Thursday, August 1, 2019

Be Like Branch Rickey and Create Opportunities: Equity and Inclusion

My favorite baseball player of all time is Jackie Robinson. I grew up in LA, and have been a lifelong Dodgers fan, and Jackie Robinson was for me a wonderful role model. He was from Pasadena, not far from where I grew up in Glendale, CA, and became a celebrated, historical figure. But this post isn't about #42. It's about something else. It's about what we can do.

This post is about making a case for ordinary people, specifically math instructors or educators, to act like Branch Rickey.  Who's Branch Rickey?  There are links at the bottom, if you don't know who he is. Let me say this first. Jackie Robinson had the goods to play hall-of-fame baseball, while taking in daily verbal and physical abuse. What he accomplished is truly amazing, but he did not have the power to create his own opportunity to play in major league baseball. That power was held by the Dodgers, specifically the Dodgers' general manager at the time, Branch Rickey. Branch Rickey is one who gave Jackie Robinson the opportunity to play major league baseball.

If baseball was a meritocracy before April 15, 1947, then players of Robinson's ability would've been on MLB teams by that time. While "equal opportunity for all" is one of America's high ideals, it isn't yet a level playing field. Hence, someone had to go out of his way and create opportunities for those not included.

A clip from the movie, 42, "Why did you do it?" (Staring Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford).


What does this have to do with math teaching and learning?  Mathematics classrooms and schools are not yet gender, race, disability, LGBTQ+, and socioeconomic status neutral as of 2019. Further, Mathematics is a gateway or barrier into STEM fields, where many of the economy's current and future high paying jobs are.  I've highlighted some other issues in equity and inclusion HERE in the 20 year challenges I posed to the profession two years ago. In short, women and people of color are underrepresented in STEM fields, and underrepresentation is not only wrong (which is bad enough by itself) it's also just plain dumb for Math and Science. Diversity of thinking is needed to bring new ideas and fresh perspectives to complex problems. We should be harnessing all the talent and interest in our society possible, because it's simply the morally correct and smart thing to do.

Some people have claimed that Math is a logical, abstract subject, and has no connection to culture, race, gender, and so on. I understand where this argument is coming from. In the pursuit of knowledge we try our best to remove personality and bias, and consider logic, reasoning, and data.  Theoretically our identifies should not matter in mathematical studies. This viewpoint though conflates Math as an academic subject and the human constructed systems that educate young people (i.e. schools). While Math itself is an abstract logical subject, separated far from what many would recognize as everyday culture, teaching is a cultural activity. Where people learn Math is almost always in formal education settings, and these systems are part of our culture. Math teaching and learning environments are not immune from the influences of the culture within which they exist. People teach the courses. People are the administrators and staff at the schools. People setup standards and assessments. People are at the decision points in the system for who gets into advanced math courses and who does not. People determine resource allocation that funds schools. There exists inequity in society... Cultural assumptions, biases, and inequities are baked into the education system, because our schools are a reflection of our society.

A lot of what we do in Math is good. We should and do value Geometry, Algebra, Trignometry, Calculus, problem solving, proof, and so on. And in some instances we are teaching these subjects really well! But just because there exists good, that does not mean we are done.  It's not all bad or all good. It's a mix. Strong communities are willing to look at the hard issues, and think of ways to fix them. The key is to keep the good and improve on areas where there are issues. Inclusion and equity is one of those areas that needs attention and improvement.

What I believe we need are multiple analogies for a "hero."  I don't believe in hero worship, thus what I mean to convey are examples of how we can act that improves equity and inclusion.  Branch Rickey is one (and not only) example. The reason why I like Branch Rickey is that he created an opportunity, and was an active ally.  He didn't just think about or complain about the problems. He did something. He created an opportunity for Robinson and supported him through the tough days. And that created more opportunities for more people of color in the coming years. We need more people like that in education (and the rest of society), who intentionally create opportunities for underrepresented groups. These heroes are pulling others up, and helping us achieve one of the highest ideals of our American democracy, a level playing field.

Let's say a person asks, "I'm just an instructor/educator. What can I do?"  You may not realize it, but you are powerful! Yes, instructors/educators are powerful.  Within your communities, especially if you are male and/or white, you have the power to influence. Specifically every instructor has the capacity to be like Branch Rickey in their own way, and create opportunities for others. As educators, I believe we should view ourselves as forces for good. If we are passionate about our subjects, then it's also our responsibility to help create learning environments, where all students feel included and supported.

Opportunities come in different forms and sizes. You might say, "I haven't been trained to do this." That's true. Most of us haven't, but there are things you can do, without having do anything outside of your job description or sacrifice all your free time.  If we teach better, we can do impactful things that make a difference.  Below is a starter list of 10 things you can do, beginning with easier steps.
  1. Use inclusive teaching practices and frameworks (IBL), that encourage more students to be engaged more often. This is increasing daily learning opportunities for your students. 21 practices by Tanner are HERE
  2. Add an equity statement in your syllabus to signify the importance of inclusion and equity. This helps create a positive learning environment in your class.  Imagine a student of color, sitting in a room full of people not like her.  Examples HERE
  3. Post a inclusivity flyer or image in your office door to help establish a safe learning environment. 
  4. Point out non-inclusive behavior and shut it down (in a nice way of course. "Hi John, how are you? Let's chat after class. For now, stop X and do Y."). Hopefully this never happens in your classes, but if it does, it helps immensely if you speak up. The cost of inaction is high, because  silence can be viewed as tacit agreement with the behavior or not caring.
  5. Show up to some campus events and learn about cultures different than your own. Showing up is valued. If you're not sure, just ask the organizers and be a humble, respectful participant.
  6. Amplify voices of those who are marginalized. Some students or colleagues are quiet, not because they were born shy, but because they have not been invited in and have been conditioned over a lifetime that their voices won't be heard. "I like Maria's comments and agree with them..."
  7. Mentor or be the advisor to students from underrepresented groups, including them in research projects, jobs, etc.
  8. Support organizations that support women and people of color, and become a member.
  9. Volunteer or do projects with local schools, such as organize a Math Circle or Math Teacher Circle.
  10. Work on hiring committees and include implicit bias training for the committee members.
The list above is not complete. It's a starter list. I'd say start with doing what you can, and add on as you go. Perhaps you'll find other things you can do that match your personality that may not be on this list. Some of the items above do not require much effort, and yet they can make a lasting difference.

Let's address some of the common questions and concerns that come up...

"It's not my job. I teach math." I hear this sometimes. We teach math, so why do we have to think about things like inclusion or equity? Branch Rickey's job wasn't to integrate baseball. His job was to be general manager of the team. Sure he saw benefits from a business standpoint to integrate, but there were also risks and costs. Most importantly he saw that something was wrong and he could do something to right this wrong. The point of view of "It's not my job..." is understandable but misplaced in world that is not a level playing field. Our profession has flaws, and we can try and fix them. You have the power to make a difference!

"Is it my responsibility?" Let me put it this way. If you were eating lunch at restaurant, and someone next to you falls and breaks their arm and asks for help, you'd help the person. You don't go on eating your sandwich like nothing happened. It's normal human nature to help those in need. In the case of equity and inclusion, the tricky part is that you aren't being asked to help in clear, direct terms like the restaurant example. Some issues become known by looking at data, reading history, and learning about what is going on. Some of these issues are things you can't see in your everyday interactions, likely due to your identity and privilege. If you didn't know there are issues, then now is a good time to inform yourself. Check out the AMS page on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.   See also this post on Math Ed Matters, MAA by Beth Burroughs, Montana State. (Side note, my ancestry is Japanese. None of my ancestors owned slaves or created the inequities we have in the U.S. Yet, I view this issue as all our responsibility. It's specifically my responsibility to help and do the right thing, where I can make a difference. I don't feel guilt or shame for having privilege, as an asian male in STEM, and neither should anyone else. Instead, I view my role as using my privilege to help others who didn't start life a second or third base.)

"What about white men, are we excluding them?" The answer is definitely no. Society isn't pie. Society is not a zero sum game, and in fact society is a team sport. We're actually competing with our international peers, not the guy down the street. All our successes are tied together. Your success is my success, and my success is your success.  If a woman or person of color learns more Math in a class, it's obviously not taking away learning from someone else. Learning isn't a fixed commodity across society, where only N people can learn topic Y. More people succeeding in school is better for team USA, which benefits all of us. We aren't ignoring or taking away opportunities from one group, by emphasizing the needs of other groups, who have historically had far fewer opportunities. Highlighting inequities in order to fix longstanding issues is something we do, because that's adulting. That's a grown up version of sharing. An analogy is that what we are doing is making room at the dinner table for everyone.  There's plenty to eat, so we can scoot over, make room, and break bread together in fellowship.

Speaking of fellowship, Pee Wee Reese is another person we can learn from. Pee Wee Reese was a great player and teammate of Robison, and more importantly a good human being. He famously put his arm around Robinson before a game, when the fans were being hostile to Robinson, in a show of visible inclusion. It wasn't enough that he agreed with Branch Rickey and supported Robinson in concept. He showed who he is, when it was his turn to come into the light.
But his [Pee Wee Reese's] most important action on a baseball field may have been prior to a game. In 1947, the Dodgers were visiting Cincinnati, and the fans and opposing players were getting on rookie Jackie Robinson. Reports of the game state that Reese calmly walked over to Robinson, put his arm around his teammate’s shoulder, and chatted. The gesture is remembered as an important moment in both Robinson’s career and the acceptance of African Americans in baseball—and American society. 
(Link)
Scene from 42, "Maybe Tomorrow We´ll All Wear 42." (Lucas Black, Chadwick Boseman)


"I'm a nice person. Isn't that enough?" Kindness alone isn't courageous. Kindness is part of basic manners. It's assumed. Being nice doesn't create opportunities.  This is why including people and ensuring qualified people are included is fundamentally important for progress. Robinson appreciated the kindness of Rickey and Reese, but really what changed the game and society was being included on a major league roster.  Kindness without action is sitting on the sidelines. The thing that frustrates me the most is seeing good people sitting on the sidelines in silence. Hence,

Kindness + Inclusion = An Act of Courage

Within each of us is the capability to positively change our communities. Within each of us is the power to understand why we must act, and the power to build up the necessary courage to take action and create opportunities for others. The good news is that instructors don't have to go outside of their job descriptions to do some of this work. It can be accomplished via good teaching and mentoring -- things we do as part of our jobs. Teaching is something we already care about, and that means that we all can make a difference today. That's an encouraging thought!

“It's a thrill to fulfill your own childhood dreams, but as you get older, you may find that enabling the dreams of others is even more fun.” -  Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture.


Links

  1. https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rickey-branch
  2. https://www.biography.com/athlete/branch-rickey
  3. https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/reese-pee-wee
  4. AMS page on Equity
  5. 21 practices by Tanner are HERE
  6. Examples of equity statements for course syllabi HERE



Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Student Buy-In In Practice Overview

Student buy-in is one of the issues that comes up frequently at workshops and in hallway conversations. Student buy-in isn't a simple thing. I've written about it previously on this blog, and I think this topic needs to be visited regularly.

Getting stuck is hard. Fruitful struggle and productive failure aren't usually taught and learned. Making mistakes has often been equated with failure (in the negative sense of the term). Students aren't usually encouraged to explore, experiment, and tinker.  Thus, the conundrum is that in order for learners to grow, they need to be challenged appropriately, which means being stuck on some ideas, yet being stuck is equated to being dumb.

Luckily today we have the advantages that can help change learning experiences into authentically positive ones.  Growth mindset work has zeroed in on beliefs that lead to becoming smarter. We know more about how to use active learning to open up learning spaces, and we have a growing collection of videos on productive failure that can direct students toward successful mathematical practices. Instructors can assign videos as homework with reflective writing prompts every week or so for the first part of the term.

Day 1 of a course is important. Linked below is one way to open a course, by starting with students' hobbies and how they got better at the hobby.
https://theiblblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/opening-course-and-launching-winter.html

See also Dana Ernst's "Setting the Stage" opening.
http://danaernst.com/setting-the-stage/

Ongoing strategies for student buy-in are posted here. It's not enough to only do something on day 1, because it's a journey.
http://theiblblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/ongoing-student-buy-in-strategies.html

Nudging students to engage more is one way to address student buy-in. We all need a break sometimes, and we can all use a bit of support. One way to keep students going is to nudge them.
http://theiblblog.blogspot.com/2018/11/nudges-as-teaching-technique.html

Attend to Math Anxiety, because knowing where students are coming from can help us be better teachers. Math anxiety is a thing, and most students have some level of anxiety. Ignoring it only limits student learning, so we might as well deal with it. Math anxiety is linked to (lack of) productive failure, and fixed mindsets. Here's a post on the iceberg diagram and math anxiety and how instructors can detect math anxiety and fixed mindsets from statements like, "I don't learn this way..."
http://theiblblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/iceberg-diagram-fixed-mindset-math.html

Digging deeper, math anxiety is something you can read about from students directly. Here's a collection of math anxiety quotes to give you a sense what lies underneath. If you've never asked, try adding a math autobiography assignment at the start of the term. Let students share their experiences.
https://theiblblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/math-anxiety-realities-student-voices.html

Sharpening your IBL skills is also important, because a well-taught class is part of the equation. Problems that are too hard or leaving students struggling for too long works against student buy-in.  Also making things too easy is also. The IBL Blog Playlist is collection of posts organize by topic. If you are new to IBL, we also have a video series to get you going.


Monday, June 24, 2019

Standards-Based Grading Example in an IBL Course

I'm sharing an outline of standards-based grading I've recently used in a course for future elementary school teachers, although much of this is generally applicable to other courses. I'll list the main features and then get into some of the details below.  Also this is just one example, so do not assume that what I am sharing is representative. It's really a form that works for the specific course.

Here are the main features:
  1. Gateway exams
  2. Reading assignments
  3. Homework assignments
  4. Productive failure
  5. Class contributions and participation
  6. Final project
How these fit together is that if a student earns a passing grade on all items, they earn a B in the course. Students can raise their grade to an A/A-/B+ with an excellent grade on the final project. Students earning one or more non-passing scores in any of the categories will earn a grade lower than a B, with specific grades reductions based on the nature and quantity of the unsatisfactory grades.

1. Gateway exams: These exams are based on the IBL units we work on regularly in class, and are based on the math being learned in the course. Students are required to pass all of the problems on the gateway exams (i.e. get the correct). For any problem that was not successfully passed, a student must retake that problem on the retake exam.  The retake exam is given about two weeks after the initial exam. Problem done correctly do not have to be retaken.  The first retake is done in class. Subsequent retakes are completed in office hours or alternatively completed in writing and submitted for review.  This past term, I gave 2 exams, and was limited by the quarter system (10 week terms) in how many retakes can be given in class.

Retakes can become a logistical challenge for large classes or in courses where there is a significant amount of material to cover. One has to weigh the costs and benefits of this and plan accordingly. The strategy I've taken is to start with a course that I thought would be relatively easier to manage, and then work my way to other courses where I feel I would be better off with more experience.

2 and 3. Reading assignments and homework assignments are graded for process and completeness. Accuracy feedback is given, however, the goal of these assignments are for students to think and reflect on math and math knowledge for teaching. Points are not taken off for mistakes or incorrect answers, and instead feedback is given when necessary and points are awarded for good process. For example, if a student gets a problem wrong, but writes questions or explains what they did and what they still need to work on, then they earn full credit for the problem. 

4. Each student is required to present one productive failure (i.e. #PF) per term (in a 10-week quarter) about a mistake or something the student was stuck on. The format is to discuss (1) the mistake or issue, and (2) to share what they learned from the process.  (In some courses the number of #PF presentations is 2.)

