general studies mathematics

GENERAL STUDIES MATHEMATICS

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College

804-Mathematics

2014 Program Review

and

Improvement Plan

CONTENTS

Catalog Page ....................................................................... 1 Review Team Membership ................................................. 3 Self-Study Reports .............................................................. 7 Perkins Data Review ......................................................... 29 Program Improvement Plan ............................................. 39

3

TEAM MEMBERSHIP

5

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW PROFILE

Program Number & Name

804 Mathematics Department

Program Academic Dean Title/Location

Ted May Academic Dean - Ashland

Team Lead(s) Title/Location

Todd Hoff Math faculty - Rice Lake

Kevin Salmon Math faculty - New Richmond

Team Members Title/Location

Math faculty Pat Kinney – Ashland

Math faculty Lynda Rassbach – Rice Lake

Math faculty Ingrid Evavold – Superior

Basic Education faculty Lisa Fiorio Martinsen– Superior

Program Faculty – Tech Diploma

John Nuutinen – Ashland

Program Faculty – Associate Degree

Damon Sharretts – New Richmond

Counselor Kent Lundahl – Superior

Disabilities Specialist Heidi Diesterhaft – Rice Lake

Program Information:

Capacity (new students admitted/year): NA

Number of Faculty: FT: 5 PT: 4

Statewide Curriculum: Yes: all Associate Degree courses No: Tech Diploma courses

Number of Math Courses in each of the following delivery modes:

(there may be duplication for courses offered in multiple modes)

Classroom: 5

Online: 4

ITV/IP: 6

In Person/Web Blended: 15

Program Accredited by: NA

Date of Last Accreditation

Date of Next Accreditation

Is a visit required? If so, when is the next visit? No

Program Licensed by: NA

Date of Last Licensing:

Date of Next Licensing:

6

Is a visit required? If so, when is the next visit? No

Please list other program memberships: NA

7

Program Accredited by: N/A

Date of Last Accreditation

Date of Next Accreditation

Is a visit required? If so, when is the next visit?

Program Licensed by: N/A

Date of Last Licensing:

Date of Next Licensing:

Is a visit required? If so, when is the next visit?

Please list other program memberships: N/A

Note: The accreditation, licensing, and membership information listed above will be listed in the annual

WITC Fact Book.

9

SELF-STUDY REPORT

11

SELF-STUDY SUMMARY REPORT

Program Information

Program Name: Mathematics (General Studies)

Team Chair: Todd Hoff & Kevin Salmon

Academic Dean: Ted May Divisional Dean: Barb Lundberg

Process Used to Complete the Self-Study

Meeting format (in-person, IP, conference calls etc.)

In Person & ITV

Number of meetings 3 meetings

How was the self-study handled? (as a group, assigned to individuals to report back to group, etc.)

We met as a group for the self-study, then divided up tasks to gather further information individually. We met as a group again to wrap up the self-study.

Additional comments: Team Members Heidi Diesterhaft, Ingrid Evavold, Lisa Fiorio-Martinsen, Todd Hoff, Pat Kinney, Kent Lundahl, John Nuutinen, Lynda Rassbach, Kevin Salmon, & Damon Sharretts.

Summary of Findings

As you completed this self-study section of the program review, what areas "stand out" in your program? Please explain.

-Connection between math faculty/courses and the programs is strong. Math faculty service the needs of the programs even outside of the math classroom.

-Representation on advisory committees is well-distributed and is working well for now, but may be addressed further at a later date.

-Curriculum is well-defined (all associate degree curriculum is defined by the state).

-Math course assessment is working smoothly and templates are being set up to be used from year-to-year. Course assessments are common across campuses and delivery methods.

-Equipment and facilities currently meet needs adequately.

What has surprised you? Please explain. -The complexity of the use of calculators on placement assessments and as specified on ILPs has highlighted the need for a cohesive department calculator usage policy.

-There are some pieces in the current admissions and placement system that could be better defined.

12

Statistics and further study are needed to plot a course of action.

List two or three of the items identified through your self-study that you will focus on to make improvements to your program.

-Math department calculator usage policy is needed.

-Admissions and placement needs further information to refine the process. This may include developing a system to gather placement and student success related statistics from year-to-year.

When/where in your program will you implement these improvements?

-Throughout the three year improvement plan process.

What methods (direct or indirect) will you use to assess the success of this implementation?

-Statistics gathered from year to year.

-Surveys of student satisfaction with Pre-Algebra course.

-Ongoing assessment of learning by math instructors.

What new outcomes or benchmarks do you hope to achieve through these recommended changes?

-A consistent policy of calculator usage in classes and on placement test that is fair to all students.

-Establish a clear procedure and guidelines for course placement strategies that are consistently implemented at all four campuses and for online program admissions (and online course-takers) – all backed up by data we will have gathered over these three years – and which advance student learning and retention.

Additional comments:

Attach a “Category Results Report” for each category listed in the Self-Study section of the manual. If

desired, teams can add additional categories that are pertinent to the program area being studied.

13

Self-Study Category Results

Program and Category

Program: Mathematics

Category: Most Recent Program Review Plan (follow-up/through) (2010-11 Plan)

PLUSES (Strengths) DELTAS (Opportunities)

Items completed from 2010-11 Program Review:

Conduct Pre-Algebra course assessment – We completed the course assessment and continued into spring 2014 to garner data from our first spring college-wide “College Readiness Semester.”

Addressing sound issues of concern – These were addressed after repeated and creative efforts by Pete Gamache and his Superior campus team. This was not an “easy fix” – but important for improved teaching experiences, and also matters of confidentiality.

All Math courses to be supported on Blackboard – The team moved ahead with “what is consistent” in Blackboard support, and several made extensive advancements in Blackboard with Quality Matters, video-taped segments and many other advances.

Collaboration with program faculty – These collaborations are solidified, though still ongoing and proving valuable for connections with program faculty for support of students in these courses.

