Using Computer Adaptive Testing Software in a College Environment

1
Using Computer Adaptive Testing Software in a
College Environment

• George Alexander
• UW Rock County
• Eric Key and Richard OMalley
• UW-Milwaukee

2
Difficulties Teaching Pre-College Mathematics at
the College Level

• Diverse student skill base
• One size fits all model
• Inefficient use of instructional time
• Diversion of student effort from degree
  objectives
• Diversion of university resources

3
Project Goals

• Identify ways to
• Help students avoid needless review
• Help students achieve accurate mathematics
  placements
• Enable teachers to target instruction to the
  individual needs of students
• Engage students as active learners

4
Possible Remedy Computer Adaptive Testing

• Computer adaptive testing is a cyclical process
• Assess the students current skill set
• Provide a list of topics that can reasonably be
  studied from that skill set
• Assess student progress and identify new topics
  to study
• This works on an individualized basis

5
Two implementations

• Computer Adaptive Testing in a Classroom Setting
• Beginning Algebra at UW-Rock County
• College Algebra at UW-Milwaukee
• Computer Adaptive Testing as a Means of Review
  Before Starting Coursework
• Math PEP
• Product Choice ALEKS - Assessment and LEarning
  in Knowledge Spaces

6
Access to ALEKS

• Standard Internet requirements
• Plug-in download required
• Math Lab/Computer Lab/Library/Home
• www.highed.aleks.com

7
Beginning Algebra ALEKS at UW Rock County

• Require a minimum of
• 45 hours of ALEKS usage
• 75 of ALEKS topics mastered
• Recommend 90 hours of ALEKS usage
• Give in-class exams to confirm mastery
• Final Exam UW Math Placement retest

8
ALEKS at UW Rock County

• Class meets in lab with 25 computers
• Students work independently in and out of class
• Individual instruction during class period
• Student tutor available 5 hours per week

9
Initial ALEKS assessments
UW Rock County, Spring 2002
10
Recent ALEKS assessments
UW Rock County, Spring 2002 (midterm)
11
Assessments vs. Hours of Usage
UW Rock County, Spring 2002 (midterm)
12
College Algebra ALEKS at UW Milwaukee

• Base Text Barnett, Ziegler, Byleen
• ALEKS and Text are linked
• Course consists of two types of topics
• Readiness for College Algebra
• College Algebra proper

13
College Algebra ALEKS at UW Milwaukee

• Recommended minimum 70 hours of ALEKS usage
• Required
• 100 mastery of readiness items
• 70 of ALEKS topics mastered for C
• All exams administered by ALEKS

14
College Algebra ALEKS at UW Milwaukee

• Initial ALEKS Assessment has two components
• Readiness for College Algebra (40 items)
• College Algebra Material (99 items)

15
Initial Readiness AssessmentIncluding Dropped
Students
16
ALEKS College AlgebraProgress
17
ALEKS College AlgebraOverall Progress
18
College Algebra ProgressItems Learned/hours
Spent
19
Mathematics Placement Enhancement Program(Math
PEP)

• How to increase math placement retesting?
• 90 place lower than last high school course
  taken
• 5 retest
• 65 test below math required for admission
• Too few UWM students repeat the Mathematics
  Placement Exam!

20
Math PEP

• Convincing Students to Retest
• Identify Students who just missed a higher
  placement
• Work with Advising
• Check University Records
• Mass mailing
• Individual Phone Calls to Selected Candidates

21
Math PEP Participation

• Factors influencing students choices
• Comfort level of Current Placement
• Disenchantment with placement into
  Non-Credit Courses
• Willingness to take classes that repeat high
  school work even if degrees are delayed

22
Math PEP Structure

• Use software to verify students current
  placement
• Use software to monitor individual student review
• Provide computer resources
• Provide encouragement to review
• Encourage students to re-test
• Advise students on future courses

23
Math PEP Outcomes

• 31 more students re-tested than in 2000
• 80 of Math PEP students in pre-algebra re-placed
  into algebra courses vs 59 of others
• 56 of Math PEP students in non-credit courses
  re-placed into credit courses vs 49 of others
• 8 of Math PEP students in credit courses
  re-placed higher vs 28 of others
• 96 of Math PEP students re-placed at least as
  high vs 89 of others

24
Math PEP Outcomes

• 750 students contacted
• 72 students reviewed
• 48 students retested
• 54 tested higher
• 140 others retested
• 50 of these tested higher

25
Students Retesting
26
Placement Code 00 Retesting Results

• 56 Students Retested With Original Placement Code
  00.
• 46 did not participate in Math PEP
• 10 participated in Math PEP
• Math PEP participants did markedly better!

27
Level 00 Retesting Results
28
Placement Code 10 Retesting Results

• 66 Students Retested With Original Placement Code
  10.
• 40 did not participate in Math PEP
• 26 participated in Math PEP
• Math PEP participants did slightly better!

29
Level 10 Retesting Results
30
Placement Code 20 Retesting Results

• 41 Students Retested With Original Placement Code
  20.
• 29 did not participate in Math PEP
• 12 participated in Math PEP
• Non-Math PEP participants did significantly
  better!

31
Level 20 Retesting Results
32
Initial Distribution of Placement Codes
33
Final Distribution of Placement Codes
34
Non Math PEP Before and After
35
Math PEP Before and After