5. Student contributions to the class discourse is another component. Students work in groups and are expected to show up to every class, contribute to discussions, be effective group mates (i.e. be good at listening, supporting, and sharing), and present math ideas sometimes. More or less this is participation grade, but with stipulations about expected behavior. 

6. In lieu of a final exam, students must submit a final report. The report is based on 4 tracks related to mathematics teaching in the elementary school and the course content (in this case fractions for teachers).  Each track has a lead source (article or book). Students are required to do library research, branching out from the lead source, to find learning challenges (for children) established in the Math Ed literature. Lastly, students are required to create rich mathematical tasks that address the identified challenges that build from starter problems to middle problems to goal problems. 

I get asked if creating math tasks is pedagogy.  The answer is no. Creating math tasks to address specific math learning goals is a teaching specific math activity. Identifying the main math ideas, ordering and sequencing math problems, and building up from first principals is doing a math (applied to teaching children). 

---

Some general comments.

Gateway exams require students to learn all the standards of the course. There's no partial credit for problems, and students are required to demonstrate they know the math they need as teachers. Students have multiple chances to make sure they get problem completely correct. The retakes can be logistically challenging, if you are not organized. Overall, the workload is about the same, because retakes eliminates the time needed to determine partial credit, and there's a tradeoff that more or less washes out (for me).

Further, the overall assessment structure aligns the class to the mathematical work of teachers and the philosophy of IBL. The focus is on learning, and guiding students to what they know well and what they need to work on further. What students need to work on is clear, and this I find one of the main benefits of standards-based grading.

The reading assignments, homework, productive failure, and class contributions, as an ensemble focuses on process and prospective teacher beliefs. The shift is away from "answer-getting" without deep understanding.

Final projects or final exams can be implemented in ways that work with standards-based grading. In this specific case, I decided on final projects, since it gives future teachers the opportunity to connect they math they are learning, the research literature, and connect that to the classroom. In other courses, I have used standards-based final exams. 

If you're thinking about trying standards-based grading, I highly recommend giving it a go.  If you have been using standards-based grading, please share what you do! 



Thursday, April 25, 2019

IBL Blog Q&A: The TIMES Project, Karen Keene, Justin Dunmyre

This blog post is an Q&A session conducted via email with Dr. Karen Keene and Dr. Justin Dunmyre. They are sharing information about the TIMES project. Thank you Karen and Justin!


0. Please tell us about yourselves.

Karen Keene has her Ph.D. in Mathematics Education from Purdue University.  Karen was introduced to active learning in undergraduate mathematics education while she was a graduate student involved in the creation of the Inquiry-Oriented Differential Equations materials. She has been serving as a project leader on the TIMES project where inquiry-oriented instruction, one form of active learning since 2013. She is currently an Associate Professor of Math Education at North Carolina State University and is currently serving as a rotating Program Officer for the National Science Foundation.

Justin Dunmyre has his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Pittsburgh, and is a Brown ’13 Project NExT fellow.  He is currently an Associate Professor and Chair of Mathematics at Frostburg State University. Through Project NExT, Justin got interested in active learning, and subsequently participated in the IBL Workshop.  This transformative experience led him to wonder what IBL would look like in his discipline (differential equations) and almost as soon as he had that thought he got an email through the IBL mailing list about this exciting TIMES project!

1. We'd like to learn about the TIMES project. What is the main idea behind this effort?

The TIMES project began as a collaboration of second-generation authors of varied inquiry-oriented (IO) classroom materials.  By second-generation we mean that Michelle Zandieh, Sean Larsen, and Chris Rasmussen wrote the original IO materials for Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, and Ordinary Differential Equations, respectively.  The TIMES Principal Investigators, Christy Andrews-Larsons, Estrella Johnson, and Karen Keene were each graduate students of these original authors and launched the TIMES project to study how they might support other faculty in using these materials.  That’s why TIMES actually stands for Teaching Inquiry Mathematics: Establishing Supports. These supports were three fold: providing the curricular material, a 3-day summer workshop on using the materials, and weekly online working groups. The three supported curricula were IOLA (Inquiry-Oriented Linear Algebra) and IOAA (Inquiry-Oriented Abstract Algebra formerly known as TAAFU - Teaching Abstract Algebra For Understanding) and IODE (Inquiry-Oriented Differential Equations).

Justin was in one of the first cohorts of TIMES fellows for IODE, and became involved in running the online working groups and became a coauthor on the materials, along with Nick Fortune whose dissertation research was supported by TIMES project.

2. What classes do you have materials for?

A first course in Linear Algebra, an abstract-algebra course focused on groups, and a first course in differential equations.

3. What is a typical day like in an IO class?

A typical day is centered around the guided reinvention of particular mathematical concept(s).  The tasks are based on the principles of the instructional design theory of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME), of which one of the tenets is that the material must be experientially real for the students.  The Inquiry Oriented materials are grounded in contexts that the students can initially understand and reason about, maybe from a less sophisticated viewpoint, even if they’ve never had that specific experience before.  For example, in IODE, one tasks early in the materials is focused on population growth of owls in a forest, which students may not know a lot about, but can understand. As in any IBL classroom, students are constructing the mathematics for themselves, and taking ownership of that mathematics. The students work through a series of tasks, often encountering the the tasks for the first time in class. Therefore, we rely on small group work for an initial translation from the context to concepts relating to the learning outcomes of the class.

