The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success
Darren Felty, Department Head for English and Journalism Dub Green, Research Analyst David Flenner, Department of Mathematics Coordinator
Institutional Recognition of Issues Initiation: Math Department Initiatives Intensification: Achieving the Dream Initiatives Expansion: Re-accreditation Quality Enhancement Plan Initiatives
Meetings focused on student success issues Team discussions Issues prior to classes Issues in classes Issues post classes
Internal focus without campus-wide involvement
Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra course Developing 5-credit Intermediate Algebra course Developing College Algebra with Modeling course
Detailed data analyses Campus consultations with faculty, staff, and students Intensified “Math Summit” meetings with Math Dept., Developmental Math, and the college president Selection as ATD priority focus: “Increasing students’ math skills attainment, comfort levels, and course completions” Development of initiatives
Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteria Adding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classes Revising online Probability and Statistics class
Cross-divisional team development Exploration of instructional strategies Identification of focuses Development of strategies, budget, and scaling plans Campus-wide involvement Implementation
Instituting Beginning Algebra placement change Adding Developmental Mathematics Basics Implementing and scaling computer-assisted instruction Creating Math Cubes (Math3) Expanding math tutoring Enhancing faculty development
Success rate comparison to college norms and goals (All Classes) Demographic Breakdowns Gender Ethnicity Age Full Time/Part Time Pell Recipients FAFSA EFC
National Community College Benchmarking
ENG-101
Fall 2011
SPC-205
Headcount
2320
1285
55.4%
387
220
ACC-101
Fall 2011
Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate
ECO-210
Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate
56.8% Headcount
103
65
63.1%
402
57.3% Female
61
43
70.5%
56.3% Male
42
22
52.4%
Gender
231
57.5%
187
97
51.9%
215
134
62.3%
Gender
Female Male
1348
779
57.8%
220
126
972
506
52.1%
167
94
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Asian
33
23
69.7%
2
1
2
1
50.0%
10
5
50.0%
Female
16
12
75.0%
1
0
0.0%
Female
1
1
100.0%
2
2
100.0%
Male
17
11
64.7%
1
1
100.0%
Male
1
0
0.0%
8
3
37.5%
21
12
57.1%
3
1
33.3% American Indian/Alaskan
3
1
33.3%
3
0
0.0%
Female
9
7
77.8%
2
1
50.0%
Female
2
0
0.0%
Male
12
5
41.7%
1
0
0.0%
Male
688
304
44.2%
120
41
34.2% Black/African American
Female
459
213
46.4%
78
29
37.2%
Male
229
91
39.7%
42
12
28.6%
6
1
16.7%
1
0
0.0% Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Female
1
0
0.0%
Male
5
1
20.0%
1
0
0.0%
American Indian/Alaskan
Black/African American
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Hispanic
50.0% Asian
3
1
33.3%
1
0
0.0%
24
8
33.3%
92
35
38.0%
Female
18
7
38.9%
55
19
34.5%
Male
6
1
16.7%
37
16
43.2%
3
2
66.7%
Female
1
0
0.0%
Male
2
2
100.0%
1
1
100.0%
16
7
43.8%
1
1
100.0%
8
4
50.0%
8
3
37.5%
97
47
48.5%
16
12
Female
62
28
45.2%
7
6
85.7%
Female
Male
35
19
54.3%
9
6
66.7%
Male
1372
840
61.2%
227
151
Female
736
482
65.5%
121
81
66.9%
Male
636
358
56.3%
106
70
66.0%
52
22
42.3%
8
5
62.5% Two or More
Female
31
15
48.4%
4
3
75.0%
Male
21
7
33.3%
4
2
50.0%
51
36
70.6%
10
9
90.0% Unknown
White/Non Hispanic
Two or More
Unknown Pell Grant
75.0% Hispanic
66.5% White/Non Hispanic
65
48
73.8%
259
170
65.6%
Female
36
31
86.1%
111
67
60.4%
Male
29
17
58.6%
148
103
69.6%
2
1
50.0%
13
7
53.8%
Female
1
0
0.0%
4
1
25.0%
Male
1
1
100.0%
9
6
66.7%
3
3
100.0%
9
7
77.8%
Pell Grant
Full Pell ($2,775)
603
305
50.6%
103
48
46.6% Full Pell ($2,775)
29
14
48.3%
84
39
46.4%
$2,082 - 2,774
236
121
51.3%
42
19
45.2% $2,082 - 2,774
13
7
53.8%
38
17
44.7%
$1,388 - 2,081
262
135
51.5%
43
29
67.4% $1,388 - 2,081
8
4
50.0%
37
20
54.1%
$695 - 1,387
115
65
56.5%
20
10
50.0% $695 - 1,387
6
6
100.0%
30
24
80.0%
$1.00 - 694
102
53
52.0%
14
8
