1. Bridges 2 Success: WSU and Sinclair Co-Requisite Remediation Project
Columbus, OH 10/7/2016

2. Where we are: pathways
WSU has had well defined pathways for students in different majors for at least a decade:
Mathematical and quantitative literacy, general audience.
College Algebra, feeder for three different Calculus tracks.
Introductory statistics, feeder for research methods courses in psychology, nursing, and some education and social science majors.
Early and middle childhood mathematics education.

3. Where are we going?
The B2S grant is helping us redesign our courses using a co- requisite remediation model to improve both the gateway completion rate, and shorten the time to completion in all three pathways. We are starting with the Quantitative Literacy pathway, and our first pilot is this spring.

4. Changes in Curriculum
We are aligning the course content with the new Quantitative Reasoning OTM. We have chosen the Dana Center curriculum. The course will be an Active Learning course aligning not only with the OTM, best practices, but also campus initiatives.

5. Where we are: DEV math
In 2013 WSU redesigned its developmental mathematics courses (DEV) in the Mathematics Emporium model, using computer aided instruction (ALEKS). The redesign increased the DEV completion rates by 13%.

6. Coreq DEV course
In the spring pilot the gateway course and the coreq DEV will be taught by different instructors. This is the only sustainable model apparent to us now. We will use the pilot to gauge how difficult it is to maintain the “just in time” pacing with different instructors. Our goal is to design the corequisite courses to merge as much as possible with the existing remediation infrastructure. Placement requirement: none, for coreq remediation in QR and STT 1600, TBD for college algebra.

7. The Co-Requisite Model
We will offer three sections of the pilot QR :
QR – Section 01:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 02:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 03:
40 Students
(All Direct Placement)
QR – Section 11:
20 Students (Co-Req)
QR – Section 12:
20 Students (Co-Req)
 DEV 0950
40 Students (Co-Req Only) 

8. The planned schedule allows one section of DEV to serve both sections of QR with “just in time” remediation.
DEV 0950
QR-01 w/ Coreq DEV
QR-02 w/Coreq DEV
10:10
MWF
11:15
MWF
1:25
MWF

9. Registration model
We are fortunate that WSU has experience with this from implementing the corequisite English writing program.
QR – Section 11:
20 Students (Co-Req)
QR – Section 12:
20 Students (Co-Req)
Students must register for both the DEV and a QR.
 DEV 0950 – Section 01:
20 Students (Co-Req Only) 
 DEV 0950 – Section 02:
20 Students (Co-Req Only) 

10. Success of the Pilot
To determine a “success rate” for the pilot we used baseline data from students who started DEV math in Fall 2013, 2014, or 2015.

11. Where we are: DEV+gateway one year completion
Analysis of three year’s direct admit freshman data shows that approximately 14.5% of students who start DEV math complete their DEV and their mathematics gateway course in one year.

13. The major “leakage” in the pipeline:

14. The same population
in the Coreq DEV Model

15. The same population
in the Coreq DEV Model
The Coreq DEV model eliminates this “leak”

16. Defining Success: Part 1
We want the corequisite model to “do no harm”. Therefore our measure of success for the corequisite model has to be at least as good as the current prerequisite DEV success rate. Since we have eliminated the “Attempted” leakage, we also want to replicate the success rate of all who passed DEV and attempted the gateway.

18. Defining Success: Part 2
Does the Coreq DEV model preserve the integrity of the gateway course? The operational definition of “integrity” varies from pathway to pathway. Examples: For College Algebra pathway, we will use success and persistence in subsequent math courses. For QR, we will use grade distributions and performance on nationally-normed QR assessment instruments.

19. Data from the Spring 2017 Pilot
QR – Section 01:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 02:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 03:
40 Students
(All Direct Placement)
QR – Section 11:
20 Students (Co-Req)
QR – Section 12:
20 Students (Co-Req)
 DEV 0950
40 Students (Co-Req Only) 

20. Data from the Spring 2017 Pilot
Part 1: Compare completion rates to where we are now
QR – Section 01:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 02:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 03:
40 Students
(All Direct Placement)
QR – Section 11:
20 Students (Co-Req)
QR – Section 12:
20 Students (Co-Req)
 DEV 0950
40 Students (Co-Req Only) 

21. Data from the Spring 2017 Pilot
Part 1: Compare completion rates
to where we are now
QR – Section 01:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 02:
20 Students (Direct Placement)
QR – Section 03:
40 Students
(All Direct Placement)
QR – Section 11:
20 Students (Co-Req)
QR – Section 12:
20 Students (Co-Req)
Part 2: Compare pacing and grade distribution to coreq model
 DEV 0950
40 Students (Co-Req Only) 

22. Challenges
“Do no harm”: If a student passes the coreq DEV but not the gateway math, will they have earned a math placement level that would place them directly into the gateway course?
What should happen to a student who passes the gateway math but not the coreq DEV?
Will our coreq DEV model accommodate all students regardless of math placement level?
How do we populate the coreq model so our data are generalizable?
Is the model sustainable?