Archives For Teaching Posts

The fall semester starts in a couple days and I’ll be teaching Calculus 1 (for like the 15th time) and our undergraduate Abstract Algebra course. Despite my relatively low teaching load, I’ll also be advising 3 undergraduate research students (on two different projects) and 2 masters thesis students. Combined with the fact that I’m still frantically trying to prepare brand new IBL materials for my Abstract Algebra class, I expect a very busy semester. For this reason, I decided not to mess with the format of my calculus class very much. I think it has room for improvement—namely ramping up the IBL aspect of the course—but this will have to wait until a later semester. I feel a little guilty about this, but I’m no use to anyone if I’m trying to do too much.

Notice that I said that I wouldn’t mess with the format “very much.” I am going to make some small changes. In previous semesters, I always devoted one class period a week to students presenting problems at the board. This has always worked well for me, but last semester I tried something else that I don’t think was as successful. So, I’ve decided that I’ll return to presentation days. In the past, I had a fairly nebulous way of assessing student presentations. I want to encourage students to present, so I make it worth something. But on the other hand, I don’t want it to be a high stakes thing. A class typically benefits more from the discussion surrounding a less than perfect solution to a problem than they do from a presentation that is flawless. So, I encourage students to share what they have. Of course, I don’t want students putting crap up on the board on a regular basis either. In a small class, this isn’t very hard to manage, but in a class with 45 students (which is what I currently have enrolled in my calculus class), it gets a little trickier. I’ve been thinking about how to manage this for a few weeks.

The latest version of WeBWorK—which we use for our online homework platform—has a new feature called “Achievements.” You can read more about this here. This basic idea is this:

Instructors now have the ability to create and award “Math Achievements” and “Math Levels” to students for solving homework problems and for practicing good WeBWorK behavior. In a nutshell, students can earn achievements by meeting preset goals. For example, they might earn an achievement for solving 3 homework problems in a row without any incorrect submissions, or for solving a problem after taking an 8 hour break. Earning achievements and solving problems earns students points and after a student gets enough points they will be given a new “Math Level”.

I have zero experience with the WeBWorK Achievements, but I thought I would give it a try. I don’t want to make earning them mandatory and I don’t want to offer extra credit either. So, I’ve been passively brainstorming how to handle them.

Northern Arizona University now requires faculty to take daily attendance in all freshman-level courses. However, how we take this data into account is up the instructor. It just has to count for something. The past couple semesters, I’ve been diligent about taking attendance, but I’ve always been a little bit vague about how it does or does not impact a student’s grade. Policies like, “you’ll lose a letter grade if you miss X number of classes,” drive me nuts.

Yesterday, I decided it was time to sort out what the plan should be for presentations, WeBWorK Achievements, and attendance. I had read a short article about gamification in education (I can’t remember which article) recently and I thought, “hey, why don’t I just gamify this stuff that I’m not sure what to do with.” In general, I’m not a fan of offering points for things that students should naturally do (and I’m also sure I have tons of counterexamples to what I just said), but I’m going for it anyway. Maybe this is a horrible idea. Here is what I currently have on their syllabus.


Attendance

As per university policy, attendance is mandatory in all 100-level courses, and in particular, I am required to record attendance each class session. Daily attendance is vital to success in this course! You are responsible for all material covered in class, regardless of whether it is in the textbook. Repeated absences may impact your grade (see the section on Achievements). You can find more information about NAU’s attendance policy on the Academic Policies page.

Presentations and Participation

Throughout the semester, class time will be devoted to students presenting problems to the rest of the class. In addition, we will occasionally make use of in-class activities whose purpose is to either reinforce/synthesize previously introduced concepts or to introduce new concepts via student-driven inquiry. If necessary, these activities will be explicitly graded.

I expect each student to participate and engage in class discussion. Moreover, I will occasionally ask for volunteers (or call on students) to present problems at the board. No one should have anxiety about being able to present a perfect solution to a problem. In fact, we can gain so much more from the discussion surrounding a slightly flawed solution. However, you should not volunteer to present a problem that you have not spent time thinking about. Your overall participation includes your willingness to present, engagement in and out of class, and consistent attendance record. Your grade for this category will be worth 8% of your overall grade and will be based on Achievements (see below).

Achievements

This semester I’ve decided to “gamify” good student behavior. Here is the gist. I’ve generated a list of items that I deem good student behavior. Every time you achieve one of the items on the list, you earn some points. The more points you earn, the higher your Presentation and Participation grade (worth 8% of your overall grade in the course). So, how do you earn achievement points? Here’s a list.

Points Description
5 Stop by my office sometime during the first two weeks of classes. This is a one time offer and stopping by to just say hello is fine.
2 Stop by my office hours to get help. This goes into effect after the first visit and you can earn points for this up to 4 times.
1 Attend class, arrive on time, and stay the whole class meeting.
1/2 Attend class but arrive late.
1/2 Attend class but leave early.
2 Attend a review session offered by our Peer TA. You can earn points for this multiple times.
4 Stop by the Math Achievement Program to get help. This is a one time offer and you must get a “prescription” form from me in advance for a tutor to sign.
2 Find a typo anywhere on the course webpage, homework, exam, etc. These points are first come, first earned, but there is no limit to the number of times you can earn points for this.
5 Volunteer to present a problem to the class on presentation days.
3 Agree to present a problem to the class on presentation days after I’ve called on you.
2 Earn a non-secret Achievement in WeBWork. You can see list of possible non-secret Achievements by clicking on the appropriate link in the sidebar after logging in to WeBWorK.
3 Earn a secret Achievement in WeBWork. These shall remain a mystery.
2 Post a useful resource such as a video or link to a math-related website on our course forum.
2 Post a relevant question on our course forum.
2 Post a useful response to a question on the course forum that does not just give an answer away.
5 Earn at least an 8/10 on your highest score for a Gateway Quiz.

Important: Any time I feel you are taking advantage of the spirit of this, I reserve the right to take away an achievement point.

To calculate your grade for the Presentation and Participation category, I will divide your Achievement points by the maximum number of Achievement points earned by a student and then convert to a percent.


Feedback is extremely welcome. I’ll let y’all know how it goes.

Edit: One thing that I forgot to add is that I have a Peer TA for 10 hours per week. She attends class and has access to the course forum, etc. So, I’ll let her do most of the point tracking. Otherwise, I’d have trouble with the bookkeeping. Also, I decided to use the highest number of Achievement points earned by a student to calculate a percentage for each student. In the comments below, Strider suggested that I use the average of the top 3 instead. I like this idea, but I think I’ll use the top 5.

On Thursday, August 22, I was one of four speakers that gave a 20 minute talk during the Department of Mathematics and Statistics Teaching Showcase at Northern Arizona University. My talk was titled “An Introduction to Inquiry-Based Learning” and was intended to be a “high altitude” view of IBL and to inspire dialogue. I was impressed with the turn out. I think there were roughly 40 people in attendance, from graduate students to tenured faculty and even some administrators. Here are the slides for my talk.

If you take a look at the slides, you’ll see that I mention some recent research about the effectiveness of IBL by Sandra Laursen, et. al. During my talk, I provided a two-page summary of this research, which you can grab here (PDF).

After about 15 minutes, I transitioned into an exercise whose purpose was to get the audience thinking about appropriate ways to engage in dialogue with students in an IBL class. I provided the participants with the handout located here that contains a dialogue between three students that are working together on exploring the notions of convergence and divergence of series. After the dialogue, five possible responses for the instructor are provided. I invited the participants to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each possible response. It is clear that some responses are better than others, but all of the responses listed intentionally have some weaknesses. We were able to spend a couple of minutes having audience members share their thoughts. It would have been better to spend more time on this exercise. I wish I could take credit for the exercise, but I borrowed it from the folks over at Discovering the Art of Mathematics.

If you want to know more about IBL, check out my What the Heck is IBL? blog post over on Math Ed Matters.

On July 27, 2013, I created a petition on Change.org to get math.ED – Mathematics Education added as a category on the arXiv. You can find the petition here. At present, there is no dedicated category on the arXiv for math ed. In addition, there is no culture of math ed folks utilizing pre-print servers like the arXiv. I’d like to change both of these facts. If you want to know how all this got started, check out this post.

