Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy

Ann LeSage; John Friedlan; Diane Tepylo; Robin Kay

doi:10.29333/iejme/10893

Full Text (PDF)

Ann LeSage ¹ ^* , John Friedlan ¹, Diane Tepylo ¹ , Robin Kay ¹

More Detail

¹ Ontario Tech University, CANADA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Colleges and universities are grappling with supporting underprepared students in mathematics. While research examines the demographics of students and the effects of changing the number of preparatory courses, few studies examine the impact of pedagogical practices on student outcomes. This study investigated the effect of an alternative pedagogy, the Thinking Classroom framework, on student attitudes and learning performance in a first-year university business mathematics course. The Thinking Classroom approach focuses on collaborative problem-solving on vertical non-permanent surfaces (VNPS). Students rated the overall course experience and collaborative classroom experience highly after participation in the Thinking Classroom. Students in the Thinking Classroom had a significantly higher average grade point average than students in the control group.

Keywords

thinking classroom
post-secondary
business mathematics
students at-risk
instructional design

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

INT ELECT J MATH ED, Volume 16, Issue 2, May 2021, Article No: em0635

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

Publication date: 07 May 2021

Article Views: 2202

Article Downloads: 1328

Open Access Disclosures References How to cite this article

Disclosure

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

References

Arnold, I. J., & Straten, J. T. (2012). Motivation and math skills as determinants of first-year performance in Economics. The Journal of Economics Education, 43(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2012.636709
Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 243-248. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194059
Ballard, C., & Johnson, M. F. (2004). Basic math skills and performance in an introductory economics class. Journal of Economic Education, 35, 3-23. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.35.1.3-23
Brown-Robertson, L., Ntembe, A., & Tawah, R. (2015). Evaluating the “underserved student” success in economic principles courses. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 16(3), 13-23.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33-44. http://www.theibfr.com/ARCHIVE/BEA-V6N1-2014-revised.pdf
Byers, P. (2014). Bridging the Mathematics Gap through Learning Outcomes. Final Report for the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology.
Cafarella, B. (2014). Exploring best practices in developmental math. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 30(2), 35-64.
Cox, R. (2015). You’ve got to learn the rules: A classroom-level look at low pass rates in developmental math. Community College Review, 43(3), 264-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115576566
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th Ed.). SAGE.
Critz, C. M., & Knight, D. (2013). Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educator, 38(5), 210-213. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182a0e56a
Davis, K., & Minifie, J. R. (2013). Ensuring Gen Y students come prepared for class; then leveraging active learning techniques to most effectively engage them. American Journal of Business and Management, 2(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.11634/216796061302228
Forrester, T., Sandison, C., & Denny, S. (2017). Vertical whiteboarding: Riding the wave of student activity in a mathematics classroom. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(4), 3-8.
Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008, May). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 777-786). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368198
Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. History Teacher, 47(2), 221-244. http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/F14_Gaughan.pdf
Grouws, D. A, & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics. International Academy of Education and the International Bureau of Education.
Harsh, S., & Young, J. (2015). Using varied learning environments for deeper learning and student mastery of complex content. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Spring, 7-16.
Haug, J. C., Berns Wright, L., & Huckabee, W. A. (2019). Undergraduate business students’ perceptions about engagement. Journal of Education for Business, 94(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1504738
Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 524-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
Hiebert, J. Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hooker, D. (2011). Small peer-led collaborative learning groups in developmental math classes at a tribal community college. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2011.616841
Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2005). Transition from secondary to tertiary mathematics: McMaster University experience. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207340412317040
Kalajdzievska, D. (2014). Taking math students from “blah” to aha”: What can we do? PRIMUS, 24(5), 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.893937
Kay, R. H. (2014) Developing a framework to create effective problem-based video podcasts. International Journal of Emerging Technologies, 9(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i1.3335
Kay, R. H., & Kletskin, I. (2012) Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers and Education, 59(2), 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.007
Kay, R., MacDonald, T., & DiGiuseppe, M. (2018). A comparison of lecture-based, active, and flipped classroom teaching approaches in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(3), 449-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9197-x
Laging, A., & Voßkamp, R. (2017). Determinants of maths performance of first-year business administration and economics students. International Journal for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(1), 108-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0048-8
LeSage, A., Kay, R., Tepylo, D. & Allen, R. (2019). Designing video podcasts to support at-risk university mathematics students. 12th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (iCERi). Seville, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2019.1315
Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem-solving. In P. Felmer, E. Patricio, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 361-386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_21
Liljedahl, P. G. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390412331316997
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd Ed). Pearson Education Ltd.
Orpwood, G., Schollen, L., Leek, G., Marinelli-Henriques, P., & Assiri, H. (2011). College Math Project 2010: Final Report for the Ontario Ministry of Education and Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology.
Orpwood, G., Schollen, L., Leek, G., Marinelli-Henriques, P., & Assiri, H. (2014). College Student Achievement Project: Final Report 2014 for Ontario Ministry of Education and Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Phelps, J. M., & Evans, R. (2006). Supplemental instruction in developmental mathematics. The Community College Enterprise, 12(1), 21-37.
Quarles, C. L., & Davis, M. (2017). Is learning in developmental math associated with community college outcomes? Community College Review, 45(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552116673711
Rassuli, A., & Manzer, J. P. (2005). “Teach Us to Learn”: Multivariate analysis of perception of success in team learning. Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.1.21-28
Sarkar, N., Ford, W., & Manzo, C. (2020). To flip or not to flip: What the evidence suggests. Journal of Education for Business, 95(2), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1606771
Seaton, K. A., King, D. M., & Sandison, C. E. (2014). Flipping the maths tutorial: A tale of n departments. Australian Mathematical Society Gazette, 41(2), 99-113.
Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(3), 132-138. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.14.3.0132
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
Stienke, D. (2017). Evaluating number dense in community college developmental math students. Journal of Research & Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary and Basic Education, 6(1), 5-19.
Toto, R., & Nguyen, H. (2009, October). Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE’09. 39th IEEE (p.1-4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350529
Von Konsky, B. R., Martin, R., Bolt, S., Broadley, T., & Ostashewski, N. (2014). Transforming higher education and student engagement through collaborative review to inform educational design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 619-633. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.742
Woodard, T. (2004). The effects of math anxiety on post-secondary developmental students as related to achievement, gender, and age. Inquiry, 9(1), 1-5. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ876845.pdf
Xu, D., & Dadger, M. (2018). How effective are community college remedial math courses for students with the lowest math skills? Community College Review, 46(1), 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117743789
Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and Norms in the Mathematics Classroom. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Tӧrner (Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 313-330). Kluwer Academic Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47958-3_18

How to cite this article

APA

LeSage, A., Friedlan, J., Tepylo, D., & Kay, R. (2021). Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

Vancouver

LeSage A, Friedlan J, Tepylo D, Kay R. Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(2):em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

AMA

LeSage A, Friedlan J, Tepylo D, Kay R. Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(2), em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

Chicago

LeSage, Ann, John Friedlan, Diane Tepylo, and Robin Kay. "Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2021 16 no. 2 (2021): em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

Harvard

LeSage, A., Friedlan, J., Tepylo, D., and Kay, R. (2021). Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893

MLA

LeSage, Ann et al. "Supporting at-Risk University Business Mathematics Students: Shifting the Focus to Pedagogy". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 16, no. 2, 2021, em0635. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10893