1. How Does the Students’ “Demo” Effect a College-Level Calculus Class Hongli Gao Mentor: Dr. Milos Savic Department of Mathematics

2. Outline  Introduction  Background literatures  Description of the “students’ demo”  Research Objectives  Data collection & Results  Conclusions & Teaching Implication  Acknowledgement

3. Background Literatures In Buchele (2005): “All students are required to present homework problems to the class regularly, so getting students to volunteer for any given problem is typically not an issue…Much to the professor’s surprise, students’ response to the homework presentations … was overwhelmingly positive… they (students) liked having students present problems to the board in class.” Page 70-72

4.  In Bih-Jen Fwu & Hsiou-huai Wang (2006): “… … U.S. Teachers seldom call on students to practice on the blackboard, because they fear if a student failed to answer correctly and his errors are witnessed by the whole class, this public display of failure might damage the student’s self-esteem and counter his self-enhancing tendency (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992).” Page 373 Background Literatures

5.  Ham, 1973  The lecture method in Mathematics: A student’s view,  Samtagata & Barbieri, 2005  Mathematics Teaching in Italy: A Cross-Cultural Video Analysis,  Cohen, 1982  A Modified Moore Method For Teaching Undergraduate Mathematics. Background Literatures

6. Research Objectives 1 To investigate how the “in-class demos” effect students’ participation in a calculus class 2 To study if the “in-class demos” help improve students’ course performance 3 To figure out whether students would voluntarily do the “demo” and how they response to the “demos”

7. What is students’ “demo”?  At the beginning of each class  1-2 questions are posted on the board  Volunteer students demonstrate their work on blackboard  Other students can ask questions or discuss  Finally, the teacher summarizes students’ work

8. Example of a “demo”  Teacher posted a question on the board at 6:01pm  Student A came to the board at 6:03pm but he is stuck in the middle and not finished.  Student B corrected A’s mistakes out loud at the same time  Student C continued at 6:07pm and she wrote down the work, explained to others  Student A, D, E, F, G asked questions to C and C answered  Teacher summarized at the end at 6:15pm

9. MTH 132- Calculus I  698 students enrolled  21 small sections  30-35 students each section  MWF, 50 min each or MW, 80 min each  Preliminary: MTH 114 or 116

10. Comparison of Two Sections Control Group  Chinese TA  Same class notes  35 enrolled,16 consent  Class average  ACT-math: 25.9  Overall GPA: 3.19  Other math grades: 2.91  MWF 10:00-10:50AM  No demo at all Experimental Group  Chinese TA  Same class notes  33 enrolled, 18 consent  Class average  ACT-math: 25  Overall GPA: 3.21  Other math grades: 2.82  MW 6:00-7:20PM  Demo in each class

11. Data Collection  Background information from registrar  Major, department  Pre-math grades, grades from other math courses, overall GPA  Observation notes of class  from experimental section  2 surveys in experimental section  February 13, March 20  26 students took Survey I, 20 students took survey II  18 students participated both  Grades of one question from their Exam 2  17 students from experimental group  16 students from control group

12. Why the “graphing” question is selected?  Question that encompasses many past concepts Experimental Group Control Group Weight 36% Filling the blank, no partial credits Demoed by the students in the review Weight 35% Free response, partial credits applied Demonstrated by TA in the review

13. Control Group Experimental Group

14. Results (from observation notes in class)

15. Results (from Survey II, 20 students) “ What do you think about the in-class demos?”

16. “ What do you think about the in-class demos? ” Results (from Survey II, 20 students)

17. “ Do you want to give demo if you have not given one yet?” 11 responses Results (from Survey I & II)

18. Results ( from students’ performance in “graphing”)

19. Comparison in grades (I) Comparison in “graphing’ question  Students who get 3.0 in MTH 116 are selected from both sections # of students ACT- Math Overall GPA Experimental group 324.333.17 Control group 526.003.12

20. Comparison in grades (II)  Comparison in 4.0-3.5 group  Comparison ≤ 2.5 group

21. Limitations  Different teachers and one of the investigators was a teacher  Different test time  Different test questions  Sample size is very small

22. Conclusions  Most (85%) students like the demo no matter they have given the demo or not in class  The demo may have helped with their approach to the “graphing” question.  No time-variant result is seen here  Only 1/3 of the students gave the demo on the board throughout the whole semester  5 students believe that the “demo” makes them get more involved in a math class

23. Teaching Implication We would like to figure out how to:  Let more students get involved in the demo and discussion process  Implement more “demos” not only at the beginning, but also during the class  Try to guide students how to give an effective demo

24. Acknowledgements  Dr. Rique Campa and all the FAST committee members  Dr. Milos Savic, my best mentor!

25. QUESTIONS? Thank you