Technology and Transfer Credit for Math Courses … the Value in Mathematics

At a certain university in my state, there is a policy which states that they will not grant transfer credit from an institution if that institution offers the course in an online format; this is applied even if they know that only 1 section is offered online and 100 are face-to-face.  The policy is applied regardless of the course’s policy on proctored tests for online courses.

At a certain university in a different state, there is a policy which states that they will not grant transfer credit from an institution if that institution allows the use of any calculator in the course; the policy is applied even if students can only use the calculator for trivial purposes (computation).  The policy is applied regardless of the course’s assessments of outcomes and regardless of the overall quality of the course.

These issues are coming up in conversations here at the AMATYC conference in Nashville.  Both policies are implemented out of negative motivation on the part of the universities … whether a lack of trust for their colleagues or a lack of understanding concerning the uses of technology to support the learning of mathematics.  Certainly, universities need to stop their use of arbitrary policies concerning technology, which amounts to a conceited attempt to impose a narrow view of what a ‘good’ math course must be like.

In other conversations, some of my colleagues suggest that we need to present arithmetic and basic skills without the use of a calculator.  One person presented a good point in this regard:  Some students confuse the input/output from a machine for the mathematics.  I agree that students need to have a personal understanding of mathematics.  However, we too often present arithmetic as the initial barrier in front of students, a barrier with little redeeming value and almost no long term benefits to students.

At the same time, I routinely see us in a general consensus of what good mathematics is … and what value it has for students.  Concepts, properties, choices … reasoning, communication, problem solving.  We generally support a ‘common core’ of properties that describe good mathematics.  How, then, can we let minor details about technology determine the transfer of credits and the nature of a student’s first “mathematics” course in college?  Are we so easily fooled by a surface feature (technology) that we do not see the value of the work going on?

This is not to say that all uses of online learning and calculators is good or valuable.  Not at all.  If we use that criteria — sometimes not used wisely — we would not grant transfer credit for any course taught in a face-to-face format because research shows that a significant portion of such classes provide no significant learning of mathematics.  No technology, no pedagogy is beneficial without regard to the quality and wisdom of usage.  Every tool can be used poorly.

It’s time for all of us to make decisions based on an evaluation of all components of a course — the outcomes, faculty, instruction, assessment, and integrity.  There is no room for prejudice in dealing with people … or with courses.  If a person feels that they are unable to evaluate the quality of a course due to the presence of a particular technology, then their professional responsibility to allow others to make the determination.  I would prefer, however, that a person with such a prejudice to seek a better understanding so that their prejudice does not exist anymore.

This is not a problem about ‘us’ and ‘them’; this is a problem about ‘we’.  A professional community, committed to providing good mathematics in service to our students and their success. This is not easy work; rich communication is required, and levels of trust. The path forward is always walked by all.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

AMATYC Presentation: Missing Link — Replace Intermediate Algebra

Here are the files and documents for the November 14 presentation called “The Missing Link: Algebraic Literacy to Replace Intermediate Algebra”.

main presentation: The Missing Link presentation AMATYC2014

References and Curricular Model: References_NewLifeSession_AMATYC2014

Algebraic Literacy Goals and Outcomes: Algebraic Literacy Goals and Outcomes Oct2013 cross referenced 2 by 2

Sample Lesson on rates of change: Algebraic Literacy Sample Lesson Rate of Change Exponential 2 by 2

Here is that sample lesson as full-page: Algebraic Literacy Sample Lesson Rate of Change Exponential

Extra handout: MLCS Goals and Outcomes Oct2013 cross referenced 2 by 2

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Status of New Life Math Courses; AMATYC 2014 sessions

Here is a summary of “where” New Life courses are being taught currently:

Arizona California Colorado Florida Iowa Illinois
Kentucky Massachusetts Michigan North Carolina New York Texas
Wisconsin
Alaska Minnesota Ohio Oregon Utah

These 18 states involve over 50 colleges. Over 500 sections with enrollment over 10000 students are represented by those colleges.

Mathematical Literacy is the most common course being implemented; Algebraic Literacy is being taught at the same level that Math Lit was two years ago. I expect the Algebraic Literacy course implementations to follow the same trend as Math Lit; Algebraic Lit is about two years behind.

At the AMATYC 2014 conference next month (https://amatyc.site-ym.com/?page=2014ConfHome) I will be doing two sessions on the New Life courses.
On Friday (November 14, 8am) the session is The Missing Link: Algebraic Literacy to Replace Intermediate Algebra  .  I will describe the purposes for the Algebraic Literacy Course and provide details on the learning outcomes.  Included in the handouts will be a sample lesson representing what might be done in an Algebraic Literacy course.

On Saturday (November 15, 2:15pm) the session is Accelerate and Improve Developmental Mathematics: The New Life Model  .   I will provide an overview of the New Life Model and how it fits in to a curriculum to provide acceleration along with improved content.  Each course (Math Lit, Algebraic Lit) will be reviewed, and handouts will include the learning outcomes for each course.

I hope to see you there!

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Comparing Dana Center Mathways and AMATYC New Life

I have been at the MichMATYC conference where we spent quite a bit of time talking about how similar the three models are — AMATYC New Life, Dana Center New Mathways, and Carnegie Pathways.  Tomorrow, I go to the CBMS Forum on math in the first two years … where I will be doing a presentation involving all three models.

As part of that work, we have an updated chart showing how similar the 3 models are (and highlighting the differences).  Take a look:

Summary of Three Emerging Models for Developmental Mathematics Updated 2014

Another thing I am currently doing is updating the summary of New Life course implementations (Mathematical Literacy or Algebraic Literacy courses).  I’ve got some more to include; a preliminary estimate is that there are currently about 500 sections of these courses offered.  Some are ‘pilots’, but most are regular sections as part of the curriculum.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: