Encouraging Competence in Basic Mathematics in

Hydrologyusing The Math You Need

Kyle FredrickCalifornia University of PennsylvaniaA member of the Pennsylvania State

System of Higher Education

OverviewO Cal U is a 4-year public university

in southwestern PAO “Coal Country” and major shale gas

impactsO Low-income and first-generation

dominateO Geology program

O About 70 majors, plus Earth Science Education

O 1 tenured and 1 new hire (?) or temp

O Most students end up in Oil and Gas or Environmental related to Oil/Gas

O “I can’t do math;” “I’m no good at math;” “I hate math”

Course Overview - HydrologyO EAS 303 – targeted to sophomores and juniorsO Typically about 35 students (50 this year), each FallO Required for ALL Earth Science majors

O Geology, Env. Earth Sci., Meteorology, Earth Sci. EdO Sometimes taken by Chem and Bio (Env. Studies/Sci)

O Pre-reqsO Introduction to Geology (traditional physical geol.)O College Algebra

O First “quantitative” science class for mostO Physics-based

O Focus on water balance, fluid dynamicsO Followed up with elective Groundwater Hydrology

O STEEP learning curve including an intro to 3D calculus

Targeted ProblemsO Others will discuss or have discussed:

O Significant remedial needs and math aversion for many studentsO Inadequate retention and training from high school and

pre-requisite college coursesO From 2007-2010, course was largely distracted with

remedial mathO Almost every class period included some level of remedial

math, including repetition of “problem topics”O Unit Conversions!!!O Basic algebraic manipulationO Even scientific notation

OMost students have not had college physics NO CONTEXT

ImplementationO 39 students for Fall 2011O Pre-test and Post-test

O Identical 25-question setO Suite of questions from each of 6 “quizzes”

O Quizzes assigned weekly or bi-weeklyO Five with “new” materialO One “review” quiz focusing on troublesome

questions or topicsO 10 questions each (except one), timed at one hour

O SOME alignment with course topics, but not absolutely relatedO TMYN was completed by Week 11

ResultsO Table scores out of 5O Average

Improvement 21% Pre- to Post-test

O Students liked it!O Anecdotally,

students agreed that it helpedO From Senior Met.

Major with a 4.0 to Math-phobic Env. Earth Science sophomore

Table 1: Question Avg

I feel MORE CONFIDENT in my ability to address quantitative problems.

4.2

The questions/content were relevant to work I will likely do in my career.

3.6

My quantitative skills have improved. 3.9

The instructor used these tasks for busy-work, not to improve my skills.

1.8

The quizzes provided adequate repetition and breadth 4.0

43%

25%

21%11%

Responses* to Follow-up: “RANK the factors you think are responsible for YOUR im-

provement." Logistical Reasons**

Familiarity with Format

Increased Un-derstanding

Familiarity with Ques-tions

* Follow-up survey was 28 of 39 students conducted on the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving break.**Logistics that might “improve” test scores were suggested such as “more time, quieter surround-ings during attempt, time of day, etc.”

Room for ImprovementO Students focused on assessments, not

modulesO Partially my fault, for not encouraging them to

work through modulesO Question bank is limited

O Not yet designed for upper-level implementationO Not designed for Hydrology

O Not enough “building” and reinforcement in my implementation

O Minimize opportunities for cheatingO Collect scratch paper?

TMYN Strengths

O Most students didn’t complain, Participation was high and consistentO Integrated approach – Built into schedule from

Day 1O Short quizzes, not time-intensiveO Low stakes

O Class time dedicated to contentO We reviewed TMYN questions or topics with

which students had troubleO Encouraged peer mentoring and group study

BURNING Questions?