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
david.flenner@tridenttech.edu
843-574-6422
The Impact of Trident Technical College’s
Math Initiatives on Student Success