Improve validity/liability with Accuplacer course placements – We were able to make some adjustments in placement scores, but this work is continuing into the current plan under the Course Placement & Statistics section.

Course Assessments (general) – Course assessments are ongoing with math faculty each year; these will continue to be used to guide continuous improvement.

Improve consistency of C or better rates across all courses – This is ongoing to our department every year. This year the focus can be found in the Statistics section.

Select one PLUS item and explain the root cause:

Math faculty connections with program faculty – these linkages have been forged well, and increase success in student “C or better” rates and program retention.

Select one DELTA item and explain the root cause:

Course placements – these continue to be a challenge as there are so many variables influencing student readiness. We do continue to work on this and hope to make continuous improvements here.

What items in this category MUST be addressed on our improvement plan?

Course Placements – see above.

What items in this category MIGHT be addressed on the improvement plan?

C or better rates – We will continue to monitor these…, with a number of the efforts that are part of this year’s plan that will work to enhance student success and retention in programs.

What items in this category may be considered a BEST PRACTICE OR INNOVATION?

Blackboard support for the math classes – both best practices in some instances, and continuously improving as well.

14

Team Rating

Please indicate by an (X) the team rating of your program on this category.

All areas need improvement

Some areas meet expectations, but most areas need

improvement

All areas meet expectations —few areas

need improvement

Exemplary—all areas exceed expectations—use as a

model for other programs

X

Additional Comments: (optional)

15

SELF-STUDY CATEGORY RESULTS


Program: Mathematics Category: WITC Program Placement & Statistics (collaboration with admissions) Lead: Pat & Todd, Kevin and Ted


-Math faculty have requested data from the WTCS regarding math course placement and course success.

-Time has been invested to familiarize math faculty with the admissions and placement process so that data can be gathered and suggestions made to improve the process.

-A line of communication with the counselors and ABE has been opened through the math program review committee.

-Data has been reviewed and suggestions have been made to improve the process (I.E. Changes in the TABE score(s) for course placement).

-Cooperation between math faculty and programs is a strong point. Math faculty support the programs in the math classroom as well as helping with tasks in the program labs.

-More data still needs to be gathered to support the position of mandatory placement scores for entry into math courses.

-Communication between admission staff/ counselors and Math faculty/dean could be improved to better communicate the reasons for the need to be stricter on course placement.

-More research is needed to prove the effectiveness of the Pre-Algebra course in preparing students for associate degree math courses and in improving student success.

-Data and policies from other WTCS districts can be gathered and compared to WITC’s process.

-There is no convenient process for gathering data on Accuplacer scores and correlation to student success. A new process may need to be developed.


Expanding communication with counselors through the program review process has been a huge step.


More evidence needs to be gathered to show that the benefits of taking the Pre-Algebra course outweigh the scheduling difficulties and the chance that students will be discouraged by taking an extra course (i.e. Students who disappear rather than taking developmental courses.). Research shows that minimizing obstacles to students is a huge factor. The perception of placement into Pre-Algebra needs to be changed to being seen as an opportunity instead of an obstacle.


-Statistics must be gathered. This may require developing a new process to better gather statistics on Accuplacer scores and the relationship to student success. -The correlation needs to be developed between taking pre-algebra and student success in subsequent mathematics course.


-Other options – other than the full Pre-Algebra course – might be developed to minimize obstacles to students who need remedial work in mathematics.

16

-Share document listing ranges of Accuplacer scores and the corresponding skills generally aligned with those scores.

-Research the possibility of creating a ladder of opportunities for students to assist them in developing the skill needed to be successful in their programs.

-Working with SSC on Bridge programs for incoming students who have low skills and are entering tech diploma programs.

-Propose that only the TABE post-test (and NOT the TABE pre-test) for ABE be allowed for course and program placement.

-Gather data on students who score low on Accuplacer on the first attempt. Compare students who take TABE and score high enough for admission to the students who retake Accuplacer and score high enough on the second attempt for admission.

-Possibly need to request a process for gathering this data.


Opening lines of communications with counselors and other admissions staff.

Team Rating



Some areas meet expectations, but most

areas need improvement


need improvement

Exemplary—all areas exceed expectations—use

as a model for other programs

X


Must include in a program improvement plan.

17




Category: Curriculum

Lead Persons: Lynda – plus Pat and Ingrid for other segments


-804 faculty regularly consult with program faculty informally to ensure courses meet program needs. -804 faculty attend program Advisory Committee meetings strategically to ensure mathematics courses continue to meet program needs and trends in industry. -804 faculty participate when possible on WTCS committees for improving existing courses and creating new courses. -804 faculty adjust lesson plans as appropriate to reinforce program outcomes. -Associate degree curriculum is set by state common courses. -WIDS are current and complete for all courses. -Syllabi are online with new system.

-Improve communication between program faculty, advisory committees, and mathematics faculty to ensure that math faculty are involved formally in any changes to program curriculum mathematics requirements.

-There is no formal, operationalized line of communication with program faculty on a regular basis soliciting information on upcoming program changes and general satisfaction with math offerings.

-Possible need to develop new courses (mostly technical diploma) to fit program needs

-Transition/correlation between ABE math and technical diploma math courses and Pre-Algebra course.

-College Math course is not a great fit for the programs currently taking it. There might be other courses or presentation methods (i.e. scheduling extra hours or distributing hours differently) that are a better fit for the students.


Each 804 faculty member attends at least one advisory committee meeting on each campus each semester; 804 faculty are encouraged to attend a different committee meeting each semester.


Program changes involving mathematics courses have sometimes occurred with no formal input from mathematics faculty. Examples: Early Childhood switching from math to math or science IT changing from Math & Logic to a menu of courses Auto Collision changing from Math 373 to Math 372, etc.


-Coordinating curriculum between ABE math and math course offerings to ensure the curriculum properly prepares students for WITC math courses.

-Prepare students for GED, Tech diploma math courses, and Pre-Algebra

-Create a grid (/checklist) [i.e. multiplication tables, reading skills, problem solving, evaluating reasonableness of a result, reducing fractions, factoring/divisibility, meaning of a variable and algebraic

18

symbols, skills required to solve one-step equations, etc.] of skills that students need entering tech diploma math courses in order to be reasonably prepared academically for the course and the skills that students will be expected to have at the end of each course.

-College Mathematics and its current appropriateness for programs.


-Rotating attendance at advisory committee meetings to ensure that all advisory committees have input from math faculty.

-Formalizing the way in which 804 gathers input from program faculty on upcoming changes and satisfaction with math offerings.

-These items may be addressed in the future.


-804 faculty seek input from program faculty.

-804 faculty attend program classes to learn program content and adjust lesson plans where appropriate to reinforce program outcomes.

-804 faculty work with program faculty in program labs to reinforce math concepts and teach additional concepts that are not the formal math courses.

Team Rating






need improvement



X


No urgent need for further action at this time, but curriculum may be addressed further in the future.

19



Program: Mathematics Category: Assessment of Student Learning Lead: All Math faculty team and Ted May, Academic Dean


-Course assessment system is in place with templates and other materials designed to be reused year after year.

-Summative and Formative assessments are used to evaluate student learning.

-Common course assessment items have been created for course assessment and continue to be used in courses.

-Math faculty is well-trained and has the necessary resources to perform assessments well.

-Different learning styles are addressed through formative assessments.

-The Math CWO is being refined and appears to be ready for full implementation.

-While course assessment is well designed and working well, pre-course assessment (i.e. Placement assessment) could use some work.

-The Math CWO has gone through two pilot phases. There are still some kinks in the process that could be worked out. Need to improve buy-in and other logistical challenges faced by the Math CWO assessment.


Through the leadership of the dean and the cooperative work of all the Math faculty a well-defined yet adaptable system of course assessment has been developed.


CWO assessments main obstacle right now is communication with programs. A communication schedule and detailed instructions need to be refined. Program buy-in can still be improved.


None


Continued refinement of the Math CWO assessment process.


The course assessment system that has been developed is operating smoothly and is adaptable enough to be adjusted for any course.

Team Rating






need improvement



X


21




Category: Advisory Committees


Math faculty regularly attend advisory committee meetings and serve as a resource to the program instructors in the meetings.

-There is currently no schedule in place to ensure representation on all advisory committees. -As a team, the math faculty do not have a process for bringing issues to advisory committees.


Success of math faculty in advisory committees is due mostly to strong relationships between math faculty and program instructors.


It was determined that advisory committee issues should be a standing agenda item on math faculty meetings each year in order to ensure important information is relayed from the math faculty to the committees and that important information is gathered from the committees and brought back to the faculty. Dean for math should be informed of proposed changes (in the planning process) in program math requirements for programs before final decisions are made.


None


-This may be addressed in the future to develop a more formal process for identifying areas of need in curriculum and bringing those issues to advisory committees. -Dean for math should be informed of proposed changes (in the planning process) in program math requirements for programs before final decisions are made.


Strong relationships between the programs and the Math Faculty make for a very smooth working environment.

Team Rating






need improvement



X


23




Category: Equipment and Facilities

Lead Faculty: Ingrid, Pat and Lynda


Most major issues have been addressed and classes seem to be running smoothly.

-One issue was mentioned in Rice Lake. Classes in room 160 can sometimes be loud enough to be a distraction to classes in room 156.

-Some concerns over the ergonomics of work stations in classrooms was also mentioned.

-There is still some inconsistency in the equipment and set up from one classroom to the next.

-Classroom atmosphere (i.e. artwork on walls in Superior is nice) could be improved in some areas.

-Whiteboard space is limited in some classrooms (some whiteboards do not function well).


For the most part, classrooms and equipment seem to be adequate.


Not much the math faculty can do about facilities directly. Concerns listed in Deltas above will be passed along through the appropriate channels. (Through Academic Dean, Ted May)


Steps need to be taken to ensure that adequate whiteboard space is in all classrooms where math is being taught.


Ergonomics (i.e. Holding up feet to avoid unplugging cords) could be addressed.


Team Rating






need improvement



X


Each math faculty should submit to Academic Dean, Ted May, a list of rooms that work well for math

classes and a list of classrooms that do not work well.

25




Category: Staff Development & Faculty Innovation

Lead: Ted – not on improvement plan


-Math faculty activity seek out and participate in training on their own.

-Dean is highly supportive of development opportunities.

-Outside resources have been brought in during in-service time to provide extremely useful training and information

-Math faculty are knowledgeable in math, math instruction, and pedagogy, as well as in many of the program areas which they serve.

-There are several regional and national conferences that are available for Math Faculty to attend.

-There are other opportunities to network with Math faculty from other institutions.


Math faculty activity seek out and participate in training on their own. This is mostly due to the high level of interest in continued growth on the part of the math faculty and the support of the dean.


Conferences can be expensive and budgets often do not allow for travel and admission expenses in many cases. Academic dean does fully support development through scheduling and financial backing whenever possible.


None


None at this time because budget issues are outside of the control of Math Faculty and Dean.


Dean is highly supportive of development opportunities. Faculty is highly motivated to seek out opportunities for improvement. Dean will continue to inform faculty of networking opportunities.

Team Rating






need improvement



X


Any issues in this area are outside of faculty control.

27




Category: Collaboration across the College


-Math faculty work very well with programs to reinforce math topics necessary for the careers and adjusting the applications within courses to fit program needs.

-Math faculty also consult with program faculty on math related applications outside of the scope of the standard math curriculum. With math faculty working in program labs to teach math and math related topics to students.

-Cooperation with students services (I.E. Accommodations specialists, Counselors, and admissions staff) in serving the students’ needs and interests.

-Math faculty regularly attend program advisory committees to give input and answer questions.

-More communication is needed with admissions staff to close holes in the course placement process.

-Math faculty is unable to attend every advisory committee every year. Some programs can go years without math participation on committees.


