TAMU MATH 06C
Where are we?
Were are we going?
What’s new?
Today




Department demographics
Technology – yesterday, today, and
tomorrow
Diagnostic test
Problems to solve
Demographics






Core courses
Engineering Calculus
Math education
Math service
Math major
Math graduate
Math Enrollment - Summary
Fall 2006
Course Type
Core Mathematics
Engineering Calculus
Math major - Years 1-2
Math - Service
Math - Education
Math major - Years 3-4
Graduate - service
Graduate - MS and PhD
Total Enrollment
Enrollment Percentage
5978
51.3%
3034
26.0%
436
3.7%
919
7.9%
371
3.2%
413
3.5%
178
1.5%
324
2.8%
11653
Core Courses
Course
102
103
131
141
142
150
Fall 2006
section
average
1
37
1
23
6
91
37
73
11
85
35
22
+
Fall 2005
section
average
1
70
1
47
5
106
33
83
10
91
24
21
Difference
-33
-24
15
-37
24
268
Engineering Calculus
Course
151
152
251
253
Fall 2006
section
average
51
28
23
29
11
74
5
24
Fall 2005
section
average
45
30
23
27
11
64
6
23
Difference
97
56
119
-22
Math Major – Years 1-2
Course
170
171
172
220
221
222
Fall 2006
section
average
4
15
5
27
2
37
4
17
2
34
2
18
Fall 2005
section
average
3
20
5
32
2
34
4
23
2
36
1
23
Difference
-2
-24
6
-21
-4
12
Math - Service
Course
302
304
308
311
Fall 2006
section
average
3
29
5
35
14
35
6
29
Fall 2005
section
average
3
31
4
34
11
46
7
31
Difference
-6
38
-22
-49
Math - Education
Course
365
366
367
368
375
403
Fall 2006
section
average
4
45
3
26
1
47
1
28
1
3
2
18
Fall 2005
section
average
4
44
3
33
1
47
1
40
1
8
2
29
Difference
4
-20
0
-12
-5
-22
Math Major
Course
325
407
409
411
412
415
417
425
Fall 2006
section
average
1
38
1
20
4
14
1
27
4
13
2
16
2
12
Fall 2005
section
average
1
38
1
22
4
15
1
25
2
27
2
14
2
21
1
22
Difference
0
-2
-2
2
-1
3
-17
-22
Math Major
Course
427
442
446
467
470
485
489
490
491
Fall 2006
section
average
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
23
9
14
33
1
10
9
2
Fall 2005
section
average
1
12
1
20
2
9
2
13
2
18
3
1
3
10
1
15
2
2
Difference
-12
3
0
2
31
-1
-21
-6
3
Math Major
Course
427
442
446
467
470
485
489
490
491
Fall 2006
section
average
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
23
9
14
33
1
10
9
2
Fall 2005
section
average
1
12
1
20
2
9
2
13
2
18
3
1
3
10
1
15
2
2
Difference
-12
3
0
2
31
-1
-21
-6
3
Overview


Technology tools for guided instruction
Technology in engineering calculus and beyond.






MATLAB and Maple
Technology efficacy
Video streaming technology.
Conferencing technology - how it can be applied
Mathematics courses online.
Diagnostic tools and placement. College
readiness
Online Homework Systems
iLrn






Used in several courses
Full detailed solutions available
Problems assigned by themselves or a iLrn
expert
Create your own problems
Create sample exams
User friendly to assign
Online Homework Systems
Teaching Tools


Used for Math 151 – non STEPS program
Problems assigned by an expert
Online Homework Systems
MyMathLab





Walks the students through a sample problem step by
step, checking the student’s answers at each step.
Quick Time videos that accompany selected problems
Gives the students a chapter study plan. So, a student
can work some problems and MML will help them
determine their strengths and weaknesses within the
chapter.
Sample tests for each chapter
Create your own problems
Online Homework Systems
MyMathLab






Animations accompany selected problems
Full detailed solutions
Online training sessions for instructors
Instructors can add columns to the gradebook
for offline assignments (like in class
quizzes). This allows the instructor to post all
the students grades online.
Easy to use
Excellent tech support for both instructor and
student.
Math 151/152 --- STEPS vs. non
STEPS

STEPS seeks to



Increase motivation of first year students
Improve quality and engagement in math
engineering and physics.
Increase retention and academic performance
Math 151/152
STEPS vs. non-STEPS

Steps does this by using




Clustering/cohorts
Common sections
Common exam schedule
Engaging faculty to engage students

Maple





Engineering Calculus
Technology
10 years +
Symbolic capabilities
Excellent graphics
Maplets
MATLAB




4 years
Engineering preferred
Pure computing power
Superior graphics
Engineering Calculus

Pros and Cons of Maple






Symbolic
Easy to learn
Symbolic capabilities/Excellent graphics
Maplets
Not widely used in industry
Efficacy is not clear
Engineering Calculus

Pros and Cons of MATLAB






State of the art algorithms
Great computing power
Widely used in engineering/industry
Programming
Symbolic capabilities are not simple to apply
Efficacy is not clear
Video Streaming Technology
Current use:





Problem sessions
Course lectures
Special tutorials
Centra sessions
Projected use



Full course content
Graduate courses
College readiness tutorials
Conferencing Software


Net Meeting
Centra (160 licenses)





Live and interactive, Fully class enabled
White board
Importable presentations
Recorded session
Application sharing.
Mathematics Courses Online





Masters program ( M609, M614, M629,
M640, M645-6, M660, M664, M666, M696,
M470, M451, M639)
WebCalc
Finite Math
Applied Calculus
Math education (M689)
Online Delivery Tools





