YCCD Math Dept Meeting
Date: Tuesday, Dec 18, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.--2:00 p.m.
Venue: SCC Room S-222
Attendance:
Kovacs, Arata, Stemmann, Clark, Quy Bui, Davidson, Chetra, Vaughan, Julie Morgan, Steverson, Thoo, Papin, Armand Brunhoeber, Erik Cooper
Agenda/minutes
--------------
X) Additions to the agenda or rearrange the topics below?
X1) Roger reminded everyone about JohnS's recent email to us regarding reviewing the C-ID descriptors for engineering, and urged us all to leave feedback on the descriptors. The vetting period ends February 15, 2013. JohnS's email is appended at the bottom. It contains details for logging in to review the descriptors.
X2) JohnT said that he had asked Barbara Anderson in passing about the mathematics requirements for the upcoming AA/AS-T in Business. Apparently, the AA/AS-T will require one of Math 9, 25, or Stat 1. This contrasts with the current requirement that students transferring to Sac St require both Math 9 and Stat 1, and students transferring to Chico require both Math 25 and Stat 1.
A) Discussions via email: need to have closure (Thoo; 5 minutes)
JohnT said that he would try to do a better job of bring to a close discussions we have via email. Some of these discussions in the past year have meandered and not reached any conclusion.
B) Math 20 placement exam cut score, counseling (Cooper, Chetra; 25 minutes)
1) Datatel and placement scores
Erik and Armand explained to us how Datatel treats the mathematics placements. Datatel recognizes placement levels (e.g., 2006, 2007, &c.) and not cut scores per se, and is based on course equivalency. E.g., since all the courses in levels 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 have Math 52 as a prerequisite, Datatel does not discriminate among the different levels. Hence, the placement results are in effect only advisory; e.g., a student who scores into level 2006 (Math 10, 15, 25, &c.), could register in level 2007 (Math 21) or 2008 (Math 7, 9). However, it is believed that a goodly majority of students do not enroll beyond their placement level and some, in fact, fall back in the sequence for review.
It was asked if Datatel could be configured to enforce the placements instead of having them be in effect advisories only. The answer is yes, but this may require revalidating the placement scores now. (The next regular validation is scheduled for 2014.) We decided that we do not want to change the way Datatel treats placement levels.
2) Math 20 placement score
The question now is where to put Math 20, College Algebra. We decided that Math 20 should be at level 2006. Moreover, we decided that Math 9 and 21 should be at level 2007, and Math 7 should be at 2008. In this way, students who test into level 2007 would not be required to take Math 20 to meet the upcoming prerequisite for Math 1A. (Beginning in Fall 2013, the prerequisite for Math 1A will be either both Math 20 and 21, or only Math 7.)
3) Grandfathering students into Math 1A
Regarding the upcoming prerequisite for Math 1A, Julie expressed the importance of our involving counselors in our discussions of such remarkable changes in requirements, for they affect students who already have their education plans in place. Prior to today's meeting, the YC faculty had agreed that students who have their education plans in place in Fall 2012 would be allowed to enroll in Math 1A in Fall 2013 under the current prerequisite of Math 52 and 21. All other students will need to meet the upcoming prerequisite. Talwinder indicated that WCC does not intend to grandfather in students, but Julie said that a YC student could enroll in Math 1A at WCC in Fall 2013 under the current prerequisite if the student has an education plan in place already, for a YC counselor could sign the "blue slip" that would allow the student to enroll at WCC.
4) CLEP for College Algebra
Armand informed us the the CSU give credit for college algebra to students who pass the CLEP for College Algebra, and asked us if we would like to do the same. We agreed that we would.
5) Math 7
Sarah raised a concern about Math 7. WCC does not offer Math 7 and YC removed the course from Spring 2013 to make room for Math 20. (In Spring 2013, Math 20 will be offered at the same time that Math 7 has been offered in the past as a TV class.) Should we continue to offer Math 7 at YC now that we have Math 20? We decided that we would decide that at another time, but certainly before we have to build the Fall 2013 schedule.
C) Common final exams (Thoo; 60 minutes)
Mike asked to be reminded why we have common final exams. Matt said that the common finals were a response to an accreditation report from two accreditation visits ago. Apparently, the accreditation team felt we needed to ensure that integrity of our mathematics courses that were taught by many adjunct faculty members. JohnS remarked that that would have been an extraordinary recommendation by an accreditation team. The mathematics commons does serve to help us ensure that everyone covers essentially the same material during the semester. It was noted, however, that we do not engage in common grading of the final exams, although the typical small point values of each problem helps to keep the variation small. JohnS also remarked that we need to trust the professionalism of our adjunct instructors. Finally, Matt reminded us that when WCC broke away as a separate college two years ago, we reaffirmed our desire to continue having common final exams in Math 111, 50, and 52.
1) post-mortem of fall 2012
Beginning this semester, the principals for the mathematics commons are JohnT (Math 111), Talwinder (Math 50), and Roger (Math 52). JohnS clarified that the mathematics commons belong to the department and not to the principals. With that in mind, JohnS suggested that we have the first draft of the commons written early in the semester, so that everyone who teaches the respective courses will have a chance (i) to see what to expect for the course and (ii) to provide feedback on the exams. JohnT interjected that the full-time instructors should review all the commons, and not only the ones for the courses that we may be teaching.
We agreed that the first drafts should be produced by week 5 of the semester, with feedback expected by the end of week 6. Drafts would be sent to all thge full-time instructors, but only to those adjunct instructors who are teaching the respective courses. We would route the exams to YC instructors through Kristi Page; Matt will route to WCC instructors; Mike will route to himself at CLC. We agreed that around 5% of the problems by points would be "challenge problems" (like the concept extension problems in the textbook or vocabulary questions) or problems that are different from the homework exercises to separate the A students.
Talwinder said that it is important to keep the formatting of the commons the same as the previous ones that we have made available on the web as samples. Matt said that we ought to embrace a little change from semester to semester.
Matt said that "challenge problems" may not be appropriate on final exams, and should be included in the class tests instead. Roger generally agreed, but also said that he would like to some problems that test vocabulary; he said that the finals tended to have too many problems that test only process and computation. Matt said that he liked the first problems on vocabulary on this semester's Math 52 commons and that he does not consider those to be "challenge problems."
JohnS indicated that the commons should have one or two A-level problems to separate the students, but that there should also be an assortment of very routine problems to help students warm up; the routine problems could be at the beginning of the exams.
Sarah spoke up for DE. She noted that most of her DE assessments (e.g., quizzes) are "out of the book," and so she asked how we ought to prepare DE students for the commons. Sarah expressed that perhaps the textbook should set the level of rigor for the courses. Matt noted, however, that Martin-Gay has become increasingly weaker in its problems over the last couple of editions, and in fact never had any "upper-level" problems. Talwinder expressed that it is important to use notation that students are familiar with.
Karsten voiced a desire for more rigorous problems on the final exams. Matt wondered if the final exams should be more rigorous or if the courses should be more rigorous. Talwinder indicated that he does not like "curving" final exam scores; this was in reference to the Math 52 final exam, for which we sent a curve for the final to all the instructors to compensate for the unfamiliar formatting.
Regarding the Math 52 final exam, Karsten said that he liked the exam and that he felt that students who did well on it would be prepared for the next level. He expressed a concern that this may not be true anymore if we were to water down the final exam. JohnS observed that the exam seemed to be weighted toward the latter part of the course. Katie mentioned that the final exam seemed a bit long. Matt asked if we should extend the length of time for the Math 52 commons from 2 hours to 3, just like English. We decided not to.
Regarding the Math 50 final exam, Katie noted that perhaps it contained too many problems with fractions. JohnS remarked that it would be more comforting to students if more problems were to have integer answers, and not so many were to have fraction answers.
Regarding the Math 111 final exam, Ray mentioned that he liked the opportunity to review drafts and provide feedback. Roger said that he liked the more challenging problems that were on the first draft, but then were later dropped altogether.
2) involving adjunct in review
Those adjunct instructors who are teaching Math 111, 50, or 52 will be included in reviewing the drafts of the respective commons.
3) setting common expectations and standards (example problems?)
No discussion.
4) common policy for students to take commons early or late
No discussion.
D) Alternate pathways (45 minutes)
1) State Academic Senate resolutions (Steverson)
JohnS reports that there were resolutions written by English faculty presented at the recent State AS Plenary Meeting to shorten the pathway to a transferrable statistics course (Statway). The resolutions were eventually tabled because the discipline faculty did not yet had a chance to weigh in on the matter. The matter has been referred to CMC3 and CMC3-South. Presently, CSU and UC will accept Statway on a pilot basis for x (= 3?) years to gather data. CMC3 has apparently taken the position that it will wait for results from some ongoing pilot projects.