As of August 1, there was just shy of 200 signatures. My initial goal was 50. The support has been quite impressive. Most of the signatures are from the United States, but there are others from around the world. As far as I can tell, support is coming from people with interests in math ed, physics ed, STEM ed, ed tech, math, stats, operations research, secondary education, and more. I even recognized at least one philosopher. Thankfully, it seems we have the support of a few prominent math ed researchers (e.g., Alan Schoenfeld), which I think is crucial for this to really work.

I’ve also had about a half dozen people contact me to say that they would be willing to serve as a moderator for a math ed category on the arXiv. This is one of the things the arXiv told me that we would need to move forward. The list of people I have is probably more than sufficient.

As exciting as all this has been, it hasn’t all been rainbows and unicorns. Without going into detail, I had one person post a response to a comment I left on a discussion board announcing the petition that essentially told me that mathematics education is worthless and that there is nothing worth placing on the arXiv. If you are interested, I’m sure you can find the discussion. I maintained control and didn’t respond.

Also, I used Change.org on someone else’s recommendation and so far it has seemed to work well. However, I received an email from someone that signed the petition that was upset that Change.org sent them follow-up emails. I sincerely apologize if anyone else was annoyed or offended. According to Change.org:

Every so often you can expect to hear from Change.org about campaigns we think you’ll be excited to join. If you’d prefer not to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe by clicking the link at the bottom of any message you receive from us.

I realize it is a hassle, but it appears that you can opt out of any future correspondence with Change.org.

There was also an interesting discussion on Twitter that Republic of Math (@republicofmath) and I (@danaernst) had. You can read more about that conversation here.

In addition, there have been a few people here and there that aren’t supportive for one reason or another of the endeavor to utilize the arXiv for math ed. I’m okay with that. Heck, maybe this is a bad idea and if someone has arguments about moving forward, I want to hear them. I’m not so dead set on this happening that I won’t listen to reason. In general, I’m in favor of sharing knowledge in ways that are open and easily accessible. This is my motivating principle.

OK, so where do we go from here? There have been a couple of developments with the folks at the arXix, which started with a comment that Greg Kuperberg left on my original blog post. Greg is the chair of the math advisory committee for the arXiv, which is the committee that would approve a new math category. According to Greg:

What I can tell you at this stage is that the “petition” that I would like to see is enough postings to math.HO to justify a separate math education category. Creating a separate category first just in the hope that it will attract interest hasn’t usually worked well in the past.

Another possibility is to change the name of the math.HO category to better reflect its purpose. That’s a more welcome option than multiplying the list of categories.

I would rather negotiate a change to the name of a category in private. However, I can say that the name “History and Overview” has never been all that great of a fit for the topics listed with it, so a name change of some kind could make sense. Of course those topics don’t just include math education, but also closely or loosely related topics such history of mathematics and recreational mathematics.

In any case, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. Getting more math education submissions to the current math.HO is partly a separate matter. I’m certainly all for more encouragement of that. Again, we can discuss techniques in private.

Getting a moderator for math.HO is also a good idea; once again, we can discuss.

I’ve since followed up with Greg privately and it seems that the most likely scenario is a name change to the math.HO – History and Overview, which lists math education as one of the possible topics. A name change seems reasonable to me. However, in order to move forward, the arXiv would like to see math ed submissions to the math.HO category. Again, this seems reasonable. In addition, there is currently no moderator for the math.HO category, so we would still need to move forward with the list of folks I gathered.

At this point, what we need is for people to start uploading their math ed related manuscripts to the math.HO category on the arXiv. I think this will require some guidance, as well as a discussion about copyright and such. I think I’ll save that for a future post.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

During Susan Ruff’s talk in the IBL Best Practices Session that Angie Hodge, Stan Yoshinobu, and I organized at MathFest, she made reference to an article by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. The paper is titled “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” (PDF) [1]. As a practitioner and serious proponent of inquiry-based learning (IBL), I am extremely interested in what this article has to say. Here is the abstract:

Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.

I intend to read the whole article, but haven’t read much more than the abstract. Here are few thoughts before I dive in.

