Preparing our future colleagues: A report on the national landscape of graduate student instructor professional development programs Jessica Ellis, Colorado.

Preparing our future colleagues: A report on the national landscape of

graduate student instructor professional development programs

Jessica Ellis, Colorado State UniversityNatasha Speer, The University of MaineJack Bookman, Duke University

Today’s report

PtC: Progress through Calculus

DUE Award # 5345008

CoMInDS: College Mathematics

Instructor Development Source

DUE Award # 1432381

Based on data from collaboration between two MAA-affiliated, NSF-funded projects

CoMInDS Activities• 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

Progress through Calculus Activities• 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

Shared goals of projects • 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.

Our survey work• PTC surveyed departments about calculus-

program-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

Research designThree-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

Existence of programs

Institutions in the US

Responded to survey

Have a GTA PD program in math department

PhD 178 134 (75%) 111 (83%)

Masters 152 89 (59%) 44 (49%)

Total 330 223 (68%) 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.

What goes on?

Activities - OtherGTAs develop lesson plans 41% 43% 36%

GTAs learn classroom assessment methods 40% 41% 39%GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching 34% 33% 36%

GTAs read research about how students learn math 23% 25% 16%

Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs 14% 17% 7%

Total(n=155)

PhD(n=111)

Masters(n=44)

Activities - FeedbackGTAs are observed by an experienced instructor

while teaching and receive feedback 75% 77% 73%

GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback 68% 75% 50%

Where do instructional materials come from?

Total(n=155)

PhD(n=111)

Masters(n=44)

Source of materials used in programCreated by the people who provide the teaching

preparation 83% 87% 73%

Published materials 38% 41% 32%

Materials adopted from another institution’s program 10% 9% 11%

Resources needed to improve programTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=111)Masters(n=44)

Research-based information about best practices in GTA teaching preparation 60% 60% 59%

Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation 50% 55% 36%

Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at similar

institutions48% 50% 45%

Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff 43% 41% 45%

Online library of tested resources 37% 40% 32%

Satisfaction and need for resources

Satisfaction with current programTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=111)Masters(n=44)

Adequate but could be improve 28% 32% 20%

Conclusions• 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

CoMInDS: Ways to get involved• 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: [email protected]: www.maa.org/programs/faculty-and-departments/cominds [or Google maa cominds]

PTC: Ways to get involvedMAA Conference on Precalculus to Calculus: Insights & Innovations

University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, MinnesotaJune 16 – 19, 2016

Focus on Pedagogy: Active learning strategies, making the most of large lectures, use of Learning Assistants, assessing effectiveness of innovationsFocus on Instructors: Building communities of practice, GTA training, working with adjuncts, getting faculty buy-in for innovative practices

Focus on Curriculum: Content of and alternative approaches to precalculus, articulation issues, preparation for downstream coursesFocus on Students: Placement, early warning systems and support services, formative and summative assessment, supporting students from underrepresented groups

See maa.org/cspcc for more information and for the application

Thank you!Want more information?

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 [email protected]

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 graduate-degree granting institutions (n = 330)

Using Qualtrics, follow up emails/phone calls

Structure of programsTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=134)Masters(n=89)

Primary audience

Recitation leaders 66% 79% 34%Primary Instructors 77% 77% 80%

When

Before teaching for the first time 83% 86% 77%

During their first term of teaching 50% 51% 48%Format

Term-long course or seminar 54% 60% 39%

Multi-day workshop 31% 34% 23%

Short workshop or orientation (1-4 hours) 26% 24% 32%

Occasional seminars or workshops 15% 16% 11%

One-day workshop 14% 13% 18%

Content of programsTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=134)Masters(n=89)

Activities - FeedbackGTAs are observed by an experienced instructor

while teaching and receive feedback 75% 77% 73%

GTAs practice teaching and receive feedback 68% 75% 50%Activities - EvaluationStudent evaluations required by the institution

or department 88% 91% 80%

GTAs are observed by a faculty member while teaching in the classroom 75% 75% 75%

Activities - OtherGTAs develop lesson plans 41% 43% 36%

GTAs learn classroom assessment methods 40% 41% 39%GTAs watch or read cases of others teaching 34% 33% 36%

GTAs read research about how students learn +math 23% 25% 16%

Experienced GTAs are observed by new GTAs 14% 17% 7%

Other aspects of programsTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=134)Masters(n=89)

Source of materials used in programCreated by the people who provide the teaching

preparation 83% 87% 73%

Published materials 38% 41% 32%Materials adopted from another institution’s

program 10% 9% 11%

Who facilitatesOne or more individuals for whom this is part of

their official responsibilities for multiple years 79% 79% 80%

Experienced graduate students 17% 23% 2%

Department committee 15% 16% 14%One or more individuals for whom this is part of

their official responsibilities for a single year (e.g., rotating committee assignment)

14% 18% 5%

Improvement of programsTotal

(n=155)PhD

(n=134)Masters(n=89)

Current status of programNo significant changes are planned 61% 64% 55%

Changes have recently been implemented or are currently being implemented 21% 21% 23%

Possible changes are being discussed 14% 15% 9%Resources needed to improve program

Research-based information about best practices in GTA teaching preparation 60% 60% 59%

Tools for evaluating effectiveness of GTA teaching preparation 50% 55% 36%

Collegial conversations or mentoring for GTA teaching preparation staff with colleagues at

similar institutions48% 50% 45%

Professional development for GTA teaching preparation staff 43% 41% 45%

Online library of tested resources 37% 40% 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]