View
16
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A COMPARISON STUDY OF PLACEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS COURSES Dr. Victoria Ingalls Tiffin University. Issue of placement 56% of faculty members indicated that working with underprepared students was a source of stress - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A COMPARISON STUDY OF PLACEMENT STRATEGIES
FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS COURSES
Dr. Victoria IngallsTiffin University
• Issue of placement– 56% of faculty members indicated
that working with underprepared students was a source of stress
–placed too low, they may be bored, feel penalized and frustrated, and drop the class
– placed too high, there is little chance of success, and if they do pass, they are not likely to apply what they have learned
–frustration with the course and mathematics in general
–disables a student from achieving at an individual level, thereby reducing the chance of retention and success at the university
No published case studies of
accuracies, especially with
subjective judgment
• Demographics–Location–Size–Diversity–Level of selectivity
• Specific Math Course levels:–Foundations of Mathematics–Beginning Algebra–Finite Mathematics or College Algebra (depends on
student’s major)
Placement History•ACT•ACT’s Course Placement Service (CPS)•Folder analysis/Informed judgment•Faculty-developed test
“There is a need to periodically evaluate a placement scheme or system…. that is subject to malfunction over time due to changes in student characteristics and alterations in course content” (Frisbie, 1982, p. 133).
Literature Review• ACT-Allen & Sconig (2005); Noble
& Sawyer (2006); Bridgeman (1992); Jones (1997); Pascarella (2006)
• CPS- McNabb (1990)
• Informed Judgment- Berliner (1994, 2004); Hoge & Coladarci (1989); Coladarci (1986)
• Placement testing- Morante (1987, 1989); Truman (1992); Wattenbarger & McLeod (1989); Weber (1986)
•Computer Based (Cai, 2004)•Computer Adaptive Testing (Wang, 2007)
MethodologyRepeated measures
•ACT•CPS•Faculty-developed online placement test
•Informed Teacher Judgment
Accuracy Rates:
TRUE POSITIVE + TRUE NEGATIVE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
False positives
**True positives
**True negatives
False negatives
From Course Placement System Guide, p. 4)
Results χ2= 50.4 (3, N= 1709),
p < .001 overall accuracy
no yesInformed Judgment
Count 181 661
% within method 21.5% 78.5%
ACT Count 184 463
% within method 28.4% 71.6%
CPS Count 25 42
% within method 37.3% 62.7%
PTEST Count 73 80
% within method 47.7% 52.3%
χ2 = 22.4 (2,N =104), p < .01
accuracy for Foundations in Mathematics
no yes
informed judgment
Count 13 48
% within method 21.3% 78.7%
ACT Count 26 13
% within method 66.7% 33.3%
PTEST Count 3 1
% within method 75.0% 25.0%
χ2= 13.1 (2, N=478), p < .001
accuracy for Beginning Algebra
no yes
informed judgment
Count 38 199
% within method 16.0% 84.0%
PTEST Count 12 37
% within method 24.5% 75.5%
ACT Count 59 133
% within method 30.7% 69.3%
χ2 = 98.7 (3, N =
1127), p<.001
accuracy for Finite/College Algebra
no yesInformed judgment
Count 79 465
% within method 14.5% 85.5%
ACT Count 99 317
% within method 23.8% 76.2%
CPS Count 25 42
% within method 37.3% 62.7%
PTEST Count 58 42
% within method 58.0% 42.0%
Implications
• Accuracy of historical methods• Single measure versus multiple
measures• Objective versus subjective
measures
Future Research
• Teacher judgment regression model
• Teacher regression model compared to CPS
• Examine sample of universities using CPS for accuracy
Is the ACT-M ≥ 19? Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?
Is the 16 ≤ ACT-M ≤ 19?
Is the GPA ≥ 2.5?
Are there college prep courses on the transcript?
Math 17174/181
Math 173
Math 174/181
Student Folders
Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?
Is the ACT-M ≤ 15? Math 173
Math 173 Math 100
YES No
Is the student from a large, urban district?
Math 100
Is there evidence of an IEP or alternative learning?
Math 173
Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?
For a copy of A COMPARISON STUDY OF PLACEMENT STRATEGIES
FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS COURSES
Victoria IngallsTiffin University419-448-3396
ingallsv@tiffin.edu
Recommended