The Right Math for the Right Student at the Right Time February 2017

Workshop Facilitators Heather Ortiz, Ed.D. State Implementation Specialist, Charles A. Dana Center heather.ortiz@austin.utexas.edu Susan Bickerstaff, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Community College Research Center bickerstaff@tc.columbia.edu

Workshop Outcomes Learn about Michigan’s state and institutional evaluation activity with CCRC for Mathematics Pathways to Completion project. Learn about the new Dana Center Mathematics Pathway resource site (www.dcmathpathways.org) as a technical assistance service for state and institutional activity towards math pathways.

Definition of Math Pathway …a mathematics course or sequence of courses that students take to meet the requirements of their program of study. The concept of math pathways applies to pathways for college-ready and underprepared students.

Michigan’s Math Pathways Michigan Transfer Agreement (MTA) final recommendations include 3 distinct math pathways: A pathway to prepare students for majors requiring calculus, particularly STEM programs; A pathway emphasizing statistics for business and some social science majors; and A pathway emphasizing quantitative reasoning for all other majors.

Mathematics Pathways to Completion (MPC) Evaluation

Community College Research Center Areas of research include: The role of the community college High school to college transitions Developmental education & adult basic skills Student services and financial aid Online learning and instructional technology Student persistence, completion, and transfer College to career and workforce education Improving institutional performance

CCRC Research on Status Quo in Developmental Mathematics Bailey, Jeong & Cho, 2010

Studying Reform: Process and Outcomes - ,

Outcomes for Students in Math Pathways MDRC evaluation of the New Mathways Project* in TX (Rutschow & Diamond, 2015) found that within one year: 8% of students enrolled in a traditional developmental math sequence passed a college-level math course 30% of students enrolled in a statistical reasoning pathway completed a college-level math course Other analyses show similar results: Carnegie’s Quantway: Yamada, Bohannon & Grunow (2016) Carnegie’s Statway: Yamada & Bryk (2016) California Acceleration Project: Hayward & Willett (2014)

CCRC’s Role in MPC Formative process evaluation focused on these research questions in six states: What state-level work was achieved as part of participating in the MPC initiative (i.e., state-level policy changes, new infrastructure)? What state-level conditions were necessary to scale this initiative across colleges? What institutional-level conditions were necessary to implement and scale DCMP? What types of technical assistance and resources provided by the Dana Center do states and institutions find most beneficial? Support and technical assistance to states in designing and executing internal evaluation plans

Establishing Structures for Internal Evaluation Set the stage for continuous improvement Designate resources (human and financial) for evaluation early Establish baseline trends in student performance Solicit formal feedback from instructors, advisors, and other staff Consider various outcomes, and align expectations to stage of implementation Learning outcomes Course performance Persistence Credit-accrual Success in mathematics and across the curriculum Credential completion

Sample Research Questions How are math pathways implemented? What are the perceptions and experiences of advisors, faculty, students, and support staff? What are the challenges to implementation? How many students are enrolled in math pathways? How do enrollments change over time? How do students enrolled in math pathways perform academically? How does this compare to students not enrolled in pathways?

Considerations in Designing Internal Evaluation Qualitative: Who are the key stakeholders? How can you gather the degree of stakeholder knowledge about the reform’s theory of change? What is the best method for soliciting areas of challenge and resistance? Quantitative: How will you establish baseline performance? What are the most important outcomes worth tracking? What other factors (concurrent reforms, policy changes) may influence outcomes? Which student subgroups should be analyzed separately? Can a comparison group of students not enrolled in math pathways be created?

Template for Measuring Academic Success Category Full cohort Enrolled in college-level math within one year Passed college-level math within one year Number of Students % of Cohort % of Category Pass Rate Full Cohort 30,000 100% 16,000 53% 11,000 37% 69% White 20,000 67% 12,000 60% 8,500 43% 71% Black 5,000 17% 1,900 38% 1,150 23% 61% Hispanic 2,500 8% 900 36% 525 21% 58% Asian 1200 48% 825 33% Financial aid recipients 18,000 9,000 50% 6,500 72% Financial aid non-recipients 40% 7,000 4,500 64% Placed into Arithmetic 8,000 27% 500 6% 350 4% 70% Placed into Pre-algebra 4,900 41% Placed into College-Level 10,000 85% 5,750 68% Did Not Enroll in Mathematics N/A Enrolled in Status Quo Math 17,000 57% 59% 65% Enrolled in Pathways 6,000 75% 56% Note: each subgroup of interest would receive its own row in the table. Note: The denominator in all of the percentage columns should be the “N” in the first column. For example, the “% Passed college-level math within one year” refers to the percentage of the entire cohort, not only the percentage who pass out of those who attempted it.

Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Resource Site

We used to be . . .

But it’s not new anymore . . .

Introducing . . .

DCMP Resource Site www.dcmathpathways.org

Contact Information General information about the Dana Center www.utdanacenter.org Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Resource Site www.dcmathpathways.org To receive monthly updates about the DCMP, contact us at dcmathpathways@austin.utexas.edu

About the Dana Center The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin works with our nation’s education systems to ensure that every student leaves school prepared for success in postsecondary education and the contemporary workplace. Our work, based on research and two decades of experience, focuses on K–16 mathematics and science education with an emphasis on strategies for improving student engagement, motivation, persistence, and achievement. We develop innovative curricula, tools, protocols, and instructional supports and deliver powerful instructional and leadership development. 2016