By Dave Kung
Change is hard, especially for us humans. As much as we want to believe that we evaluate options on their merits, the truth is that we are deeply conservative (small “c”), regularly defaulting to the status quo.
Change at scale is even harder. Policy experts posit that real tectonic plate shifts require three streams to be aligned:
- Agreement that there is a problem and what that problem is.
- A viable solution — one that is widely seen as being capable of addressing the problem.
- Feasibility – an alignment of forces to overcome the pull of the status quo.
By this framework, introductory college mathematics should be ripe for transformation. All three streams are now in place.
The Problem: A Barrier, Not a Gateway
Introductory mathematics constitutes the biggest academic barrier to student success. Courses up to and including Calculus carry some of the highest DFW (grade of D, F, or Withdraw – sometimes Incomplete grades are included) rates – across all of higher ed, including across research institutions. For students from groups historically under-supported by our community – students we most need to support and retain – those rates are even worse. Introductory mathematics, the course meant to open doors, has too often functioned as a barrier.
This isn't just a problem for individual students. It weakens the STEM pipeline, undermines degree attainment, and undercuts the promise we make to every student who walks through our institutions’ doors.
The Solution: We Already Know What Works
Fortunately, we already know a lot about solving the intro math problem. Decades of research and practice have produced a clear picture of what moves the needle for students in introductory mathematics:
- Active learning that engages students rather than having them passively listen – exactly what the MAA’s Instructional Practices guide and Project NExT have been pushing for decades.
- Math Pathways that align intro math courses with students' aspirations.
- Student supports include corequisite support courses that replace lengthy developmental sequences, getting students into college-level work faster.
- Robust course coordination that provides high-quality materials to all instructors, supports them in their use, and ensures a fairer student experience.
- Tech-enabled curriculum that gives students real-time feedback.
- Alternative assessment that gives students multiple attempts to demonstrate the knowledge and gives them incentives to continue learning.
- Attention to the affective dimensions of learning: belonging, confidence, and a growth mindset.
- Use of data to provide instructors actionable insight into where students need more support.
None of these practices are revolutionary – and none is a silver bullet. Many departments have piloted one or more of them. The challenge has been to implement innovations consistently, at scale, across the institutions that shape national norms.
The Feasibility: A New Lever for Change
This is where things get interesting. Historically, introductory courses at research universities were controlled by tenure-track faculty whose incentive structures — reasonable, given how academic careers work — prioritized research. Teaching reform was, at best, a side project. There was no reliable mechanism for change to take hold and spread.
That landscape has shifted. The rise of teaching-focused faculty (TFF) — full-time, professionally committed instructors who now run introductory mathematics programs at most research institutions — has made change more likely. These are the dedicated faculty who train and coordinate the graduate students, adjuncts, postdocs, and other instructors who staff our introductory classrooms. They are invested in student success. They think deeply about pedagogy (many are Project NExTers). They are, in many ways, already doing the work.
What they have often lacked is institutional backing, connection to a broader community of reformers, and the structures needed to turn local efforts into lasting change. That's the gap Project EMBER is designed to fill.
Introducing Project EMBER
Project EMBER — Eliminating Mathematics Barriers through Evidence-based Reforms — is a national initiative that aims to solve the introductory math problem by elevating teaching-focused faculty, connecting them across institutions, leveraging institutional support, providing tools to catalyze change, and connecting them with experts in research-based innovations. Started by an National Science Foundation grant to the MAA (DUE #2333132), EMBER has now received additional NSF support (FAIN #2440012) and multiple grants from private philanthropy.
How EMBER Works
The EMBER model is built around cross-functional teams at each institution, the sort of groups needed to implement changes in a systemic way. Those groups include teaching-focused faculty working alongside departmental leadership and institutional leaders. That vertical integration ensures that TFF will be working in concert with departmental and institutional leaders – and with sufficient resources. TFF are grounded in the classroom, have knowledge of instructors and students, and demonstrate pedagogical expertise. Departmental leaders provide the support of their departments, including research faculty, and sway with key institutional offices (e.g., institutional research, registrar). Institutional leaders provide alignment with institutional goals and access to resources and data – and signal that this work has real priority.
At its core, EMBER is a community — and it's already a substantial one. Nearly 450 teaching-focused faculty have joined the EMBER network, connecting with peers across the country who share a commitment to student success in introductory mathematics.
At the institutional level, the process begins with building the right team. Each participating institution assembles a cross-functional team that will allow innovations to stick rather than stall. From there, the team conducts a structured self-assessment — an honest look at where the institution currently stands across the dimensions of evidence-based practice. What's already working? Where are the gaps? What does the data say about student outcomes, and for which students? That self-assessment becomes the foundation for an action plan tailored to the institution's specific context and goals — not a one-size-fits-all checklist, but a roadmap built from a clear-eyed look at local reality.
Institutions don't navigate that process alone. EMBER's national network is organized into communities of practice built around specific innovations. When your team is deep in the work of implementing active pedagogy or rolling out new courseware, you'll have direct access to colleagues at peer institutions who have been there, made mistakes, and figured out how to work collaboratively with chairs and administrators.
Why Research Institutions?
It's a fair question. Community colleges serve nearly 40% of college-going students - including a disproportionate number of Black, Latinx and first-generation students. Why focus on research universities?
The answer is about leverage and culture change. Research institutions shape the cultural norms of the mathematical sciences. They train the next generation of faculty — and the graduate students who pass through their introductory programs carry those experiences forward. When flagship institutions shift their practices, the ripple effects move through the entire system: to branch campuses, to smaller schools, to the community colleges whose students aspire to transfer to four-year institutions. We aim to implement reforms at research universities not as a replacement for broader change, but as a catalyst for it.
Get involved
Are you a teaching-focused faculty member coordinating an introductory course or training TAs and post-docs? This initiative was designed (with some of your peers) to elevate and support you and your work. Are you a department chair who has wondered how to build on the energy of reform-minded colleagues? We are offering up a structure that can help. Are you an administrator who desperately wants to engage with your math department to improve student outcomes? We can help make that happen.
In the coming weeks, the three organizations that run EMBER (TPSE Math, APLU, and UERU) will be unveiling a set of tools. The EMBER Guidebook is designed to help departments chart a path forward. EMBER’s Innovation Overviews provide quick snapshots of research-based innovations. The EMBER Self-Assessment tool is designed to prompt the internal conversations needed to diagnose issues and begin to address them.
Although the window to join other institutions in sharing student success data has closed, an opportunity for eight research universities to get personalized support is coming shortly. To stay in the loop, sign up for EMBER updates. And encourage your teaching-focused faculty (especially those at research institutions) to join the conversations at the EMBER community.
The three streams are aligned: the problem is clear, the solutions are known, and with the rise of teaching-focused faculty, the time is right. Working together we can improve students’ experiences in our introductory courses.
Dr. Dave Kung has worked in the intersection of mathematics and equity for three decades. He served as the Director of Policy at the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin, and as Director of MAA Project NExT. He also works closely with K-12 and higher ed organizations, especially concentrating on equity issues in mathematics. Kung was awarded the Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award, the MAA’s highest award in college math teaching, for his work at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. He resides there, serving as Executive Director of Transforming Post-Secondary Education in Mathematics (TPSE Math) and working as an independent consultant, as well as playing violin and running–never simultaneously, but sometimes alongside his partner and daughter. The views expressed in this column are Dave’s alone and do not represent those of any organizations he works with or for.
Also follow Dave Kung on: