Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

31 August 2026

4 Pages

Introduction to the Special Issue on Engaging Students to Transform Tertiary Mathematics Education

,
and
1
Center for Transformative Teaching, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
2
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Computer Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
3
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(9), 1398;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16091398
This article belongs to the Special Issue Engaging Students to Transform Tertiary Mathematics Education
Version Notes
Order Reprints
It is broadly recognized that tertiary mathematics teaching practices lag behind what we know to be effective teaching practices, particularly with respect to active student engagement in learning (e.g., Apkarian et al., 2021; Freeman et al., 2014; Henderson et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2021; Koch, 2025; Smith et al., 2021; Theobald et al., 2020). Despite a growing body of research concerning effective teaching practices in tertiary mathematics, change remains exceedingly slow (e.g., Cronin et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2021). Relatedly, involving students collaboratively in transformation efforts is crucial to producing effective and sustainable changes (e.g., Bolick et al., 2026; Boyle et al., 2024; Healey et al., 2014; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017; Penuel et al., 2020). Improving tertiary mathematics teaching and learning is an important part of increasing students’ readiness for participation in the global science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce (e.g., Miller et al., 2021; National Science Board, 2026; Smith et al., 2021).
This Special Issue, “Engaging Students to Transform Tertiary Mathematics Education,” compiles research focused on engaging students in tertiary mathematics education transformation efforts. This topic is especially timely, as institutions are currently facing growing pressures (both internal and external) to better engage students in learning. Most transformation efforts neglect to include students as partners, making potential changes less effective and less sustainable. This Special Issue comprises eight articles, which can be grouped into three distinct categories as follows:
(1)
Several authors focused on how to improve student engagement and feelings of belonging while decreasing student mathematics anxiety and STEM major dropout likelihood. Bolick et al. (2026) studied student belonging, employing a “students as partners” framework that involved students as equal members in a networked improvement community. The authors found that student member perceptions of belonging, agency, and influence changed positively over time. Griffin (2026) surveyed women in tertiary calculus courses to better understand the intersectional factors that contribute to women’s feelings of belonging in STEM majors. Finally, Etherington et al. (2026) shared how a set of bespoke, online numeracy modules supported student engagement and confidence in their tertiary mathematics courses. They found that students valued the immediate feedback and reframing of errors as part of the learning process.
(2)
Several authors examined ways of improving equitable tertiary mathematics teaching through (1) understanding what makes for effective professional development for graduate student instructors, and (2) developing a student survey to capture the enactment of high-impact instructional practices. Yu et al. (2026) created an equity-focused professional development program for graduate student instructors and then studied which aspects of the program most influenced instructors’ learning. Laursen and Archie (2025) developed a set of survey items, as well as a compound measure based on those items, to capture student observations of instructor practices in tertiary mathematics courses. Laursen and Archie found the student measure aligned with instructor surveys and course observations, providing a valuable look at student perceptions of high impact instructional practices.
(3)
Several authors applied various learning theories to datasets to better understand the impact of improvement efforts. Bennett et al.’s (2026) longitudinal study of networked improvement communities used second-generation Cultural Historical Activity Theory to understand the relationships among objects, tools, and outcomes for the community. Mokhithi et al. (2026) studied student experiences in Mathematical Thinking Workshops, examining student interviews through multiple theoretical lenses, namely, Zone of Proximal Development, Action–Process–Object–Schema, Cognitive Load Theory, and Constructivism. These lenses were included because, too often, learning theories are not empirically tested against student experiences, particularly in the case of students in the Global South. Mokhithi et al. propose context-based refinements of these theories to better capture the nuances and contradictions in student experiences in South Africa. Mokhithi and Campbell (2026) then used those learning theories to evaluate how well the Mathematical Thinking Workshop helped students make the transition from secondary to tertiary mathematics. Mokhithi and Campbell found that the workshop followed an “early gains, fading effect” pattern of student achievement, providing the biggest improvements for students facing higher-cognitive-demand tasks in their first tertiary mathematics course.
By collecting multiple perspectives on effectively engaging students in tertiary mathematics transformation efforts, this Special Issue provides both empirical evidence and practical implications for mathematics instructors, education researchers, and tertiary education policymakers. This collection of articles encourages the reader to consider how certain institutions are working to foster student engagement and feelings of belonging, while focusing on improving equitable teaching and applying relevant learning theories.
Future research should build on these studies, examining the different roles that students may take on as transformation partners. Policymakers are encouraged to institute clear expectations for people involved in institutional transformation efforts to intentionally and thoughtfully include students as partners in those efforts. Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand how to sustain transformation efforts, particularly with respect to structural and policy changes. More research is needed in international settings, particularly involving institutions in the Global South. Different countries have different educational traditions; thus, we would expect different solutions to work in different contexts. More surveys and other data collection instruments are needed to help measure the impacts of various transformation efforts. Mathematics education researchers have historically neglected to draw sufficiently on theories of change (e.g., Reinholz & Andrews, 2020) and to craft validity arguments for the use and interpretation of such instruments (e.g., Bostic et al., 2019; Carney et al., 2025). Finally, in this era of generative artificial intelligence engines, which are constantly evolving, research is needed on how such tools may be used to ethically contribute to institutional transformation efforts to improve tertiary mathematics teaching and learning.
