Preparing our future colleagues: A report on the national landscape of graduate student instructor professional development programs Jessica Ellis, Colorado State University Natasha Speer, The University of Maine Jack Bookman, Duke University

Today’s report PtC: Progress through Calculus DUE Award # CoMInDS: College Mathematics Instructor Development Source DUE Award # Based on data from collaboration between two MAA-affiliated, NSF-funded projects

CoMInDS Activities Involve three core groups whose efforts have significant influence on the quality of undergraduate mathematics instruction: – Providers: Faculty who provide PD to graduate student Teaching Assistants (TAs). – Scholars: Faculty and graduate students whose research and other scholarly activities center on the teaching of undergraduate mathematics. – TAs: Graduate students whose responsibilities include teaching mathematics courses. Create a web-accessible resources suite Create and foster communities of practice to gather content for the suite and to improve PD offerings Workshops for Providers of PD Distance delivery of professional development workshops

Progress through Calculus Activities Natural extension from lessons learned during Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus (CSPCC) – Look at P2C2 (Precalculus to Calculus 2) Sequence – Look at minority serving institutions/ programs – Observe (and support) the propagation process Conduct workshops involving institutions in the process of change and new case studies to observe change Focusing on change related to the characteristics identified through CSPCC

Shared goals of projects CSPCC found GTA PD was a feature of successful programs PTC focuses on lower-division/first-year courses (where graduate students are apt to teach) PTC provides support for departments to revise calculus programs, including PD for TAs and CoMInDS is about PD for TAs and providers Both projects want to understand more about the current status of TA PD and support/understand change.

Our survey work PTC surveyed departments about calculus- program-related topics One part of survey: GTA PD PTC and CoMInDS team members collaborated on question design Questions about existence of a PD program, structure of program, interest in starting and/or revising a program

Research design Three-part survey: Part I: Courses in mainstream precalculus/calculus sequence Part III: Enrollment data for courses Part II: Departmental practices to support precalculus/ calculus sequence – 18 questions about GTA professional development – Open ended, Likert-scale and multiple choice Sent to department chairs at all U.S. graduate-degree granting institutions (n = 330) Chairs encouraged to enlist help of local experts Follow-up s and phone calls

Existence of programs Institutions in the US Responded to survey Have a GTA PD program in math department PhD (75%)111 (83%) Masters15289 (59%)44 (49%) Total (68%)155 (70%) For the remainder of this presentation, the percentages will be calculated out of the number of institutions that have a GTA PD program in the mathematics department unless otherwise noted.

What goes on? Activities - Other GTAs develop lesson plans41%43%36% GTAs learn classroom assessment methods40%41%39% GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching34%33%36% GTAs read research about how students learn math 23%25%16% Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs14%17%7% Total (n=155) PhD (n=111) Masters (n=44) Activities - Feedback GTAs are observed by an experienced instructor while teaching and receive feedback 75%77%73% GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback68%75%50%

Where do instructional materials come from? Total (n=155) PhD (n=111) Masters (n=44) Source of materials used in program Created by the people who provide the teaching preparation 83%87%73% Published materials38%41%32% Materials adopted from another institution’s program10%9%11%

Resources needed to improve program Total (n=155) PhD (n=111) Masters (n=44) Research-based information about best practices in GTA teaching preparation 60% 59% Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation 50%55%36% Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at similar institutions 48%50%45% Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff 43%41%45% Online library of tested resources37%40%32% Satisfaction and need for resources Satisfaction with current program Total (n=155) PhD (n=111) Masters (n=44) Adequate but could be improve 28%32%20%

Conclusions Having some sort of program seems to be the “norm” in the community now. We hope this encourages others to start programs. Those involved need various resources (to start or improve programs) Most instructional (and other) materials are home-grown yet there is wisdom living in the community that we can leverage

CoMInDS: Ways to get involved Summer workshops for Providers this year and next Launch of Resources Suite website– January 2017 Regional workshops for people who have materials to contribute Mentor/mentee teams Website: departments/cominds [or Google maa cominds]

PTC: Ways to get involved MAA Conference on Precalculus to Calculus: Insights & Innovations University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, Minnesota June 16 – 19, 2016 Focus on Pedagogy: Active learning strategies, making the most of large lectures, use of Learning Assistants, assessing effectiveness of innovations Focus on Instructors: Building communities of practice, GTA training, working with adjuncts, getting faculty buy-in for innovative practices Focus on Curriculum: Content of and alternative approaches to precalculus, articulation issues, preparation for downstream courses Focus on Students: Placement, early warning systems and support services, formative and summative assessment, supporting students from underrepresented groups See maa.org/cspcc for more information and for the application

Thank you! Want more information? About findings from the survey: stay tuned for future presentations and publications! About Progress Through Calculus: About CoMInDS: see yellow postcard, google “cominds maa” or

Methodology (note: In the RUME paper we have n=341 but in my notes from our talk a couple of weeks ago I have 330 (178 PhD, 152 MS). I used these numbers, but response numbers from the RUME paper – hope Jess can clean these up Survey sent to department chairs at all US graduate- degree granting institutions (n = 330) Using Qualtrics, follow up s/phone calls

Structure of programs Total (n=155) PhD (n=134) Masters (n=89) Primary audience Recitation leaders 66%79%34% Primary Instructors 77% 80% When Before teaching for the first time83%86%77% During their first term of teaching50%51%48% Format Term-long course or seminar54%60%39% Multi-day workshop31%34%23% Short workshop or orientation (1-4 hours)26%24%32% Occasional seminars or workshops15%16%11% One-day workshop14%13%18%

Content of programs Total (n=155) PhD (n=134) Masters (n=89) Activities - Feedback GTAs are observed by an experienced instructor while teaching and receive feedback 75%77%73% GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback68%75%50% Activities - Evaluation Student evaluations required by the institution or department 88%91%80% GTAs are observed by a faculty member while teaching in the classroom 75% Activities - Other GTAs develop lesson plans41%43%36% GTAs learn classroom assessment methods40%41%39% GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching34%33%36% GTAs read research about how students learn +math 23%25%16% Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs14%17%7%

Other aspects of programs Total (n=155) PhD (n=134) Masters (n=89) Source of materials used in program Created by the people who provide the teaching preparation 83%87%73% Published materials38%41%32% Materials adopted from another institution’s program 10%9%11% Who facilitates One or more individuals for whom this is part of their official responsibilities for multiple years 79% 80% Experienced graduate students17%23%2% Department committee15%16%14% One or more individuals for whom this is part of their official responsibilities for a single year (e.g., rotating committee assignment) 14%18%5%

Improvement of programs Total (n=155) PhD (n=134) Masters (n=89) Current status of program No significant changes are planned61%64%55% Changes have recently been implemented or are currently being implemented 21% 23% Possible changes are being discussed14%15%9% Resources needed to improve program Research-based information about best practices in GTA teaching preparation 60% 59% Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation 50%55%36% Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at similar institutions 48%50%45% Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff 43%41%45% Online library of tested resources37%40%32%

I.very brief description (2 slides each) of each of the projects [Jess/Jack - 4] II.shared goals of projects [Natasha - 1] III.a couple of sentences introducing the survey, that GTA is just one part [Natasha - 1] IV.brief discussion of methodology (e.g. survey whole population, not a sample, who it was sent to, number of follow-ups, how long survey generally took, etc) [Jessica - 3] V.response rates (by institution type) [Jess] VI.major preliminary findings. Can we update Table 1 on page 4 of the RUME proposal and fit it on 1 ppt slide? If so, that will pretty sum up what we have time to talk about. Can the discussion of interests and needs of mathematics departments related to GTA PD on p. 5 of the RUME proposal be turned into a table? [Jess - 5] VII.how findings relate to shared goals of projects [Natasha - 1] VIII.connect findings back to people in room as representatives, so we are going to share information about opportunities and ways to get involved (as informed by the main findings) [1 ish]