Section III:

Written Remarks Contributed as Part of the

EHR Advisory Committee Public Hearings

on Undergraduate SME&T Education

# Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee

Public Hearing on Disciplinary Perspectives of\
Undergraduate SME&T Education

*Convened October 23, 1995*

*At the National Science Foundation*

*Arlington, VA*

Invited Speakers:

"Disciplinary Perspectives on SME&T Undergraduate Education"

*Listed in order of Testimony. Titles indicate the speakers' positions
at the time of the Hearing.*

+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Undergraduate      | **MRC Greenwood**                             |
| Education\           |                                               |
| in SME&T**           | *Dean of Graduate Studies, Vice Provost,      |
|                      | Academic Outreach, University of California,  |
|                      | Davis*                                        |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Biological         | **Rita R. Colwell**                           |
| Sciences**           |                                               |
|                      | *President, American Association for the      |
|                      | Advancement of Science & Professor,           |
|                      | University of Maryland, College Park*         |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Mathematical       | **Alan Tucker**                               |
| Sciences**           |                                               |
|                      | *Professor, State University of New York at   |
|                      | Stony Brook*                                  |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Engineering**      | **Eleanor Baum**                              |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *President-Elect, ASEE & Dean of Engineering, |
|                      | Cooper Union (NY)*                            |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | **Winfred Phillips**                          |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *President-Elect, ABET & Dean of Engineering, |
|                      | University of Florida*                        |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Computer Sciences  | **Peter J. Denning**                          |
| & Engineering**      |                                               |
|                      | *Associate Dean for Computing, George Mason   |
|                      | University (VA)*                              |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Technology**       | **Don K. Gentry**                             |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *Dean of Engineering Technology, Purdue       |
|                      | University (IN)*                              |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | **Durward R. Huffman**                        |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *President, Northern Maine Technical College* |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Chemistry**        | **Ernest L. Eliel**                           |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *Professor, University of North Carolina at   |
|                      | Chapel Hill*                                  |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | **Angelica M. Stacy**                         |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *Professor, University of California at       |
|                      | Berkeley*                                     |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Physics**          | **Robert C. Hilborn**                         |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *President, American Association of Physics   |
|                      | Teachers & Professor, Amherst College (MA)*   |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | **Eric Mazur**                                |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | *Professor, Harvard University (MA)*          |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **Geological         | **Tanya Atwater**                             |
| Sciences**           |                                               |
|                      | *Professor, University of California, Santa   |
|                      | Barbara*                                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Undergraduate Education in\
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

MRC Greenwood

*Dean, Graduate Studies & Vice Provost, Academic Outreach*

*University of California at Davis\
Davis, California*

Introduction

As some of you will know, I had the great pleasure of serving in
President Clinton's Administration from 1993 until May of this year. One
of the greatest pleasures I have experienced was working with the
Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Neal Lane; the Director
of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Harold Varmus, co-Chairs of
the President\'s National Science and Technology Council committee on
Fundamental Science, and the other distinguished members of the
committee. This committee played a lead role in the extensive bipartisan
consultation with many interested scientists and other individuals who
are concerned about our nation\'s readiness to face the challenges of
the fast paced, technologically dependent global workplace of the 21st
century.

To help all Americans understand what was at stake and to articulate to
the American public the importance of investing in science, technology,
and education, President Clinton and Vice President Gore released, in
August 1994, a statement entitled *Science in the National Interest.
Science in the National Interest* provides an important articulation to
the American people why it is that the government must continue to
invest in scientific discovery, scientific leaders, science education,
and the development of a scientifically literate public.

Many statements from a variety of organizations and from previous
administrations have stressed the importance to the Nation of investing
in research. Other statements have stressed the importance of education
to our future but few, if any have clearly connected the importance of
science education, science literacy, research, and our economic
security.

If you read *Science in the National Interest*, you will note that this
is not an esoteric document. Rather, it is about people, investing in
people, and investing in their ideas and in their education in order to
create our collective future.

*Science in the National Interest* articulates five goals. The first
three:

-   Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

-   Enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals.

-   Stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental
    science and engineering.

are primarily directed to creating the knowledge base and the new tools
that will shape the 21st century economy. The last two:

-   Produce the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century.

-   Raise the scientific and technological literacy of all Americans.

    are the main reasons we are here today. In fact, the last two goals,
    although the more challenging, are by far the most critical in the
    long run.

    Our failure to accomplish these two goals will undermine our ability
    to accomplish the first three and they will ultimately undermine the
    wealth creation of this nation and its tax base. I firmly believe it
    will undermine the quality of life we have come to expect.

    Today, as a research scientist, a dean, and a recent policymaker, I
    would like to argue that scientists must become increasingly
    involved in the national educational initiative that must commence
    and be sustained to ensure a quality future for ourselves, our
    children, and generations to come.

    We must build partnerships that allow us to build on our successes,
    to understand our failures, and to identify new ways of doing
    business across sectors with new optimism. The National Science
    Foundation has been a leader in innovative programs to encourage
    high quality undergraduate teaching and to improve teacher training
    to affect improved quality in undergraduate teaching.

    Nonetheless, let me take a few moments to review some sobering
    statistics, observations, and \"factoids.\"

    For example, I read \[the following factoids\] in the *Sacramento
    Bee*:

-   In 1950, 60 percent of all jobs in the U.S. were unskilled

-   In 1990, 35 percent of all jobs in theU.S. were unskilled

-   In 2000, 15 percent of all jobs are projected to be unskilled

    By the end of the decade:

-   44 percent of U.S. workers will be in the business of collecting,
    analyzing, synthesizing, storing or retrieving data

-   In a 1989 survey of U.S. CEOs, two-thirds of them responded that
    they had difficulty in hiring because of lack of basic skills.

-   People age 18-23 with difficulty in academic skills are five times
    more likely to receive public assistance and have a poverty level
    income.

    Let me take a few moments to review some other compelling points
    that all of us need to be concerned about. Much of this information
    can be found in the very useful National Science Board document
    *Science and Engineering Indicators for 1993*, the latest edition.

    While the recently released critical technologies report notes that
    the U.S. is still the leader in most technologies, the margin by
    which we excel is increasingly smaller. Some of this shrinkage is
    due to the understanding of nations with whom we trade and compete
    that scientific education and literacy are important to their
    future.

    For many decades, the U.S. and the European countries have dominated
    the scientific workforce but:

-   In 1990, six Asian countries produced more than one-half million
    Natural Science and Engineering (NS&E) baccalaureates, slightly
    *more* than the U.S. and Europe.

-   Although the U.S. has twice as many scientists and engineers in R&D,
    Japan and the U.S. have equal proportions in the workforce.

-   However, Japan\'s ratio appears to be accelerating as the U.S.
    levels off.

    Another way to look at this is to note the following:

-   Although the U.S. and Canada outstrip most nations in overall
    baccalaureate degree production, the percent of degrees that go to
    individuals with S&E majors is proportionately less than in Japan.

-   More interestingly for the future, even in countries with limited
    overall participation in advanced education (such as Mexico and
    China) those who do get degrees in NS&E are a much higher proportion
    of the total baccalaureate production (e.g., 25 percent in Mexico
    and almost 50 percent in China).

    Thus, one can conclude that, although our overall access to higher
    education is comparatively good, our proportional share of those
    skilled in S&E is dropping just when we project an increasingly
    competitive international market and a need for more science
    background.

    Since economists who frequently disagree on many issues nearly
    unanimously agree that a nation\'s economy is a derivative of its
    workforce and its investment in science and R&D, this is an ominous
    trend that cannot wait for a more fortunate fiscal moment to fix.
    Indeed, one could argue that the present deficit that everyone is
    rushing to cut is only a symptom of a much more serious educational
    deficit that no amount of cutting can fix for the long term.

    So, in short, scientists and science agencies, both public and
    private, need to become involved and become partners in solutions.
    The reasons in the final analysis are simple:

-   The economy depends upon it;

-   Science education and literacy is the business of scientists;

-   It\'s the right thing to do; and finally

-   There is the self-interested reason. If there is no national
    interest in science and no public competence and literacy in
    science, there will be no support for science in the national
    interest.

    What can be done?

    *Form partnerships with other segments of higher education.* The
    science and engineering (S&E) workforce, the knowledge creators of
    the future and those who can utilize this knowledge, is embedded in
    a complex system. Our higher education system has as its greatest
    strength its depth and its multiple routes of access for our
    citizens. Its greatest weakness is its formation of sectoral
    factions.

    Our nation has a system in which:

-   fourteen million students are enrolled in 3600 institutions;

-   those fourteen million students earn 1.9 million degrees per year;
    and

-   of those 1.9 million degrees, 500,000 are in S&E areas.

    This is the system that produces our teachers, our researchers, our
    policymakers and our legislators. The components of the system have
    to learn to work together to maximize their collective strengths and
    to focus their selective strengths.

    I currently work for and represent what is called a land grant
    Research I university, although I spent nearly a decade at a
    selective liberal arts college. I can tell you from personal
    experience that few faculty or administrators in either sector know
    much about the other. And both need to learn to work better with our
    colleagues in the comprehensive universities and the community
    colleges where many of the teachers of the future get their
    pre-service training.

