Maria Haverhals Andersen, Ph.D.

busynessgirl@gmail.com

busynessgirl.com

@busynessgirl

Illustrations

by Mat Moore

Why aren't we more successful at introducing student-centered instructional practices in math eduation?

There was a lot of information that we didn't know about instructors and their instructional practices.

**Knowledge**

**Attitude**

**Practice**

How knowledgeable are community college math faculty about instructional practices and how do they receive this knowledge?

What kinds of professional development do community college math faculty participate in?

What is the influence, if any, of specific demographics on the types of training that community college math faculty receive?

Are there correlations between beliefs held by community college math faculty and their use (or lack of use) of instructional practices?

What is the influence, if any, of specific demographics on whether math faculty choose to adopt (or reinvent) or reject an instructional practice?

What is the relationship, if any, of favorable (or unfavorable) attitude towards an instructional practice and actual instructional pracice? Is there a KAP Gap?

Survey Instrument

Work Status Divide

Response Rate: 21.3%

(192 participants out of 903)

Delivery:

Electronic via email

with participation incentive

Population:

Michigan Community

College Math Instructors

Source:

MichMATYC Potential

Members Database

(updated by all MI

community colleges

in Fall 2009)

Females were significantly more likely to know about CL and IBL.

Instructors who had taught remedial math courses were more likely to know about CL:

93.8% vs. 81.8% (p < .05*)

Instructors who had taught Calculus courses were more likely to know about IBL:

94.1% vs. 75.3% (p < .001)

For IBL, there were two "education" effects:

Educational Cohort (p < .05*)

Coursework completed 2000-2010, 94.8%

Coursework completed 1990-1999, 83.0%

Coursework completed 1980-1989, 78.1%

Coursework prior to 1980, 67.9%

Instructors with education-related degrees were more likely to know about IBL:

92.0% vs. 76.1% (p < .01*)

Work status

Gender

Educational cohort

Degree: Math or Statistics, partner-discipline, education-related

Has taught remedial math, algebra, pre-calculus, calculus, post-calculus or off-track math courses.

Number of colleges

Variety of courses

Years of experience

Demographics

Did you notice how work status was at the top of every list?

When those other variables were re-examined within the full-time and part-time subgroups, NO other variables were significant within BOTH work status groups.

Participate in General PD:

Full-time instructors

Educational cohort: 1980-1989

Those with a math or statistics degree

Those who have taught precalculus, calculus, or post-calculus

Those who have taught a large variety of math courses

Who is more likely to ...

Participate in Math-specific PD:

Full-time instructors

Those who have a math or statistics degree

Those who have a math-related partner-discipline degree

Those who have taught remedial math or calculus

Those who have taught a large variety of math courses

Participate in Off-campus Math PD:

Full-time instructors

Those who have a math or statistics degree

Those who have a math-related partner-discipline degree

Those who have taught off-track math, calculus, or post-calculus Those that have taught a large variety of math courses

Those who have more years of experience

However ...

Engage in Social Interactions

related to teaching math

Full-time instructors

Females

Those who have a math or statistics degree

Those who have taught precalculus or off-track math

Those who have taught a large variety of math courses

Read articles related to teaching math

Full-time instructors

Females

Those who have taught remedial math or off-track math

Annual time attending math-specific PD

Average weekly time spent reading articles related to teaching math

Average weekly time engaged in social interactions related to teaching math

Frequent Use

Lecture method, 91.2%

Cooperative learning, 50.2%

Inquiry-based learning, 20.0%

Work Status

Gender

Frequently uses CL

FT, 59.6%

PT, 46.3%

Never uses CL

FT, 3.8%

PT, 16.3%

Frequently uses CL

Females, 57.6%

Males, 42.6%

Frequently uses IBL

Females, 23.5%

Males, 17.2%

Frequently uses IBL

FT, 25.0%

PT, 17.9%

Never uses IBL

FT, 15.4%

PT, 35.0%

Never uses CL

Females, 7.1%

Males, 17.2%

Never uses IBL

Females, 18.8%

Males, 37.9%

(p < or = 0.5)

(p < or = 0.5)

Belief statements were rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree.

Use of cooperative learning

Beliefs with higher average scores correlated with more frequent use.

The ATI-CCSF was significantly diferent between useage groups.

Use of inquiry-based learning

Open Comment Section

Instructors were given a chance to voice their beliefs on many possible reasons not to use these methods:

Effectiveness

Student enjoyment

Class sizes

Classroom setup

Unprepared students

Absent students

Varying skill levels

Repeat students

Prep time

Grading time

Department control

Need for training

One item struck a chord with participants for both CL and IBL.

If there were less content to cover in courses at this level of math, I would be more inclined to use ____ (or use it more often).

21 participants commented on "not enough time, too much content" for CL

17 participants commented on "not enough time, too much content" for IBL

Looking just at IBL

(and those with K+A)

Which variables have a significant difference between frequent use and non- or infrequent-use?

CCSF Scale of ATI

Training

Say in how courses are run

Flexibility in teaching

Prediction

Models

Is there a

KAP Gap?

Yes

Attitude alone (CCSF + CL-Attitude) could be used to correctly classify 95% of IBL non-users.

Attitude alone only predicted 30% of IBL users.

Tinkering with the logistic regression models by including other variables did not do much to improve prediction of use.

Faculty

Hiring

Implications

Course

Redesign

Professional

Development