Math, General Education, and Transfer to a University: Michigan Transfer Agreement

The classic dichotomy of student goals is “occupational versus transfer”.  We have seen this dichotomy evolve into a continuum and then into a 2-dimensional conceptualization reflecting whether a given student is combining them or primarily working on one.

Mathematics has an odd position in this 2-dimensional zone of students in academia.  For many colleges, an occupational program tends to minimize mathematics; perhaps an applied math course is required, but seldom anything in general education.  Overall, there has been a trend towards using non-occupational math courses for occupational programs as more students combine goals.  For transfer goals, we usually reflect the policies of our transfer institutions — which might involve a state coordinating or governance board.  This transfer world is dominated by an odd conceptualization which places pre-calculus at the starting position and calculus as the preferred position.

You may know that the ‘math paths’ movements involve an effort to deal with this transfer problem.  The Carnegie Foundation and the Dana Center have done work with systems so that courses such as introductory statistics and quantitative reasoning are accepted as general education math courses for transferring students.  The AMATYC New Life Project shares similar goals, which is why we have a position statement in the process on the appropriate role of intermediate algebra  as a prerequisite.

In Michigan, a good thing is happening:  We are developing a new Michigan Transfer Agreement (MTA) which will specifically list multiple types of math courses as meeting general education requirements for our colleges and universities.  Currently, pre-calculus or college algebra dominate the requirements at our larger universities.  With the MTA, all institutions in Michigan will be using statistics, quantitative reasoning, and college algebra as valid general education math courses for transfer students.  The state legislature is using performance funding to encourage universities to accept the MTA; this applies to community colleges as well, but that will not be as much of a change for us.

In the current draft of our work, the minimal prerequisite for math courses that count will be ‘algebra I’ or equivalent rigor.  This is a deliberate statement that we can provide meaningful and sound mathematics courses in statistics and quantitative reasoning  without requiring anything more than that type of algebraic reasoning.

The MTA reflects some of the thinking within the New Life Project; I believe that our work had a strong influence, but that the result is due to the good work of reasonable people looking for a good solution.  The MTA effort is being led by our two organizations for higher education (both voluntary — University Presidents group and Community College Association).

These changes, like the MTA, relate to the occupational math situation.  With a more student friendly MTA, occupational students are encouraged to take math classes that will transfer and will help them with courses in their program (especially in science and  technology).

In some other states, the math paths are being enabled by pilot programs or temporary agreements.  Michigan does not have a central governing or coordinating board for higher education, so those approaches do not work as well here.  However, the MTA is looking like a better solution — one that other states might benefit from.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

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: