Actively Learning Mathematics RAC Update for the CSU-MTEP Convening October 10-11, 2014

RAC Partners Gary Martin, Ulrich Albrecht: Auburn University David Webb, Eric Stade, Robert Tubbs, Faan Tone Liu: University of Colorado Boulde r Jim Lewis, Wendy Smith: University of Nebraska Lincoln Angie Hodge: University of Nebraska Omaha Vicki Seeley, Nicole Engelke: West Virginia University

Statement of the Problem High DFW rates in entry-level undergraduate mathematics courses impacts 1.Persistence in postsecondary education 2.Pursuit of STEM majors and related careers 3.Development of future secondary math teachers

Relation to Overall Drivers BCC

Aim Statement Through the use of active learning design principles, increase the percent of students succeeding in targeted, more rigorous freshman level math courses (Precalculus, Calculus 1 and/or Calculus 2) by 5-10% base points by December NOTES: Active Learning Design Principles are being developed. Focus on the DFW rate as the most accessible and politically important measure. – Long-term: Add in data related to persistence; change in student attitudes; and more STEM majors (including secondary mathematics) Demonstrate that the instruction is more rigorous through examination of examinations. Need to better understand the baseline, including comparing fall/spring data.

Active Learning Design Principles Mathematics content: toward key ideas and coherence Instructional activities: promote active construction of meaning, sense making, and relational reasoning Norms for classroom discourse: reasoning in process Instructional environment: supports interaction in small groups, whole-class discussion and individual seatwork Instructional decisions: perspective of learner Assessments: need to reflect emphasis on goals

Measures Used Assessments used Analysis of reasoning goals, depth of knowledge Instructional practice Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) Students’ attitudes & dispositions towards math CLASS: Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey Adapted for mathematics in 2008 Student achievement Tracking DFW rates: five years for Precalculus to Calculus 2

General Approach Taken Assessment, instructional materials – ALM design principles Will Building – buy-in for supporting elements – coalitions and leadership Capacities of Instructors – Use of learning assistants – Professional development for instructors and learning assistants

Current Activities Refine ALM design principles Create/pilot activities that support active learning Implement Undergrad Learning Assistant Develop high leverage professional development Prepare and submit IUSE proposal

Initial Plans for Continue to refine the Active Learning Design Principles. Ensure that measures are truly aligned with these Design Principles. Consider the impact that class meeting patterns have on implementing active learning. Investigate the relationship between class attendance and student performance. Defining “rigor” – analyzing exams to establish levels of reasoning required. Considering the “non-negotiable content” for courses. Explore common ways to improve student response rates on the CLASS. Create and pilot activities that support active learning

Opportunities for Involvement Build interest among faculty members Develop shared political will to change the teaching of undergraduation mathematics – This takes time and needs to begin one or more semesters in advance. Collect baseline data – To demonstrate change and growth Pilot some select ALM materials

Next Steps Continue developing ALM resources Complete data collection & analysis Compare implementation and impact Identify revision and development needs Extend ALM approach to other partners