lengthening the placement levels to shorten the math sequence path: outcomes of moving from a...

8/13/2019 Lengthening the Placement Levels to Shorten the Math Sequence Path: Outcomes of Moving from a Three-Level to Six-Level Math Placement System. 2013 Strengthening St…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lengthening-the-placement-levels-to-shorten-the-math-sequence-path-outcomes 1/21

Lengthening the Placement Levels toShorten the Math Sequence Path:

Outcomes of Moving from a

Three-Level to Six-Level Math

Placement System

San Joaquin Delta CollegeStudent Success Conference, October 2013



Session Outcomes

As a result of this session, participants will

understand:

• the processes involved with changing the

placement cut score system at one institution

• the implications of those changes at theinstitution



Institution Profile

• Located in the central valley of California

• 2012-13 unduplicated headcount 22,679

•

75% Non-White student population, 56%female

• Over 50% qualified for California Board of

Governor’s Fee-Waiver• Over 80% of students require remediation in

Reading and/or Math



Interactive Session

What assessment system is your college

currently using to place students in English and

Math?

http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choi

ce_polls/5bf03HmIFP1t98R

http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/5bf03HmIFP1t98R






Historical Background

Prior to 1999: ASSET – Paper and Pen – 3 Level

Level 1 = Arithmetic

Level 2 = Pre-Algebra

Level 3 = Algebra




1999-2007

COMPASS – Computerized Adaptive Testing


Level 2 = Pre-Algebra

Level 3 = Algebra




2007 to present: COMPASS2


Level 2 = Pre-AlgebraLevel 3 = Algebra

Level 4 = Intermediate Algebra

Level 5 = Math courses with Intermediate Algebraas pre-req

Level 6 = Calculus



Data Trends: Assessment

Test Type and Math Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

ASSET

1: Four Levels Below 60.7% 60.8% 65.3% 60.3%

2: Three Levels Below 25.5% 26.3% 21.2% 22.1%

3: Two Levels Below 13.9% 12.9% 13.4% 17.6%

COMPASS

1: Four Levels Below 56.4% 57.8% 67.9% 67.8%

2: Three Levels Below 25.4% 27.6% 17.0% 17.9%3: Two Levels Below 18.2% 14.6% 15.2% 14.3%

COMPASS2

1: Four Levels Below 35.1% 34.6% 31.2% 32.3% 29.0% 24.0%

2: Three Levels Below 34.1% 34.0% 35.4% 35.1% 34.4% 33.0%

3: Two Levels Below 19.7% 20.6% 20.8% 20.7% 21.3% 23.5%

4. One Level Below 6.2% 5.8% 7.2% 6.9% 9.2% 10.8%

5. College Level 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 2.7% 3.7% 4.7%

6. Advanced (Calculus) 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 4.0%

Grand Total 6920 7891 7424 8270 9191 9455 12951 7353 9296 9244

Data Source: San Joaquin Delta College System 2000, Assessment Data



Interactive Session

How many Math levels below college does your

institution offer?


ce_polls/VaMRyaayZKvxmcx

http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/VaMRyaayZKvxmcx






Process of Change

• Collaboration

– Math Committee, Math Faculty

– Assessment Center, Assessment Director

– Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness

• Outcomes Data

• Faculty-Driven Process



Data Trends: Course Level Success Rates by

Ethnic Group Before Assessment Change

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Asian 57.8% 60.9% 56.6% 58.5%

Black/African American 37.7% 37.8% 37.2% 39.5%

Filipino 53.9% 54.7% 58.3% 58.1%

Hispanic 48.1% 48.6% 47.6% 49.3%

Pacific Islander 41.8% 58.5% 47.7% 45.5%

Other 49.1% 48.1% 55.7% 54.3%

White 56.2% 54.6% 56.4% 57.7%

Overall 52.3% 52.1% 52.7% 53.6%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

Data Source: San Joaquin Delta College System 2000, December 2010



Interactive Session

What would you do given these low rates?


