The students tested all took the College Algebra final
exam for either Fall 2007 or Spring 2008. A total of 116 on-campus students at
the two campuses were included, all of which were analyzed including evening
sections. Last year, we had 113 students at the two campuses. With these
sections, we have a gain of just over 2.5% from last year's enrollment on the
two campuses. There were 363 students tested at other sites, which re presents
most of the population. This gives a total population of 479 students, which
represents a increase from last year's population of 459 students of roughly
4.4%. Since at least one class of 7 was not reported, this increase is
Results: In the fall semester, we met only one of
three goals, as summarized in the accompanying spreadsheet. We had 72.3% of our
students meet Goal 1. We had 98.6% meet Goal 2, which is excellent, and 68.4%
meet Goal 3, with targets of 75%, 95%, and 75% respectively. In the spring,
performance was a bit better, with two of our three goals being met. 78.9% of
our students met Goal 1, 97.9% met Goal 2, and 68.6% met Goal 3. Results also
are broken down by comparing on -campus students (all students at Concordia and
GCC) vs. off-campus students. These results are summarized in the fol lowing two
tables , one for each semester.
For Goal C two of the three questions used this year
and logarithmic functions , which often give students difficulties. Since we use calculators extensively with these topics, they are prime candidates to be
chosen to measure this goal. The questions in the fall of 2006 also require
less thought and analysis; the first and third questions used in that semester
are easy. For Goal A, the inclusion of a question about vertical asymptotes in
the fall of 2007 jumps out at me. This is another topic that gives students
We should give more attention to the skills in Goal C in
our classes. Even
though we missed Goal A in the fall, we didn’t miss it by that much, and so I
am not overly concerned with it.
Comparing on-campus results with those from last year, we
can see an improvement
in performance on one goal, and a dec line in another . On Goal
A, performance stayed the same, at around
70%. Goal B showed a slight increase, from
95% to 96.6%. Goal C showed the decrease,
dropping from 62% to 57.8%. This is the
second year in a row that performance has
dropped on this goal on the two campuses.
This is my largest concern.
Math and Science Division Assessment Report
Instructor Compliance Rate (2 year period):
Number of instructors within the Division: 15
Number of instructors participating in Assessment:
9- This is 60%
of the department. Part of the reason for the relatively low participation
rate was the fact that the 4 members of the nursing department assessed
their courses in the last cycle and thought that they did not have to do
so for another year.
Course Compliance Rate (2 year period): Last year
and the Science Division statistics were combined . Therefore a 2 year
compliance rate cannot be calculated. It will be compiled next year.
Number of courses to be assessed: This number will
be available for
the next assessment cycle.
Number of courses assessed: 24 Success Rate: 62.5%, 15 out of 24
Summary of Division Assessment Activity: The
members of the
division participating in the assessments evaluated outcomes in a variety
of ways with very mixed results. Some of the members used sophisticated methodology and others very limited samplings. The vast majority
of the participants found value in the process and have made plans for
the future improvement of their classes.
Overview of Actions Taken as a Result of Assessment
During the next cycle instructors are planning on a variety of methods to
improve student learning. These methods tend to concentrate on the
experiential level - more real world projects, additional out of class
on a cohort basis, increased step by step practice with critical
thinking - and greater use of instructional technology such as that available
in the new smart rooms.