Helping college students claim ownership of their mathematics learning

Su Liang 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics, University of Texas, San Antonio, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 36-43. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9521
OPEN ACCESS   1707 Views   965 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This is an exploratory study about engaging students in mathematics learning both inside and outside of the classroom of an introductory proof course. The Author utilized the framework of scholarship of teaching and learning as a guide to ensure the research process was carried out systematically. This study was conducted through one cycle of scholarly teaching. The implemented teaching strategies showed positive impacts on students’ learning. These strategies can be tested and improved through more cycles of scholarly teaching research in different settings.
Keywords: Scholarly Teaching, Active Learning, Reflective Learning, Informative Assessment, Pre-class Preparation, Exit Cards

CITATION

Liang, S. (2018). Helping college students claim ownership of their mathematics learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9521

REFERENCES

  • Albers, P. (2006). Imagining the Possibilities in Multimodal Curriculum Design. English Education, 2(38), 75-101.
  • Aldag, S. (2007). Pre-Reading Mathematics Enpowers Students. Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska – Lincoln. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=mathmidactionresearch
  • Belland, B. R. , French, B. F. , & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Validity and problem-based learning research: A review of instruments used to assess intended learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 5. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1059
  • Boyer, E. L. (1990), Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  • Coorey, J. (2016). “Active Learning Methods and Technology: Strategies for Design Education”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(3), 337-347.
  • Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory method: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
  • Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  • Fishchman, D &McMurran, S. (2011). Problem Solving in Mathematics, Questions and Methods Packet.
  • Gallagher, S., Stepien, W., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200.
  • Glaser, R., Raghavan, K. & Baxter, G. P. (1992). Cognitive Theory as the Basis for Design of Innovative Assessment: Design Characteristics of Science Assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 349). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • Cross, K. P. (1998). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. In T. Angelo (Ed.), Classroom assessment and research: An update on uses, approaches, and research findings (pp. 5–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in grade 5–6 mathematics: Effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 43–59.
  • Keyser, M. W.“Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the difference and using both styles effectively”, Elsevier, 17(1), 35-44, Spring 2000.
  • Hammak, R. Book of Proof, second edition, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/
  • Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2012), Art & Science of Teaching: The Many Uses of Exit Slips. Educational Leadership,
  • Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. (2010). Learn before Lecture: A Strategy That Improves Learning Outcomes in a Large Introductory Biology Class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 473-481.
  • Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. In E. von Glassersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13-51). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching (pp. 57-68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). "Grounded Theory Methodology." In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 217-285). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
  • Summerlee, A.J.S. (2010). Challenge of engagement inside and outside the classroom: The future for universities. Portland Press Limited. Retrieved from http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/wg85/085/0067/0850067.pdf
  • Wagner, B. (2005). Sharing Responses to Literature via Exit Slips. Classroom Notes Plus, 1-3.