Across the nation, institutions are implementing one–semester co–requisite models, which refer to the practice of placing students directly into college–level courses regardless of preparation, and providing them with supports for just-in-time instruction. A two–year institution in Oklahoma — Tulsa Community College — combined its institutional initiatives in order to quickly and effectively implement and scale co–requisite supports across its campuses to support underprepared students in completing their first college–level coursework.
Across the nation, institutions are implementing one–semester co–requisite models, which refer to the practice of placing students directly into college–level courses regardless of preparation, and providing them with supports for just–in–time instruction. One four–year institution — University of Central Arkansas — implemented and scaled corequisite models for its Quantitative Literacy and College Algebra courses that led to significant student success and completion rates nearing 90% for underprepared students.
This Dana Center resource provides an overview of efforts to implement multiple math pathways at scale in American higher education. It focuses special attention on the structural and policy dimensions of ensuring that new gateway mathematics course sequences become standard institutional course offerings. These include: • Transfer and applicability across institutions; • Alignment of mathematics pathways within institutions; • Appropriate placement into gateway course and support structures.
Many institutions implementing and scaling mathematics pathways are faced with the challenge of enrolling students in relevant gateway math courses that are aligned to their programs of study. When faculty and policy agencies in Arkansas understood the impact of transfer and applicability of mathematics courses on students, they committed to state-level action and coordination to address the problem. In an effort to increase student success in mathematics and increase overall degree completion at a large scale, various Arkansas stakeholders set into motion strategic policy action to provide statewide guidance and alignment of non-STEM mathematics courses to programs of study.
This 2018 report provides an update of the current state efforts and progress towards increased student persistence and success as a result of implementing multiple mathematics pathways. This report specifically explores examples of innovative approaches to drafting and implementing task force recommendations from thirteen states working in collaboration with the Dana Center. Furthermore, this report provides a synopsis of key focus areas of state-level task force recommendations and concrete examples of customized state-level supports for the sustainability and scale math pathways.
Texas 2-year and 4-year transfer inventory guide for 2018-19.
Most state– and system–level policies and practices support the transferability of credits, but do not account for the applicability of those credits to a student’s program of study. Even when students are able to transfer credits, those credits might not count toward their desired majors, which can lead to wasted time, increased costs for both students and the state, and students dropping out of college altogether. Efforts to remedy these problems are most effective when enabled by a well-considered policy environment which, in turn, is informed by data. In Washington, substantive steps have been taken to address this issue with a data-driven process.
When the focus for entry-level mathematics shifted, over a decade ago, from access to success, it catalyzed demand for accelerated multiple mathematics pathways alongside the algebraic-intensive pathway. Subsequent successes have been exciting, showing more than three times the success rates for students in one third of the time for some programs. With these startling increases came a widespread concern about maintaining rigor within the discipline. In response to this concern, the Charles A. Dana Center engaged in a study of the meaning and intention of rigor in mathematics education. This paper first explores the meaning of rigor in mathematics education through a synthesis of interviews with leading mathematicians and educators, and presents a review of the literature in higher education and K–12. It concludes by offering recommendations for a shared definition of rigor and its implications for curriculum and instruction.
The Texas Success Center (TSC) collects statewide data to document progress Texas colleges are making in implementing the four principles of the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Model (DCMP). This 4th annual TSC survey was designed to record progress toward high standards during DCMP implementation. Results of this survey were evaluated for recognition, and announced during a Texas Pathways Institute in November 2018.
The 2018 American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) standards guide lays out recommendations for impacting mathematical prowess, and improving mathematics education in the first two years of college. This guide builds on the content of, "Crossroads in Mathematics," and "Beyond Crossroads: Implementing Mathematics Standards in the First two years of College." As a part of this work, AMATYC outlines four pillars as key themes: • Proficiency: Developing Students' Mathematical Knowledge • Ownership: Taking Responsibility and Showing Initiative • Engagement: Developing Intellectual Curiosity and Motivation in Learning Mathematics • Student Success: Stimulating Student Achievement in Mathematics Finally, this guide serves as a resource for professional growth, and as a framework to make significant changes at the individual, departmental, and college level.