Working Groups

With the rapid rise of generative AI tools, we suspect that there is much uncertainty among RUME scholars about the role that these tools should or could take in our work. As these tools become more and more embedded into the tools that we are already using to complete research tasks (for example, the AI Assist add-on in MAXQDA, Microsoft 365 Copilot in Microsoft Products, and AI overview in the google search engine), how can we leverage the opportunities provided and manage the new risks?

This new working group aims to create space for a community discussion around the role of LLMs or Generative AI in the RUME research community. We want to work on developing norms around what ethical use looks like in different contexts and potentially different phases (ie grad school vs professional levels) of a scholar's career. Currently there appears to be a lot of disconnect shaped by individual experiences and opinions but not a lot of clear standards or guidance on what ethical use of Gen AI looks like in scholarly work. While some math education research journals do provide policy guidance on the use of AI much of this guidance is vague and they primarily focus on the writing process and not the broader use within research and scholarly work. We aim to begin a conversation both within the working group and by distributing a survey to understand the broader RUME communities beliefs, feelings and perceptions of AI use in research contexts. This is a separate conversation from research on AI use in undergraduate classroom contexts.

The working group session will begin with a short panel discussion featuring editors from various RUME journals, who will share insights into how their publications are approaching generative AI. Participants will then break into small groups to discuss two key questions: “What constitutes ethical AI use in RUME research?” and “What might best practices look like?” In the second half of the session, we will collaboratively refine a survey that we will deploy as a group during RUME and host a round of Lightning Talks. Each participant will have 3–5 minutes and one slide to share how they have used

(or chosen not to use) an AI tool in their research activities. We will conclude by identifying next steps for continuing this conversation beyond the conference.

Critical literacy can be described as understanding, analyzing, and leveraging text and media as reflection of power in socio-political systems (e.g. Cadiero-Kaplan). Critical literacy in mathematics has been part of the socio-political turn in K-12 mathematics education (i.e. Gutiérrez 2013). As such its place in the undergraduate community has been centered on preservice teacher education (e.g. Kyser et al 2016). This conversation is also related to the use of QuantCrit as a framework for quantitative research (e.g. Castillo and Gillborn 2023). Awareness of and use of QuantCrit as a framework in research is now more common in the DBER community, but our proposal is also grounded by similar approaches in the Data Science for Social Justice community (Jones et al 2023) and in emerging conversations in the mathematical biology community. Therefore we propose to consider these frameworks in mathematical scholarship generally across subdisciplines. Rejecting the neutrality of mathematics may involve examining our assumptions and biases, the assumptions and biases of the models we create and work with, who we choose to work with, how we work, and more, with an understanding that this work is done in a socio-political context.

The overall goal of this working group is to ultimately identify research quality assessment instruments that can be used to understand progress towards critical literacy in mathematical practice. However, we suspect that first, we may need to create a shared and refined understanding about what critical literacy in mathematical practice is. We intend this as an active collaboration working group. After a short introduction of the goals, background, and format, the remainder of the working group time will be used to co-construct knowledge. We will share examples, references, and research that will help us come to a shared understanding of critical literacy applied in the context of doing mathematics. We will then pivot to conversations on the assessment of this shared definition.

In this returning working group, participants will work with colleagues across RUME (Research

in Undergraduate Mathematics Education) to learn about what research has been published

around the use of technology in undergraduate mathematics teaching and learning and

brainstorm how to design new studies. For this group, the term technology will be used broadly

to mean any tools that are connected to computers and calculators. Specific breakdowns into

categories may include online synchronous teaching and learning, online asynchronous teaching

and learning, digital tools for mathematical student learning in general (including in-person

teaching), using computer programming for mathematical learning, using technology in the

social context of learning (e.g., digital didactic objects), technology in statistics and data science

education, and other categories that might emerge as the working group comes together.

Participants may bring their own ideas and proposals for research in technology to share and

discuss. Graduate students and early researchers are encouraged to participate. The results of the

working group will include ongoing collaborations among the participants, plans for addressing

gaps in the research, and disseminating to researchers and practitioners what work has been

published and what is to come.

