2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

We have recognized for over 50 years that mathematics instruction disconnected from everyday life is a critical curricula issue (Warshauer, 2015, Kartono et al., 2019) and is the reason that students have been asking the same, frustrating question, “When will I ever use this?” Theoretically-based math instruction adds to math anxiety and decreases confidence, resulting in fewer students pursuing STEM pathways (Kolb, 2015), compounding the problem of STEM degree completion (Hill et al., 2017).

This poster describes a mixed methods evaluation study that explored the implementation and outcomes of mathematics labs in a Midwestern two-year college with the support of an NSF Advancing Innovation and Impact in STEM Education at Two-Year Institutions grant. This open admission urban community college, the third-largest in the state and among the largest in the nation, serves about 25,000 students annually, including a high percentage of low-income and first-generation students.

This study explored the question: “What is the effect of math labs on the learning environment and student attitudes about mathematics in College Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus 1?” The team created, tested, and finalized over 30 labs for in-person and online learning that address how the first, second, and third derivative are related to each other. Students program robots and in one lab analyze the Back to the Future flux capacitor.

Use of labs increased from three to 24 faculty with the majority offering positive feedback and high confidence about labs. Faculty agreed that labs include sufficient instructions and scaffolding and cover necessary class content. Faculty described lively interactions, with students supporting each other in learning, building community, and working together to learn.

In the three courses, 3,879 students participated in labs. The vast majority who participated in the evaluation held positive views of the labs. Students across the three courses were equally likely to agree that the labs were interesting (F(2, 339)=2.68, p=.07), helped them learn math (F(2, 339)=2.26, p=.11), helped them get a good grade (F(2, 338)=0.80, p=.45), offered an enjoyable group experience (F(2, 329)=1.75, p=.18), and were a good use of class time (F(2, 337)=0.83, p=.44). Students appreciated the opportunities for collaboration, hands-on learning, and integration of technology. Participants more strongly agreed with the statement, “I like math” after the course (n=402, mean=2.8) than at the start (n=946, mean=2.7; F(1, 1346)=4.2, p=.040). They also more strongly agreed with the statement, “I understand how the math I learn in this course applies in the real world” after the course (n=410, mean=2.8) than at the start (n=969, mean=2.7; F(1, 1379)=15.7, p<.001). In the 2025-2026 year, all sections of the three courses include mathematics labs.

This poster will share information about how to access the labs, professional learning for faculty, and how this project has been extended into the college’s dual enrollment strategy.

References

Hill, P.W., McQuillan, J., Spiegel, A.N., and Diamond, J. (2017). Discovery orientation, cognitive schemas, and disparities in science identity in early adolescence. Sociological Perspectives 61(1), 99–125.

Kartono, K., Arumsasi, P. D., & Mariani, S. (2019). Analysis of students’ mathematical reflective thinking on problem based learning (PBL) based from learning styles. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 34-41.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Strategies to support productive struggle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(7), 390-393.