Introduction to the Special Issue: Insights and Lessons Learned from Mathematics Departments in the Process of Change

References

• Apkarian, N. and D. Kirin. 2017. Progress through Calculus: Census Survey Technical Report. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/PtC%20Technical%20Report_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Apkarian, N., Kirin, D., Gehrtz, J., & Vroom, K. 2019. Connecting the stakeholders: Departments, policy, and research in undergraduate mathematics education. PRIMUS. 33(1): 17–36.
   Google Scholar
• Archie, T., S. Laursen, C. N. Hayward, S. Yoshinobu, and D. Daly. 2020. Findings from 10 years of math instructor teaching professional development. “This changes everything.” AAC&U Virtual Conference on Transforming STEM Higher Education, Nov. 5–7.
   Google Scholar
• Bolman, L. G. and T. E. Deal. 2017. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (6th Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D., V. Mesa, and C. Rasmussen (Eds.) 2015. Insights and Recommendations from the MAA National Study of College Calculus. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. and P. Zorn. 2018. Introduction to special issue of PRIMUS on improving teaching and learning of calculus. PRIMUS. 28(6): 473–475. doi:10.1080/10511970.2017.1391359.
   Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S., L. Gomez, A. Grunow, and P. LeMahieu. 2015. Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can get Better at Getting Better. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. 2016. Active Learning in Post-Secondary Mathematics Education. http://www.cbmsweb.org/Statements/Active_Learning_Statement.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Elrod, S. and A. Kezar. 2016. Increasing Student Success in STEM: A Guide to Systemic Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Hagman, J. E. 2019. The eighth characteristic for successful calculus programs: Diversity, equity & inclusion practices. PRIMUS. 31(1): 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1629555
   Google Scholar
• Katz, B. P. and E. Thoren. 2017a. Introduction to the special issue on teaching inquiry (part I): Illuminating inquiry. PRIMUS. 27(1): 1–7. doi:10.1080/10511970.2016.1252451.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, B. P. and E. Thoren. 2017b. Introduction to the special issue on teaching inquiry (part II): Implementing inquiry. PRIMUS. 27(2): 165–170. doi:10.1080/10511970.2016.1252452.
   Google Scholar
• Kezar, A. 2014. How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laursen, S. 2019. Levers for Change: An Assessment of Progress on Changing STEM Instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Laursen, S., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics education. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 5(1): 129–146.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, W. G., A. Lischka, W. M. Smith, and B. R. Lawler (Eds.) 2020. The Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership: The Power of a Networked Improvement Community to Transform Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation. Charlotte, NC: Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, IAP Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mathematical Association of America (MAA). 2018. MAA Instructional Practice Guide. Mathematical Association of America. https://www.maa.org/programsand-communities/curriculum%20resources/instructional-practices-guide.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). 2013. The Mathematical Sciences in 2025. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/15269.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., N. Apkarian, A. Donsig, A. Martinez, R. Tubbs, and M. Williams. in press. Designing and implementing course coordination. In W. M. Smith, M. Voigt, A. Ström, D. C. Webb, and W. G. Martin (Eds.), Student Engagement in Mathematics Through an Institutional Network for Active Learning: Cases of Successful Departments, pp. 154–167. Washington, DC: MAA/AMS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., N. Apkarian, H. Ellis, E. Johnson, S. Larsen, D. Bressoud, and the Progress through Calculus team. 2019. Characteristics of precalculus through calculus 2 programs: Insights from a national census survey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 50(1): 98–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C. and J. Ellis. 2015. Calculus coordination at PhD-granting universities: more than just using the same syllabus, textbook, and final exam. In D. Bressoud, V. Mesa, and C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Insights and Recommendations from the MAA National Study of College Calculus, pp. 107–115. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L. and N. Apkarian. 2018. Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education. 5(3). https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x DOI 10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L., C. Rasmussen, and E. Nardi. 2020. Time for (research on) change in mathematics departments. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 6: 147–158. doi:10.1007/s40753-020-00116-7.
   Google Scholar
• Saxe, K. and L. Braddy. 2015. A Common Vision for Undergraduate Mathematical Sciences Programs in 2025. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W. M., M. Voigt, A. Ström, D. C. Webb, and W. G. Martin (Eds.) 2021. Transformational Change Efforts: Student Engagement in Mathematics Through an Institutional Network for Active Learning: Cases of Successful Departments. Washington, DC: MAA/AMS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stains, M., J. Harshman, M. K. Barker, S. V. Chasteen, R. Cole, S. E. DeChenne-Peters, M. K. Eagan, J. M. Esson, J. K. Knight, F. A. Laski, M. Levis-Fitzgerald, C. J. Lee, S. M. Lo, L. M. McDonnell, T. A. McKay, N. Michelotti, A. Musgrove, M. S. Palmer, K. M. Plank, T. M. Rodela, E. R. Sanders, N. G. Schimpf, P. M. Schulte, M. K. Smith, M. Stetzer, B. Van Valkenburgh, E. Vinson, L. K. Weir, P. J. Wendel, L. B. Wheeler, and A. M. Young. 2018. Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science. 359(6383): 1468–1470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TPSE Math. 2015. Transforming Post-Secondary Education in Mathematics: Report of a Meeting. http://www.tpsemath.org.
   Google Scholar
• Voigt, M., N. Apkarian, and C. Rasmussen. 2017. Diverging from the standard fare: Variations in the calculus curriculum. MAA FOCUS. (February/March): 32–34.
   Google Scholar