The research described in this case study features a cohort of five exchange students from post-secondary institutions in Norway and the United States who collaboratively engaged in a project-based learning experience infused with aspects of place-based education, lesson study, and the pedagogical technique “students as partners”. The students were tasked with crafting an interdisciplinary lesson combining mathematics and environmental science to address a localized problem in the Southeastern United States. This study reflects on how the students participated in project-based learning as well as the instructional practices that supported student engagement. Students identified an increase in understanding of interdisciplinary and multicultural Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, a broader understanding of instructional practices, and exposure to educational research. Data were collected throughout the study using a variety of techniques, including discussion posts, collaborative documents, and reflections to gauge student experience and project progress. The results provide evidence to support the use of project-based learning in postsecondary STEM classrooms and emphasize the benefits of engaging students in curriculum development.

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.

Precalculus and single-variable calculus courses are a critical early juncture for the success of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students in the United States (US). The default course structure is often a required three-term sequence of precalculus, differential calculus, and integral calculus. In this paper we analyse variations to this structure, the nature of such variations, their frequency across US universities, and how instructional approach and performance rates in those variations compare to those in the standard course offerings. We found that course variations are relatively common, and are primarily targeting students with more math preparation, less math preparation, or those majoring in a specific discipline. We found that for less prepared students, who are typically at the highest risk of failing, course variations resulted in similar passing rates, essentially levelling the playing field for these students. Although we had conjectured that disruptions to the standard offering would allow for greater use of active learning strategies, no such difference was observed. Ways in which these course variations can redress systemic educational inequalities, opportunities for design improvement, and future research are discussed.