Online grading platforms: Establishing a connection between course coordination and local data

References

• Bode, A. M. (2018). Integrating collaborative online grading platforms into the coordination of calculus: A case study. PRIMUS, 28(6), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.1388317
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Seven characteristics of successful calculus programs. Notices of the AMS, 62(2), 144–146. https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201502/rnoti-p144.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. M., Carlson, M. P., Mesa, V., & Rasmussen, C. (2013). The calculus student: Insights from the Mathematical Association of America national study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(5), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.798874
   Google Scholar
• Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market. Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Colliander, J. (2014). Workflow comparison: Crowdmark grading vs. traditional grading. https://crowdmark.com/resources/
   Google Scholar
• Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange. (2016). 2015–2016 CSRDE STEM retention report: The retention and graduation rates of 2005–2014 baccalaureate degree seeking freshman cohorts entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors in 180 colleges and universities.
   Google Scholar
• Eagan, K., Lozano, J. B., Hurtado, S., & Case, M. H. (2013). The American freshman: National norms fall 2013. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mickelwait, M. (2016). Gradescope: Taking the pain out of grading. https://engineering.berkeley.edu/2016/01/gradescope-taking-pain-out-grading
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, R., & Kirby, C. (2016). The UK STEM education landscape. Royal Academy of Engineering. http://www.raeng.org.uk/stemlandscape.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2016–17. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_318.30.asp
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., Apkarian, N., Hagman, J. E., Johnson, E., Larsen, S., & Bressoud, D. (2019). Characteristics of precalculus through calculus 2 programs: Insights from a national census survey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.1.0098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., & Ellis, J. (2015). Calculus coordination at PhD-granting universities: More than just using the same syllabus, textbook, and final exam. In D. Bressoud, V. Mesa, & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Insights and recommendations from the MAA national study of college calculus (pp. 111–120). MAA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., Ellis, J., & Zazkis, D. (2014). Lessons learned from case studies of successful calculus programs at five doctoral degree granting institutions. In T. Fukawa-Connelly, G. Karakok, K. Keene, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 999–1004). Denver, Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Voigt, M., Apkarian, N., & Rasmussen, C. (2017). Diverging from the standard fare: Variations in the calculus curriculum. MAA FOCUS, 37(1), 32–34. http://digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com/publication/?i=392392&ver=html5&p=32
   Google Scholar
• Weston, T. J., Seymour, E., Koch, A. K., & Drake, B. M. (2019). Weed-out classes and their consequences. In E. Seymour & A. B. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about leaving revisited (pp. 197–243). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M., Apkarian, N., Uhing, K., Funk, R., Smith, W., Wakefield, N., Martinez, A., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). In the driver’s seat: Course coordinators as change agents for active learning in university Precalculus to Calculus 2. Paper presented at the The 23rd Annual Conference on Research on Undergraduate Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Z. S., Holmes, L., Degravelles, K., Sylvain, M. R., Batiste, L., Johnson, M., McGuire, S. Y., Pang, S. S., & Warner, I. M. (2012). Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9292-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zazkis, D., & Nuñez, G. (2015). How departments use local data to inform and refine program improvements. In D. Bressoud, V. Mesa, & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Insights and recommendations from the MAA national study of college calculus (pp. 123–129). MAA.
   Google Scholar