Friendly Placement Testing

Like most community colleges, my college requires students to take a standard math placement test to determine their math level.  Like many, my college enforces the resulting score — students can not enroll for any course higher than what their placement test score qualifies them for.  How can this standard approach be done so that is fair to students and allows them to begin at the highest reasonable level of mathematics (for their knowledge)?

Let’s agree right at the start … the content of the standard placement tests is not aligned with the best mathematics in those areas of knowledge; the items tend to be basic procedures and basic concepts in a fairly narrow range of topics.  However, changing a placement test is a long term (and commercial) process.  As much as I would like to see (drastic) changes in the tests, that is not under our control and any changes to those tests will not be seen by students for a while (like 2 or 3 years).

Here are some observations about typical math placement testing systems that affect how friendly it is to students:

• Upon admission, community college students usually do not know what will be on the test.
• Community college students often do not understand how important the results will be.
• Our students usually take a math test without any review.
• Options for re-testing (challenging) are often limited, and we tend to not provide information on ‘what to do before retesting’.

You might not agree with all of these observations.  I hope you see enough truth in them to agree with this statement: “The advising for students prior to taking a math placement test is not currently adequate in most community colleges”.  In fact, many colleges are like mine … the first advising a new student receives is done at an orientation; students are required to complete placement testing BEFORE orientation (and advising).  There is a logical reason for this — advising tends to deal with specific questions about enrollment, and this means the results of testing are needed.  However, I would suggest that this approach is not student friendly.

If I could do so, I would make the initial advising a two-step process:

1. An orientation & advising (done in groups) which would cover information on math placement testing, followed by taking the placement test (different day)
2. Individual advising after placement testing, where possible re-testing is discussed (based on how the student sees their initial results aligns with their background).

Alas, I am not in charge of advising … as I suspect math faculty would not be in charge of advising in general.

In the meantime, here is one specific thing we could consider doing to make the process a little more friendly for our students: Make use of an online homework system for the review prior to retesting. 

At my college, some students who want to re-test for math are referred to the math department where they speak with an administrator (usually).  For many students, this results in them receiving access to a “MyMathTest” program that provides specific preparation for the placement test they want to retake.  We are able to do this because of the cooperation of the publisher, so there is no cost for the student; we are somewhat limited to a total number of users for this program, but the limit is high enough to accommodate the students talking to us about retesting.

We do not have specific results to share about how this is working (gains in math level or not).  I hope there are gains there.  However, I think this is a good thing to do just because it is student friendly.

If you are interested in using an online homework system as part of the review process for a placement test, start by talking to your book company representatives.  We have found the representatives to be helpful, and willing to look at doing something extra that would help students.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Finding Statway(tm) materials (and Quantway!)

Are you looking for the Statway™ materials … so you can become familiar with them, and consider that kind of approach?  Are you intrigued by the Quantway™ ideas, and want to check it out?

You can email pathways@carnegiefoundation.org with the request; the Carnegie Foundation will send you a collection of lessons.  [Currently, a sample of Statway™ lessons are available; a set of Quantway™ lessons will be available soon.] 

Next year, all lessons will be available under a Creative Commons license.

New Life vs Emporium Models

I am currently at the AMATYC conference in Austin — very good conference.

Earlier today, I had a session entitled “New Life Takes on the Emporium Model for Redesign”.  My intention was to provide a viewpoint on these alternatives, both of which are currently popular. 

Here is the file

Here is the handout from the session (1 page summary): https://www.devmathrevival.net/wp-content/uploads/New-Life-takes-on-the-Emporium-Model-for-Redesign-HANDOUT-final.pdf

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Evidence Based Decisions

How do we prevent ‘evidence based decisions’ from becoming ‘evidence constrained decisions’?

First, let’s get clear on what ‘evidence based decision making’ is about.  Primarily, the idea is to apply evidence from the scientific method to decision making.  This is the definition given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine ; much of the current push to use this method in education comes from improvements in medicine due to using scientific evidence as a basic methodology.

The idea is to base decisions on the evidence, when appropriate evidence is available.  Remember that we are talking about scientific evidence — which is a stronger standard than ‘data’.  The scientific evidence provides a connection between a practice or treatment with the outcomes (usually stated as a probability or odds).  Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Well, in education, there are difficulties in getting scientific evidence.  We have tons of data, which are raw measurements organized in some manner; however, this has little to do with scientific evidence.  Most commonly, we have either before and after data relative to some change; sometimes, we have data from two groups under different treatments … data on the outcomes, without data on other variables that we suspect have an impact on the outcomes. 

Scientific evidence does not come from one set of data.  After one set of data suggests, scientifically, that we have reason to believe that this treatment results in a change in the outcomes, this hypotheses gets tested by replication — done by different practitioners.  The idea of scientific evidence is that we achieve something close to an empirical proof that we have a cause and effect relationship — not just a one-time correlation.

I can not resist bringing up one of my favorite oxymorons — “data based decision making”.  Data is simply organized measurements; no decisions can be made based on data, because data is not evidence of anything.  I use brand X gasoline one week, and the next week I use brand Y — and get 10% better mileage … which means nothing; this data just means that I get slightly different outcomes, nothing else.  I normally find the phrase ‘data based decisions’ to be used as a cover for a hidden agenda.

Back to evidence based decisions … as mathematicians, we are all scientists; we understand the power of research — and it’s limitations.  The presence of evidence (in the scientific sense) suggests better courses of action (decisions) to the extent that the probable outcomes are ‘likely’.  The presence of evidence does not determine the best decision … wise people still need to evaluate the current situation and apply their understanding of the evidence.

What do we do when there is no scientific evidence relevent to our decision?  Are we constrained by the evidence available?  Even in medicine, with its superior collection of evidence, decisions are not constrained by evidence.  We should be guided by the evidence we have, and use our wisdom combined with our understanding of the outcomes desired to determine the best available decision.

Relative to mathematics education in colleges, I would present these observations:  We have large bodies of evidence about learning which can (and are) being applied to our courses.  We often mistake data for being evidence, and mistake reporting data for research, and this has led to some dramatic failures (and some less dramatic).   When we do remember the distinction between data and research, we tend to skip the step of ‘replication’ before announcing a conclusion; this has led to cynical colleagues and a skeptical public.

If we do not understand what the word ‘evidence’ means, who will?  Certainly not external forces such as politicians.  We need to be much better at articulating what we are basing a decision on, and clearer at describing results.  We need to focus on our shared values, and use them to describe the desired outcomes.  We need to focus on our wisdom, to provide guidance in the absence of evidence.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: