Update on theMAA’s Studies of

CalculusDavid Bressoud

St. Paul, MNAMS Committee on EducationWashington, DCOctober 31, 2015

A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks

A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks

DRL REESE#0910240

Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus

2009–2016PI: David Bressoudco-PI’s:

Marilyn Carlson

Arizona State

Michael PearsonMAA

Vilma Mesa

U Michigan

Chris RasmussenSan Diego

State

Linda BraddyMAA

Statistical Consultants: Phil Sadler & Gerhard Sonnert, Harvard

DRL REESE#0910240

Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus

Three parts:

1.National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010)

2.Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I

3.Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

Fall 2010Phase I: Survey

Responses from

213 colleges and universities

502 instructors representing 663 Calculus I classes and 26,257 students

14,184 students

Source: MAA CSPCC

Career goals of students in mainstream* Calculus I

Source: MAA CSPCC

* “Mainstream” implies it can be used as part of the pre-requisite stream for more advanced mathematics courses.

Gender differences of career goals of students in Mainstream Calculus I

Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus

Three parts:

1.National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010)

2.Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I

3.Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

Statistically significant drops in confidence, enjoyment, and desire to continue

VariableAll Institutions Research Universities

Mean (SD) Effect Size Mean (SD) Effect Size

I am confident in my mathematical abilities (1–6)

4.89 (1.01)–0.46

4.93 (1.01)–0.47

4.42 (1.18) 4.40 (1.19)

I enjoy doing mathematics(1–6)

4.63 (1.27)–0.27

4.69 (1.24)–0.33

4.28 (1.37) 4.28 (1.35)

If I had a choice, I would continue to take mathematics (1–4)

2.93 (1.02)–0.09

2.97 (1.00)–0.14

2.84 (1.08) 2.83 (1.07)

lowest = strongly disagree, highest = strongly agree

“Good Teaching”My Calculus Instructor:

1. provided explanations that were understandable2. helped me become a better problem solver3. allowed time for me to understand difficult ideas4. made me feel comfortable in asking questions during

class5. presented more than one method for solving problems

6. made class interesting7. asked questions to determine if I understood what was

being discussed

“Ambitious Pedagogy”

1. Instructor had students work with one another2. Assignments were submitted as group projects3. Exam questions included word problems4. Assignments included word problems5. Assignments required explanation of thinking6. Assignments included problems unlike those done in

class or in the book7. Instructor held whole-class discussion

Interaction on student confidence

Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus

Three parts:

1.National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010)

2.Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I

3.Case studies of 18 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

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

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

Progress through Calculus2015–2019

PI: David Bressoudco-PI’s:

EstrellaJohnsonVirginia

Tech

JessEllis

Colorado State

Chris RasmussenSan Diego

State

Linda BraddyMAA

DUE I-USE#1430540

Sean Larsen

PortlandState

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

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%

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

Number (out of 223) using each placement toolWith degree of satisfaction

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

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.

www.trelliscience.com

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

A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks