Math Assessment Report

Spring 2008 resultsFor Math 25 SLO’s

Overview of Process

Common Final Exams Everyone turns in exams Volunteers assess using SLO’s

Norm grading with rubrics and practice Multiple looks at randomly selected

papers Collect data and analyze

RubricsOutcome Low (1 pt) Medium (3 pts) High (5 pts)

Communication Does not ask for anything except perhaps a generic “show work.”

Sometimes addresses issue such as defining variables and meaning of some math concepts. Explains how arrived at answer.

Frequently asks for sophisticated interpretations such as implications of results, limits of models, general solution process.

Multiple representations

Mostly only one representation (for example, just symbolic).

Multiple problems using a different representation each. Use multiple representations.

Problems requiring connections between different representations. Create multiple representations.

Problem solving Only needs to show the part of solution where equation is solved or symbols manipulated.

Student’s showing of some variation on Polya’s process. Some prompting.

Context’s different than class, perhaps extraneous information, and problems not in template form. Very little scaffolding. Problems with multiple solution methods.

     com

m      prob      

Student ID Ethnicity

EXAM # 1st

2nd

3rd

ave*1st

2nd

3rd

ave*

                     

1144565 Filipino A5 1 1.5  1.2

5 3 3   3

1119022 White Non-Hispanic A6 3 3   3 3.5 4.5   4

1154174 White Non-Hispanic B3 2 2   2 3 3   3

1150842 Hispanic B4 2.5 2  2.2

5 3 2   2.5

1181702American Indian/Alaskan

Native C2 2 2.5  2.2

5 4 3   3.5

1112294 Other Non-White C3 2 1   1.5 2.5 2.5   2.5

835925 White Non-Hispanic D3**nor

m    3nor

m    4

112161 Hispanic D5 1 2   1.5 4 23.

53.7

5

Data Recording Example

Data AnalysisFA 03 FA 06 FA 07 SP 08

Sample size 23 26 33 30Mean 2.8 2.8 2.92 2.58St. Dev. 1.1 0.9 1.01 .84Low 1.5 1.3 1 1.31st quartile 1.5 2.3 2.25 1.82nd quartile 3 2.5 3 2.53rd quartile 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.0High 5 4.6 4.5 4.5% proficient 57% 42% 61% 37%

FA 03 FA 06 FA 07 SP 08Sample size 23 28 33 30Mean 2.5 2.7 3.05 3.08St. Dev. 1.1 .9 1.75 .89Low 1 1.3 1 1.31st quartile 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.52nd quartile 2.5 2.5 3 3.253rd quartile 3.5 3.4 4 3.8High 5 4.5 5 4.5% proficient 39% 39% 64% 60%

FA 03 FA 06 FA 07 SP 08

Sample size 23 28 33 30

Mean 2.9 2.5 2.55 2.59

St. Dev. 1.0 1.0 1.23 .91

Low 1 1.3 1 1

1st quartile 2 2.1 1.3 2

2nd quartile 3 2.5 2.5 2.5

3rd quartile 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.3

High 4.3 4.8 5 5

% proficient 61% 32% 48% 43%

Ethnicity Comm Prob Solve Mult Reps

White 3.35 3.89 3.21

Overall 2.58 3.08 2.59

Conclusions

All instructors participating Communication a major drop Easy to distinguish good vs. bad work Definite achievement gap This semester