Basic Skills … what is important?

Okay, here is a quiz for you.  Which of these categories of skills is more important in today’s world?

    A) Basic skills (correct computation, solving routine problems, etc)

or

   B) Critical thinking (solving novel problems, connecting sets of learned material, metacognition, etc)

You see, I think we have a problem with “Goals”.  Philosophically, we believe that mathematics is a venue to improve critical thinking … operationally, we deliver a curriculum much more focused on basic skills.  To complicate matters, our college curriculum follows the school curriculum which is decidedly skill oriented (given the high stakes testing, understandably so).

Back in February, NPR ran a story about some reports dealing with how well students are prepared for college (see http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133310978/in-college-a-lack-of-rigor-leaves-students-adrift).  In their story, writing was connected more to critical thinking than math was … I would not disagree, but would hope that our math courses are part of the answer.

Our developmental mathematics textbooks are severely ‘skill bound’, and we sometimes choose solutions that exacerbate the situation — such as modularized programs that discourage integration and accumulation.

I am sure that we all share a goal of improving our students critical thinking, and the evidence indicates that the need for this work is greater than ever.    My own courses are, sadly, typical of what we are all doing.  Could we, if we wanted to, create something better?

Absolutely!  Development of critical thinking is a field with its own theories, research, and methodologies.  For starters, see the nice chapter by Diane Halpern at http://education.gsu.edu/ctl/FLC/Foundations/criticalthinking-Halpern.pdf .  Even a brief online search will provide you with more material.

We can do better!  Let’s work together so our students are better prepared for the problems they will face …inside academia and outside.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Placement and Telemarketing for Developmental Mathematics

Once upon a time, my college had optional placement test results … students could enroll for courses above the level indicated by the placement test. Since the test results were voluntary, students could choose to comply or to rebel relative to our recommendations. One of the factors in this choice was the peer reviews they heard about the developmental course in question; part of our rationale to help them ‘make the right choice’ was the evidence we had about how effective that course was in preparing students for the next course.

Like most institutions, those days are gone; because of ‘best practice reports’ (and our own judgment), we now have mandatory placement test results. Like many other colleges, students at my college MUST comply — regardless of peer reviews of our courses, and regardless of our own evidence.

A recent report from our friends at the Community College Research Center raises even broader questions about the validity of the common placement tests; the report is called “Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges” … see . This report shares the results of several research studies on placement tests and placement of students, and should be required reading for policy makers at the local, state, and national levels. A basic point is made: For a placement (assessment) system to be valid, the resulting developmental course work should be effective at leveling the playing field. This remains as an open question, overall, for developmental mathematics.

So, I’ve been thinking about this report and what we have been doing. And, I wonder … in commercial enterprises, companies depend upon peer reviews for new business; when that is not enough, they consider things like telemarketing. How successful would we be if we had to use telemarketing to bring students in to our developmental math classes? Could we draw anywhere near the same level of business if we needed to depend on students making a deliberate choice to take our classes as an investment on doing better in the future?

I worry that the vast majority of our students believe that their developmental math work is important only because they have to get a passing grade in order to move on to the next level. I worry even more that … because we have such a strong demand for our courses … REGARDLESS of quality or benefits … we do not put our best content into our courses, nor our best teachers into developmental math classrooms, that our books are less than inspiring, and that we miss opportunities to engage in basic improvement processes.

Maybe it would be good for us to face a possible ‘non-automatic’ nature of students who could opt out of our courses; perhaps we have become so accustomed to guaranteed demand that we do not see opportunities.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Reducing the Number of Developmental Enrollments

It seemed like a good idea to share some good news, perhaps news that will inspire all of us.

El Paso Community College (EPCC), an Achieving the Dream (AtD) college, identified a major goal of reducing the number of developmental enrollments — not just in mathematics, though that is generally the largest area.

By implementing a systemic method of building readiness for college, EPCC reduced the percent of incoming students placed in the lowest level of mathematics from 33% to 22% … with the percent placed at the highest developmental math course rising from 30% to 41%.  This 10% shift in placement represents a two-course range (low to high), and potentially saves about 1000 student-semesters (courses needed).

How did they do it?  In typical AtD fashion, EPCC was deliberate about the entire process.  Two primary components of the process were the inclusion of the local school districts (in a ‘blameless environment’) and the nearby university (University of Texas El Paso, or UTEP).  During high school, students completed a joint application to both UTEP and EPCC and learned about the placement tests — before taking the placement tests. 

Based on this ‘early placement testing’ students were then given the opportunity to refresh … including a summer bridge program.  Information is shared between EPCC, UTEP, and the student’s high school.  Very impressive!!  For further details, see http://www.achievingthedream.org/Portal/Modules/e080ac9d-266b-45ad-b887-e1e60950cf59.asset?

Could your college develop a similar initiative?  I know that I want my college to do so!!

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

The Capabilities of Developmental Students

What are our students capable of?

I think we end up taking a ‘bipolar’ position on this.  On the one hand, we believe that our students can achieve their goals; we encourage them, nudge them, motivate them, and suggest that they might be capable of higher goals.  Our greatest satisfactions come from watching our students — who needed developmental course work — graduate with a completed degree.  Gowns, in college colors, form a visible symbol of this hope for all of our students.

On the other hand, we seem to design courses which say “I get it … you can’t understand mathematics, really; so I will just expect you to recognize some patterns for which you have a solution in memory.”  We build instruction around the goal of maximizing correct answers for students.  We select textbooks which simplify the presentation and provide clear examples of the procedures, and avoid textbooks which discuss the ideas outside of examples.  We observe that our students do not remember much of what they had last semester, and conclude that this reinforces our design of ‘simplify’.

In fact, our ‘simplify design’ paradigm is part of the problem.  As long as learning focuses on remembering procedures, the powerful brain work that enables long-term changes and transfer of learning do not have a chance to occur (except by accident).  In some ways, most of our students leave our classrooms with the same condition that they arrived … summarized by the one word “unable”.

I can not accept the ‘simplify design’ of curriculum due to its message about the capabilities of our students.  Our students are capable of achieving much, and our society actually depends upon them achieving much.  We can not avoid building this capacity within our ‘developmental’ classrooms.  (It’s ironic that we call our courses ‘developmental’ but tend not to develop capacity.) 

Now, I am not under the influence of some ‘just be happy’ medication.  Obviously, students in developmental mathematics classes have some current limitations.  Our response must be to overcome limitations and build capabilities.  This response is not easy, certainly not just ‘pick the best homework system’.  Just like our students, we will achieve more than we thought possible when we face challenges directly.

And, just like our students, we will find the work is easier … and we understand more … when we work with each other.  You are not alone, and we are capable of designing courses which build capacity within our students.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: