Search

Mounting evidence of the effectiveness of active learning strategies has prompted many mathematics departments to start engaging in transformational change efforts. Change, however, especially change in instructional practice, is a challenging endeavor. Some departments are using coordination of multi-section courses as a vehicle to enact changes and have designated or hired course coordinators to oversee efforts to transform instruction via active learning. This study explores the role of coordinators as instructional change agents for active learning using data collected from five university mathematics departments, all of which are successfully sustaining such efforts. We use Shadle et al.’s drivers for change as a framework for examining data from five retrospective case studies of change. Specifically, we investigate how these speculative drivers connect to coordinators’ roles as change agents in each story. We argue that coordinators are positioned to leverage three key drivers for change: providing materials and tools, encouraging collaboration and communication, and encouraging (and providing) professional development. Coordinators must also understand the local contexts and culture in order to engage in effective processes for supporting departmental change. To conclude, we discuss implications of this research for departments seeking to transform instruction.

In the United States (US) and elsewhere across the world, undergraduate mathematics instructors are increasingly aware of the value of inquiry-based instruction. In this research commentary, we describe the intellectual origins and development of two major strands of inquiry in US higher education, offer an explanation for apparent differences in these strands, and argue that they be united under a common vision of Inquiry-Based Mathematics Education (IBME). Central to this common vision are four pillars of IBME: student engagement in meaningful mathematics, student collaboration for sensemaking, instructor inquiry into student thinking, and equitable instructional practice to include all in rigorous mathematical learning and mathematical identity-building. We conclude this commentary with a call for a four-pronged agenda for research and practice focused on learning trajectories, transferable skills, equity, and a systems approach.

Acknowledgements Support for this work was funded by the National Science Foundation under Grants # 1624639 and # 1830897.

We investigate the nature of Calculus I homework at five PhD-granting universities identified as having a relatively successful Calculus I program and compare features of homework at these universities to comparable universities that were not selected as having a successful program. Mixed method analyses point to three aspects of homework that arose as important: structure, content, and feedback. Selected universities employed more varied homework structure, included more content emphasizing skills as well as solving novel problems, and provided higher amounts of and frequency of feedback to students. Students felt positively towards conceptually driven homework, but their feelings were mixed or negative regarding the logistical aspects of online and group homework assignments. We draw on Herbst and Chazan’s (ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(5), 601–612, 2012) adaptation of the instructional triangle and Brousseau’s (1997) notion of the didactical contract to make sense of how homework is understood as an instructional resource by instructors and by students.