When leading a workshop on IBL involving faculty being introduced to Inquiry-Based Learning for the first time and none of whom are mathematicians, what does one do?  This report is on the preparation for and conduction of such a workshop.  Each of the two workshop sessions was done in IBL-style.  In the first session, questions involving teaching any course—regardless of pedagogical style to be used—were posed, responses solicited, with ensuing conversation.  The focus was to highlight differences in answers to those questions for IBL approaches and other teaching styles.  This report focuses on several questions that elicited the most active conversations, including the process vs. content question, the role of the teacher question, the expectations of the student question, and the use of course materials question.  The second session consisted of actual inquiries used in non-math (exception:  elementary statistics) courses gleaned from personal experiences in inter- and cross-disciplinary courses and those of colleagues in other disciplines.  In this report, several of the examples used are shared.

In this talk, I will discuss my experience using IBL in math for the liberal arts. While other liberal arts math courses focus on application-oriented topics, I chose to focus on the language of logic and proof. I will share the preliminary results of entrance and exit surveys (modified from a survey by A. Schoenfeld), aimed mainly at tracking changes in students' beliefs about mathematics. Comparisons will be made to responses from students in College Algebra, the other common terminal math course for humanities majors at St. Mary's University.

 In this talk, we will relay one possible approach to grading for an IBL course.  In particular, we will focus on the grading of written homework for undergraduate proof-based courses such as Introduction to Proof, Abstract Algebra, Number Theory, and Real Analysis.  The speaker will also attempt to solicit additional ideas and approaches from the audience.

Many proponents of IBL make claims that students in IBL courses spend more time doing higher-order tasks than in other courses. During this term, I have been asking my IBL Modern Geometry students to report on the amount of time they have been spending on the coursework, what percentage of that work they think falls at each of the   levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, and how those percentages compare to the percentages in other courses on campus and in the department. At the end of the term, I will also ask the students to connect particular course activities with the Bloom's level of tasks they require. In this talk, I will share a preliminary analysis of the student responses.

For many students of the first author’s generation, particularly the visual thinkers, Euclidean geometry was the first course in which the beauty of mathematics became apparent.  The idea that this wealth of knowledge could be deduced from a small set of truths (the axioms) was exhilarating.  In his Introduction to the Instructor Edition of his notes, Euclidean Geometry – a Guided Inquiry Approach, David M. Clark explains the reasons for, and laments, the loss of this beauty to generations of students; his notes are the remedy.   My assistants and I rediscovered geometry, along with our students, through teaching an undergraduate Euclidean geometry course in the Fall 2011 semester based upon David Clark’s notes.  The notes support an inquiry-based learning approach to axiomatic geometry, which Clark and I would both trace back to R.L. Moore, but which, in our implementation at UAB, includes elements of guided reinvention (Freudenthal, Gravemejier).  In this talk I will describe the implementation of the course at UAB, the reaction of students to the course, and the implications for the future of the course at UAB.  In this endeavor, I have been ably assisted by William Bond, a former mathematics MS student of mine, and David Cosper, a current BS/MS Fast-Track mathematics student at UAB.