Accelerated Math Classes … A Temporary and Good Thing

One of the current trends in community colleges is to offer ‘accelerated math classes’, specifically an approach where students take two classes in one semester. Sometimes the two classes are sequential (each about half a semester), other times they are integrated. My own college is doing this for two ‘combos’ — pre-algebra paired with beginning algebra, and beginning algebra paired with intermediate algebra. Is this a good solution? For what portion of developmental math students?

To review … accelerated classes are intended to address the ‘exponential attrition’ that seems to occur almost universally over a sequence of math classes. If a student has 3 math classes, there are two transition points — these transition points tend to have their own ‘pass rate’; the sequence survival rate is proportional to the 5th power of a pass rate, not the 3rd power. The thought is that the transition rates are much higher if two classes are within one semester, or if a student perceives two classes as being one. Data from sites doing this approach seems to support the hypotheses — a higher proportion of students complete both courses in one semester than complete them in two semesters. Some people see modularization as a variation of accelerated learning; there are similarities … however, ‘accelerated’ refers to the same content at a faster rate, while modules tend to work with subsets and less content overall for a given student.

As a practice, I think accelerated learning is a good thing for some students. Having more students pass a second course is a positive outcome; a typical gain would be going from 30% passing two courses in two semesters … to having 50% pass in one semester. Our own ‘combo’ classes do not have a long enough history to determine what will be a sustainable level. However, given the good results, some people suggest that either most or all students be placed into accelerated classes. I am not supportive of that level of expansion.

One reason I am not supportive is that the traditional developmental courses have a limited life expectancy: within 5 to 10 years, it is very likely that the majority of developmental mathematics will be based on the emerging models (AMATYC New Life, Carnegie Pathways, Dana Center Mathways). These emerging models provide either targeted solutions for a sequence OR a total replacement, which will shorten the sequence for some or all students. The accelerated learning models will be far less necessary when we improve the basic design of our programs — including gateway college math courses.

Other reasons exist, as well, for questioning the generalization of the accelerated models. A large portion of community college students have a limit to the class workload; in many cases, an accelerated model requires students to take 8 credits of mathematics in one semester … some students have a lower limit, and some must take a non-math class. For those students, and all students, we should work to get them placed as far into the mathematics sequence as is reasonable. Other students have a cognitive limit, including those with disabilities but also including a large number of ‘normal’ students; these are the students who need extra support and often spend extra time for a class. We need applied research to help us identify the characteristics of students who can succeed in accelerated learning. I suspect that there are other types of students who are not well suited to the methodologies of accelerated learning, beyond the ones listed above.

We also have a philosophical issue here: Accelerated learning creates a message that “here is a necessary evil, let’s get it over with as quickly as possible”. Given the traditional math curriculum, this is an accurate message. However, we can do better. Professionally, we are called to create mathematics programs that include sound mathematics and meet the needs of our students. Like some other methodologies (emporium, modules, etc), accelerated learning reinforces the out-of-date design and inappropriate content.

We should first fix our curriculum, with a goal of directly solving the attrition problem by creating shorter sequences in the first place. One developmental math course can meet the needs of many students; two developmental math courses can meet the needs of the vast majority of students. Once we have established a new curriculum, we can look for accelerated learning again to see if there is still a need.

Developmental Mathematics Revival!

Bringing a new vitality to college mathematics 2011 to 2019