A Golden Age for Developmental Mathematics

As we start another academic year, sometimes we get discouraged because it seems like we are trying to solve the same problems, and cope with the same challenges, for decades.  I think we have good reason to view this year in particular in a different way.

I believe that this period will be seen as the golden age of developmental mathematics.

Think about this historical view:  Sixty years ago, ‘remedial’ mathematics was a minor issue for most colleges.  Community colleges were generally not large, and tended to be either occupational schools or ‘junior’ colleges.  Fifty years ago, community college enrolments were growing very quickly; part of the result was an obvious ‘need’ for remedial math.  In keeping with the CC mission, remedial math was re-cast as developmental math (in some cases) to be more student-friendly.  However, the content and methods of developmental math were still remedial — the high school algebra I and algebra II courses formed the core.

Forty years ago, a ‘back to basics’ movement pushed our curriculum towards computation and procedures.  Turns out, this was a minor shift; the main visible evidence was the emergence of the worktext in math classes.  Thirty years ago, ‘hand-held calculators’ were the big thing; we fought and argued about whether these devices should be allowed in our math classes … and whether they would impact the curriculum

Twenty years ago, graphing calculators were the issue; some interesting (and short-lived, in some cases) text materials were developed to take advantage of this technology for learning.  Large parts of our profession remained untouched, however.  This same time period saw the early stages of digital products — now called homework systems.  Ten years ago, the digital products reached a level of complexity that their use became much more common; days of workshops at conferences helped faculty learn how to change controls and how to collect student results.

Today, we face opportunities for improvement that were not possible in these prior periods.  Instead of deciding which technology to use, we are debating what mathematics is appropriate.  Instead of assuming that algebra headed towards calculus is the path for all students, we are establishing statpaths and quantitative reasoning paths … while still looking for ways to enable more students to be “STEM bound”.  Instead of making tweaks to one of our 3 or 4 courses, we are looking at ways to get the job done in 1 or 2 courses.  In some cases, we are looking for practical ways to do the job without any course in dev math at all.

This is our golden age.  Our work will shape the profession for decades, and the math faculty of 30 years in the future will see this decade as the turning point — a shift towards deliberate designs for actual needs.  In 30 years, we may not have anything called ‘developmental’ mathematics; perhaps the pre-college work will be called ‘literacy’ or simply pre-college.  In 30 years, faculty will understand how different this work is (compared to any high school curriculum).  In 30 years, all math faculty can see their courses as involving sound mathematics which will help students reason and learn.

This is our golden age.  Yes, we are faced with pressures.  Yes, we are challenged by misinformed policies and laws (in some cases).  Yes, some efforts to ‘change us’ come from sources which do not value mathematics.  Yes, sometimes we see only threats and retrenchment when we should see doors opening to a better future.

This is our golden age.  We can have discussions now about what mathematics is appropriate for all students, about what mathematics is appropriate for science preparation, and what mathematics might inspire students to consider STEM paths.  We are not just looking for the best colors, nor just looking for how to explain a topic so one more student gets it; we are looking at which instructional methods produce a given type of outcome, and we are realizing that a complex set of teaching skills is needed.

Yes, this is our golden age!

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

National Summit on Developmental Mathematics: Program Available

The program has been posted for the National Summit on Developmental Mathematics (October 29 and 30, in Anaheim).

A brief synopsis of the sessions:

There are also two panels (one at the start, one at the conclusion), and an extended period on the second day to work with expert mentors.

For more information and registration, see http://www.amatyc.org/events/event_details.asp?id=340442

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Creating YOUR Solution: The National Dev Math Summit

On October 29 and 30 (2013), there will be a National Summit on Developmental Mathematics in Anaheim (CA), sponsored by AMATYC and NADE (with support from others).  This Summit precedes the AMATYC conference, but has a different purpose.

The Dev Math Summit is designed to provide information and resources so that you can create a plan for dramatic improvements in your developmental math program.  The sessions will provide information on pedagogy, curriculum reform, and the change process itself.  In addition, a cadre of mentors will be available to help you apply those ideas — and others — to your situation; these resources will be focused on your interests and needs.

This Dev Math Summit is not a conference — it is more like a workshop.  Registration will be limited (in quantity), and participants will be expected to use the entire Summit as well as develop a plan before the end.  The schedule starts about noon on Tuesday (Oct 29) and ends by 5pm on Wednesday (Oct 30); an extended period is provided on Wednesday afternoon to work with mentors.

With this design, the Summit will work best if two or three people from an institution attend.

Registration, and the official program, will be posted later this week on the site https://amatyc.site-ym.com/?page=2013ConfHome.

If you have questions about the Summit, I can try to answer them.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Do we Have 80-Year-Old Students?

I was at a meeting earlier this month (on my campus) about developmental education.  We had a broad conversation about ‘what works’ and what we would like to do.  The person leading the meeting has a background in writing — including developmental writing courses; I’ll call him George for convenience.

George told the story of one particular student he was having trouble with.  The student was polite and all that, but could not write a coherent paper.  After grading some papers with agony, including one responding to Angela Davis, the instructor (George) had a conversation with the student.  Based on that conversation, they decided to have the student write about a different topic — the student’s own experiences in a war (World War II, in this case).  The result, according to George, was a well-written essay (far longer than required).  The lesson George took from this was … let them write about something meaningful to them.

My response to this story was:

We should look for 80-year-old students in our classes, who happen to be stuck inside a 20-year-old body.

You see, my lesson from the story is a different.  Students are complex human beings (there is no other kind).  For ‘good students’, they can focus on academics and see what we expect of them.  For ‘struggling students’, they have difficulty keeping their history and current life challenges separate from what we ask of them in a classroom.  The student in the story was 80 years old at the time, and had much to deal with; of course, writing about something personally important is meaningful.  However, society in general … and occupations in particular … demand that we communicate about ideas that we do not necessarily care about.

The lesson, for me, is this: Students need to learn how to separate and focus.  Many of our students have had challenges in their lives; sometimes, this is just a math challenge.  Other times, they have faced significant life issues and trauma.  Just being able to talk about these will help a student focus in class.  Sometimes, they do not realize that the challenges they have faced will be a benefit in a math class.  To some extent, the affective factors can prevent cognitive work; just articulating the issues behind the affective can let the brain focus on the cognitive.

It’s tempting to say that “the lesson is to show students that we ‘care’ about them as people”.  Many of us do care about our students.  However, my observations do not support this conclusion in general.  I think the lesson is more subtle than ‘we care’ or ‘make it relevant’.   Maybe the lesson is more like “give them credit for making it this far.”

Our students have faced a lot of life, whether they are 20 or 80.  For some, they have overcome more challenges in 20 years than I will have faced in 80.  We seem to be more gracious to the 80-year-old than the 20-year-old.  I think we should look for all of the 80-year-olds in our classes, especially those who are stuck in a 20-year-old body.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: