Concerns over the quality and diversity of the future workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in the United States have led to repeated calls to reform undergraduate education. This paper focuses on the efforts of one mathematics education reform movement in higher education to frame itself and its inquiry-based learning (IBL) teaching methods. Since its inception, members of this IBL movement struggled to negotiate their historical connection to the legacy of the late mathematician R. L. Moore and their need to modernize to recruit new mathematics instructors. A strong initial connection to Moore and his now-troubling racial and sexist views led to intense disputes over the framing, or branding, of the movement that at first inhibited its growth, but over time led to an understanding of IBL that embraces a broader range of methods and people.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Adiredja, A. P., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Taking the sociopolitical turn in postsecondary mathematics education research. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1–22.
Aguirre, J., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Celedón-Pattichis, S., Civil, M., Wilkerson, T., Stephan, M., Pape, S., & Clements, D. H. (2017). Equity within mathematics education research as a political act: moving from choice to intentional collective professional responsibility. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48, 124–147.
Albers, D. J., Alexanderson, G. L., & Reid, C. (Eds.). (1990). More mathematical people: Contemporary Conversations (1st ed.). Boston: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Artigue, M., & Blomhoj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM ® The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 797–810.
Bass, H. (2005). Mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematics education. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 42, 417–430.
Bastedo, M. N. (2005). Curriculum in higher education: The historical roots of contemporary issues. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 462–485). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Battey, D. (2013). Access to mathematics: “A possessive investment in whiteness.” Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 332–359.
Benford, R. D. (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces, 71, 677–701. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579890.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E. L. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook: The Boyer Commission on educating undergraduates in the research university.
Bressoud, D. (2015). Insights from the MAA National Study of College Calculus. Mathematics Teacher, 109, 179–185.
Brint, S. (2011). Focus on the classroom: Movements to reform college teaching and learning, 1980–2008. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary education (pp. 41–91). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brownwell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives…and tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
Burgess, R. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London, England: George Allen and Unwin.
Coppin, C. A., Mahavier, W. T., May, E. L., & Parker, E. (2009). The Moore Method: A pathway to learner-centered instruction (No. 75). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Corry, L. (2007). A clash of mathematical titans in Austin: Harry S. Vandiver and Robert Lee Moore (1924–1974). The Mathematical Intelligencer, 29(4), 62–74.
Cuban, L. (1999). How scholars trumped teachers: Change without reform in university curriculum, teaching, and research, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago: Transaction Publishers.
Educational Advancement Foundation. (1998). [Video Tape of 1998 Legacy Conference]. R. L. Moore Legacy Collection, 1890–1900, 1920–2013, Archives of American Mathematics (Box 4RM36, Tape 1), Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Educational Advancement Foundation (2015). Inquiry-based learning initiatives of the Educational Advancement Foundation. http://eduadvance.org/history_files/initiatives.html, accessed 11/22/17.
Educational Advancement Foundation. (n.d.) “Past Event Reports.” http://legacyrlmoore.org/Reports/reports.html.
Ellis, J., Rasmussen, C., & Duncan, K.. (2013). Switcher and persister experiences in Calculus 1. Sixteenth Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Denver. Retrieved from http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~dbachman/RUME_XVI_Linked_Schedule/rume16_submission_93.pdf.
Ellis, J., Kelton, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). Student perceptions of pedagogy and associated persistence in Calculus. ZDM ® The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 661–673.
Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(6), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1536.
Finnegan, D. E. (1997). Transforming faculty roles. In M. Peterson, D. Dill, L. Mets and Associates (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment pp. (479–501). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Fullilove, R. E., & Treisman, P. U. (1990). Mathematics achievement among African American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the Mathematics Workshop Program. The Journal of Negro Education, 59, 463–478.
Givan, R. K., Roberts, K. M., & Soule, S. A. (2010). Introduction. In R. K. Givan, K. M. Roberts, & S. A. Soule (Eds.), The diffusion of social movements: Actors, mechanisms, and political effects (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haberler, Z. (in preparation). From Moore Method to IBL: The development of a reform-oriented community of practice. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Boulder, Ethnography & Evaluation Research.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.
Hassi, M. L., & Laursen, S. L. (2015). Transformative learning: Personal empowerment in learning mathematics. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(4), 316–340.
Hayward, C., & Laursen, S. (2016). Collaborative Research: Supporting Pedagogical Innovation for a Generation of Transformation via Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics (SPIGOT), Cumulative Report: Workshops 1–4. [Report to the National Science Foundation] Boulder, CO: Ethnography & Evaluation Research.
Hayward, C. N., Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2016). Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(1), 59–82. Published online November 25, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-015-0021-y.
Henrion, C. (1997). Women in mathematics: The addition of difference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hersh, R. (2011). Loving and hating mathematics: Challenging the myths of mathematical life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hotchkiss, P. K., Ecke, V., Fleron, J. F., & von Renesse, C. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Using inquiry-based learning in mathematics for liberal arts courses. PRIMUS, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.971476.
Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Li, S. (2008). The effects of engagement in inquiry-oriented activities on student learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9066-z.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Jones, F. B. (1977). The Moore Method. American Mathematical Monthly, 84, 273–277.
Katz, B. P., & Thoren, E. (Eds.) (2017a). Teaching inquiry (Part I): Illuminating inquiry. PRIMUS, 27(1).
Katz, B. P., & Thoren, E. (Eds.) (2017b). Teaching inquiry (Part II): Implementing inquiry. PRIMUS, 27(2).
Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2015). Communities of transformation and their work scaling STEM reform. Los Angeles: Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern California. Accessed 5/22/18, http://pullias.uscrossier.org/communities-of-transformation-and-their-work-scaling-stem-reform/
Klandermans, B. (2013). The dynamics of demand. In J. van Stekelenburg, C. Roggeband, & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes: The future of social movement research (Vol. 39, pp. 3–15). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9269-9.
Krainer, K., & Zehetmeier, S. (2013). Inquiry-based learning for students, teachers, researchers, and representatives of educational administration and policy: Reflections on a nation-wide initiative fostering educational innovations. ZDM ® The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), 875–886.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Kuster, G., Johnson, E., Keene, K., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Inquiry-oriented instruction: A conceptualization of the instructional components and practices. PRIMUS, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.
Kwon, O. N., Rasmussen, C., & Allen, K. (2005). Students’ retention of mathematical knowledge and skills in differential equations. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18163.x.
Larson, S., Glover, E., & Melhuish, K. (2015). Beyond good teaching: The benefits and challenges of implementing ambitious teaching. In D. Bressoud, V. Mesa, & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Insights and recommendations from the MAA National Study of College Calculus (pp. 93–106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America Press.
Laursen, S. L. (2013). From innovation to implementation: Multi-institution pedagogical reform in undergraduate mathematics. In D. King, B. Loch, & L. Rylands (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th DELTA conference on the teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics and statistics, Kiama, New South Wales, Australia, 24–29 November 2013. Sydney: University of Western Sydney, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, on behalf of the International Delta Steering Committee.
Laursen, S.L. Hassi, M.-L., Kogan, M., Hunter, A.-B., & Weston, T. (2011). Evaluation of the IBL Mathematics Project: Student and Instructor Outcomes of Inquiry-Based Learning in College Mathematics. [Report prepared for the Educational Advancement Foundation and the IBL Mathematics Centers]. Boulder, CO: Ethnography & Evaluation Research, University of Colorado Boulder.
Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 406–418. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0406.
Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., & Hough, S. (2016). Implementation and outcomes of inquiry-based learning in mathematics content courses for pre-service teachers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(2), 256–275.
Laursen, S., Haberler, Z., & Hayward, C. (2017). The past, present, and future of the IBL community in mathematics. Boulder: University of Colorado Boulder, Ethnography & Evaluation Research.
Lee, V. S. (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9166-4.
Mahavier, W. T. (1997). A gentle discovery method: (The Modified Texas Method). College Teaching, 45, 132–135.
Mahavier, W. S. (1999). What is the Moore Method? PRIMUS, 9, 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511979908965940.
Marius, R., & Page, M. E. (2002). A short guide to writing about history, Fourth Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc..
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
National Governors Association. (1986). A time for results: The Governors’ 1991 report on education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
National Science Foundation. (1993). Proceeding of the National Science Foundation workshop on the role of faculty from the scientific disciplines in the undergraduate education of future science and mathematics teachers. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. (NSF 96–139). Arlington.
