Change DIAL Conference

1.1: “Teaching for Prowess in Action: A Focus on Deep Mathematical Engagement”

By actively engaging participants in the principles of "Building Thinking Classrooms", this session will afford the opportunity to think about and to discuss the guiding principle: Students’ deep engagement in mathematical thinking. Participants will be engaged in a mathematical task that purportedly exhibit the essence of this guiding principle. Furthermore, participants will have the opportunity to discuss questions such as "what mathematics is most important and why?" and "what is meant by developing habits of mathematical thinking and how might this development be encouraged in the classroom?" Finally, participants will learn about and carefully consider an observation rubric developed as part of the Teaching for Prowess Project that, among many other traits, attempts to measure "students’ deep engagement in mathematical thinking."

• Scott Adamson – Chandler-Gilbert Community College
• April Ström – Chandler-Gilbert Community College
• Pam Woodbury – Chandler-Gilbert Community College

1.2: “Increasing Uptake of Inclusive Active Learning” CANCELED

How do instructors with strong commitments to equity describe and envision active learning? How do they enact those visions? How do students describe their experiences in these classes? And finally, what is culturally sustaining pedagogy, and what can it tell us about early undergraduate mathematics instruction? This session will provide opportunities for learning, discussion and connection focused on implementation of active learning in ways that are equitable and inclusive.

• Nancy Kress – University of Colorado Boulder

1.3: “Creating Opportunities for Active and Equity-Minded Mathematics”

Mathematics classrooms are a barrier for many students. Past research shows that underrepresented students experience equity gaps from a lack of support. Often, struggle is seen as a reason to quit rather than a learning experience. By varying the way in which mathematics is taught, students have the chance of finding instructional methods that best fit their learning and growth. We present a tool for faculty, the TEAM Tool, which is self-reflective and allows the instructor to recognize what areas of their teaching can be improved and refined. This ensures that every student has the opportunity to succeed in mathematics.

• Cedar Hofstetter – California State University Fullerton
• Olga Luna Flores – California State University Fullerton

2.1: “Formative Peer Observation as a Support for Evidence-Based Instructional Changes in STEM”

We will provide an overview of one project (REFLECT) designed to increase and support the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices by STEM faculty. A major premise is that reflective peer observation can be leveraged as a catalyst for change at both individual and institutional levels.

The REFLECT peer observation protocol has been designed to focus faculty observations on specific dimensions of instruction, providing exposure to evidence-based practices and inviting formative feedback. Typically faculty participants observe one another in pairs using a set of worksheets that provide insights based on best practices. Example topics include equity of student engagement, truth and reconciliation, and curiosity.

In this session, participants will collaborate to brainstorm levers for change in their own contexts (based in a 4-quadrant model of institutional change theory) and explore one of the peer observation protocols from the REFLECT project. The conference theme of departmental culture and change strategies will be the focus, but this session will touch on all the conference themes.

• Valerie Peterson – University of Portland

2.2: “Course Redesign via Adaptation”

Our interactive session will focus on course and curriculum redesign. We outline a recent redesign of the UNL Trigonometry course, expanding it from two credit hours to three credit hours to address a number of goals, including incorporating an active learning model that has been successful in other first-year math courses. We will highlight salient aspects of our process and guide participants to reflect and engage on the relevance to their own contexts, focusing on achieving two goals: 1) Participants will reflect on and discuss how to adapt a similar redesign to improve courses of their own, and 2) Participants will identify what tools, knowledge, and course structures might be useful to select courses to redesign and to identify key changes within the course.

More specifically, within the session itself, we will first talk about how we identified that our Trigonometry course would benefit from a redesign by examining data about distribution of enrollment by majors, grades, success in subsequent courses, and curriculum requirements. Participants will then brainstorm about the types of information needed to understand their own P2C2 courses, sharing ideas about potential means of analysis among the group. Next, we will outline the actual process of redesigning the course by giving an overview of how we examined effective structures in other courses and how we are adapting them to Trigonometry so as to inherit the successful features of our existing courses. Participants will engage in a discussion about how to adapt to their P2C2 courses the key features identified by SEMINAL, such as sufficient time for active learning, or strengths of successful courses in their programs. We’ll conclude the session by briefly talking about how our redesign efforts are progressing, then allow for time for questions or further discussion from participants.

• Josh Brummer – University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• Allan Donsig – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2.3: “Exploring the Classroom Norms of a Redesigned Precalculus Course: Findings on Supporting Achievement, Self-Efficacy, and STEM Intentions”

The first part of this session will provide a summary of preliminary findings from an explanatory, mixed-methods study within the context of an ongoing redesign of a precalculus course at an R1 institution. The study explores the relationship between the co-constructed classroom norms of an undergraduate precalculus course and students' pursuit of, achievement in, and self-efficacy within STEM fields of study. I will also provide an interactive presentation of the data that allows participants to filter results, in real-time, by variables of their choosing (e.g., job status, first-generation student, class attendance, use of technology). The second part of this session will provide time for participants to reflect on the findings in relation to their own precalculus to calculus 2 (P2C2) courses. More specifically, participants will be asked to engage in discussion around the following three questions: 1) What affordances and limitations are presented in better supporting student achievement, self-efficacy, and STEM intentions when framing the teaching and learning practices as “classroom norms”; 2) How, if at all, do the disaggregated findings on the above-mentioned student outcomes by race, gender, and initial STEM intentions provide a better understanding of how to support a diverse group of students taking P2C2 courses at your institution; 3) Extending the findings of this study, in what ways can the integration of both student and teacher-centered classroom norms support undergraduate math students in their confidence in and views of mathematics.

The learning goals for participants include the following: 1) Develop a greater understanding of the roles student and teacher-centered classroom norms, or a hybrid of the two, play in supporting students in an introductory, undergraduate math course; 2) Walk away from the session with practical examples of supportive classroom norms, as identified in this study, that can be implemented in one’s classroom and shared with fellow colleagues in a math department. The content presented in this session follows the theoretical underpinnings of Cobb and Yackel (1996) related to classroom norms. Following their work, classroom norms are defined as “regularities in communal or collective classroom activity and are considered to be jointly established by the teacher and students as members of the classroom community” (Cobb & Yackel, 1996, p. 178). In other words, classroom norms are made up of the teaching and learning practices that both instructors and students come to expect, act on, and are aware of (Çakır & Akkoç, 2020).

This work supports the conference theme of course and curriculum redesign by highlighting those tasks and normative practices that are implemented in the ongoing redesign of the precalculus course in question. Lastly, this work supports the conference theme of equity, diversity, and inclusivity in the classroom by considering the role that a combination of both student and teacher-centered classroom norms may play in supporting a diverse group of undergraduate students taking an introductory math course.

This is an interactive workshop to make the information as relevant to your context as possible! Please bring your own computer/tablet to access online resources, including an interactive statistical tool via Google Sheets.

• Sean Gruber – University of Maryland, College Park

2.4: “Starting Over: Quantitative Reasoning at the University of Nebraska at Omaha”

At the University of Nebraska at Omaha we spent the last year redesigning our first-year mathematics courses. Our efforts focused on engaging students in class using evidenced-based teaching, helping students develop growth mindsets through standards-based grading, and forming social support networks for students. We will reflect on our successes and lessons learned from the past year of changes. Participants will reflect on their own challenges in allocating resources, implementing alternate grading systems, and building community along with brainstorming ways to overcome these challenges.

• Karina Uhing – University of Nebraska at Omaha
• Nicole Infante – University of Nebraska at Omaha
• Keith Gallagher – University of Nebraska at Omaha
• Greg Sand – University of Nebraska at Omaha

3.1: “Building a Co-Requisite Mathematics Course”

Research indicates that students who take non-credit bearing courses are less likely to finish their degrees. Because racial monitories and those of lower socioeconomic standing both take non-credit bearing courses at higher rates and have lower success rates, this burden is unevenly shared by students who are already marginalized in a mathematics classroom. To combat this, many institutions have begun implementing course structures to either get rid of non-credit bearing courses or combine these non-credit bearing courses with credit-bearing courses (usually through co-requisite or “stretch” models). Initial research indicates that such efforts are at least somewhat successful. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Mathematics Department recently piloted a co-requisite College Algebra and Intermediate Algebra course. We will discuss considerations when designing the curriculum for this pilot course, takeaways from the course, and how we are moving forward with bringing this co-requisite course model to scale. Participants will work collaboratively to build a set of objectives for a lesson in a co-requisite precalculus course and, time permitting, will reflect on what would be required to implement such a change at their own institutions.

• Emily McMillon – University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• Brittany Johnson – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

3.2: “Active Learning in a Remote Setting”

In this session, participants will learn about ways to engage remote learners of mathematics. Participants will try out different software and techniques that can be used in a remote or in a hybrid setting. There will also be time allotted to discuss how these tools/strategies could be used for active learning professional development.

• Angie Hodge-Zickerman – Northern Arizona University

3.3: “Inviting Students In: Improving Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Diversity in Textbook Exercises”

As the field of mathematics focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, research shows that textbooks can create barriers by reinforcing stereotypes and underrepresenting women and people of color. Our workshop will teach participants to “invite students in” by noticing these instances and rewriting exercises to be more inclusive. Participants will learn to (1) spot instances of textbooks reinforcing stereotypes and underrepresenting women, gender non-binary people, and people of color and (2) modify exercises to be more inclusive. Our workshop will be interactive from start to finish. Participants will be placed into groups with colleagues seated together, where applicable. They will engage in icebreaker activities to build relationships before small-group conversations. Each member will then view textbook exercises (intentionally selected for reinforcement of gender stereotypes and/or showing men in scientific careers) and record what they notice. Individual think time will be followed by small-group discussion and whole-group share out. The discussion will motivate us to briefly share our research findings and show examples of how we modify exercises to be more inclusive of different genders, races, and ethnicities. Participants then will work in groups to modify exercises to foster student identity. Exercises will be provided but all will be encouraged to modify exercises from their own curriculum materials, if available. Participants’ modified exercises will be selected and sequenced by the presenters for whole-group discussion allowing all groups to learn from each other. Groups will be able to share modifications digitally through our shared google folder and summarize learning.

Participants’ equitable teaching skills will be enhanced by spotting problematic textbook exercises and modifying them to be more inclusive. This skill for promoting access for each and every student can be applied to any mathematics content area. We focus on precalculus because it is taken at a formative time in the educational trajectory when students are making decisions about college majors and in some cases is the first math course they experience as they begin their college careers. However, we invite participants from all mathematics content areas to learn from each other.

Our entire workshop is motivated by issues of equity and access. It will take time for publishers to improve representation within textbooks. Meanwhile, instructors can be aware of issues with representation in textbooks, and can deliberately include examples of diverse professionals in their courses. We provide suggestions for instructors to modify exercises to be more inclusive. In the long run, textbooks can help to promote access and build student agency in mathematics rather than hindering it.

• Emily Rumaldo – California State University Fullerton
• Evelyn Pohle – California State University Fullerton

3.4: “Implementing Mastery Learning in Calculus 1”

Our journey to improve student success rates in first semester calculus at WMU began about six years ago. An interdisciplinary committee studied the potential causes for the lack of student success and identified sixteen different issues. Nine of these focused on student deficits while only four issues addressed deficits of the course content and pedagogy used. Addressing these four issues became the basis for the redesign for the course. A team of instructors decided to teach the course in a highly collaborative and coordinated manner. We used more student-centered pedagogies and embedded learning assistants in each section to serve as support. The team has honed our student learning objectives and has progressively incorporated more mastery level learning assessments. The team’s support was essential as the pandemic necessitated an emergency switch to online instruction. This change in teaching modality pushed the team to transition the course to mastery learning and to incorporate online activities in Desmos Classroom to support students working in groups. The course has been taught for four semesters using this approach. In this presentation we will share how we structured our course and assessments to support student learning. Participants will examine specific student learning objectives and the learning materials and assessments used. We will discuss some of the difficulties the instructors and students had with workload and how we adapted our course in response.

• Tabitha Mingus – Western Michigan University

4.3: “Noticing and Responding to Microaggressions in Our Classrooms”

This workshop session will provide participants with detailed information on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as they relate to microaggressions in the classroom. Relevant research on racial noticing and student belonging will be shared to provide a foundation for the discussion. Participants will then be asked to review case studies where a microaggression has happened in the classroom and will be given strategies on how to address these issues *when* they occur in real life. Participants should leave the workshop with an understanding of what microaggressions are, how they happen in STEM classrooms, strategies to support the affected students/whole class, and resources to support themselves as they navigate DEI issues in their courses.

• Rebecca Machen – University of Colorado Boulder

4.4.1: “A Vision for Math Learning Centers as Agents of Departmental Change”

Departmental change efforts towards active learning often do not formally include the Math Learning Center as part of their strategy. We propose that the Math Learning Center can have an impact on departmental culture, can be useful for supporting instructors in active pedagogy, and spending time in a Math Learning Center can help instructors learn to listen to and value student thinking.

• Melissa Mills – Oklahoma State University

4.4.2: “Building and Sustaining a Change Community”

At George Mason, we have been working in a multigenerational (faculty, GTAs, UG LAs) and multidepartmental fashion, with a focus on the precalculus to calculus 2 sequence. We hope to chat with others about ways we have leveraged local and national resources and the departmental and university culture amidst unanticipated challenges.

• Bob Sachs – George Mason University

4.4.3: “Outlining the Dissertation Study: Course Coordination, Mathematics Identity, and Equity”

This poster outlines a proposal for my dissertation study seeking to examine how course coordination can be used as a vehicle of change to foster equitable instructional practices and strengthen students’ mathematics identity within mathematical learning spaces, specifically introductory mathematics courses. I will introduce the theoretical framework guiding the study drawing on the concepts of course coordination and micro- and macro- mathematics identity. During the poster session, I will engage the audience to contribute their own insights into the relationships and factors impacting students math identity in coordinated courses, and describe data collection and methods of analysis that are planned to investigate this relationship.

• Tyler Sullivan – Clemson University

4.4.4: “Active Learning Professional Development Series for Both Experienced and Inexperienced Instructors”

We survey participants of a three part professional development series on active learning offered to STEM instructors with a wide range of teaching experience. The series introduces active learning strategies and benefits, has participants workshop their own strategies, and investigates how active learning fits in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The survey seeks to find what kinds of faculty participate, whether this professional development series motivates instructors to use more active learning in their classroom, and whether they see it as a way to address diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.

• Michael Tepper – Penn State Abington University

5.1: “Community at the Center: The CSUEB Model and How it Can Help”

Have you ever wondered:

• Is there an effective way to encourage and support instructors seeking to implement active learning in their classrooms?
• Can you leverage a CoP model to help narrow opportunity gaps in mathematics courses? 
• How do you start a CoP?  Or if you started one, how do you sustain and support it?  

This session outlines a framework for creating momentum for active learning at the departmental level through a Community of Practice (CoP) model. This approach focuses on empowering members of this community by providing easy access to active learning tasks, pacing guide, and student engagement tips. More importantly, monthly CoP meetings provide a space for instructors to be in community, exchange ideas, and support each other. Implementation of this CoP model has had a positive, robust, and stable effect on the DFW opportunity gap for Calculus 1 courses at our university. 

• Jesús Oliver – California State University East Bay

5.2: “Evaluating Communication Skills in Active Learning Precalculus”

The focus of the instruction in the University of Minnesota's Precalculus courses is on developing communication skills and on problem-solving. We will discuss the roles of the instructors, the methods of evaluating student contributions, and the ways in which feedback is given to students in order to help them improve their ability to communicate.

• Mike Weimerskirch – University of Minnesota

5.3: “DEI in Mathematics and Statistics at Loyola University Chicago”

In 2020 our department was undergoing a lot of change, only partly related to covid. We also had a large wave of departure, and a corresponding large number of new faculty. In response to this, we instituted a number of new structures, including a new DEI committee. That committee was tasked with working towards making our department more welcoming to all students and faculty, and given significant freedom in how to approach that. We will discuss some of the projects the committee has started. In particular, we will discuss our "diversity dialogs", which are weekly prompts that are sent to the department to instigate discussion. Participants will have a chance to discuss these prompts and share their thoughts on our current and future initiatives.

• Alec Krueger – Loyola University Chicago
• Izuchukwu Eze – Loyola University Chicago

5.4: "Utilizing Desmos in a Flipped College Algebra Classroom, Specifically for STEM Majors"

The team of college algebra instructors at University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) utilize a flipped classroom format with PlayPosIts and weekly Desmos activities to create an active learning environment. Attendees will observe a sample PlayPosIt and actively engage in a Desmos activity. Successes and struggles will also be presented/discussed.

• Sage Bentley – The University of Texas at San Antonio

6.1: “Sustaining Organizational Change: Challenges and Triumphs”

In this presentation we will use Weisbord’s (1976) six-box model as a lens to consider how the University of Oklahoma (OU) has attended to the STEM mathematical pathway, focusing on the initial three-course sequence (i.e., College Algebra, Precalculus, and Calculus 1). In particular, we will start with what Moore-Russo, Kornelson, Savic, and Andrews (2021) reported. That paper covered a five-year period up until the end of February 2020. We will compare that report with what has transpired since March 2020 discussing the current status of the initial STEM three-course sequence at OU. Besides focusing on OU’s situation, we will also suggest how others might leverage multiple sources of data to create an informative narrative that might be of use to them. We will describe possible ways to study key changes, ongoing challenges, new challenges, and triumphs at their institutions using Weisbord’s model. In the session, we will describe each of Weisbord’s six boxes that are used to perform organizational diagnoses; they include purposes, mechanisms, structure, relationships, rewards, and leadership. We will then discuss how an organizational diagnosis might be used giving participants time to consider how to leverage the elements of this model to study the particular contexts of their institutions.

