College Algebra Across Texas—Survey Results

1. College Algebra Across Texas—Survey Results G. Donald Allen – Texas A&M University Linda Reichwein Zientek – Blinn College Mel Griffin – Texas A&M University Gloria White – Charles A. Dana Center Paula A. Wilhite – Northeast Texas Community College

2. Sample • 33 Community Colleges • 13 Universities • 72% Retention Rate • 69 % Completer Rate

3. College Algebra (M1314) • Why Math 1314? • Who Enrolls in Math 1314? • Topics Covered?

16. Topics Indicated by Department Chairs as Important for Incoming College Algebra Students ___________________________________________________________________________________ Percent by University Percent by Community College _________________________________ _________________________________ Most Somewhat Marginal or Most Somewhat Marginal or Topics Important Important No Importance Important Important No Importance __________________________________________________________________________________ Algebraic Manipulation 100 0 0 100 0 0 Problem Solving 67 25 8 84 16 0 Fractions 83 17 0 82 16 0 Logarithmic/ Exponential 18 55 27 16 68 16 Trigonometry 0 36 64 3 13 84 Regression Modeling 9 9 82 3 20 77 Graphing Calculator 18 55 27 6 47 47 Group Work 9 27 64 0 48 52 _____________________________________________________________________________

21. Correlations Between Prerequisite Scores and Departmental Grade Distributions __________________________________________________ Tests SAT THEA Compass Accuplacer _______________________________________ ACT .373 .506* .459.821** SAT .470* .680** .206 THEA .846**.520* Compass .453 ________________________________________ Note. * indicates statistically significant at the .05 level. Effect sizes greater than .4 are italicized and considered noteworthy.

23. Conclusion • College Algebra students were typically not entering STEM fields. • University and community colleges were consistent in their beliefs about what topics students should know and algebraic manipulation and fractions topped their list. • University and community college teachers predominant instructional method was traditional lecture but graphing calculators were being incorporated in the lectures with variations existing between schools. • Professors in higher education typically assessed students in traditional methods of exams and quizzes. • Courses alone were not used to predict students’ college readiness.

24. Conclusion • Community college and university mathematics departments paralleled each other on • instructional modality • use of technology • assessment methods • Neither community colleges nor universities has moved far from the traditional classroom. • The transition from community college to university is rather seamless in regards to teaching environment but that high school students emerging from non-traditional classrooms will need to adjust to the traditional class settings typical at most institutions of higher education.

25. Contact Information • Linda Zientek, lrzientek@yahoo.com • Mel Griffin, melgriffin@tamu.edu • Don Allen, dallen@math.tamu.edu • Paula Wilhite, pwilhite@ntcc.edu