Program Evaluation and Undergraduate Mathematics Renewal

The Impact of Calculus Reform on Student Performance in Subsequent Courses
  • Jack Bookman


Educational research and research with human subjects must, by its nature, be flawed—at least in comparison with the standards set by scientific research. Program evaluation, in particular, must deal with complex and difficult-to-control situations. Therefore, conclusions from such research must be tentative and qualified. Some argue that because of this complexity and ambiguity, program evaluation is not worth doing. However, program evaluation—flawed as it is—can provide valuable insight into what a program has accomplished and what components have contributed to or impeded its success.1 This chapter will address a particular aspect of the evaluation of current calculus reform efforts, namely, the effect of calculus reform on student performance in subsequent courses. It will summarize the findings from several studies on this subject and will address the corresponding methodological difficulties.


Program Evaluation Grade Point Average Student Performance Mathematical Association Computational Skill 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. Stevens, F. Lawrenz, and L. Sharp, User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education ( National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. C. Tucker and J. R. C. Leitzel, Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. L. Ganter, Ten Years of Cakulus Reform: A report on evaluation efforts and national impact (Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, in press).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W J. Popham, Educational Evaluation ( Prentice—Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. L. Baxter, D. Majumdar, and S. D. Smith, “Subsequent-Grades Assessment of Traditional and Reform Calculus,” PRIMUS (in press).Google Scholar
  6. D. Hughes-Hallett, A. Gleason, et al., Cakulus (Wiley, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. H. Alexander, “An Investigation of the Results of a Change in Calculus Instruction at the University of Arizona,” 1997, unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Boolunan and C. R Friedman, “Final Report: Evaluation of Project CALC 1989–1993; 1994, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Boolcman and C. P Friedman, The Evaluation of Project CALC at Duke University 1989–1994. (Mathematical Association of America’s Notes Series, in press).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Boolcman and C. P. Friedman, in E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, and J. Kaput (eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education I (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1994) 101— 116.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. A. Smith and L. C. Moore, in T. W Tucker (ed.), Priming the Cakulus Pump: Innovations and Resources ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1990 ) 51–74.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. A. Smith and L. C. Moore, in L. C. Leinbach (ed.), The Laboratoly Approach to Teaching Cakulus, ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1990 ) 81–92.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Bookman and C. R Friedman, “Student Attitudes and Calculus Reform,” School Science and Mathematics (March 1998): 117–122.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, Effective Evaluation ( Jossey—Bass, San Francisco, 1981 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Bookman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations