Building Math Pathways to Programs of Study

1. Building Math Pathways to Programs of Study Indiana Commission for Higher Education September 1, 2015 Jenna Cullinane, Ph.D.

2. About the Dana Center The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin works with our nation’s education systems to ensure that every student leaves school prepared for success in postsecondary education and the contemporary workplace. Our work, based on research and two decades of experience, focuses on K–16 mathematics and science education with an emphasis on strategies for improving student engagement, motivation, persistence, and achievement. We develop innovative curricula, tools, protocols, and instructional supports and deliver powerful instructional and leadership development.

3. A Closer Look: What’s the real problem? Developmental math… College-level mathematics courses… Student supports… Programs of study… Transfer or policy… It’s NOT

4. A Closer Look: What’s the real problem? DISCONNECT between all these things It IS the

5. The Dana Center’s Vision Four Principles of Reform at All Levels of the System 1 Multiple pathways aligned to specific fields of study NATIONAL Acceleration that allows most students to complete a college-level math course in one year or less STATE 2 INSTITUTIONAL 3 Intentional use of strategies to help students develop skills as learners FACULTY & CLASSROOM 4 Curriculum design and pedagogy based on proven practice utdanacenter.org

6. The Dana Center’s Vision GOAL: Legitimize math pathways through professional associations and mathematics leadership NATIONAL • Common Vision 2025: Collaboration of five math professional associations to modernize undergraduate pathways • Transforming Post-secondary Education in Mathematics through thought leaders promoting constructive change in college mathematics KEY ACTIVITIES:

7. The Dana Center’s Vision GOAL: Legitimize math pathways through professional associations and mathematics leadership NATIONAL GOAL: Coordinate policy, institutional and organizational efforts across state to promote NMP model STATE • Texas: Support policy change, engage 21 universities and 47 community college systems • Other States: Mobilize faculty to set vision for math pathways in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oklahoma KEY ACTIVITIES:

8. The Dana Center’s Vision GOAL: Legitimize math pathways through professional associations and mathematics leadership NATIONAL GOAL: Coordinate policy, institutional and organizational efforts across state to promote NMP model STATE GOAL: Build tools and services that help colleges to implement systematic reform INSTITUTIONAL • Texas: Offer institutional mentorship • Everywhere: • Provide detailed implementation guide and scaling toolkit • Develop tools and strategies to help train advisors and plan for student recruitment KEY ACTIVITIES: These resources are available now.

9. The Dana Center’s Vision GOAL: Legitimize math pathways through professional associations and mathematics leadership NATIONAL GOAL: Coordinate policy, institutional and organizational efforts across state to promote NMP model STATE GOAL: Build tools and services that help colleges to implement systematic reform INSTITUTIONAL GOAL: Develop professional learning and curricular resources informed by faculty FACULTY & CLASSROOM • Course Materials: Mathematics & Learning Frameworks • Faculty Training for Dana Center courses and for general active learning pedagogy KEY ACTIVITIES:

10. Math Task Forces

11. Building Mathematics Pathways to Programs of Study project • Project Overview • Goal: dramatically increase the percentage of students who pass gateway math courses and enter programs of study in one academic year by building math pathways.

12. Building Mathematics Pathways to Programs of Study project • Project Overview • Goal: dramatically increase the percentage of students who pass gateway math courses and enter programs of study in one academic year by building math pathways. • Modernization of undergraduate mathematics is a key lever for improving college completion. • Faculty must be at the forefront of this reform effort, working in coordination at the system level. • Making changes to well-established programs cannot be carried out locally only--a statewide effort is needed.

13. Building Mathematics Pathways to Programs of Study project • Charge • Convene math faculty leaders to develop recommendations about improvement of postsecondary mathematics • Design alternative gateway math pathways • Work with client disciplines

14. Primary Activities • Math courses and supports • Policy obstacles • Alignment & Advising • Improvement

15. National Context

16. Why is it the “Right Time” for Math Pathways?

17. Why is it the “Right Time” for Math Pathways? • A Common Vision for the Undergraduate Mathematics Program in 2025 • Curriculum guides & calls to action from: • AMATYC • AMS • ASA • MAA • SIAM

18. Why is it the “Right Time” for Math Pathways? • Common themes - Curriculum • Enhance students’ perceptions of the beauty & power of mathematics, focusing on reasoning, communicating, and interpreting • More pathways • Connections to other disciplines • Common themes - Course structure • Pedagogy • Technology

19. Why is it the “Right Time” for Math Pathways? “Mathematics courses are the most significant barrier to degree completion in both STEM and non-STEM fields. For example, each year only 50 percent of students attain a grade of A, B, or C in college algebra, and fewer than 10 precent of the students who pass this class enroll in a calculus course (MAA, 2012, p. 49). “

