Developmental Education Pilot Report Southeastern Louisiana University Submitted January 2015

1 Developmental Education Pilot Report Southeastern Louisiana University Submitted January 2015 Developmental Education Mathematics Pilot Combined Developmental Math and College Algebra Conducted Fall 2014 Description of pilot course Course information Developmental Math Students (Math ACT scores of 17 or 18 or COMPASS score of 28 39). Co enrolled in: Math 92: Transitional Mathematics, Sections 01 20, 31 35, 37, 39, 51 53 (3 credit hours, fulfilling students developmental requirement but not counting toward graduation) Math 161A: College Algebra, Sections 01 20, 31 35, 37, 39, 51 53 (3 credit hours, fulfilling students College Algebra requirement) Non developmental Math Students (Math ACT scores of 19 or 20 or COMPASS score of 40 or above or Math 92). Enrolled in one of the following courses: Math 155A: College Algebra with Fundamentals, Sections 01 20, 51 53 (5 credit hours, fulfilling students College Algebra requirement); 155A consists of beginning freshman students only Math 155: College Algebra with Fundamentals, Sections 31 35, 37, 39 (5 credit hours, fulfilling students College Algebra requirement); 155 consists of returning students Numbers of students participating in the Math Pilot: Developmental students: 446 Non developmental students: 798 Total number of Math Pilot students: 1244 Instructors: David Busekist, Lee Milne, Amanda Carter, Robert Devun, Sharon Crews, John Szeto, Jessica Gaboury, Victor Swaim, Janet Mayeux, Scott Romito, Lucy Kabza, DeShea Miller. Narrative explanation of delivery method Developmental pilot students were co enrolled in two courses: Math 92, Transitional Mathematics, which does not count towards graduation and Math 161A, College Algebra, which does count towards graduation. Even though they were enrolled in two courses, students attended only one class that met in our Math 155/155A class meeting pattern. Participating students attended class on Mondays/Wednesdays or Tuesdays/Thursdays for 1.5 hours each, and on Fridays for 50 minutes. In addition, students spent a total of three hours each week in our Mathematics Computer Lab, where they completed homework, quizzes, and exams.

The developmental Math Pilot students attended class alongside the non developmental students, those with Math ACT scores of 19 or 20 who were enrolled in Math 155A/155. We initially attempted to maintain a rough balance close to 50 50 of those with the developmental requirement and those without it. However, towards the end of the summer registration period in late July and August, this balance became skewed and was not maintained in a few sections. Both groups were treated in the same manner in the classroom and had to meet the same requirements. Class attendance on each class day was mandatory for students; they were told they would be dropped from the class upon three unexcused absences. The course included review topics on an as needed basis, as opposed to spending an entire course on developmental material. The developmental material was inserted into every homework section of the College Algebra course. Successful completion of the course with a passing grade satisfied the developmental math requirement as well as the College Algebra requirement. The Fall 2014 Math Pilot courses were conducted in the same general manner as our Fall 2012 and 2013 pilots. Based upon the results of the Fall 2013 Pilot, we made changes in the College Algebra workbook that accompanied the class to incorporate even more remediation. The number of developmental students in the pilot has increased over the past few years from 26 (Fall 2012) to 244 (Fall 2013) to 446 (Fall 2014). The number of instructors has increased from 1 (Fall 2012) to 4 (Fall 2013) to 12 (Fall 2014). We held several meetings of all instructors in August to prepare for Fall 2014. The Fall 2014 instructors regularly submitted statistics to the Math Pilot Coordinator (Rebecca Muller). Southeastern requires non developmental pilot students who fail or withdraw in Fall 2014 to repeat the pilot course in Spring 2015. Non developmental pilot students who fail or withdraw must eventually repeat College Algebra, but are not necessarily required to do so in Spring 2015. 2 Student Differences between the Fall 2014 Math Pilot and Previous Math Pilots There are three fundamental differences in the student groups participating in the Fall 2014 Math Pilot compared to the Pilots of Fall 2013 and Fall 2012: 1. Participation in the Fall 2014 Math Pilot for the developmental students was a condition of their admission into Southeastern, whereas the developmental students in Pilots of Fall 2013 and Fall 2012 self selected to participate in the Pilot. 2. The Fall 2014 developmental Math Pilot students included two categories: (A) those with math ACT score of 17 or 18, and (B) those with a math ACT score of 16 or below and a COMPASS score of 28 39. For our previous Math Pilot Programs of Fall 2012 and Fall 2013, we restricted participation of the developmental students to those with math ACT of 17 or 18 only. 3. The non developmental students participating in both the Fall 2013 and Fall 2012 Math Pilots were exclusively beginning freshman students (enrolled in Math 155A). The Fall 2014 nondevelopmental Pilot students consisted of both beginning freshman students (enrolled in Math 155A) as well as returning students (enrolled in Math 155). In past years, we have observed that the beginning freshman student group has a greater success rate than the returning student group. The variations in student groups undoubtedly explain the differences between the results of Fall 2014 and those of the previous pilots.

3 Differences between Developmental and Non Developmental Students in the Pilot: Test Scores and College Algebra Course Grades At this time, comparative data between the groups of students who would have been placed in the developmental math course and those with direct placement in college algebra have been analyzed on three measures scores on a course pre test (a subset of material from the College Algebra course to assess prior knowledge), scores on an end of course COMPASS test administration, and final grades in the course. Math ACT scores or COMPASS scores were the initial placement scores used. All developmental students in the pilot had either Math ACT scores of 17 or 18, or COMPASS scores of 28 39. All nondevelopmental students placed in the pilot had Math ACT scores of 19 or 20, COMPASS scores of 40 or above, or had previously passed Math 92. Course Pre test A college algebra pre test given to the students within the first three days of class showed that the non developmental students did score better on the pretest as a whole, confirming the Math ACT or COMPASS score differences between the two groups of students. However, the difference between the two groups was less than three percentage points. MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX NON STUDENTS IN PILOT 27.09 25.10 0 94.67 STUDENTS IN PILOT 24.47 23.30 0.08 58.73 End of course COMPASS Test The COMPASS test was given to students during the last week of classes. The scores on this test did not contribute to the student s overall course grade, so enthusiasm and attendance were not stellar. In fact, only half of the students participating in the Fall 2014 Math Pilot took the post test. As shown in the following table, the averages for the non developmental math students in the pilot were just under 5 points higher than the averages for the developmental students in the pilot. MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX NON STUDENTS IN PILOT 41.31 39 15 94 STUDENTS IN PILOT 36.7 36 16 81 College Algebra Course Grades Not surprisingly, the grade distributions presented below show that the non developmental students in the Math Pilot had higher final course grades in College Algebra than the developmental students. The College Algebra final course grade distributions in the table below indicate that 43.7%

of the developmental math students in the pilot passed College Algebra and were able to progress to their next math courses (and to any other courses for which completion of College Algebra is a prerequisite), compared to 51% of the non developmental students. Both figures are significantly lower than the Fall 2013 pass rates of 60.7% (developmental) and 67% (non developmental). We attribute the drop in pass rate to the significant differences in the student groups discussed above. Interestingly, the developmental students out performed the returning non developmental students, both in overall pass rate and in the ABC rate. Beginning with the Fall 2014 semester, we required all beginning freshman students with a math ACT score of below 19 to participate in the Math Pilot Program. Perhaps the most significant observation comes from examining the pass rates of the students with a math ACT score of exactly 17 or 18. During the Fall 2014 semester, this subgroup of 395 students constituted the bulk of our developmental pilot students, and 46.4% of them passed College Algebra. Compare this with the 43.4% of this same category who passed Developmental Mathematics in Fall 2013 or the 47.1% who passed in Fall 2012. The following tables provide the data discussed above. GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FALL 2014 NON STUDENTS IN PILOT STUDENTS IN PILOT A 5.1% 2.5% B 11.2% 8.5% C 18.7% 17.3% D 16.0% 15.5% F 31.1% 42.6% W 17.9% 13.2% Overall Pass Rates 51% 43.7% 4 PASS RATES FALL 2014 NON RETURNING MATH ACT 17 18 MATH 155A MATH 155 MATH 161A 54.4% 41.9% 46.4% 23.5% NON BEGINNING FRESHMAN COMPASS 28 39 MATH 161A A B C RATES FALL 2014 NON RETURNING MATH ACT 17 18 MATH 155A MATH 155 MATH 161A 40.4% 20.3% 30.5% 13.7% NON BEGINNING FRESHMAN COMPASS 28 39 MATH 161A

5 Southeastern s developmental students with math ACT scores of 17 18 who did not participate in our 2012 or 2013 Math Pilot Programs were enrolled in Math 92. Here are the most recent pass rates for this course: MATH 92 PASS RATES STUDENTS W/MATH ACT 17 OR 18 FALL 2012 47.1% FALL 2013 43.4% Student Progression After the Pilot (enrollment in following semesters, enrollment in second math courses, grades in subsequent math courses) The data on the progression of students in our previous Math Pilot Programs of Fall 2012 and Fall 2013 is presented in the tables below. These statistics show that the developmental and non developmental students have similar retention rates. Moreover, their grades in subsequent math courses are similar. While the non developmental beginning freshman students typically earn higher grades than the developmental group, the difference is relatively small. Student Progression Data for Fall 2013 Math Pilot Students Developmental Students in Pilot Non developmental Students in Pilot Grades in College Algebra # % # % A 8 3.3% 19 8.2% B 28 11.5% 55 23.6% C 59 24.2% 45 19.3% D 53 21.7% 37 15.9% F 75 30.7% 44 18.9% W 21 8.6% 33 14.2% Total 244 233 Retained Spring 2014 210 86.1% 200 85.8% Not Retained Spring 2014 34 13.9% 33 14.2% Retained Fall 2014 145 59.4% 136 58.4% Not Retained Fall 2014 99 40.6% 97 41.6% Grades in Spring 2014 Math Course A 6 4.3% 11 7.9% B 23 16.7% 26 18.7% C 24 17.4% 35 25.2% D 20 14.5% 21 15.1% F 16 11.6% 25 18.0% P 19 13.8% 0 0.0% U 26 18.8% 3 2.2% W 4 2.9% 18 12.9% Total 138 56.6% 139 59.7%

6 Grades in Fall 2014 Math Course A 0 0.0% 1 0.7% B 11 8.0% 8 5.8% C 10 7.2% 16 11.5% D 12 8.7% 6 4.3% F 11 8.0% 7 5.0% W 15 10.9% 14 10.1% Total 59 24.2% 52 22.3% Student Progress Information for Fall 2012 Developmental Pilot Course Developmental Students in Pilot Developmental Students Not in Pilot Non Developmental Students in Pilot College Algebra Grades % Enrolled in # % College Algebra # % A 0 0.0% 6 1.1% 3.2% 0 0.0% B 0 0.0% 35 6.2% 18.5% 2 10.5% C 6 23.1% 54 9.5% 28.6% 1 5.3% D 7 26.9% 41 7.2% 21.7% 4 21.1% F 9 34.6% 39 6.9% 20.6% 8 42.1% W 4 15.4% 14 2.5% 7.4% 4 21.1% Not Enrolled in College Algebra N/A 380 66.8% N/A Total 26 569 19 Retained Fall 2013 16 61.5% 284 49.9% 10 52.6% Not Retained Fall 2013 10 38.5% 285 50.1% 9 47.4% Retained Fall 2014 11 42.3% 284 49.9% 11 57.9% Not Retained Fall 2014 15 57.7% 285 50.1% 8 42.1% Grades in Subsequent Math Course A 0 0.0% 1 5.3% B 0 0.0% 0 0.0% C 4 15.4% 3 15.8% N/A D 3 11.5% 3 15.8% F 1 3.8% 1 5.3% W 4 15.4% 2 10.5% Total 12 10 Grades in Fall 2014 Math Course

A 0 0.0% 0 0.0% B 0 0.0% 0 0.0% C 1 3.8% 1 5.3% N/A D 0 0.0% 1 5.3% F 1 3.8% 1 5.3% W 0 0.0% 2 10.5% Total 2 5 7 Observations, Recommendations, and Changes for Spring 2015 Throughout all three of our Math Pilot Programs (Fall semesters, 2012 2014), we have observed that, as a group, the non developmental students who are also beginning freshman students outperform the developmental students on every assessment, but the differences are usually 3 5 percentage points. For example, the chart below compares the overall performance of the developmental students with the non developmental students from the Pre test through Test 4. On each of these assessments, the nondevelopmental students scored between 3 and 7 percentage points above the developmental ones, except for Test 1. On Test 1, the difference between the two groups was 11.5%. We believe this is due to the nature of the material on that test. The Test 1 material involved many multi step problems, where a mistake at any step would invalidate the final answer. As would be expected, the developmental students struggle with accurately completing multi step problems more so than the non developmental ones. MEAN SCORES 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 69.2 63.4 62.6 58.6 55.2 51.6 49.5 44.8 46.4 33.3 24.5 27.1 PRETEST TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 4 FINAL DEV NON DEV Based upon the results of our Math Pilots, we make the following recommendations: 1. The Math Pilot should be continued during the 2015 2016 academic year and made policy. In every one of our Math Pilot Programs, a sizeable group of the developmental students are successful, are retained by the University for the next year, and progress into their second math

