Evaluation of the Impacts of Math
Course Placement Improvement
Achieved through a
Summer Bridge Program
John R. Reisel, Leah Rineck,
Marissa Jablonski, Ethan Munson,
Hossein Hosseini
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Acknowledgements
• Partial support for this work was provided by the
National Science Foundation's Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Talent Expansion Program (STEP) under Award
No. 0757055. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
• Todd Johnson, Tina Current, George Hanson,
and Edward Beimborn (all at UWM)
The Problem
Freshman Math Placement Percentages
Intermediate Algebra
Precalculus
Calculus
Other
Retention Rate vs. Math Placement
Retention Rate (%)
• Many students aren’t
graduating.
• Students entering UWM take a
math placement exam to
determine their initial math
course.
• Historically, students in the
College of Engineering and
Applied Science (CEAS) who
place below College Algebra
have great difficulty
graduating.
• The data on the right are from
2003-05 freshmen classes in
CEAS.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-Year
Est. Graduation
Intermediate
Algebra
Precalculus
Math Placement Level
Calculus
The Problem
• Placing into Intermediate
Algebra (Math 105)
generally adds one year
to the amount of time
students need to spend in
CEAS to graduate.
• Pass rates in College
Algebra (Math 116) are
often quite low.
– This can add even more
time to graduation.
Parts of the Solution
• Develop a study group program for the freshmen
students to reinforce their math courses and
improve study skills.
• Run a summer bridge program to give students
the opportunity to improve their math placement.
– Many students know most of the material.
– Some students can learn more in intense study.
– Students retake the math placement exam at the end
of the program.
Bridge Program Format
• Residential, 4-week program
• Some students are required to participate,
some students participate optionally
• Mornings are devoted to math instruction,
using ALEKS, with teachers present to
provide structure and answer questions.
• Afternoons are devoted to engineering /
computer science activities.
ALEKS
• Web-based assessment and teaching
system.
• Students proceed at their own pace, and
focus on topics that they require the most.
• Students are placed into their initial
courses based on their Math Placement
exam results.
• Students continue to work on course until
they have mastered 92% of the material.
Role of Instructors
• Provide immediate answers to questions.
• Monitor student work – provide structure to
the activity.
• Assign “homework” to initiate additional
work outside of the class time.
• Provide “quizzes” to mimic the math
placement exam.
Implications of Program
• Both improving math placement and subsequent
course performance are important indicators.
• Students who advance one or more math
courses, and subsequently receive grades of C
or better in their math courses reduce the time
needed to complete their studies.
• Students who advance, but then do not succeed
in their next semester are at worst no worse off
than with no program.
• Students who fail to improve their placement, but
who pass their next math course may be better
off (due to large failure rates.)
Implications of Program
Place Up
Stay Same
Pass Next
Course
EXCELLENT
OK – program
may have aided
passing
Fail Next
Course
OK –
No worse off
POOR
Subsequent Course Performance
• Summer 2009 Bridge Students, Fall 2009
Math Course Performance
• Math 231: Calculus I
Math 231 - Fall 2009
5
2009 Bridge Students
Placed Up 2
Placed Up 1
4
Same
3
2
1
0
C or Better
C- or Worse
Grade
Subsequent Course Performance
• Math 116 (College Algebra) / Math 117
(Trigonometry)
– 3 of 6 students who took both received a C or better
in only one. 2 of the 3 rectified the situation in the
Spring 2010 semester.
Math 116/117 - Fall 2009
6
Placed Up 2
Placed Up 1
Same
2009 Bridge Students
5
4
3
2
1
0
C or Better
C- or Worse
Grade
Subsequent Course Performance
• Math 105 – Intermediate Algebra
Math 105 - Fall 2009
9
Placed Up 2
Placed Up 1
Same
2009 Bridge Students
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
C or Better
C- or Worse
Grade
Discussion
• 67.6% of the students improved their math
placement, 21.6% by two levels.
• 5 of 8 students who placed up two levels
succeeded in their next course.
• Performance in Math 116/117 similar to course
as a whole
• Success rate in Math 231 is also similar to
overall course success rate.
• Students who did not place up from Math 105
did well in Math 105.
Grade Comparison
Fall 2009 GPA Comparison
4
Bridge
All College Freshmen
All
3.5
Average Grade
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
231
116
117
105
Math Course
Bridge Students Below CEAS Freshmen overall, but close to course
performance.
Math 116 needs attention.
Changes for 2010
• Preference for hands-on instructor
• Allow additional time after program formally
ends for students to work with ALEKS
• Provide evening tutoring.
• 2010 Bridge Results: 83% improved placement.
• (Still had problems with subsequent course
performance – counteract with additional
advising and mentoring in Fall 2011.)
Summary
• Results are still preliminary, as sample
sizes are small.
• The Bridge Program helps many students,
and does not harm the others. Students
generally perform at a level similar to
students who placed into their math
courses without the program.
• There is room to improve subsequent
course performance.
QUESTIONS?
ALEKS Success Indicators
• To improve their score on the math placement
exam, students are helped by completing most
of their course, and by spending more time on
program.
2009 Data:
Placement scores increased Placement scores did not
(out of 24 students)
increase (out of 12
students)
Final ALEKS scores greater than
75%
16
0
Final ALEKS scores less than 75%
8
12
Hours greater than 40
17
6
Hours less than 40
7
7