    As we discuss the need to work directly and creatively with teachers
    and students, we need also to work within the system that we share
    the greatest responsibility for and for which we should rightfully
    assume the responsibility.

    Some scientists may well claim that they are not trained to work
    with pre-college teachers or students, but they cannot claim that
    they do not have the skills or the responsibility for the quality of
    the undergraduate general and more specialized, \[science
    education\] in their own institutions. In fact, in most of our
    institutions, the power of the faculty over the curriculum is
    virtually absolute, as many an administrator has learned. It\'s time
    for academics to take their academic senate responsibilities ever
    more seriously. The views of scientists will not be respected if
    they cannot improve the level of science and math competency where
    they have the most influence, in their own institutions.

    Over the past five to seven years much has already been done,
    although I fear that this is not widely appreciated or understood.
    There are four areas of SME&T undergraduate education that I think
    are important to comment on today.

    Improving the undergraduate teaching of students who will continue
    in careers associated with science or technical competence

    There are two main concerns here: (1) modernizing and energizing the
    curriculum itself and introducing the use of ever more sophisticated
    information technology; and (2) drawing students of previously
    underrepresented groups into SME&T. Perhaps the most exciting
    opportunities combine the two. For example, at UC Davis we have a
    biology undergraduate scholars program that identifies talented
    students from nontraditional backgrounds and mentors them in the
    early and frequently career choice definitive courses in biology,
    chemistry, and math. Lately these students have been outscoring the
    rest of the class (e.g., 80 percent earned A\'s or B\'s in the
    Chemistry 2A class where the average grade is 2.3). In addition, 63
    percent of them have participated in faculty research projects and
    many have gone on to graduate or professional school. The
    methodology used to encourage these minority students has now been
    more extensively used to improve the overall teaching of
    undergraduate biology majors.

    Improve the science and technology literacy of all undergraduate
    students

    In the information age we have already, no college educated person
    can expect to be fully equipped for a job or career without at least
    a working knowledge of modern scientific theory and a modicum of
    technical competence and know how. This will require our colleges
    and universities to revisit the general curriculum and revise the
    requirements to ensure that their students are prepared. This will
    not happen without the enlightened leadership of scientists and
    other academics. It will not work if all the scientific community is
    willing to offer is the usual array of introductory courses intended
    to introduce the student to the major. True literacy of all students
    will require science departments to become much more creative; to
    work collegially with other science departments and resource
    centers. Scientists must offer courses that the non-scientist likes
    and which are conceptually oriented, not just fact oriented. The
    \"sage on the stage\" will have to be replaced by the talented
    storyteller and the multimedia expert who has not only mastery of
    the material but mastery of the method of conveying the exciting and
    dynamic world of science.

    Change the training of graduate students

    Changing the way graduate students are trained to teach can make one
    of the most important impacts on the future of undergraduate
    teaching. We have experimented with a program at UC Davis entitled
    the "Certificate in College Teaching." This program, in existence
    now for over five years, is oversubscribed. In this program,
    graduate students have both a UC Davis mentor and a mentor from a
    four-year or two-year institution. The student participates in an
    extensive professional seminar on teaching methods, has his or her
    own teaching extensively taped and analyzed and develops multimedia
    curricular materials that are also expensively critiqued. At the end
    of the intensive one-year program, a certificate is awarded.
    Numerous students who have completed this program have used the
    formal portfolio that they have developed when applying for jobs and
    claim that it was a significant factor in their subsequent hire.
    Sadly, we can only offer this program for a limited number of
    students; but approaches like this have the potential to reshape
    graduate students\' attitudes toward a more serious orientation to
    new teaching methodologies for the future.

    Finally, be concerned about training teachers

    No matter how talented a teacher may be, nothing substitutes for
    mastery of the material, love of the discipline, and curiosity
    (which leads to life long learning). More concern about the
    undergraduate background of those who will teach in K-8 is certainly
    warranted. NSF has several programs in the area of in-service
    training that are especially well and continuing attention is
    warranted.

    Another suggestion is to work to develop communication majors that
    specialize in training science and technology communicators. Much of
    the public gains the fragmented knowledge it has on SME&T issues
    from television and print media. Very few communication programs
    around the country are serious about identifying well-trained
    science undergraduates and preparing them to be successful
    communications experts. It is clear that we need news professionals
    trained to understand science and science educators and scientists
    with a sophisticated understanding of the media.

    In short, first-rate SME&T education for those who will become
    scientists and for those who will primarily use the fruits of SME&T
    is critical for the nation. I applaud your efforts to review the
    important work sponsored by NSF in this area and I urge you to
    continue to devote effort to improving the nation\'s SME&T training
    and opportunities. Thank you for inviting my comments.

    ***M.R.C. Greenwood** is Chancellor of the University of California,
    Santa Cruz, and a position she has held since July 1, 1996, in
    addition to an USCS appointment as Professor of Biology. Prior to
    her USCS appointments, Chancellor Greenwood served as Dean of
    Graduate Studies and Vice Provost for Academic Outreach at the
    University of California, Davis, where she also held a dual
    appointment as Professor of Nutrition and of Internal Medicine.
    Previously, Dr. Greenwood taught at Vassar College where she was the
    John Guy Vassar Professor of Natural Sciences, Chair of the
    Department of Biology, and Director of the Undergraduate Research
    Summer Institute. From November 1993, to May 1995, Dr. Greenwood
    held and appointment as Associate Director for Science at the Office
    of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of
    the President of the United States. In that position, she supervised
    the Science Division, providing authoritative advice on a broad
    array of scientific areas in support of the President's objectives,
    such as budget development for the multibillion dollar fundamental
    science national effort, and development of science policy
    documents, including Science in the National Interest. In addition,
    she was responsible for interagency coordination and co-chaired two
    National Science and Technology Council committees. The author of
    numerous scientific publications and presentations, her research
    interests are in developmental cell biology, genetics, physiology,
    and nutrition. Her work over the past 25 years, focusing on the
    genetic causes of obesity, is recognized worldwide.*

-   Disciplinary Perspectives of\
    National Leaders and Undergraduate Education

    Rita R. Colwell

    *President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
    (AAAS)*

    *President, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute*

    *Professor of Microbiology, University of Maryland\
    College Park, Maryland*

    Introduction

    Since 1988, AAAS has conducted two studies, one implementation
    project, and one planning project related to undergraduate education
    in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T). These
    include:

    \(a\) The *AAAS Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences*
    (1988-1990), funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York: a study of
    the role of the natural sciences in the liberal arts curriculum for
    all undergraduate students.

    \(b\) *Investing in Human Potential* (IHP): *Science and Engineering
    at the Crossroads* (1989-1991), funded by NSF: a study of efforts by
    U.S. higher education institutions to increase the participation of
    women, non-Asian minorities, and people with physical disabilities
    in SME&T.

    \(c\) *Access to Engineering: Recruitment and Retention of Students
    and Faculty with Disabilities in Schools of Engineering* (Five year
    project ending in January 1996), funded by NSF: effort to expand the
    concept of diversity within engineering education by promoting full
    inclusion of individuals with disabilities.

    \(d\) The *Science Dean\'s Colloquium* (September 1994) funded by
    NSF: colloquium of 52 Deans of Science and other university
    administrators from the nation\'s major research universities.

    Each of these projects included substantial input from collaborating
    individuals and organizations. The AAAS Project on Liberal Education
    and the Sciences was guided by members of AAAS Coalition for
    Education in the Science, a consortium of scientific and educational
    associations, a six-member advisory board, and 15 member study
    group. The IHP study included survey responses from 276
    presidents/chancellors of colleges and universities, directors of
    nearly 400 recruitment/retention programs, and nearly 100 disabled
    student services offices, as well as intensive case studies of 13
    colleges and universities. The Access to Engineering Project
    included intense work with five schools of engineering, a meeting of
    60 deans and other administrators from schools of engineering, a
    survey of schools of engineering that included demographics on
    disabled students and faculty, and guidance by a 16-member advisory
    panel, including a number of engineers with disabilities.

    In general, the four AAAS studies and projects have identified:

-   model SME&T undergraduate programs and courses;

-   what SME&T undergraduate students need to know in the sciences; and

-   academic and administrative challenges to bring about change in
    undergraduate SME&T education.

    Overall Finding From AAAS SME&T Undergraduate Studies and Projects

    Perhaps the three most significant improvements in undergraduate
    SME&T education:

-   *Efforts to Reform Calculus.* These efforts have included structural
    changes in calculus that have been spearheaded by the mathematics
    community (MSEB, MAA, and NCTM). These programs create a community
    for SME&T freshman and sophomore students and provide supplemental
    workshops to regular classroom work.

-   *Expansion of undergraduate research programs.* Although
    undergraduate research programs have not been fully studied, it does
    appear that these programs motivate undergraduate students to stay
    in SME&T majors. These programs exist in the form of cooperative
    education programs: NSF Center for Research, National Institutes of
    Health Summer Program, Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC),
    Minority Biomedical Research Science (MBRS) Program, and other such
    efforts. NASA and the Department of Defense fund small summer
    programs for undergraduates with disabilities.

-   *The notion of SME&T consortia and collaboratives.* In general,
    consortia and collaboration of college, and universities and/or
    national laboratories and corporations have been effective in
    strengthening undergraduate SME&T education. Activities include
    developing dual-degree and cross registration programs; centralizing
    science and engineering resources into centers; faculty developing;
    reforming undergraduate curriculum; and creating research
    opportunities at non-doctorate granting colleges and universities.

