Integrating active learning labs in precalculus: Measuring the value added

References

• Almy, K. (2012, August 14). The emporium model: Not a magic bullet for developmental math [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://almydoesmath.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-emporium-model-not-magic-bullet-for.html
   Google Scholar
• Apkarian, N., Bowers, J., O’Sullivan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (in press). A case study of change in the teaching and learning of precalculus to calculus 2: What we're doing with what we have. (ID: 1388319 DOI:10.1080/10511970.2017.1388319). To appear in PRIMUS.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, W., Bressoud, D., Epp, S., Ganter, S., Haver, B., & Pollatsek, H. (2004). Undergraduate programs and courses in the mathematical sciences: CUPM curriculum guide. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015). A comparison of mathematics classroom observation protocols. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 154–175. doi:10.5951/mathteaceduc.3.2.0154
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, J. S., & Nickerson, S. (2011). Identifying cyclic patterns of interaction to study individual and collective learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(1), 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. (2015, March). MAA launchings column [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://launchings.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-emporium.html
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Seven characteristics of successful calculus programs. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 62, 144–146. doi:10.1090/noti1209
   Google Scholar
• Carr, R., Palmer, S., & Hagel, P. (2015). Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16, 173–186. doi:10.1177/1469787415589529
   Google Scholar
• Cline, K., Zullo, H., Duncan, J., Stewart, A., & Snipes, M. (2013). Creating discussions with classroom voting in linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44, 1131–1142. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2012.742152
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. (1995). Crossroads in mathematics: Standards for introductory college mathematics before calculus. Memphis, TN: American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences. (2016). CBMS joint statement on active learning in postsecondary mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.cbmsweb.org/2016/07/active-learning-in-post-secondary-mathematics-education/
   Google Scholar
• Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. BioScience, 47, 601–607. doi:10.2307/1313166
   Google Scholar
• Erlwanger, S. H. (2004). Bennyʼs conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. In T. P. Carpenter, J. A. Dossey, & J. L. Koehler (Eds.), Classics in mathematics education research (pp. 48–58). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Original work published 1973.
   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, 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
   Google Scholar
• Ganter, S. (2001). Changing calculus: A report on evaluation efforts and national impact from 1988–1998. Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, J., & Cofer, L. D. (2014). Mathematics classroom observation protocol for practices results in undergraduate mathematics classrooms. In T. Fukawa-Connelly, G. Karakok, K. Keene, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 93–103). Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, J., Livers, S. D., & Zelkowski, J. (2015, May 18). Mathematics classroom observation protocol for practices: Descriptors manual. Retrieved from http://jgleason.people.ua.edu/uploads/3/8/3/4/38349129/mcop2_descriptors.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 27, 1455–1456. doi:10.1126/science.1240487
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, E., Kysh, J., & Resek, D. (2007). Using rich problems for differentiated instruction. New England Mathematics Journal, 39, 6–13. Retrieved from http://bilbowdish.ipage.com/atmne/journal.html
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 4). Retrieved from ERIC database (ED343465). Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC.; George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. School of Education and Human Development.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, O. N., Rasmussen, C., & Allen, K. (2005). Students’ retention of mathematical knowledge and skills in differential equations. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 227–239. doi:10.1111/j1949-85942005tb18163x
   Google Scholar
• Laursen, S., Hassi, M., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 406–418. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc4540406
   Google Scholar
• Lesser, L. (2011). Low-tech low-cost high-gain real-time assessment? It’s all in the cards easy as ABCD! Texas Mathematics Teacher, 58(2), 18–22. Retrieved from http://tctmonline.org/TCTMdrupal/content/texas-math-teacher-archives
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61. doi:10.3102/0013189X15570388
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, S., Bjorkman, K., Ko, S. J., & Marx, D. (2017). Identification matters: Effects of female peer role models differ by gender between high and low mathematically identified students. Paper presented at the Twentieth Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, February, 2017, San Diego, CA: MAA.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, P., Thompson, D., Russell, A., & Simons, C. (2003). Supplemental instruction: Short and long term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 263(3), 2–14. Retrieved from https://ncde.appstate.edu/publications/journal-developmental-education-jde
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress. Education Studies in Mathematics, 88, 259–281. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9583-x
   Google Scholar
• Struchens, M., Iiams, M., Sears, R., & Ellis, M. (2016). A deeper dive into the plan-do-study-act cycles and measures. In B. R. Lawler, R. N. Ronau, & M. J. Mohr-Schroeder (Eds.), Proceedings of The Fifth Annual Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership Conference. Washington, DC: Association of Public Land-Grant Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Talbert, R. (2012, December 18). Doing linear algebra with peer instruction and learning catalytics. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/
   Google Scholar
• Twigg, C. (2011). The math emporium: Higher education’s silver bullet change. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(3), 25–34. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.569241
   Google Scholar
• University of Colorado at Boulder. (2016, February 19). Learning assistant program. Retrieved from http://laprogram.colorado.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 167–177. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680
   Google Scholar