Redesign: The “Basic Skills” Phrase of Today

Let me  say the most important thing first:  Redesign of developmental mathematics is not what is needed; we need to implement new models of meeting the mathematical needs of college students.   Okay, so that is the primary point … here is some background.

You are wondering about this redesign stuff … what does it mean?  How does redesign help students in developmental mathematics courses?  The word itself (“redesign”) has multiple meanings, essentially captured in this definition:

Redesign:  to revise in appearance, function, or content   (from Merriam-Webster dictionary)

A redesign might be referring to just the appearance, like having a 3-color cover for a textbook instead of 2 colors.  Most faculty would be looking for a redesign which looked at function or content (or both), with little concern for appearance.

A redesign is a revision to an existing course or curriculum which results in an altered functioning or content.  I suggest to you that we do not need redesign of developmental math courses; we need something more basic than revision.  Developmental mathematics has not (previously) had a deliberate model for identifying and addressing college student needs for pre-collegiate mathematics.  No, we have not had a model to revise … we have had a history, in fact a long legacy, consisting of loosely connected skills in polynomial arithmetic in service of a mythical calculus preparation.

Beginning a redesign effort assumes (or is based on evidence that) our current system is essentially sound, that it only takes some amount of revision to be good enough.  Think of it with this parable:

In the 1970’s, car companies realized that they would need to produce vehicles with improved fuel efficiency.  Their initial responses were based on the redesign — they took an existing model car, made the body smaller and made the engine as small as possible; with a few cosmetic changes, cars like the Ford Pinto were born.  Although these ‘redesigned’ cars sold reasonably well, the car companies were essentially basing their work on the same designs.  Meanwhile, other car companies (such as Toyota) created cars based on a totally different design — designs in which the better fuel efficiency was just part of a larger vision.  Eventually, the American car companies realized that a new vision of fuel efficient cars was needed … resulting in vehicles that offer a package of benefits including fuel efficiency.

If we redesign our existing developmental mathematics courses, we are putting a GPS unit on a 1973 Ford Pinto.  Now, I’ve got nothing against Ford; it’s a good company, and they have come out with some really nice vehicles.  However, the point is that redesign of developmental mathematics is reinforcing the current vision of the curriculum; this vision is not based on a coherent analysis of student needs and curriculum process … we have historical artifacts which have been given the look & feel of a curriculum.

A redesign of the current courses may provide some temporary relief, just as the ‘small’ cars of the 1970s.  However, we must recognize this basic fact:

We do not have a coherent model of developmental mathematics.

We work hard, we help quite a few students, they work hard … it’s impressive what we have accomplished without a model for our work.  Can you imagine what we are capable of, if we have a model for our work?  Guided and inspired by a vision for a model which meets real students’ needs with solid mathematics, our courses can become places where students realize their dreams and ambitions … where mathematics provides an on-ramp for college success.

So … do NOT redesign.  Get inspired by a new model; take a look at New Life … at Pathways … at Mathways.

 
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.