Encouraging Competence in Basic Mathematics in Hydrology using The Math You Need Kyle Fredrick California University of Pennsylvania A member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

Overview O Cal U is a 4-year public university in southwestern PA O “Coal Country” and major shale gas impacts O Low-income and first-generation dominate O 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 - Hydrology O EAS 303 – targeted to sophomores and juniors O Typically about 35 students (50 this year), each Fall O Required for ALL Earth Science majors O Geology, Env. Earth Sci., Meteorology, Earth Sci. Ed O Sometimes taken by Chem and Bio (Env. Studies/Sci) O Pre-reqs O Introduction to Geology (traditional physical geol.) O College Algebra O First “quantitative” science class for most O Physics-based O Focus on water balance, fluid dynamics O Followed up with elective Groundwater Hydrology O STEEP learning curve including an intro to 3D calculus

Targeted Problems O Others will discuss or have discussed: O Significant remedial needs and math aversion for many students O Inadequate retention and training from high school and pre- requisite college courses O From , course was largely distracted with remedial math O Almost every class period included some level of remedial math, including repetition of “problem topics” O Unit Conversions!!! O Basic algebraic manipulation O Even scientific notation O Most students have not had college physics  NO CONTEXT

Implementation O 39 students for Fall 2011 O Pre-test and Post-test O Identical 25-question set O Suite of questions from each of 6 “quizzes” O Quizzes assigned weekly or bi-weekly O Five with “new” material O One “review” quiz focusing on troublesome questions or topics O 10 questions each (except one), timed at one hour O SOME alignment with course topics, but not absolutely related O TMYN was completed by Week 11

Results O Table scores out of 5 O Average Improvement 21% Pre- to Post-test O Students liked it! O Anecdotally, students agreed that it helped O From Senior Met. Major with a 4.0 to Math-phobic Env. Earth Science sophomore Table 1: QuestionAvg 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

Room for Improvement O Students focused on assessments, not modules O Partially my fault, for not encouraging them to work through modules O Question bank is limited O Not yet designed for upper-level implementation O Not designed for Hydrology O Not enough “building” and reinforcement in my implementation O Minimize opportunities for cheating O Collect scratch paper?

TMYN Strengths O Most students didn’t complain, Participation was high and consistent O Integrated approach – Built into schedule from Day 1 O Short quizzes, not time-intensive O Low stakes O Class time dedicated to content O We reviewed TMYN questions or topics with which students had trouble O Encouraged peer mentoring and group study

BURNING Questions?