Several studies have shown that the use of active learning strategies can help improve student success and persistence in STEM-related fields. Despite this, widespread adoption of active learning strategies is not yet a reality as institutional change can be difficult to enact. Accordingly, it is important to understand how departments in institutions of higher education can initiate and sustain meaningful change. We use interview data collected from two institutions to examine how leaders at two universities contributed to the initiation, implementation, and sustainability of active learning in undergraduate calculus and precalculus courses. At each institution, we spoke to 27 stakeholders involved in changes (including administrators, department chairs, course coordinators, instructors, and students). Our results show that the success of these changes rested on the ability of leaders to stimulate significant cultural shifts within the mathematics department. We use communities of transformation theory and the four-frame model of organization change in STEM departments in order to better understand how leaders enabled such cultural shifts. Our study highlights actions leaders may take to support efforts at improving education by normalizing the use of active learning strategies and provides potential reasons for the efficacy of such actions. These results underscore the importance of establishing flexible, distributed leadership models that attend to the cultural and operational norms of a department. Such results may inform leaders at other institutions looking to improve education in their STEM departments.

No abstract

Several academic departments have increased their use of active learning to address low student success rates. However, it is unclear whether those implementing active learning have a consistent conceptualization of it. Like other educational terms, the phrase “active learning” is in danger of becoming overused and misunderstood, which puts the utility of active learning into question. This study examines 115 conceptualizations of active learning across six institutions of higher education that are infusing more active learning into their mathematics courses. We use the four pillars of inquiry-based mathematics education as a basis for analyzing these conceptualizations and compare them in two ways: by stakeholder role and by institution. Our findings show that many participants conceptualize active learning as student engagement and activities other than lecture, yet there was limited focus on the role of the teacher and content. Only eight participants mentioned issues of equity. Comparison within individual institutions shows that faculty within departments may hold common understandings of active learning. Implications of these findings include a need to develop an understanding of active learning that attends to all four pillars and is shared across departments, institutions, and disciplines.

No abstract