1 / 21

Building for Success in Calculus

Building for Success in Calculus. NSF #0910240. The First Two Years of College Math: Building Student Success Reston, VA October 5–7, 2014. David Bressoud St. Paul, MN. A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks

jana-mooney
Télécharger la présentation

Building for Success in Calculus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building for Success in Calculus NSF #0910240 The First Two Years of College Math: Building Student Success Reston, VA October 5–7, 2014 David Bressoud St. Paul, MN A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks For more information see www.maa.cspcc

  2. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus Three parts: National survey of students in mainstream Calculus I and their instructors (Fall, 2010) Statistical model of factors influencing changes in student attitudes and intention to persist from start to end of Calculus I Case studies of 17 institutions with “successful” Calculus I programs (Fall, 2012)

  3. Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus DRL REESE #0910240 PI: David Bressoud co-PI’s: Marilyn Carlson ASU Michael Pearson MAA Vilma Mesa U Michigan Linda Braddy MAA Chris Rasmussen SDSU Statistical Consultants: Phil Sadler & Gerhard Sonnert

  4. Progress through Calculus DUE IUSE #1420839 PI: David Bressoud co-PI’s: Chris Rasmussen SDSU Linda Braddy MAA Jess Ellise Colorado State Sean Larsen Portland State

  5. 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

  6. Age, year in college, enrollment status

  7. Socio-economic status From The American Freshman, 55% of all incoming full-time students at 4-year institutions have some concern, 11% have major concern, about paying for college.

  8. Graphing calculator usage in high school

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

  10. Source: HERI

  11. 3-Level HLM Model StructureMain Effects

  12. Dependent Variables • Attitudes – Change, pre to post • Confidence • I am confident in my mathematics abilities • Enjoyment • I enjoy doing mathematics • If I had a choice • If I had a choice: I would never take another mathematics course to I would continue to take mathematics” • Change in Interest, post only • This course has increased my interest in taking more mathematics • Intention to take Calc II – Change, pre to post • Do you intend to take Calculus II?

  13. Statistically significant drops in confidence, enjoyment, and desire to continue lowest = strongly disagree, highest = strongly agree

  14. Instructor Pedagogy Factor Analysis • 61 student ratings of what teachers do • 53 used • 3 factors arose from analysis • Variables loading on the same factor • 49% of the variance average classroom ratings • Factors • Good teaching, 22 variables • Technology, 17 • Ambitious pedagogy, 14 • 8 did not load onto factors

  15. “Good Teaching” My Calculus Instructor: • listened carefully to my questions and comments • allowed time for me to understand difficult ideas • presented more than one method for solving problems • asked questions to determine if I understood what was being discussed • discussed applications of calculus • encouraged students to seek help during office hours • frequently prepared extra material Assignments were challenging but doable My exams were graded fairly My calculus exams were a good assessment of what I learned

  16. “Ambitious Pedagogy” My Calculus Instructor: • Required me to explain my thinking on homework and exams • Required students to work together • Had students give presentations • Held class discussions • Put word problems in the homework and on the exams • Put questions on the exams unlike those done in class • Returned assignments with helpful feedback and comments

  17. Main effects and Interactions

  18. Interaction on student confidence

  19. Low Ambitious Pedagogy High Ambitious Pedagogy Switching percentages. p < 0.001

  20. Conclusions: Calculus I is very effective at lowering student confidence and is a significant factor in discouraging students from continuing in STEM. “Good teaching,” characterized as interacting with students in class and establishing the belief that you are there to support them, is essential. Benefits of ambitious pedagogies are highly dependent on how they interact with other factors, but active learning strategies are generally beneficial. A pdf file of this PowerPoint is available at www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks For more information see www.maa.cspcc

More Related