Crossing the Discipline Boundaries to Improve Undergraduate Mathematics Education

  • James H. LightbourneIII
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to indicate how changes occurring in under-graduate science and engineering education can inform and support improvement in undergraduate mathematics education. Reports and discussions on education in sessions at national and professional society meetings have common themes and findings across the various disciplines. However, there is not much exchange of information across these discipline boundaries. Similarly, visiting college campuses, one frequently finds mathematics faculty who have more in common in terms of their views and practices to improve undergraduate education with faculty in physics, for example, than colleagues in the mathematics department. This lack of communication and collaboration across discipline boundaries results in missed opportunities that would benefit mathematics departments and mathematics education.

Keywords

Engineering Education Undergraduate Education Discipline Boundary Mathematical Association Chemistry Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, NSF 96–139, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaping the Future, Volume II: Perspectives for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathe-matics, Engineering, and Technology (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, NSF 98–128,1998).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. G. Douglas (ed.), Toward a Lean and Lively Calculus, MAA Notes No. 6 ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. C. Tucker and J. R. C. Leitzel, Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W E. Haver (ed.), Cakulus: Catalyzing a National Community for Reform ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1998 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Innovation and Change in the Chemishy Curriculum (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, NSF 94–19,1994).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. F. W Ireton, C. A. Manduca, and D. W Mogk, Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Earth Science Education ( American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1997 ).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, NSF 95–65,1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engineering Criteria 2000,Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. C. McDermott and F. Redish, “Resource Letter on Physics Education Research,” preprint.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. E Redish and R. N. Steinberg, “Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works,” Physics Today 52 (1999): 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhanuner, “Force Concept Inventory,” Physics Teacher 30 (1992): 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, American Journal of Physics 66(1998):64— 74.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Science Teaching Reconsidered.. A Handbook (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. LightbourneIII

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations