Math scores from fall
2002 will be compared to math scores for spring 2003.
|
|
|
Pharm Fall
2002 |
|
Pharm Fall
2003 |
Total
Students |
|
|
105 |
|
|
106 |
|
Withdrawals
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
11 |
|
Failures |
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
Math
Assessment Failures |
|
|
21 |
|
|
21 |
|
Math
Calculation Failures |
|
|
17 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily the same persons, but by-in-large those who had
trouble with math early on, did poorly overall.
Of those who failed the initial Math test in group 2, only 2
students have not repeated a course or failed completely.
In group 1, there were 6 students who have continued through the program. One student in session 2, failed based on the math
requirement.
There were several notable exceptions, one student in group one
who scored a 37.5 on the math assessment, scored a 92 on the on the initial calculation
exam. Another student scored a 60 and his
initial calculation score was 100. Both
students have remained in the program to date.
In addition to the comparison of the scores, a midterm assessment
(note that this is the Flashlight Survey that I used in
LO #2, here however, I am eliciting input about perceived math skills)
was
done. The assessment included several items
but the last few questions focused on identifying student’s perceptions of their
strengths and weaknesses in math. The
assessment was designed to elicit closed and open-ended responses. Most students valued the math instruction (62/67)
respondents felt the math component was helpful or very helpful. Many students took the time to write out comments (original comments and spelling by students) for the open ended
questions.
This is a classic classroom assessment technique that has been
adapted to an electronic form. The
teacher-designed form was chosen as it is relatively easy to use, and provides the teacher
responses to specific questions. In addition,
it allows the teacher to respond early to feedback (Angelo & Cross, 1988). |