Many tertiary mathematics departments are seeking to improve equity in their programs; however, they may struggle to translate these goals for equity into action. This longitudinal, qualitative study focuses on a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) within the mathematics department at a public, doctoral degree-granting university located in the Southeast United States. This NIC worked together for two years (Spring 2023 to Spring 2025) to become more reflective practitioners and critically transform the mathematics program at their institution. We used Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to examine relationships between objects, tools, and outcomes for the NIC. Data included multiple interviews and journals from eleven (n = 11) participants, and was triangulated with observer field notes of monthly NIC meetings. Thematic analysis revealed three pathways that connected NIC members’ individual and collective goals (objects), NIC activities and resources (tools), and NIC members’ perspectives on teaching and students (outcomes). We found that sometimes objects, mediated by tools, led to aligned outcomes, but not always. Specific tools could lead the NIC to adopt a new and collective object (and outcome). In other cases, the lack of the right tool led to unrealized outcomes or even secondary outcomes within the NIC. Ultimately, the critical transformations that NIC members envisioned were not realized; however, the experience of examining student data and discussing with colleagues shaped their thinking about teaching and students in impactful ways that inform faculty development for institutional change efforts on a broader scale. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying the right tools to support critical transformation, including the value of examining data as a collaborative group. We also extend NIC scholarship by using second-generation CHAT to distinguish objects over time and specify pathway models linking tools to outcomes.
Bennett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: