calculate this! florence-darlington technical college’s quality enhancement plan susan haley debi...
TRANSCRIPT
Calculate This!
Florence-Darlington Technical College’s Quality Enhancement Plan
Susan HaleyDebi McCandrew
Florence, South CarolinaApril 29, 2011
Our remedial math transformation began with the SACS…• Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)–
Title of Plan is Calculate This! modeled after the University of Alabama’s Math Technology Learning Center.• QEP is a compliance standard that has been
established by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).• The QEP is an ongoing plan of continuous
improvement done on a 5-year reporting cycle.
Transforming Remedial Math
FDTC Math Dept. July 2010
Tutors
Instructor
OBJECTIVES:
• SACS QEP Overview
• FDTC QEP Process
• FDTC QEP Data and Results
SACS QEP Overview
• Commission on Colleges expectations– Core Requirement 2.12– Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2– Nine Steps to developing a QEP
• to dedicate itself to enhancing the quality of its programs and services within the context of its mission, resources, and capabilities
• to create an environment in which teaching, public service, research, and learning occurs
The Commission on Colleges expects an institution:
SACS QEP Overview
Core Requirement 2.12 states that the QEP• demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing
planning and evaluation process.• presents an opportunity and an incentive for an
institution to enhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness by focusing on an issue important to improving student learning
• clearly and directly links to improving the quality of student learning
• integrates into ongoing planning and evaluation
SACS QEP Overview
• demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP;
• includes broad based involvement of ‐institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP;
• identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.
SACS QEP OverviewComprehensive Standard 3.3.2 states that the QEP
1. Selecting the Topic2. Defining the Student Learning Outcomes3. Researching the Topic4. Identifying the Actions to be Implemented5. Establishing the Timeline for Implementation6. Organizing for Success7. Identifying Necessary Resources8. Assessing the Success of the QEP9. Preparing the QEP for Submission
Nine Steps to Developing a QEP
SACS QEP Overview
FDTC QEP Process
• Phase I (April 2004 – May 2005)– Research– Budget planning – Calculate This proposal/approval – QEP subcommittees formed– First two Math Hub courses designed and offered
FDTC QEP Process
• Phase II (June 2005 – May 2006)– Publicity about the Math Hub and QEP• Area Commission • FDTC community• S.C. Developmental Educators Conference• Local news media
– QEP documents sent to SACS – SACS on-site review (October 2005)– Data Collection begins
FDTC QEP Process
• Phase III (June 2006 – June 2011)– Extensive data analysis of student learning – Areas addressed in Hub management and
methodology that need improvement– Continuous inclusion of the Math Hub in Math
Department’s Institutional Effectiveness – Exploration of grants and other funding measures– SACS 5th Year Interim Report (June 2011)
FDTC QEP Data and Results
We are collecting and analyzing data for the four QEP goals.
Primary Goal of QEP
… to increase student knowledge of course competencies by at least 5% in our remedial/prerequisite courses.
How We Measure Our Primary Goal• Within the first two days of each semester, students are
given a course pre-assessment: a subset of the departmental final exam
• The post-assessment serves as a subset of the departmental final exam
• Both sets of data are stored electronically and used to compare changes in student learning outcomes
• Finally, the data are divided into two groups for comparison: Hub environment and traditional environment
.
Primary Goal Results
The average increase from pre to post for 2650 Hub students is 34.7 points
The average increase from pre to post for 2728 traditional student is 29.1 points
Percent difference between the two environments is
34.7 29.1100% 19.2%
29.1
This well exceeds our goal of 5%
Secondary Goal One
… to increase the course success rate in remedial/prerequisite math classes by at least 5%.
Secondary Goal One Results
The success rate for 5574 Hub students is 56.7%
The success rate for 9996 traditional student is 41.9%
Percent difference between the two environments is
56.7 41.9100% 35.3%
41.9
This well exceeds our goal of 5%
Secondary Goal Two
… to increase the course success rate of students in curriculum math courses who took the prerequisite math course by at least 5%.
Secondary Goal Two Results
The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 867 students who took the prerequisite math course in the Hub environment is 63.1%
The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 3077 students who took the prerequisite math course in a traditional environment is 59.7%
Percent difference between the two environments is
63.1 59.7100% 5.7%
59.7
This exceeds our goal of 5%
Secondary Goal Three
…to increase the average on the final exam of each remedial/prerequisite math course by at least 5%.
Secondary Goal Three Results
The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 3203 Hub students is 77.1
The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 7800 traditional students is 69.2
Percent difference between the two environments is
77.1 69.2100% 11.4%
69.2
This well exceeds our goal of 5%
????????????
We believe this approach:• Supports active learning• Provides one-on-one help• Increases communication• Encourages additional time on task• Allows course acceleration • Develops self-confidence and motivation
Title III Grant
FDTC received a $1.87 million Title III grant in Fall, 2009, to expand the Hub. As a result, most of the remedial/prerequisite math students now use and learn math via the Mathematics and Technology Hub.