    Perhaps the three most important challenges to SME&T undergraduate
    education are:

-   moving from isolated model programs to structural reform in
    undergraduate education;

-   orienting faculty, particularly faculty in lower division SME&T
    classes, to innovative instructional and assessment strategies; and

-   creating a forum for science deans to exchange information and
    monitor changes.

    Both the *AAAS Investing in Human Potential (IHP): Science and
    Engineering at the Crossroads* and *The Liberal Arts of Science:
    Agenda for Action* identified a host of model undergraduate
    education programs. Pages 143-145 of the IHP Report presents a model
    for evolution of intervention programs for minorities, females, and
    disabled students at colleges and universities. This model includes
    five levels of programs.

    1*. Isolated projects* were numerous, and involved the commitment of
    individuals to address particular barriers to participation. These
    projects were often not connected to any other efforts and relied on
    soft money or volunteer activity for their continuation.

    2\. In other instances, *individual schools or departments*
    undertook activities to address their own particular problems, such
    as high failure rates in calculus. These activities had little or no
    connection to other efforts in the institution, and addressed only a
    small part of the overall system of problems which minorities,
    women, and students with disabilities face.

    3\. At the next level were *formalized, coordinated program
    activities* in one part of the institution, such as a college of
    engineering, where recruitment and retention of female and minority
    students were coordinated through the office of the dean. Funding
    for these programs included external grants but relied increasingly
    on hard dollars from the institution. Most frequently missing from
    these programs were ties necessary to modify required introductory
    courses in the sciences and mathematics. There was often reliance on
    programs to equip the students to survive instead of also taking on
    the issue of the quality and cultivation aspects of courses.

    4\. In a few instances, institutions created *centers* for the
    coordination of large parts of the process of recruiting, retaining,
    tracking, and advancing students to graduate education. *One of the
    most notable examples of this is the Comprehensive Regional Center
    for Minorities in Puerto Rico.* In this case, the center formed an
    organizational overlay to the mission of the institution to educate
    particular groups of underrepresented students.

    5\. Not found among any of the institutions was a model of
    *structural reform* where the structure of courses, pedagogical
    techniques, institutional climate, and systems for recruitment and
    retention co-existed with a supportive administrative structure. The
    regular support of departments and programs provides mechanisms to
    support the achievement of all students committed to education in
    science and engineering.

    The *Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action* report also profiles
    SME&T programs and courses (pages 73-106). These profiles are
    grouped into four categories:

    *Programs involving the core curriculum.* These programs either
    constitute an institution\'s core science requirements for all
    students or are voluntary alternatives to the institutions core
    science requirements. Examples of programs include Introduction to
    the Natural Sciences at Lehman College; Learning Science Through
    Inquiry; Natural Science Division I Requirement at Hampshire
    College; and Science in Modern Life I and II at Brooklyn College.

    *Program constituting a major.* Programs in this section represent
    some of the innovative, interdisciplinary, baccalaureate programs
    that are emerging in American colleges and universities. Examples of
    programs include The Curriculum in Science and Culture at Purdue
    University; the Liberal Arts and Science Program at Utah State
    University; and the Science in Society Program at Wesleyan
    University.

    *Full-year courses and course sequences.* These are examples of
    initial courses designed to introduce students to science and the
    scientific enterprise. Examples of programs include Chemistry of Our
    World at Wright State University; Foundation of Science at Hunter
    College; and The Theory and Practice of Science at Columbia
    University.

    *One-semester courses.* These examples represent innovative courses
    that effectively integrate science in a liberal arts context and/or
    teach science as it is practiced. Examples of courses include *Ways
    of Knowing* at Macalester College; *Role-Playing Laboratories in
    Analytical Chemistry* at St. Olaf College; and *Science and
    Technology in the Modern World*, Kean College of New Jersey.

    Both the IHP study and the Liberal Art of Science Project offer
    guidance about how to move from isolated model programs and courses
    to structural reform in SME&T undergraduate education. Of particular
    note are pages xi and xix in *The Liberal Arts of Science: Agenda
    for Action* report. This section outlines what undergraduate
    students should take from their college education including
    understanding, knowledge, skills and attitudes concerning aspects of
    science. These include understanding:

-   scientific values and ways of knowing;

-   collection, organization, and classification of information;

-   scientific laws, devising models and developing theories;

-   the limits of scientific knowledge;

-   the vocabulary and terminology of science; and

-   the role of mathematical concepts in science.

    In terms of integration concepts, undergraduate students need to
    understand:

-   scale and proportion;

-   change and evolution;

-   causality and consequences; and

-   dynamic equilibrium.

    In terms of the context of science, undergraduate students need to
    understand:

-   the historical development, intellectual, and cultural contexts of
    science; and

-   the ethical, social, economic, and political dimensions of science.

    These high goals for scientific understanding require new
    instructional strategies at the undergraduate level, including:

-   goal-oriented instruction that brings meaning into day-to-day
    problems encountered by scientists;

-   hands-on experimental and laboratory activities;

-   activities promoting independent learning and analysis including
    finding, reading, and analyzing information from a variety of
    sources;

-   group discussion and projects;

-   opportunities for writing and communicating science;

-   demonstrations of cross-disciplinary content including
    interconnections among the sciences themselves and connections to
    liberal arts, humanities, the fine practical arts, and the social
    sciences;

-   integration of mathematics with the study of those scientific topics
    whose explanations are based on mathematical concepts; and

-   assessment of students' abilities to analyze scientific problems, to
    generate reasonable hypotheses, to evaluate evidence, and to raise
    questions about science and technology in their own lives and the
    society in which they live.

    Scientific understanding cannot be measured adequately by
    true-false, multiple-choice, or other similar tests. Papers,
    projects, essay tests, oral presentations, and other forms of
    assessment must also be used.

    As indicated, one of the biggest challenges for restructuring SME&T
    undergraduate education will be encouraging, preparing, and
    orienting college and university faculty to utilize innovative
    teaching and assessment strategies. Unlike K-12 teachers, college
    and university faculties are not required to take teaching courses.

    Pages 3 to 6 of *The Liberal Arts of Science: Action Agenda* also
    address academic and administrative changes needed at the
    undergraduate level to implement this new SME&T initiative,
    including:

-   increasing the time commitment for science to the equivalent of 15
    to 16 semester hours of instruction for all students and decreasing
    class sizes to one faculty for every 20 to 30 students;

-   re-conceptualizing the current structure of the curriculum and doing
    away with survey courses. Rather, it is critical that education in
    the sciences become a well-integrated part of the broader liberal
    education program;

-   fostering collaboration of science with other liberal art faculties;

-   identifying a mechanism to review current curricula, design
    programs, encouraging the developing of courses, and providing
    on-going monitoring and assessment;

-   recognizing the need for institutional curricular reform including
    financial support, promotion and tenure, reduced teaching loads, and
    awards and prizes; and

-   external support from scientific, professional, and educational
    societies, accrediting agencies, state and federal government, and
    private and corporate foundations.

    As colleges and universities move to restructure SME&T at the
    undergraduate level, a leadership forum will be needed to exchange
    information, define benchmarks and collect data. However, as made
    clear by the AAAS Science Dean's Colloquium, unlike engineering
    deans, science deans lack a common forum to discuss concerns about
    SME&T undergraduate education. As part of the AAAS Colloquium,
    science deans outlined topics they would like to address. Topics
    include:

    Administrative Concerns

-   NSF funding procedures;

-   Improving the image of the research university;

-   Responding to budget cuts and reorganization;

-   Difficulties in dealing with the K-12 system, as well as state and
    federal education agencies;

-   Dialogue between research universities and "official" Washington;

-   Strategies for dealing with declining federal funding; and

-   Need for development activities in a new fiscal climate.

    Curriculum and Teaching Issues

-   Launching interdisciplinary degree programs, such as the
    science-oriented MBA and environmental studies, and science and
    public policy options;

-   Offering degrees in the sciences that are intended to lead to
    professional careers in journalism, business, etc.;

-   Organizational structure of undergraduate biology education;

-   Encouraging better teaching;

-   Curricular revisions as a mechanism for fostering interdisciplinary
    research and reaching less traditional science students;

-   Exchange of benchmark data; and

-   Tensions between major and non-major courses.

    Faculty Development

-   Mentoring of female and probationary faculty and graduate students;

-   Improving faculty diversity;

-   Discussion of the faculty reward structure, including tenure,
    promotion, and post-tenure review;

-   Faculty resistance to programs for female and minority students;

-   Evaluation and rewards of faculty for undergraduate teaching; and

-   Improving faculty teaching.

    4\. Outreach Efforts

-   University relationships with secondary/elementary school teachers
    and students; and

-   Relationship between college of science and college of education.

    5\. Student Issues

-   Efforts to stem student attrition; special sections for high-risk
    students; remedial instruction;

-   Programs to promote undergraduate student research; and

-   Changing employment opportunities for students.

    In addition, the deans are interested in how interdisciplinary
    centers (science, mathematics, and technology) are formed and
    operate. Specifically, they were interested in a center\'s role with
    regard to K-12 outreach, as well as the sharing of personnel and
    programs between the center and academic department, the types of
    faculty and staff appointments at such a center, and evaluations of
    faculty outside departmental and disciplinary frameworks.

    All of the AAAS studies and reports outline concerns about the
    changing demographics, particularly concerns about increasing the
    participation of minorities, women and persons with disabilities in
    SME&T. Minorities and females have made some gains in science, but
    we need to build more efforts to involve disabled persons in
    science. In the IHP study and the *Access to Engineering* effort,
    AAAS staff found that unlike efforts for minority and female
    students in SME&T, most colleges and universities do not have
    targeted efforts for disabled students. For these students, the
    disabled student services (DSS) is the primary source of help.
    However, disabled students who major in SME&T often find that the
    DSS has not encountered their specific need before, especially in
    laboratory courses or when specific technologies or services are
    required. In addition, most SME&T faculty and administrators are
    uninformed about the assistive technology that students and
    engineers with disabilities use today. The IHP report, Chapter 4 on
    \"Science and Engineering Students with Physical Disabilities: Who
    Smoothes the Path?\" includes making SME&T accessible to students
    with disabilities.

    ***Rita R Colwell** has served as President of the following
    organizations: American Society for Microbiology, International
    Union of Microbiological Societies, Sigma Xi National Science
    Honorary Society, and American Association for the Advancement of
    Science, Washington Academy of Sciences. She is currently Chairman
    of the Board of Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology,
    author or co-author of 16 books and more than 450 scientific
    publications. Recipient of Honorary Doctor of Science degree
    conferred by Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh, Scotland); Hood
    College; and Purdue University, D.LLD conferred by Notre Dame
    College, recipient of the Andrew White Medal by Loyola College and
    Metal of Distinction**,** Columbia University. Honorary Professor of
    The University of Queensland (Queensland, Australia) and Ocean
    University of Quingdoa PRC. Served on the National Science Board and
    as a member of federal and state agency committees and boards.*

    Comments on Undergraduate Education Review of the\
    NSF Directorate of Education and Human Resources

    Alan C. Tucker

    *Distinguished Teaching Professor, State University of New
    York-Stony Brook*

    *Chair, Education Coordinating Council of the Mathematical
    Association of America\
    Stony Brook, New York*

    I would like to organize my remarks along the lines of the input on
    the \[EHR Advisory Committee\] review solicited by Dr. Robert Watson
    from academic and business leaders last summer. My suggestions draw,
    in part, on the thoughtful comments of fifteen such letters written
    by mathematical scientists.

    What are the most significant improvements in undergraduate SME&T
    education you have observed in our nation during the past ten years?

    Leaders of the mathematical sciences community are in general
    agreement about the three major improvements in undergraduate SME&T
    education in the past ten years. They are:

-   increased use of technology;

-   increased attention to teaching and learning; and

-   the calculus reform movement.

Some have also specifically cited efforts related to the latter two
items, such as the involvement of professional societies in
instructional reform and the creation of good materials to support
innovative instruction.

Increased Use of Technology

Technology has had two types of impact:

1)  In the way that mechanical devices have augmented the physical
    capabilities of humans, computing devices have augmented the mental
    capabilities of humans. In the learning process, technology provides
    enhanced computational and visual experiences as well as numerical
    assistance for students, giving students more insight into physical
    and mathematical processes. Students can study more realistic
    problems, which previously were intractable with pencil-and-paper
    approaches. With simulation and computer graphics software, students
    can explore and discover mathematical phenomena, thus making
    mathematics more like a hands-on, experimental science. This
    technology promotes active learning and facilitates undergraduate
    research in mathematics.

    The advent of modestly priced graphing calculators and widely
    affordable personal computers has made these technological
    possibilities a working reality for millions of undergraduates.
    Faculty interest in utilizing technology is exploding. Attendance at
    an annual conference on educational technology in mathematics has
    grown in six years from a few hundred to two thousand.

    NSF Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program has
    made a substantial contribution to the availability of technology in
    mathematics departments. The highly leveraged format of the ILI
    program, which requires technology-based curricular development
    (plus extensive cost-sharing), has prodded faculty to think
    creatively about how to use new technology effectively. NSF Faculty
    Development grants have supported scores of workshops to train
    mathematical science faculty in the use of educational technology.

2)  The use of technology in learning and educational reform generally,
    has been revolutionized by electronic communication that
    effortlessly connects pairs of educators and students. The
    Internet\'s Worldwide Web opens up unlimited amounts of information
    to scholars and students, irrespective of the capacities of one\'s
    local library or computer center. The isolation in which individual
    educational reformers used to work has been eliminated. Students can
    access critical databases to undertake truly realistic class
    projects. NSF has played an important role in supporting NSFnet and
    local access efforts as well as educational software projects.

Increased Attention to Teaching and Learning

The increasing realization that *how* mathematics is taught is as
important as *what* mathematics is taught is a signal development in
undergraduate mathematics instruction. Its consequences will be
reshaping instructional practices in the mathematical sciences for years
to come. NSF curriculum grants and ILI grants were absolutely critical
in stimulating a rethinking of instruction that started with questions
about \'what\' but inexorably led to questions about \'how.\'

This realization has led to growing interest in research about effective
instruction and student learning. The wide interest in cooperative
learning, student-centered discovery learning, projects and writing in
mathematics courses was unimaginable a decade ago. Eight years ago at
the annual joint American Mathematical Society/Mathematical Association
of America meeting, the only contributed paper sessions were on research
topics. Now, contributed paper sessions have hundreds of papers on
pedagogy and on curricular reform. Faculty interest in pedagogy has had
anticipated impacts on improved classroom instruction. It has also had
unanticipated impacts such as a growth of undergraduate research
opportunities in which faculty are now more likely to treat students
like colleagues.

A few months ago, there was a major article in the Notices of the
American Mathematical Society on the effective instructional practices
developed at the mathematics department at the State University of New
York College at Potsdam (in some years, over 15 percent of Potsdam\'s
graduates have been mathematics majors). For this research-centered
society to have an article extolling mathematics instruction at a state
college represents a major change of professional culture.

My favorite quote about pedagogy is a question posed to me 6 years
ago\-- before I understood fully the power of the \'how\'\-- by the
chair of the Potsdam mathematics department. He asked, "Why have Math
Association committees spent so much time writing reports about
curriculum for the mathematics major? What does using just the right
curriculum have to do with training mathematicians?\"

The Calculus Reform Initiative

Introductory undergraduate mathematics curriculum and instruction had a
poor reputation a decade ago. Today, collegiate mathematics is viewed as
a leader in SME&T undergraduate instructional reform. The calculus
reform effort is a principal reason for this change. Hundreds of
thousands of students are now being taught in calculus reform classes
where students are more active learners and faculties are more active
teachers. The best selling calculus text last year (over 80,000 copies
sold) was a reform text. Calculus courses now focus on numerical, visual
and applied interpretations of calculus as well as algebraic techniques.
Students make extensive use of technology, engage in cooperative
learning, write about their mathematical thinking and learn to attack
open-ended, less structured problems.

Calculus reform has proved to be a stimulating case study in
technological and pedagogical innovation. Use of technology has had a
symbiotic two-way relationship with calculus reform. Graphing
calculators and computer software like DERIVE called into question the
traditional drill in graphing functions and symbolic differentiation and
integration. At the same time they permitted realistic problems
involving integrals which could only be evaluated numerically and
permitted visual and numerical exploration of the behavior of whole
families of functions. Pedagogical innovation became a natural solution
for faculties who were trying to break students free of deeply ingrained
habits of mindless \'plug and chug\' exercises. To make students think
carefully about model building and the analysis of calculus-based
models, instructors turned to cooperative learning, open-ended projects,
and writing assignments. Interest in instructional innovation sparked by
calculus reform is stimulating faculty to rethink how they teach
differential equations, linear algebra, and other mathematical sciences
courses.

The accompanying map shows the broad distribution of NSF calculus reform
awards by state. Subcontracts associated with major awards, along with
the scores of calculus reform workshops, have extended the impact even
further. The true success of the calculus reform movement is found in
the 1000+ institutions that have implemented calculus reform without a
grant.

As an aside, I would like to give a special salute to program officers
at NSF who displayed laudable cooperation and enterprise to steer
additional funds to the calculus reform initiative as they started to
recognize the magnitude of the impact that was possible. The
\$18,000,000 finally spent on awards in the Calculus Reform Initiative
from 1988 to 1993 was several times what was directly allocated. The
primary support for NSF calculus reform initiative was through the
Course and Curriculum Development Program in the Division of
Undergraduate Education in cooperation with the Division of Mathematical
Sciences. DUE Programs in Faculty Enhancement, in Instrumentation and
Laboratory Improvement, and in Teacher Preparation, as well as programs
in the Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication (REC) and the
Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE),
contributed additional funds.

> What are the three most important problems you and collaborating
> individuals and
>
> organizations encounter in your efforts to assure that the best
> possible education is
>
> delivered to undergraduates in the areas of SME&T?

While there was near unanimity about the improvements in the past
decade, leaders in the mathematical sciences community showed great
diversity of opinion when it came to future problems. The following
three topics were each cited by about half the respondents:

-   changing faculty values and attitudes;

-   serving a more diverse, and often under-prepared, student body; and

-   equipment needs

    Other problems cited by several respondents were

-   inadequate coordination across disciplines; and

-   responding to Standards-based changes in K-12 instruction

    Other challenges mentioned were: the lack of diversity in SME&T
    faculty and graduate students; faculty development programs;
    challenges of instruction delivered by a growing number of part-time
    faculty; and more research about effective methods of student
    assessment. In the following discussion, I will focus on possible
    contributions by NSF, but these contributions are assumed to be
    occurring in cooperation with professional societies and individual
    institutions. A key to the success of the calculus reform movement
    was the close working relations that existed from the outset between
    NSF Principal Investigators and professional societies.

    Changing Faculty Values and Attitudes

    University faculty still gets promotion and tenure for research.
    Given the existing priorities, too few university faculties have an
    incentive to make a substantial investment in instructional
    activities. The increased interest in teaching and pedagogy among
    some university mathematical sciences faculty is supported by a
    number of department chairs. However, it has limited support from
    most senior faculty (who populates the tenure committees).

    There was a case around 1940 of a talented mathematician being
    denied tenure by a leading Ivy League institution, because despite
    outstanding research the person was also a good teacher. Some senior
    faculty argued that his interest in good teaching was a 'demon
    seed', which in the future would consume the man and destroy his
    research. Remnants of that thinking are still alive today at some
    institutions, both colleges and universities.

    Along with a greater general interest in teaching, faculties need to
    ensure that their instruction is geared towards the educational
    needs of all their students and society, rather than just the needs
    of advanced training in their discipline.

    I believe that the university mathematical sciences community is
    moving slowly to take a more positive view of teaching. Mathematics
    departments owe their large size primarily to heavy freshmen service
    teaching. A number of leading research mathematicians have become
    aware of the importance of good teaching in \'paying the bills\' for
    mathematics. NSF programs have helped to start a change of culture
    and can continue to do so. The systemic reform theme in the new
    *Mathematical Sciences Throughout the Curriculum* initiative attacks
    this problem head-on. There are a variety of efforts that NSF might
    undertake to enhance the stature of instructional excellence:
    increasing funding across-the-board in DUE; awarding less-structured
    individual investigator grants in instruction similar to NSF
    research grants; and placing a greater weight on instructional
    activities in NSF \'research\' grants.

    Serving a More Diverse, and Often Under-Prepared, Student Body

    Because of the long, sequential nature of learning in mathematics,
    it is easy for students to accumulate a growing deficit of
    mathematical skills needed for undertaking college-level
    mathematics. Unfortunately, the increasing number of students with
    inadequate preparation for college mathematics is occurring at the
    same time that an increasing number of college disciplines are using
    more mathematics. Thus, to get students from where they are to where
    they need to be for the mathematical requirements of their majors
    and the workplace is posing a problem. The diversity of student
    backgrounds requires creative instructional strategies that empower
    all students to help themselves grow mathematically, for it is not
    feasible to have instruction that is individualized to each student.
    Additional research about how different types of students learn
    mathematics is also needed.

    This is a challenge that, I believe, needs to be shared between
    mathematical science departments and client disciplines. Growing NSF
    support for advanced technology education programs illustrates the
    positive force that NSF can play in fostering the development of new
    curriculum and instructional styles geared towards workplace needs.
    I would like to see NSF support for pre-calculus reform expanded. A
    new program targeted at developmental mathematics is needed. While
    this instruction is remedial in its mathematics content, it is also
    some of the most challenging teaching in post-secondary education.

    Equipment Needs

    Mathematics departments have now joined science departments as
    laboratory disciplines. In mathematics, it is computer laboratories.
    The costs of purchasing more computers as more mathematics courses
    use computers, and the costs of replacing outdated PCs, are slowing
    efforts at instructional reform in mathematics to a crawl at many
    institutions. NSF ILI grants have helped hundreds of institutions
    introduce and upgrade their computer facilities. Hopefully, the ILI,
    program can be continued and expanded.

    Inadequate Coordination Across Disciplines

    Faculty today tend to be much more closely linked with other
    researchers in their specialties at other institutions than with
    local faculty in their own and other departments. Undergraduate
    education is a collective undertaking of the faculty and requires
    much greater educational day-to-day exchange among faculty.
    Educational innovation, like cooperative learning, cannot flower
    unless new instructional strategies are shared and coordinated among
    departments.

    Instruction today is too narrowly focused on the subject of an
    individual course or the point of view of a particular discipline.
    The scientific and business workplace today is characterized by
    multidisciplinary thinking that draws on the paradigms and
    problem-solving strategies of many different disciplines. Many
    business groups, such as the risk assessment divisions of major
    banks, value physicists, mathematicians and engineers for their
    common training in quantitative problem-solving. It is as if faculty
    in these different disciplines see themselves as specialists in Bach
    or Tchaikovsky or jazz, while the world wants broadly trained
    musicians. Faculty in quantitative disciplines must collaborate more
    fully to give students this broader, multidisciplinary point of view
    in their training.

    The new NSF interdisciplinary consortia in chemistry and
    mathematics, joining related efforts underway in engineering, are of
    critical importance and should be expanded. It would be helpful if
    funds were made available to support many smaller interdisciplinary
    efforts involving faculty in a group of departments at one college.

    Responding to Standards-based Changes in K-12 Instruction

    The post-secondary mathematics community has been largely supportive
    of the mathematics Standards developed by the National Council of
    Teachers of Mathematics. The visions of content, instruction and
    assessment contained in the NCTM Standards and the current efforts
    at enhancing undergraduate mathematical sciences education have a
    great deal in common. Each initiative\'s primary goal is to enhance
    student learning in mathematics and to make mathematics truly
    accessible to everyone. Since studies show that teachers tend to
    teach the way they were taught, instructional reform in collegiate
    mathematics has an important second order effect on instructional
    reform in the schools.

    However, there are a number of further actions needed to support the
    NCTM Standards. Colleges and universities need to rethink their
    entrance standards and placement exams in mathematics, their
    pre-calculus instruction, and their quantitative literacy
    requirements in light of Standards-based changes in K- 12
    instruction.

    Unfortunately, to date the pre-service mathematics training of
    teachers has changed little to reflect the values of the Standards.
    The instruction needs rethinking in both mathematics courses aimed
    specifically at pre-service teachers and core mathematics courses
    which, at some institutions, have large numbers of prospective
    secondary school mathematics teachers. For some mathematical
    sciences faculty, this rethinking may entail additional professional
    development in new educational technology or pedagogy; for others,
    it might mean working cooperatively with faculty in mathematics
    education. Better preparation of doctoral students for college
    teaching is a related concern, which can be addressed hand-in-hand
    with better preparation of K-12 teachers.

    NSF can help with support for Standards-based reworking of
    introductory mathematics instruction and of the mathematical
    preparation of K-12 teachers.

    The diversity of opinion on future problems and the complexity of
    these problems - institutional commitments, engaging all faculty,
    reaching and properly serving all students, coordination across the
    disciplines, and more -- suggests the breadth and depth of the
    educational reform needed in undergraduate SME&T instruction. These
    are daunting challenges, but they also represent exciting
    opportunities.

    I would like to take editorial license to close this presentation
    with a nagging personal concern, which, I fear, will overshadow many
    educational reform efforts in this country.

    Ambivalence and Complacency About the Value of Education

    In many nations, young people receive a strong, clear message from
    their parents, and from society generally, to develop their minds as
    preparation for success in later life. I find little of this message
    in this country. In Asian countries, parents are constantly
    complaining about the poor job their schools are doing, while
    surveys of American parents show satisfaction with the performance
    of their schools. Many in our society still believe deep down that
    the frontier spirit of enterprise, rather than education, is the key
    to success in life. American teenagers in our materialistic society,
    with limited parental guidance to concentrate on studies, are
    spending too much time on part-time jobs to make car payments
    (immediate gratification) rather than on doing homework (a long-term
    investment).

    However, a workforce strong in SME&T skills is critical to
    maintaining our national and personal economic well-being. NSF needs
    to work with SME&T professional organizations and friends in
    business to publicize better that entrepreneurial spirit is not a
    substitute today for investing deeply in one\'s own education and
    for obtaining a solid scientific and mathematical literacy.

    Almost everything NSF does indirectly impacts this issue. NSF needs
    increased efforts to upgrade the mathematics and science expertise
    of schoolteachers at all levels. The typical college graduate spends
    only about 10 percent of his/her college time in non-remedial SME&T
    course work. I would like to see NSF work with SME&T faculty to
    develop strategies to expand the SME&T experiences of all college
    students.

    ***Alan C. Tucker** is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at the
    State University of New York-Stony Brook in the Department of
    Applied Mathematics and Statistics. He obtained his Ph.D. in
    Mathematics from Stanford University in 1969. Dr. Tucker has been at
    Stony Brook since 1970, department chair for 12 of those years. He
    has served from 1991 to 1997 as chair of the Mathematical
    Association of America\'s Education Council. Dr. Tucker was the lead
    author of two recent NSF-sponsored studies, "Assessing Calculus
    Reform Efforts," and "Models That Work: Case Studies in Effective
    Mathematics Undergraduate Programs." He was MAA First Vice President
    in 1988-90.*

    Testimony Before NSF Undergraduate Review Subcommittee
    \"Disciplinary Perspectives of National Leaders\
    in Undergraduate Education\"

    Eleanor Baum

    *Dean of Engineering, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science
    and Art\
    New York, New York*

    Winfred Phillips

    *Dean of Engineering, University of Florida\
    Sarasota, Florida*

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the
    subcommittee on the important issue of undergraduate education in
    engineering, science and mathematics. This is an enormously
    important topic in today\'s competitive, high-technology world. My
    remarks will focus on engineering education. I am speaking today on
    behalf of myself, as President of the American Society for
    Engineering Education (ASEE) and past chair of the ASEE Engineering
    Deans Council (EDC), and my colleague, Winfred Phillips, President
    of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

    Engineers play a vital role in the technological and economic life
    of society. They develop new manufacturing processes and products;
    create and manage communications and transportation systems; address
    environmental problems, devise pioneering health care devices and,
    in general, make technology work. In the words of Richard Morrow,
    past chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, \"the nation
    with the best engineering talent is in possession of the core
    ingredient of comparative economic and industrial advantage.\"

    Engineering education in the United States has served the nation
    well; providing a breadth of programs across more than 500
    institutions. But there is wide recognition that engineering
    education must respond to new challenges. Along with technical
    skills and intellectual development, engineering graduates must
    learn how to work as part of teams, communicate well, and understand
    the economic, social, environmental and international context of
    their professional activities. In addition, engineering education
    programs must find ways of attracting a broader mix of students that
    better reflect the social and ethnic diversity of the country. Taken
    together, that's a tall order.

    We in the engineering education community are addressing these
    issues with assistance from a variety of sources, including our
    industry partners, academic colleagues, and at the federal level
    particularly, the National Science Foundation. The vision and
    support that NSF provides for improving engineering are key to the
    experimentation and knowledge-building that are necessary for real
    change. Equally important, as a premier funding agency of academic
    research, NSF's support of research in educational topics and
    methodology provides legitimacy and prestige for this type of
    faculty activity.

    Last year, with NSF support, ASEE published a major report,
    *Engineering Education for a Changing* *World*, which laid out
    general principles for addressing these issues. More than 60 schools
    are using the report in their strategic planning processes.

    We suggested in the report that engineering education programs
    needed to be three things:

-   Relevant to the lives and future careers of students;

-   Attractive to students with a wide variety of backgrounds and career
    interests; and

-   Connected through partnerships and integrated activities with the
    wider community.

    This community would include not only other colleges in the
    university, but K-12 schools, community colleges, industry and
    government.

    Rather than suggesting that all engineering schools change in the
    same way, we called for each school to establish its own mission,
    based on whom it served and its comparative advantages. Some schools
    might focus on educating students for professional engineering
    practice through the master\'s level; others might offer a
    combination of traditional technology-based engineering with a
    strong emphasis on broader management and decision-making skills;
    while others would focus on preparing students for research and
    teaching careers.

    This type of significant experimentation in the undergraduate
    curriculum would be fostered through proposed changes in the
    criteria for engineering programs of the Accreditation Board for
    Engineering and Technology (ABET). The proposed changes, which are
    now being reviewed by the engineering professional societies that
    comprise the organization, would provide greater flexibility. In
    concert with ASEE, industry and the EDC, ABET has proposed that each
    engineering school adopt a mission statement. Further, it should
    develop goals consistent with the mission and implement outcomes
    assessment.

    Several state governments, along with parents and students
    themselves, are demanding methods for assessing the quality of
    engineering education programs. Given the diversity of engineering
    programs throughout the nation, however, we believe that no one test
    or prescriptive set of criteria would be inappropriate for all
    engineering colleges. ASEE is serving as the secretariat for a group
    of engineering professional societies that are seeking to identify
    successful assessment strategies and principles. The aim is to
    develop a broadly supported array of assessment tools that
    engineering colleges could use, based on their own needs and
    programs. The Joint Task Force 011 Engineering Education Assessment,
    consisting of ASEE, the Engineering Deans Council, the National
    Society of Professional Engineers, ABET and the National Council of
    Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, expects to have an outline
    of recommendations by early next year.

    A potential breakthrough for making technical subjects exciting and
    accessible to all students is the use of the Internet. Electronic
    courseware that uses interactive media and provides access to a
    world of information will make learning more interesting and enable
    students to better understand technical material. But how will
    faculty and students know what's best among the many offerings? ASEE
    is working to develop a system for peer reviewing multi-media
    courseware in engineering education over the Internet.

    We would like to commend the National Science Foundation for its
    various programs that are promoting the type of experimentation and
    risk-taking that will lead to real improvements in engineering and
    other technical education. The largest and potentially most
    influential program in engineering education is the Engineering
    Education Coalitions, consortia of engineering colleges whose
    purpose is to promote comprehensive change. This program has
    promoted discussion about teaching, learning and curriculum among
    faculty on many campuses and has begun a process of sharing
    resources.

    A vital element in any broad reform effort is the dissemination and
    discussion of research results. We encourage the Foundation to
    strengthen this aspect in its grant programs: encouraging grant
    recipients to demonstrate specific strategies for dissemination of
    their findings, as well as encouraging presentations on educational
    research at meetings of the various professional societies. For
    example, the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) this year
    sponsored a Project Showcase at the ASEE annual conference in which
    engineering grantees funded by the Division displayed and discussed
    the results of their projects. Nearly 2000 engineering faculty
    members attended the Showcase. This type of face-to-face
    interaction, in which faculty members can ask questions and develop
    contacts with the grantees, is a valuable complement to written
    articles and more formal presentations. We hope this kind of effort
    will continue.

    We also commend the Foundation for its ongoing sponsorship of
    conferences and workshops in undergraduate education. These are a
    valuable way for groups of people to talk about undergraduate
    education in mathematics, science and engineering and to help chart
    new policy directions. We hope these efforts will also continue.

    The engineering directorate of NSF has consistently and effectively
    promoted the integration of education and research. Its programs
    have stimulated an increased emphasis on undergraduate education and
    research in all programs. We encourage further integration between
    EHR and the engineering directorate to ensure a sound continuum in
    mathematics, science and engineering education: K-12 through Ph.D.

    We would also like to single out efforts to promote
    university/industry partnerships, such as NSF\'s GOALI program.
    GOALI enables industry representatives to spend time on campus and
    faculty and students to spend time in industry. This effort to
    bridge the gap between academe and industry and form real
    partnerships is especially important in engineering. We urge the
    Foundation to expand activities that encourage these collaborations
    in research and education.

    At a time of great technological change and a greater need for
    citizens with technological understanding, we hope that NSF will
    sustain and increase its programs for improving undergraduate
    education. This is an important investment in our future and we look
    forward to working with you in this endeavor.

    ***Eleanor Baum** is Dean of Engineering at The Cooper Union, New
    York City, and Executive Director of The Cooper Union Research
    Foundation. She is past-president of the American Society of
    Engineering Education (ASEE), president-elect of the Accreditation
    Board for Engineering & Technology (ABET), member of Board of
    Governors of the New York Academy of Sciences. She has long been
    active in matters dealing with Engineering Education, encouraging
    women and minorities to seek engineering and science careers, and in
    \'technology policy matters.*

    ***Winfred M. Phillips** is currently Dean of the College of
    Engineering at the University of Florida and Associate Vice
    President for the Engineering & Industrial Experiment Station. He is
    currently President of the American Society for Engineering
    Education; President of the American Institute for Medical and
    Biological Engineering; Past President of the Accreditation Board
    for Engineering & Technology; Governor of the American Society for
    Mechanical Engineers; Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the
    Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering; and serves as
    corporate director and member of a number of industrial, state and
    national scientific advisory boards. He was Professor and Head of
    the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University from
    1980-88. Prior to this, he was a Professor of Aerospace Engineering;
    Associate Dean for Research in the College of Engineering, 1979-80;
    and Acting Chair for the Intercollegiate Bioengineering program,
    1978-79 at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Phillips received a
    Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering in 1963 from Virginia
    Polytechnic Institute; a Master of Engineering in Aerospace
    Engineering in 1966 from the University of Virginia; and a Doctor of
    Science in Aerospace Engineering in 1968 from the University of
    Virginia. Dr. Phillips was granted a National Institutes of Health
    Career Development Award in 1975-80, named Distinguished Hoosier by
    the Governor of Indiana in 1987, and serves as a Governor appointee
    to the Enterprise Florida Technology Development Board and the
    Southern Technology Council. He is Chairman of the Board of the
    North Florida Technology Innovation Corporation, Inc. of Gainesville
    and Vice Chair of the Council for Economic Outreach, Inc. Dr.
    Phillips is author of over 140 research publications, and his
    personal research and teaching interests include mechanical
    engineering, fluid mechanics and biomedical engineering.*

    Undergraduate Education in Computer Science & Engineering

    Peter J. Denning

    *Associate Dean for Computing, School of Information Technology and
    Engineering,*

