Building Bridges and Breaking Barriers: OER and Active Learning in Mathematics




active learning, open educational resources, mathematics, accessibility, community, teaching and learning, OER


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.


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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399–413.

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.

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).

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.

Chiorescu, M. (2017). Exploring open educational resources for college algebra. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4), 50–59.

City of Mississauga. (2015). Facility accessibility design standards.

Contact North. (n.d.). Ten facts about Open Educational Resources (OER).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Guerrero, S., Beal, M., Lamb, C., Sonderegger, D., & Baumgartel, D. (2015). Flipping undergraduate finite mathematics: Findings and implications. PRIMUS, 25(9–10), 814–832.

Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline‐based educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 1(1), 50–62.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing open educational practice to a research-intensive university: Prospects and challenges. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14(1), 31–43.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice Hall.

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).

Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

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.

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.

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.

Top, L. M., Schoonraad, S. A., & Otero, V. K. (2018). Development of pedagogical knowledge among learning assistants. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1).

UNESCO. (2019). Open Educational Resources (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).

Wilcox, S. (1998). The role of the educational developer in the improvement of university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 77–103.

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.

Zack, L., Fuselier, J., Graham-Squire, A., Lamb, R., & O’Hara, K. (2015). Flipping freshman mathematics. PRIMUS, 25(9–10), 803–813.

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.




How to Cite

Gagné, A., Wang, X., & Yusun, T. (2021). Building Bridges and Breaking Barriers: OER and Active Learning in Mathematics. The Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 1(1), 1–20.



Practice Articles