Calculate This! Florence-Darlington Technical College’s Quality Enhancement Plan Susan Haley Debi McCandrew Florence, South Carolina April 29, 2011

Our remedial math transformation began with the SACS… Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)– Title of Plan is Calculate This! modeled after the University of Alabama’s Math Technology Learning Center. QEP is a compliance standard that has been established by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The QEP is an ongoing plan of continuous improvement done on a 5-year reporting cycle. Transforming Remedial Math

FDTC Math Dept. July 2010 Tutors Instructor

OBJECTIVES: SACS QEP Overview FDTC QEP Process FDTC QEP Data and Results

SACS QEP Overview Commission on Colleges expectations – Core Requirement 2.12 – Comprehensive Standard – Nine Steps to developing a QEP

to dedicate itself to enhancing the quality of its programs and services within the context of its mission, resources, and capabilities to create an environment in which teaching, public service, research, and learning occurs The Commission on Colleges expects an institution: SACS QEP Overview

Core Requirement 2.12 states that the QEP demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. presents an opportunity and an incentive for an institution to enhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness by focusing on an issue important to improving student learning clearly and directly links to improving the quality of student learning integrates into ongoing planning and evaluation SACS QEP Overview

demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; includes broad‐based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP; identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement. SACS QEP Overview Comprehensive Standard states that the QEP

1.Selecting the Topic 2.Defining the Student Learning Outcomes 3.Researching the Topic 4.Identifying the Actions to be Implemented 5.Establishing the Timeline for Implementation 6.Organizing for Success 7.Identifying Necessary Resources 8.Assessing the Success of the QEP 9.Preparing the QEP for Submission Nine Steps to Developing a QEP SACS QEP Overview

FDTC QEP Process Phase I (April 2004 – May 2005) – Research – Budget planning – Calculate This proposal/approval – QEP subcommittees formed – First two Math Hub courses designed and offered

FDTC QEP Process Phase II (June 2005 – May 2006) – Publicity about the Math Hub and QEP Area Commission FDTC community S.C. Developmental Educators Conference Local news media – QEP documents sent to SACS – SACS on-site review (October 2005) – Data Collection begins

FDTC QEP Process Phase III (June 2006 – June 2011) – Extensive data analysis of student learning – Areas addressed in Hub management and methodology that need improvement – Continuous inclusion of the Math Hub in Math Department’s Institutional Effectiveness – Exploration of grants and other funding measures – SACS 5 th Year Interim Report (June 2011)

FDTC QEP Data and Results We are collecting and analyzing data for the four QEP goals.

Primary Goal of QEP … to increase student knowledge of course competencies by at least 5% in our remedial/prerequisite courses.

How We Measure Our Primary Goal Within the first two days of each semester, students are given a course pre-assessment: a subset of the departmental final exam The post-assessment serves as a subset of the departmental final exam Both sets of data are stored electronically and used to compare changes in student learning outcomes Finally, the data are divided into two groups for comparison: Hub environment and traditional environment.

Primary Goal Results The average increase from pre to post for 2650 Hub students is 34.7 points The average increase from pre to post for 2728 traditional student is 29.1 points Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

Secondary Goal One … to increase the course success rate in remedial/prerequisite math classes by at least 5%.

Secondary Goal One Results The success rate for 5574 Hub students is 56.7% The success rate for 9996 traditional student is 41.9% Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

Secondary Goal Two … to increase the course success rate of students in curriculum math courses who took the prerequisite math course by at least 5%.

Secondary Goal Two Results The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 867 students who took the prerequisite math course in the Hub environment is 63.1% The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 3077 students who took the prerequisite math course in a traditional environment is 59.7% Percent difference between the two environments is This exceeds our goal of 5%

Secondary Goal Three …to increase the average on the final exam of each remedial/prerequisite math course by at least 5%.

Secondary Goal Three Results The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 3203 Hub students is 77.1 The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 7800 traditional students is 69.2 Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

???????????? We believe this approach: Supports active learning Provides one-on-one help Increases communication Encourages additional time on task Allows course acceleration Develops self-confidence and motivation

Title III Grant FDTC received a $1.87 million Title III grant in Fall, 2009, to expand the Hub. As a result, most of the remedial/prerequisite math students now use and learn math via the Mathematics and Technology Hub.

For more information… Data: Questions: