Large Lecture Halls: Whiteboards, Not Bored Students

REFERENCES

• Abrahamson, D. 2009. Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 70: 27–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsardary, S., and P. Blumberg. 2009. Interactive, learner-centered methods of teaching mathematics. PRIMUS. 19: 401–416. doi:10.1080/10511970701678596
   Google Scholar
• Apkarian, N., and D. Kirin. 2016. Active learning in undergraduate precalculus and single variable calculus. In Fukawa-Connelly, T., N. Infante, M. Wawro, and S. Brown. (Eds), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. pp. 512–514. The Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America (SIGMAA) for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., C. Harrison, and C. Lee. 2003. Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. M., M. P. Carlson, V. Mesa, and C. Rasmussen. 2013. The calculus student: Insights from the Mathematical Association of America national study. International Journal of Mathematics Education Science and Technology. 44: 685–698. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2013.798874
   Google Scholar
• Crouch, C. H., and E. Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics. 69: 970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dounas-Frazer, D. R., and H. J. Lewandowski. 2016. Nothing works the first time: An expert experimental physics epistemology. Presented at the Annual Physics Education Research Conference, July, Sacramento, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, H., S. Crespo, L. M. Jilk, J. A. Oslund, A. N. Parks, and M. B. Wood. 2011. Smarter Together! Collaboration and Equity in the Elementary Math Classroom. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 23: 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullilove, R. E., and P. U. Treisman. 1990. Mathematics achievement among African American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the mathematics workshop program. Journal of Negro Education. 59: 463–478.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, J., S. Epstein, S. Leon, D. L. T. Matrundola, S. Reber, and K. Choi. 2014. Implementation and Effects of LDC and MDC in Kentucky Districts. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
   Google Scholar
• Hufferd-Ackles, K., K. C. Fuson, and M. G. Sherin. 2004. Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 35: 81–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogan, M., and S. L. Laursen. 2014. Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education. 39: 183–199. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9269-9
   Google Scholar
• Lampert, M. 1990. When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal. 27: 29–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laursen, S. L., M. L. Hassi, M. Kogan, and T. J. Weston. 2014. Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 45: 406–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marotta, S. M., and J. Hargis. 2011. Low-threshold active teaching methods for mathematic instruction. PRIMUS. 21: 377–392. doi:10.1080/10511971003754135. Accessed 1 January 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Mathematics Assessment Project. 2017. Index of classroom challenges. http://map.mathshell.org/lessons.php
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., M. C. O'Connor, M. W. Hall, and L. B. Resnick. 2010. Accountable Talk® Sourcebook. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Mindful Schools. 2015. Resilient habits of mind. https://www.facebook.com/mindfulschools/photos/a.203073253066340.49931.165948186778847/1023252594381731/?type=3&theater. Accessed 1 January 2018.
   Google Scholar
• President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2012. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
   Google Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L. 2016. The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 41(2): 301–315. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L. 2015. Peer-assisted reflection: A design-based intervention for improving success in calculus. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 1: 234–267. doi:10.1007/s40753-015-0005-y
   Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. 1998. When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist. 23: 145–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour, E., and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. 2008. Thinking as Communicating: Human Development, the Growth of Discourses, and Mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., and M. Stein. 2011. 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Wawro, M., C. Rasmussen, M. Zandieh, G. F. Sweeney, and C. Larson. 2012. An inquiry-oriented approach to span and linear independence: The case of the magic carpet ride sequence. PRIMUS. 22: 577–599. doi:10.1080/10511970.2012.667516-418
   Google Scholar