1. College Algebra Across Texas— Survey Results G. Donald Allen – Texas A&M University Linda Reichwein Zientek – Blinn College Mel Griffin – Texas A&M University Mel Griffin – Texas A&M University Gloria White – Charles A. Dana Center Paula A. Wilhite – Northeast Texas Community College

2. Sample 33 Community Colleges 33 Community Colleges 13 Universities 13 Universities 72% Retention Rate 72% Retention Rate 69 % Completer Rate 69 % Completer Rate

3. College Algebra (M1314) Why Math 1314? Why Math 1314? Who Enrolls in Math 1314? Who Enrolls in Math 1314? Topics Covered? Topics Covered?

16. Topics Indicated by Department Chairs as Important for Incoming College Algebra Students _ __________________________________________________________________________________ Percent by University Percent by Community College _________________________________ _________________________________ Most Somewhat Marginal or Most Somewhat Marginal or Topics Important Important No Importance Important Important No Importance __________________________________________________________________________________ Algebraic Manipulation 100 0 0 100 0 0 Problem Solving 67 25 8 84 16 0 Fractions 83 17 0 82 16 0 Logarithmic/ Exponential 18 55 27 16 68 16 Trigonometry 0 36 64 3 13 84 Regression Modeling 9 9 82 3 20 77 Graphing Calculator 18 55 27 6 47 47 Group Work 9 27 64 0 48 52 _____________________________________________________________________________

21. Correlations Between Prerequisite Scores and Departmental Grade Distributions __________________________________________________ Tests SAT THEA Compass Accuplacer _______________________________________ ACT.373.506*.459.821** SAT.470*.680**.206 THEA.846**.520* Compass.453 ________________________________________ Note. * indicates statistically significant at the.05 level. Effect sizes greater than.4 are italicized and considered noteworthy.

23. Conclusion College Algebra students were typically not entering STEM fields. College Algebra students were typically not entering STEM fields. University and community colleges were consistent in their beliefs about what topics students should know and algebraic manipulation and fractions topped their list. University and community colleges were consistent in their beliefs about what topics students should know and algebraic manipulation and fractions topped their list. University and community college teachers predominant instructional method was traditional lecture but graphing calculators were being incorporated in the lectures with variations existing between schools. University and community college teachers predominant instructional method was traditional lecture but graphing calculators were being incorporated in the lectures with variations existing between schools. Professors in higher education typically assessed students in traditional methods of exams and quizzes. Professors in higher education typically assessed students in traditional methods of exams and quizzes. Courses alone were not used to predict students’ college readiness. Courses alone were not used to predict students’ college readiness.

24. Conclusion Community college and university mathematics departments paralleled each other on Community college and university mathematics departments paralleled each other on instructional modality instructional modality use of technology use of technology assessment methods assessment methods Neither community colleges nor universities has moved far from the traditional classroom. Neither community colleges nor universities has moved far from the traditional classroom. The transition from community college to university is rather seamless in regards to teaching environment but that high school students emerging from non-traditional classrooms will need to adjust to the traditional class settings typical at most institutions of higher education. The transition from community college to university is rather seamless in regards to teaching environment but that high school students emerging from non-traditional classrooms will need to adjust to the traditional class settings typical at most institutions of higher education.

25. Contact Information Linda Zientek, lrzientek@yahoo.com Linda Zientek, lrzientek@yahoo.comlrzientek@yahoo.com Mel Griffin, melgriffin@tamu.edu Mel Griffin, melgriffin@tamu.edumelgriffin@tamu.edu Don Allen, dallen@math.tamu.edu Don Allen, dallen@math.tamu.edudallen@math.tamu.edu Paula Wilhite, pwilhite@ntcc.edu Paula Wilhite, pwilhite@ntcc.edu