SCC Academic Program Review For The __Mathematics__ Department

Date: __September 27, 2011___

List the full-time and part-time faculty that worked on this academic program review document:

Darlene Diaz / Jane Francis / Alicia Frost
Anne Hauscarriague / Kathy Moore / Craig Nance
Scott Sakamoto / Randy Scott / John Smith
Joyce Wagner / Alison Williams / Laney Wright (Pryor)
Joe Yorba

SCC Academic Program Review for Mathematics

Part I: Overview of Academic Program Information for Mathematics

The following information is based on the Spring 2010 (Fall 2010) semester.

  1. Name of the Program: Mathematics
  2. FTES generated: 447.57 (472.71)
  3. LHE taught: 378 (380) Not including MaSH which is about 37 LHE a semester
  4. LHE taught by full-time faculty: 242=64% (213=56%)
  5. LHE taught by part-time faculty: 136=36% (167=44%))
  6. Number of full-time faculty: 13
  7. Number of part-time faculty: 28
  8. Number of FTE classified staff: 2 shared with the division
  9. Number of student instructional assistants: 9 total (MaSH and clerical)
  10. Number of office spaces used exclusively by program faculty and staff: 13
  11. Number of office spaces shared with other programs’ faculty and staff: 1
  12. Number of conference rooms and collaborative spaces used exclusively by program faculty and staff: 1
  13. Number of conference rooms and collaborative spaces shared with other programs’ faculty and staff: 2
  14. Number of classrooms used exclusively by the program: 6
  15. Number of classrooms shared with other programs: 6
  16. Number of labs or other learning spaces used exclusively by the program: 2
  17. Number of labs or other learning spaces shared with other programs: 0
  18. List and describe any specialized equipment or resources that are used exclusively by the program:

Computers in Math Study Hall (MaSH) and in U-102

Part II: Goals and Objectives

  1. Does your department consider the RSCCD Board Goals, SCC’s Mission, Goals, and Objectives, and SCC’s Educational Vision when it sets goals? A list of the RSCCD Board goals is included as an appendix to this document. Which Board goals do your department’s goals support? Explain briefly.

SCC’s Mission Statement is implicit in all departmental planning and goal setting. We see that our department goals support the following board goals:

RSCCD Goal / Supporting Department Goals From DPP
1. Promote a learning community environment that is innovative, student-centered, and celebrates student achievement. /
  • Perform a longitudinal assessment in an effort to quantify the impact of pedagogy changes
  • Develop a computer aided instructional classroom to offer courses in basic skills
  • Facilitate student demand in the Math Study Hall

2. Provide access and retention for completion programs, including transfer, vocational, and high school diploma programs; and prepare students for success in their academic, career, and personal life endeavors. /
  • Perform a longitudinal assessment in an effort to quantify the impact of pedagogy changes
  • Facilitate student demand in the Math Study Hall

3. Update and implement facilities master plans, maximize college and community use of facilities, and incorporate “green” efforts into facilities development and other efforts when cost-effective. /
  • Work toward moving the Math Department to a centralized location
  • Develop a computer aided instructional classroom to offer courses in basic skills

4. Promote flexible, cost-effective educational programs and services including the use of cutting-edge technology and educational program delivery via technology. /
  • Optimize our technological resources
  • Research alternative supplemental learning systems

5. Pursue alternative public and private funding sources to increase the district’s fiscal sustainability and to implement the district’s vision and goals, and encourage the foundations and district to create plans for capital and program campaigns and alumni association development. / N.A.
6. Maintain a positive, productive working environment for employees, recognizing and embracing diversity and enhancing staff development opportunities that address innovation and technology. /
  • Improve collaboration between fulltime and adjunct faculty

7. Expand partnerships with business, labor, community groups, universities, schools, and other public and private agencies in order to enhance the district’s resource development; ensure student access and success; ensure robust economic development programs; and be responsive to workforce development needs and high demand career fields. / N.A.
8. Assess the educational needs of the communities we serve, and enhance awareness of the colleges and community involvement through outreach and advocacy among community constituencies and leaders. / N.A.
  1. How does the department evaluate progress toward the program’s goals and objectives? How does this evaluation inform the creation and updating of goals and objectives?

Department goals are a permanent agenda item at the monthly department meetings. Groups of faculty take on each goal and report back on progress. From this information, we update and create our goals at the beginning of each semester.

  1. Upon consideration of the information you have presented in this section, what areas or issues will need attention from the program in the next three years?

Board goal #7 reminded us that we want to reestablish our outreach to the local high schools; presenting information about how to be successful in Math. We also need to stay aware of any changes in the RSCCD Board Goals, SCC’s Mission, Goals, and Objectives, and SCC’s Educational Vision.

Part III: Program Data Analysis

  1. For each type of quantitative data below, pleaseprovide a summary of the data and indicate any significant patterns, trends, or anomalies that the department has identified. Describe how the data were used and what changes to the program were made or will be made based on analysis of the data.Required [All programs]
  1. Successful course completion rates (grades of A, B, or C)

Course / % successful/#grades
Spring 2010 / % successful/#grades
Fall 2010
N06—Basic Math / 43%/57 / 57%/132
N48—Pre-Algebra / 58%/248 / 59%/321
060—Elementary Algebra / 43%/454 / 61%/617
070—Geometry / 52%/25 / 44%/23
080/081—Intermediate Algebra / 35%/656 / 40%/621
105—Math for Liberal Arts / 60%/177 / 63%/218
140—College Algebra / 52%/258 / 48%/276
150—Business Calculus / 71%/109 / 63%/118
160—Trigonometry / 46%/123 / 45%/116
170—Pre-Calculus / 49%/100 / 52%/109
180—Calculus I / 26%/106 / 52%/100
185—Calculus II / 45%/71 / 58%/57
219—Statistics / 52%/243 / 51%/208
280—Calculus III / 65%/45 / 82%/43
287—Linear Algebra and Differential Equations / 74%/26 / 90%/30

Trends and Analysisusing Summer 2007-Fall 2010 data:

  • Math 060 was in the 40% range until Fall 2010 when it jumped to 61%. This class has been tied to Math 060L, which requires students to complete assignments in the MaSH, since Fall 2009. It is unclear if this jump is an anomaly or whether the MaSH component is starting to help.
  • The success rate across the state for the developmental classes is around 50%. Our Math 080/081 has a lower success rate than the state average of 52% (Spring 07). The other developmental courses (N48 and 060) are near the state average. Our Math 080/081 course is a fairly intense course with a rigorous textbook. The department wanted our students to be well prepared for any of the math tracks they followed. There had been discussion when the new Math 080/AA requirement came into being about whether to offer different Intermediate Algebra courses—one for Liberal Arts students and one that would be more traditional. The department didn’t come to a consensus and that issue was tabled.
  • Other courses where there have been large differences in semesters (Math 180, for example) have involved relatively small numbers of students and the department hasn’t identified any particular causes.
  • Summer session classes have consistently higher success rates. In Summer 2010, the results from our largest classes were: Math 060 = 68%/108,Math 080 =58%/115 and Math 219 = 59%/109. This is probably due in part to the different types of students we have in summer as well as the focused nature of a 4 or 8 week class. The department has discussed allowing a cohort group to take their below transfer level math classes in a condensed intense manner similar to summer school.
  1. Number of students earning degrees and certificates

We have very few students completing degrees in math; however we support a large number of other programs such as sciences, computer science, business, etc.

Mathematics degrees

2003-4 2

2005 5

2006 3

2007 0

2008 1

2009 3

2010 3

  1. Faculty load information (FTES per FTEF)

It was 18.13 in Spring 2009.

Optional [Discuss if your department has access to any of the following data]

  1. Rates of progress through course sequences

We have been working with the research department to get updated results using Datatel

  1. Student surveys
  2. Program exit exams or other assessments of graduating students
  3. Number of students who take and pass external license examinations
  4. Data on former students’ post-SCC experiences (e.g. transfer success, career advances, external license examination pass rates, post graduation surveys)
  5. Labor market trends and needs

Success Rates of Students Fall 2010/Spring 2011
Math 060/081 Students
Grade / With Mash (>0.5 hours) / Percent / Without MaSH
(<0.5 hours) / Percent
A / 176 / 50.3% / 7 / 9.6%
B / 285 / 12
C / 376 / 24
P / 3 / 0
I / 1 / 0.1% / 0 / 0%
D/F/NP / 422 / 25.3% / 89 / 19.7%
W / 407 / 24.4% / 319 / 70.7%
Total / 1670 / 100% / 451 / 100%
Success Rates of Students Fall 2010/Spring 2011
All math students except those taking 060, 060L and 081
Grade / With Mash (083L) / Percent / Without MaSH / Percent
A / 97 / 63.9% / 344 / 48.5%
B / 146 / 529
C / 166 / 644
P / 0 / 33
I / 1 / 0.2% / 4 / 0.1%
D/F/NP / 101 / 15.8% / 625 / 19.3%
W / 129 / 20.2% / 1040 / 32.1%
Total / 640 / 100% / 3239 / 100%
  1. Other data pertaining to the program’s instructional effectiveness

Analysis: Students that utilized the MaSH performed better academically in comparison to the students who did not use MaSH. One cannot guarantee that the impact of this support caused students who attended MaSH to perform better but it is another positive indication of the effectiveness of MaSH.

  1. Upon consideration of the information you have presented in this section, what areas or issues will need attention from the program in the next three years?

The mathematics department at SCC will continue to work in a collaborative manner to improve student success rates. As a group, we acknowledge the role a professional, organized classroom environment plays in student success. We also need the following:

  • Encourage students to accept the responsibility for their own success and spend the appropriate time on the material
  • Monitor the placement process and work at getting students to continue through their math sequence without taking semesters off
  • Monitor the effectiveness of PLATO (or whatever software system we use).
  • Write and pilot Directed Learning Activities (DLAs) as a result of the Title V grant.

Part IV: Program Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

  1. How does the program systematically assess its program student learning outcomes using specific and measurable performance criteria? How is this assessment carried out and who is involved in the assessment process?

The Math department beganassessing our program student learning outcomes (PLOs) in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. Both semesters, weasked instructors to provide randomsamples of student work that addressedour PLO #1:Create mathematical models of real world phenomena, apply created or given models to make predictions about the behavior of the phenomena, apply appropriate problem solving techniques, and critically evaluate the veracity of the obtained results

In Fall 2010, 50 problems were assessed and 66% of students were successful in the modeling component and 64% were successful in solving the problem.

In Spring 2011, 100 problems were assessed and a different rubric was used. 42% of students were successful and 35% were moderately successful in the modeling component. In solving, 45% were successful and 22% were moderately successful.

We are working on a plan to assess our other two PSLOs as per our assessment time-line in the Program Outcome Assessment Guide.

  1. Upon its review of program student learning outcomes assessment data, what patterns, trends, or anomalies did the department identify?

The results of our assessments did not turn up anything surprising. We used instructor exams instead of departmental final exams, which worked fine.

  1. What changes has the department made based on its assessment of program student learning outcomes?

We use problem solving as criteria for textbook choices. Two of the textbooks adopted for the 2011-2012 year were heavy in the use of problem solving as opposed to the more “traditional” textbooks.

  1. Upon consideration of the information you have presented in this section, what areas or issues will need attention from the program in the next three years?
  • Create a consistent rubric.
  • Begin assessing PSLO#2 in Spring 2012 “Clearly communicate their mathematical reasoning and problem solving skills using a variety of formats, diverse technologies, and appropriate mathematical vocabulary and notation”
  • Consider and pilot ways to assess PSLO#3 “Integrate into educational and professional conduct a calm, confident, and ethical approach to mathematical reasoning and problem solving while taking personal responsibility for mathematical successes”

Part V: Course Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

  1. What is the total number of courses that the program offers and how many of these courses have clearly defined student learning outcomes?

We offer 19 different math courses. All of our courses have clearly defined student learning outcomes.

  1. How does the program systematically assess its course student learning outcomes using specific and measurable performance criteria? How is this assessment carried out and who is involved in the assessment process?

The coordinators for each course assess at least one student learning outcome each semester, often using embedded questions scored by the coordinator using a rubric. We are working with a plan where every course SLO will go through the assessment loop at least once every three years. The department chair is responsible for maintaining the cycle and collecting the reports for the department. We discuss our findings at our monthly meetings or through email, and make adjustments as needed.

  1. Upon its review of course student learning outcomes assessment data, what patterns, trends, or anomalies did the department identify?

Our success rates often are in 60% range, which, given our course success rates, are not unexpected. We have been able to increase some of these rates by reminding instructors to focus on key topics.

It is not unusual for a student to leave a question blank or with completely irrelevant work. This is in indication that some students are spending little to no time on coursework even though they don’t drop the class.

Student often have trouble organizing theirwork and/or properly interpreting an answer.

  1. What changes has the department made based on its assessment of course student learning outcomes?

Since we have begun this assessment process, we have:

  • Rewritten most of our final exams so they no longer have multiple choice questions
  • Chosen textbooks based on SLOs and assessment results
  • Rewritten SLOs
  • Integrated software into curriculum
  • Communicated the results to full-time faculty and adjuncts teaching the courses
  • Modified teaching methods at individual instructor level
  1. Upon consideration of the information you have presented in this section, what areas or issues will need attention from the program in the next three years?
  • Perform multiple- year evaluations to get larger sample sizes for some of our smaller classes.
  • Continue to evaluate and modify various assessment tools.
  • Compile results into a department summary each semester. With so many courses being assessed, it can be difficult to get an overall view of the results.

Part VI: Curriculum and Program Management

  1. How does your program meet the academic, developmental, and vocational needs of SCC’s diverse student population? Does your program offer learning opportunities that extend beyond the traditional classroom experience?

As a program, we offer a multitude of courses including: honors, on-line, night, 4-days a week, 8-weeks, supplemental learning, Math for Future Teachers, and Math Anxiety courses. We also cooperate fully with our DSPS program including testing in different facilities and accommodating translators.

  1. Does your program offer sufficient courses with sufficient frequency and at appropriate times and through appropriate delivery modes to meet the major requirements, transfer goals, and general education and elective needs of the student body?

We do our best to accommodate the needs of all our students by offering additional sections (when the budget allows), adding as many students as our classroom holds, changing to larger classrooms, and expanding the number of high-end classes. After many years of offering our highest level classes every-other-semester, for the last few years we have been offering Math 287every semester.

  1. How does the faculty review the processes it uses to manage the curriculum and program, including the process of introducing new courses, the process of conducting quadrennial reviews, and the process of creating new programs?

We have a Curriculum and Instruction representative who gives updates at every department meeting as well as e-mails us information regularly. Our course coordinators do quadrennial reviews every 4 years. We also create new programs as needed through department meeting discussions.

  1. How does the faculty coordinate the program with other academic programs and with student services? How does the faculty maintain currency in their knowledge of other programs and services offered at SCC? If applicable, what contact does the program have with outside advisory groups?

In the past, we have linked courses to counseling. We have had discussions with the science program regarding the mathematics necessary for different science courses. As a math faculty, we are on most of the committees on campus. Some of the advisory groups we are in contact with are the CI-D and Board of Governors.

  1. Upon consideration of the information you have presented in this section, what areas or issues will need attention from the program in the next three years?
  • Reinstate our regular semester meetings with the counseling department. We need to more effectively communicate with them as our courses change both in number and in content.
  • Write the curriculum involving MaSH in the way that is most beneficial to the students while still complying with state regulations.

Part VII: Resources

  1. How well do the facilities (classrooms, labs, offices, meeting rooms, storage) used by the program meet its needs? Do facilities and equipment meet appropriate safety criteria?

We need a centralized location for the mathematics department with easy access to the Math Study Hall. Some of our classrooms are overcrowded. We have reduced the number of desks in the A-building rooms that we use. There is limited board space in certain rooms and not all of them are mediated. Some of the white boards need to be replaced. The Math Study Hall is exceeding its capacity during certain peak hours and the ceiling sometimes has leaks above the computers.