The math faculty’s vast experience outside of the field of education and their desire to serve the students makes cooperation with program faculty come naturally. This relationship is strong with most programs.


With only 5 full-time math faculty district-wide, it would be a burden to try to have math faculty at every advisory committee. A plan for better rotation of faculty and programs and a process for identifying and relaying important information would be helpful.


None


A plan for rotating among advisory committees as well as a process for identifying important topics as a group and relaying information to committees would be very useful.


Strong links between math faculty and program faculty.

28

Team Rating






need improvement



X


Many of the math faculty should be commended for their commitment to student learning and to their own personal learning which makes the link between math and programs even stronger. The vast experience of math faculty is a rich source of information to program students.

29




Category: Calculator Usage and Accommodations –

Lead person: Ingrid


-804 faculty each seek to incorporate calculator usage in a manner that enhances understanding of important mathematical concepts.

-804 faculty have recently begun work on a math department calculator usage policy that will ensure more consistency in math courses across the college.

-804 faculty have each worked with their local accommodations specialist on a case-by-case basis to help maximize the likelihood of student success.

-Communication and understanding of policies with accommodations specialists has greatly improved.

-The difficulty of monitoring how calculators and other technologies are being used varies by delivery mode.

-Communication with the accommodations team and a better understanding of each other’s policies and rationales behind those policies could help us to better serve our students.

-Our department calculator policy is still in progress and needs continued discussion and refinement.

-Need to define devices that are acceptable to use as a calculator (i.e. No cell phones).


Our recent on-going work on a department-wide calculator usage policy results from an increasing awareness that we are currently allowing calculator usage to varying degrees and in dissimilar ways even though we are, at times, teaching the same courses on different campuses or through different delivery modes. Once a department-wide policy is instated, there will be more consistency as students move between courses, instructors, and campuses.


Regular communication and dialogue with the accommodations specialists about policy, rationale, best practice, and legal issues varies greatly by campus. Math faculty need to be cognizant of the rights of students with accommodations plans. At the same time, calculators must be used by all students in a manner that does not inhibit the understanding of important mathematical concepts or compromise potential for future success in school or career.


-Finalization of a math department calculator policy that is implemented throughout the college. The calculator policy should be reasonably compatible for working with students with accommodations with the understanding that additional accommodations can be made on a case-by-case basis.

-Keep ABE/SSC staff informed of policy changes regarding calculator use and confirm that their existing policies and ours are compatible.

30


- Develop a Math department calculator usage policy. -Work with ABE/SSC to improve consistency across the college.


-Open, regular lines of communication with accommodations specialists regarding the broader issues of calculator policy, best practice, legal issues and obligations (rather than only touching base regarding individual students).

Team Rating



Some areas meet expectations, but most areas need

improvement

All areas meet expectations —few areas need improvement

Exemplary—all areas exceed expectations—

use as a model for other programs

X


This is a good candidate for further work in a program improvement plan.

31

WITC QRP DATA REVIEW

33

QRP SCORECARD

GENERAL STUDIES

804 MATHEMATICS

Report Year - 2013 Total in Cohort Total Achieved Actual

CG01 AAS Course Completion Rate for all 2,140 1,377 64.35%

CG02 AAS Course Completion for minority 131 70 53.44%

CG03 AAS Course Completion for special population 1,739 1,084 62.33%

CG04 AAS Course Completion / mathematics 628 479 76.27%

CG05 AAS Course Completion / communication 1,271 909 71.52%

CG06 AAS Course Completion / social-behavioral 1,498 1,018 67.96%

CG07 AAS Course Completion / natural sciences 632 515 81.49%

CG08 Diploma Course Completion for all 480 355 73.96%

CG09 Diploma Course Completion for minority 28 19 67.86%

CG10 Diploma Course Completion for special population 401 291 72.57%




CG03 AAS Course Completion for special population 1,300 888 68.31%



CG06 AAS Course Completion / social-behavioral 1,331 959 72.05%








CG03 AAS Course Completion for special population 1,468 982 66.89%



CG06 AAS Course Completion / social-behavioral 1,333 979 73.44%





35

WTCS QRP SCORECARD ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

Program: Mathematics Department 804

Best Practice Analysis

Indicator Total in Cohort

Total Achieved

Actual Best Practice or Innovation – Describe and include how this has contributed to your high actual results for this indicator.

CG02 /CG09 - Course Completion (for all General Studies) for Minorities

CGO2 2013-131 2012-112 2011-104 CG09 2013-28 2012-20 2011-21

CGO2 2013-70 2012-59 2011-63 CG09 2013-19 2012-14 2011-16

CGO2 2013-53.44% 2012-52.68% 2011-60.58% CG09 2013-67.86% 2012-70.00% 2011-76.19%

If we compare data for Minority students in WITC math courses are completing (C or better) courses at a rate comparable to those for GS classes at WITC as a whole: Math earn a C or better in a greater percentage of AAS courses (64% vs. 55%); slightly lower in Tech Diploma courses (67.9 vs. 71%). However, with these small numbers, we could just say they are comparable (statistically speaking) for each.

Minority students AAS Students Diploma Students

Math courses alone 64% 67.9%

All Gen Stdies courses 55% 71%

At this time we are making no “claims” of “best practice” – but acknowledging that the math faculty working with minorities are on a par with the rest of the General Studies faculty.

Math Course Completion for Minorities

3-year ttls: AAS – 139 Dipl - 56


3-year %’s: AAS – 64.0% Dipl – 65.5%

CG03 /CG10 - Course Completion (for all General Studies) for Special Populations

CG03 2013-1,739 2012-1,300 2011-1,468 CG10 2013-401 2012-295 2011-376

CG03 2013-1,084 2012-888 2011-982 CG10 2013-291 2012-243 2011-299

CG03 2013-62.33% 2012-68.31% 2011-66.89% CG10 2013-72.57% 2012-82.37% 2011-79.52%

Special Population students in WITC math courses are completing (C or better) courses at a rate somewhat higher than for GS classes at WITC as a whole: for AAS courses (72% vs. 65.5%); and for Tech Diploma courses (81.3 vs. 77.7%). These numbers are both higher, so we could say they are somewhat higher.