The instructor facilitates this guided reinvention by primarily using four instructional components (Kuster, Johnson, Keene, Andrews-Larson, 2018) , not all of which may happen on the same day.  These four instructional components are general instructional goals: eliciting student thinking, building on student thinking, building a shared understanding of the mathematics reinvented in the classroom, and connecting the students’ mathematics to formal mathematics.

In any given day in our classes, one would see the students sitting in small groups, working on tasks. One would also hear whole class discussions where the instructor is soliciting student input, re-voicing, and, reshaping it, innocuously,  to guide the conversation with an eye on the instructor's mathematical agenda. Occasionally, the students would make presentations of their ideas, but this would not always happen. The whole class discussion and small group discussions do happen every day.  Finally, when the class has finished an idea, or perhaps developed a need for notation to express their ideas, the instructor connects their work with formal language and notation.

4. What are some of your best moments as a teacher in an IO class?

Justin:  There are so many!  One of my favorites came from the first time I taught our optional unit on bifurcation theory.  This unit starts with a task where students are challenged to model the introduction of a parameter that represents harvesting of fish from an otherwise logistic model.  After settling on a simple shift of the form dP/dt = 0.2P(1-P/25) - k, where k is the harvesting parameter, students are asked to come up with a one page report to explain to the owners of the fish hatchery the ramifications of varied choices in k.  The one page report is the trick! By requiring students to use space efficiently, they can actually invent the bifurcation diagram for themselves. What really surprised me was how many different forms this bifurcation diagram can take. I’ve seen students use spreadsheets that show if dP/dt is positive in green or negative in red (the bifurcation diagram then emerges as the change from green to red), carefully stacked phase lines, analytically drawn bifurcation curves using the quadratic formulas, and more.  When the students present these ideas to one another, they realize they’re all saying the same thing, and absorbing insights from other groups result in very deep understanding of this sophisticated concept. The first time I taught this unit I was giddy, I couldn’t believe that these bifurcation diagrams were emerging before my eyes, completely invented by my students!  We wrote about this task sequence in a PRIMUS paper here (Rasmussen, Dunmyre, Fortune & Keene, 2019). 

The “salty tank” problem is practically a rite of passage for students in my differential equations classes.  It’s developed its own legend here on campus, because the discussions are so robust, and it is the first time that students are really asked to develop their own equation.  The students really marvel at how they can have an 50 minute long debate over a prompt as simple as “A very large tank initially contains 15 gallons of saltwater containing 6 pounds of salt. Saltwater containing 1 pound of salt per gallon is pumped into the top of the tank at a rate of 2 gallons per minute, while a well-mixed solution leaves the bottom of the tank at a rate of 1 gallon per minute.” This problem is the seat of another favorite moment of mine. Ideas were flying all around the room, what does it mean to be well-mixed, what should the input term look like, what should the output term look like?  A student said something to her group, but she didn’t want to cut into the whole class discussion. Her group thought it was important though, so one of her more outgoing group members interrupted the discussion and he said “I think we should all hear what Sarah has to say.”  Of course, it was a critical insight that helped reframe the conversation in a productive direction! But the act of one student elevating the status of another student, that was a powerful moment that will always stick with me.

Karen:  When I taught this course to math and physics majors together, my favorite times were when we talked about the difference between instantaneous rate of change and rate of change over a "very very small time interval".  The conversations were always spirited and deep, with the Physics Majors declaring it doesn't matter if there is a difference and the Math majors wanted it to matter and try to understand what a "limit" really is. Of course, I was always rooting for the Math Majors, but it didn't really matter, as it was a situation where the students were engaged in thinking deeply about the math and taking the authority of learning on themselves.  Of course, ultimately, we had to agree to disagree and the physics majors usually could go along with the idea of instantaneous rate of change as that being the foundation of a differential equation.

I can think of other times that after we had small group discussions, two groups would present their ideas about a particular task- and they were not the same.  When that happened, I would encourage each side to state their case. Then I would send the students into small groups to continue the discussion and decide what they thought.  This might go on for much of a class. I know it took up a lot of time, but it was worth it--- they were not waiting on me to tell them- but making their own mathematical judgments.  Most of the time, it all seemed to move the agenda forward. I do remember one time that the whole class agreed on something that I knew was mathematically wrong. I made the decision (there was no test or assignment the next day) to let it stand.  On the next day, I brought of the decision with a question that led them to believe they were wrong-- and all was forgiven!

5. If you could give some advice to math instructors thinking about using active learning, who have not tried yet, what would you say to them?

Justin: There is evidence in the research that supports your decision to try active learning, so you should proceed with confidence.  For the IO curriculum, it is extremely exciting to be a sort of curator of the conversation. You don’t know what students are going to say, and you get the exhilaration of thinking on your feet to fit their ideas into your agenda.  So, my advice is: this is hard work! Be kind to yourself when you just can’t reshape their ideas the first time. We have found that, although active learning is our main mode of instruction, there is a “time to tell.”


Karen: Take it a step at a time— some instructors might go all out first time around, but trying one or two days or tasks and seeing how it works in your classroom is just fine. Ultimately, students will be more engaged and take ownership of the mathematics they learn in your new active learning classroom.

