Report on the mathematics subdivisional meeting

19 May 2003

Participants:
Chair Dana Lee Ling
Dr. Anca Dema
Bernie Dimaliwat
Gregg Longanecker
Dennis Gearhart

Topic One: Desequencing MS 090 Conceptual Mathematics

At the meeting the following two pieces of background information were shared:

1. There is overlap at this point between the MS 090 and MS 095 content.
2. In some terms, the top MS 090 students have been placed in MS 098 and performed successfully. Here it was clarified that the reference is to students an MS 090 instructor recommended into MS 098 and NOT students who have "illegally" skipped MS 095 and "placed themselves" into MS 098. This later group of "course skippers" has not always fared well in MS 098.

Based on this, a concensus decision was adopted to ask the developmental math instructors to produce some form of exit tool that would be used to place MS 090 finishers into either MS 090, MS 095, MS 098, or MS 100.

Bear in mind that the understanding at the table today would be that only a few rare students each term would be likely to make it into MS 098, and placement into MS 100 might be like a month with less than an inch of rain on Pohnpei: a once in fifty year event. The point is to find a standard process for placing students post-MS 090. Some students will go back into MS 090, the bulk who pass with a C or better will progress to MS 095. But there would also be a path, probably via an exit placement test developed by the developmental math instructors, for students to move on to MS 098.

The current process depends solely on instructor's recommendation, a system that with the extension of MS 090 to the state campuses cannot be reliably replicated system-wide.

A modified form of the existing placement/entrance test might be deployed as an exit placement instrument for MS 090 or another instrument might be developed and deployed. This decision was left to the developmental math instructors.

Topic Two: Extension of MS 090 to the state campuses

This was approved with a note that the official outline on file is the 1997 outline developed by Stephen Blair. The topics on the outline and the description directly derive from the experimental course taught by Dana Lee Ling in the Fall of 1996 and the work of Andrew Hockley during the same time period.

As no one else has ever understood what the three of use were doing, nor how to implement the type of course we taught, and given the age of the outline, the outline should be rewritten to reflect current practice in the course. The rewriters should consult the MS 095 outline and text and seek to determine what differentiates the content of these two courses at this time.

The MS 095 outline is itself nearing four years old and might be productively rewritten as well.

Topic Three: Overpreparation for MS 095?

This centers on the question of to what extent the topics of MS 090 are duplicated in MS 095. As the outlines are rewritten and the textbooks are examined, an effort should be made to differentiate the content of these two courses. This work has to be done by the instructors teaching these courses, the same instructors who will be rewriting the outlines.

Topic Four: Underprepartion for MS 100?

This discussion centered on reports from the MS 100 instructors that students are underprepared for MS 100. One instructor noted that they spent eight weeks in chapter one as they went back and retaught material in the chapter a second and third time. The discussion was long and complex, and there is a risk of mischaracterizing the discussion. This author is open to clarification and revision of these remarks.

Gregg Longanecker reported that students who attained an A or B in MS 098 appeared to generally do well in MS 100, but students with a C in MS 098 were more variable in their ability to succeed.

With the knowledge that strong MS 098 students were succeeding in MS 100, the question arose as to whether the reteaching involved weaker MS 098 students. Other questions arose and swirled around the table. Does the five-day-a-week MS 098 leave students unprepared for the rigors of a three-day-a-week collegiate level course? Should the MS 100 instructors step up the pace in order to cover the material and concomitantly see an increase in the failure rate? What topics need to be covered in MS 100 and what topics can be left aside? Does MS 098 have to expand the material it covers? Is there too much material for MS 098 to cover in 16 weeks? Is MS 095 leaving students at too low a level: does MS 095 have to be boosted so MS 098 can be boosted? Should there be an alternate path to meeting the general education math requirement, an alternative to MS 100?

The discussion did not reach a single conclusion. Some of the ideas that arose out of the discussion were to have the MS 100 instructors do a turn in MS 098 and vice-versa.

Topic Five: Renumbering, reworking, and reconfiguration of MS 098?

The renumbering was not tackled in the meeting as the group had no information on the appropriate renumbering level for such a course in the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The renumbering issue extends beyond MS 098 and also involves MS 100 and the MS 1xx PreCalculus.

The reconfiguration issue centers on questions such as whether a five-day-a-week MS 098 leaves students unprepared for the rigors of a three-day-a-week collegiate level course. Are the problems seen in MS 100 a result of the transition from five-day-a-week to three-day-a-week and not a result of a lack of material coverage?

The development and deployment of five day a week developmental math courses was based only on research done on "first-contact" students, students who now place into MS 090. The intent was for MS 090 to be a unique five-day a week course. No research was done on the impact of increased contact time on MS 095 or higher students. At different times in the past MS 098 instructors have either excused students with an A from some lab periods or have worked with subsets of a class on lab day.

There has always been a need to go back and do the research in the "middle decks" of developmental mathematics. None of the research done under Title III had a bearing on contact time in these courses.

As a result there is a suggestion to go back and do the research, permit a one-time running of a three-credit hour three-day a week MS 098 and follow those students through MS 100.

Renumbering

Comparison table with other Western Association Schools and Colleges:

There is a need to revisit the UOG catalog and determine the corresponding remedial math courses. There is also a need to cross-check against other schools with which the college articulates. At this point, however, in the Western region MS 098 is, apparently, appropriately numbered.

MS 100 College Algebra number, however, is too low. There is an opportunity to renumber MS 100 in conjunction with the termination of MS 101 Alg & Trig and the deployment of PreCalculus. The 100 level courses in the schools above are "survey of mathematics" courses. Our use of the 100 number implies the course is only marginally collegiate level and may be intended for "poets and artists."

At this point a renumbering into at least the second decade (no lower than 111) appears prudent. This will not, however, assist with articulation with schools such as EOU or Chemeketa due to the differential in the number of contact hours.

Something such as the following might be suggested:

MS 111 College Algebra
MS 112 PreCalculus

As for UOG, their 161 appellation appears to be inflated.

Futher discussion is warranted. Due to MS 152 being a three credit course, it will likely not transfer regardless of how it is numbered.