Using Mathematics: It’s Not Always About ME !!

In the traditional college mathematics curriculum, mathematics is used to solve problems which students do not care about.  Some reform curricula involve mathematics only for problems which most students care about.  Is one of these extremes naturally superior to the other?

Perhaps some researchers are already working on experiments to test that hypotheses.  My own conjecture on this might surprise a few people:

The net gain for students is higher in a curriculum which solves problems which students do not care about, compared to a curriculum focusing on problems students do care about.

The traditional curriculum normally focuses on individual students creating a symbolic statement (equation or function) for the problem, and then using this symbolic statement to determine all answers.  The reform curricula often engage students with informal group work around a context, looking for alternative strategies to find the answer; symbolic work comes later (often on a different class day).

Most reformers will assert that the group work in a context provides definite advantages in student learning.  The etymology of this assertion often has its roots in a constructivist point of view; the original researchers in this area were more interested in the social context and juvenile development.  We often conflate the issue by speaking of a ‘constructivist theory’ — there is no constructivist theory (since a theory provides predictions that can be tested with either positive or negative results); I’ve never seen research supporting constructivism in learning mathematics with adults.

However, there is a non-trivial advantage to the reform work with work on problems which students care about:

Students having the novel experience of working on problems they care about is exciting and motivating.

Seeing that process in class is exciting for instructors; sometimes, we become addicted to this experience to the point that we think students have to be dealt with in this manner all of the time.

Is a math class all about ME?? (a student)

Of course it isn’t.  Students are in college to either get an education or training (or both).  Getting an education is all about “not me” — understanding other points of view, analyzing problems, and solving … often with the person deliberately left out (objective point of view).  We might think that ‘training’ should deal with just problems which students care about … this view has two fatal flaws.  First, let’s assume that training exists to get a job (employment); how much of any job is something that the student personally cares about?  Sure, the student picks a program that they care about in general — but their job is going to involve a large portion of specifics which they don’t care about.

The second fatal flaw in the training point of view is ‘stability’ (or lack there of).  How many workers deal with the same types of problems for years at a time?  We are hearing from business and industry that they need a flexible work force — not one constrained by ‘it’s important to me’.

When I teach our traditional algebra courses (beginning & intermediate) I almost always make a statement such as the following:

Passing this math course means that you can apply mathematics to problems which you don’t care about, but you did so because somebody else said they were important.

The main downfall of the traditional curriculum is that it does not modify the pre-existing negative attitudes about mathematics [though I try 🙂 ],  Students have a negative attitude about mathematics and especially about ‘word problems.  Using problems which students care about can provide some scaffolding to get students out of their negative attitudes.

We can’t stop there.  For each problem students care about, we should have them deal with 2 or 3 which they don’t care about.  We need to make the connections between the processing done on the ‘care about’ problems and the symbolic tools of the trade (expressions; functions; known relationships [such as D=rt]).

At the developmental level, students will be proceeding to college courses.  College courses have a general expectation of dealing with symbolic statements.  Being able to determine solution to a specific problem is often a trivial exercise in itself.  Students need to see quantitative relationships and use appropriate symbolism to state that relationship.  We have no confidence that the majority of these situations will be innately important to the student; we do them a diservice to imply that the only mathematics they need is to find solutions to problems they care about.

We need to get rid of the traditional curriculum, recognizing that we achieved some good results within that.  We also need to moderate our use of ‘problems students care about’, and we need to make sure that we always keep the focus on the tools of the trade (relationships, symbolic statements, representations).

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Intermediate Algebra is NOT College Math ! :(

I actually spend a fair amount of time looking at other colleges math courses, partly from my interest in seeing how many colleges are doing New Life Project courses (Mathematical Literacy, Algebraic Literacy).  From that work, it is clear that the landscape is changing in both beginning algebra and general education mathematics.  However, two patterns are still present:

1. We continue to offer one or more courses in arithmetic focusing on procedures.  The presence of these courses is a tragedy on our campuses, since they negatively impact exactly the student groups we want to help (minority, poor).  I’ve posted on these issues earlier this year.
2. We frequently classify intermediate algebra as a college course, and commonly use it as a general education requirement.  Using a course which mimics a high school course in this way is professional embarrassment.  That’s the topic of this post.