6. How can readers learn more about the TIMES project and get involved?

The TIMES NSF grant has essentially run its course, so we are no longer running workshops.  You can find the course materials, including instructor’s notes, at these websites:

IODE:  iode.wordpress.ncsu.edu
IOAA:  www.web.pdx.edu/~slarsen/TAAFU/home.php
IOLA:  iola.math.vt.edu

When you begin to investigate these materials, please don’t hesitate to contact us; we are more than happy to help!  With sufficient interest, we may even run informal online working groups.

References:
George Kuster, Estrella Johnson, Karen Keene & Christine Andrews-Larson
(2018) Inquiry-Oriented Instruction: A Conceptualization of the Instructional Principles, PRIMUS,
28:1, 13-30, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2017.1338807

Chris Rasmussen, Justin Dunmyre, Nicholas Fortune & Karen Keene (2019) Modeling as a Means to Develop New Ideas: The Case of Reinventing a Bifurcation Diagram, PRIMUS, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2018.1472160

Guest Post: Ed Parker on Graduate-Level Math Teaching and IBL


SY :  I’ve had several people sympathetic to IBL methods suggest that as IBL methods become more widespread at the undergraduate level, they will be unnecessary in graduate mathematics programs.  Do you have any thoughts on this?
Ed Parker:  Since I’ve never taught in a department that offered the PhD in mathematics, I’m probably not the right person to be asking.  But I’m certainly willing to respond.  You just need to understand that any expertise I may have is either historical or based on my limited teaching experience with master’s level students or my experiences as a graduate student.  It is somewhat ironic that the issue has arisen.  When I wrote Getting More from Moore back in 1988, IBL was, at least grudgingly, accepted as a viable option for graduate mathematics education while undergraduate IBL was pretty rare.  Several programs such as Auburn and North Texas had committed graduate programs and others such as Emory and the University of Texas had a visible presence.  When discussing IBL’s possibilities for undergraduates, I remember well being told by multiple persons from multiple places that IBL might work with well-prepared upper level majors, but that the students needed to be “ready for rigor” before it could have a chance to work.  And demonstrating and having the students reproduce what they had seen, then apply the theory to examples was apparently the way to make the students “ready”.  Readiness seems to be a given at the graduate level due to admission requirements.
First, I would suggest that anyone interested in the issue watch the video of John Neuberger’s talk on graduate mathematics education, delivered at the 2007 Legacy Conference. Rather than focusing on technical math education issues, he began with the challenge of turning curiosity into passion for the hunt and then proceeded to relate some of his experiences relative to benefitting from, and implementing, IBL.  Even an impartial judge (which I am not!) would likely judge his career as a teacher a successful one.  In 1977, I became his 13th PhD student and he continued to produce productive PhD’s after his move to the University of North Texas the following year.  A notable aspect of his talk is his view that graduate teaching is a natural adjunct to a mathematician’s research.
I entered Emory University’s graduate program in 1973 after a four-year hiatus following my graduation from Guilford College, during which time I had taught secondary mathematics at Bayside High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  My draft board had decided public school mathematics teaching was in the public interest and granted me an occupational deferment in lieu of processing my application for conscientious objector status.  (That draft board had not dealt with a CO hearing since my twin uncles during World War II.)  My undergraduate education at Guilford was decidedly IBL.  In the core courses, we mostly read stuff, talked in class about what we read, and then wrote about what we had read and talked about.  With the exception of the calculus sequence and differential equations, none of my mathematics courses had a textbook. Although Mr. Boyd had us buy Heider and Simpson’s Theoretical Analysis for analysis and Greever’s Theory and Examples of Point-Set Topology for topology and Mr. Walker had us buy Birkhoff and MacLane’s A Survey of Modern Algebra for algebra; all were used as reference points and problem sources.  We did not reproduce textbook proofs in any of these courses. 
At Emory, I took the algebra sequence and the analysis sequence my first year, taking only two courses since I had only a 2/3 assistantship.  David Ford’s introductory analysis course in Lebesgue measure and topological vector spaces was totally IBL.  Trevor Evans’s algebraic structures course was given from course notes.  He had us buy Herstein’s Topics in Algebra and the Schaum outline on group theory as resources.  Dr. Evans talked through the course notes three days a week, stating additional problems as he went, and the fourth day was student presentation day.  A typical presentation by me went like this: I presented.  Dr. Evans would stare at the board, stroke his chin, then put down his pipe and say,  “I suppose you are correct, Mr. Parker, but WHY DIDN’T YOU THINK OF THIS?”  Then he would take the chalk from me and show the class a “good” proof.
As a second-year student, I took the third first-year course, a topology course in Moore spaces given by William Mahavier through IBL.  I had come to Emory with the idea of studying foundations and Dick Sanerib was offering a course on Model Theory that year. However, Emory would not give me credit for the fall quarter due to a course in symbolic logic that I had done at Guilford, so I audited model theory which was done by straight lecture following Bell and Slomson’s text and took John Neuberger’s Functional Analysis and Differential Equations, which was given by IBL, for credit.  I solved three problems that quarter:
There is a single function, call it $f$, so that if $x$ is a number, then $f’(x) = f(x)$ and $f(0) =1$.
There is a single function, call it $f$, and a largest non-degenerate connected set containing $0$ that is the domain of $f$, so that if $x$ is a number in the domain of $f$, then $f'(x)=-f(x)^2$ and $f(0)=1$.
Suppose that $x$ is a number.  Then  $\Sigma_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{1}{n!}*x^n=\Pi_{n \in \mathbb{N}}(1-\frac{x}{n})^{-n}$
