Building Bridges and Breaking Barriers: OER and Active Learning in Mathematics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2021.1.1.5Keywords:
active learning, open educational resources, mathematics, accessibility, community, teaching and learning, OERAbstract
This article will discuss how open educational resources and instructional technology are used to support student academic success and continuous faculty pedagogical development, as well as reduce barriers to access at an R1 university. This article uses case examples from two instructors from a Mathematics and Computational Sciences department who are using open educational resources and instructional technology as part of an inclusive active learning pedagogy. The first case study is from an integral calculus course and the second case study is from a discrete mathematics course. The article highlights the role of the educational developer in providing pedagogical and technological support to the faculty. The support the educational developer provides is framed by an inclusive pedagogy that foregrounds access and accessibility. Future considerations provided in the article highlight the need for connections and collaborations supported through a Teaching and Learning Collaboration with an emphasis on active learning, classroom training, and open educational resources to create more pedagogically comprehensive and inclusive learning environments.
References
Ahn, J. Y., & Edwin, A. (2018). An e-learning model for teaching mathematics on an open source learning platform. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3733 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3733
Akugizibwe, E., & Ahn, J. Y. (2020). Perspectives for effective integration of e-learning tools in university mathematics instruction for developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 889–903. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10639-019-09995-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09995-z
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Beezer, R. A., Farmer, D., Jordan, A., & Keller, M. T. (2019). The PreTeXt Guide. https://pretextbook.org/doc/guide/html/guide-toc.html
Bond, V. (2016). Using online professional learning communities to encourage dialogue in university/college mathematics. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 87–90. https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA459075813&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=17442710&p=AONE&sw=w
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023008004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023008004
Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.399
Buchenot, A., & Roman, T. A. (2019). Reframing writing instruction in physical learning environments: Making connections between digital and nondigital technologies. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 8(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v8i1.26793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v8i1.26793
Carter, C. L., Carter, R. L., & Foss, A. H. (2018). The flipped classroom in a terminal college mathematics course for liberal arts students. AERA Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418759266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418759266
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7
Chiorescu, M. (2017). Exploring open educational resources for college algebra. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4), 50–59. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1146209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3003
City of Mississauga. (2015). Facility accessibility design standards. http://www7.mississauga.ca/Departments/Marketing/Websites/Accessibility/Mississauga_FADS.html#a4.4.13
Contact North. (n.d.). Ten facts about Open Educational Resources (OER). https://teachonline.ca/sites/default/files/tools-trends/downloads/ten_facts_aboutopen_educational_resources.pdf
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Dosch, M., & Zidon, M. (2014). The course fit us”: Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 343–357. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
García-Martínez, I., Ubago-Jiménez, J. L., López-Burgos, J., & Tadeu, P. (2018). The pedagogical leadership of the mathematics faculty: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 8. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/8/4/217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040217
Grier-Reed, T., & Williams-Wengerd, A. (2018). Integrating universal design, culturally sustaining practices, and constructivism to advance inclusive pedagogy in the undergraduate classroom. Education Sciences, 8(4), 167. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/8/4/167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040167
Guerrero, S., Beal, M., Lamb, C., Sonderegger, D., & Baumgartel, D. (2015). Flipping undergraduate finite mathematics: Findings and implications. PRIMUS, 25(9–10), 814–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1046003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1046003
Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline‐based educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 1(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1046003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144960010106
Johnson, A. W., Blackburn, M. W., Su, M. P., & Finelli, C. J. (2019). How a flexible classroom affords active learning in electrical engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 91–98. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8470966 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2867447
Judson, T. W., & Leingang, M. (2016). The development of pedagogical content knowledge in first-year graduate teaching assistants. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 17(1), 37–43. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1683
Jung, E., Bauer, C., & Heaps, A. (2017). Higher education faculty perceptions of open textbook adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4), 123–141. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3120
Jungić, V., Kaur, H., Mulholland, J., & Xin, C. (2015). On flipping the classroom in large first year calculus courses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(4), 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.990529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.990529
Kampa, N., Neumann, I., Heitmann, P., & Kremer, K. (2016). Epistemological beliefs in science—A person-centered approach to investigate high school students’ profiles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Laursen, S., Hassi, M.-L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. (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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0406
Li, Y., Dai, J., Wang, X., & Slotta, J. (2020). Active learning designs for Calculus II: A learning community approach for interconnected smart classrooms. International Journal of Smart Technology and Learning, 2(1), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMARTTL.2020.109504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMARTTL.2020.109504
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educational Research Review, 22, 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582
Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing open educational practice to a research-intensive university: Prospects and challenges. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14(1), 31–43. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099364.pdf
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice Hall. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881735
Mulnix, A. B. (2016). STEM faculty as learners in pedagogical reform and the role of research articles as professional development opportunities. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-12-0251 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-12-0251
Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Open Court.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Student communities for the advancement of knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 36–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/227210.227220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/227210.227220
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization (1st ed.). Doubleday/Currency.
Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with Web 2.0 technologies. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 93–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_7
Tinnell, T. L., Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., & Mills, M. E. (2019). Sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5
Top, L. M., Schoonraad, S. A., & Otero, V. K. (2018). Development of pedagogical knowledge among learning assistants. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0097-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0097-9
UNESCO. (2019). Open Educational Resources (OER). https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer
Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Wilcox, S. (1998). The role of the educational developer in the improvement of university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 77–103. https://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/183312 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v28i1.183312
Yong, D., Levy, R., & Lape, N. (2015). Why no difference? A controlled flipped classroom study for an introductory differential equations course. PRIMUS, 25, 907–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1031307 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1031307
Zack, L., Fuselier, J., Graham-Squire, A., Lamb, R., & O’Hara, K. (2015). Flipping freshman mathematics. PRIMUS, 25(9–10), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1031302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1031302
Zhang, N., & Henderson, C. N. R. (2016). Brief, cooperative peer-instruction sessions during lectures enhance student recall and comprehension. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 30(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-15-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-15-9
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ann Gagne, Xinli Wang, TJ Yusun
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to the OTESSA Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the OTESSA Journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the OTESSA Journal.
