Jessica Ellis, Colorado State University
Natasha Speer, The University of Maine
Jack Bookman, Duke University

Based on data from collaboration between two
MAA-affiliated, NSF-funded projects
College Mathematics
Instructor Development
Source
DUE Award # 1432381
Progress through Calculus
DUE Award # 5345008

• Involve three core groups whose efforts have significant influence on the quality of undergraduate mathematics instruction:
– Providers: Faculty who provide PD to graduate student Teaching Assistants
(TAs).
– Scholars: Faculty and graduate students whose research and other scholarly activities center on the teaching of undergraduate mathematics.
– TAs: Graduate students whose responsibilities include teaching mathematics courses.
• Create a web-accessible resources suite
• Create and foster communities of practice to gather content for the suite and to improve PD offerings
• Workshops for Providers of PD
• Distance delivery of professional development workshops

• Natural extension from lessons learned during
Characteristics of Successful Programs in College Calculus
(CSPCC)
– Look at P2C2 (Precalculus to Calculus 2) Sequence
– Look at minority serving institutions/ programs
– Observe (and support) the propagation process
• Conduct workshops involving institutions in the process of change and new case studies to observe change
• Focusing on change related to the characteristics identified through CSPCC

• CSPCC found GTA PD was a feature of successful programs
• PTC focuses on lower-division/first-year courses (where graduate students are apt to teach)
• PTC provides support for departments to revise calculus programs, including PD for TAs and
• CoMInDS is about PD for TAs and providers
• Both projects want to understand more about the current status of TA PD and support/understand change.

• PTC surveyed departments about calculusprogram-related topics
• One part of survey: GTA PD
• PTC and CoMInDS team members collaborated on question design
• Questions about existence of a PD program, structure of program, interest in starting and/or revising a program

Three-part survey:
Part I: Courses in mainstream precalculus/calculus sequence
Part III: Enrollment data for courses
Part II: Departmental practices to support precalculus/ calculus sequence
– 18 questions about GTA professional development
– Open ended, Likert-scale and multiple choice
• Sent to department chairs at all U.S. graduate-degree granting institutions (n = 330)
• Chairs encouraged to enlist help of local experts
• Follow-up emails and phone calls

PhD
Total
Institutions in the US
178
Masters 152
330
Responded to survey
134 (75%)
89 (59%)
223 (68%)
Have a GTA PD program in math department
111 (83%)
44 (49%)
155 (70%)
For the remainder of this presentation, the percentages will be calculated out of the number of institutions that have a GTA PD program in the mathematics department unless otherwise noted.

Total
(n=155)
Activities - Feedback
GTAs are observed by an experienced instructor while teaching and receive feedback
75%
GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback 68%
PhD
(n=111)
Masters
(n=44)
77%
75%
73%
50%
Activities - Other
GTAs develop lesson plans 41%
GTAs learn classroom assessment methods 40%
GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching 34%
GTAs read research about how students learn math
23%
Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs 14%
43%
41%
33%
25%
17%
36%
39%
36%
16%
7%

PhD
(n=111)
Masters
(n=44)
Total
(n=155)
Source of materials used in program
Created by the people who provide the teaching preparation
83%
Published materials 38%
Materials adopted from another institution’s program 10%
87%
41%
9%
73%
32%
11%

Satisfaction with current program
Total
(n=155)
Adequate but could be improve 28%
PhD
(n=111)
32%
Masters
(n=44)
20%
Resources needed to improve program
Research-based information about best practices in
GTA teaching preparation
Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation
Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at similar institutions
Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff
Total
(n=155)
60%
50%
48%
43%
Online library of tested resources 37%
PhD
(n=111)
60%
55%
50%
41%
40%
Masters
(n=44)
59%
36%
45%
45%
32%

• Having some sort of program seems to be the
“norm” in the community now.
• We hope this encourages others to start programs.
• Those involved need various resources (to start or improve programs)
• Most instructional (and other) materials are home-grown yet there is wisdom living in the community that we can leverage

• Summer workshops for Providers this year and next
• Launch of Resources Suite website– January
2017
• Regional workshops for people who have materials to contribute
• Mentor/mentee teams
Email: cominds@maa.org
Website: www.maa.org/programs/faculty-anddepartments/cominds [or Google maa cominds]