    *George Mason University\
    Richmond, Virginia*

    By all accounts, undergraduate education in Computer Science and
    Engineering (CS&E) is flourishing. There are 154 Ph.D.-granting CS&E
    departments in the U.S., and several times that number granting BS
    degrees. Enrollments have been steady or increasing for the past
    several years as public interest in the discipline has increased
    with the explosion of the Internet, Worldwide Web, computational
    science, and information-based engineering. There is strong
    agreement on the basics, the core of the discipline, as registered
    in the 1989 ACM/IEEE report *Computing as a Discipline*, and
    incorporated into the guidelines of the Computer Science
    Accreditation Board (CSAB). The faculty share a growing concern for
    cooperation with industry, reflected in the growing use of senior
    design projects and the 1994 call of the CS department chairs for
    faculty to spend at least a year in industry as a condition of
    tenure. The faculty have responded well to the Hartmanis report,
    *Computing the Future* (NRC, 1994), which called for more attention
    to be paid to the undergraduate curriculum. For example, they are
    getting better and better at offering \"introduction to computing,\"
    where they are developing a new view of computation based around
    interactions with machines rather than programming. In the lower
    divisions especially, they are beginning to employ undergraduate
    teaching assistants (UTAs) to provide supplemental instruction and
    help for peers, lessening failure rates and increasing retention
    without decreasing faculty involvement. They are including more team
    projects, many on topics of concern to students, more student
    presentations, and more written reports in their courses. After a
    slow start, they are now responding in numbers to cross-disciplinary
    work, especially in computational science, biotechnology, quantum
    computing, information retrieval in the humanities, and graphics for
    the arts. They are making good use of educational technologies such
    as Lotus Notes, interactive TV, CD-ROM, class web pages, Internet
    searching, computer-based lab projects, simulations, and workbenches
    in their classes. They are engaged in lively debates on how much to
    increase instruction in basic systems integration and how to reach
    students to design for human concerns, debates whose outcomes can
    only have positive effects on curricula.

    Remaining Trouble Spots

    I mark the 1988 publication of Charles Sykes\'s best-seller,
    *ProfScam*, as the beginning of the modern art of university
    bashing. A dozen or so additional books and innumerable editorials
    have since appeared on the same subject. The principal complaints
    lodged by these writers include: 1) faculty are more interested in
    research than in teaching; 2) graduates lack competence in their
    fields; 3) tuition and costs are rising faster than inflation
    without a corresponding increase in value; 4) faculty spent too
    little time in the classroom; and 5) faculty hide behind tenure and
    academic freedom rather than address problems. These writers have
    clearly struck a resonant chord: not only have their works been
    best-sellers, but the chord has hummed in state legislature across
    the land, producing sharp cuts in higher education in most states
    and in the federal budget for research, and producing new laws that
    attempt to bring faculty and their administrations to account for
    their reluctance to address well-known problems.

    In my mind, these criticisms add up to customer dissatisfaction with
    universities on a massive scale. Many faculty do not like the notion
    that students, parents, and employers are their customers -- and yet
    students, parents, and employers are genuine, money-paying,
    satisfaction-seeking customers whose discontent is being felt. The
    successes, improvements, and innovations I listed earlier
    demonstrate some real progress on the problems cited by the critics,
    and I daresay many critics would be pleased at the progress that has
    been made. At the same time, if we make an honest report card for
    ourselves, we can see that we have a long way to go before we will
    win back the full confidence and loyalty of our customers.

    *Research:* University research is a big enterprise, seen by most
    faculty as integral to the mission of a university. Faculty still
    place more emphasis on research than on any other factors for
    promotion and tenure. Few undergraduate students come into contact
    with faculty research. The complaint that students learn more about
    advanced technologies from the Discovery Channel than from their
    professors has considerable merit. In my view, we can go a long way
    toward resolving this problem by finding ways to connect research to
    undergraduate curricula. Some of these ways will involve
    technologies that facilitate the \"feedback path\" from research to
    curriculum, while others will involve new faculty practices such as
    organizing technology shows or engaging undergraduate students in
    their own research projects.

    *Student Competence:* In response to pointed criticisms by business
    people, we have made good progress with team projects, senior design
    projects, co-op programs, and more emphasis on good presentations
    and written reports. But there is much more we can do. Few of us can
    give a cogent answer to the questions: \"At what must the educated
    engineers (computer scientists) of the 21^st^ century be competent?
    How will we know that they are?\" Few CS&E undergraduate programs
    have made a clear statement of the promises they make to their
    students about the kinds of competence they will have on graduation.
    Fewer have agreements with business people that those are the
    competencies required for work and even fewer still have any means
    of demonstrating that students are competent. Until we address these
    questions -- in co-operation with business people -- we will forever
    be playing a game of catch-up, a game of responding to pointed
    criticisms, rather than a game of anticipating what is needed before
    it becomes a business necessity.

    *Tuition:* As faculty, we do not pay much attention to reducing the
    costs of education -- we see that as the job of administration. When
    we do think about it, we speak of using information technology to
    improve communication with students, to automate some parts of the
    process such as keeping records or grading, to provide learning
    environments that students find more engaging, and to reach more
    students through distance learning. We complain when undergraduate
    class size reaches 50 students, but seldom investigate the question
    of how to organize the teaching of 500 students effectively.

    *Classroom Time:* Most faculty I know spent 15-20 hours a week on
    each class -- 3 in the classroom, several more in preparation,
    several more in coaching students, and several more in grading and
    giving feedback. Virtually everyone is using e-mail to permit
    students to have access to them around the clock. Faculty
    accessibility is becoming less of a complaint. I don\'t think there
    is a problem on this issue, but the word may not be out.

    *Tenure:* Criticisms of the \"tenure system\" stir deep resentments
    among the faculty. Instead of recognizing these criticisms as
    frustration on the part of critics about our lack of response to
    their real criticisms, we react with great defensiveness, which only
    fans the flames. We would do far better to respond directly to the
    criticisms about our effectiveness in research, conferring
    competence, and teaching. In any case, the growing wave of \"post
    tenure review\" processes being mandated by state legislatures is
    going to render tenure a fond memory.

    As you can see, I rate the first three items on the last as the
    remaining trouble spots among the main issues raised by the critics
    of higher education.

    New Trouble Spots

    I would like to turn now to some areas in which we are not paying
    much attention, areas that will surely become trouble spots unless
    we do pay attention to them. These may offer even bigger challenges
    than the ones we are now dealing with. In discussing these aspects,
    I do not want anyone to think I am suggesting that \"something is
    broken, throw it out and start over.\" I do suggest that we pay
    serious attention to these areas before they turn into real
    problems. There are two:

-   The demise of the university

-   Effective teaching in the age of the Internet

Demise of The University

Four assumptions lay behind our historical conception of a
university: 1) the library; 2) a community of scholars (formed around
library) drawing on each other\'s knowledge in different disciplines; 3)
teachers working with small groups of students; and 4) offering a period
of schooling; helping one to transform from adolescent to adult, and
granting a credential for entering work.

Information technology is undermining these assumptions. Consider each
in order: 1) Digital libraries will soon become a reality and will make
the content and services of libraries available at every desktop. The
unique role of a university library will disappear. 2) As the quantity
of scientific records has increased, more scientists have become
specialists of increasing depth in narrower fields. The university has
fractionated into specialties in departments and sub-departments. The
local community of scholars has been replaced with a professional
community of specialists around the nation and the world, held together
by telephone, fax, Internet, and conferences. The individual has become
the representative of the specialist community on campus. Most
educational technologies developed to date are tools to help the \"solo
individual\" navigate in a complex world of specialties; few of these
technologies promote the kinds of local community that used to
characterize the university. 3) Mass education has largely done away
with the small undergraduate class. A typical class costs close to \$40K
to produce and often requires 40 students just to break even. Commercial
firms are beginning to make education offerings at prices lower than
universities, and with stronger promises of certifiable competence
(e.g., Novell network engineer). A few examples already exist of a
master teacher leveraging himself effectively for thousands to tens of
thousands of students, and more of this can be expected as entertainment
moguls meld their skills with those of flamboyant professors. 4)
Specialties change so rapidly that most people can expect to change
careers every 5-10 years during their working lives. It is no longer
true that four years of university prepares one for life. This is
producing a massive growth of interest in professional education that
universities are unable or willing to accommodate.

Our immediate response to these threats has been to invest more heavily
in information technology at universities. This provides temporary help
but does not change the underlying phenomenon, which is that information
technology is rendering the university obsolete.

What roles can universities fulfill that people would find valuable? How
do we begin to position ourselves for these new roles? I think these are
important questions that few of us are examining. Every one of us must
think deeply about these questions. I suspect that we are
underestimating the speed at which the traditional university is
approaching its disintegration. I see at least two new roles for the
university:

*Professional education:* The university can extend its educational
offers for the 45 years of professional life people will have, and not
focus primarily on the four years immediately preceding professional
life. It can offer smaller programs, say one year in length, leading to
certificates of competence. People will market themselves by an evolving
portfolio of certificates rather than as the holder of a BS, MS, or
Ph.D. degree. These programs can reach into much higher levels of
competence than now covered by any university program -- e.g., experts,
virtuosi, and masters.

*Community building*: The university can be a counter-force against the
march of increasing specialization and fragmentation. It can regain its
old capacity to foster community involvement, entrepreneurship, and
solidarity.

These suggestions are painfully brief; in my limited space here, I
intend only to point a direction for future, in-depth investigations.