We all know that “intermediate algebra” varies considerably between colleges, states, and regions.  In some cases, the intermediate algebra course has content at the level of the Common Core Mathematics (see http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ ) within the algebra and functions categories.  In most cases, however, our intermediate algebra courses fall below those expectations.

Intermediate algebra is a remedial course!!

The primary distinction between K-12 algebra and intermediate algebra is assessment — the college intermediate algebra course most likely requires a higher level of performance by the student in order to earn a passing grade.   It’s like “So, you were supposed to have learned this stuff in high school but NOW you are going to have to REALLY know that stuff.”

However, in many ways, our intermediate algebra (IA) courses are inferior copies of the K-12 curriculum.  Our IA courses are still descendants of copies of Algebra II from the 1970’s; much emphasis on procedures and correct answers … not much dealing with reasoning.  Given that we don’t deal with most of the discipline issues that occupy a K-12 teacher’s time, we should to better.    The K-12 content has responded to a series of standards (NCTM, Common Core) while our intermediate algebra has been standing still.

The Algebraic Literacy (AL) course is a modern system to help students get ready for college mathematics.  However, AL is still “not college math”, even though AL raises the expectations for students.

Entire states use intermediate algebra (IA) as an associate degree requirement.  In Michigan, which lacks a central governing body for community colleges, most colleges use that as one option for degrees.

We can, and must, do better.  If students do not need a course like Pre-Calculus, then we should use quantitative reasoning (QR) or statistics for their degree requirement … or even a course like ‘finite mathematics’.

Personally, I think intermediate algebra must die (and soon).  The issue in this post is whether a K-12 level standard course should be used for associate degree requirements.  Beyond the criteria of ‘expediency’, there is no rationale for that use.  IA is remedial, not college level.

Let’s MOVE ON!!

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Mathematical Literacy WITHOUT a Prerequisite

Starting this Fall (August 2016) my department will begin offering a second version of our Mathematical Literacy course.  Our original Math Lit course has a prerequisite similar to beginning algebra (it’s just a little lower).  The new course will have NO math prerequisites.

So, here is the story: Last year, we were asked to classify each math course as “remedial, secondary level”  or “remedial, elementary level” or neither.  This request originates with the financial aid office, which is charged with implementing federal regulations which use those classifications.  Our answer was that our pre-algebra course was “remedial, elementary level” because the overwhelming majority of the content corresponded to the middle of the elementary range (K-8).  We used the Common Core and the state curriculum standards for this determination, though the result would be the same with any reference standard.

Since students can not count “remedial, elementary level” for their financial aid enrollment status, our decision had a sequence of consequences.  One of those results was that our pre-algebra course was eliminated; our last students to ever take pre-algebra at my college finished the course this week.

We could not, of course, leave the situation like that — we would have no option for students who could not qualify for our original Math Literacy course (hundreds of students per year).  Originally, we proposed a zero credit replacement course.  That course was not approved.

Our original Math Literacy course is Math105.  We (quickly!) developed a second version … Math106 “Mathematical Literacy with REVIEW”.  Math106 has no math prerequisite at all.  (It’s actually got a maximum, not a minimum … students who qualify for beginning algebra can not register for Math106.)  The only prerequisites for Math106 are language skills — college level reading (approximately) and minimal writing skills.

Currently, we are designing the curriculum to be delivered in Math106.  We are starting with some ‘extra’ class time (6 hours per week instead of 4) and hope to have tutors in the classroom.  Don’t ask how the class is going because it has not started yet.  I can tell you that we are essentially implementing the MLCS course with coverage of the prerequisite skills, based on the New Life Project course goals & outcomes.

We do hope to do a presentation at our state affiliate conference (MichMATYC, at Delta College on October 15).  I would have submitted a presentation proposal for AMATYC, but all of the work on Math106 occurred well after the deadline of Feb 1.

One of the reasons I am posting this is to say: I am very proud of my math colleagues here at LCC who are showing their commitment to students with courage and creativity.  We will deliver a course starting August 25 which did not exist anywhere on February 1 of this year.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Algebra in General Education, or “What good is THAT?”

One of the questions I’ve heard for decades is “Is (or should) intermediate algebra be considered developmental?”  Sometimes, people ask this just to know which office or committee is appropriate for some work.  However, the question is fundamental to a few current issues in community colleges.

Surprising to some, one of the current issues is general education.  Most colleges require some mathematics for associate degrees, as part of their general education program.  Here is a definition from AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities):

General education, invented to help college students gain the knowledge and collaborative capacities they need to navigate a complex world, is today and should remain an essential part of a high-quality college education.  [https://www.aacu.org/publications/general-education-transformed, preface]

What is a common (perhaps the most common) general education mathematics course in the country?  In community colleges, it’s likely to be intermediate algebra.  This is a ‘fail’ in a variety of ways.

1. Algebra is seldom taught as a search for knowledge — the emphasis is almost always on procedures and ‘correct answers’.
2. The content of intermediate algebra seldom maps onto the complex world.  [When was the last time you represented a situation by a rational expression containing polynomials?  Do we need cube roots of variable expressions to ‘navigate’ a complex world?]
3. Intermediate algebra is a re-mix of high school courses, and is not ‘college education’.
4. Intermediate algebra is used as preparation for pre-calculus; using it for general education places conflicting purposes which are almost impossible to reconcile.

We have entire states which have codified the intermediate algebra as general education ‘lie’.  There were good reasons why this was done (sometimes decades ago … sometimes recently).  Is it really our professional judgment as mathematicians that intermediate algebra is a good general education course?  I doubt that very much; the rationale for doing so is almost always rooted in practicality — the system determines that ‘anything higher’ is not realistic.

Of course, that connects to the ‘pathways movement’.  The initial uses of our New Life Project were for the purpose of getting students in to a statistics or quantitative reasoning course, where these courses were alternatives in the general education requirements.  In practice, these pathways were often marketed as “not algebra” which continues to bother me.

Algebra, even symbolic algebra, can be very useful in navigating a complex world.

If we see this statement as having a basic truth, then our general education requirements should reflect that judgment.  Yes, understanding basic statistics will help students navigate a complex world; of course!  However, so does algebra (and trigonometry & geometry).  The word “general” means “not specialized” … how can we justify a math course in one domain as being a ‘good general education course’?

Statistics is necessary, but not sufficient, for general education in college.

All of these ideas then connect to ‘guided pathways’, where the concept is to align the mathematics courses with the student’s program.  This reflects a confusion between general education and program courses; general education is deliberately greater in scope than program courses.  To the extent that we allow or support our colleges using specialized math courses for general education requirements … we contribute to the failure of general education.

In my view, the way to implement general education mathematics in a way that really works is to use a strong quantitative reasoning (QR) design.  My college’s QR course (Math119) is designed this way, with an emphasis on fundamental ideas at a college level:

• Proportional reasoning in a variety of settings (including geometry)
• Rate of change (constant and proportional)
• Statistics
• Algebraic functions and basic modeling

If a college does not have a strong QR course, meeting the general education vision means requiring two or more college mathematics courses (statistics AND college algebra with modeling, for example).  Students in STEM and STEM-related programs will generally have multiple math courses, but … for everybody else … the multiple math courses for general education will not work.  For one thing, people accept that written and/or oral communication needs two courses in general education … sometimes in science as well; for non-mathematicians, they often see one math course as their ‘compromise’.

We’ve got to stop using high school courses taught in college as a general education option.  We’ve got to advocate for the value of algebra within general education.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: