GHC began in fall 2014 placing students into math courses that reflect chosen career areas (STEM pathway versus non-STEM or the STATS pathway) after piloting this placement in 2013-14. The anticipated effect is on the ability of non-STEM students to progress, continue their studies, and receive credentials that would have been harder to attain when the STEM pathway, with its basis in algebra, was the only Learning Support math option.
Co-requisite students in STEM and STATS paths are having success as documented in a prior section, so the focus in this section is on foundation-level courses in the STEM and STATS areas
1.Success rates (rates of grades of A, B, or C) of students in foundations remediation;
2.comparison of success rates in the gateway class the following term to rates of new students who did not require remediation;
3.success rates of foundations students in the follow on classes (compared with similar data from students who started in corequisite remediation and no remediation),
4.retention of foundations students to the following term (fall to spring retention) and the following year (one-year retention).
Pass rates in foundations for the STEM path were strong in Fall 2014 at 80%. As these students moved on to MATH 1111 in the spring (as 84% of them did), 72% of them passed. This success rate compares favorably with new students starting MATH 1111 in the spring term with no LS requirement (pass rate of 54%). It also compares well with Fall 2014 students who were in coreq remediation (60% of them passed MATH 1111) and those who did not have an LS Math requirement (70% pass rate).
Pass rates in foundations for the STATS path were not as strong as in the STEM path, with 76% passing foundations in the Fall 2014 and of those who took MATH 1001 in the spring (89% of eligible students did), 68% of them passed. This pass rate does not compare favorably with new students starting MATH 1001 in the spring term with no LS requirement (pass rate of 83%). Similarly the pass rate in MATH 1001 of foundations students in the STATS path did not compare favorably with MATH 1001 students starting in corequisite remediation (79%) or those with no LS Math requirement (77%).
Interim Measures of Progress
Fall 2014 Cohort
Gateway in Two (STEM). Although the pass rates in foundations and MATH 1111 were reasonably good (72% or higher), the sense in which the foundations students on the STEM path fell behind the coreq students shows in the percentage of each group who had completed remediation and the gateway course by the end of two terms (48% for foundations students and 64% for coreq students, compared with 73% for students with no LS requirement). Even allowing a comparision to the Gateway in Three figure for the foundations students, the percentage of the overall cohort who were through the gateway increased only to 57%, still behind the other groups of MATH 1111 students (7% behind coreq students, 16% behind non-LS).
Retention for STEM foundations. Fall-to-spring retention, foundations students 86%, no Math LS requirement taking 1111 85%. Fall-to-fall retention: foundations students 65%%, no Math LS requirement 65%.
Gateway in Two (STATS). With lower success rates in MATH 1001 than other students who started in fall 2014, foundations students also had a lower percentage of the overall cohort through the gateway class in two terms (45% for foundations, 79% for coreq, 79% for non-LS). Extending the comparison to the Gateway in Three figure for foundations, percentage of the overall cohort who were through the gateway increased only to 49%, even more distant from the other groups than the STEM foundations group was (30% difference).
Retention for STATS foundations. Fall-to-spring retention, foundations students 75%, no Math LS requirement taking 1001 82%. Fall-to-fall retention: foundations students 53%%, no Math LS requirement 64%.
Measures of Success
The measure of success for remediation in Math is for students starting in Learning Support to complete gateway and next classes at the same rate as those who started without LS requirements. For foundations students in STEM in fall 2014, this goal was near accomplishment for the gateway courses as they did well on each course. However, with two “loss points” (the foundations class and the gateway class) as opposed to one (just the gateway class for the coreq and non-LS), a lower percentage of the overall cohort went through the gateway on a timely basis (even when considering a three-term option for “timely”).
For students starting in foundations on the STATS path in fall 2014, the prospects were dimmer. With lower pass rates at both “loss points,” the foundations students were through the gateway class on a timely basis at much lower rate than the other groups.
Based on results from the fall 2014 students, a case could be made for raising the split between foundations and coreq based on strong pass rates on the STEM path. With fewer “loss points,” more foundations students might get through the gateway class in two term. On the STATS path, the results may point more toward a revision of the foundations course.