The Multiplier Effect: A x B x C = Success
48
The Multiplier Effect: A x B x C = Success The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success
description
The Multiplier Effect: A x B x C = Success. The Impact of Trident Technical College’s Math Initiatives on Student Success. Presenters. Darren Felty , Department Head for English and Journalism Dub Green, Research Analyst David Flenner , Department of Mathematics Coordinator. The Process. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of The Multiplier Effect: A x B x C = Success
The Multiplier Effect:A x B x C = Success
The Impact of Trident Technical College’sMath Initiatives on Student Success
Presenters
Darren Felty, Department Head for English and JournalismDub Green, Research AnalystDavid Flenner, Department of Mathematics Coordinator
The Process
Institutional Recognition of IssuesInitiation: Math Department InitiativesIntensification: Achieving the Dream InitiativesExpansion: Re-accreditation Quality Enhancement Plan Initiatives
Math Department Initiatives
Meetings focused on student success issuesTeam discussions
Issues prior to classesIssues in classesIssues post classes
Internal focus without campus-wide involvement
Math Department Initiatives: Results
Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra courseDeveloping 5-credit Intermediate Algebra courseDeveloping College Algebra with Modeling course
Achieving the Dream Intensification
Detailed data analysesCampus consultations with faculty, staff, and studentsIntensified “Math Summit” meetings with Math Dept., Developmental Math, and the college presidentSelection as ATD priority focus: “Increasing students’ math skills attainment, comfort levels, and course completions”Development of initiatives
Achieving the Dream Intensification:Results
Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteriaAdding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classesRevising online Probability and Statistics class
Expansion into Re-accreditation QEP
Cross-divisional team developmentExploration of instructional strategiesIdentification of focusesDevelopment of strategies, budget, and scaling plansCampus-wide involvementImplementation
Expansion into Re-accreditation QEP: Results
Expansion into Re-accreditation QEP: Path2Math Success
Instituting Beginning Algebra placement changeAdding Developmental Mathematics BasicsImplementing and scaling computer-assisted instructionCreating Math Cubes (Math3)Expanding math tutoringEnhancing faculty development
Data Studies
Quantitative Data
Success rate comparison to college norms and goals (All Classes)Demographic Breakdowns
GenderEthnicityAgeFull Time/Part TimePell RecipientsFAFSA EFC
National Community College Benchmarking
Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success Rate Headcount # A,B,C's Success RateHeadcount 2320 1285 55.4% 387 220 56.8% Headcount 103 65 63.1% 402 231 57.5%
Gender GenderFemale 1348 779 57.8% 220 126 57.3% Female 61 43 70.5% 187 97 51.9%Male 972 506 52.1% 167 94 56.3% Male 42 22 52.4% 215 134 62.3%
Ethnicity EthnicityAsian 33 23 69.7% 2 1 50.0% Asian 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%
American Indian/Alaskan 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 3 1 33.3% 1 0 0.0%Black/African American 688 304 44.2% 120 41 34.2% Black/African American 24 8 33.3% 92 35 38.0%
Female 459 213 46.4% 78 29 37.2% Female 18 7 38.9% 55 19 34.5%Male 229 91 39.7% 42 12 28.6% Male 6 1 16.7% 37 16 43.2%
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 6 1 16.7% 1 0 0.0% Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 3 2 66.7%Female 1 0 0.0% Female 1 0 0.0%
Male 5 1 20.0% 1 0 0.0% Male 2 2 100.0%Hispanic 97 47 48.5% 16 12 75.0% Hispanic 1 1 100.0% 16 7 43.8%
Female 62 28 45.2% 7 6 85.7% Female 1 1 100.0% 8 4 50.0%Male 35 19 54.3% 9 6 66.7% Male 8 3 37.5%
White/Non Hispanic 1372 840 61.2% 227 151 66.5% White/Non Hispanic 65 48 73.8% 259 170 65.6%Female 736 482 65.5% 121 81 66.9% Female 36 31 86.1% 111 67 60.4%