NCSM & TODOS (2016). Mathematics education through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgment, actions, and accountability. A joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL. TODOS: Tempe. http://www.todos-math.org/assets/docs2016/2016Enews/3.pospaper16_wtodos_8pp.pdf
Parker, J. (2005). R. L. Moore: Mathematician & teacher. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.10.001.
Rasmussen, C., Kwon, O. N., Allen, K., Marrongelle, K., & Burtch, M. (2006). Capitalizing on advances in mathematics and K-12 mathematics education in undergraduate mathematics: An inquiry-oriented approach to differential equations. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03036787.
Rasmussen, C., Marrongelle, K., Kwon, O. N., & Hodge, A. (2017). Four goals for instructors using inquiry-based learning. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(11), 1308–1311.
Retsek, D. Q. (2013). Chop wood, carry water, use definitions: Survival lessons of an IBL rookie. PRIMUS, 23, 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2012.716144.
Ross, P. (2007). R. L. Moore: Mathematician & teacher. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 29(4), 75–79.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science, 331, 1269.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. (Eds.). (2007). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education (Vol. 3). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.
Snow, D. A., Rocheford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilizations, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–482.
Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H. (2004). Mapping the terrain. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 3–16). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publisher.
Special Interest Group of the MAA on IBL in Mathematics. (2017). Charter. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Starbird, M. (2015). Inquiry-Based Learning Through the Life of the MAA. In S. F. Kennedy, D. J. Albers, G. L. Alexanderson, D. Dumbaugh, F. A. Farris, D. B. Haunsperger, & P. Zorn (Eds.), A Century of Advancing Mathematics (1st ed., pp. 239–252). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.265.
Stark, J., & Lattuca, L. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Needham: Allyn & Bacon.
Straumanis, A., Beneteau, C., Guadarrama, Z., Guerra, J. E., Lenz, L., & the POGIL Project. (2014). Calculus I: A guided inquiry. New Jersey: Wiley.
Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/349494.
Stryker, S. (2000). Identity competition: key to differential social movement participation? In S. Stryker, T. O. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 21–40). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Stryker, S., Owens, T. O., & White, R. W. (Eds.). (2000). Self, identity, and social movements. Minneapolis: The University of Minneapolis Press.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.
Tosh, J. (2002). The pursuit of history, Revised third edition. London, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Traylor, D. S., Bane, W., & Jones, M. (1972). Creative teaching: Heritage of R. L. Moore. [White paper]. Retrieved October 2016, from http://at.yorku.ca/i/a/a/b/21.dir/heritage.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (2016). Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and Office of the Under Secretary. Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education. Washington, DC.
van Stekelenburg, J., & Roggeband, C. (2013). Introduction. In J. van Stekelenburg, C. Roggeband, & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Dynamics, mechanisms, and process: The future of social movement research (Vol. 39, pp. xi–xxii). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wake, G. D., & Burkhardt, H. (2013). Understanding the European policy landscape and its impact on change in mathematics and science pedagogies. ZDM ® The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), 851–861.
Whittaker, J. A., & Montgomery, B. L. (2012). Cultivating diversity and competency in STEM: Challenges and remedies for removing virtual barriers to constructing diverse higher education communities of success. The Journal of Undergraduate Neurosceince Education, 11(1), A44–A51.
Whyburn, L. S. (1970). Student oriented teaching—The Moore Method. American Mathematical Monthly, 77, 351–359.
Wilder, R. L. (1976). Robert Lee Moore 1882–1974. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 82, 417–427.
Wu, H. (1999). The joy of lecturing—with a critique of the romantic tradition of educational writing. An appendix to S. G. Krantz, How to teach mathematics, Second edition (pp. 261–271). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Yoshinobu, S., & Jones, M. (2013). An overview of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470400531.eorms1065
We thank the study participants for their time and candor. We also thank the Educational Advancement Foundation (EAF) for sharing documents from their archives, and the US National Science Foundation for support of this study under award DUE-1347669. We thank a number of advisors who provided thoughtful comments on this manuscript and the public presentation of our findings to practitioners. All findings and opinions are those of the authors and not the EAF or the funder.
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Haberler, Z., Laursen, S.L. & Hayward, C.N. What’s in a Name? Framing Struggles of a Mathematics Education Reform Community. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 4, 415–441 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0079-4
- Inquiry-based learning
- Undergraduate mathematics education reform
- Social movements
- Social identity
- History of mathematics education