Adapting Academic Youth Development To

Adapting Academic Youth Development to

Precollege Math Setting in Two-Year Colleges

Washington Focus Group Notes (Dana Center, February 2011)

Purpose of Meeting

To review the substance and format of the Academic Youth Development (AYD) program with Dana Center staff and explore the feasibility of adapting the program to the precollege (developmental education) math setting in two-year colleges, using Washington state as a test case/pilot site for implementation. (For more background and a list of participants, see Appendix B)

Core Questions Raised

1. What is the central “theory of action” driving the argument for formal inclusion of these themes and concepts into precollege math classes (research literature)?

1. Do we need to define criteria for selecting key topics (from AYD or elsewhere) that would be included in an adaptation for our context?

1. What are the essential pieces that need to reside in math classes and be owned/addressed by math faculty, and what are some larger themes that need to be addressed or reinforced outside of math classes and owned by the institution as a whole (or at least by the developmental education program as a whole)?

1. What themes/issues should be tackled directly in class and which should be on a menu of options pointing students to additional resources? (balancing in-class work with other ideas that are explored outside of class to minimize impact on class time)

1. Is a technology platform like Agile Mind essential to the adaptation, and if so how do we make the costs reasonable for implementing and scaling up the work? Is there a potential role for our own open-source Washington Mathematics Assessment and Placement (WAMAP) as a platform for a stripped-down version of AYD?

1. How do we offer the crucial job-embedded professional development needed to provide faculty with the capacity and comfort level in helping their students address AYD themes and issues?

1. If we are serious about the importance of this work, how do we take the ideas back to our campuses and engage our colleagues? How might we use departmental rules and policies to help support and shape the work? How can we frame the kind of professional development required to implement this work?

1. If we’re already pursuing to some extent related efforts, how do we help shift colleagues from “dutiful” compliance to “purposeful” engagement, balancing faculty collaboration and “teaming” with full autonomy?

1. Who needs to be involved in moving this work forward in the system and how might the work connect to the current system-wide initiative around precollege education (http://www.sbctc.edu/college/_e-assesscollegereadiness.aspx)?

Working Draft of Project Proposal

Small sub-groups met as part of the meeting to begin addressing some of the core questions raised by the whole group and propose at least preliminary recommendations about how we might pursue this work. The sub-groups addressed 4 broad areas; the following reflects notes from their initial discussions and refinements suggested by feedback from the whole group:

1) Implementing the project in the system

·  Get commitment to participate from teams of 3-5 faculty from 5 or so colleges

·  Organize kick-off meeting about project followed by follow-up local ongoing discussions (weekly?); convene full group 2 times per quarter via Elluminate meeting to check in and work on content

·  Proposed timetable:

o  spring/summer 2011: get organized, identify resources;

o  fall 2011: run professional development, create buy-in, finalize campus-level implementation plans

o  winter 2012: pilot materials across sites

o  spring 2012: assess and refine for 2012-13

·  Invite colleges to participate in the context of the system initiative on precollege education; keep system leadership informed and engaged in work through this initiative

·  Consider involving more than 5 colleges if interest is there and resources available

·  Recruit from college teams involved in system precollege effort to collaborate in design/development work as way to engage other campus resources (counseling, advising, basic skills, etc.)

·  Maintain narrow focus initially on developmental education setting before shifting focus to intro college-level courses

·  Provide range of flexible models for how the work might be implemented locally by colleges (e.g., integrated with other content areas; used only with specific courses, perhaps lowest level dev ed; incorporated into math labs; offered through study skills/support supplemental instruction model, collaborative partnership with area high schools, especially if they’re already using AYD, etc.)

2) Engaging faculty at the participating colleges

·  Produce and share with system brief white-paper summaries of key research supporting themes/topics

·  Review the resources developed through the Student Attributes for Math Success (SAMS) project-- http://studentattributes.wetpaint.com/

·  Develop professional development sessions, webinars addressing key themes from SAMS and research and learning theory info (including Mike Nevins’ work, other web resources like http://www.learningandtheadolescentmind.org material, TED talks, etc.)

3) Defining the key topics/themes to be addressed on the menu of offerings

·  Start from core list of AYD topics and mesh with attributes from WA college readiness math standards

·  Adapt and customize AYD topics for 2-year college dev ed context; add additional topics from list generated in Austin

·  Consider modular approach to maintain flexibility in terms of implementation

·  Prioritize in terms of how essential topics are to student success in precollege math classroom; [some support but not necessarily consensus for these 3 areas;

o  Info on adult brain, including anxiety physiology

o  “Productive struggle” and meta-cognition (addressed through tasks tied tightly to the significant math learning outcomes of course)

o  Persistence and maintaining motivation over time

4) Assessing the project

·  Course completion, pass rates, persistence, reaching college level

·  Faculty get stipend, but not paid until complete implementation

·  Faculty Pre-implementation plan (which modules; time and sequence), then post survey (which modules, what else did this effect on class, etc.)

·  Student pre- and post- surveys; could add questions with online stuff (e.g. what did you know about these topics?)

·  Mid-quarter Elluminate session to discuss progress

Additional Considerations

·  Connections of this work to other higher education initiatives focused on developmental education: Carnegie’s Statway/Quantway work, national Developmental Education Initiative, California Community College Success Network (3CSN), …? (DC staff suggestion: Washington could “incubate” ideas and then connect to broader partners)

·  Resources to explore: Dana Center PTT [?] work, SRL [?] tools that could be associated with quarter-long tasks, other self-reflection tools/instruments

·  Supporting faculty in experimenting with approaches that promote/encourage student community-building both inside and outside class

·  Funding options: Next Gen Learning Challenges; Hewlett’s Deeper Learning program; could approach Gates for a “modest” investment to complement current funding related to developmental math

What are specific next steps to consider?

·  Explore funding opportunities in partnership with Dana Center, others

·  Update RPM teams at upcoming March event and have discussion at spring WA/OR math conference

·  Develop white paper/s as background resources (contact Lisa Brown for existing material that might be helpful)

·  Provide info to working groups for system precollege education initiative and keep system groups informed about work

·  Find out who else might be interested in possible participation in the project

·  Convene small design team to review notes & SAMS work; define content of modules

·  Convene review team to respond to design team draft

·  Incorporate into August RPM event to finalize engagement process with faculty teams during 2011-12

Critical elements from AYD program?

·  Neuroscience and Dweck’s work on mindset, theories of intelligence (e.g., “Perils and Promise of Praise” ( http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct07/vol65/num02/The-Perils-and-Promises-of-Praise.aspx )

·  Metacognitive strategies

·  Self-regulation (see Barry Zimmerman: http://learningandtheadolescentmind.org/people_04.html)

o  Goal orientation—especially mastery goals

o  Self-monitoring (If you don’t have people self-monitor, they don’t realize how they got where they are)

o  Volition control—offer skills (test prep, study)

o  Self-evaluation and self-reflection

·  Affect

·  Community (need a mathematically relevant activity to bring this out)

What other psychosocial and affective themes/issues might be relevant factors in student success precollege/developmental math context?

·  College knowledge, values, norms (cf. David Conley’s work)

·  “Imposter syndrome” re confidence in math classroom

·  Interplay of anxiety and learning—Sian Beilock’s, Ellen Freedman’s work on anxiety in math contexts

·  physiological components of anxiety—connect back to real growth in brain (amygdala research, fight/flight, etc.)

·  Other lifestyle habits related to learning—eating, exercise, sleep—and balancing work, family, life and setting priorities; managing time and available resources

·  “Productive struggle” / effective effort (and helping students develop an understanding of and a language around productive struggle in learning

·  How the brain works (John Medina, Brain Rules)—how is this connected to existing AYD neuroscience perspectives? Level of “executive function” among students in precollege courses significantly different than middle/high school?