20. Recommendations from the Math Community “Unfortunately, there is often a serious mismatch between the original rationale for a college algebra requirement and the actual needs of students who take the course. A critically important task for mathematics sciences departments at institutions with college algebra requirements is to clarify the rational for requirements, determine the needs of students, and ensure that department’s courses are aligned with these findings.” --Mathematics Association of America, Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics, 2004

21. Why is it the “Right Time” for Math Pathways?

22. What is the “right math”? • College algebra and traditional developmental math sequences were designed in the 1950’s to prepare students for calculus. • But the majority of students are in majors that do not require calculus.

23. What is the “right math”? Burdman, P. (2015). Degrees of freedom: Diversifying math requirements for college readiness and graduation. Oakland CA: Learning Works and Policy Analysis for California Education.

24. What is the “right math”? Author’s calculations based on data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2013: Degrees Earned by CIP code

25. Recommendations from the Math Community Ohio Georgia Missouri Colorado Houston Nevada Indiana

26. Recommendations from the Math Community “The Steering Committee recommends developing high-quality entry-level courses and pathways connected to coherent programs of study for students majoring in (1) mathematics, (2) other mathematics-intensive majors, and (3) majors that are not mathematics intensive.” --Ohio Mathematics Steering Committee

27. Recommendations from the Math Community “If Indiana is to make the transition to a new default gateway math course for most majors, it must identify the specific mathematical content that should be taught in that course and ensure that the related competencies are consistent with the quantitative reasoning requirements for the Transfer Core.” --Indiana Math Innovation Council

28. Recommendations from the Math Community "The final advising recommendation is to work with partner disciplines, and include as part of the regular program review process, to identify the top math competencies the program faculty wants students to get for the particular major, which will lead to choosing the best gateway math course (rather than defaulting to College Algebra, for instance)" (p. 9). --Colorado Math Pathways Task Force

29. Transfer & Applicability

30. Transfer Pathways AY 2004 & 2005 Starting Cohorts, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Much of the transfer literature has focused only on 2yr  4yr transfer 46% of B.A. completers previously enrolled in community college 47% of transfers from a 4-yr move to other 4-yr institutions

31. Credit Loss Linked to Transfer Penalties Source: Monaghan & Attewell, 2014; Simone, 2014; Cullinane, 2014 3 new studies provide evidence that transfer penalties are associated credit loss. • Nationally, among 2yr  4yr transfer students • 42% of students loose more than 10% of their credits, including 14% of students who loose more than 90% of their credits • Average credit loss: 8-9 credits

32. Credit Loss Linked to Transfer Penalties Students who retain almost all credits in transfer have 2.5 greater odds of graduating than students who retain less than half of their credits. Source: Monaghan & Attewell, 2014; Cullinane, 2014 Credit loss stifles and slows degree completionfor both 2yr and 4yr transfers.

33. Transfer and Applicability What we have found: • There is increasing momentum behind math pathways. • In many cases, transfer is not the problem; applicability to programs of study is the problem. • The issues vary widely from state to state.

34. Transfer and Applicability Recommended Strategies: • Separate myth from reality • Verify information about math requirements • Look at data on student transfer from both the 2-year and the 4-year perspective • Prioritize • Where are most students going? • And in what programs?

35. Transfer and Applicability Recommended Strategies: • Facilitate program & metamajor discussions between 2-year and 4-year institutions and get the right people in the room

36. Lessons Learned What we’ve discovered along the way

37. Lessons Learned: Role of Leadership • “Faculty-driven, administrator-supported” • Establish structures for cross-institutional work

38. Lessons Learned: Context Matters • Take the time to build a shared understanding of the current context • Build on strengths and success

39. Lessons Learned: Pathways, Not Courses

40. Lessons Learned: Multiple Dimensions Faculty & Staff Supports Delivery Content Placement Articulation PATHWAYS Student Supports Sequence Structure

41. Lessons Learned: Design for Scale • Set goals for scaling early • Balance bold vision with practicality • Engage broadly from beginning Excerpt from NMP Institutional Scaling Toolkit

42. Lessons Learned: Work Systemically • Include all stakeholders early • Communicate, communicate, communicate • Engage, don’t just tell Excerpt from NMP Implementation Guide

43. Dana Center Contacts • Jenna Cullinane: jenna.cullinane@austin.utexas.edu

44. Contact Information General information about the Dana Center: www.utdanacenter.org Higher Education work: www.utdanacenter.org/higher-education/ To receive monthly updates about the NMP, contact us at: mathways@austin.utexas.edu