2) CMC3 Conference presentation by Myra Snell et al. (Steverson, Papin)
Mike and JohnS related what they had learnt from the session on a fast track to statistics at the CMC3 conference in Monterey earlier this month. The session presented results of an ongoing pilot at Los Medanos College and CCSF for "non-STEM" majors.
3) what about us?
We will wait for the results of these pilots. JohnT noted that one of the presenters at the CMC3 session, Myra Snell, will be a presenter on the same topic at the upcoming SVCCM conference that will be at Sac City College on March 9.
4) evaluating Math 110-111-50-52-20 sequence (Thoo)
No discussion.
E) Stat 1 (Clark; 45 minutes)
- please read Matt's email message appended below before the meeting
Matt said that he has gotten the impression from DCC that we will have to change the number of hours or units for Stat 1. JohnS added that this is because of how the Carnegie unit is interpreted, and that the District feels that we are out of compliance with Board Procedures, PIKA(?), and Title V, although Matt is dubious. The supposed non-compliance was caught by CurricUNET. To address this, JohnS proposed that Stat 1 be converted into a 5 unit course (4 hours of lecture and 3 hours of lab per week). Matt concurred, saying that this would allow us to include greater topics such as ANOVA, goodness of fit tests, &c.
Matt and JohnS with be co-contributors in revising the Stat 1 outline. They will use the draft C-ID descriptor as a skeleton. Matt and JohnS will also bring this to their respective college VPs and counseling departments. They do not anticipate a problem with resources to increase the number of units for Stat 1 because the funding allocation is now based on dollars and not on FTEF. The target date is to have the new Stat 1 effective in Fall 2013.
Tangentially, JohnS asked about what statistics software should be used at SCC. Karsten had tried Excel and found it wanting, and we do not have enough Minitab licenses for SCC. Matt said that WCC runs Minitab off a server; YC, however, has installed Minitab on each workstation in the lab. JohnT said that he recalls one reason for choosing Minitab was because we wanted students to learn to use software that they may used in the field. JohnS commented that, while that was the original rational for choosing Minitab, it is not likely that students would actually use Minitab in the field. JohnS suggested checking out StatCrunch or R.
He commented that StatCrunch is web-based and that R may be too hard for students because it may require some programming ability. JohnT then said that he recalls having heard of a statistics software by the publishers of Geometer's Sketchpad; JohnS looked online and found that it is Fathom.
No decision was made on what statistics software to use at SCC.
F) Update on revised course outlines (Thoo, Chetra; 15 minutes)
1) Math 1ABC, 2, 3 (Thoo)
JohnT is not sure if the outlines were included in December's Board package for approval. He will check on the status.
[
JohnT checked the status of Math 1ABC, 2, 3, and 7 on CurricUNET on 12/23/12.
1A .... awaiting Board approval
1B .... awaiting Board approval
1C .... awaiting District Academic Services approval*
2 ..... on HOLD Step 3.1 (how do we get it off HOLD?)
3 ..... on HOLD Step 3.1
7 ..... on HOLD Step 3.1
]
2) Math 20 (Chetra, Kovacs)
Math 20 will be offered for the first time next semester.
3) Math 21 (Chetra)
No discussion.
G) Textbook selections (everyone; 45 minutes)
1) Math 20: selected Stewart "College Algebra"
Talwinder and Sarah informed us of the selection. It is a custom textbook that does not include chapter 9 on probability.
Talwinder then apprised us of the problems he has encountered with Follett regarding the price of the Math 21 textbook (McKeague). He said that he had negotiated a price of around $130 with the publishers, but that the price that the bookstore is charging is nearer $270. He has brought this matter up with Dr Fairchilds.
2) Math 10: selected COMAP "For All Practical Purposes"
3) Math 9: selected Berresford and Rockett "Applied Calculus"
No discussion.
4) Math 1ABC: considering, need to select now
[If you have a copy of any of these textbooks, please bring them to the meeting. If there are any textbooks that you have not yet reviewed, you may have to review them sometime at the meeting.]
o Briggs, Cochran, Gillett
Calculus for Scientists and Engineers: Early Transcendentals
o Smith, Minton
Calculus: Early Transcendental Functions
o Anton, Bivens, Davis
Calculus: Early Transcendentals
o Hass, Weir, Thomas
University Calculus: Early Transcendentals
o Rogawski
Calculus: Early Transcendentals
No selection was made today. Everyone asked for more time to review the textbooks. We agreed that we would decide on the textbooks early in the spring semester.
