Laurice Garrett
Edison State College
June 13, 2012
West Point, New York
Improving College Mathematics
Teaching Through Faculty Development
What Students Think Instructors Do
During Faculty Development
The Impetus for Change
 Edison begins to offer 4-year degrees and increases the




expectation that faculty will do more professional
development
Budget crunch decreases funding for travel to professional
development activities/workshops
High adjunct to full-time faculty ratio and the desire to
have adjuncts feel vested and integrated into the
department
Faculty get isolated in their classrooms and resist change
Realization that college instructors can teach without ever
being exposed to best practices of teaching
What was the need of our department that we hoped
to address upon returning from the
workshop at West Point?
 Specifically, working on improving retention and
outcomes for our Intermediate Algebra courses
(we were given a mandate from administration).
 Building a robust “in house” professional
development program.
 Providing better connections and rapport with our
large pool of adjuncts, and as such, allowing them
to feel vested and integrated into the department.
FYI - What was our department’s environment
(teaching, collegiality, etc.) like
prior to attending the workshop at West Point?
 Edison State had approximately 25,000 students
encompassing three campus locations & one center.
Logistical problems arose when trying to coordinate
professional development activities. Also, no formal
structure was in place for offering such activities.
 Collegiality – Fair. Faculty got along, but not a
significant amount of sharing took place.
 No one visited other instructor’s classes. It was not in
“our culture.”
What plans have we developed/implemented
since returning from the workshop?
Fall 2010…We started Small
 Began as “MAT 1033 Certification” Seminars





(by the way, “name” matters!)
Met regularly on Friday afternoons, from 12 – 1
Targeted to the teachers of Intermediate Algebra
Organized and produced strictly through the math
department
Certificates given to participants
We did our own “advertising”
Example of “Advertising” done for the
Workshops
This week we will be discussing methods of assessment used in our classes. This
discussion may include things such as:






How do we give overall grades in MAT 1033?
What percentage weights do we give to quizzes, homework, tests, projects, etc.?
Should attendance be figured as part of a grade?
Should the final exam count a set percentage?
Can group work be graded and included as part of the grade?
Should students be allowed note cards on tests?

Often we get “set in our ways” and fail to think
“outside our own box.”
The purpose of these discussions is to engage in genuine dialogue regarding pros,
cons, ideas, etc.
Look forward to lively interaction!
Note: You are welcome to bring a lunch and eat during the discussion.
Spring 2011
 Name and focus changed to “Community of Best Practices






– Math”
Met twice a month on Friday afternoons and once a month
on Wednesday afternoons
All instructors, both full time and adjuncts,
were invited and encouraged to participate
College Prep also began to participate
We connected to other campuses via video conferencing
The TLC (Teaching & Learning Center) helped organize
and promote the workshops
Certificates of participation were issued through TLC.
Sandra waves
“hello!” from our
Hendry/Glades
campus.
What is a Community of Practice?
 Groups of educators who come together voluntarily at least once a
month. Group members are committed to improving their practice
through collaborative learning (National School Reform Faculty, 2010).
 A venue for “open sharing” and collegial conversations among
professionals without fear of judgment or negative criticism (Spanneut,
2010).
 A opportunity to “have robust conversations about improving teaching
and learning that include research, multiple forms of data, teacher
knowledge, constructions and public sharing that target and ultimately
lead to improved student learning” (Yendol-Hoppey & Fictmen Dana,
2010, p. 118).
 An opportunity for cross-disciplinary discussions of best practices.
What are the Intended Outcomes of a
Community of Practice?
 Reduction in isolation of teachers.
 Higher likelihood that teachers will be well informed, professionally




renewed, and inspired to inspire students.
Commitment to making significant and lasting changes.
Powerful learning that defines good teaching and classroom practices
and creates new knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learners.
Increased meaning and understanding of the content that teachers
teach and the roles that play in helping all students achieve
expectations.
Seamless transitions for students moving through a course sequence.
(Some of the items above are adapted from Hord, 1997)
Round table
discussions
We primarily concentrated on
topics in each of these three areas:
 Pedagogy/Teaching Practices
 Math Topics
 Technology
Pedagogy/Teaching Practices examples of topics covered
 Attendance – should it
 Learning Styles of
count toward the grade?
 Grading – what makes
up the grade in the
course?
 Group Work – how
often, how to organize,
how to assess
 Homework – do we
count it, how much?
Students
 Engaging students
 Pink elephants in the
room, such as: open
book tests, using note
cards on tests,
instructors who fail to
give final exams, etc.
Math Topics examples of topics covered
 Factoring
 Rational
Functions & Their
Graphs
 Mixture Problems
 Logarithms
Note:
We sometimes use
breakout groups
(by level or interest)
when discussing math
topics.
Technology –
examples of topics covered
 Use of classroom
equipment, such as
doc cams, SMART
products, clickers
 Effective use of
calculators
 How to post notes
 How to use online
resources
College Prep
Compares
Notes on
Mixture
Problems
Example
of a
certificate
issued for
College
Service
Example of a
certificate
issued for
Professional
Development
Fall 2011
Community of Best Practices continued
Math education instructors also participated. They
particularly helped us with assessment rubrics.
Also tried an “article” discussion.
“Orientation for Adjuncts & New Full Time Hires” was added
Three modules were funded to be offered (a fourth
module was requested, but did not make it into this “first
round”)
•Faculty began presenting on their areas of expertise
Example: cryptology
•Classroom visitation became part of our unit plan
This has yet to “catch on” and has been resisted by some.
What did the Orientation/Training for our Adjuncts &
Full Time Hires Encompass & What Was our Rationale?
Rationale:
 Lends consistency of
instruction between full
time instructors & adjuncts
 Allows for greater
collegiality between full
time instructors & adjuncts
 Makes for smoother
beginnings of the semester
 Three Modules Included
(we would like to
increase this to four
modules)
 Time Frame –
Approximately 2 hours for
each module
 Done on a Saturday prior
to the start of the fall
semester
The Modules for the Orientation/Training
 Module - Classroom
Technology
such as SMART
boards, sympodiums,
doc cameras, Smart
View, etc.
 Module - Technology &
Homework Delivery
System
such as MyLabsPlus
 Module - Course Specific
such as syllabi,
calculator, final exams,
expectations
 Module – Course
Administration
(Note: this is the module
we hope to add)
such as record keeping,
attendance verification,
math group pages,
e-mailing classes,
using web Portal tools
for the class
Notes:
 Some modules may be
required only once.
Other modules would be
required as major
changes are made (such
as a change to homework
delivery system). An
adjunct should take the
course specific module
for each course he/she
teaches.
Payment for
Completion– Made only
to adjuncts $50 per module
Faculty presenting would
be given “college service”
for evaluation purposes
Logistical questions:
 Each campus offering?
Single day option?
Webinar option?
The Quagmire of
Classroom Visitations
People liked the idea, in
theory.
They were concerned about
what would happen with
documentation from
the observations
(i.e. – could the results
from the observations
adversely affect
evaluation…who would see
the documentation?).
The documentation seemed
to afford the most
contention.
Logistically challenging in
that people teach at
significantly times/days,
etc.
Participation was totally
voluntary.
We had only moderate
participation.
The 1st page of
the draft of our
peer
observation
documentation.
This had to be
signed by both
the observer
and the person
being observed.
How are you assessing the changes you have made
(will make) within your department?
Is there anything you would like to improve or do
differently ?
 Evaluations are given after each session. The first year, we used a
“generic” TLC evaluation. It often did not fit what we needed to know.
Nonetheless, we still got some feedback. We developed a new survey
for this year. Feedback has been much more valuable.
 Survey Monkey was used for identifying some preferences and was also
used for evaluation of our “Adjunct Certification” modules.
 We still struggle with the timing for getting more of our adjuncts
involved.
We collected and
collated our results
from these evaluations
during this
academic year.
This can be very useful
for providing
documentation for
unit plans,
accreditation, etc.
In the works for our future…
A Repository for our Ideas & Findings
 We hope to create an online repository of ideas.
 The organization will generally be by
mathematical topic, with subfolders for different
course levels.
 We would also have a file for general links,
Organization for our repository…
TOPIC
PREP
Binomial Theorem
Conic Sections
Difference Formula/Rate of Change
Distance & Midpoint Formulas
Equations - Solving
1033
1105
1140
x
x
x
Linear in one variable
Quadratic
Higher Degree (> 2)
Polynomial
Rational
Equations of Lines - Writing
Exponents
Extrema (Rel Max and Min)
Factoring
Functions
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Graphing (1 dimension)
x
Point Plotting
Inequalities
x
x
Linear Equations
Inequalities
x
Graphing (2 dimension)
x
x
x
x
Linear
Quadratic
Cubing
Square Root
Absolute Value
Exponential
Logarithmic
Rational
Higher Degree( > 2)
Polynomial
Piecewise Defined
Inverse
Operations of Functions
Transformations of Functions
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Increasing, Decreasing, Constant (Intervals)
Math Induction
Matrices
Order of Operations
Polynomials
Properties
Pythagorean Theorem
Radicals
Rational Expressions/Algebraic Fractions
Sequences and Series
Sets of Numbers
Slope Formula
Systems
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2 equations, 2 unknowns
n equations, n unknowns
Inequalities
Nonlinear equations
So…What were some of the most significant
“take-aways” from the workshops at West Point?
 We were provided ideas for the framework of a program –






through the wide variety of sessions that were offered.
The need for humor.
The need to stay contemporary.
The need to provide learning opportunities in context,
where possible.
The realization that we, as instructors must be the
instruments of change and innovation.
The realization of how much we can learn from one
another.
Inspiration from the faculty and staff at West Point with
their continual commitment to improvement!
References
Hord, S. (1997) Professional Learning Communities:
Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
National School Reform Faculty www.nsrfharmony.org
Spanneut, G. Professional Learning Communities, Principals,
and Collegial Conversations. Kappa Delta Pit Record v. 16
no. 3 (Spring 2010) p. 100 -3
Yendol-Hoppey, D. & Fichtman, Dana, N. (2010) Professional
Development: Building Expertise Within the Four Walls of
Your School. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Contact Information
Laurice Garrett
lgarrett@edison.edu
(239) 489-9263
Edison State College
8099 College Parkway
Ft. Myers, FL 33906