surveying mathematics departments to identify characteristics of successful programs in college...
TRANSCRIPT
Surveying Mathematics Departments to Identify Characteristics of Successful
Programs in College Calculus
Jessica EllisSan Diego State University
Marilyn CarlsonArizona State University
David BressoudMacalester University
Chris RasmussenSan Diego State University
Sally Jacobs Scottsdale Community College
Michael PearsonThe Mathematical Association of America
Eric WeberArizona State University
Outline
• Goals and Background of Study• Research Questions• Project Phases–Phase 1: National Survey• Survey Design• Data Collection• Preliminary Results
–Phase 2: Explanatory Case Studies• Survey Design• Data Collection
Goals of Study
• Identify factors that contribute to success in college calculus
• Understand why and how these factors are leveraged in highly successful programs
Success Defined
“The most serious problem with current college calculus is not that students are inadequately prepared for the subsequent courses, but rather that they never take the subsequent courses” (Thompson et al., 2007).
Success in Calculus I is determined by:• completion of the course with an expected grade of C or
higher • and the intention to persist in the study of calculus at
least into Calculus II after completion of Calculus 1
Background
• College students enrolling calculus or above has decreased steadily from 8.93% in 1990 to 6.39% in 1996 (Lutzer et al., 2007)
• Calculus I is a primary filter of students in undergraduate
STEM programs across the nation (e.g., Steen, 1997; Thompson et al., 2006)
• The pattern of losing students in calculus and STEM majors is a great cost to our nation’s intellectual power and financial well being (Business Higher Education Forum, 2007)
Research Questions
• What are the primary variables that affect student success in calculus? –To be addressed primarily in Phase 1
• What institutional, course, and instructor attributes contribute to student success in calculus? –To be addressed primarily in Phase 2
Phase 1Large National Survey
Community Colleges
Four Year Colleges
Masters Granting Institutions
PhD Granting Institutions
Phases of Analyses
Phase 1: Data Collection
• Five surveys were developed and disseminated:• one course coordinator• student pre-term• student post-term• instructor pre-term• instructor post-term
Contacted Responded %
Chairs 521 259 50
Coordinators 259 213 82
Instructors
Pre term 1,225 701 57
Post term 715 531 74 (of 715)
43 (1,225)
Students
Pre term About 31,545 12,222 39
Post term 12,222 6,598 54 (of 12,222)
21 (of estimated total)
Survey Dissemination and Response Rates
Phase 1: Major Taxonomy Dimensions
Independent VariablesA. Student Beliefs and Affect (with 5 subcategories)B. Perceived Behaviors and Values of the Calculus Instructor (with 4
subcategories)C. The Role of Homework and Exams (with 4 subcategories)D. The Role and Behavior of the Student in Learning (with 6
subcategories)E. Supports for Students (with 2 subcategories)F. Readiness for Calculus (Post-survey)
Dependent VariablesA. Course grade and intention to take Calculus II (with 4 subcategories)B. Impact of Calculus I course on student (with 4 subcategories)C. Student self-perception of knowledge/skills in calculus
Select Independent Variables: Perceived Behaviors and Values of the Calculus Instructor
• Wants students to understand the ideas of calculus• Engages students in completing meaningful tasks• Seeks input to assess student understanding• Listens to students when they speak• Encourages students to make logical conjectures• Makes ideas of calculus relevant• Presses students for quality explanations• Holds students accountable for staying on task• Allows time for understanding difficult ideas• Makes class interesting• Makes sure there is closure after working on challenging problems• Supports students in becoming better problem solvers• Provides explanations that are understandable
Select Dependent Variables: Course grade and intention to take Calculus II
• Student anticipated course grade• Intention to take Calculus II– Before term– After term
• Assuming a Calculus I course grade of A, B, C, likelihood of continuing to Calculus II
• The main issues: • English as a second
language• concisely addressing
diverse institution types
• general lexical issues • Constrained by:• Survey Monkey• Survey consistency
Phase 1: Instrument Refinement
• The refinement process for these surveys included: • pilot surveys for students
and instructors at two large southwestern universities
• documents coordinating the five surveys
• weekly team conference calls
• emails with suggested amendments
Example: Instrument Refinement
• Two English as a second language issues surfaced during instructor pilot:– the double negative when answering never: “I never was unable to
make time for students to understand difficult ideas.” – the term “make time.” “How can you make time?”
Preliminary Results: Student pre-term
• About 60% of students enrolled in Calculus 1 passed Calculus AB
• About 58% of students enrolled in Calculus 1 passed Calculus BC
Preliminary Results: Student pre-term
Preliminary Results: Student pre-term
Research Questions
• What are the primary variables that affect student success in calculus?
• What institutional, course, and instructor attributes contribute to student success in calculus?
Phase 1Large National Survey
Community Colleges
Phase 2Explanatory Case Studies
Four Year Colleges
Masters Granting Institutions
PhD Granting Institutions
Informative Investigation of two successful programs
Informative Investigation of two successful programs
Informative Investigation of two successful programs
Informative Investigation of two successful programs
Phase 2: Logic Model
• Community college Team• Sean Larsen (math ed researcher), John Caughman
(mathematician), Estrella Johnson (graduate student)• Four-year college Team• Eric Hsu (math ed researcher), Arek Goetz (mathematician),
graduate student• Masters degree granting institution Team• Chris Rasmussen (math ed researcher), Samuel Shen
(mathematician), Jess Ellis (graduate student)• PhD granting institution Team• Marilyn Carlson (math ed researcher), Wayne Raskind
(mathematician), Michael Tallman (graduate student)
Phase 2: Case Study Teams
Phase 2: Logic Model
Phase 2: Data Collection• Documentation data
• memoranda and other communiqués
• Agendas• announcements and minutes of
meetings• administrative documents• formal studies and evaluations
• Direct observation
• Archival records• past Calculus enrollment history
• number of sections offered• passing rates and statistical
reports
• Interviews • Semi structured group (students)• Semi structured individual (key
personnel)
Phase 2: Logic Model
The end. Thank you for listening.
Marilyn [email protected]
Chris [email protected]
David [email protected]
Michael Pearson [email protected]
This research is supported by the NSF under grant REC-0910240. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect official positions of the NSF.
For more information on the project, please contact:
Special “thanks” to:
Megan Wawro George Sweeney Michael Tallman