Strategy 2: Probability (not)

Most general education programs include requirements in math and science, often including at least one lab science. Catalogs will feature a list of approved math courses, which often serve as pre-requisites for the list of approved science courses. Students are sorted by SAT scores, High School records, and/or placement tests into a recommended math course, and their journey through their STEM experience is meant to begin there.

Except it mostly doesn't, at least not at the non-elite universities and colleges, you know, the majority of colleges. No, most of the time, the STEM experience begins in remediation. And that experience is often the end of a student's experience of college. The data on remedial pathways are clear... students fail and repeat and fail and leave (Complete College America

). This is particularly true in math (less so in English where most of the struggle is for English Language Learners). Years of research and experimentation has led to new strategies for those who struggle with math. These strategies sometimes focus on the initial placement (allowing students to prep for the placement test so they can improve their scores). Others focus on embedded support in the general education level math (peer mentors or just-in-time reviews), which can improve outcomes if the faculty are fully on board (in my experience, they rarely are). Yet another strategy has been to make sure that students are in the right math track, skipping algebra if they are not headed into a calculus based discipline. This makes sense intuitively, but may create difficulty for those who change their minds about their majors. Whatever the strategy, it is clear that people are working hard to solve the math problem. It is only kind of working.

I have lots of thoughts on the instruction of math, having been through many of these innovations in my time as a dean and as provost, but none of them really get to my point here. The fact is that we have a terrible relationship with math as a nation, and this is highly problematic. According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) the United States scores 19th on mathematics proficiency in 4th grade and 22nd in 8th grade. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that in the United States only 26% of 12th graders are proficient in math, 21% are proficient in science. Proficiency is defined not just as basic subject knowledge, but also the ability to apply that knowledge to solve problems, draw inferences, and come to conclusions. This is a level necessary for continued study in college, but also for navigating important questions that arise in the world outside of education. Questions like, How much will I really owe on my credit cards? How do I calculate the amount of paint I need to re-paint my house or tiles for re-roofing? How do I increase or decrease the dose of tylenol for my baby, based on her weight? How do I increase this recipe without simply doubling everything? How much should I worry about the side effects of this vaccination? How shall I choose between treatments for cancer, ulcers, heart disease? How do I understand return on investment for education, infrastructure, or buying a home? In other words, an awful lot of daily decision-making can be better understood if one has some basic understanding of math and science.

Perhaps more disturbing is that we are comfortable in our lack of skills in these areas. We often hear things like, "I'm not a math person" and we forgive ourselves and our children for not being fully comfortable with algebra or even basic arithmetic. We laugh off our misunderstandings of probability, which leaves little room for understanding hypothesis testing or science more generally. But when we do this we are really saying, "I am willing to surrender my quantitative or science-based decisions to someone else." I believe in experts and rely on them for guidance on many things, but if you can't challenge anything, you are prey unscrupulous, unfounded, and just plain silly claims. That is no way to run a democracy.

Much of the work to improve our performance in these areas really must start in Kindergarten. From counting games to informal science to simple problem solving or hypothesis testing, we can instill confidence in the practices of science and quantitative reasoning by using it all the time. We make a mistake by setting it off as a special topic. Like reading, some direct instruction is necessary. But, unlike reading, we don't continue to use the skills in lots of contexts. We read everywhere; we do math in math class. This really must change if we hope to find general improvement in these skills.

But what about college? What can we do to strengthen our students' performance in these areas. Having watched students struggle with basic algebra and dread their general education science courses for years, I think it is time for substantive change. We keep focusing on the foundational skills, often angry with students for not arriving with them, but we rarely connect those skills to anything but future classes. In other words, these are pre-reqs to something else in college, not foundations for life-long decisions-making.

After living through many efforts to reform math instruction just to get students through algebra, I am convinced that we are approaching the whole area from the wrong perspective. We need to figure out a way to shine a light on what makes math interesting or at least important. So, like the idea of math everywhere in grade school, perhaps we need to do something similar in college. We see glimpses of this when we see discipline focused math (stats for psych majors, for example). That's good, but still needs regular reinforcement, not just in the subsequent research course where students must learn to choose the right statistical approach to answer research questions. But are they using the stats in all of the classes where they read pscyhological research? Probably not.

There have also been some glimpses of this in computer science courses designed for people in the arts who are using technology to design websites or create games or in theatre tech classes where students also learn some carpentry. Trying to show the less STEM oriented student how the programming and math bring their work to life is a good idea. But are we following up in subsequent classes, continuing to connect the art to the language of coding or geometry?

In the sciences, too, there is often a gap in math competence. If students are in chemistry or physics, then math is reinforced, but not as frequently in biology. Like gen-ed math, biology (and health professions), math tends to be something we get through, not something we use regularly. It needs more weaving through the disciplines to support fluency.

This is a long way of saying that we miss the mark when we thinking of quantitative reasoning skills as something in a course. They need to be as prevalent in our curriculum as reading and writing. That will mean re-thinking how we prepare courses and how we provide support for students and, honestly, faculty. We just weren't all trained to be comfortable talking about quantitative subjects and we dont always know how to support ongoing engagement with mathematical concepts. This transformation will take a strong commitment to pedagogical support and investment in ongoing training. But remember, most faculty must have a basic proficiency in writing, at least enough to help students with the style appropriate to their fields. We need to have that same basic proficiency in math and probability.

I am describing a lot of work. We'll have to stop doing something else to support it. But if you look at the way that our country is generally bamboozled by misrepresented data, I think you'll realize that this must be a priority.

Complete College America (2012). Remediation: Higher Education's Bridge to Nowhere. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED536825

von Davier, M., Kennedy, A., Reynolds, K., Fishbein, B., Khorramdel, L. Aldrich, C., Bookbinder, A., Bezirhan, U., & Yin, L. (2024). TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.timss.rs6460.

https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/highschool-06.html#:~:text=Only%2026%25%20of%2012th,on%20the%20NAEP%20science%20assessment.