• Deborah Moore-Russo – University of Oklahoma
• Keri Kornelson – University of Oklahoma

6.2: "Active Learning: History, Complexities, and Paths Forward with Novice Mathematics Instructors”

The term “active learning” (AL) has a variety of definitions and complexities within various STEM fields. One common theme through the definitions is that AL strategies actively engage students in the content (Freeman, 2014; Anthony, 1996, Laursen and Rasmussen, 2019). Contextualizing the verb “engage” is where definitions separate depending on content area. In the late 1980s, around the same time as AL was gaining traction, Cross and Angelo’s (1988) Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs), a collection of many dozens of formal and informal ways for instructors to gather information from their students about their learning, started to promote methodical formative assessment at the university level. Cross and Angelo (1993) also focused on collegiate instructors’ use of CATs as a methodical approach to collecting student feedback to help improve teaching effectiveness, which has significant overlap with formative assessment. During class, an instructor used CATs to observe student learning and then revise their teaching methods. CATs also promoted students’ self-assessment of their learning with open-ended learning experiences, providing examples to the students on how they may actively engage with the content.

Providing lists of how university instructors could intentionally engage students in university STEM courses content, many universities, and their centers for improving teaching, merged these CATs with AL strategies. Merging CATs and AL strategies generated a critical shift, where the use of an AL strategy meant the teacher actively engaged with formatively assessing the students while the students actively engaged with the activity and content. This double engagement by the student and teacher was inherently driven by the blending of CATs and AL strategies. Consequentially, operationalizing AL strategies has fused with CATs to expect instructors who uses AL strategies to formatively assess students understanding through the activity. This expectation results in a new operationalization of AL strategies relating back to Kyriacou and Marshall’s (1989) original AL ideas of generating an active mental experience.

In Laursen and Rasmussen’s (2019) and SEMINAL (2018) recent work on active learning in mathematics, one classroom norm that has been very illusive to implement has been instructors' interest (inquiry) in and use of student thinking. This is a high expectation for novice College Mathematics Instructors (CMIs) because in it is the fusing of CATs and AL strategies. This is where we expect instructors to actively engage students and then actively engage themselves in formatively assessing student understanding.

This collaborative session will help mathematics educators unpack the classroom norm, instructors' interest (inquiry) in and use of student thinking, by providing opportunities to discuss paths forward with novice mathematics instructors. In this session, participants will learn about the history of CATs and their overlap with AL strategies and then work in groups to deconstruct their understanding and language used to describe the distinctions between having students “do” an activity versus having instructors monitor student learning from the activity.

• Sean Yee – University of South Carolina

6.3: “Building and Maintaining Community in the Classroom”

In this session, we’ll discuss both building and maintaining community in the classroom to create a more equitable learning environment for students. We’ll share results from focus group interviews with students of color and first generations students from two math courses offered at UNL. Given this motivation, we’ll discuss the importance of building and maintaining community and offer suggestions and examples of techniques as well as implementation. Finally, we’ll close with group-brainstorming and discussion on ways to both build and maintain community in our own classes and plans for implementation.

• Kaitlin Tademy – University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• Michelle Homp – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

6.4: " 'I want to figure it out for myself': Enacting Tasks in the Courses for Future Elementary Teachers"

In this session, we will discuss the role of task-based learning in the courses for future teachers. Tasks will be modeled that encourage rich discourse and provide opportunities for future teachers to engage in meaningful reasoning and justification. Pre-post prompts from the facilitators' own courses will be shared to demonstrate the power that tasks designed to help teachers construct their mathematical knowledge for teaching can have on their professional development and their beliefs about mathematics and its teaching. Participants can expect to engage with several tasks in addition to thoughtful discussion about how to successfully facilitate these tasks in their own courses.

• Billy Jackson – University of Wisconsin Madison
• Jenq-Jong (David) Tsay – University of Wisconsin Madison