H) AOB (any other business)
None.
I) Next DMDM
No discussion.
It was now 1400, and the meeting was adjourned.
-----------------------------John Steverson----------------------------
On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:43 PM, John Steverson wrote:
Lauren, forward this to Steve, as well, please. The more knowledgable input on these TMC's, the better.
John
From: Krystinne Mica [krystinne@ASCCC.ORG]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 2:54 PM
To: MATH@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET
Subject: Mathematics Faculty Response Needed- Engineering Draft Model Curricula and Descriptors
Dear Mathematics Faculty,
Due to the relationship of the Mathematics discipline to the Engineering curriculum, we are seeking your feedback and any additional information you deem pertinent for the Engineering Model Curricula and descriptor vetting process. Please review the attached letter from the Engineering Faculty Discipline Review Group (FDRG) and follow the 2 links to the Engineering surveys. The vetting period ends February 15, 2013. Attached to the email is the instruction on how to leave feedback for descriptors.
November 5, 2012
Re: SB-1440 - First vetting for the Engineering Discipline
Please forward this message on to other faculty at your college.
The Engineering Faculty Discipline Review Group (FDRG) has created two state-wide model curricula for engineering students. The decision to create multiple model curricula arose from the differences in lower-division engineering course requirements among the engineering disciplines. Maximizing the overlap that exists between specific engineering disciplines resulted in one model curriculum for Electrical or Computer Engineering, and another model curriculum for Mechanical, Civil, Aeronautical, or Manufacturing Engineering.
The Engineering FDRG is not calling either model a “Transfer Model Curriculum” (TMC) because engineering is a high unit major and neither model meets the criteria of SB-1440. The model curriculum for Electrical or Computer Engineering is close to the 60-unit limit; however some relaxation in GE requirements will be needed if that model curriculum is to meet SB-1440 criteria. Some engineering disciplines are not included in the model curricula, such as Chemical and Biomedical Engineering. The FDRG will discuss these remaining disciplines in the future using the feedback and knowledge gained from the present efforts to align courses and lower division programs.
The Engineering FDRG worked in the “spirit of SB-1440” with the understanding that if a TMC could not be crafted that met SB-1440 criteria the FDRG would still work to create a statewide model that students could begin to use. The Engineering FDRG believes that any model curriculum in engineering be designed to best prepare students for success as junior level engineering students in ABET accredited CSU engineering programs. Every effort has been made to maximize transferable units and eliminate topic redundancy. If exceptions can be made to SB-1440 for high unit majors that allow either a reduction in GE requirements or a higher unit limit, then it may be possible to convert the model curricula into TMCs later.
The majority of engineering educators continue to make improvements to their programs. The Engineering FDRG does not recommend trimming more units from the list of required major courses. The nationwide average number of units required for an engineering degree (not including GE) is approximately 95 to 108 units. An engineering program comprised of fewer units than what is typical may result in graduates that are not as competitive in the job market when compared to engineering graduates from other states. Cutting engineering and support courses, thus reducing teaching hours with students, is not a path to improving student outcomes.
Having common course identifications (C-ID Numbers) will eventually eliminate the need for course-to-course articulation. The Engineering FDRG has identified common lower‑division engineering courses and has put forth Course Identifications (C-ID Descriptors) for these courses. Ultimately the goal of the FDRG, and the greater community of educators who support these efforts, is to make transfer from a community college to a CSU as efficient and seamless as possible. Realizing these objectives requires compromise and flexibility on everyone’s part.
Lastly, the Engineering FDRG has put together some questions that it would like answered during the vetting process. These questions are posed using the Survey Monkey tool. Please respond to these questions as they relate directly to the two model curricula, the C-IDs, and other discussion points raised by the FDRG. There are two surveys. Please follow the link to the appropriate survey:
EE/Comp Engineering survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EE_Comp_Model_Curriculum
Mech/Civil/Aero/Manu Engineering Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Mech_Civil_Aero_Manu_Model_Curriculum
Thank you in advance for participating in the vetting process. Instructions for providing your feedback is explained in the attached document.
Sincerely,
The members of the Engineering Faculty Discipline Review Group
Dear Mathematics Faculty,
Please forward this message on to other faculty at your college.
Please go to the “TMC” tab at www.c-id.net in order to provide feedback (by February 15, 2013) on the Engineering Model Curriculums. Your comments regarding areas needing improvement, as well as where you are in agreement with the draft Model Curriculums are both appreciated. The direct links to the surveys are: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EE_Comp_Model_Curriculum and http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Mech_Civil_Aero_Manu_Model_Curriculum.
In addition, we ask you and your colleagues to log on to the C-ID website and provide feedback on the draft C-ID course descriptors for Engineering. You might find this to be a good topic for a department meeting---to discuss these drafts and provide feedback. Please leave your feedback by February 15, 2013.
• Go to www.c-id.net
• Select the “Descriptors” page from the menu on the top of the website.
• Choose the "Comment on Descriptors" link.
• Click the “Register Here” link if you haven't already registered for access to the review area.
• After registration, a confirmation email with your password will be e-mailed to you immediately. You must click the confirmation link contained in that email message to enable your password so that you can log in to C-ID’s review area. Your e-mail message will be sent by noreply@c-id.net, so please check your spam mailbox if you do not receive it and add this address to your safe sender list.
• Use your email address (username) and password to login to the review area.
• Read the draft descriptors in your discipline area or related areas having impact on your discipline.
• Comment on the draft descriptors, indicating what you feel could use improvement, or any other feedback you think would be relevant or useful. Please note it is just as important that you comment when you are in agreement with the descriptors.
• We will keep your email address on file and send you email updates when additional or revised descriptors become available for comment in your discipline.
Once the C-ID descriptors are finalized, colleges will be asked to submit their Course Outlines of Record to C-ID, to ensure courses in the Model Curriculum-aligned degrees are aligned. Your articulation officer will facilitate the submission of course outlines.
It is imperative that your voice is recognized in this vetting period...and we thank you for your participation!
Faculty are encouraged to sign up for the discipline listservs to receive relevant communications. To sign up, please go to http://www.c-id.net/listserv.html. Please note that listservs have been created for those disciplines that are currently active in C-ID. More listservs will be created as more disciplines are added. If you don’t see your discipline, we encourage you to visit the website often as more disciplines will be added in the future.
Please send general questions to info@c-id.net.
------------------------------Matt Clark-------------------------------
On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Matthew Clark wrote:
Hi all,
I hope your finals are progressing smoothly.
I have asked John to place Stat 1 on the agenda for a number of reasons. I am hoping that by presenting the basics of the situations in this email we can expedite the discussion next Tuesday.
(1) According to some people, we have been calculating lab time incorrectly for statistics. They claim that we should be using the same (3 lab hours) = (1 unit) as biology, chemistry... instead of the (2 lab hours) = (1 unit) we currently use. Currently we offer the class as 54 hours lecture (3 units) plus 36 hours lab (1 unit). If we are forced to change to a 3:1 lab ratio and we intend to keep Stat 1 a 4 unit course we would have some options. The two that come to mind most readily are (1) 63 hours lecture and 27 hours lab or (2) 54 hours lecture and 54 hours lab. Option (1) involves half-units. I'm not sure if we can use options that include fractions other that 1/2. [Note that a stat class is currently 4.33 load units for instruction. Option (1) would require 4.5 load units, while option (2) would require 5 load units.]
(2) Consistent with the 3:1, in the transition to CurricUNet, the COR for Stat 1 now shows it as a 3.5 unit class although our catalog and class schedule show it as 4 units. There is already a concern that our catalog, class schedule, CORs, and what we have on file with the Chancellor's office don't match in many cases. We currently have that problem in Stat 1.
(3) A class in either Psych or Soc has a C-ID descriptor that has "a statistics class with ANOVA" as a prerequisite.
(4) The draft C-ID descriptors for Stat 1 include ANOVA, which is not in our COR. It also includes chi-square test (also not in our COR). (Strangely it does not say which chi-square - Goodness-of-fit test, test about population standard deviation, test for independence, and test for homogeneity are all possible suspects.)
All of this leads to many questions. Among them -
(A1) Are we going to resist the change to 3:1?
(A2) If not, how will we configure Stat 1?
(B1) Can we meet C-ID descriptors with 4 units?
(B2) If not do, should we change to a 4.5- or 5-unit class?
(B3) If we change, how should we split the lecture/lab?
(C) If we reconfigure under 3:1 or change the number of units, where will FTEF to support change come from?
It is a mess,
Matt
On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Matthew Clark wrote:
Hi all,
Based on the results of today's DCC meeting, it is my understanding that we will be asked (told) to convert from 2:1 to 3:1 in Stat 1, so the item is gaining imperative (if that is possible).
Matt