Tag Archives: Course Revision

Assessment and Revision

Revise, revise, revise

2 Comments

A critical piece to a major curriculum redesign is NOT to think you’ll get it all right on the first try. You MUST acknowledge that there will be need for revision. You must NOT throw out the baby with the bath water. There have been hiccups. But because we believe deeply in the original concept, we adjust rather than abandon.

We are using an assessment and research method called Action Research. There’s more to it than this, but the essence is that you take notes on how things go, then reflect back at the end of the semester and plan future revisions. This is not about quantitative data (though we collect that, too)–it’s about a qualitative assessment of how things are going.

And overall, they are going well. But as mentioned in a previous post, we ditched the 8-week half courses and dropped from 6 credit hours to 5. It has been a challenge to squish the class into one less credit hour, but at the same time this has forced us to revisit the priorities we had when designing the course. Some of those stray topics that work their way in don’t need to be there. In fact, they distract from the main ideas. Clarify your main goals, and stick to supporting them. You will have a better course in the end.

We’ve also decided to introduce a final exam into our Math Literacy courses. What? No final exam? Well, we had envisioned more of a portfolio-style final assessment at the end of the semester. And we do like that, so we’ve kept it. But in this instance, we have found that a more traditional final assessment might be warranted as well. The past couple of years we have finished each semester with a sense that students have not “pulled it all together” at the end. The last unit overwhelms them, and they don’t seem to end with a larger sense of the common threads running through the course. Our hope is that reviewing with their groups for a comprehensive final will help bring it all together, and provide a better assessment of what our students understand as they leave the course.

This is also our first semester with Math Literacy as a prerequisite to Intermediate Algebra. With Beginning Algebra gone, we wondered if we would see a difference in the student demographic. I really haven’t. There aren’t enough students at this level headed that way to make a huge difference in the class dynamic (for me, 2 in a class of 24), and I am seeing the same mix in ability that we see among all of our students. The bigger question will be next semester–do students coming out of Math Literacy perform the same in Intermediate Algebra as those who came out of Beginning Algebra? And in what ways does the Intermediate Algebra curriculum need to be adjusted because of the new prerequisite? I’ll keep you posted!

Redesign Process and Implementation

Overlapping Tracks/Turning Dev Math Upside-Down

Leave a comment

After our first full year of implementation and assessment, Parkland has decided to make some major revisions to its developmental math redesign. Yesterday we voted to make three major changes, effective Fall 2015 (pending Curriculum Committee approval). The third is the big one!

1. Get rid of our 8-week “half classes” and to return to 16-week courses.  Originally when we added the second track to our developmental math sequence, we also split all of our courses into half-courses.  Essentially this had no impact on the curriculum, simply turning what used to be a midterm grade into an actual grade on their transcript for the first half of the course.  The 8-week half-courses were a really good idea for several financial and pedagogical reasons. They allowed students to start over at midterm if they were not passing after the first half of the course, and to only have to repeat the second half of the course if they were successful in the first half but not the second.

Unfortunately, they just didn’t work out at our school. We were having trouble getting enough students in the off-cycle sections and had to cancel quite a few. When these sections did get enough students, they were a concentrated group of the weakest, least motivated students. This was a real challenge, because it helps so much to have some stronger students who can motivate and help their peers. In the regular, on-cycle sections, there was the concern that if not enough people got a C or higher in the first half, the second half might not have enough students to be offered. Yikes! So we have decided to take all of our half courses, both the Mathematical Literacy courses and our traditional algebra courses, and return them to 16-week formats.

2. Drop Mathematical Literacy from 6 credit hours to 5. We’ve found that students who place at the Intermediate Algebra level are choosing that instead of Math Literacy, even if they don’t need it, because it is less credit hours. If these students are not going on to College Algebra, this just doesn’t make sense for many reasons, and they are less likely to be successful. In addition, after offering the course for a year, we feel that we can do a good job of covering the material in less time.

3. Get rid of Beginning Algebra, have all students at that level go through Mathematical Literacy, and revise Intermediate Algebra. This brings us closer to the vision of the AMATYC New Life Project. Math Literacy can take students to their gen-ed math courses, and also serve as the prerequisite to a modified version of Intermediate Algebra. This new Intermediate Algebra course will begin with a fast review of some key Beginning Algebra topics that may not be covered in sufficient detail in Math Lit: one or two algebra topics, and a few by-hand procedures. Its exact content and format are going to be developed over the course of this year. So still two tracks, but they overlap. Our hope is that Math Literacy will offer ALL students a conceptual foundation that they were not getting in Beginning Algebra, and then our STEM-track students can pick up the symbolic manipulation that is specific to their needs when they take Intermediate Algebra.

In doing this, it feels like we are turning the philosophical basis of developmental math upside-down. In the past, the Beginning and Intermediate Algebra sequence was designed with the needs of STEM-bound students in mind, and then gen-ed bound students were required to take them. Now we are taking Math Literacy, a course specifically designed for students headed to gen-ed math, and having it also serve STEM-bound students. This turns developmental math upside-down, so to speak, and I am very interested to see how it plays out and whether our decision to rethink a century (or more!) of math instruction will serve the needs of students headed down the traditional algebra path.