Our Students, Respect and Appreciation

So, I received a phone call today that really upset me.  Like most teachers at any level, “my student” is not just a reference … it describes the connection we feel to the people in our classes.  This phone call made me think, and changed how I think about my students.

This student (call her “Tami”) is in my beginning algebra course.  She’s not doing especially well, and has missed a class or two.  When she was not in class today, I did not think that much about it.

Tami left a message on my phone while I was in class.  I did not catch all of what she said, so I called her back and this is what she said:

I’m sorry that I was not in class today.  I wanted to make sure that you would not drop me.  I was in the emergency room this weekend because I got stabbed in the neck.

I thought about that a little bit … here is a person who had a real threat to her safety and continued survival, and she’s calling me about her math class.  How do my flimsy excuses for not taking care of responsibilities stack up against that?

Some people might be thinking “Jack, you’re so naive … did you think that the student might be either lying or ‘enhancing’ the truth?”  Actually, I did think of those possibilities; I’ll know more when I see Tami in class.  In the meantime, I chose to trust my students by default; that is not always warranted, but it sure helps in the efforts to build a positive classroom environment.

Sometimes, we are very quick to presume that students do not come to class because they don’t care.  Certainly, that is the case for some students … though I have more students who attend class in spite of the fact that they don’t care.

I realize that this is not a unique experience; you might have had a similar experience where a student had a ‘survival’ level experience and still showed some commitment to their math class.  However, the experience reminded me that many of our students deserve our respect and appreciation for dealing with the huge challenges in their lives … and still try to work on their math class.  For some, math class becomes their one safe space in a world of threats and chaos.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

The Four-Year-Myth as Misnomer

Like many institutions, my college is embarking on a ‘guided pathways’ mission; I am fine with that, and will be working on one team involved.  One basis, a rationale of sorts, is a report called “the Four Year Myth” from Complete College America (see the ‘field guide’ post earlier today).  The ‘myth’ report is available at http://completecollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/4-Year-Myth.pdf

The basic idea of guided pathways is to eliminate two apparent causes of excess credits (and time) — remediation and options in courses.  Remediation is blamed for much of the excess credits and time, so we are supposed to mainstream and contextualize; we can (and should) do some work this way, though I am sure that we need to have developmental-level math courses.

Eliminating options is supposed to reduce extra credits taken for a bachelor degree.  The idea is that students start the process with a major, and only take courses on that program (path).  If the major is not known, the student is assigned to a ‘meta-major’ where they take courses very likely to apply to their final goal.

I see two parts of this mythology that lack validity.  First, student goals … the presumption is that students know enough about their goals that they will almost always end up in the correct program or meta-major.  This presumption contradicts some very strong occupational data from the past 20 years: today’s occupation or goal is tomorrow’s memory, when we have a new goal or occupation.  I see no evidence in our students that they will end up in the correct meta-major or program at a high rate, when starting college.

Second, the ‘four year’ modifier is an external thing.  Few people in education call that a ‘four year degree’; we say “bachelor degree”.  It’s true that the requirements for a bachelor degree can be completed in 4-years of full-time study if the goal is stable and there are no problems (initially or along the way).  Even in ancient times (way back in 1970) these conditions were not universal.  Today’s students arrive at the college door with a high probability of problems, many of which are not related to ‘remediation’.  There is a higher risk of instability in goals as well as bumps in academic performance along the way.

This last analysis leads me to say that the “four year myth” is a misnomer.  A myth needs to be held as true, and this one is not held as true in general.  You might notice that claims like this tend to come from certain types of ‘reform agents’ (see that field guide again).

College completion is a fantastic goal, and we in mathematics have a special responsibility in this work.  Our students deserve better.  However … basing a program on a shaky mythology supported by data cherry-picked to support that position is not the best we can do.  We need to do the hard work of identifying all of the major causes for not-on-time completion, categorize and prioritize the ones that can be improved, and develop plans that deal directly with the causes.  [Guided pathways is likely to be an improvement, though minor.]

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Jump Start in Math

We just had our Michigan developmental education conference (“MDEC” see http://www.mdec.net/conference/2015/program.html for details).  One of our colleagues at Schoolcraft College did a presentation on their “Jump Start” program for math.

The Jump Start program has two components (each 2 hours long).  The first component is on math study skills; since the person conducting the workshop is a professional in the learning assistance center, she has a good background to provide clear direction to students on being successful in math.  Within this study skills component, she also deals directly with motivational issues — her goal is to provide HOPE for all students.

The second component is the content, where students choose the one that matches their course for the upcoming semester.  Since Jump Start is offered within a few days of the start of the semester, this part of the workshop reviews content needed to be successful in that course.  The college offers a Jump Start option for the first 4 or 5 courses.

You can get some information about their Jump Start program at http://www.schoolcraft.edu/a-z-index/learning-support-services/learning-assistance-center/student-success-seminars-and-workshops/jump-start#.VRKngeFuNyE  with the current schedule at http://www.schoolcraft.edu/docs/default-source/lss—jumpstart/jumpstart-winter.pdf?sfvrsn=0 .

Overall, the Schoolcraft math curriculum is quite traditional; they still offer a basic math class, and do not yet have a mathematical literacy course.  However, I like their Jump Start program; in particular, the 50% (2 hours) invested on study skills (and motivation) is very appropriate for most students.  The professional doing the workshops has a math degree; in fact, she was originally a developmental math student who had to work very hard … and became a math major because “math chose me” (as she says).

The 50% (2 hours) on content would not be sufficient to correct for basic gaps in understanding, and the content done focuses quite a bit on procedures.  However, even this part likely is a good thing for students — the workshop covers a half dozen topics with multiple examples in each, which might help students develop accurate expectations for college math classes, as our pace can be quite an adjustment from high school.

The Jump Start model might be a good alternative for many colleges who can not commit resources to week-long boot camps or similar programs.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Inequity in the Math Classroom

I had an experience last week which I just need to share; I’ll try to explain why.

One of my classes this semester is a “Math Lab” class in which we have no large group lectures; in fact, the class has students in 3 different courses.  Students can work faster, and take tests when they are ready.  The basic methodology involves students working problems in the online home systems.

The classroom used for this Math Lab class is clearly going to be different; we provide 10 computers (desk tops) in individual work stations around the wall.  Students can also bring in their laptops and notebooks to use, at tables.

On this particular day, 16 students were in this class.  Six of the students were minorities (african american in this case), and the other 10 were majority (white).  That is not unusual.

What was unusual is the classroom geography.  Every one of the minority students was at one of the computer work stations; every one of the majority students was at a table using a laptop or notebook.

This separation speaks to inequities — the minority students lacked the resources of their own, so were using the provided computers.  For the work being done, the computers were adequate … but the difference bothers me quite a bit.

Students with a portable device can move with their computer; they can socialize in different ways, and they can bring their computer to me with a question.  Students using our computers do not have those choices.

You might be thinking … “so, provide laptops instead of the desk top computers”.  Sure, we could do that (we’ve been trying).  However, it still bothers me: when a category of student tends to lack a resource, students in that category face additional challenges to completion.

I understand that the causes for this inequity are complex (employment, wages, and financial aid … as starters).  I understand that the situation is “not my job” as a math teacher.  Those facts do not change the moral dilemma: a category of students face additional barriers.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: