Surveys were filled out by 15 of the 20 (?) faculty teaching Freshman Inquiry in the 1997-98 academic year. The survey asked faculty to rate math proficiencies D and E and English proficiencies E and F on a scale of 0 to 5 (Click here to see questionaire). These particular proficiencies were chosen from the PASS Math and English list as they seemed most closely related to the goals of the FRINQ curriculum.

The scale was:

0- I do not feel I have the expertise

1- I would not teach this as I expect students to come to the university with this ability

2-I did not teach this

3- I covered most of what I think this sentence represents

4- I believe the majority of of students can do this.

5- I have externally verifiable evidence that the majority of students can do this.

None of the respondants used the "1" score. No one seemed willing to make a value judgement on the appropriateness of these proficiencies at this level. Only four of the respondants chose to use "0"s, all with regard to math proficiencies.

Math D. There were 8 scores of "3" or above and 7 of "2" or below. So a slight majority felt they had at least covered the majority of the probability and stat proficiency. There were two "0"s and one "5".

Math E did not fair so well. 10 respondents rated the proficiencies below "3" (there was one "2.5"}. Only three rated it "3" or above (two of them were "5"). Two respondants did not respond to this question. (See note on interviews below).

English F. All 15 respondants rated this at "3" or above (five were "3". five or "4" and five "5"s). So communication seemed to be covered well and students could do it after completing FRINQ.

English E was almost as good. 12 respondants rated it a "3" or above. There was one "2" and two chose not to respond. There were six "4"s and three "5"s, so most felt their students could conduct inquiry and research.

INTERVIEWS

Although the interview process has not yet been completed, I will give some preliminary information as it seems to enlighten the above. Three of the faculty were interviewed from two teams (each team has 5 faculty), specifically about the math they covered. They all felt that their team had dealt with computing issues, but they had not recognized what they were doing as being related to math E, as stated. There seemed to be a lot of graphical analysis (which secondarily dealt with estimation).