We had a problem at our college several years ago when we were offereing
basic math and pre-algebra as a self-paced course with the possibility of
multiple tests until a minimum competency was met. Students were passing
(testing out) with a C or better, but many of them could not pass the first
algebra course. When we did the analysis, we concluded that something was
wrong with our curriculum, our instructional methods and our sequence.
We were very confortable with our old courses but seeing the outcomes force
us to change.
I can understand Mike's worry that the first course will be judged only by
the outcome of the second course and that there are many variables to the
outcome. This was why our analysis was not of each individual section
outcome but an overall view done over a number of quarters. This helped
even out the differences in teaching and grading practice by individual
instructors and pointed to a general weakness in the entire sequence. Our
job is not only to get a student through a particular course but allow the
student to advance the level where they need to be functioning.
I hope this helps some,
Mike Schachter
At 03:56 PM 12/5/97 -0800, Mike Matteo wrote:
>Instructors on our campus have been asked by our administration and
>accreditation committee to develop quantifiable methods for assessing
>learner outcomes. One particular method which was proposed(by
>staff) has raised concerns among some folks including myself. I would
>like to get some feedback on what you think as well as what you are
>doing to assess learner outcomes.
>
>The proposal in question was to assess the degree of student learning in
>one class by the student success rate in a subsequent class. For
>example, the number of students who earned a C or better in Intro. to
>Alg.(Math 60) as a percentage of the students who had previously taken
>Prealgebra(Math 45) and moved on to Math 60 would be used as a
>means of gauging student learning success in Math 45. While I see this
>information as having some value, I am concerned that it does not
>accurately measure student learning in the original course, Math 45. The
>results are now dependent, to some extent, on the Math 60 instructor's
>ability to teach, and the student's ability to learn the new material
>encountered in Math 60 and do not necessarily reflect the student's
>learning success in the previous course, Math 45.
>
>Currently, I am using a pretest/post-test for assessment. Thanks in
>advance for your responses.
>
>Mike Matteo
>Umqua Community College
>Roseburg, OR
>matteom@umpqua.cc.or.us
>****************************************************************************
>* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
>* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
>* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
>****************************************************************************
>
Michael Schachter
Coastal Carolina C C
444 Western Blvd
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Work: (910) 938-6168
michaels@ncccs.cc.nc.us
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************