As requested by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Interagency Committee for Extramural Mathematics Programs (ICEMAP), this report updates the 1984 Report known as the "David Report." Specifically, the charge directed the committee to (1) update that report, describing the infrastructure and support for U.S. mathematical sciences research; (2) assess trends and progress over the intervening five years against the recommendations of the 1984 Report; (3) briefly assess the field scientifically and identify significant opportunities for research, including cross-disciplinary collaboration; and (4) make appropriate recommendations designed to ensure that U.S. mathematical sciences research will meet national needs in coming years. Of the several components of the mathematical sciences community requiring action, its wellspring--university research departments--is the primary focus of this report. The progress and promise of research--described in the 1984 Report relative to theoretical development, new applications, and the refining and deepening of old applications--have if anything increased since 1984, making mathematics research ever more valuable to other sciences and technology. Although some progress has been made since 1984 in the support for mathematical sciences research, the goals set in the 1984 Report have not been achieved. Practically all of the increase in funding has gone into building the infractructure, which had deteriorated badly by 1984. While graduate and postdoctoral research, computer facilities, and new institutes have benefited from increased resources, some of these areas are still undersupported by the standards of other sciences. And in the area of research support for individual investigators, almost no progress has been made. A critical storage of qualified mathematical sciences researchers still looms, held at bay for the moment by a large influx of foreign researchers, an uncertain solution in the longer term. While government has responded substantially to the 1984 Report's recommendations, particularly in the support of infrastructure, the universities generally have not, so that the academic foundations of the mathematical sciences research enterprise are as shaky now as in 1984. The greatet progress has been made in the mathematics sciences community, whose members have shown a growing awareness of the problems confronting their discipline and increased interest in dealing with the problems, particularly in regard to communication with the public and government agencies and involvement in education. (AA)

As requested by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Interagency Committee for Extramural Mathematics Programs (ICEMAP), this report updates the 1984 Report known as the "David Report." Specifically, the charge directed the committee to (1) update that report, describing the infrastructure and support for U.S. mathematical sciences research; (2) assess trends and progress over the intervening five years against the recommendations of the 1984 Report; (3) briefly assess the field scientifically and identify significant opportunities for research, including cross-disciplinary collaboration; and (4) make appropriate recommendations designed to ensure that U.S. mathematical sciences research will meet national needs in coming years. Of the several components of the mathematical sciences community requiring action, its wellspring--university research departments--is the primary focus of this report. The progress and promise of research--described in the 1984 Report relative to theoretical development, new applications, and the refining and deepening of old applications--have if anything increased since 1984, making mathematics research ever more valuable to other sciences and technology. Although some progress has been made since 1984 in the support for mathematical sciences research, the goals set in the 1984 Report have not been achieved. Practically all of the increase in funding has gone into building the infractructure, which had deteriorated badly by 1984. While graduate and postdoctoral research, computer facilities, and new institutes have benefited from increased resources, some of these areas are still undersupported by the standards of other sciences. And in the area of research support for individual investigators, almost no progress has been made. A critical storage of qualified mathematical sciences researchers still looms, held at bay for the moment by a large influx of foreign researchers, an uncertain solution in the longer term. While government has responded substantially to the 1984 Report's recommendations, particularly in the support of infrastructure, the universities generally have not, so that the academic foundations of the mathematical sciences research enterprise are as shaky now as in 1984. The greatet progress has been made in the mathematics sciences community, whose members have shown a growing awareness of the problems confronting their discipline and increased interest in dealing with the problems, particularly in regard to communication with the public and government agencies and involvement in education. (AA)

This report is the result of a fast-track study of U.S. mathematical sciences research institutes done in response to a request from the National Science Foundation (NSF). The task of the Committee on U.S. Mathematical Sciences Research Institutes was to address the following three questions: What are the characteristic features of effective mathematical sciences research institutes in the ways that they further mathematical research in the United States, and are there ways that the current configuration can be improved? What kinds of institutes should there be in the United States, and how many does the nation need? How should U.S. mathematical sciences research institutes be configured (with regard to, for example, diversity of operating formats, distribution of mathematical fields, and interinstitute cooperation or coordination) in order to have the nation's mathematical research enterprise continue to be most productive and successful?

This book describes the contributions of mathematics to the nation's advanced technology and to economic competitiveness. Examples from five industriesâ€"aircraft, petroleum, automotive, semiconductor, and telecommunicationsâ€"illustrate how mathematics enters into and improves industry. Mathematical Sciences, Technology, and Economic Competitiveness addresses these high-technology industries and breadth of mathematical endeavors in the United States as they materially contribute to the technology base from which innovation in these industries flows. The book represents a serious attempt by the mathematics community to bring about an awareness by policymakers of the pervasive influence of mathematics in everyday life.

Over the next decade, the mathematical community and the nation's colleges and unversities must restructure fundamentally the culture, content, and context of undergraduate mathematics. Acknowledging the weaknesses in the present college mathematics curriculum and the ways in which it is taught, this book cites exemplary programs that point the way toward achieving the same world-wide preeminence for mathematics education that the United States enjoys in mathematical research. Moving Beyond Myths sets forth ambitious goals for collegiate mathematics by the year 2000 and provides a sweeping plan of action to accomplish them. It calls on mathematics faculty, their departments, their professional societies, colleges and universities, and government agencies to do their parts to implement the plan, help the public move beyond commonly held myths about mathematics, and bring about a revitalization of undergraduate mathematics.

The mathematical sciences are part of nearly all aspects of everyday life-the discipline has underpinned such beneficial modern capabilities as Internet search, medical imaging, computer animation, numerical weather predictions, and all types of digital communications. The Mathematical Sciences in 2025 examines the current state of the mathematical sciences and explores the changes needed for the discipline to be in a strong position and able to maximize its contribution to the nation in 2025. It finds the vitality of the discipline excellent and that it contributes in expanding ways to most areas of science and engineering, as well as to the nation as a whole, and recommends that training for future generations of mathematical scientists should be re-assessed in light of the increasingly cross-disciplinary nature of the mathematical sciences. In addition, because of the valuable interplay between ideas and people from all parts of the mathematical sciences, the report emphasizes that universities and the government need to continue to invest in the full spectrum of the mathematical sciences in order for the whole enterprise to continue to flourish long-term.

A critical overview of the current debate and topical thinking on international comparative investigations in mathematics education. The contributors are all major figures in international comparisons in mathematics. The book highlights strengths and weaknesses in various systems worldwide, allowing teachers, researchers and academics to compare and contrast different approaches. A significant contribution to the international debate on standards in mathematics.

This volume is an outgrowth of a series of programs organized by the Mathematicians and Education Reform (MER) Network between 1990 and 1993. These programs explored the ways in which the mathematical sciences community has responded to educational challenges. Mathematicians who had made a serious commitment to educational reform served as role models, inspiring others to contribute their efforts to this important work. The discussions raised many questions and highlighted many insights about the nature of educational reform and how the mathematics research community can contribute to it. The papers in this volume present perspectives on the future of these efforts, varied examples of how individual mathematicians have become involved in educational reform, and case studies of how the community is responding to the need for reform. Viewing the mathematics culture through the prism of his or her own experience and encounters, each author contributes a valuable piece for the reader to consider in trying to envision what the large picture will be as mathematics education continues to evolve.

Professional mathematicians from the US and Britain address practical aspects of innovative ideas in teaching mathematics, but shy away from either theoretical or historical perspectives on any particular pedagogical approaches. They set out the pros and cons of implementing creative instructional styles in order to share their insights with teachers at all educational levels. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.