advertisement

The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success Darren Felty, Department Head for English and Journalism Dub Green, Research Analyst David Flenner, Department of Mathematics Coordinator Institutional Recognition of Issues Initiation: Math Department Initiatives Intensification: Achieving the Dream Initiatives Expansion: Re-accreditation Quality Enhancement Plan Initiatives Meetings focused on student success issues Team discussions Issues prior to classes Issues in classes Issues post classes Internal focus without campus-wide involvement Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra course Developing 5-credit Intermediate Algebra course Developing College Algebra with Modeling course Detailed data analyses Campus consultations with faculty, staff, and students Intensified “Math Summit” meetings with Math Dept., Developmental Math, and the college president Selection as ATD priority focus: “Increasing students’ math skills attainment, comfort levels, and course completions” Development of initiatives Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteria Adding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classes Revising online Probability and Statistics class Cross-divisional team development Exploration of instructional strategies Identification of focuses Development of strategies, budget, and scaling plans Campus-wide involvement Implementation Instituting Beginning Algebra placement change Adding Developmental Mathematics Basics Implementing and scaling computer-assisted instruction Creating Math Cubes (Math3) Expanding math tutoring Enhancing faculty development Success rate comparison to college norms and goals (All Classes) Demographic Breakdowns Gender Ethnicity Age Full Time/Part Time Pell Recipients FAFSA EFC National Community College Benchmarking ENG-101 Fall 2011 SPC-205 Headcount 2320 1285 55.4% 387 220 ACC-101 Fall 2011 Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate ECO-210 Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate 56.8% Headcount 103 65 63.1% 402 57.3% Female 61 43 70.5% 56.3% Male 42 22 52.4% Gender 231 57.5% 187 97 51.9% 215 134 62.3% Gender Female Male 1348 779 57.8% 220 126 972 506 52.1% 167 94 Ethnicity Ethnicity Asian 33 23 69.7% 2 1 2 1 50.0% 10 5 50.0% Female 16 12 75.0% 1 0 0.0% Female 1 1 100.0% 2 2 100.0% Male 17 11 64.7% 1 1 100.0% Male 1 0 0.0% 8 3 37.5% 21 12 57.1% 3 1 33.3% American Indian/Alaskan 3 1 33.3% 3 0 0.0% Female 9 7 77.8% 2 1 50.0% Female 2 0 0.0% Male 12 5 41.7% 1 0 0.0% Male 688 304 44.2% 120 41 34.2% Black/African American Female 459 213 46.4% 78 29 37.2% Male 229 91 39.7% 42 12 28.6% 6 1 16.7% 1 0 0.0% Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Female 1 0 0.0% Male 5 1 20.0% 1 0 0.0% American Indian/Alaskan Black/African American Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Hispanic 50.0% Asian 3 1 33.3% 1 0 0.0% 24 8 33.3% 92 35 38.0% Female 18 7 38.9% 55 19 34.5% Male 6 1 16.7% 37 16 43.2% 3 2 66.7% Female 1 0 0.0% Male 2 2 100.0% 1 1 100.0% 16 7 43.8% 1 1 100.0% 8 4 50.0% 8 3 37.5% 97 47 48.5% 16 12 Female 62 28 45.2% 7 6 85.7% Female Male 35 19 54.3% 9 6 66.7% Male 1372 840 61.2% 227 151 Female 736 482 65.5% 121 81 66.9% Male 636 358 56.3% 106 70 66.0% 52 22 42.3% 8 5 62.5% Two or More Female 31 15 48.4% 4 3 75.0% Male 21 7 33.3% 4 2 50.0% 51 36 70.6% 10 9 90.0% Unknown White/Non Hispanic Two or More Unknown Pell Grant 75.0% Hispanic 66.5% White/Non Hispanic 65 48 73.8% 259 170 65.6% Female 36 31 86.1% 111 67 60.4% Male 29 17 58.6% 148 103 69.6% 2 1 50.0% 13 7 53.8% Female 1 0 0.0% 4 1 25.0% Male 1 1 100.0% 9 6 66.7% 3 3 100.0% 9 7 77.8% Pell Grant Full Pell ($2,775) 603 305 50.6% 103 48 46.6% Full Pell ($2,775) 29 14 48.3% 84 39 46.4% $2,082 - 2,774 236 121 51.3% 42 19 45.2% $2,082 - 2,774 13 7 53.8% 38 17 44.7% $1,388 - 2,081 262 135 51.5% 43 29 67.4% $1,388 - 2,081 8 4 50.0% 37 20 54.1% $695 - 1,387 115 65 56.5% 20 10 50.0% $695 - 1,387 6 6 100.0% 30 24 80.0% $1.00 - 694 102 53 52.0% 14 8 57.1% $1.00 - 694 4 3 75.0% 15 10 66.7% 4 0 0.0% 1 0 1 1 100.0% 998 606 60.7% 164 106 0 No Data Expected Family Contribution (EFC) 0 0.0% 0 64.6% No Data 43 31 72.1% 197 120 60.9% Expected Family Contribution (EFC) 1000 493 49.3% 155 73 47.1% 0 48 23 47.9% 136 57 41.9% $1.00 - 1,977 197 103 52.3% 37 23 62.2% $1.00 - 1,977 9 6 66.7% 42 27 64.3% $1,978 - 5,273 228 131 57.5% 49 33 67.3% $1,978 - 5,273 9 7 77.8% 44 33 75.0% $5,274 - 10,000 230 141 61.3% 39 27 69.2% $5,274 - 10,000 7 6 85.7% 36 22 61.1% $10,001 - 50,000 341 213 62.5% 59 35 59.3% $10,001 - 50,000 15 12 80.0% 61 38 62.3% $50,001 - 99,999 31 16 51.6% 5 3 60.0% $50,001 - 99,999 1 0 0.0% 7 4 57.1% 293 188 64.2% 43 26 14 11 78.6% 76 50 65.8% 24 18 75.0% No Data Age Age Median Age Under 18 60.5% No Data 20.9 23.4 Median Age 26.5 100 84.7% 2 2 18 - 20 1050 546 52.0% 121 64 52.9% 18 - 20 16 10 62.5% 123 72 58.5% 21 - 24 452 216 47.8% 96 56 58.3% 21 - 24 27 16 59.3% 87 42 48.3% 25 - 34 445 268 60.2% 95 50 52.6% 25 - 34 41 23 56.1% 112 66 58.9% 35 - 44 157 93 59.2% 42 28 66.7% 35 - 44 12 11 91.7% 33 18 54.5% 45 - 54 84 52 61.9% 25 16 64.0% 45 - 54 5 4 80.0% 19 14 73.7% 55 - 59 10 7 70.0% 5 4 80.0% 55 - 59 2 1 50.0% 3 1 33.3% 4 3 75.0% 1 0 1 0 0.0% Over 60 100.0% Under 18 22.8 118 0.0% Over 60 Developmental and Gateway math studies Success Persistence First Attempt vs. repeating student success Prerequisite impacts Placement First year students Learning outcomes with competencies Math placement studies Algebra sequence Comparisons of placement methods Comparisons with other SC Tech colleges Projections of impact of change First term and first attempt student success How often are placement scores reviewed? We learned not very often. In 2009 we realized we had the lowest compass pre-algebra score for admittance into Math 101. Minimum COMPASS® Scores for MAT 101 Placement South Carolina Technical Colleges College Pre-Algebra Florence-Darlington Technical College 60 Horry-Georgetown Technical College 60 York Technical College 54 Greenville Technical College 50 Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College 49 Aiken Technical College 47 Central Carolina Technical College 47 Midlands Technical College 44 Spartanburg Community College 44 Denmark Technical College 43 Trident Technical College 39 Impact of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in algebra sequence classes Comparison with non-CAI classes Success rates Persistence rates First attempt students Demographic breakdowns Math Department reports Faculty/Staff consultations Student input from focus groups Student surveys All math students MAT 032 students on impact of Instructional Assistants Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra course (MAT 152) Developing 5-credit Intermediate Algebra course (MAT 153) Developing College Algebra with Modeling course (MAT 109) Low enrollments due to scheduling (5 days a week) Financial aid complications for students failing 3-credit course then taking the 5-credit version Strong success results in comparison to MAT 101 and MAT 102 Difficulty scaling Low enrollments due to lack of demand Problems with transferability of course Strong success results in comparison to College Algebra, but a very small data pool Difficulty scaling due to lack of demand Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteria Adding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classes Revising online Probability and Statistics class Raise the COMPASS MAT 110 exemption score from 480 to 580 for the SAT and from 20 to 22 for the ACT Require students who do not meet the minimum requirement to take the COMPASS exam and take the class that the COMPASS recommends Eliminate the “We’ll take the highest” policy between placement tools Reduction in enrollment in College Algebra (as predicted) Increases in enrollment in MAT 032 (Developmental Mathematics) and MAT 101 more so than MAT 102 Increases in the success of first time freshmen and first attempt students In Fall 2006 of the four methods of entrance into College Algebra only one (Compass) returned success rates of over 50% In Fall 2011 all four methods of entrance into College Algebra had success rates above 50% This change has produced a “multiplier” effect throughout the math curriculum Initial results showed small increases in success rates and significant increases in progression rates for pilot IA sections over non-IA sections Students responded positively to the instructional assistants Scaled up to all sections on TTC’s Main Campus Expanded to MAT 031 in Fall 2011 Continuing to monitor for efficacy and use of resources Inclusion of extensive instructional videos Requirement to watch videos and take quizzes related to them Alignment of video content with testing Sharp increases in student success to match classroom sections Difficulty getting other instructors to adopt modules Continuing to monitor for growth and/or replication in other MAT online classes Instituting Beginning Algebra placement change Adding Developmental Mathematics Basics Implementing and scaling computer-assisted instruction Creating Math Cubes (Math3) Expanding math tutoring Enhancing faculty development Changed COMPASS cut off from 39 (the lowest in the state) to 55 Enrollment increases in MAT 031 and MAT 032 Increases in success rates for first time freshmen in MAT 101 Splitting of competencies between MAT 031 and MAT 032 Very high enrollments in MAT 031 in first term Success rate slightly exceeded prior success for MAT 032 Sharp increases in success rates for MAT 032 in Fall 2011 Adoption of MyMathLab Implementation of more frequent assessment and feedback Requiring students to complete preparatory quizzes for each competency Requiring students to score a 90 on quizzes in order to take unit test Scaling plans start with 5 sections in MAT 101, then MAT 102, then MAT 110 Progressively expanding CAI in each class to impact the majority of students each term CAI coordinator manages training of full and part time instructors Building of a math computer lab Initially significant increases in CAI student success compared to non-CAI More rapid expansion than scaling plans Fall 2011 CAI student success rates exceeded non-CAI student success rates in MAT 101, MAT 102, and MAT 110 (for all students, first attempters, and first time freshmen) Furnished Math Cubes on all campuses Designated math study spaces for students to work with instructors and other students Enhanced math tutoring Developed tutor training program Math Cubes have been very popular “Open Door” policy makes statistical analysis difficult to conduct Still trying to increase student participation in tutoring In aggregate, students receiving tutoring at least three times during a term have higher success rates than students not receiving tutoring Fall 2006 to Fall 2011 Comparison Class Students Success Rate MAT 032 753 38.5 MAT 101 1,151 32.9 MAT 102 574 36.4 Class Students Success Rate MAT 110 642 26.2 MAT 120 961 55.2 MAT 155 150 72.0 Class Students Expected Enrollment Change from 2006 Success Rate Change from 2006 MAT 031 1,235 NA +1,235 40.7 +2.2 MAT 032 707 1,070 -363 56.6 (60.4) +18.1 (+20.5) MAT 101 1,746 1,635 +111 33.3 (40.2) +0.4 (+3.8) MAT 152 83 NA +83 44.6 +11.7 MAT 102 585 815 -230 39.7 (45.3) +3.3 (+3.9) MAT 153 15 NA +15 53.3 +16.9 Expected Change Enrollment from 2006 Success Rate Change from 2006 +19 57.9 +27.7 912 -391 44.9 (51.9) +18.7 (+19.1) 1,052 1,366 -314 59.6 +4.4 481 213 +268 54.7 -17.3 Class Students MAT 109 19 NA MAT 110 521 MAT 120 MAT 155 Class Enrollment Success Rate Redesigned 49 65.3 Other 49 46.9 Difference +18.4 Class CAI Students Non-CAI Students CAI Over Non-CAI Success MAT 101 1,157 589 +2.8 MAT 102 193 392 +13.2 MAT 110 241 280 +16.0 What are the most significant issues with math students’ success at your institution? What are the most significant impediments to change? What strategies have you tried? What are the results of the strategies? David Flenner [email protected] 843-574-6422 The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success