Math Dept meeting
October 18, 2013
1500--1600
M-802
Present: Boyes, Kovacs, Noffsinger, Papin (by phone), Stemmann, Steverson, Thoo, Wardlaw
Minutes
=======
1) Briefly discussed unstaffed sections for spring 2014. We have gone through the adjunct pool and still have 17 unstaffed sections altogether at Marysville and Sutter (12 at Msvl and 5 at Sut). It was noted that it was harder to staff the sections that meet more than twice a week with adjunct than to staff the sections that meet only twice a week. Thoo asked if in the future we ought to try to schedule more sections twice a week to make it easier to staff them with adjunct. The consensus was that doing so would be okay for Math 110 because it is a 3-unit course, but not for Math 111, 50, or 52 because they are 4-unit courses.
2) Thoo asked how long an unsuccessful adjunct instructor applicant should have to wait before being considered again. There was one unsuccessful applicant last year who reapplied after only about 6 months, and the person was unsuccessful again. The person recently made enquiries again about teaching for Yuba. The consensus was that it would be reasonable to wait two years unless there was evidence that a significant change has occurred for the interested person.
3) We voted to accept the additional PSLO that we discussed last time, viz., "Apply definitions, notation and properties of mathematical concepts." So, we now have a set of six PSLOs.
1. Perform operations on mathematical objects (e.g. numbers, expressions, functions, matrices).
2. Solve equations and inequalities.
3. Graph equations, functions, inequalities.
4. Solve applied problems using mathematical or statistical methods.
5. Prove identities and theorems.
6. Apply definitions, notation and properties of mathematical concepts.
Boyes then asked what ought to be the criteria for success for PSLOs. It was noted that the Engineering Department has set 80% success in the child CLSOs as a bar for success in the parent PSLOs. Steverson then asked if we wanted to stay with a "binary" approach (i.e., either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory") or if we wanted to change to a "scaled" approach (e.g., grading 0 to 4, with 2 or better being satisfactory). We decided that we would try a scaled approach, but that this would require the development of a rubric. Steverson further suggested that we set the PSLO success threshold at 65% to start; everyone agreed.
4) We continued our discussion of CSLOs for Math 52. At the last meeting we left off in the middle of discussing whether we ought to add complex numbers specifically to the CSLOs. We decided not to do so specifically for now, but that we could still have complex-number solutions to equations in our assessment questions. At this point, we have completed our list of CSLOs for Math 52.
1. Perform operations on rational expressions
2. Solve a problem involving exponential and logarithmic equations
3. Solve a problem involving quadratic equations
4. Analyze and graph a quadratic function
5. Perform operations on radical expressions
However, we also decided that we would send our list of CSLOs to the other departments that have courses with a mathematics prerequisite to find out what student learning outcomes in mathematics they need for their students to be successful in their courses. (E.g., students need to know about logarithms for chemistry.) Boyes agreed to contact the different departments.
5) We now turned to the question of assessment. Wardlaw suggested that we choose some problems from the final exam to assess the CSLOs. Moreover, he suggested that if we decide to use a rubric (scaled approach), then the person who writes the exam also ought to make up the rubric. It was further suggested that we cycle through the list of CSLOs, assessing no more that two CSLOs per semester. Boyes then asked what we ought to do about this semester, whether we continue with the binary approach or change to the scaled approach. Kovacs suggested that we ask instructors to submit the distribution of points for the CSLO questions, instead of only satisfactory or unsatisfactory, as a way to move toward a scaled approach without having to develop a rubric. Everyone agreed to Kovac's suggestion for the Big 4 this semester (Math 110, 111, 50, and 52). For Math 110, Thoo must make sure that points are assigned to the CSLO problems.
6) We all agreed to think about how we ought to handle CSLOs for the "singleton" courses for the next meeting.
---------------------------End of the Meeting--------------------------