Special Pops students AAS Students Diploma Students

Math courses alone 73% 81.3%

36

Math Course Completion for Special Populations



3-year %’s: AAS – 73% Dipl – 81.3%

All Gen Stdies courses 65.5% 77.7%

Here again, at this time we are making no “claims” of “best practice” – but acknowledging that the math faculty working with special populations are on a par or doing slightly better than are the rest of the General Studies faculty.

CG04 - AAS Course Completeion for Math courses

CG04 2013-628 2012-550 2011-568 2011-13 = 1,746

CG04 2013-479 2012-434 2011-437 2011-13 = 1,350

CG04 2013-76.27% 2012-78.91% 2011-76.94% 2011-13 = 77.3%

Experienced faculty who work collaboratively and have college-wide course assessments will enhance student achievement levels on all courses. Faculty Teamwork and Retention:

The math faculty have worked with their dean to develop a strong, and ever-more collegial team, to strengthen the positivity of the work environment. They work beyond their own campuses to get to know each other, share ideas and concerns, etc.

When faculty work inter-dependently, they have the opportunity to interact, learn from each other, and complement each other in many ways. They collaborate on team projects, and work upon continuous improvement in course instruction through college-wide course assessments. With continuous improvement and collegiality, faculty can avoid becoming “stale” and help a greater percentage of students learn successfully.

The result of this best practice is being able to adjust to our evolving student population, incorporate new technologies successfully, and tackle resilient challenges such as placement rates and under-prepared students.

Mathematics Course Assessments:

This best practice is the systematic college-wide assessment of student achievement in mathematics courses. We use the results of the assessments to guide continuous improvement efforts. The collegial efforts putting together these courses assessments, including the analysis and write-up, also enhances the extent to which faculty members can learn from each other, share course-specific best practices, etc.

When colleagues each teach the same course, students benefit from the varied instructor-specific strategies used to achieve course outcomes. At

37

the same time, since each instructor uses different strategies within their teaching, when reviewing course assessment results and their analysis, faculty have the opportunity to talk with each other about teaching strategies that were used to achieve high level student outcomes.

While 76% success (students passing with a C or better) is less than the math faculty members may desire (80% or greater is a math faculty target), the collegial atmosphere complemented by individual faculty using their own best teaching strategies that match their teaching style, contributes to a continuously improving environment, and associated student achievement.

Potential Action Analysis

Indicator Total in Cohort

Total Achieved

Actual Potential Action – Describe what action(s) could possibly be taken to improve this indicator and why it might work.

CG04 – Mathematics AAS Course Completion

CG04 2013-628 2012-550 2011-568

CG04 2013-479 2012-434 2011-437

CG04 2013-76.27% 2012-78.91% 2011-76.94%

Mathematics Course Placement: • We are gathering data on course success linked with placement test

scores. We are also continuing to evaluate the efficacy of Pre-Algebra as a preparatory course for all AAS math courses.

• A huge factor that influences student success in mathematics courses is their incoming math confidence and proficiency. While the math faculty are working continuously to advance instructional efficacy and adaptability to diverse students, students are most successful when coming into a class prepared with sufficient prior content knowledge and skill.

Mathematics Course Assessments: • While also listed above as a “best practice,” math faculty are working to

continuously revise the course assessment process, and to expand to the assessment of other AAS Math courses. During the preparation of the common course assessments, faculty dialogue with each other, and best practices to target opportunities for improvement.

With experience, the math faculty members have a broader base of data that can drive continuous improvement as it ratchets up the level of student achievement. As the breadth of course assessment experience increases, faculty become more efficient and effective in assessments within their own courses – developing new teaching and learning

38

strategies, and pinpointing problem areas to address (e.g., the faculty identified a need for better strategies for teaching fractions, and followed this up by contacting a professor with particular expertise in that area, and then arranged for an in-service with that professor).

39

FUTURE TRENDS AND EXTERNAL FACTORS

Program Mathematics Department 804

Future Trends

Increasing percentage of students coming in with varied levels of calculator proficiency, but often associated with an increasing deficiency in understanding mathematic concepts.

We could anticipate increasing percentages of minority and special populations’ students. While special populations students are earning a C or better in GS courses at rates comparable to the overall student body, on average, minority students are earning a C or better at somewhat lower rates. While students in math classes are faring better than for GS as a whole, we will want to be certain we are continuing to meet the needs of all students, regardless of their minority or other status.

Employment Trends

Local NA for Mathematics alone

State NA for Mathematics alone

External Factors

Declining class sizes often leads to collapsed classes across multiple programs. This increasing diversity of student interests in classes has both positive (more diversity of perspectives and life experiences) and negative (challenges program-specific applications, students becoming disconnected due to lack of engagement) consequences.

41

IMPROVEMENT PLAN

42

ACADEMIC PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PLAN

PROGRAM: Mathematics - General Studies 804

Defined Outcome:

At least 78% of students will earn a C or better in their Associate Degree math courses, and continue to succeed at 80% or better in Technical Diploma math courses each rolling 3-year average (For FY2011-13 - data showed 77.3% for AAS Math courses; 83.1% for Tech Diploma Math courses)

QRP

Indicator #

Perkins

Indicator # Responsibility Timeline Resources

CG04 CG08

Action Plan/Action Items: Each student is placed at the appropriate level to maximize initial course success and program retention.

-Gather statistics that are relevant to proper placement of students. -Analyze statistics for any correlation between existing student placement initiatives (ACT, TABE, Accuplacer) and student performance (final letter grade)

-Identify benchmarks from the analysis which predict student success as identified by 78% in Associate classes and 80% in technical diploma classes

-Recommend placement benchmarks for each class -Prepare information to be presented to appropriate parties. -Design and implement a cross-divisional plan with Student Services to assure that the placement scores are used consistently.

