1. Update on the MAA’s Studies of Calculus 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 A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks DRL REESE #0910240

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

3. 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)

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

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

8. 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)

9. Statistically significant drops in confidence, enjoyment, and desire to continue Variable All InstitutionsResearch Universities Mean (SD) Effect SizeMean (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

10. “Good Teaching” My Calculus Instructor: 1.provided explanations that were understandable 2.helped me become a better problem solver 3.allowed time for me to understand difficult ideas 4.made me feel comfortable in asking questions during class 5.presented more than one method for solving problems 6.made class interesting 7.asked questions to determine if I understood what was being discussed

11. “Ambitious Pedagogy” 1.Instructor had students work with one another 2.Assignments were submitted as group projects 3.Exam questions included word problems 4.Assignments included word problems 5.Assignments required explanation of thinking 6.Assignments included problems unlike those done in class or in the book 7.Instructor held whole-class discussion

12. Interaction on student confidence

13. 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)

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 PI: David Bressoud co-PI’s: Estrella Johnson Virginia Tech Jess Ellis Colorado State Chris Rasmussen San Diego State Linda Braddy MAA DUE I-USE #1430540 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%

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

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

23. 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

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.

25. www.trelliscience.com

26. 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