Calculus Reform. Or, as many would prefer, calculus renewal. These are terms that, for better or worse, have become a part of the vocabulary in mathematics departments across the country. The movement to change the nature of the calculus course at the undergraduate and secondary levels has sparked discussion and controversy in ways as diverse as the actual changes. Such interactions range from "coffee pot conversations" to university curriculum committee agendas to special sessions on calculus renewal at regional and national conferences. But what is the significance of these activities? Where have we been and where are we going with calculus and, more importantly, the entire scope of undergraduate mathematics education? In April 1996, I received a fellowship from the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This fellowship afforded me the opportunity to work in residence at NSF on a number of evaluation projects, including the national impact of the calculus reform movement since 1988. That project resulted in countless communications with the mathematics community and others about the status of calculus as a course in isolation and as a significant player in the overall undergraduate mathematics and science experience for students (and faculty). While at NSF (and through a second NSF grant received while at the American Association for Higher Education), I also was part of an evaluation project for the Institution-wide Reform (IR) program.

It doesn't matter whether you teach a reform or traditional course, whether you have large or small sections, or whether you use lectures or laboratories. The bottom line is the same: When all is said and done, what counts is what our students understand. And that's what Student Assessment in Calculus is about. - Back cover.

Economic, academic, and social forces are causing undergraduate schools to start a fresh examination of teaching effectiveness. Administrators face the complex task of developing equitable, predictable ways to evaluate, encourage, and reward good teaching in science, math, engineering, and technology. Evaluating, and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics offers a vision for systematic evaluation of teaching practices and academic programs, with recommendations to the various stakeholders in higher education about how to achieve change. What is good undergraduate teaching? This book discusses how to evaluate undergraduate teaching of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology and what characterizes effective teaching in these fields. Why has it been difficult for colleges and universities to address the question of teaching effectiveness? The committee explores the implications of differences between the research and teaching cultures-and how practices in rewarding researchers could be transferred to the teaching enterprise. How should administrators approach the evaluation of individual faculty members? And how should evaluation results be used? The committee discusses methodologies, offers practical guidelines, and points out pitfalls. Evaluating, and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics provides a blueprint for institutions ready to build effective evaluation programs for teaching in science fields.

The collection of 72 articles offers the mathematics teacher suggestions for assessing testing and grading, teaching efficacy, how departments place students into courses, the effectiveness of the major, and the quantitative literacy of the graduating students. Lacks an index. Annotation c. Book New

Contains abstracts of innovative projects designed to improve undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Descriptions are organized by discipline and include projects in: astronomy, biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, geological sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences, as well as a selection of interdisciplinary projects. Each abstract includes a description of the project, published and other instructional materials, additional products of the project, and information on the principal investigator and participating institutions.