TECHNOLOGY AND THE MATURE DEPARTMENT Augusta Schurrer Diane Mitchell University of Northern Iowa Department of Mathematics Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0506 e-mail: augusta.schurrer@uni.edu e-mail: diane.mitchell@uni.edu Over the past 10 years it has become evident that to change the mathematics curriculum and make it relevant and useful as well as accessible to a larger portion of the student population would involve the incorporation of current technology. Using the available technology to apply mathematics in a meaningful way requires a revision of the current curriculum as well as a modification of the method of delivery. How this is to be accomplished will vary from institution to institution. We will describe the way in which this was approached with a mature department. Our department is mature in the sense that the average age of those teaching calculus is in the fifties. There are no TA's and few of the recent PhD's were involved. Since much of the original discussion dealing with the incorporation of technology centered on the courses in calculus, this group of faculty seemed to be the appropriate one toward which to direct our initial efforts. These faculty members have been successful and have years of experience on which to rely - experience which would insure continued, thorough, acceptable delivery. By all institutional measures they were doing well. How could we go about motivating such faculty members to consider introducing the available technology and making the curricular changes this would require? Clearly there were several needs that had to be met: 1. We had to convince our faculty group that a curricular change was needed. There was much being written about various experiments in calculus instruction that were either underway or that were being considered. Newsletters, professional magazines as well as professional meetings provided a forum for such proposals. 2. To become aware of current technologies and their possible uses. PC's or larger systems? Hand held calculators? Simple, easily usable software or more sophisticated packages? Which ones? 3. To decide on a technology/curriculum package which would be the right mix for us. We needed to take a look at our current student audience as well as at our role in the institution. And finally, 4. To assist the faculty in preparing to use the package we selected. Preparation patterns and teaching patterns would change and new ones would be developed. Encouragement and support while this took place would be in order. A great deal of time and energy is invested at this stage of the effort. A time line can be helpful in describing our progress. 1987 - October - Two members of the department attend a conference Calculus for a New Century in Washington, D.C. They left convinced of a need to modify the curriculum so as to incorporate technology in order to improve instruction and better prepare our students to handle real world problems. Our department had some PC's in a lab. There were none in the offices and the classrooms were not wired for computer use. The department purchased a laptop, a projection panel and Microcalc software. 1988 - The laptop and Microcalc went into one of the calculus courses on a regular basis. I also used my copy of Derive. Our students had access to Microcalc at several sites on campus and completed some calculus projects in the course of each semester. But Derive was not on our system. There was one departmental laptop and projection panel available for the 4 or 5 people teaching calculus. There was little interest in using the computer unless all sections did. 1989 - The administration of the University expressed interest in increasing the use of technology across the campus. Two people received laptops and projection panels from the Provost's office in the Fall of that year. These were used for the next 3 years. 1991 - Early in the year the department had a Derive workshop. That Fall our new department head and 3 of us went to the ICTCM meeting in Portland. Our building was being remodeled and we were officing and teaching at various locations on campus. I received a Mac for my office from the Provost. 1992 - We were back in our remodeled building. Many of the offices had PC's. There were lab areas with some computers. There was a building network. And we had access to e-mail. There were several classrooms with PC capability and overhead projectors. But it did take a while to get everything in working order. That Fall we took 6 staff members to the ICTCM meeting in Chicago. They came away with the general feeling that we needed "to get with it" and catch up with other universities. 1993 - We agreed to start using the Harvard Project Calculus materials and TI-85's as of that Fall and to start moving toward more group activities in the classroom. We also began to look at what to do with our pre-calculus service courses. PC-Solve was installed on the University system as the beginning of a computer literacy move on campus. We took 6 faculty members to the ICTCM meeting in Parsippany. 1994 - This year we are requiring TI-82's in our pre- calculus service offerings, TI-85's in pre-calculus and calculus. Two staff members presented a TI-82 workshop for our staff. The workshop material was also presented at our Fall Math Conference which draws some 1,000 teachers from across the state. We addressed the necessity for training and supporting faculty members in the use of the technology. The decision was in place to require TI-82's in pre-calculus which required a concentration of effort to learn the "new" machine. The TI-82 differs significantly from the TI-81 and the TI-85, with which the faculty were most familiar, and they needed the opportunity to explore the differences. With support from the Provost's Office, we provided a workshop at the beginning of the Fall semester, 1994. We chose to start our training at the most elementary levels and progress through some very sophisticated problem solving. Our discussion began with familiarization with the keyboard and continued through parametrics and polars. Without the workshop, faculty would have been at the mercy of learning it all by reading the manuals - not an efficient way to get faculty to change from previous teaching methods. This time line shows that it has taken us 7 years to arrive at our current state of involvement with technology. The process takes time. it requires a desire on the part of the leadership to educate the faculty toward a consensus - to develop somewhat of a team attitude among those who are to "go first" and to select those who go first carefully. That group must be willing to work and not easily discouraged. There must be a commitment on the part of those involved to stay with the task for a few years to see what happens. Effective change is not an overnight happening. All change is difficult. Support from within the group as well as from departmental and other administrative levels is important. Regular exchange of comments, insights, experiences and tests helps give a coherence to the effort. Change is a slow process. There are always serious doubts when there is no external pressure for change and all is seemingly going well. A mature, relatively successful group such as ours could very well ask - and it did - "If it ain't broke, why fix it?". In our case the ICTCM meetings served as a catalyst for the process leading to an answer to that question.