-Design and implement a cross-divisional plan with Student Services to increase the frequency of students taking their first AAS Math course in the semester following their Pre-Algebra course.

Lead: Todd and Kevin

Determine Stats to be gathered by 12/31/14 Input from math team by 1/31/15 Request stats from Jennifer K. by 3/15/15

Ted May Student Services staff Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Monitor implemented changes annually and make continued recommendations where appropriate. -Operationalize the collection of statistics identified as useful in (1) -Update the analysis annually -Evaluate the efficacy of these improvements in placement and sequencing. -Coordinate with students services to strive to make continuous improvements in placement and retention.

Lead: Kevin and Lynda

ongoing Ted May Student

Services staff

43

Update: (A mid-year and year-end update will be required each year during implementation.) May 2015: The math faculty members have decided on the information to be gathered for this year (Data on the pre-algebra course and success in subsequent courses and the delay in between [to assess 1.a, 1.g].). Data have been requested and will be compiled when available. Data will be reviewed in August with a discussion on how to use these data and/or what other data to request will take place at that time (will consider requesting placement scores to correlate with letter grade [to assess 1b]. Currently available numbers show greater percentage of successful course completion for students completing Pre-Algebra over students testing directly into their required program math course. Discussed the possible effects that bridging will have on technical diploma courses and student preparedness. There may be a need to gather further statistics specific to technical diploma courses and bridge students in particular. Will discuss this possibility once currently requested statistics are gathered and analyzed.

May also need to gather statistics on course placement (Accuplacer – all attempts) and students being placed into courses based on those scores along with the success of students placed into courses without required placement scores. Math faculty members are requesting the opportunity to be represented on committees making decisions on placement (for math courses) and admission so the information gathered on placement can be shared for consideration by those committees. January 2016: The math faculty will review the data for the 2015-16 year as a whole to look at C or better rates in their courses. They are continuing to gather data to guide this, but the data comes in on an annual basis. At this time we will have specific data that can be reviewed to evaluate the success of achieving the 78% and 80% targeted rates, and set up strategies to address any specific course(s) where they are behind that C or better rate. May 2016: The numbers are getting better. We are continuing to adjust placements scores and pre-reqs to help prepare students for courses. The new Math Foundations courses should also help. Will discuss more after the data are available for 2015-16, in August 2016 – so this will be part of our December 2016 update report. Dec 2016: Looking at the data from FY2016, it is clear that our averages vary significantly from year to year. There are so many external factors that come into play when looking at all these data. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are several courses that we will want to target for improvement in student success. We are taking first steps toward that with more definitive course-placement scores during the testing process, and also with professional development of the math faculty for new strategies (for Math Reasoning and Vertical Math Acceleration). We will see if we can make a different most particularly in the Math 373 class to get that up over 80% again, and Math with Business Applications to strive to get that up over 70%. The other math courses with low numbers have relatively few students, so these fluctuate quite a bit. The other one with more sizeable enrollments is Pre-Algebra, and as a Prepared Learner course, it is not out of the range of acceptability at 68%. See attached 4-year running rates of C or better for each math course by delivery mode. Nationally published success rates in remedial pre-algebra courses and entry level math courses is around or just below 50%, so – by comparison – our numbers might be below our stated goal, but compare very well to other institutions. See http://www.thencat.org/Guides/DevMath/StateofDevMathArticle.html - or attached copy of that article.

http://www.thencat.org/Guides/DevMath/StateofDevMathArticle.html

45



Defined Outcome:

All (or 90% or greater) math classes are scheduled in classrooms that have the necessary room-characteristics for effective math instruction.

QRP

Indicator #

Perkins

Indicator #

Responsibility Timeline Resources

Action Plan/Action Items: Define relevant classroom characteristics by course and by instructor.

-Survey math faculty for must-haves and would-like-to-haves (along with justification) in their classrooms, per course, for effective teaching.

-Prioritize requests -Report the findings by faculty member, campus and course to the Master Room Scheduler

Relevant classroom characteristics may include (but are not limited to): -Minimum of 12 feet of unobstructed whiteboard (e.g., projector screen and instructor work station, etc., must not obstruct view of screen)

-Whiteboard must easily erase -Room must be equipped with smart technology -Arrangement of tables and other classroom items should be conducive to the format of the class (10 minutes between classes is not enough time to rearrange the room and prepare for class.)

-Computer labs are available for faculty who choose to teach with technology

Ingrid Johnson-Evavold

Preliminary draft sent to Math faculty by: Jan. 31, 2015 Final Draft by: 3/1/15

-Input from math team -Support from Dean in scheduling -Coordination with Master Room Scheduler is necessary to guide process/ options

Work out a plan with the Room Scheduler so that these characteristics can be used to prioritize room placement for all math classes by the fall 2016 scheduling semester.

Todd – working with Ted May

Completed in time for fall 2016 scheduling

-Math Acad Dean -Room Scheduler

Identify preferred ergonomics in classrooms for both students and instructors. -Identify range of ergonomic assets and deficiencies in classroom settings – for both instructors and students

-Determine resolutions to any deficiencies that may be able to be addressed, and list these in order of priority (if they take time/money to implement).

-Bring forth these ideas to the Academic Affairs Divisional Deans (and/or Facilities Managers) so that ergonomics can be considered in architectural plans for classroom updates and included where possible for student and faculty health and overall positive learning environment.

-Follow through wherever opportunity presents itself, to enhance implementation.

Pat Kinney -Preliminary draft sent to Math faculty by: 1/31/15 -Draft suggestions sent out for review by: 3/1/15 -Communication to Divisional Dean

-Input from math team -Plans developed in coordination with OTA faculty and students

46

and/or others where directed by 12/1/15

-Divisional Dean and Facilities Managers

Update: (A mid-year and year-end update will be required each year during implementation.) May 2015: Each instructor has defined the characteristics necessary for a classroom to work for their classes. This information has been passed along through Ted and it remains to be seen if room scheduling will improve. Progress will be evaluated and discussed after start of Fall 2015 semester. In the meantime, each instructor will continue to share their individual needs and classroom issues with Ted. January 2016: Input follows – put together the wording for the report drawing from input/feedback from faculty members:

Pat Kinney - In my main classroom (Room 206), the new instructor station came in and is functioning well at the start of the semester. The ITV room 209 so far has been functioning properly. Changing the tables so students enter on the side of the door is working out nice. It’s also nice to the door to the LRC gone since sometimes that lead to distractions.

Lynda Rassbach – For the first time in 15 years, my classroom fits my teaching style. Students are enjoying the access to internet; and most recently we were able to add a scanner to my class that is an IPV class from Rice Lake to New Richmond.

Ingrid Evavold – My main classroom in Superior, Room 200, meets my needs nicely. While there were design difficulties with one other classroom, this was shifted to Room 200 to sustain the quality teaching environment I had sought. So, all classes are scheduled in excellent classrooms.

May 2016: Will continue to deal with this on a case by case basis. NOTE: Be active in remodeling to be sure rooms are maintained. At this time, the rooms are working in most situations quite well. Significant improvement! Dec 2016: While there were a few issues early in the fall 2016 semester, we were able to get these resolved in a timely manner. It is good to keep monitoring this to assure that…, as rooms change, they are still providing an optimal learning environment. Each instructor will continue to work with deans and scheduling to make sure rooms are adequate for the instructional needs of each class.

47



Defined Outcome:

All math curriculum (from ABE-math to Tech Diploma Math; and also from ABE math to Pre-Algebra to Associate Degree math courses) is complete and aligned with the needs of the programs they serve.

QRP Indicator #

Perkins Indicator #

Responsibility Timeline Resources

CG04 CG08

Action Plan/Action Items: Align math curriculum sequence for Tech Diploma Math, such that the course sequence from ABE Math to Tech Diploma Math is continuous to maximize student success at each stage.

-Identify math skills students need when entering technical diploma math courses. -Upon review of the Tech Diploma math (Math 373 and 355), work with ABE faculty to identify the appropriate ABE math that will adequately prepare students for technical diploma math courses. -Gather data to assess the efficacy of the ABE math as preparation for Tech Diploma math courses.

Kevin – working with ABE faculty member(s)

Review Tech Diploma Math and identify the ABE courses the best support the needs - by May 2015. Develop plan / recommendations by Dec. 2015

ABE faculty – esp Lisa Fiorio-Martinson

Align the math curriculum sequence for Associate degree math, so that the course-sequence from ABE Math to Pre-Algebra to the AAS Math courses is progressive so as to maximize student success at each developmental stage.

-Identify math skills students need when entering a Pre-Algebra course. -Review ABE math in cooperation with ABE faculty to enhance the likelihood that ABE math adequately prepares students for Pre-Algebra (do at same time as with Tech Diploma)

-Gather data to assess the efficacy of ABE math as preparation for Pre-Algebra. -Evaluate all associate degree math courses for the math skills needed when entering each course. -Review Pre-Algebra to determine the efficacy that can be obtained from this one class in preparation for all associate degree math classes.

-Develop a plan that will address any of the gaps identified in the curriculum. -Conduct follow-up communications with Student Services to assure consistency in implementation across the college with regard to placement scores and sequencing.

Pat Kinney – lead

Ingrid Johnson-Evavold and Lisa Fiorio-Martinson support

Begin collection of data for Pre-Algebra to AAS math fall 2014 with data gathering ongoing until enough data is gathered to perform a credible analysis. Analysis of ABE to Pre-Algebra will be coordinated with available of ABE faculty (ABE to tech

SSC staff Student Services Ted May

48

diploma will be completed first)

Develop a systematic plan to communicate with program faculty at each campus on an annual basis to coordinate program curriculum with the math course(s) that are part of that (each) program.


Preliminary plan submitted to Math team by 1/31/15.

Implemented by math team, 2015–16 academic year.

Full math department on Advisory Comms

Update: (A mid-year and year-end update will be required each year during implementation.) May 2015: A math faculty representative has been in meetings with ABE faculty gathering information on current ABE curriculum and proposed changes. Currently waiting for ABE to complete the evaluation of their curriculum and for any possible changes to be completed. Will re-evaluate from the point of view of the Math program once ABE has finished their analysis. A current COS for ABE level 4 was shared. Huge and confusing list of standards and competencies that may not be very useful for designing classroom instruction. It may be necessary to further define the meaning of these standards and what is most important to our students and preparing for our courses. Basic skills needed for WITC students to come into either Tech Diploma Math or Pre-Algebra:

1) Math symbols and language 2) Number sense 3) Write legibly 4) Read/decode a question 5) Order of operations and calculator use

As a math group, we would like to recommend that ABE focus on the development of these skills as much as possible. Discussed the potential for creating a more detailed list (with sub-competencies) for this list of topics. Will discuss further in August and divide up responsibility then if deemed necessary. For Item #3: (Develop a systematic plan to communicate with program faculty at each campus.) Communication with programs (as related to mathematical needs of their students) will become a standing agenda item on monthly math group meetings. Discussion with program instructors should include the applications within current curriculum of the course as well as the appropriateness of the course itself for the needs of the program.

49

January 2016: The update on these two courses:

Math Foundations – The faculty member working on this course have completed a rough draft of the course competencies and LOs for the course, and a draft of the course drawn up on that. They are looking at possibly reducing the competencies to just four competencies, in preparing for Pre-Algebra. One consideration is eliminating percentages, but keeping the decimals. Students would be able to carry their understanding of decimals into working with percentages in the Pre-Algebra course. Kevin will be sending out a draft of the course to the other faculty members sometime in later January.

Math Foundations for the Trades – This is coming along in a similar fashion – with challenges of developing skills in students who have “not done math” all their lives. This is coming along well, and they will have a full draft of the curriculum by the end of January or February.