We would like to thank all the authors for submitting their papers to this Special Issue. We would also like to acknowledge all the reviewers for their careful and timely reviews, which helped ensure the quality of this Special Issue.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, W.M.S.; writing—review and editing, W.M.S., A.B.B., R.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This editorial received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Apkarian, N., Henderson, C., Stains, M., Raker, J., Johnson, E., & Dancy, M. (2021). What really impacts the use of active learning in undergraduate STEM education? Results from a national survey of chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors. PLoS ONE, 16(2), e0247544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Bennett, A. B., Funk, R., Callahan, K. M., Courtney, J., & Smith, W. M. (2026). Pathways to critical transformations: The story of a networked improvement community in mathematics as an activity system. Education Sciences, 16, 683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Bolick, M. A., Pai, L., Bundy, A. M., Callahan, K. M., Hurley, A., Shah, S., Lee, G., Smith, M., Voigt, M., Sisneros-Thiry, S., & Funk, R. (2026). Cultivating belonging through longitudinal engagement: Shifts in student motivation, competence, and agency in a networked improvement community. Education Sciences, 16, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Bostic, J., Krupa, E., & Shih, J. (2019). Quantitative measures of mathematical knowledge: Researching instruments and perspectives. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyle, F. A., Buchanan, F. M., Ritchie, D., & Gamage, K. A. A. (2024). Exploring staff-student partnership in curriculum design. Education Sciences, 14(1), 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Carney, M., Smith, W. M., Howell, H., Bharaj, P., Smith, J., & Kersting, N. (2025). Characterizing teacher knowledge tests and their use in the mathematics education literature. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 56(4), 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Cronin, A., Moore-Russo, D., Bjorkman, K., & Mills, M. (2025). A synthesis of mathematical departmental change efforts: Framing, foci, and future opportunities. PRIMUS, 34(4–5), 571–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Etherington, S., Callan, N., Hui Koh, S., Maker, G., Bennett, R., & Warburton, N. (2026). Bespoke, relevant, and inclusive self-paced, online modules to build tertiary mathematics engagement and confidence. Education Sciences, 16, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. 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 of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Griffin, C. (2026). Women’s perspectives on factors that most impacted their sense of belonging in undergraduate active learning calculus. Education Sciences, 16, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy. Available online: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/engagement_through_partnership.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2026).
  12. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Koch, A. (2025). Transforming the gateway course experience: A call to action for higher education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  14. Laursen, A., & Archie, T. (2025). Seeing the forest by seeing the trees: Using student surveys to measure instructional practices. Education Sciences, 15, 1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 15–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Miller, D., Deshler, J., McEldowney, T., Stewart, J., Fuller, E., Pascal, M., & Michaluk, L. (2021). Supporting student success and persistence in STEM with active learning approaches in emerging scholars classrooms. Frontiers in Education, 6, 667918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Mokhithi, M., & Campbell, A. (2026). Early gains, fading effects: A quasi-experimental evaluation of mathematical thinking workshops for the school-to-university mathematics transition in South Africa. Education Sciences, 16, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Mokhithi, M., Campbell, A., Shock, J., & Padayachee, P. (2026). From theory to practice, and back: Student evidence testing ZPD, APOS, CLT, and constructivism in mathematical thinking workshops. Education Sciences, 16, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. National Science Board. (2026). Science and engineering indicators 2026: STEM talent, education, training, and workforce. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Available online: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20261/ (accessed on 3 August 2026).
  20. Nguyen, K. A., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., DeMonbrun, M., Crockett, C., Tharayil, S., Shekhar, P., Waters, C., & Rosenberg, R. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Penuel, W. R., Riedy, R., Barber, M. S., Peurach, D. J., LeBoeuf, W. A., & Clark, T. (2020). Principles of collaborative education research with stakeholders: Toward requirements for a new research and development infrastructure. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 627–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What’s the difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, 7(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Smith, W. M., Voigt, M., Ström, A., Webb, D. C., & Martin, W. G. (Eds.). (2021). Transformational change efforts: Student engagement in mathematics through an institutional network for active learning. American Mathematical Society. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., 2nd, Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(12), 6476–6483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Yu, F., Pilgrim, M. E., & Quaisley, K. (2026). What makes equity-focused professional development effective? Insights from mathematics graduate teaching assistants. Education Sciences, 16, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Generative AI Adoption and Self-Reported Academic Integrity Risk: A Student Taxonomy in Latin American Higher Education
Previous
Critical Thinking in Science Education: Nurturing Inquiry, Socio-Scientific Issues, and Innovation
Next