In this working group we want to (re)convene researchers and educators interested in understanding the scope of research that can be pursued with Indigenous communities on aspects of mathematics teaching, learning, curriculum, and professional development. A secondary goal of this group is to develop a network of scholars who are interested in advancing research on these areas and who are pursuing or planning to start projects with a focus on Indigenous communities in the United States, the Americas, and internationally. This year’s iteration of the working group will continue to integrate the contexts of Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) into research on mathematics education.

This working group brings together researchers who focus on teaching and learning in community college mathematics. Supported through past working group sessions at RUME (2012-2020, 2022-2025) and committee work within AMATYC (2009-2019), a growing group of faculty (6 faculty in 2009 to more than 40 to-date), has been collaborating to advance a national agenda and create a network of community college mathematics education research. The work from the 2019 conference devoted part of the time to brainstorming and editing at the 2020 conference for Spring 2020 final submissions. This work resulted in at least 18 submission ideas for a special issue of the MathAMATYC educator with and the publication of 8 research articles. Multiple collaborative research proposals were envisioned and submitted for funding after the 2020 conference. As a result of the 2022 conference, a subgroup of 22 working group members have also been meeting regularly to discuss how definitions of “college level” mathematics could be reconceptualized. Over the past three years, collaboration at the conference working group has originated several groups working to produce original research on topics such as mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) community college algebra courses, trauma-informed pedagogies in mathematics, transferability of mathematics courses, and neurodiversity in undergraduate mathematics courses.

We propose to leverage the RUME working group session to continue to grow the network of community college mathematics faculty, university research faculty, and doctoral students working to develop and disseminate research on and with community college mathematics stakeholders. We welcome new working group participants who are seeking to conduct or are conducting research in mathematics teaching and learning within community colleges and are interested in advancing this agenda through collaborative or coordinated research projects and focused plans for the dissemination of research.

The focus for 2026 is to collaborate on: (1) continuation of research topics developed from previous years’ meetings (2) consideration of new research topics to reflect participants’ current priorities; (3) creation and expansion of collaborations between returning and new members of the group; and (4) further development our interprofessional organization collaborations for future conferences and special publications focused on community college mathematics research.

This long-standing working group focuses on research on the professional development and growth of college mathematics instructors, regardless of their level of experience or expertise. Many current members have a particular interest in the professional growth of novice college teachers (e.g., graduate students in their first teaching roles). The group meets online periodically throughout the year and face-to-face at the RUME conference annually. The group’s goals, historically and currently, continue to drive the focus of annual meetings.

Working group time at the conference is structured to bring in researchers new to the field through a variety of scholarly activities: exploring and discussing literature, giving and receiving feedback on research projects that are in progress, brainstorming potential collaborations and mentoring relationships for both long- and short-term studies, and continuing to discuss issues central to the field and ways to address them. Participants in this group include researchers in all areas of the professional preparation, induction, and development of college mathematics instructors, from across institutional types. Research areas include, but are not limited to, factors that shape instructional practices and related professional learning activities, experiences of instructors as they attend to student thinking in their instruction, and changes in instructional orientations, planning, and practices as teaching experiences accumulate. Researchers need not present their own work to participate in the group and provide feedback to others. Dissemination from the group is broad, from publications aimed at education research audiences to practice-oriented college mathematics instructor and mathematician communities. What drives the working group is meeting the needs of its members. Working group facilitators have been involved in various related groups (e.g., MAA-AMS Joint Committee on Teaching Assistants and Part-Time Faculty, MAA Committee on Professional Development), have conducted grant-funded research in the area, and have presented at the Conference on RUME previously.

Education Research at the Interface of Mathematics and Science is an ongoing and long-standing working group at the RUME Conference that has served the role of making connections between researchers and topics across discipline-based education research (DBER). We seek to facilitate discussions that have broad, cross-disciplinary relevance while building collaborations for future research. This year the working group will focus on revisiting a report, referred to as the DBER Report, released by the National Research Council in 2012. In the original report, a summary was provided regarding the current state of undergraduate education research across disciplinary fields. As part of this, suggestions were made regarding how we as researchers can move our fields forward, including areas of research that are understudied. Given the report was released nearly fifteen years ago, we seek to facilitate a conversation regarding how our respective DBER fields have collectively and individually responded to the calls for change in the report. As part of this we use the following questions as a starting point: (1) How has your field changed within the last fifteen years? (2) What are some ways that your field has responded to gaps in research identified in the report? (3) How can we catalyze change within and across our fields? (4) What can we learn from the ways other fields have approached research? (5) What are some areas of inquiry that are needed that have emerged recently or were not identified in the report? In our working group, we seek to address these questions from different perspectives, drawing on the experience and expertise of RUME participants from science and mathematics. Providing opportunities for small-group and whole-group discussion, the working group will identify areas of future inquiry, as well as resources and structures for supporting researchers.

Inspired by the meaningful discussions and contributions from last year’s Ethics in Research in Graduate Mathematics Education (RGME) working group session, we envision this year’s session as a continued space and community for those interested in RGME. Despite the relevance of graduate education to mathematics and mathematics education, it remains under-researched compared to undergraduate mathematics education. Since the RGME working group’s inception in 2023, interest in this area has grown among both researchers and practitioners. However, there remain few formal research venues (or “homes”) for this work to develop in a sustained way. This working group aims to continue cultivating a supportive space for collaboration on research-driven approaches to improving postsecondary mathematics education.

Last year’s featured panel centered on ethical questions that should guide RGME and inform our research approaches. During that panel conversation, Dr. Aris Winger brought forth an emergent idea to discuss amongst the RGME community: drafting a Graduate Bill of Rights (GBR) as an aspirational artifact articulating what mathematics graduate students deserve, first as people, then as students, mathematicians, and professionals. This idea also holds potential to inspire and guide future research. Drawing on Donna Hicks’s (2011; 2018) concepts of dignity consciousness (how individuals want to be treated) and dignity in action (how we embody and uphold dignity in practice), we propose using the GBR as a touchstone for RGME inquiry, one flexible enough to support a range of research lenses and topics, yet focused enough to unify the group’s efforts. The GBR can serve as a dynamic, evolving framework connecting research, practice, and advocacy, highlighting areas where the field must grow while allowing research to iteratively shape the GBR as a living document.

We ground our efforts around key questions: How can we articulate graduate students’ rights in ways that affirm their inherent dignity, not only as future scholars but as people? How can drafting a GBR spark new research questions, inform institutional practices, and provide a foundation for advocacy? This year’s working group includes: (1) a Q&A panel with graduate students and various members of the graduate education community and institutional partners (e.g., advisors, union representatives, department chairs), (2) breakout sessions for sharing research and building connections, (3) a presentation and discussion on current efforts to support graduate students and begin drafting the GBR, and (4) collaboration time for focused discussion, mentoring, feedback, and continued development of the GBR and related research.

This working group solicits individuals interested in learning about and pursuing research on the teaching and learning of undergraduate stochastics—statistics, probability, and data science. This includes research interests pertaining to, but not limited to, the theoretical analysis and/or empirical investigation of introductory and advanced courses in these fields. In addition to these strands of research we welcome those researchers who work in the space of stochastics education pertaining to pre-service and in-service teacher (K-12) courses oriented as well as courses aimed at preparing graduate students to teach in these fields. Further, we encourage individuals interested in problem spaces shared between the undergraduate mathematics, stochastics (statistics, probability, and data science), and computer science communities to consider taking part in the working group.

With growing enrollments in Statistics, Probability and Data Science courses and the increasing demand for a data-skilled workforce, there is a need for research into how students think and learn about concepts and practices in these fields. Often, researchers interested in these areas are isolated. This working group provides a means for those researchers interested in statistics and data science education to come together to share their knowledge and ideas, while building a lasting community dedicated to moving the research field of statistics and data science education forward. Such collaborations may inform the practices and research agendas in all communities.

Join us as our community grows. We are a small and supportive group and want to help anyone with an interest in statistics and data science education.