UC San Diego

This study explored how and why mathematicians use evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) in advanced collegiate mathematics (ACM), courses beyond calculus that are often proof-based. In undergraduate mathematics, traditional lecturing remains dominant (Johnson et al., 2018; Stains et al., 2018) despite decades of research indicating that EBIPs such as active learning improve student success (Freeman et al., 2014; Theobald et al., 2020). While much prior research has examined factors that influence faculty adoption of EBIPs, particularly in introductory courses (e.g., Apkarian et al.,2021), less attention has been given to why faculty choose to use EBIPs in ACM, how they persist in using them, and why they use them in the ways they do. This study addresses this gap by examining these three questions. To address these questions, six tenure-track mathematics faculty were recruited from three four-year universities in the Southwestern United States, with two participants from each institution. Data were collected through multiple semi-structured interviews and stimulated recall interviews grounded in video-recorded classroom observations. Semi-structured interviews elicited instructors' motivations and factors contributing to their persistence, while stimulated recall interview data provided detailed accounts of EBIP implementation and instructors' reasoning behind their instructional choices. A two-cycle qualitative coding approach (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) was used to analyze the data.Findings revealed that mathematicians' use of EBIPs was driven by a core motivation to ensure meaningful learning occurs during class, rooted in the belief that students learn mathematics by actively engaging in it, particularly when they are unlikely to do so independently outside of class. Participants also came to value how EBIPs foster supportive learning environments and make student thinking visible, enabling real-time instructional adjustments. Prior exposure to EBIPs and departmental and collegial support made EBIPs feel viable, though these functioned as enabling rather than motivating factors. At the same time, participants encountered challenges related to content coverage, logistical constraints, and student resistance. Participants persisted by adapting their approaches, for example by switching to a different EBIP or modifying their implementation of the same one. These adaptations were supported by positive experiences using EBIPs, collegial support, and shifts in how participants framed the challenges they encountered. In practice, participants were generally observed using EBIPs in one of two ways: lecture followed by group work, or lecture interspersed with activities. However, participants’ varied goals, orientations, and resources shaped how and why these practices were used.By centering mathematicians' existing reasons for using EBIPs, this work points toward more effective, discipline-specific support for EBIP adoption in mathematics that engages directly with instructors' motivations. In this way, this study contributes to broader efforts to understand and sustain instructional change in undergraduate mathematics.