WebCT (full course management)
Respondus/WebAssign (testing, survey)
Turnitin (authentication/verification)
Centra (conferencing)
Streaming video/audio
Diagnostic Examinations



Placement
College readiness – the buzzwords
Research



What has been done?
What has been learned?
Where shall we go with this?
In the Fall 2005 a diagnostic test
was administered to most incoming
students, and essentially all
engineering students.
In this brief report we show the
results and correlations of the
student diagnostic scores and final
grades in
Calculus I (Math 151)
Calculus II (Math 152)
And other courses
Math 151 – Engineering Calc
Math 151 - 05C
Grade
Count Cummulative Diagnostic
A
206
206
0.80
B
198
404
0.73
C
143
547
0.67
D
84
631
0.67
F
60
691
0.59
Q
17
708
0.59
W
7
715
0.60
Total
715
Diagnostic average
0.714
Grade Exclusion
D#
47
F#
41
Overall
DWF
168
ABC
547
% success 76.5%
DWF
ABC
% success
0.740
0.586
Grade points
4
3
2
1
0
0.963
2.59
80
547
87.2%
Pearson
GPR
Math 152 – Engineering Calculus
Math 152 - Spring 06
A
B
C
D
F
Count
134
226
265
160
155
940
135
361
626
786
941
Average
Diagnostic
Average
0.82
0.77
0.75
0.72
0.69
=
0.752
Grade
Points
4
3
2
1
0
R=
GRP =
Standard
Deviation
0.095
0.119
0.114
0.098
0.132
0.989
2.026
Math 142 – Business Calc
Math 142 -05C
Grade
Count
A
148
B
246
C
160
D
73
F
94
NG
1
Q
79
W
0
801
Diagnostic average
Grade Exclusion
D#
0
F#
28
Overall
DWF
247
ABC
554
% success
69.2%
Count
148
394
554
627
721
722
801
801
Average
0.753
0.679
0.622
0.575
0.582
0.484
0.560
-
Grade Pts
4
3
2
1
0
0.95
2.39
0.647
DWF
ABC
% success
0.683
0.585
219
554
71.7%
Pearson
GPR
Math 150 – Pre-Calculus
Math 150 - 05C
Grade
Count
A
59
B
73
C
87
D
61
F
89
Q
22
W
2
Total
393
Diagnostic average
Grade Exclusion
D#
40
F#
72
DWF
ABC
% success
174
219
55.7%
Cummulative
59
132
219
280
369
391
393
Diagnostic
0.644
0.591
0.574
0.499
0.460
0.479
0.652
Grade points
4
3
2
1
0
0.987
1.870
0.541
DWF
ABC
% success
62
219
77.9%
Pearson
GPR
Math 131 – Calculus
Math 131 - 05C
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
NG
Q
W
Count
68
121
48
44
22
0
55
4
362
Diagnostic average -all
Diagnostic average - A-F
Grade Exclusion
D#
0
F#
22
Overall
ABC
237
DWF
125
% success
65.5%
68
189
237
281
303
303
358
362
Diagnostic Grade Pts
0.730
4
0.658
3
0.596
2
0.551
1
0.617
0
0.525
0.774
0.78
Pearson
0.628
2.56
GPR
0.647
ABC
237
DWF
103
% success
69.7%
0.668
0.551
Summary
Diagnostic Scores over Grades
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
NG
Q
W
131
0.73
0.66
0.60
0.55
0.62
0.52
0.77
141
0.76
0.67
0.60
0.55
0.54
0.50
0.54
142
0.75
0.68
0.62
0.58
0.58
0.48
0.56
150
0.64
0.59
0.57
0.50
0.46
0.48
0.65
151
0.80
0.73
0.67
0.67
0.59
0.59
0.60
171
0.81
0.73
0.68
0.68
0.57
0.60
-
The Diagnostic







Exponentials and Logarithms (EXPO)
Polynomials and factoring (POLY)
Graphing - domain and shifting (GRPH)
Rational functions and complex fractions
(FUNC)
Trigonometry (TRIG)
Power rules (POWER)
Problem solving (PROB)
The Diagnostic
Percentage Scores
TOTAL
Math 151
64.60%
Math 150
41.60%
Math 150/151
55.20%
Number of questions
M151 Pct correct
M150 Pct correct
Difference
EXPO
7.40%
5.20%
POLY
13.20%
9.10%
GRPH
9.10%
6.50%
FUNC
8.20%
5.20%
TRIG
9.80%
7.00%
POWER
9.00%
6.20%
PROB
9.70%
7.30%
4
6
5
5
5
4
4
61%
43%
18%
73%
50%
23%
60%
43%
17%
54%
34%
19%
65%
46%
19%
74%
51%
23%
80%
60%
20%
The National Scene
Study performed at the University of
Kentucky. It included large state
universities.
Drop/Failure/Withdrawal Rates
Pre-Calculus
Algebra
Calculus for Business
Calculus for Engineering
Benchmarks
36.70%
26.00%
27.00%
31.30%
SEC
33.00%
34.80%
30.90%
31.60%
Overall
35.60%
30.40%
28.40%
31.40%
Classroom problems


Reduce class sizes
Monitor student services such as help
sessions and WIR more carefully
Strategic problems


Should we word towards a STEPS-like
format for our freshmen math major
courses?
Should we for general committees for
groups of courses? (e.g. 302, 304, 308, &
311)
Technology problems




More tech training for those that want it.
Advanced Web building tools. Do we want
to make them more available?
Should we standardize on a couple of
e-learning platforms?
Are graphing calculators helping or
hindering mathematics learning?
Other problems


????
????