Use Longitudinal Data and Moving Average to Illustrate Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction

REFERENCES

• Arendale, D. 1994. Understanding the supplemental instruction model. In D. Martin and D. Arendale (Eds), Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention, Vol. 60, pp. 11–21. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Arendale, D. 1997. Supplemental instruction (SI): Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United States. In S. Mioduski and G. Enright (Eds), Proceedings of the 17th and 18th Annual Institutes for Learning Assistance Professionals: 1996 and 1997. Tucson: University Learning Center, University of Arizona. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457797 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457797.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Arendale, D. 2002. History of supplemental instruction (SI): Mainstreaming of developmental education. In D. B. Lundell and J. Higbee (Eds), Histories of Developmental Education, pp. 15–27. Minneapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Blanc, R., L. DeBuhr, and D. Martin. 1983. Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education. 54: 80–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowles, T. J. and J. Jones. 2003. An analysis of the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: The problem of selection bias and limited dependent variables. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice. 5: 235–243. https://doi.org/10.2190/486t-mhvc-cg0c-rm3b.
   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 Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 44(5): 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.798874.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, P., J. V. Meer, J. Skalicky, and K. Cowley. 2014. On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research. 84(4): 609–639. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. 2018. Why colleges must change how they teach calculus. The Conversation.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. and C. Rasmussen. 2015. Seven characteristics of successful calculus programs. Notice of AMS. 62(2). http://homepages.math.uic.edu/bshipley/Seven_Characteristics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fayowski, V. and P. D. MacMillan. 2008. An evaluation of the supplemental instruction programme in a first year calculus course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 39: 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390802054433.
   Google Scholar
• Ganter, S. 2001. Changing Calculus: A Report on Evaluation Efforts and National Impact from 1988–1998. The Mathematical Association of America, MAA Notes #56.
   Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R. 2006. Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan. 87(9): 670–675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensen, K. A. and M. C. Shelley. 2003. The impact of supplemental instruction: Results from a large, public, Midwestern university. Journal of College Student Development. 44: 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Learning Assistant Program at Texas A&M University-Commerce. https://www.xxxxx.edu/stem-education-alliance/learning-assistant-program/.
   Google Scholar
• Lipnevich, A. A., T. R. Guskey, D. M. Murano, T. H. Kim, and J. K. Smith. 2020. What do grades mean? Variation in grading criteria in American college and university courses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 27(5): 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1799190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, J. J. 1991. Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets. New York Institute of Finance.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, E. and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. K. and L. F. Smith. 2009. The impact of framing effect on student preferences for university grading systems. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 35: 160–167.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, L. A. 1987. Ed. Calculus for a New Century: A Pump, not a Filter, Papers Presented at a Colloquium (Washington, D.C., October 28–29, 1987). MAA Notes #8.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, A. C. and J. R. C. Leitzel. 1995. Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts: A Report to the Community. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. 1995. Supplemental instruction (SI): Improving student performance and reducing attrition. In G. Lang (Ed.), Educational Programs that Work, Twenty First Edition, p. 14.4. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
   Google Scholar