by Nancy Shapiro
For the past five years, the University System of Maryland has led a statewide collaboration among five public universities and seven community colleges to redesign college-level mathematics pathways. Our collaborative five-year experiment with creating alternative mathematics pathways (primarily to lead to general education statistics) addressed the persistent and destructive reality that too many students who are admitted to our institutions end up floundering in developmental mathematics courses for too long, which invariably has negative impacts on their persistence, their college completion, and their lives.
Building on the research and creativity of UT Austin’s Dana Center, and with guidance from Uri Treisman, our new statistics pathway was designed collaboratively by mathematics faculty from 12 Maryland higher education institutions and tested over five years to see if we could flip the switch, get more students enrolled in mathematics courses that would support their majors and result in greater success rates. I am happy to report that we did just that. Not only did students succeed at higher levels in the newly developed pathway, but those most at risk of failing traditional developmental ed math courses succeeded at the same rates as students who typically move through developmental math on their first try.
Key Findings
Our study examined the impact of the alternative developmental treatment course on students’ rates of passing developmental math, passing college-level credit-bearing math, and continuous enrollment.
Question 1: Were there differences between treatment (statistics) and comparison (college algebra) students in the rate at which they passed developmental math?
Finding: Students in the statistics pathway passed developmental math at a higher rate that students in the college algebra pathway and students in the developmental ed statistics class were more likely than students in the developmental ed algebra course to enroll in a credit-bearing math.
Question 2: Were there differences between treatment and comparison students in the rate at which they passed college-level credit-bearing math?
Finding: Students in the statistics pathway passed their next college credit bearing math course at the same rate as those who enrolled in the college algebra pathway. That means that both groups of students were equally well-prepared to take rigorous college credit-bearing courses.
Question 3: Were there differences between treatment and comparison students in the rate at which they remained continuously enrolled and/or graduated?
Finding: There was no significant difference between students in the two groups related to persistence (continuous enrollment). This finding suggests that the two pathways are equally challenging and demonstrates that the quasi-experimental model fairly reflects that “life-happens events” impact students equally, regardless of what pathway they entered.
There many reasons to celebrate these results, and much more can be said about why and how the outcomes turned out the way they did (creating faculty communities of practice is one area to explore). If you are interested in learning more about this project, or if you would like a more focused presentation to faculty or administrators, we are ready, willing and able. Contact: nshapiro@usmd.edu