Math Dept meeting
November 15, 2013
1508--1615
M-802
Present: Boyes, Davidson, Kovacs, Noffsinger, Papin (by phone), Stemmann, Steverson, Thoo, Wardlaw
Minutes
=======
1) Davidson asked about the Math 52 CSLO questions for this semester. We confirmed that we would use the same questions as last semester, but they will no longer be multiple choice. The problems will be assigned 3 points each, and everyone will be asked to report the point distribution for the two problems (the number of 0, 1, 2, or 3 points).
2) Talwinder Chetra, who is writing the Math 50 final exam, had asked what would be our CSLO questions for Math 50. We decided to use problems 12 and 23(c) that are in the draft that Chetra had sent out. The problems should be 3 points each. We will ask everyone to report the point distribution for the two problems. Thoo will communicate this to Chetra.
3) On September 24, 2013, Thoo asked Anabel Toche for help in answering the following question regarding Math 52AB.
"Of the students who successfully completed both Math 52A and 52B and who enrolled in a subsequent mathematics or statistics course (that has Math 52 as a prerequisite), what percent successfully completed the subsequent course on the first try; and of the students who successfully completed Math 52 and who enrolled in a subsequent mathematics or statistics course (that has Math 52 as a prerequisite), what percent successfully completed the subsequent course on the first try?"
Thoo received a response from Toche on November 14 saying, "I worked with Erik Cooper and attached is the data based on what you had requested." She had sent some raw data that needed to be analyzed and, so, Thoo forwarded the data to the rest of the Math-Stats Dept because he does not know how to analyze it. The data was discussed.
It was decided that Thoo's question was off base and too coarse to obtain any useful information for us to determine if Math 52AB is effective in helping students succeed. It was decided, therefore, that a new set of better questions need to be posed. Davidson offered to send Thoo some better questions. It was also decided that we would ask Matt Clark for help in getting the WCC researcher, Molly (last name?), to look into the questions.
4) At the last meeting Boyes agreed to contact 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. We were specifically interested in the Math 52 CSLOs. Boyes reported that she had heard from only Doug Joksch (Computer Science) and Kevin Orton (Chemistry). Joksch said that he uses examples from algebra, trigonometry, and statistics, and suggested a CSLO along the lines of, "Students demonstrate the ability to apply mathematics and statistics to new contexts (e.g. in other classes, the workplace, etc.)." Orton said that he would like more on the properties of logarithms. Based on their feedback, we decided to amend our list of Math 52 CSLOs.
1. Perform operations on rational expressions
2. Demonstrate understanding of logarithmic properties
3. Solve a problem involving exponential equations
4. Solve a problem involving quadratic equations
5. Analyze and graph a quadratic function
6. Perform operations on radical expressions
We all agreed on the list of CSLOs for Math 52 and decided that they would be effective Spring 2014. The Math 52 course outline will now need at least a technical change (no one was identified to do this). The new CSLOs also need to be put in the "What to Cover" sheet, and the Spring 2014 Math 52 instructors need to be given a heads up before the end of this semester (Thoo will do this).
5) Early in Spring 2014 we will decide how to assess the new Math 52 CSLOs, and which ones to assess at that time. We will then move on to revise the Math 50 CSLOs.
6) Stemmann asked if he may pilot the XYZtextbooks elementary algebra textbook in his Spring 2014 online Math 50 section. He is particularly interested in testing the online course management system to see if it may be a viable alternative to MyMathLab. He would also report on the quality of the textbook. It would cost the students $30 for the online access only, that includes an electronic version of the textbook, or $85 with a printed copy of the textbook. Everyone agreed that Stemmann may do this, but he must inform his students at the start of the semester that they may have to purchase another textbook (Martin-Gay) for Math 52 the next semester.
7) It was discussed briefly whether we may want to deactivate Math 110. Thoo voiced again that he would like to see a reorganization of the material in Math 111, 50, and 52 so that we may deactivate Math 110. Kovacs reported on a tutorial from Pearson called MyFoundations.com that students could use instead of taking Math 110 to prepare for Math 111. The cost would be $36, which would be about one-third the cost for them to take Math 110 (a 3-unit course). We decided that we need to discuss this with WCC at the DMDM next month.
---------------------------End of the Meeting--------------------------