Encouraging Competence in
Basic Mathematics in Hydrology
using The Math You Need
Kyle Fredrick
California University of Pennsylvania
A member of the Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education
Overview
O Cal U is a 4-year public university in
southwestern PA
O “Coal Country” and major shale gas
impacts
O Low-income and first-generation
dominate
O Geology program
O About 70 majors, plus Earth Science
Education
O 1 tenured and 1 new hire (?) or temp
O Most students end up in Oil and Gas or
Environmental related to Oil/Gas
O “I can’t do math;” “I’m no good at
math;” “I hate math”
Course Overview - Hydrology
O EAS 303 – targeted to sophomores and juniors
O Typically about 35 students (50 this year), each Fall
O Required for ALL Earth Science majors
O Geology, Env. Earth Sci., Meteorology, Earth Sci. Ed
O Sometimes taken by Chem and Bio (Env. Studies/Sci)
O Pre-reqs
O Introduction to Geology (traditional physical geol.)
O College Algebra
O First “quantitative” science class for most
O Physics-based
O Focus on water balance, fluid dynamics
O Followed up with elective Groundwater Hydrology
O STEEP learning curve including an intro to 3D calculus
Targeted Problems
O Others will discuss or have discussed:
O Significant remedial needs and math aversion for many
students
O Inadequate retention and training from high school and pre-
requisite college courses
O From 2007-2010, course was largely distracted with remedial
math
O Almost every class period included some level of remedial
math, including repetition of “problem topics”
O Unit Conversions!!!
O Basic algebraic manipulation
O Even scientific notation
O Most students have not had college
physics  NO CONTEXT
Implementation
O 39 students for Fall 2011
O Pre-test and Post-test
O Identical 25-question set
O Suite of questions from each of 6 “quizzes”
O Quizzes assigned weekly or bi-weekly
O Five with “new” material
O One “review” quiz focusing on troublesome questions or
topics
O 10 questions each (except one), timed at one hour
O SOME alignment with course topics, but not absolutely
related
O TMYN was completed by Week 11
Results
O Table scores out of 5
O Average Improvement
21% Pre- to Post-test
O Students liked it!
O Anecdotally, students
agreed that it helped
O From Senior Met.
Major with a 4.0 to
Math-phobic Env.
Earth Science
sophomore
Table 1: Question
Avg
I feel MORE CONFIDENT in my ability to
address quantitative problems.
4.2
The questions/content were relevant to
work I will likely do in my career.
3.6
My quantitative skills have improved.
3.9
The instructor used these tasks for
busy-work, not to improve my skills.
1.8
The quizzes provided adequate
repetition and breadth
4.0
Responses* to Follow-up: “RANK the factors you think
are responsible for YOUR improvement."
Logistical
Reasons**
Familiarity
with Format
Increased
Understanding
11%
21%
43%
25%
Familiarity with
Questions
* Follow-up survey was 28 of 39 students conducted on the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving break.
**Logistics that might “improve” test scores were suggested such as “more time, quieter
surroundings during attempt, time of day, etc.”
Room for Improvement
O Students focused on assessments, not modules
O Partially my fault, for not encouraging them to work
through modules
O Question bank is limited
O Not yet designed for upper-level implementation
O Not designed for Hydrology
O Not enough “building” and reinforcement in my
implementation
O Minimize opportunities for cheating
O Collect scratch paper?
TMYN Strengths
O Most students didn’t complain, Participation was high
and consistent
O Integrated approach – Built into schedule from Day 1
O Short quizzes, not time-intensive
O Low stakes
O Class time dedicated to content
O We reviewed TMYN questions or topics with which
students had trouble
O Encouraged peer mentoring and group study
BURNING Questions?