ce_polls/BAM1JO0GsESnCn8

http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/BAM1JO0GsESnCn8






Matrix of Success: Data Sample to

Math Faculty

Score

Range Level MATH

74* MATH

72/76 MATH

78/88 MATH

80 MATH

82 MATH

12 MATH

38A/B MATH

1 0 – 30 1 PA 58.1%

(308) 39.3%

(1,066) 61.1%

(36) 33.7%

(163) 29.7%

(64) 58.3%

(24) 31 - 45 2 PA 63.6%

(33) 51.6%

(192) 58.1%

(496) 41.7%

(1,411) 39.1%

(417) 54.8%

(168) 36.8%

(68) 46 - 100 3 PA 50.0%

(34) 53.7%

(67) 43.4%

(396) 37.9%

(116) 51.7%

(60) 42.1%

(19) 0 - 45 3 AL 78.9%

(38) 53.5%

(482) 46.0%

(276) 65.6%

(160) 45.7%

(81) 46 - 65 4 AL 67.4%

(92) 63.7%

(179) 73.1%

(197) 57.7%

(97) 53.3%

(60) 66 – 100 5 AL 0 – 100 5 CA 70.0%

(30) 77.5%

(40) 77.8%

(27) 0 – 45 5 TR 71.8%

(39) 72.7%

(22) 52.2%

(23) 46 - 100 6 TR 90.6%

(53) 85.3%

(34) 72.1%

(122) Data Source: San Joaquin Delta College System 2000, December 2010, Cohort of first-time students between 2007-08 to 2009-10



Data Trends: Math Success Rates

52.3% 52.1% 52.7% 53.6%51.9%

53.4% 54.2%52.4% 52.7%

59.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Data Source: San Joaquin Delta College System 2000, all Math courses.

Note. Success rates significantly higher post change, X 2 (1) = 19.61, p < .001, Cramer’s V = 0.12

Assessment Test changed from 3 level placement to 66 Level Placement Implemented



Data Trends: Math Success Rates by

Ethnic Group

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Asian 57.8% 60.9% 56.6% 58.5% 56.5% 61.2% 61.9% 60.3% 61.0% 66.6%

Black/African American 37.7% 37.8% 37.2% 39.5% 35.4% 40.3% 40.0% 37.4% 37.0% 43.7%

Filipino 53.9% 54.7% 58.3% 58.1% 55.3% 55.1% 58.3% 58.9% 57.2% 68.8%

Hispanic 48.1% 48.6% 47.6% 49.3% 49.7% 50.8% 51.2% 51.0% 51.0% 58.6%

Pacific Islander 41.8% 58.5% 47.7% 45.5% 49.2% 44.2% 54.3% 44.3% 59.0% 54.3%

Other 49.1% 48.1% 55.7% 54.3% 51.9% 51.9% 52.6% 49.9% 49.6% 55.9%

White 56.2% 54.6% 56.4% 57.7% 55.8% 56.3% 57.9% 54.8% 56.6% 63.2%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

S u c c e s s R a t e

Data Source: San Joaquin Delta College System 2000, all Math courses



Matrix of Success

P l a c e m e n t L e v e l P r i o r t

o

E n r o l l i n g i n C o u r s e

Course Level

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 37.9% 57.1% 35.5%

2 44.3% 64.2% 50.0% 31.9%

3 51.7% 64.2% 57.0% 51.0% 51.7%

4 66.7% 72.3% 75.2%

5 100.0% 79.6% 68.9% 61.1%

6 86.6% 66.4%

Cohort of first-time students enrolled in 2011-12 and 2012-13.



Reflections

• Success rates in courses improving over time

• Course progression rates also improving

– 3 levels below to transfer

• 16.7% for Fall 2003 Cohort vs. 18.8% for Fall 2008

Cohort*

• More refined placement = better placement

*Chancellor’s Office Data Mart – Basic Skills Cohort Tracker



End of Session

• the processes involved with changing the

placement cut score system at one institution

• the implications of those changes at the

institution



Contact Information

Alyssa Nguyen

[email protected]

Sabrina Sencil

[email protected]

Dr. Matthew Wetstein

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]






lengthening the placement levels to shorten the math sequence path: outcomes of moving from a...

Documents