1 / 26

Update on the MAA ’ s Studies of Calculus

This study explores the characteristics of successful college calculus programs, including teaching methods, pedagogy, student interaction, and gender differences. The study includes a national survey of students and instructors, a statistical model of factors influencing student attitudes and intention to persist, and case studies of 18 institutions with successful calculus programs.

jfrancis
Download Presentation

Update on the MAA ’ s Studies of Calculus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on the MAA’s Studies of Calculus DRL REESE #0910240 David Bressoud St. Paul, MN AMS Committee on Education Washington, DC October 31, 2015 A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks

  2. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus 2009–2016 DRL REESE #0910240 PI: David Bressoud co-PI’s: Chris Rasmussen San Diego State Marilyn Carlson Arizona State Vilma Mesa U Michigan Michael Pearson MAA Linda Braddy MAA Statistical Consultants: Phil Sadler & Gerhard Sonnert, Harvard

  3. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus Three parts: National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010) Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

  4. Fall 2010 • Phase I: Survey • Responses from • 213 colleges and universities • 502 instructors representing • 663 Calculus I classes and • 26,257 students • 14,184 students

  5. Source: MAA CSPCC

  6. Career goals of students in mainstream* Calculus I * “Mainstream” implies it can be used as part of the pre-requisite stream for more advanced mathematics courses. Source: MAA CSPCC

  7. Gender differences of career goals of students in Mainstream Calculus I

  8. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus Three parts: National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010) Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

  9. Statistically significant drops in confidence, enjoyment, and desire to continue lowest = strongly disagree, highest = strongly agree

  10. “Good Teaching” My Calculus Instructor: • provided explanations that were understandable • helped me become a better problem solver • allowed time for me to understand difficult ideas • made me feel comfortable in asking questions during class • presented more than one method for solving problems • made class interesting • asked questions to determine if I understood what was being discussed

  11. “Ambitious Pedagogy” • Instructor had students work with one another • Assignments were submitted as group projects • Exam questions included word problems • Assignments included word problems • Assignments required explanation of thinking • Assignments included problems unlike those done in class or in the book • Instructor held whole-class discussion

  12. Interaction on student confidence

  13. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus Three parts: National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010) Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

  14. 7 Common Features of Calculus Programs at Selected PhD Granting Institutions • 1- Rigorous courses • 2- Attention to local data • 3- GTA professional development • 4- Supporting teaching and active learning • 5- Coordination • 6- Learning resources • 7- Placement

  15. Bressoud, Mesa, & Rasmussen (eds.). 2015. Insights and Recommendations from the MAA National Study of College Calculus. • Chapters describing best practices in • Placement • Student support • Pedagogy • Departmental dynamics • Preparation for teaching for graduate students PDF available at maa.org/cspcc

  16. Progress through Calculus 2015–2019 DUE I-USE #1430540 PI: David Bressoud co-PI’s: Chris Rasmussen San Diego State Linda Braddy MAA Jess Ellis Colorado State Estrella Johnson Virginia Tech Sean Larsen Portland State

  17. Progress through Calculus • Restrict to departments with graduate programs in Mathematics (Masters and/or PhD) • Pre-Calculus through Calculus II sequence • Multiple outcome measures (including pre- and post-testing of student knowledge, tracking persistence, success in subsequent courses) • Focus on networking and observing departments that are reforming one or more courses in this sequence

  18. Spring 2015, conducted survey of all math departments with graduate programs to gather background information and identify candidates for case study sites. • Response rates: • 134 of 178 with PhD programs, 75% • 89 of 152 with Masters programs, 59%

  19. Percentage of respondents using placement tool (could select multiple placement tools)

  20. Number (out of 223) using each placement tool With degree of satisfaction

  21. Across all placement instruments • 9% are not satisfied • 39% consider them adequate, but could be improved • 30% are currently replacing or have recently replaced their placement instrument(s) • 29% are considering changing their placement instruments

  22. Next Stages: • Building networks of universities sharing common concerns. • Workshop immediately following this committee meeting • Conference in Saint Paul, MN, June 16–19, 2016 • Identification of twelve universities for detailed study over three years.

  23. www.trelliscience.com

  24. Next Stages: • Building networks of universities sharing common concerns. • Workshop immediately following this committee meeting • Conference in Saint Paul, MN, June 16–19, 2016 • Identification of twelve universities for detailed study over three years. A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks

More Related