Shepard Hall Room 101

160 Convent Avenue

New York, NY 10031

FQUAN QUANTITATIVE REASONONG ASSESSMENT REPORT

Date of report: / March, 14, 2013
Course: / FQUAN 10050
Materials used, n: / 30 final projects; student exams
Rubric/Scoring standard used: / AACU Quantitative reasoning rubric; % correct answers
Date of assessment: / February 2013
Assessment Team
Members: / Sophie Barrett, Arielle Kagan Rubenstein, Priya Puliyampet
Coordination/Oversight: / Joshua Wilner, Senior Faculty Advisor for Undergraduate Education
Ana Vasović, Coordinator for General Education

FINAL PROJECTS ANALYSIS

Quantitative reasoning– average scores *
Interpretation / Representation / Calculation / Application/analysis / Communication
N/A / 2.55 / 2.5 / 2.65 / N/A

* Scale 1-4 reflects the ability range from the beginning level to the accomplished level – it is meant as a “college span” scale; it is expected that the majority of freshmen would not be at the “accomplished” end of the scale.

1 – beginning 2- developing 3 – competent 4 – accomplished

Representation Ability to convert relevant information into various mathematical forms
Strengths and weaknesses:
Students often had a good sense of the ballpark but not a good sense of the specifics. For this project, students had to choose the correct formula for calculating compound interest and relating this to the principal amount. For the most part, students were able to select relevant data for the conversion into tables/graphs.
They often understood that they were looking for compound interest but did not choose the right formula. Students sometimes did not know that a down payment means that this amount should be subtracted from the total loan. They also had not absorbed that a 5-number summary includes the absolute minimum and maximum, rather than simply the highest and lowest of the numbers they found. These concepts should be explained more in-depth and with more examples. Many students did not visually present their data and others were not entirely clear on what question was being answered at any particular time. Other students did not present the equations they were using to solve the problems. Students had trouble with box plots.
Calculation Successfully completes all appropriate calculations
Discuss strengths and weaknesses:
As discussed above, students knew how to plug numbers into equations. They were generally good with showing their work.
The problem was in selecting the right equation and using their reasoning skills to generate equations (e.g. they had to realize that, in order to calculate the total interest, they had to subtract the principal amount from the total amount paid). A common mistake was to think that they had to use an equation taught in class rather than doing simple multiplication or addition/subtraction to find what they needed.
Application/Analysis
Discuss strengths and weaknesses:
Students generally understood the upshot of the assignment, which was that higher credit scores mean lower interest payments and lower mortgage payments over time. There was diversity in the extent to which students could back up their assertions with the calculations in the assignments, with charts, graphs and tables, and with statements showing an understanding of why this is true.
This is the area that students seem to struggle with the most.

EXAMS ANALYSIS - COURSE SPECIFIC LEARNING OUTCOMES

By analyzing student exams an evaluation of student learning was made for the following outcomes/topics:
Topics: / % of students answering correctly
Units – solving quantitative problems solving units; using rules for operations with units to solve “real-world” problems; convert among standard units / 78%
Percentages – interpreting and calculating examples using percentages describing change or comparison. Examples drawn from the text and media sources / 67%
Statistics – constructing and interpreting statistical graphs and tables; extracting data from graphics from media sources / 74%
Recognizing qualitative vs. quantitative data; Applying this knowledge to data distributions / 77%
Characterizing data distributions using measures of central tendency and variation / 84%

Conclusions:

Students have a fairly good grasp of the mathematical concepts presented in class. There is room for improvement in all areas, especially topics involving percentages. It seems that improvement in this area can extend into improvement into other areas, such as constructing/understanding graphs and tables.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

For Quantitative reasoning skills improvement:
To be done by instructors, in class:
Students may need more specific examples of a concept before they are able to apply the ideas. Practicing multiple examples of the same type of equation before being asked to complete a final project is necessary.
We also need to keep in mind that they may not know basic concepts like down payments, what exactly interest is, etc., before we get into a more detailed discussion.
They may need more specific instructions on the assignment; for instance, question 24 asks them to provide a graph, chart, or table, and many students did not seem to understand what to do there. We could remind them to use the numbers that were generated in the assignment, present all calculations, convert the quantitative data into charts and graphs, and present evidence from the report in support of any statements.
Students need more practice in selecting the right equation for a given situation and using basic math (addition/subtraction, multiplication/division) to find out what they need to know.
Students should be encouraged to think critically about the numbers they calculate over the course of the semester. The students had trouble integrating the answers they had calculated throughout the report into a cogent answer to the question that addressed the application of the numbers.
Moreover, more instruction time should be spent on teaching students to represent numbers visually. For example, many students had trouble with the concept of box plots.