Male 636 358 56.3% 106 70 66.0% Male 29 17 58.6% 148 103 69.6%Two or More 52 22 42.3% 8 5 62.5% Two or More 2 1 50.0% 13 7 53.8%
Female 31 15 48.4% 4 3 75.0% Female 1 0 0.0% 4 1 25.0%Male 21 7 33.3% 4 2 50.0% Male 1 1 100.0% 9 6 66.7%
Unknown 51 36 70.6% 10 9 90.0% Unknown 3 3 100.0% 9 7 77.8%Pell Grant Pell GrantFull 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%0 4 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 0 1 1 100.0%No Data 998 606 60.7% 164 106 64.6% No Data 43 31 72.1% 197 120 60.9%Expected Family Contribution (EFC) Expected Family Contribution (EFC)0 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%No Data 293 188 64.2% 43 26 60.5% No Data 14 11 78.6% 76 50 65.8%Age AgeMedian Age 20.9 23.4 Median Age 26.5 22.8Under 18 118 100 84.7% 2 2 100.0% Under 18 24 18 75.0%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%Over 60 4 3 75.0% 1 0 0.0% Over 60 1 0 0.0%
ECO-210Fall 2011 ENG-101 SPC-205 Fall 2011 ACC-101
Quantitative Data
Developmental and Gateway math studiesSuccessPersistenceFirst Attempt vs. repeating student successPrerequisite impactsPlacementFirst year studentsLearning outcomes with competencies
Quantitative Data
Math placement studiesAlgebra sequenceComparisons of placement methodsComparisons with other SC Tech collegesProjections of impact of changeFirst term and first attempt student success
Placement
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 PlacementSouth 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
Quantitative Data
Impact of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in algebra sequence classes
Comparison with non-CAI classesSuccess ratesPersistence ratesFirst attempt studentsDemographic breakdowns
Qualitative Data
Math Department reportsFaculty/Staff consultationsStudent input from focus groupsStudent surveys
All math studentsMAT 032 students on impact of Instructional Assistants
Strategies
Math Department Initiatives: Results
Developing 5-credit Beginning Algebra course (MAT 152)Developing 5-credit Intermediate Algebra course (MAT 153)Developing College Algebra with Modeling course (MAT 109)
Strategy Results for 5-Credit Courses
Low enrollments due to scheduling (5 days a week)Financial aid complications for students failing 3-credit course then taking the 5-credit versionStrong success results in comparison to MAT 101 and MAT 102Difficulty scaling
Strategy Results for College Algebra with Modeling
Low enrollments due to lack of demandProblems with transferability of courseStrong success results in comparison to College Algebra, but a very small data poolDifficulty scaling due to lack of demand
Achieving the Dream Intensification:Results
Changing College Algebra and other math placement criteriaAdding instructional assistants in Developmental Math lab classesRevising online Probability and Statistics class
Placement Changes for College Algebra
Raise the COMPASS MAT 110 exemption score from 480 to 580 for the SAT and from 20 to 22 for the ACTRequire students who do not meet the minimum requirement to take the COMPASS exam and take the class that the COMPASS recommendsEliminate the “We’ll take the highest” policy between placement tools
Placement Changes for College Algebra - Results
Reduction in enrollment in College Algebra (as predicted)Increases in enrollment in MAT 032 (Developmental Mathematics) and MAT 101 more so than MAT 102Increases in the success of first time freshmen and first attempt students
Placement Changes for College Algebra - Results
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
Strategy Results of Adding Instructional Assistants to MAT 032
Initial results showed small increases in success rates and significant increases in progression rates for pilot IA sections over non-IA sectionsStudents responded positively to the instructional assistantsScaled up to all sections on TTC’s Main CampusExpanded to MAT 031 in Fall 2011Continuing to monitor for efficacy and use of resources
Online Probability and Statistics Revision
Inclusion of extensive instructional videosRequirement to watch videos and take quizzes related to themAlignment of video content with testing
Results for Online Probability and Statistics Revision
Sharp increases in student success to match classroom sectionsDifficulty getting other instructors to adopt modulesContinuing to monitor for growth and/or replication in other MAT online classes
Expansion into Re-accreditation QEP: Path2Math Success
Instituting Beginning Algebra placement changeAdding Developmental Mathematics BasicsImplementing and scaling computer-assisted instructionCreating Math Cubes (Math3)Expanding math tutoringEnhancing faculty development
Placement Changes for Beginning Algebra
Changed COMPASS cut off from 39 (the lowest in the state) to 55Enrollment increases in MAT 031 and MAT 032Increases in success rates for first time freshmen in MAT 101
Results of Adding MAT 031
Splitting of competencies between MAT 031 and MAT 032Very high enrollments in MAT 031 in first termSuccess rate slightly exceeded prior success for MAT 032Sharp increases in success rates for MAT 032 in Fall 2011
Adding Computer-Assisted Instruction in Algebra Sequence
Adoption of MyMathLabImplementation of more frequent assessment and feedbackRequiring students to complete preparatory quizzes for each competencyRequiring students to score a 90 on quizzes in order to take unit test
Adding Computer-Assisted Instruction in Algebra Sequence
Scaling plans start with 5 sections in MAT 101, then MAT 102, then MAT 110Progressively expanding CAI in each class to impact the majority of students each termCAI coordinator manages training of full and part time instructorsBuilding of a math computer lab
CAI Strategy Results
Initially significant increases in CAI student success compared to non-CAIMore rapid expansion than scaling plansFall 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)
Math Cubes and Tutoring Expansion
Furnished Math Cubes on all campusesDesignated math study spaces for students to work with instructors and other studentsEnhanced math tutoringDeveloped tutor training program
Math Cubes and Tutoring Expansion
Math Cubes have been very popular“Open Door” policy makes statistical analysis difficult to conductStill trying to increase student participation in tutoringIn aggregate, students receiving tutoring at least three times during a term have higher success rates than students not receiving tutoring
Data Results
Fall 2006 to Fall 2011 Comparison
Developmental MAT Classes:Fall 2006
Class Students Success Rate
MAT 032 753 38.5
MAT 101 1,151 32.9
MAT 102 574 36.4
Gateway MAT Classes: Fall 2006
Class Students Success Rate
MAT 110 642 26.2
MAT 120 961 55.2
MAT 155 150 72.0
Developmental MAT Classes: Fall 2011Class Students Expected
EnrollmentChange
from 2006Success
RateChange
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
Gateway MAT Classes: Fall 2011Class Students Expected
EnrollmentChange
from 2006Success
RateChange
from 2006
MAT 109 19 NA +19 57.9 +27.7
MAT 110 521 912 -391 44.9 (51.9)
+18.7 (+19.1)
MAT 120 1,052 1,366 -314 59.6 +4.4
MAT 155 481 213 +268 54.7 -17.3
Fall 2011: Statistics Online Course Redesign
Class Enrollment Success Rate
Redesigned 49 65.3
Other 49 46.9
Difference +18.4
Fall 2011: CAI vs. Non-CAI Success
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
Questions
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?
The Multiplier Effect:A x B x C = Success
The Impact of Trident Technical College’sMath Initiatives on Student Success
![SPIM: A Pipelined 64 X 64 bit Iterative Multiplier · It has a core size of 3.8 X 6.5mm and contains 41 ... A Pipelined 64 X 64 bit Iterative Multiplier ... Dadda [4], and most other](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5afdb58a7f8b9a864d8deb59/spim-a-pipelined-64-x-64-bit-iterative-has-a-core-size-of-38-x-65mm-and-contains.jpg)
