Seeking mathematics success for college students: a randomized field trial of an adapted approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many students enter the Canadian college system with insufficient mathematical ability and leave the system with little improvement. Those students who enter with poor mathematics ability typically take a developmental mathematics course as their first and possibly only mathematics course. The educational experiences that comprise a developmental mathematics course vary widely and are, too often, ineffective at improving students’ ability. This trend is concerning, since low mathematics ability is known to be related to lower rates of success in subsequent courses. To date, little attention has been paid to the selection of an instructional approach to consistently apply across developmental mathematics courses. Prior research suggests that an appropriate instructional method would involve explicit instruction and practising mathematical procedures linked to a mathematical concept. This study reports on a randomized field trial of a developmental mathematics approach at a college in Ontario, Canada. The new approach is an adaptation of the JUMP Math program, an explicit instruction method designed for primary and secondary school curriculae, to the college learning environment. In this study, a subset of courses was assigned to JUMP Math and the remainder was taught in the same style as in the previous years. We found consistent, modest improvement in the JUMP Math sections compared to the non-JUMP sections, after accounting for potential covariates. The findings from this randomized field trial, along with prior research on effective education for developmental mathematics students, suggest that JUMP Math is a promising way to improve college student outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".