Imagine, if you will, knowing that  expe was the answer to the first question but having no idea how to make it appear, or that you could solve the second differential equation by “separation of variables”, but realizing that assuming a solution existed begged the question.  Needless to say, I didn’t think I was doing very well.  Looking back on it, I’m kind of glad I didn’t think of producing a power series from thin air, then proving that it worked since the path I took led through the Fundamental Existence and Uniqueness Theorem.
Near the end of the fall quarter, Dr. Neuberger stated a list of eleven problems that I later found to be, if one took the collective hypotheses and conclusions, the Hille-Yosida Theorem.
At the end of the quarter, I had to decide whether to continue Model Theory or Functional Analysis and Differential Equations.  Neither professor recruited me and I still don’t know why I chose to continue FA&DE.  Did I mention that I didn’t think I was doing very well?
I finished Hille-Yosida in early March.  (It took my classmate only three weeks once he went to work on it!)  Within a calendar year of when I finished Hille-Yosida, I had the theorems that formed the core of my thesis although I had still not passed my algebra qualifying exam.
Heading into my third year, having passed my analysis and topology qualifiers and failing my algebra qualifier and having taken complex analysis in summer school, I was scheduled to take the second level topology course and Dr. Neuberger’s research seminar.   A note of comparison is in order here.  A student of Dr. Evans pursuing an algebra thesis was expected to spend his “year of preparation” reading the pertinent literature.  On the other hand, I didn’t even know I was beginning work on a thesis.  Dr. Neuberger gave me a paper of his on Lie Semigroups and a short paper of Tosio Kato’s that had distilled (brilliantly!) a very long paper of Miyadera’s which had originally proven the dense differentiability of non-expansive semigroups on Hilbert spaces to work through.  I was given no guidance of which I was aware about why or how.
Before continuing on this line, I should mention that I seriously considered dropping out after getting the news that I had failed the algebra preliminary exam.  The birth of our second child the day after news of having failed the algebra prelim rescued me psychologically, but it also added yet another level of family responsibility to my table.  I talked with Dr. Neuberger, who was teaching complex analysis and he said that it was fine for me to use the course time to write a master’s thesis and that Dr. Mahavier had described to him an example I had made in spring quarter of the first-year topology course that would likely provide the substance for the master’s thesis.  I talked to Dr. Mahavier and he agreed to supervise the thesis.  Ironically, Dr. Evans, with whom I had taken the first-year algebra sequence, whose second-level seminars I had attended, and who never seemed to like my proofs, suggested that I should continue.  That, together with my wife’s encouragement, won the day.  My assistantship was renewed and I embarked on my third year.
In the research seminar, I tried to work my way through the two papers.  I had never been good (as in quick) in following other persons’ arguments, but I dutifully slogged my way through, with a cognizance of the structures Dr. Neuberger had appropriated from Hille-Yosida.  The elegance of Kato’s argument made it easy (even for me) to follow, but I realized that I was just verifying details.  This caused me to set out on my own, mimicking Dr. Neuberger by thinking about Hille-Yosida structures in non-linear contexts.  The Cesaro mean (I later found out that was what it was called) was the vehicle to a theorem on non-linear semigroups that I formulated and proved.  In seminar, Dr. Neuberger listened to my argument without changing his expression.  When I finished, he gave me a copy of Glenn Webb’s landmark example of a non-expansive semigroup on a Banach space that contained an open set in its domain where it was nowhere differentiable and asked me to see if his semigroup satisfied the premise to my theorem.  That night my euphoria turned to despair; I could prove that the premise was satisfied, and once I understood Glenn’s example, the verification of the application was dirt simple.  Thus, because it was easy even for me, I was sure my theorem must be no good.  In seminar the next day, Dr. Neuberger asked if I had been able to do what he asked and I mumbled something like “It can’t be any good; it’s too easy,” and showed him my argument.  He became instantly animated and told me, “This is the sort of theorem that theses are built around.”
At this point, Dr. Neuberger gave me some entries into the literature through which I learned about the work of the Japanese school that Kato had consolidated and gained access to the (then) current work of Brezis, Pazy, Crandall, Martin, and Liggett, and Neuberger’s seminal paper which had ignited the Japanese school’s initial successes.  An ancillary aspect of learning to use the library was to make sure that my theorem and its application were original.
There was still the issue of passing my algebra qualifier.  At Emory, the rule was two strikes and you’re out.   I was auditing Mary Frances Neff’s first year algebra sequence which I continued for the year and passed the algebra qualifier on my second try.  The department was kind enough to expand the two 4-hour qualifiers from the year before to two one-day tests.  They kicked me out after 9 hours the first day and 8 hours the second.  Both days, there were still problems I thought I could do.
I finished the following year.
What inferences can I make if I add to the mix what I have learned from talking to colleagues about their graduate school experiences?
