Co-Req series, 6 of 6.

The last of the posts in this series.  I wanted to give some advice for anyone going forward from this.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, and again, if you are new to the series, make sure to read all the posts.
Again, if you somehow missed them, make sure to read part 1, including the disclaimer, HERE and also the rest of the series.

Suggestions for you going forward

In this last post, I want to summarize some of the things we have learned, and what we would pass along to people starting on this path.  The suggestions below are in no particular order, and if they seem like “duh” things, well, sometimes time pressure makes people do funny things:

1.       Give yourself plenty of time, like three years, to do this.  If you can.

2.       Start the conversations with everyone that will be impacted by this, registration, advising, the registrar, student services, the other departments who have your courses are pre-reqs, and your marketing people to name a few.

3.       Start the conversations with faculty early.  Make sure to form committees and have people start looking around at all the different models.

4.       Contact your state governing bodies to see what is on their radar.  Co-Req is “all the rage” now, so you might have a surprise from some governing body, or maybe you can work with them to avoid surprises!

5.       Start having conversations in your department about topics and approaches (technology, calculators, common exams and/or common finals, etc) 

6.       Take the time now to think about what (and learn about what others say) are the learning objectives in your courses, and how you are meeting and measuring those.  One result from the state for Blinn is we have to measure many more things about our students.  We worked hard to make those things easy to measure.

7.       Learn from others.  Ask around, several groups from several states have done something like this, don’t re-invent the wheel.

8.       At the end of the day, this is just the next phase / fad and in a few years, something else will come along!

As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

Co-Req series, 5 of 6.

The last post in the co-req series.  Again, if you somehow missed them, make sure to read part 1, including the disclaimer, HERE and also the rest of the series.

Lessons learned so far

We are now in the middle of our third long semester (and one summer) of doing this.  What are the things we have learned?  A bunch!  Here are the most important ones in no particular order:

·         Communication between pairings is huge.  In hind sight this seems obvious, but communication between the two professors was/is huge.  Not only because different people will be at slightly different places, or I might have 5 exams in a MWF while you only have 4 in a TR, but because of a holiday or something different sections of the same class will be at slightly different places.  So letting your support professor know where you are is important. 

·         It is also really important to communicate your expectations in the class.  For example, when I teach finite mathematics, we solve all systems of equations by using the RREF feature in our calculators.  We don’t even really cover row operations, just dump and go.  Other members of my department spend some time on row operations and want their students to do that in the calculator.  Letting my paired professor know this means they don’t spend time on things that will not be needed in your particular class.

·         Communication was also crucial to make sure the professor for the support class understood what a support class is and what it was to do.  We had a real problem at first with many of the professors for the support class just teaching it like a regular class, and not staying with the credit level class. 

·         We have tried to have professors pair with themselves in paired classes.  This is clearly ideal, but again, as explained in the first post, we cannot do this for all of our classes.  We have at least been able to make sure that if I have two sections of paired classes, say 1324-P37 and 1324-P40, then there is (usually) only one professor covering both the support classes.  Yes, for our fifty to sixty sections this becomes a scheduling headache, but it is worth it. 

·         I have surveyed MY paired classes, and roughly 85% of those in a paired mathematics classes are also in a paired (developmental) reading and writing class.  Not too surprising maybe, but this impacted what type of assignments I do (I used to give a bunch of writing projects, for example) but also how I approach topics.  Conditional probability is much more involved with students who do not read well, for example.  I have added some online topics that deal with learning to read mathematics to try and help those students succeed. 

·         Most of the students in a paired class, well, they are developmental students.  So their study skills are weak.  And they need a good bit of hand holding at first with getting into our online homework system, into the Learning Management System (LMS) that we use, where our tutor center is, etc.  Almost every class for the first 2-3 weeks I now spend a couple of minutes reminding students in the paired classes of all of these things so they will remember them when they need them.

·         We have to remember that success means something different now, in terms of pass rates and other things.  Cynical, but we can only teach the students we have, not the students we wish we had.  It has been an adjustment for most of us, not only in how we explain things, but also what assignments we give, how we write and structure exams.  Griping about “the good old days” is not helpful to the students we have now, and frankly, it is also likely with a fuzzy or clouded memory…..  Mine included!

As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

Co-Req series, 4 of 6

This is the forth post in the series about our department moving to a co-req model.  Make sure to read part 1, including the disclaimer, HERE and the other posts in the series, as it sets an important background.

Specific stuff to Blinn’s method

Recall from last post that we had to overhaul our system to fit everything that we do, and we didn’t really have that long to do it in.  In addition, whatever we did had to fit our registration and student tracking systems.  So we decided to put a paired class with each credit level class.  That paired class would be the two hour support class for the students who previously placed into a developmental level mathematics class.

It started with a new flag in the registration system, the “math flag”.  This was a flag that went into place if a student would normally be in developmental mathematics, but the mathematics department had control over when the flag went away.  This was important to us because we know from our own studies that a developmental student might do okay in finite mathematics (1324) they would struggle in our fairly heavy algebra based applied calculus (1325).  The math flag meant those students would be in a paired class for BOTH 1324 and 1325, to really help them succeed in college level mathematics. 

Blinn had already split our college algebra into a STEM and non-STEM versions, with the STEM version being a four hour course that fed into Trigonometry and then Calculus (MATH 1414).  However, none of the schools that our students wanted to transfer to would take a three hour college algebra as a transfer class for a degree plan.  (It would count as a general elective).  This meant that for all intents and purposes, we would not teach any “general college algebra” classes.  Instead, the student would go into the credit level course that fit their pathway, and then also be registered in the paired class for that course.  No way to use college algebra as the support class for everything, in other words.

By paired course we mean they had the same section number, like P37, and the registration system was set so that if you registered for one of the classes, you automatically registered for the other paired class.  It also meant that a 1324-P37 was a class of only students who would have been in developmental mathematics before the change.  For privacy concerns and instructional concerns we thought that this would be the best way to implement our new system.

This also means that if a student was dropped from a class (we have an attendance policy at Blinn, or for other reasons) then the student would also be dropped from their paired class.  No skipping the support class to try and pass the credit class for the students.  This was necessary because the way the law was worded, as long as a student passed their credit level class, their grade in the support class did not matter.  This meant we had to structure the grades for the support class into a special form of In Progress (IP) so that it would not bear upon their college GPA, and also meet the requirements about not having to pass the class to enroll in the credit level class.

One other big thing we had to do with all of our paired classes was set an order of topics covered.  In the past, we had let each professor cover topics in the order they saw fit.  However, since for the most part the person covering the support class would be different than the professor covering the credit level class, and it was likely a person covering a support class would have several in one semester, it was important that we all have the same order of topics so that we could all stay sane.  However, given all the different modalities of the courses (2 and 3 day a week, MW or TR, etc) the support classes could not be automated, but instead had to be dynamic in how they covered things.

It should be noted here that our liberal arts (1332), finite mathematics (1324) and statistics (1342) classes are all fairly heavy calculator usage.  However, our applied calculus (1325) is a much more algebra based course, mainly because of the demands of the four year schools our students are wanting to transfer to.  Our STEM sequence of classes are ALL no calculator allowed on exams, again because of the demands of the four year schools our students are looking to transfer to.  This means that one of the big topics in the support classes is how to use a calculator to do what we want.  That has turned out to be a very useful thing in practice. 

. As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

Co-Req series, 3 of 6

Welcome to the third in the series about how we took our department co-req.  Make sure to read part 1, including the disclaimer, HERE

Here I want to explain what the big push was that caused us to do all of this.

Reason for the change:

The State legislature for Texas passed and then the governor signed into law House Bill 2223 during the the session that ended in Early 2017.  See this PDF for a lot of details: History of HB 2223 here http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/10716.PDF

HB 2223 was signed into law June 2017, to start going into effect fall of 2018, with full implementation by fall of 2020.  The stages are detailed in point 4 of the linked document.  But course registration for fall 2018 for us was due by around March 1 of 2018, so we had about eight months from when all the details were known until we had to have the system in place.  (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board – THECB or “co-board” had to read the law and then decide on some of the measures after the law went into effect, hence the only eight months.)

Also, any developmental course that required passing before the student could enroll in the credit level class would NOT count, so we had to change the current developmental mathematics model.  (see point 10 in the linked document for details)  Registration for Fall 2017 was already well underway, so there was also really no way to try and implement a pilot, get any feedback, and then set that up for registration going forward. 