When discussing the advantages of an IBL approach with people, I’ll often cite academic work that supports the claim that it is beneficial for students. For example, see the work of Sandra Laursen et al. located here. However, to be honest, despite my interest in seeing data that validates my own opinions, the reality is that I don’t do IBL because the research told me to. I do it because I’ve seen it work! My students tell me it works. Alright, to be fair, my students told me that my lecturing worked, too. But the types of comments I get now from my IBL students make it clear to me that something really good is happening. For example, read this. IBL may not work for everyone in all situations and I’m okay with that. If it stops working for me, I’ll try something different.

The first thought I had when I saw the title and abstract was, “what does ‘minimal guidance’ mean?” I certainly provide a lot less direct guidance in my IBL classes than I do than when I lectured, but is it “minimal”? I do my best to provide scaffolded guidance to my students and to set up a support network in a safe learning environment. This is crucial in my opinion. I’ll have to digest the whole paper to see what their take is.

It appears that there are several reflections and discussions of this paper online already. For example, go here, here, and here. In addition, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark have written a response to criticism that they have received in their “Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries” (PDF) [2]. I’ll try to read this paper, as well.

Bibliography

[1] P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86, 2006.

[2] J. Sweller, P. A. Kirschner, and R. E. Clark, “Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 115–121, Apr. 2007.

On July 27, 2013, I created a petition on Change.org to get math.ED – Mathematics Education added as a category on the arXiv. You can find the petition here. At present, there is no dedicated category on the arXiv for math ed and I’d like to change this. If you want to know how all this got started, check out this post.

The last time I checked, we were just shy of 200 signatures on the petition. My initial goal was 50. The support has been quite impressive. Most of the signatures are from the United States, but there are others from around the world. As far as I can tell, support is coming from people with interests in math ed, physics ed, STEM ed, ed tech, math, stats, operations research, secondary education, and more. I even recognized at least one philosopher. Thankfully, it seems we have the support of a few prominent math ed researchers (e.g., Alan Schoenfeld), which I think is crucial for this to really work.

There have been a few developments with the folks over at the arXiv and I’ll share the current state of affairs in another post. In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy a conversation that happened on Twitter between myself (@danaernst) and Republic of Math (@republicofmath). Matt Boelkins (@MattBoelkins) chimes in at the end, too. The conversation wasn’t linear, but I’ve done my best to list the tweets in an order that makes sense.

I’ve recently finished coauthoring two different math education papers. Both papers have been submitted for publication. Neither paper is likely to change the world, but I still want to openly share what we have. Like most mathematicians, I’ve posted my pure mathematics research articles on the arXiv. In case you don’t already know, the arXiv was started in 1991 as an electronic archive and distribution server for research articles. Covered areas include physics, mathematics, computer science, nonlinear sciences, quantitative biology, and statistics. Readers can retrieve papers off the arXiv via their web interface and authors can submit articles (and resubmit if they make changes). It is standard practice for mathematicians to post their articles on the arXiv prior to submitting them for publication. In fact, some articles only appear on the arXiv. When I want to find a particular article, I first look for it on the arXiv. In short, the arXiv is awesome.

However, when I went to go look for a mathematics education category, I was surprised to see it was not among the list of mathematics categories. The math.HO – History and Overview category lists mathematics education as one of the possible topics, but it doesn’t appear to be commonly used for this purpose. In contrast, there is an active physics education category.

After exploring this a little further, it doesn’t appear that there is a culture among math ed folks to use pre-print servers like the arXiv. I think this is unfortunate and I’d like to help change this. If there is going to be cultural shift, I believe that there should be a dedicated place for math ed papers. Authors need to know where to submit papers and readers need to know where to look. A category called History and Overview doesn’t cut it in my view. A precedent has been set by the physics education crew and we should follow in their footsteps. I’d also like to point out that Mathematics Education is listed as one of the American Mathematical Society’s subject classification codes, namely number 97.

I have two proposals:

  1. The category math.ED – Mathematics Education be added to the arXiv.
  2. Math ed people start posting to the arXiv (when copyright allows it).

A couple days ago, I contacted the arXiv about the first item and here is their response:

The creation of a new subject class requires considerable support from the community that will use it. We do not want to create subject classes that will be useless because of under use.

More precisely, we require a commitment from a significant group of researchers to submit papers using the proposed subject class. This should include promises to submit a number of initial papers to get the subject class going (a solution to the chicken-and-egg problem).

If this issue is important to you then you must first start by canvassing support from your community. If you receive overwhelming support, and have a significant number of researchers who have agreed to use arXiv, please feel free to contact us again with more specific information.

I then followed up and asked for clarification about what “overwhelming support” and “significant number of researchers” means, to which they replied:

Overwhelming support would include quite a number (more than, say 50) prominent researchers who agree that such as category should be added, and who would agree to make use of it.

Okay, that sounds like a lot of people to try to get on board, but I say, let’s go for it. One obvious question: what’s the best way to gather interest and then record this interest to the arXiv? Would a petition be sufficient?

In the arXiv’s first response to me, they also said:

We also need a volunteer to moderate the class by reviewing daily submissions and flagging inappropriate submissions. This moderator should also review a significant number of already archived papers, looking for submissions that can be cross-listed to the new subject class and contact authors encouraging them to do so.

I don’t think I am the appropriate person for this and I’m not really willing to take it on anyway. Any volunteers?

Update, July 27, 2013: There is now a petition on Change.org. If you are in favor of the arXiv including math.ED – Mathematics Education as a category, please sign the petition. If you would also utilize this category by uploading articles related to mathematics education, please leave a comment (on the petition) indicating that this is the case. You can find the petition here.

Update, July 28, 2013: We’ve exceeded 100 signatures on the petition to get math.ED – Mathematics Education added to the arXiv. The next step is to round up 2–3 volunteers to help moderate category submissions. I don’t think this requires a tremendous amount of work. I’d like to have a list of potential moderators before I contact the arXiv again. Any takers? After all is said and done, there is no guarantee that the mathematics subject board at the arXiv will approve our request. However, they asked for support from at least 50 people and we have 100. Fingers crossed.

A couple of days ago, Peter Krautzberger sent me an email asking if I was interested in becoming an editor for Mathblogging.org. According to Mathblogging.org’s about page:

From research to recreational, from teaching to technology, from visual to virtual, hundreds of blogs and sites regularly write about mathematics in all its facets. For the longest time, there was no good way for readers to find the authors they enjoy and for authors to be found. We want to change that. We have collected over 700 blogs and other news sources in one place, and invite you to submit even more! Our goal is to be the best place to discover mathematical writing on the web.

Mathblogging.org is run by Samuel Coskey, Frederik von Heymann, and Peter. Felix Breuer also had a hand in the site’s creation. The current editors are Peter Honner, Fawn Nguyen, and Shecky Riemann.

Lately, I’ve been feeling stretched a bit thin, so I told Peter that I needed to think about it before deciding. I’ve been trying to be careful about the new projects I take on so that I don’t get in over my head. But…then I remembered the talk that Joe Gallian gave at the conclusion of my first Project NExT workshop in 2008. The theme of Joe’s talk (which he gives every year for Project NExT) is “just say yes.” His thesis is that by saying “yes” we open doors to new opportunities and by saying “no” we close ourselves off to what might have been. Okay, I’m sure Joe would admit that we shouldn’t say “yes” to everything, but I believe he would say that most of us say “no” too often.

I took Joe’s talk pretty seriously my first few years post PhD and I think it has worked out pretty darn well for me. There have been numerous times I thought that I should say “no” but followed Joe’s advice instead. Most of the time it has worked out for the best. A good example is when Ivars Peterson asked Angie Hodge and I to start blogging for the MAA. Actually, let me back up a notch. First, Nathan Carter suggested that I apply for the editor position at Math Horizons. I implemented Joe’s philosophy and talked Angie into applying with me as co-editors. Alas, we were not chosen and instead the committee selected the most awesome Dave Richeson. However, as a result of our application, Ivars approached Angie and I about starting up Math Ed Matters. Around this time, I was beginning a new position at Northern Arizona University and I was concerned that my tenure committee wouldn’t value this sort of work. I dragged my feet for a couple months, but eventually Joe’s voice in my head won out. Angie and I have only been blogging for a few months, but we certainly made the right decision. Lots of new opportunities have presented themselves as a result of the blog. I could go on and on about similar choices.

Okay, by now you’ve already guessed that I agreed to Peter’s offer. So, what does being an editor entail? I already keep up with quite a few math-related blogs, but now I just need to “star” the ones on mathblogging.org that I find the most interesting/enjoyable/useful/compelling and leave a brief comment about them. Doesn’t sound too bad. Of course, to be fair I should start reading a few more of the blogs that pass through.

Yesterday was my first day on the job and I already selected two recent blog posts for Editors’ Picks:

  1. Name 5 top journals you read… by Peter Krautzberger
  2. A Problem with Assessment by TJ Hitchman

I’m looking forward to reading more excellent blog posts and seeing if Joe is right again.

claimtoken-51ec2b4d2efb4

When I was preparing my talk for the Legacy of R.L. Moore Conference a couple weeks ago, I reread the student evaluations for my introduction to proof course from Spring 2013. I was really pleased with all the comments, but two of them stood out because they capture the essence of what I want an inquiry-based learning (IBL) experience to be.

Here’s the first comment.

[…] he has found the perfect way to teach this course. […] The way Professor Ernst had us struggle through homework and then come together as a group and discuss the topics was very beneficial. I personally struggled through most of the material and when I finally got to the right concept I felt like I fully understood it because I personally came to that conclusion. Also, when I didn’t fully understand a topic, coming together and discussing it connected all the gaps I was missing. […] As a future educator, I would love to mimic his style of teaching so I can share with my students the same satisfaction that I got out of this style of teaching.

I stripped out a couple complimentary sentences that addressed me rather than the course. Of course, I’m thrilled about this student’s desire to incorporate IBL in their future teaching, but what I really appreciate about this comment is how the student reflects on both his/her independence and collaboration.

Here is the second, very short comment.

Try, fail, understand, win.

Four words of awesomeness. I couldn’t hope for more. This second comment inspired a recent post that Angie Hodge and I recently wrote for Math Ed Matters.

On Friday, June 14 I gave a 15 minute talk in one of the parallel session at the Legacy of R.L. Moore Conference in Austin, TX. The Legacy Conference is the inquiry-based learning (IBL) conference. In fact, it’s the only conference that is completely devoted to the discussion and dissemination of IBL. It’s also my favorite conference of the year. It’s amazing to be around so many people who are passionate about student-centered learning.
This was my fourth time attending the conference and I plan on attending for years to come.

Here is the abstract for the talk that I gave.

In this talk, the speaker will relay his approach to inquiry-based learning (IBL) in an introduction to proof course. In particular, we will discuss various nuts and bolts aspects of the course including general structure, content, theorem sequence, marketing to students, grading/assessment, and student presentations. Despite the theme being centered around an introduction to proof course, this talk will be relevant to any proof-based course.

The target audience was new IBL users. I often get questions about the nuts and bolts of running an IBL class and my talk was intended to address some of the concerns that new users have. I could talk for days and days about this, but being limited to 15 minutes meant that I could only provide the “movie trailer” version.

Below are the slides from my talk.

One of my goals was to get people thinking about the structure they need to put in place for their own classes. When I wrote my slides, I had a feeling that I couldn’t get through everything. I ended up skipping the slide on marketing, but in hindsight, I wish I would have skipped something else instead. Two necessary components of a successful IBL class are student buy-in and having a safe environment where students are willing to take risks. Both of these require good marketing and I never had a chance to make this point. Maybe next year, I will just give a talk about marketing IBL to students.

Dear College Instructors,

Matthew Leingang (NYU), Ron Taylor (Berry College), and I are interested in how college instructors utilize social media. In particular, we are curious how teachers interact with their current and past students on social networks like Facebook and Google+. How do you interact with your current and former students on social media? Do you have policies about this interaction? We have put together a short survey to gather some data regarding this often sensitive issue. The intent is to summarize the results in a short article that will likely be submitted to MAA FOCUS. We would be thrilled if you would take a few minutes to complete our short survey.

Thanks!

Dana, Matthew, & Ron