Developmental Math Options

Developmental Math Options • Options:

1. Traditional Model 2. Self-Paced, Modularized Approach in a Lab Setting (Emporium

Model) 3. Summer Bridge Program (2015)

• Piloted 2 modes – workbook and EdReady (NROC)

• Assessment & Outcomes Data • Future Directions • Bottom Line: what works for our students is the fact that they

have options

• Our data do not show that one option is best (or worst) • Rather, we are using our data analytics to hone in on the best fit for

each student

Developmental Math Options 1. Traditional (2 courses)

2. Self-Paced, Modularized, Computer-Mediated (2-3 courses)

• Fewer credits than traditional • Potential for students to accelerate • STEM (7 credits) and Non-STEM (6 credits) tracks • Lower cost than traditional mode

3. Summer & Winter Bridge (20-hours)

• ACCUPLACER brush up

Note: At MCCC, Intermediate Algebra is a 100-level course and is not in our developmental math sequence

Developmental Math Options

Traditional Computer-Mediated (Emporium)

Accelerated (for some)

MAT 033, Pre-Algebra (4 cr.)

MAT 037, Beginning Algebra (4 cr.)

MAT 041, Foundation Math I (3 cr.; 6 lab hrs)

MAT 042, Foundation Math II (3 cr.; 6 lab hrs)

MAT 043, Foundation Math III (1 cr; 2 lab hrs) STEM pre-req

At MCCC, Intermediate Algebra is a 100-level course and is not in our developmental math sequence

Emporium Model • Development

• National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) Conference – 2010

• Implementation

• Pilot in Spring 2011 • New dedicated labs at both campuses - 2014

Emporium Model: MAT 041, 042, 043 • Teaching model

• 1 faculty member for 20 students • 1 tutor for each additional fraction of 20 students

• 20 students: 1 professor • 21-39 students: 1 professor + 1 tutor • 40-59 students: 1 professor + 2 tutors • Our largest section: 90 students – 1 professor + 4 tutors

• Changes to the courses based on assessment data • 15 week to 7 week back to 15 week semester • Addition of MAT 043 • Software change – from Carnegie Learning (2011-2014) to ALEKS

(2014-present) • Each semester 5-10% of students who start in the lower level

complete both levels in the same semester and go on to be successful in college-level math

Math Foundations (computer-mediated)

What advisors think students do What students think they do

What students actually do

• 75 hours in lab • 75 hours at home • Engaging • 1:1 assistance with

little to no wait-time • MAT 041+042 in one

semester

What faculty actually do

Curriculum Aligns to Majors Traditional - MAT 037

Re-Req for STEM and Non-STEM

Emporium – MAT 042 Pre-Req for Non-STEM

Equations and Inequalities Equations and Inequalities

Graphs of Linear Equations and Systems

Graphs of Linear Equations and Systems

Exponents and Polynomials Exponents and Polynomials

Factoring and Quadratic Equations

Factoring and Quadratic Equations

Rational Expressions and Radicals

Rational Expressions and Radicals

Success Rates in Developmental Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2008Fall

2009Fall

2010Fall

2011Fall

2012Fall

2013Fall

2014Fall

PreAlgebraBeginning Algebra

Math Summer Bridge (2015) • Goal: Design a brush-up program to help students who

place into developmental mathematics improve their skills and place one or two levels higher

• Planning started in Fall 2014 • Planning team took ACCUPLACER • At League for Innovation Conference learned more about

NROC/EdReady (March 2015 in Boston) • June 1, 2015 Workshop with Bill Coe, designer of the Fast-Track

Math program at Montgomery College (MD) (supported by NJCCC Innovation Grant) • 8 NJ CCs participated

EdReady / NROC

• Used by 6 million+ students from Middle School to College

• A non-profit network that you join (not software that you purchase)

• Regional Membership Manager: Bryan Arvison barvison@thenrocproject.org

• www.thenrocproject.org

Math Summer Bridge (2015) • 20 hour program (4 days/week for 2 weeks) • We offered 4 sessions (day, evening, each campus)

• 150 students signed up • Piloted 2 formats (concurrent meeting time &

place): 1. Basic Fast Track Workbook (Coe & Lovejoy)

supplemented with extra problem sheets • Primarily faculty-led instruction

2. EdReady • Primarily tutor-supported instruction

• First level students were randomly assigned a format

• Second level were assigned EdReady

Math Summer Bridge (2015) • Costs:

• Faculty were paid $800/session • Tutors - 100 hours (@ ~$10/hr) • Pilot was free to students (supported by a $5000

internal grant) • Data Collection

• Attendance • Challenge Test (final exam) • ACCUPLACER Post-Test • # hours in EdReady • Math enrollment in Fall 2015

Math Summer Bridge Results • 150 students signed up • 113 students attended at least 6 of 8 sessions • Of the 113 who attended:

• 96 students had pre-test information and at least one post-test score

• 51 out of the 96 (53%) had their math placement impacted by the program

• 44 placed out of one level • 31 first level to second level • 13 second level to 100 level

• 7 placed out of both levels

Workbook vs. EdReady Workbook Results

• First Level • Starting average

Computation: 38 • Starting average Algebra: 43 • 15 out of 27 (56%) moved

one level • 4 out of 27 (15%) moved two

levels • Second Level

• 2 second level students agreed to work on computation for a week.

• 1 moved to 100 level.

EdReady Results

• First Level • Starting average

Computation: 37 • Starting average Algebra : 46 • 16 out of 48 (33%) moved one

level • 3 out of 48 (6%) moved two

levels

• Second Level • Starting average Algebra

score: 57 • 12 out of 19 (63%) moved into

100 level

Math Summer Bridge (2015) • How we used results:

• Bridge Program improvement (for Winter 2016 and Summer 2016 sessions)

• To answer the big question: which students are candidates for a bridge program vs. a semester-length course

• To evaluate use for credit courses • To evaluate effectiveness for other populations (e.g., high school

College Readiness Now II partner) • To assess whether to continue our membership with EdReady

Summer Bridge – Lessons Learned • We held some of the sessions too close to the start of the

semester – students had difficulty getting the classes they needed • Session I – July 13-23, 2015 • Session II – August 10-20, 2015

• We could not follow up with all the students to make sure they signed up for Math in Fall: • Of the 96 who completed,

• 56 enrolled in a Fall 2015 math class • 34 enrolled at Mercer but are not taking math • 6 are not attending MCCC in Fall 2015

• A hypothesis: Students might take the program more seriously if they paid for it (150 signed up, several were no-shows, only 113 attended 6 or more sessions)

Developmental Math Options 1. Traditional Model 2. Emporium Model 3. 20-hour Bridge Program

• What works for our students is the fact that they have

options

• Our data do not show that one option is best (or worst) • Rather, we are using our data analytics to hone in on the

best fit for each student • And then clearly communicate with students (and

advisors) about strengths of each (and cost – in time and money) • Dev Ed Options Flyer

Future Directions • We are using what we learned to inform changes:

• Working on a policy to require students to spend ___ hours on EdReady prior to ACCUPLACER retest (no additional institutional cost beyond membership)

• Strengthening and Scaling for the 2016 Math Summer Bridge program

• Future Directions for Dev Ed Math (under discussion):

• Using EdReady as supplemental instruction for “decision zone” college-level math (STEM and non-STEM tracks)

• An additional Dev Ed Math pathway aligned to college-level Statistics

• Feasibility of using only Open Education Resources for all Dev Ed Math

Future Directions • Conversations about future directions informed by

• Guided Pathways to Success (GPS) implementation • Core Principles for Transforming Remediation with a

Comprehensive Student Success Strategy (Nov. 2015)

Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive

Student Success Strategy 1. Every student’s postsecondary education begins with an intake

process to choose an academic direction and identify the support needed to pass relevant credit-bearing gateway courses in the first year.

2. Enrollment in college-level math and English courses or course sequences aligned with the student’s program of student is the default placement for the vast majority of students.

3. Academic and nonacademic support is provided in conjunction with gateway courses in the student’s academic or career area of interest through co-requisite or other models with evidence of success in which supports are embedded in curricula and instructional strategies.

Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive

Student Success Strategy 4. Students for whom the default college-level placement is not

appropriate, even with additional mandatory support, are enrolled in rigorous, streamlined remediation options that aligned with the knowledge and skills required for success in gateway courses in their academic or career area of interest.

5. Every student is engaged with content of required gateway courses that is aligned with his or her academic program of study – especially in math.

6. Every student is supported to stay on track to a college credential, from intake forward, through the institution’s use of effective mechanisms to generate, share, and act on academic performance and progression data.

A Success Story