Math can be a significant obstacle for higher education completion. The first roadblock students face is often their math placement exam. Through a pilot test of alternative math placement procedures, the University System of Maryland found adaptive learning software can help prepare students for math success.
Math has been an obstacle for students’ university progress for some time (Logue et al. 2016; Bailey 2009). Problems with math can even start before a student even sees a college classroom through the administration of high-stakes exams for math placement. Through the practice of high-stakes examination for math placement, the combination of math and test anxiety can work together to hinder student success in a way that can cause unnecessary harm to students. Is there a better way to prepare and/or assess students for math placement at the university level?
The University System of Maryland is striving to answer this question and help students navigate these math- and test-based obstacles starting with math placement and working to develop alternatives to developmental math to create more opportunities for students to succeed in college-level math. As a first step, USM created a pilot program testing five alternative math placement procedures across 12 institutions.
The primary component of the new placement procedures was the integration of adaptive learning tools (EdReady or ALEKS) as an aid to student preparation for the placement exams. In two of the alternative math placement procedures some cases, these adaptive learning tools were also used as a replacement for the more traditional high-stakes placement exams. Additionally, institutions chose the process for administration of the tests, deciding whether or not they would be given in a high-stakes, proctored environment; as well as the number of times a student was permitted to retake the placement exam.
The results of these tests show that the number of topics a student studied within the adaptive learning software influenced the likelihood of scoring higher on their placement exam as well as a higher likelihood of successful course completion for the student. Students were also shown to succeed at higher rates in ways that were unrelated to the adaptive learning opportunities. when they are given more than one opportunity to take the placement exam and when they are offered the exam in a lower-stakes non-proctored environment. While there is some worry that proterless testing could result in higher rates of cheating, which could harm the potential success for students in the courses they enroll in, we found no difference in course success for students who placed in proctored and unproctored environments. These results show clear opportunities for student support that can help bolster student success and decrease the need for math remediation.
These positive trends in student success show that the addition of adaptive learning tools for student preparation and assessment can improve student outcomes. Additionally, by removing the requirement of student testing in a high-stakes environment students have greater opportunity for success in the math courses they eventually take.
Â