Broadly, IBL at the graduate level, if the goal of an advanced degree is to certify readiness for original problem solving and ability to pass the mathematical canon of one generation to the next, is a super-charged version of what happens at the undergraduate level.  In contrast to the undergraduate entry, at the graduate level a four-year baccalaureate mathematics degree is in place as well as an entry test result that gives comparisons with other such students and may show some level of breadth and recall of some curriculum.  The main question probably should be, “How can this base best be nurtured?”.  The traditional response has been to give a “graduate level” broadening and strengthening by “mastering” carefully selected texts and/or the arguments of the professors’ lectures to create a base, then to certify the students’ readiness with a battery of barrier examinations.  Those deemed worthy are then given a second dose of the program in more concentrated contexts, usually the advisors’ research specialties, and embark on their own research missions, often as colleagues of their advisors.   In IBL, the students recreate the canon by solving the problems fundamental to it as seen by their professors and realize some breadth as they are held accountable for the work of their peers.  The battery of barrier exams appears as an institutional commitment, but, according to what the students have demonstrated in their individual trips through the canons, the turn toward research is not much more than a continuation of what they were already doing, the major difference being that the questions are chosen closer to the frontiers of the subjects of the courses and the classes are smaller. [WARNING: The above characterization is the author’s and may not represent any consensus opinion!]   As results are achieved, the students are directed to the literature with the goal of broadening their knowledge of others’ efforts and increasing the effectiveness of the students’ abilities to find their own problems.
My prejudices in favor of the IBL model are likely too strongly held to give the traditional model a fair hearing.  However, a late ‘80’s/early 90’s tome out of our professional societies exhorted us to make mathematics education “a pump, not a filter”.  The traditional model, in its insistence on early graduate education being a preparation for its barrier examinations certainly looks like a filter to me.  A colleague (whom I greatly respect) who spent the bulk of his career at an urban state university in the same city as an elite private university once told me, “If we could just get the students that Elite U blows away, we would have a better graduate program than they do.”  Perhaps this was an idle boast; perhaps it was not.  The pump effect stands out in Lee May’s recounting of the “sheep and goats” parable in his book on IBL methods.  Lecture and test does not provide for the opportunity William Mahavier seized to split his topology class and recombine it two quarters later as a class of peers.  At a Legacy Conference a year or two after Robert Kauffman of University of Alabama-Birmingham had died, a former colleague spoke to the gathering.  Robert had fought what IBL practitioners might call “the good fight” for many years, standing on the principle of academic freedom to teach in the way he considered most effective.  The colleague, who admitted he was reluctant to become an ally of Robert at first, recounted how he and many of his peers, often after decrying the lack of preparation of their graduate students, would remark how lucky Robert was to get so many good students in his classes.
Stan has written thoughtfully and insightfully on the coverage issue, which is often used to justify criticism of IBL instruction at the graduate level.  Udayan Darji, at a Legacy Conference in the early 2000’s, used his time at the podium to remind the audience that, if there were gaps in what they “should” know, part of their research time should be spent in filling them.  If one looks at my experience in Neuberger’s Functional Analysis and Differential Equations course, it should be clear that anyone capable of doing graduate mathematics could “master” proofs of the three theorems I proved by reading them with the investment of less than a week’s work time rather than the two months it took me.   Similarly, one could likely slog through the Hille-Yosida treatment of the Hille-Yosida Theorem in less than a month rather than the three-plus months it took me.  But would the appropriation of other people’s ideas, at the expense of nurturing your own, get you to a thesis the following year?
Where then, might an IBL student get her/his breadth?  I would first point out that the library will always be there.  But budding mathematicians need not master its entirety before beginning to think on their own.  Considerable breadth is achieved in being handed the responsibility of verifying the veracity of classmates’ presentations.  I still remember Tom Pate’s proof of a theorem in Fourier Analysis, for which I had a “brute force” argument, using soft analysis.  I have not viewed linear algebra the same since that day.  I owe similar debts to Margaret Francel, Everette Mobley, and Terry McCabe, to name just three.  Lessons I learned from them gave me alternative outlooks when I would work through textbook proofs as I put together my own courses.   And, as one teaches with IBL, the students will direct you to “natural” lines of reasoning.  Accumulated experience as well as preparatory learning can also build a mathematician’s repertoire.
In conclusion, I return to Neuberger’s talk:  Your continued commitment to research will fire your teaching and your teaching will abet your research.  So let your students in on the hunt from the get-go.
No tome of mine is complete without a baseball analogy.  Cy Slapnicka became a legendary scout for discovering Bob Feller.  My question is, “Who could have seen Feller throw and not realize that he would become a star?”  In the modern game, the same could be said for Bryce Harper.  But they are the baseball equivalents of the students that Harvard, Duke, or Chicago recruits for its Putnam team and it is doubtful that any form of instruction in graduate school will keep them from succeeding.  There is another group of students that clearly has big-league possibilities and the minor league experience is expected to build into a body of players producing major league level play.  Certain organizations are known for “growing” these players while others let the cauldron of competition weed out the “weak”.  I would suggest that there is a strong analogy here with schools that admit only the testibly top students and then still blow many of them away.  But, in baseball, these two categories of players are not enough to fill all of the rosters.  Finding latent talent and nurturing it is responsible for developing the rest of the big-leaguers.  There are lots of mathematics majors out there with highly developable tools.  I suggest that IBL  does not inhibit the development of super-stars and is likely superior in the development of a far larger number of students.