All of this meant we were under a severe time crunch to set up a system that would work, fit our system, and expand to cover at least 75% of our students who needed developmental mathematics by 2020.  This meant that we had to have a system to cover all of our pathways and classes, and would fit all of the other things that were detailed in the previous post.  Furthermore, whatever we set up would have to easily fit within our current systems for advising, registration, student tracking, etc.  Plus, we really didn’t know of any way to randomly pick some students to take extra mathematics classes while their friends would not have to.  In the end, the easiest way to meet all of these demands was to have what we call paired classes for ALL students who would have gone into developmental mathematics. 

More on this in the next post.

We ended up settling on a two tiered system.  An emporium lab type course for those students who would need basic arithmetic and basic algebra material (what you likely know as basic and introductory algebra) and a support class for those who would have placed into what is usually called intermediate algebra.  The next post will detail the hows and whys of this system.

As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

Co-Req series 2 of 6

Welcome to the second in the series about how we took our department co-req.  Make sure to read part 1, including the disclaimer, HERE

Background about Blinn:

It will help in the following posts for you to know some things about Blinn College where I work, as many of these features have a strong influence on how or why we do things.  Blinn College, a two year school, is headquartered in Brenham, Texas.  (Home to Bluebell Ice Cream if that helps)  That campus has about 1800-2000 students currently, and is a residence campus. 

The campus I work at is the Bryan campus, with about 15,000 students, and another 3000 at the RELLIS campus about 8 miles from Bryan.  The difference in size between Brenham and my campus is because Bryan is next door to College Station, home to Texas A&M University, and RELLIS is a, well, partnership with Texas A&M.  (It is a lot more involved than that, but that works for our discussion)  With the positive relationship we have with Texas A&M, and the good transfer status of our programs, we have many students who come to us trying to then transfer into Texas A&M at some point. 

Unlike many two year schools, our students, especially on the Bryan and RELLIS campuses, are almost all academic students looking to transfer to a four year school. Roughly 85% of those are looking to transfer (or are also currently enrolled) at Texas A&M.  For example, we normally teach about 20 sections of 32 students of Calculus I in the fall.  Thus we already were teaching many credit level classes even before the change.  Also, because of the four year schools where most of our students want to transfer, we actually have FOUR pathways:

1.       A liberal arts mathematics (1332)

2.       A Finite Mathematics and Applied Calculus sequence (1324 and 1325)

3.       A Statistics pathway (1342 – mainly for nursing majors, but there are others)

4.       A STEM pathway (starting with 1414 or STEM College Algebra)

It should also be noted that both the Bryan and RELLIS campuses are bursting at the seams.  Over half of the mathematics faculty at those two campuses are doubled up in offices. (And the offices are right on the line as far as OSHA is concerned regarding size of shared offices….)  We are also fighting for classroom space, with almost all of our classrooms being full during the entire 8-5 day.  (Admin for a while didn’t really want night classes for some reason.  They seem to be heading back toward offering night classes…)  So we had little space to even think about additional computer labs for a group homework setting or other such ideas.  Even if we had the room, the additional cost involved with equipping the room would have been a sticking point with the upper administration.  

All of the above contributed to the way we chose to implement things at Blinn.  Also, because of the internal structure at Blinn College and the way the state laws read, we had to basically count the entire Blinn College system as one campus for reporting reasons.  Thus, anything we set up would have to be consistent at all the campuses, including any small satellite campuses we have where we might only teach one section of the class each semester. 

As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

The Start of my Co-Req series. 1 of 6

Howdy, long time no blog.  For a number of reason, mainly professional.  Anyway, based on some questions and suggestions from math friends around the country (most notably Kate Owens, @katemath) I have written up a series of blog posts detailing how we took our entire department across four campuses into a co-req model for mathematics developmental education.  I have shared it here across five posts, mainly because as I started writing, it kept growing!  As always, if you have questions, comments, etc, let me know.

Twitter: @robebymathdude

Or

robebymathdude@gmail.com

I normally don’t like putting these things up, as it should be clear (in my mind) that a personal blog is, well, personal.  BUT, since I am talking about my college and the entire department, I have a disclaimer below.  If you are interested in our numbers, or details about the administrative side of how or why we did things, contact me and I can put you in touch with the right people here at Blinn who can discuss things further with you.

Disclaimer: Please note this is a personal blog, and for this discussion about co-req sutff is mostly anecdotal about my experience.  Any data cited is only from my particular classes, none of which was from a controlled study or an official college source.  Also in all of this, I will freely admit that this has been a learning curve for me also.  I think I am doing better now compared to when we first started, but what data I can gather is mixed.  (The Institutional Research part of Blinn is very weak, so getting any useful data is difficult at best.)