PTC: Ways to get involved
MAA Conference on Precalculus to Calculus: Insights & Innovations
University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, Minnesota
June 16 – 19, 2016
See maa.org/cspcc for more information and for the application
Focus on Curriculum: Content of and alternative approaches to precalculus, articulation issues, preparation for downstream courses
Focus on Students: Placement, early warning systems and support services, formative and summative assessment, supporting students from underrepresented groups
Focus on Pedagogy: Active learning strategies, making the most of large lectures, use of Learning Assistants, assessing effectiveness of innovations
Focus on Instructors: Building communities of practice, GTA training, working with adjuncts, getting faculty buy-in for innovative practices

About findings from the survey: stay tuned for future presentations and publications!
About Progress Through Calculus: www.maa.org/cspcc
About CoMInDS: see yellow postcard, google
“cominds maa” or email cominds@maa.org

Methodology
(note: In the RUME paper we have n=341 but in my notes from our talk a couple of weeks ago I have 330 (178 PhD, 152 MS). I used these numbers, but response numbers from the RUME paper
– hope Jess can clean these up
Survey sent to department chairs at all US graduatedegree granting institutions (n = 330 )
Using Qualtrics, follow up emails/phone calls

Total
(n=155)
Primary audience
Recitation leaders 66%
Primary Instructors 77%
When
Before teaching for the first time 83%
During their first term of teaching 50%
Format
Term-long course or seminar 54%
Multi-day workshop 31%
Short workshop or orientation (1-4 hours) 26%
Occasional seminars or workshops 15%
One-day workshop 14%
PhD
(n=134)
79%
77%
86%
51%
60%
34%
24%
16%
13%
Masters
(n=89)
34%
80%
77%
48%
39%
23%
32%
11%
18%

Total PhD
(n=155) (n=134)
Activities - Feedback
GTAs are observed by an experienced instructor while teaching and receive feedback
75%
GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback 68%
Activities - Evaluation
Student evaluations required by the institution or department
GTAs are observed by a faculty member while teaching in the classroom
Activities - Other
88%
75%
GTAs develop lesson plans 41%
GTAs learn classroom assessment methods 40%
GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching 34%
GTAs read research about how students learn
+math
23%
Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs 14%
77%
75%
91%
75%
43%
41%
33%
25%
17%
Masters
(n=89)
73%
50%
80%
75%
36%
39%
36%
16%
7%

Total
(n=155)
Source of materials used in program
Created by the people who provide the teaching preparation
83%
Published materials 38%
Materials adopted from another institution’s program
Who facilitates
10%
One or more individuals for whom this is part of their official responsibilities for multiple years
79%
Experienced graduate students 17%
Department committee 15%
One or more individuals for whom this is part of their official responsibilities for a single year (e.g., rotating committee assignment)
14%
PhD
(n=134)
87%
41%
9%
79%
23%
16%
18%
Masters
(n=89)
73%
32%
11%
80%
2%
14%
5%

Total
(n=155)
Current status of program
No significant changes are planned 61%
Changes have recently been implemented or are currently being implemented
21%
Possible changes are being discussed 14%
Resources needed to improve program
Research-based information about best practices in GTA teaching preparation
Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation
Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at similar institutions
Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff
60%
50%
48%
43%
Online library of tested resources 37%
PhD
(n=134)
64%
21%
15%
60%
55%
50%
41%
40%
Masters
(n=89)
55%
23%
9%
59%
36%
45%
45%
32%

I. very brief description (2 slides each) of each of the projects [Jess/Jack - 4]
II. shared goals of projects [Natasha - 1]
III. a couple of sentences introducing the survey, that GTA is just one part
[Natasha - 1]
IV. brief discussion of methodology (e.g. survey whole population, not a sample, who it was sent to, number of follow-ups, how long survey generally took, etc) [Jessica - 3]
V. response rates (by institution type) [Jess]
VI. major preliminary findings. Can we update Table 1 on page 4 of the
RUME proposal and fit it on 1 ppt slide? If so, that will pretty sum up what we have time to talk about. Can the discussion of interests and needs of mathematics departments related to GTA PD on p. 5 of the
RUME proposal be turned into a table? [Jess - 5]
VII.how findings relate to shared goals of projects [Natasha - 1]
VIII.connect findings back to people in room as representatives, so we are going to share information about opportunities and ways to get involved
(as informed by the main findings) [1 ish]