Corequisiste Remediation as a STEM Recruiting Tool

Seems like much of the world (in higher education) has gone ‘crazy’ with reforms intended to remove mathematics as a barrier.  Are we happy with that vision of mathematics?  Are we content with a system which minimizes the learning of mathematics in college?

Perhaps we have not seen some potential opening doors which could support the vision for mathematics we would advocate.  Corequisite remediation has been implemented as a disruptive influence on an algebraic-based mathematics requirement … if a student does not qualify for “college algebra”, put them in a non-algebraic course (statistics, liberal arts math, QR, etc) with a support course which will cover a minimum of mathematics (just enough to learn that stat/Lib Arts/QR course).

Take a step back, and think about these questions.

• Do these non-algebraic courses typically have high needs for ‘remediation’? Or, did we have artificially high prerequisites for these courses … so now corequisite remediation allows us to save face while not providing any significant advantage to students?
• Do the initial STEM-enabling courses (such as college algebra and pre-calculus) have high needs for remediation and support?

To the extent that the answers are “no” and “yes” (respectively), the reform process has been mis-directed.

In addition, we have students who have the potential to be STEM majors — but are intimidated by the prospects of passing the STEM-enabling math course (college algebra, pre-calculus, calculus I).  The current reform work deliberately pushes these students into programs outside of STEM.

Let’s re-direct the reform work to meet student needs and enable many more students to achieve their STEM dream.  Instead of attaching co-requisite support classes to non-algebraic math, attach them intentionally to STEM-enabling math courses.  Whether a student barely places directly in to such a course, or minimally passes a prior math course, their prospects are not good currently.   Think about students within 1 standard deviation above the cutoff on a placement assessment, and those with 2.0, 2.5, C, and C+ grades.  Maybe something like this:

Where do we want students to succeed?  If we are okay with students succeeding if they avoid STEM-enabling mathematics courses, then continue doing the current reforms.  On the other hand, if you want students to choose STEM and succeed, it might be time to consider a better use for co-requisite support classes.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.