·  “Saboteurs” in students’ lives, both themselves and others

·  Amount of “baggage” in terms of negative experiences with math and resulting “I hate math” attitude

·  View of math strictly as educational hoop to jump through

·  English language learner issues

·  Bob Balfanz: http://www.every1graduates.org/balfanz.html

·  Focus on maintaining motivation in the face of…

·  Anxiety

·  Self-confidence, self-efficacy

·  Opinions about math

·  Road blocks: academic setbacks, funding, sabotage, …

·  Work load and pace issues, amount of homework

·  Challenges of college culture, norms

Specific Suggestions Raised about Adapting/Transposing the Overall Program Structure and Format

·  Begin with the existing Washington work on student attributes of College Readiness Math Standards (and SAMS Project efforts, http://transitionmathproject.org/college-spark/index.asp ) --or--- Start from core list of AYD topics and mesh with attributes from WA college readiness math standards

·  Offer a menu of options (some defined as core, some as customized choices), potentially for both faculty as well as for students

·  Introduce concepts/themes in a yearlong (or two-course) setting, building cohesion

·  Consider extent to which key themes and topics can, as much as possible, be integrated tightly to math tasks/problems faculty see as essential to defined math learning outcomes (i.e., “the math that will be on the test”)

·  Consider extent to which key themes and topics are within the “comfort zone” of expertise for most math faculty in the precollege setting

·  Explore integration with both precollege and introductory college-level courses

·  Connect with high school teachers around integrating ideas in a coordinated way into senior year courses as part of college readiness efforts

·  Adapt TMP attributes work with posters (Whatcom County partnership) summarizing big ideas as an aid to reinforce concepts for students

·  Actively engage students as partners in the work in sharing ideas about what works for them, especially what motivates them to learn, in math and elsewhere

·  Consider emotional activating stories to increase intellectual engagement through passion and values (Cal Crow’s “heart/mind/soul” connection)

·  Provide archetypes for simulations and examples that represent the diverse student audience in the classes (age, ethnicity, educational experiences, math experiences, etc.)

·  Use “motivational interview”—identify confidence and make incremental improvements in confidence (note: this is a counseling technique, not used much yet in education)

·  Acknowledge that it’s OK for math to not be their passion

·  Offer quick intervention/assessment in terms of their views about importance of and confidence in the math you’re asking them to do

·  Pose questions like, “What don’t you like about math?” What’s the next step you/we can take to help you succeed in math?”

·  Connect mastery goals to “imagined selves”—using the power of service-oriented goals (i.e., making a contribution to the world and to others) to help students understand the value of learning math

·  Consider reading level issues for typical precollege students

·  Explore relevant issues described by Rebecca Cox, College Fear Factor (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035485 )

Appendix A

Brief Overview of AYD Topics

1. Building relationships to learn (group norms, community of learners)
2. Getting smarter through problem-solving (brain changes in learning)
3. How effort affects your brain (role of effort in getting “smarter”)
4. Using evidence to make your case (using evidence to justify conclusions)
5. Communicating information
6. Making sense of problems and learning (attitudes, feelings, role of self-talk, learning from mistakes, tactical approaches to problem-solving)
7. Thinking about multiple representations (including role of metacognition)
8. Using representations and staying motivated (persistence)
9. Communication among problem-solvers (verbal, nonverbal, social networks, influence on peers)
10. Solving problems as a learning community
11. Communication: the key to team work (negotiation: team-building, individual roles)
12. What you believe affects your success (“mindset” view of intelligence, attributions drive strategies, self-efficacy)

Washington College Readiness Math Standards Attributes

Appendix B

Notes compiled by Bill Moore, SBCTC March 2011

Washington Participants

Bill Moore, SBCTC

Peg Balachowski, Everett Community College

Helen Burn, Highline Community College

Megan Luce, Cascadia Community College

Mong Kon Mo, Shoreline Community College

Mike Nevins, Everett Community College

Eleni Palmisano, Centralia College

Carren Walker, Clark College

Heidi Ypma, Whatcom Community College

Notes compiled by Bill Moore, SBCTC March 2011

Key Dana Center Participants

Notes compiled by Bill Moore, SBCTC March 2011

Lisa Brown

Kris Bishop

Kathi Cook

Amy Getz

Susan Hull

Notes compiled by Bill Moore, SBCTC March 2011

Background of Meeting

As part of the Washington Transition Math Project (TMP), a cross-sector and cross-disciplinary team of college and high school teachers developed a set of College Readiness Math Standards to provide more clarity to K-12 students and teachers regarding the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in college-level math classes. These standards included mathematical content and process (communication, problem-solving) standards as well as a set of student attributes (demonstrates intellectual engagement; takes responsibility for one’s own learning; perseveres when faced with time-consuming and/or complex tasks; and pays attention to detail) not specifically related to math per se but seen by faculty as crucial to success in college-level classrooms.