*Northwest Indian College**has used the grant resources to host four all-site meetings of math faculty in September of 2010 and 2011, and January 2011 and 2012; we have revised the catalog descriptions for our two pre-college algebra courses, and revised their course outcomes, aiming to reduce the breadth of the curriculum and increase the depth with which topics are covered. We have also begun to confronted the issue of the current catalog description and course outcomes for our college algebra class, which currently do not match each other.
We also used the time to meet to share classroom strategies suggested by Ruth Parker, the ones developed at the complex instruction workshop from October 2010, and to assist to a presentation by Elese Washines, a Native Math instructor from the Yakama Nation who now teaches teacher preparation classes at Heritage University. She gave a workshop on culturally responsive teaching practices.

We created a Faculty Inquiry Group (FIG) and connect the full- and part-time faculty who teach pre-college math at the main campus with the pre-college math faculty who work at the five extended campus sites, both face to face and through ITV and other technological means, such as an internal discussion blog.

Given the geographical distance and the many time commitments that the faculty have, we have developed an initial process for doing reciprocal observations through videos. Using the FlipCam, we film class sessions, post them online and then watch the videos separately, so that we can then discuss them as a group during our FIG meetings. Initially we asked the faculty to focus on questions suggested by the faculty who were being observed, in part to build trust and practice. In September of 2011 we practiced using an observation protocol suggested by Emily Lardner. We practiced using the protocol on a video of a model lesson taught by Elese Wasines here at NWIC in May of 2011; we using the protocol, reflected on the process and made revisions to the protocol itself.

After some discussion at the RPM summer institute in 2011, at our fall gathering we collectively created our first common assessment on linear equations, with the idea that it would be implemented in all sections at all sites. We have had some partial success in this matter. Mickey and Gillies attended one of our FIG meetings and shared with us a protocol for the evaluation of tasks and student work on those tasks, which we have successively used to revise and refine our common assessment.

We have also begun the work of writing a "dev-ed math instructor packet" similar to and inspired by the one produced by Highline Community College, reflecting our context and class content; and, with the opening of a new site at Nisqually, we look forward to being able to share it with the faculty who will get hired to teach there.

Some of the materials we have created:

Justin Guillory
Dean Acad & Dist. Learning
Matteo Tamburini
Faculty Mathematics Dept
John Frey
Learning Assistance Center
Gaylene Gobert
Site Mgr Swinomish
Kathy Humphreys-Shafer
Faculty ABE-GED
James Giles
PT Faculty Mathematics
Josie Kamkoff
Tutor Math/ Writing Center
Zach Bunton
Tutor Math/ Writing Center
Carole Rave

Summer 2010 Action Plans

Spring Retreat 2010 Vision Exercise

"Post-It" Note Key Comments/Questions:

1. Can we come up with problems that are structured for the students to work on on their own? Would changing classroom dynamic affect student understanding? Hypothesis: yes, depending on the teacher.
2. Can you remove traditionally significant parts of curriculum from Dev-Ed math and not negatively impact college level math success? Hypothesis: yes, depending on the teacher.
3. For students who “drift-off” after 2,3,4…weeks in the quarter, are the reasons classroom related or not? Hypothesis: yes, a myriad of reasons.
4. After 50 years of research, does the teacher make the difference in the classroom of student success?