use of resources was
well worth it. Similarly, he was also positive about the trade off of 9 larger classes and more research
activity which allows a 9 unit load for many tenured faculty.
Students opinions and concerns
Dr. Axler noted that students were happy with instructors (both quality of instruction and attitude toward
students) and the quality of the advising they received. However, students expressed dissatisfaction with
the number of undergraduate and graduate classes offered, and with the fact that some classes must be
cancelled because of under-enrollment. Dr. Axler recommended recruiting more majors and graduate
students to solve the course problem, particularly grads because courses are on edge of viability given
current enrollment. He suggested using lower division courses that are service to other majors for
identifying students with talent in mathematics who might be recruited to the major.
Student Research
Dr. Axler argued that undergraduates and graduates alike should be involved in more research. He noted
that, except for the Center for Applied Mathematics, Computation, and Statistics (CAMOS), students are
not encouraged or involved in research.
Space
Dr. Axler noted that shared offices leads to faculty not coming to campus. Students need bigger space for
Math club, and other activities.
Colloquia and Seminar series
Dr. Axler argued that the Department needs to take a more proactive role in encouraging both students
and faculty to attend the weekly colloquium. He suggested a weekly seminar series for faculty and
students to foster the emphasis on applied math.
Curriculum
Dr. Axler applauded the one-unit supplemental workshops for Math 19, 30P, and 31, and noted this
approach has been successful elsewhere in improving passing rates. He suggested appointing a
coordinator for each multi-section course to increase comparability across sections and to assure quality.
Page |5
He also suggested that the department might start using on-line grading systems that are available for
many of the standard service courses. He urged caution about offloading developmental math to the
community colleges. The only course he thinks it is appropriate to offload to computer science faculty is
Discrete Math (Math 42).
Relation between Mathematics Education faculty and other Mathematics
faculty
Dr. Axler noted that there are some feeling among the Math Ed faculty of estrangement and lack of
respect from the rest of the faculty, and that workload is not equitably divided among the two groups. To
better integrate the Math Ed group with the rest of the department he suggests using their expertise to
improve instruction throughout the math department. This could include the training of teaching
assistants.
Opinions from outside the department
Dr. Axler noted that the other chairs are pleased with math department.
College Committee Report, November 2009
The College Committee was positive about the Mathematics department. They did not raise any points
that were not raised in Dr. Axler’s report; however, they highlighted a few of them:
1. They were very positive about the 1-unit workshops for the calculus sequence.
2. They praised the learning goals the Department has established for their majors, the assessment
plan, and noted that that some changes have been instituted based on assessment.
3. Like the Department and Dr. Axler, they noted the need to recruit when funds become available.
4. They were positive about the strategy suggested by Dr. Axler of recruiting more majors from
lower division classes.
5. They agreed with the need for more encouragement of students to participation in research.
6. They agreed that the concerns of the math education faculty need to be addressed.
Dean’s Report, November 2009
The Dean wrote a brief memo that noted the Mathematics Department had written a good Program Plan
and highlighted three of Dr. Axler’s comments:
1. The small size of grad program is a problem and needs to be addressed.
2. Other than CAMCOS, there are few opportunities for undergrad or grad research, and both
opportunities and encouragement need to be increased.
3. There is inadequate space, a problem shared with other departments in the college.
Page |6