Implementing Better Math Courses, Part III: Connecting All the Dots
The traditional developmental math sequence focuses on school mathematics, biased by an algebra fixation … narrowly defined to be algebraic procedures. Although some have the perception that this sequence serves ‘STEM students’ well, professional standards and research indicates that the sequence does not serve them well. In this post, I will focus on truly connecting all the dots — to STEM math and most college mathematics . #NewLifeMath #AlgebraicLiteracy
The prior posts on implementing better math courses focused on the beginning algebra level. The Level I implementation (Pathways) described a side-by-side model; the Level II implementation (Medium) provided a total replacement of beginning algebra as well as all courses prior to that. The next level (III) involves replacing intermediate algebra with Algebraic Literacy (AMATYC New Life project).
Here is an image of this implementation model:
Algebraic Literacy provides a modern course connecting students to STEM and related college mathematics. I’ve posted information on the course and research for Algebraic Literacy at https://www.devmathrevival.net/?page_id=2312; here, I will focus on the implementation aspects.
One benefit of this ‘high’ implementation is that we can minimize remedial enrollments while providing intentional preparation. Because Algebraic Literacy focuses on communication and reasoning, we provide an accessible course with higher expectations — more students can start in the 2nd course, and they will be better prepared for what follows. For example, if intermediate algebra required a 77 on a placement test, algebraic literacy can succeed with a cutoff of 60 to 65; if an ACT Math 19 is required for intermediate algebra, algebraic literacy can manage with a 17. These numbers are very generic, and are simply meant to illustrate the increased access.
The preparation is also improved in this model. The cumulative message of the college math standards is:
Focus on learning core ideas in mathematics to a high level. (AMATYC; MAA – CRAFTY and CUPM)
Even if students flow from Algebraic Literacy to a traditional college algebra course, they will have more capabilities.
However, the curriculum at the college algebra level (and above) is in desperate need of modernization. Those courses are almost all modifications of either a 19th century college algebra course in college algebra or slight variations of calculus from the mid-20th century. We live in a golden age of mathematical sciences, but our students still take courses on dead (aka obsolete) mathematics. Having the Algebraic Literacy course in place will provide both the motivation and safety needed for our departments to begin updating the STEM math courses.
This “High” implementation results in a total replacement of obsolete dev math courses and the beginning of renewal in the courses which follow. The New Life Project dev math courses share much with the work of the Carnegie Foundation (Pathways) and the Dana Center (New Mathways). The Carnegie work builds an option after the pathways courses (Statway or Quantway) to enable the student to take college algebra; the Dana Center work provides a different replacement model, where the STEM path (pre-calculus) begins right after a Math Literacy-type course.
Many in our profession would like to teach Algebraic Literacy instead of intermediate algebra; Algebraic Literacy is better mathematics and is consistent with modern teaching methods. The main barrier to progress right now is ‘textbooks’, since there are no commercial materials available (Pearson; McGraw Hill; Cengage; Hawkes; etc). The path out of this ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma is YOU … talk to the publisher representatives at every opportunity about the books you want to see.
A primary goal of this “High” implementation is a combination of improved preparation and the minimizing of the remedial math enrollment function. I believe that we can achieve a situation where the mode of remedial math enrollments is 0 and 1, with a mean between those values. We don’t need to eliminate remedial math courses … we need to modernize them to better serve our students.
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:
Algebraic Literacy course, Math curriculum in general, Professional Development | Jack Rotman | 
April 11, 2016 9:03 am
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe
Jack Rotman
NOTE: This blog will become 'inactive' on January 1, 2020.
By schremmer, April 11, 2016 @ 10:27 am
For many years I have spent my summers doing construction work but I have never encountered anyone who had taken a course in “Sawing literacy”, etc
I am perfectly aware that we need to take a stand but a stand on what? And what is our case for whatever we want to stand for?
To say
is not going to sway anybody. Nor should it.
By Jack Rotman, April 11, 2016 @ 11:33 am
On the second point, the goal was not to sway anybody … it was more of a conditional statement: “If you agree with this sentence, consider taking the action suggested in the next sentence.” I’m assuming that most professionals can follow a logical sequence, even when not stated with visible connectors; the intent was to get the reader to the action line, not convince anybody of the correctness of the condition statement.