1. Fall 2014 ALEKS Math Placement: What Have We Learned About Placement, Remediation, and Performance? Andrew Watters, Office of Undergraduate Education Janet Schulenberg, Division of Undergraduate Studies Tanya Furman, Office of Undergraduate Education

2. Analysis of Fall 2014 performance  Significant findings  Recommendations  Areas for further discussion

3. Snapshot of Penn State students

4. Students encouraged to remediate

5. EPR stronger than 2013* *except Math 140, dominated by evaluations at University Park

6. Valid placement scores lead to higher success rates This chart shows unsuccessful students – higher bars are bad news

7. Success varies by course, location

8. Small changes from Fall 2013 Note that calculus results are improved over 2013 despite lower EPR reports

9.  Trigonometry sub-scores do not predict Math 140 success  Unsatisfactory EPR: 2000% increased likelihood of D/F/WN  No EPR: 145% increased likelihood of D/F/WN  Multiple attempts: 76% increased likelihood of D/F/WN  Two ALEKS sub-scores each lead to 3% greater success  Quadratic and polynomial functions  Relations and functions Early Progress Reports and other factors for Math 140 success

10. Multiple attempts not always helpful

11.  EPR warrants further investigation  Faculty engagement  Student identity / efficacy  Among Satisfactory students  Students whose majors do not need calculus tend to drop  Students in controlled majors tend to drop to preserve GPA Early Progress Reports and other factors for all success in all courses

12. Significant findings :  Students perform better under the new system  Student performance varies dramatically by course and campus  Students who remediated typically increased their course placement  Initial placement into a course provides the greatest likelihood of success  Students with Unsatisfactory Early Progress Reports have very low success rates

13. Recommendations for change  Enrollment loopholes are fixed.  The time required for preparation and learning before a repeat assessment was increased to 10 hours for each of two additional testing attempts.  Faculty members across Penn State, and particularly in courses or locations with extremely high or low success rates, should be engaged in discussion of best practices, course expectations, and approaches to increasing student success.

14. Areas for continuing discussion  Patterns of student success with / without EPR feedback  Student late drop patterns related to entrance to major requirements for Administratively Controlled majors

15. Scenarios where ALEKS data may inform student decisions  Student started a course, but now wants to use ALEKS to make a change  Student is heading in an academic direction that does not require a calculus-sequence course  Student has pre-requisite credit, but ALEKS score is below minimum required  Student’s ALEKS score is just below minimum… can an exception be made?  The course a student needs is not offered at the student’s campus  Student places into MATH 003 or MATH 004