course. Moreover, the pilots have helped the admissible developmental students progress faster than those required to enroll in Developmental Math as a stand alone course. In Fall 2014, 46.4% of the developmental students with math ACT of 17 18 passed College Algebra and will now progress on into the second math course required for their major. By comparison, 47.1% of this same group passed Developmental Math in Fall 2012 and 43.4% in Fall 2013. These latter groups then had to still take an extra semester to enroll in College Algebra. 2. The results shown above indicate that the students with a math ACT score of 16 or below and a COMPASS score of 28 39 did not perform nearly as well as the other developmental ones, i.e., those with a math ACT score of 17 or 18. While this COMPASS category consisted of only 51 of the 446 developmental students, their performance is dramatically lower than the 17/18 math ACT students. We recommend that the Board of Regents consider re evaluating the COMPASS cut off scores used to determine this pathway into math pilot participation in an effort to ensure that these students have a more comparable preparation for the Math Pilot. Plans for Math Pilot in Spring 2015 We plan to offer twenty three sections of Pilot sections in Spring 2015, with maximum enrollment of 15 developmental students and 15 non developmental students. We may modify this percentage depending upon enrollment patterns. The delivery format will be the same as that of Fall 2014, described above. 8 Developmental Education English Pilot Combined Developmental English and Freshman English Composition (English 101) Conducted Fall 2014 Description of pilot course Course information Developmental English Students (English ACT scores of 16 or 17 or COMPASS score of 53 67). Enrolled in: English 93, Writing Workshop, Sections 01 through 06 (3 credit hours, fulfilling the developmental requirement but not counting towards graduation) English 101, Freshman Composition, Section 01 through 06 (3 credit hours, fulfilling the Freshman English requirement) Non developmental English Students (English ACT scores of 18 or above or a COMPASS score of 68 or above). Enrolled in English 101, Sections 01 through 06 (3 credit hours) Both developmental and non developmental English students in the pilot attended the same English 101 course, but developmental English students also attended a writing workshop in English 93 scheduled at a time before their English 101 class.

9 Number of students participating in the English Pilot: Developmental students: 54 Non developmental students: 90 Total number of English Pilot students: 144 Instructors: Mary Mocsary, Nicole Schluter, Megan Eddy Narrative explanation of delivery method Fifty four developmental students co enrolled in English 93 and English 101 and met separately for each class. Each instructor had two sections of English 93 and two sections of English 101. The English 93 sections consisted of only developmental students; the English 101 sections consisted of developmental and non developmental students. Developmental students were advised to sign up for the same teacher for both courses, but several accidently cross enrolled in sections of 93 and 101 taught by different teachers. The students in 93 received daily assignments and individual help writing their essays for English 101. All English 101 students received the same assignments. Students wrote 5 6 essays of 2 3 pages each over the course of the semester. They learned organization and format while reviewing grammar and mechanics. Prior to the start of the fall semester, the developmental English students were notified that they needed to take English 93 and 101 based on their ACT scores. They were then asked to add both to their fall schedules. If they failed to enroll in both courses, students were emailed to correct the situation. If the issue persisted, students were removed from the course. Students who enrolled for different teachers, however, were left in their courses. The students enrolled in English 101 were not given any special instructions. Differences between Developmental and Non Developmental Students in the Pilot: Freshman English Composition Course Grades The course grades in English 101 show that the developmental students earned fewer As compared to their non developmental peers, but fewer also failed the course than did their peers and none withdrew. Most of the developmental students were committed to the course and earned primarily Bs and Cs. NON STUDENTS IN PILOT STUDENTS IN PILOT A 20% 5.7% B 36.7% 39.6% C 20% 41.5% D 6.7% 5.7% F 10% 7.5% W 6.7% 0%

10 End of Course COMPASS Test Due to a misunderstanding, the COMPASS test was given to only the developmental English students in the pilot on the final day of class. The scores on this test did not contribute to the student s overall course grade, so enthusiasm and attendance were not high. We also had a number of technical difficulties with the test. The University is using an older version of the COMPASS, and the test had to be given in a lab that uses virtual machines. At least 10 students had significant technical difficulties causing them to move to another computer, in some cases more than once. Students who earned a 68 or above would have tested out of developmental and been able to take English 101 had they posted this grade at the start of the term. Of the 48 students who took the COMPASS at the end of the English 93/101A experience, 30 earned a 68 or above. The remaining 18 included two who earned a 12 due to technical issues. In the remaining 16, nine had scores in the 60s or very close to passing. MEAN MEDIAN MIN MAX STUDENTS IN PILOT 72.17 78.00 12 99 Observations, recommendations, changes for subsequent semester offerings With the strong course grades and COMPASS scores from this first full regular semester of Southeastern s participation in the English portion of the Developmental Education Pilot, we think the developmental students received the instruction they need in preparation for English 102. Of course, we will need to track the progress of the students through 102 to know for sure. Although the results thus far are promising, because of the limitations described previously, the pilot should be continued. Based on our preliminary data and faculty observations, we think it is beneficial for students take English 93 with the same teacher as for English 101 prior to attempting English 102. We continue to work with the Office of Records and Registration to make this registration easy for the student. Students who struggle with writing require more practice and direct help from a teacher. That learning environment is provided by the 93/101 model, which is based on successful pilots at sister institutions in Louisiana and also on the recommendations of the national Accelerated Learning Program, based at the Community College of Baltimore County. The students receive extra help in English 93 and they seem to develop greater confidence as

they join their non developmental learning cohort in English 101. We suspect having the same teacher for English 93 and 101 helps facilitate this process. We also recommend that developmental students be limited to 12 hours in the semester that they are fulfilling these developmental requirements. 11