Evaluation of the Intermath Project

Mathematics Department

University of Colorado-Denver

 

 

 

 

Interim Report #1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by

Leonard Albright, Ph.D.

Project Evaluator

School of Education

Colorado State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 7, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The NSF funded Intermath project has completed its first year of operation. The overall evaluation of the project is directly aligned with the major goals of infusing technology into the math curriculum and integrating real-world application projects in math courses and related partner disciplines on campus. In order to assess the progress of the project toward these goals, the evaluation will follow a group of students as they complete the math sequence and interview core faculty and selected community college partners over the course of the project. This first report examines the perception of students in the math department who have completed Calculus 1, volunteered to participate in this project evaluation, and were enrolled in Calculus 2 at the time of interviewing.

 

 Student Participants

A total of 10 students participated in the individual interview process. These 10 came from a pool of 20 Calculus 2 students who were informed in early February, 2005 of the project by the Principal Investigator, Dr. Lynn Bennethum, and who agreed to participate in the evaluation over a three year period. Of the 20 volunteers, 3 eventually dropped the course and elected not to continue with the evaluation interviews. Another 7 students were contacted via email and/or telephone at least three times by the evaluator, but they did not appear for their scheduled interview.

 

Of the 10 participants, 3 were females, 7 were males. In terms of their declared major, 3 were computer science students, 3 were in mechanical engineering, 1 in chemistry, 1 in math, 1 in math education, and 1 non-degree graduate student. Nine of the 10 also reported that they recently took Calculus 1 on the UC-Denver campus. When asked if their Calculus 1 instructor used technology in the classroom, as opposed to using it only in homework, 7 responded affirmatively and 3 negatively.

 

The Interview Process

Each participant was interviewed individually, at a mutually agreed upon interview time, and conducted in private conference room in the UC-Denver Main Building on 14th Street. The evaluator conducted these interviews over a one month period, starting in early April and concluding on May 5, 2005. The interviews ranged from 20 minutes to an hour, with most conducted in 30 minutes.

 

A structured interview guide was used in this initial interview and is shown in Appendix A. After discussing the purpose of the interview, the interviewees were asked a set of 10 questions. Three of these questions pertained to the students’ background in mathematics, and 7 questions were focused on their experiences in their Calculus 1 & 2 courses. These questions were drawn from the major project goals stated in the original grant proposal, with very helpful review and input provided by the Principal Investigator.

 

 

 

Findings

The findings reported here will be those related to student experiences in math classes, namely, Calculus 1 & 2. Student background information was highlighted earlier within the Participants section.

 

Attitude toward Mathematics

When asked about their present attitude toward math, as compared to when they entered Calculus 1, all 10 students indicated a positive change. Such comments as “I feel more confident now”, “I am more comfortable with it now” and “I can now see the practical value of math” reflected the positives in terms of levels of confidence, comfortableness, and functionality. In terms of the functionality dimension, one student expressed it this way, “Now I can see the actual use (of math) in chemistry, statistics and other applied areas”.

 

Use of Technology

The students were asked about their level of comfort in using technology now as compared to before participating in Calculus 1 & 2. Eight mentioned that they are now more comfortable with using it. The other 2 respondents indicated no change in comfort level, but both reported being competent in using technology. One of the 8 noted that she felt “more comfortable with it now because my Calc 2 teacher is using it”. Earlier in the interview this student noted that her Calc 1 instructor was against using the technology and, thus, never used it in her class.

 

Value of Math Courses

The students were queried as to the strengths and weaknesses of Calc 1 & 2 as related to their professional preparation and experience. The almost universal positive response was that they now can see the practical application of math to their career field. Two students also mentioned that the courses are improving their logical reasoning skills. One of these students phrased it this manner, “they are teaching me to think in a more logical way before I act”.

 

In terms of perceived weaknesses within the math courses, three areas were noted. First, and mentioned by several students, the classes are seen as “too fast-paced”. The concern here was that there was just too much content and related class activity going on, and not enough time. As one student put it, “the classes, especially Calc 2, are just too fast. Seems to me that these two courses could be expanded to 4 courses, Calc 1, Calc 2, Calc 3, and Calc 4”. Second, although the students had very favorable things to say about their Individual Lively Application Project (ILAP), at least three students saw a need “to better integrate the ILAP problem between math and related courses (e.g. physics)”. The third area of concern, and mentioned by two students in reference to Calc 1, was the limited accessibility of the course instructor outside of class to assist them with their ILAPs’.

 

ILAP Integration into Math Courses

Students generally liked having the ILAP as an integral part of their math classes. In fact, 8 of the 10 students spoke positively about their ILAP experience, with several students stating that the ILAP required much work, but they could see the practical application value of the project. On the downside, several students complained that the course point value attached to the ILAP assignment was too low for the amount of work involved.

 

One student, who was the only graduate student interviewed, expressed dislike of the ILAP in his math classes. Given his extensive work experience in computer science field, he said “Personally, I do not like them. I’m here to learn math. Give me more depth in math.”

 

ILAP Influence in Non-Math Courses

With the exception of three students who indicated they had “not yet” experienced an ILAP influence in related non-math courses, the remaining 7 participants noted positive influences. Most noted how they can now see math concepts within other courses and now know why they are there. Interestingly, two students mentioned the ILAP process helped them with their report writing skills. As one of students said, “it (ILAP experience) taught me how to better organize and present a report in my other courses”.

 

ILAP Value in Increasing Math Understanding

When asked about the ILAP role in adding to their understanding of math, the students offered positive responses in three areas. The most common response was “the ILAP has showed me how math applies”. Then a close second was the comment “it helps me build upon what is known”. The third observation, offered by one of these students, was that the ILAP “helped me articulate, in plain English, what is happening”.

 

Conclusions

From this set of interviews it was very apparent to this evaluator that most of the students were aware of improvements being made to the math curriculum; improvements that reflected the technology and ILAP integration goals of the Intermath project, though most were not knowledgeable of the project per se. They seemed to sense an increased use of technology in the classroom and welcomed this direction. Instructor modeling of the use of technology was often mentioned as being helpful to the students. The incorporation of ILAPs’ in the math courses also appears to be attractive to students, particularly those students with limited experience in the world of work. ILAPS’ were also viewed positively for, as one student said “they liven up the classroom”.

 

Recommendations

The integration of ILAPs’ in  math courses is a valued direction among the students, but they also would like to see the course point value attached to this activity to be commensurate with the amount of work involved. Hence, this part of ILAP development should be reviewed by the math faculty. It also appears that the next important direction for the second year of this project is to work on the spread of ILAP development into the partner disciplines.

 

The goal of increasing the use of technology in the math courses seems to be one important accomplishment of the first project year and should continue to be a focus for year 2. Part of this focus could be to ensure that its use is reflected across the curriculum.

 

The last recommendation is concerned with increasing the student pool for the project evaluation. Even though 20 students were recruited during the first project year, only 10 participated. The active participant pool needs to be increased to help ensure a more representative student sample. One way to get at this is to again have the Principal Investigator conduct a student recruitment session like she did during the first project year. The evaluator would then examine students from two time periods and follow them through the project.