57.1% $1.00 - 694
4
3
75.0%
15
10
66.7%
4
0
0.0%
1
0
1
1
100.0%
998
606
60.7%
164
106
0 No Data Expected Family Contribution (EFC) 0
0.0% 0 64.6% No Data
43
31
72.1%
197
120
60.9%
Expected Family Contribution (EFC) 1000
493
49.3%
155
73
47.1% 0
48
23
47.9%
136
57
41.9%
$1.00 - 1,977
197
103
52.3%
37
23
62.2% $1.00 - 1,977
9
6
66.7%
42
27
64.3%
$1,978 - 5,273
228
131
57.5%
49
33
67.3% $1,978 - 5,273
9
7
77.8%
44
33
75.0%
$5,274 - 10,000
230
141
61.3%
39
27
69.2% $5,274 - 10,000
7
6
85.7%
36
22
61.1%
$10,001 - 50,000
341
213
62.5%
59
35
59.3% $10,001 - 50,000
15
12
80.0%
61
38
62.3%
$50,001 - 99,999
31
16
51.6%
5
3
60.0% $50,001 - 99,999
1
0
0.0%
7
4
57.1%
293
188
64.2%
43
26
14
11
78.6%
76
50
65.8%
24
18
75.0%
No Data Age
Age
Median Age Under 18
60.5% No Data
20.9
23.4 Median Age
26.5
100
84.7%
2
2
18 - 20
1050
546
52.0%
121
64
52.9% 18 - 20
16
10
62.5%
123
72
58.5%
21 - 24
452
216
47.8%
96
56
58.3% 21 - 24
27
16
59.3%
87
42
48.3%
25 - 34
445
268
60.2%
95
50
52.6% 25 - 34
41
23
56.1%
112
66
58.9%
35 - 44
157
93
59.2%
42
28
66.7% 35 - 44
12
11
91.7%
33
18
54.5%
45 - 54
84
52
61.9%
25
16
64.0% 45 - 54
5
4
80.0%
19
14
73.7%
55 - 59
10
7
70.0%
5
4
80.0% 55 - 59
2
1
50.0%
3
1
33.3%
4
3
75.0%
1
0
1
0
0.0%
Over 60
100.0% Under 18
22.8
118
0.0% Over 60
Developmental and Gateway math studies Success Persistence First Attempt vs. repeating student success Prerequisite impacts Placement First year students Learning outcomes with competencies
Math placement studies Algebra sequence Comparisons of placement methods Comparisons with other SC Tech colleges Projections of impact of change First term and first attempt student success
How often are placement scores reviewed? We learned not very often. In 2009 we realized we had the lowest compass pre-algebra score for admittance into Math 101.
Minimum COMPASS® Scores for MAT 101 Placement South Carolina Technical Colleges
College
Pre-Algebra
Florence-Darlington Technical College
60
Horry-Georgetown Technical College
60
York Technical College
54
Greenville Technical College
50
Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
49
Aiken Technical College
47
Central Carolina Technical College
47
Midlands Technical College
44
Spartanburg Community College
44
Denmark Technical College
43
Trident Technical College
39
Impact of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in algebra sequence classes Comparison with non-CAI classes Success rates Persistence rates First attempt students Demographic breakdowns
Math Department reports Faculty/Staff consultations Student input from focus groups Student surveys All math students MAT 032 students on impact of Instructional Assistants
Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra course (MAT 152) Developing 5-credit Intermediate Algebra course (MAT 153) Developing College Algebra with Modeling course (MAT 109)
Low enrollments due to scheduling (5 days a week) Financial aid complications for students failing 3-credit course then taking the 5-credit version Strong success results in comparison to MAT 101 and MAT 102 Difficulty scaling
Low enrollments due to lack of demand Problems with transferability of course Strong success results in comparison to College Algebra, but a very small data pool Difficulty scaling due to lack of demand
Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteria Adding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classes Revising online Probability and Statistics class
Raise the COMPASS MAT 110 exemption score from 480 to 580 for the SAT and from 20 to 22 for the ACT Require students who do not meet the minimum requirement to take the COMPASS exam and take the class that the COMPASS recommends Eliminate the “We’ll take the highest” policy between placement tools
Reduction in enrollment in College Algebra (as predicted) Increases in enrollment in MAT 032 (Developmental Mathematics) and MAT 101 more so than MAT 102 Increases in the success of first time freshmen and first attempt students
In Fall 2006 of the four methods of entrance into College Algebra only one (Compass) returned success rates of over 50% In Fall 2011 all four methods of entrance into College Algebra had success rates above 50% This change has produced a “multiplier” effect throughout the math curriculum
Initial results showed small increases in success rates and significant increases in progression rates for pilot IA sections over non-IA sections Students responded positively to the instructional assistants Scaled up to all sections on TTC’s Main Campus Expanded to MAT 031 in Fall 2011 Continuing to monitor for efficacy and use of resources
Inclusion of extensive instructional videos Requirement to watch videos and take quizzes related to them Alignment of video content with testing
Sharp increases in student success to match classroom sections Difficulty getting other instructors to adopt modules Continuing to monitor for growth and/or replication in other MAT online classes
Instituting Beginning Algebra placement change Adding Developmental Mathematics Basics Implementing and scaling computer-assisted instruction Creating Math Cubes (Math3) Expanding math tutoring Enhancing faculty development
Changed COMPASS cut off from 39 (the lowest in the state) to 55 Enrollment increases in MAT 031 and MAT 032 Increases in success rates for first time freshmen in MAT 101
Splitting of competencies between MAT 031 and MAT 032 Very high enrollments in MAT 031 in first term Success rate slightly exceeded prior success for MAT 032 Sharp increases in success rates for MAT 032 in Fall 2011
Adoption of MyMathLab Implementation of more frequent assessment and feedback Requiring students to complete preparatory quizzes for each competency Requiring students to score a 90 on quizzes in order to take unit test
Scaling plans start with 5 sections in MAT 101, then MAT 102, then MAT 110 Progressively expanding CAI in each class to impact the majority of students each term CAI coordinator manages training of full and part time instructors Building of a math computer lab
Initially significant increases in CAI student success compared to non-CAI More rapid expansion than scaling plans Fall 2011 CAI student success rates exceeded non-CAI student success rates in MAT 101, MAT 102, and MAT 110 (for all students, first attempters, and first time freshmen)
Furnished Math Cubes on all campuses Designated math study spaces for students to work with instructors and other students Enhanced math tutoring Developed tutor training program
Math Cubes have been very popular “Open Door” policy makes statistical analysis difficult to conduct Still trying to increase student participation in tutoring In aggregate, students receiving tutoring at least three times during a term have higher success rates than students not receiving tutoring
Fall 2006 to Fall 2011 Comparison
Class
Students
Success Rate
MAT 032
753
38.5
MAT 101
1,151
32.9
MAT 102
574
36.4
Class
Students
Success Rate
MAT 110
642
26.2
MAT 120
961
55.2
MAT 155
150
72.0
Class
Students
Expected Enrollment
Change from 2006
Success Rate
Change from 2006
MAT 031
1,235
NA
+1,235
40.7
+2.2
MAT 032
707
1,070
-363
56.6 (60.4)
+18.1 (+20.5)
MAT 101
1,746
1,635
+111
33.3 (40.2)
+0.4 (+3.8)
MAT 152
83
NA
+83
44.6
+11.7
MAT 102
585
815
-230
39.7 (45.3)
+3.3 (+3.9)
MAT 153
15
NA
+15
53.3
+16.9
Expected Change Enrollment from 2006
Success Rate
Change from 2006
+19
57.9
+27.7
912
-391
44.9 (51.9)
+18.7 (+19.1)
1,052
1,366
-314
59.6
+4.4
481
213
+268
54.7
-17.3
Class
Students
MAT 109
19
NA
MAT 110
521
MAT 120
MAT 155
Class
Enrollment
Success Rate
Redesigned
49
65.3
Other
49
46.9
Difference
+18.4
Class
CAI Students
Non-CAI Students
CAI Over Non-CAI Success
MAT 101
1,157
589
+2.8
MAT 102
193
392
+13.2
MAT 110
241
280
+16.0
What are the most significant issues with math students’ success at your institution? What are the most significant impediments to change? What strategies have you tried? What are the results of the strategies?
David Flenner
[email protected] 843-574-6422
The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success