May 2016: Math foundations courses have been created and will be taught for the first time May to June by ABE staff. The math faculty will continue to adjust them for future use. Transition from pre-req to co-req will have to be addressed before Fall 2017. Dec 2016: The curriculum changes have been made, and all courses have been updated, including the Foundations courses and Math Reasoning. We will be monitoring these for efficacy, especially when shifting to co-requisite delivery of the Math Foundations courses. The creation of Fundamentals courses will hopefully lead to a more seamless transition from ABE math to WITC’s entry level courses.

51



Defined Outcome: Implement a college-wide calculator usage policy for all math faculty and also for entry-level testing and other testing (e.g., with ETCs).

QRP

Indicator #

Perkins

Indicator # Responsibility Timeline Resources

Action Plan/Action Items: Design a district-wide math calculator policy.

-Review district calculator usage policy for students with accommodations. Review math policy in comparison with that policy to assure consistency in and alignment.

-Determine just what defines a calculator, and what type of calculator may be allowed for different purposes (math exams, Accuplacer, TABE, etc.)

-Develop math department calculator usage policy that is consistent with the district policy. -Communicate calculator needs and issues with ABE, ETCs and Student Services to ensure that calculator usage is consistent and appropriate to the purpose (to include Challenge Exams).

-Ensure math department policy is in line with district policies, and vice versa.


Submitted for review to math team by: 11/30/14 Final policy complete by: 1/20/15

Access to WITC district policies WITC math team ABE faculty, Student Services & ETC

Explore the option of providing suitable calculators to students during challenge exams to ensure consistency across the district.

Lynda Submit for review by 11/30/14

Time and team input

Update: (A mid-year and year-end update will be required each year during implementation.) May 2015: A detailed calculator usage policy has been written. It defines appropriate use of calculators and the types of devices allowed as a “calculator.” Policy has been shared with student services and other relevant persons. Ongoing updates may be necessary based on changing technology and/or changes in other college wide policies. Have discussed other issues that may be effected by calculator usage: Challenge exam may need updating to allow for more calculator usage; Classroom evaluations may need to be adapted; etc. Accommodations Specialists college-wide have adopted a calculator usage policy and approved a policy consistent with our proposal for implementation. **Stressed the need to not allow graphing calculators on challenge exams. Challenge exam issues to address: Need to update challenge exam information sheets to be more specific on what is allowed as a calculator on the exam. Appropriate calculators will be provided for students while taking challenge exams. (Math department will purchase calculators and provide them as needed.) Instead of scratch paper being used, work space needs to be provided on the exam itself, so all work can be shown for grading consideration.

52

January 2016 : Input follows – put together the wording for the report drawing from input/feedback from faculty members:

Pat Kinney - In my main classroom (Room 206), the new instructor station came in and is functioning well at the start of the semester. The ITV room 209 so far has been functioning properly. Changing the tables so students enter on the side of the door is working out nice. It’s also nice to the door to the LRC gone since sometimes that lead to distractions.

Lynda Rassbach – For the first time in 15 years, my classroom fits my teaching style. Students are enjoying the access to internet; and most recently we were able to add a scanner to my class that is an IPV class from Rice Lake to New Richmond.

Ingrid Evavold – My main classroom in Superior, Room 200, meets my needs nicely. While there were design difficulties with one other classroom, this was shifted to Room 200 to sustain the quality teaching environment I had sought. So, all classes are scheduled in excellent classrooms.

May 2016: This project has been completed as of the January 2016 report. Dec 2016: This project has been completed as of the January 2016 report.

53

Math C or Better rates over time Key note: Be sure to watch this over time with new placement scores, and so forth.

Math - C or better rates across courses – online vs. the others

Course FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Ave. or Notes

Pre-Algebra 40.0% (web-enh) 70.45% (ITV) 64.81% (total)

64.15% (web-enh) 65.79% (ITV) 64.84% (total)

75.47% (web-enh) 56.41 (ITV) 94.44% (online) 71.82%

69.57% (web-enh) 68.00% (ITV) 65.38% (online) 68.04%

** Low – though not bad for Pre-Algebra?

College Math (107) 61.43% 61.54% 69.44% 63.16% Low – going away?

Tech Math 1A (113) 90.00% 81.58% 88.89% 77.78% Good, but went down

Tech Math 1B (114) 92.31% 93.33% 87.50% 100.0% Good

Tech Math 1 (115) 78.57% 69.23% 85.71% 75.00% Varies, small #s

Tech Math 2 (116) 92.31% 100.0% --- 100.0% Good

Math w/Bus Apps 77.99% (web-enh) 78.57% (ITV) 72.79% (online) 76.34% (total)

67.38% (web-enh) 77.01% (ITV) 66.39% (online) 69.27% (total)



** Low

Math & Logic (133) 69.23% 52.94% 50.00% 57.14% ** Low, small #s

Math Reasoning (134)

-- -- -- 61.11% ** Low, small #s

Math for Health (138)

89.69% 91.57% 84.81% 85.07% Good

Intro Stats (189) 76.00% -- 71.43% 61.54% Slightly low to low

Math 355 82.44% 79.51% 83.02% 88.17% Good

Math 364 78.41% 81.18% 90.63% 83.61% Good

Math 365 92.31% 95.00% 78.95% 88.89% Good

Math 373 77.71% 82.56% 79.44% 77.66% ** Okay – slightly low

Math 383 100.0% 86.67% 100.0% 88.89% Good

Several Notes:

Change in college-wide grading scale, implemented in FY14, negatively impacted math pass-rates.

54

All data here - The reports from which these numbers are drawn, are run each August – and so the data will be updated in the December/January update reports only. Note that for these data, “F” and “W” are included in the count of those attempting. R’s are not, as they are replacing a previous grade. Only the new grade would be reflected. Count for passing grades include C, C+ to A, S, and P.

\tsm\math\Math Improvement Plan\Math C or Better rates – to 2016

general studies mathematics

Documents