Time for (Research on) Change in Mathematics Departments

Abstract

This research commentary argues for more research that attends to the processes of organizational change in mathematics departments. It outlines both the ways that research on organizational change can benefit scholarship in mathematics departments, and how mathematics education researchers are needed to develop theories of change that are contextualized to the teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics. This commentary closes with a research agenda for moving this emergent field of study forward. This agenda involves applying change theories to historical, ongoing, and new change projects in mathematics departments, while simultaneously attending to issues of equity and social justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Change history

  • 18 June 2020

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

References

  1. ACME. (2011). Mathematical needs: Mathematics in the workplace and in higher education. London: London Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2014). Achieving systemic change: A sourcebook for advancing and funding undergraduate STEM education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Apkarian, N., Bonds, M.D., Quardokus Fisher, K., & Burt, B. (2019, May 29). Inclusive approaches to reviewing scholarship: A new guide. Retrieved from: https://ascnhighered.org/ASCN/posts/inclusion_guide.html

  5. Artigue, M., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 797–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barquero, B., Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2013). The ecological dimension in the teaching of mathematical modelling at university. Recherches En Didactique Des Mathématiques, 33(3), 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bressoud, D., & Zorn, P. (2018). Introduction to special issue of PRIMUS on improving the teaching and learning of calculus. PRIMUS, 28(6), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.1391359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. British Academy (2012). Society counts: Quantitative skills in the social sciences and humanities. Available at: www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Society_Counts.cfm. Accessed 30 March 2020.

  10. Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In Bosch, M. (Ed.) European Research in Mathematics Education IV: Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, (pp. 21–30). Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain: FUNDEMI IQS – Universitat Ramon Llull and ERME.

  11. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) (2016, 15 July). Active learning in post-secondary education. http://www.cbmsweb.org/Statements/Active_Learning_Statement.pdf.

  12. Croft, T. & Lawson, D. (2017). Improving mathematics education. Mathematics Today, October, 196–199. Available at: https://ima.org.uk/7379/improving-mathematics-education/. Accessed 30 March 2020.

  13. Giraldo, V. (2018). Formação de professores de matemática: para uma abordagem problematizada. Ciência & Cultura, 70, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gutierrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2 & 3), 145–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawkes, T., & Savage, M. D. (2000). Measuring the mathematics problem. London: London Engineering Council.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Inglis, M., & Foster, C. (2018). Five decades of mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 462–500. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA). (1999). Engineering mathematics matters. Southend-on-Sea: IMA.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Pedagogic frailty and resilience in the university. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krücken, G. (2014). Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: A research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1439–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Laursen, S., Andrews, T., Stains, M., Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., McConnell, D., Johnson, E., Foote, K., Ruedi, B., & Malcom, S. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science https://www.aaas.org/resources/levers-change-assessment-progress-changing-stem-instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laursen, S., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics education. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 5(1), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. London Mathematical Society. (1995). Tackling the mathematics problem. London: London Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Math Ed Collective. (2018). Math Ed collective. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://mathedcollective.wordpress.com/

  29. Mathematical Association of America (MAA) (2017). MAA instructional practice guide. Mathematical Association of America. https://www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/curriculum%20resources/instructional-practices-guide.

  30. Matthews, J., Croft, T., Lawson, D., & Waller, D. (2013). Evaluation of mathematics support centres: A literature review. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 32, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nardi, E. (2008). Amongst mathematicians: Teaching and learning mathematics at university level. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nardi, E. (2015). The many and varied crossing paths of mathematics and mathematics education. Mathematics Today, 51, 292–295.

  33. Nardi, E. (2016). Where form and substance meet: Using the narrative approach of re-storying to generate research findings and community rapprochement in (university) mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paradeise, C., Reale, E., & Goastellec, G. (2009). A comparative approach to higher education reforms in western European countries. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance (pp. 197–226). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

  37. Quardokus, K., & Henderson, C. (2015). Promoting instructional change: Using social network analysis to understand the informal structure of academic departments. Higher Education, 70(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9831-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rämö, J., Reinholz, D., Häsä, J., & Lahdenperä, J. (2019). Extreme apprenticeship: Instructional change as a gateway to systemic improvement. Innovative Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9467-1.

  39. Rasmussen, C., Smith, W., & Tubbs, R. (2019). Infusing active learning into precalculus and calculus courses: Insights and lessons learned from mathematics departments in the process of change. Forthcoming Special issue PRIMUS.

  40. Rasmussen, C., & Wawro, M. (2017). Post-calculus research in undergraduate mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 551–581). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reinholz, D. L., Ngai, C., Quan, G., Pilgrim, M. E., Corbo, J. C., & Finkelstein, N. (2019a). Fostering sustainable improvements in science education: An analysis through four frames. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21526.

  43. Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N. (2019b). STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 18(4), mr4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). L’enseignement scientifique aujourd’hui: Une pédagogie renouvelée pour l’avenir de l’Europe. Bruxelles: Commission Européenne, Direction générale de la recherche, science, économie et société.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Saxe, K., & Braddy, L. (2015). A common vision for undergraduate mathematical sciences programs in 2025. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

  47. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1995). A brief biography of calculus reform. UME Trends: News and Reports on Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 6(6), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shah, N. (2017). Race, ideology, and academic ability: A relational analysis of racial narratives in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Solomon, Y., Lawson, D., & Croft, T. (2011). Dealing with ‘fragile identities’: Resistance and refiguring in women mathematics students. Gender and Education, 23(5), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.512270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sztajn, P., Borko, H., & Smith, T. M. (2017). Research on mathematics professional development. In J. Cai (Ed.), The compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 793–823). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Thompson, A. (2019). A word from Abigail Thompson, a vice-president of the AMS. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 66(11), 1778–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wagner, P. A. (2016). Common core state standards for mathematics: Love it or hate it, understand those who don’t. The Mathematics Educator, 25(2), 95–107

  55. Winsløw, C., Barquero, B., Vleeschouwer, M. D., & Hardy, N. (2014). An institutional approach to university mathematics education: From dual vector spaces to questioning the world. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2014.918345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Winsløw, C., Gueudet, G., Hochmuth, R., & Nardi, E. (2018). Research on university mathematics education. In T. Dreyfus, M. Artigue, D. Potari, S. Prediger, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Developing research in mathematics education: Twenty years of communication, cooperation and collaboration in Europe (pp. 82–96). London: Routledge (ERME series inaugural volume).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel L. Reinholz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reinholz, D.L., Rasmussen, C. & Nardi, E. Time for (Research on) Change in Mathematics Departments. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 6, 147–158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00116-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematics departments
  • Organizational change
  • Research methods
  • Systemic change