A COMPARISON STUDY OF PLACEMENT STRATEGIES

FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS COURSES

Dr. Victoria IngallsTiffin University

• Issue of placement– 56% of faculty members indicated

that working with underprepared students was a source of stress

–placed too low, they may be bored, feel penalized and frustrated, and drop the class

– placed too high, there is little chance of success, and if they do pass, they are not likely to apply what they have learned

–frustration with the course and mathematics in general

–disables a student from achieving at an individual level, thereby reducing the chance of retention and success at the university

No published case studies of

accuracies, especially with

subjective judgment

• Demographics–Location–Size–Diversity–Level of selectivity

• Specific Math Course levels:–Foundations of Mathematics–Beginning Algebra–Finite Mathematics or College Algebra (depends on

student’s major)

Placement History•ACT•ACT’s Course Placement Service (CPS)•Folder analysis/Informed judgment•Faculty-developed test

“There is a need to periodically evaluate a placement scheme or system…. that is subject to malfunction over time due to changes in student characteristics and alterations in course content” (Frisbie, 1982, p. 133).

Literature Review• ACT-Allen & Sconig (2005); Noble

& Sawyer (2006); Bridgeman (1992); Jones (1997); Pascarella (2006)

• CPS- McNabb (1990)

• Informed Judgment- Berliner (1994, 2004); Hoge & Coladarci (1989); Coladarci (1986)

• Placement testing- Morante (1987, 1989); Truman (1992); Wattenbarger & McLeod (1989); Weber (1986)

•Computer Based (Cai, 2004)•Computer Adaptive Testing (Wang, 2007)

MethodologyRepeated measures

•ACT•CPS•Faculty-developed online placement test

•Informed Teacher Judgment

Accuracy Rates:

TRUE POSITIVE + TRUE NEGATIVE

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

False positives

**True positives

**True negatives

False negatives

From Course Placement System Guide, p. 4)

Results  χ2= 50.4 (3, N= 1709),

p < .001 overall accuracy

    no yesInformed Judgment

Count 181 661

% within method 21.5% 78.5%

ACT Count 184 463

% within method 28.4% 71.6%

CPS Count 25 42

% within method 37.3% 62.7%

PTEST Count 73 80

% within method 47.7% 52.3%

χ2 = 22.4 (2,N =104), p < .01

accuracy for Foundations in Mathematics

   no yes

informed judgment

Count 13 48

% within method 21.3% 78.7%

ACT Count 26 13

% within method 66.7% 33.3%

PTEST Count 3 1

% within method 75.0% 25.0%

χ2= 13.1 (2, N=478), p < .001

accuracy for Beginning Algebra

   no yes

informed judgment

Count 38 199

% within method 16.0% 84.0%

PTEST Count 12 37

% within method 24.5% 75.5%

ACT Count 59 133

% within method 30.7% 69.3%

 χ2 = 98.7 (3, N =

1127), p<.001

accuracy for Finite/College Algebra

    no yesInformed judgment

Count 79 465

% within method 14.5% 85.5%

ACT Count 99 317

% within method 23.8% 76.2%

CPS Count 25 42

% within method 37.3% 62.7%

PTEST Count 58 42

% within method 58.0% 42.0%

Implications

• Accuracy of historical methods• Single measure versus multiple

measures• Objective versus subjective

measures

Future Research

• Teacher judgment regression model

• Teacher regression model compared to CPS

• Examine sample of universities using CPS for accuracy

Is the ACT-M ≥ 19? Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?

Is the 16 ≤ ACT-M ≤ 19?

Is the GPA ≥ 2.5?

Are there college prep courses on the transcript?

Math 17174/181

Math 173

Math 174/181

Student Folders

Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?

Is the ACT-M ≤ 15? Math 173

Math 173 Math 100

YES No

Is the student from a large, urban district?

Math 100

Is there evidence of an IEP or alternative learning?

Math 173

Is the Algebra 1, 2 ≥ C?

For a copy of A COMPARISON STUDY OF PLACEMENT STRATEGIES

FOR COLLEGE MATHEMATICS COURSES

Victoria IngallsTiffin University419-448-3396

ingallsv@tiffin.edu