Effective Teaching in the Age of the Internet

In the last few years, effective teaching has come to occupy a high
place in the concerns of every faculty member, as it should. Our notions
of teaching are strongly influenced by our notions of learning, which
have been heavily imbued with vocabulary from information technology and
cognitive science during the past generation. In my mind, the
customer-relation problems I discussed earlier are not caused by
inadequate understanding of learning, but by inadequate understanding of
teaching. The rapid advances of information technology have exacerbated
them, which draw attention to the processes of learning.

How many of you as teachers have been offered training (or even forums)
in teaching effectiveness at any time in the past five years? Ten years?
Did you accept the offer? When I ask these questions I find there are
few \"yes\" to the first two and even fewer to the third.

I suggest that we as a profession undertake an investigation of
effective teaching in the age of the Internet. I use the phrase \"way of
the teacher\" to describe the attitudes, skills, and practices of the
effective teacher. I will offer a glimpse of what these are and how we
might learn them.

The Way of The Teacher asks us to think deeply about who we \"are\" as
professors and who we need to become in order to be capable of educating
people for competent life and work in the 21^st^ century. Before we can
say who we must become, we need to understand who we are now. We are
specialists who like to congregate with our professional communities,
who are other scholars like ourselves. Although we admire or loathe the
giants of our industry (for example, Allen, Andreesen, Cerf, Clark,
Frankston, Gates, Gilder, Joy, Kahn, Lynch, Metcalfe, Moore) we do not
move in their circles; we orbit them, not they us. Many of us feel
increasingly disconnected from their world; we do not know how to move
in it. We see our jobs as teacher to transmit information to students;
we are the authorities who choose what to transmit, verify that it has
been received, and generate more of it through our research. We do not
see students, parents, and employers as customers; only funding agency
program managers routinely command this treatment. We focus a lot on
teaching process and look to cognitive science for \"laws of learning\"
that we can use to

optimize the process and support through information technology. I
suggest that most of the breakdowns that frustrate us and leave us
unsettled are related to this information-oriented way of being.

Stephen Covey tells the story of a businessman who went to Chicago to
close an important deal. He drove his rented car from O\'Hare toward
downtown, confident that the detailed map and directions from his
associate would get him there on time. Within a few minutes he began to
get confused, for he was unable to match the expressway exits to his map
and directions. He got off the expressway but could not locate his
position on the map. He called his associate, who said to him, \"Your
problem is that you gave up too easily. Get back in your car and try
harder.\" And so he did. He tried harder. He continued driving through
Chicago\'s streets, utterly unable to match his position with the map.
After a while he became very angry. He again called his associate, who
now said to him, \"Hey what are you getting mad at me for? I faxed you a
great map. Your problem is your attitude. Fix your attitude and you will
get here.\" And so he tried to improve his attitude. He was hopelessly
lost with a smile. He spied a sign to O\'Hare, drove there, and returned
home without the deal. The next day he told his secretary the said tale.
She asked to see the map. "Omigosh!" she exclaimed, "This is a map of my
hometown, Detroit! They faxed you the wrong map!"

And so it is with teaching. No amount of trying harder or attitude
adjustment is going to help us become more effective as teachers in
Chicago, or more involved in the dynamics of the computing industry, if
we are trying to find our way with a Detroit map.

I suggest that the way of the teacher begin with a map of the human
being, not a schematic of an information-learning process. A new map can
rest on premises such as the following six: 1) We are beings who
construct narratives about ourselves and those around us based on our
experiences and on conversations we have had with others. 2) We
coordinate, communicate, and learn in language. Breakdowns -- events
that interrupt our progress toward our goals -- are the moments at which
we do most of our learning. 3) Learning in the workplace is hardly
different from learning elsewhere. 4) The Internet is a communication
space that vastly enlarges the scope of those whom we can talk with and
transact with, and also enlarges the number of breakdowns that we
encounter and the kinds of things we can learn. 5) Technology is
equipment and tools that augment human capabilities and enrich the space
of actions we can take together. 6) Design is a conversation we have
with others in which we plan and describe technologies that may be
implemented and put to practice.

I speculate that from these interpretations we can build a new way to
approach the bases of effective teaching. Education, communication,
reading, listening, seductive writing, trust, compassion, fear and
self-esteem, service, assessment, diversity, seriousness, humor,
invention, innovation, historical sensibility, coaching, educational
technology, professional education, and lifelong learning -- a new map
for teaching. The goal of such an investigation would be power a new map
showing effective teaching as a set of skills and practices that can be
learned, not a gift given to a few select teachers.

Summary

1.  The field of CS&E is making good progress in responding to
    complaints from our customers about what we are teaching our
    undergraduate students.

2.  The field of CS&E still has much work to do on current trouble
    spots: to integrate research with undergraduate education, to reduce
    the \"unit cost\" of teaching courses, and to define and test for
    competence.

3.  In concert with other fields, CS&E must participate in serious
    investigations of new trouble spots, which will pose even more
    serious challenges than the current trouble spots:

> The factors, arising from information technology and the large
> increase in scientific information that are dismantling the
> assumptions underlie the university as an institution. Among the
> possible new roles of universities are professional education and
> cross-disciplinary community building.
>
> The need for a \"map\" of effective teaching in the age of the
> Internet and for training of teachers. Effective teaching can be
> approached as a set of skills and practices that can be learned, not
> as a gift given to a select few. This map would shift attention from
> the teacher as a facilitator of information processes to the teacher
> as cultivator of competence in human beings.

*Since 1991, **Peter Denning** has been Associate Dean for. Computing
and Chair of the Computer Science Department in the School of
Information Technology and Engineering at George Mason University. He
was the founding director of the Research Institute for Advanced
Computer Science (RIACS) at NASA Ames Research Center beginning in 1983.
He joined the Computer Sciences Department at Purdue University in 1972
and was head of the department from 1979. He was an assistant professor
of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University from 1968, after
completing his Ph.D. at MIT in EE. In 1980, he was one of the four
co-founders of CSNET, NSF-sponsored project that built the first
community network and initiated the transfer of the ARPANET technology
from defense contractors into today\'s Internet. He was President of the
ACM (Association for Computing Machinery 1980-82). He has led several
significant projects including bringing operating systems into the core
of computer science (1971), the Snowbird report \"A discipline in
crisis\" (1980) that helped start NSF CER program, the ACM/IEEE report
\"Computing as a discipline\" (1989) that defined the core of CS&E, and
the Center for the New Engineer (1983) at GMU that is building
technologies to support effective teaching and learning for engineering.
He has received the Computing Research Association Award, the ACM
Distinguished Service Award, two best-paper awards, three scientific
society fellowships, and two honorary degrees.*

Engineering Technology Education

(Bachelor of Science or Four-Year Degree Component)

Don K. Gentry

*Dean of Engineering, School of Technology, Purdue University\
West Lafayette, Indiana*

Engineering Technology programs are relatively young in the overall
developmental history of higher education in the United States. Their
growth and development resulted from an evolution of social, economic,
and technological events, including defined needs of industry.
Engineering education in the U.S. was generally patterned after the
École Polytechnique of Paris, France, founded in 1794, the first school
to prepare professional engineers. The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
was founded in 1824, becoming the first institute of its kind in the
United States.

The industrial revolution in the 19th Century greatly expanded the need
and scope of engineering education in the U.S. and continued the
movement leading to the creation of engineering technology programs. The
"Land-Grant College Act" or the "Morrill Act" of 1862 greatly expanded
the number of institutions offering engineering programs and made
engineering education a major part of public higher education. The
mechanical engineering programs that developed under this movement were
the genesis of many engineering technology programs operated at major
institutions today such as Penn State, Purdue, and Texas A&M.

Many technical institutions were developed in cities across the U.S.
under the federal war training programs developed during and following
World War II. This movement created training programs for the defense
industry needs. These programs remained in many cities at the end of the
Act to form the nucleus for education programs that contributed to the
development of engineering technology programs. The Servicemen\'s
Readjustment Act of 1944, which provided for 48 months of education and
training for all World War II veterans, also played a major role in the
evolving education program not yet named engineering technology.

Another development that had a dynamic impact on the growth and
development of the current programs called 'engineering technology' was
the creation of community colleges in this country. Many two year
programs in engineering technology today are operated through this
educational delivery system. These programs had the advantage of
responding quickly to the needs of industry and reaching regionally
bound students.

Many engineering technology educators point to the Grinter Report issued
in 1955 and the launching of *Sputnik* as the basis and emphasis for the
development of four-year engineering technology programs.

Dr. L. E. Grinter, former Dean of Engineering at the University of
Florida and Chairman of the Engineering Education Evaluation Committee,
which proposed a bifurcation of the engineering curriculum in the
preliminary report but excluded such language from the final report,
later summarized the situation clearly in an article written for the
*Journal of Engineering Technology:*

> "Engineering faculties \... were unable to agree with the concept of
> bifurcation of engineering curricula. The committee's objective was to
> provide a dual choice \[within engineering schools\] for each student
> of either a scientific or a more pragmatic orientation of his program
> in engineering. Nevertheless, the natural forces of student desire and
> employer need; have brought about a nearly complete solution through
> the development of four-year \[engineering technology\] curricula.
> Finally, we can see so much future development of computer-aided
> research \... that the extraordinary growth of enrollment in
> engineering and \[engineering technology\] curricula may seem a wise
> preparation for expanding future industry." (L. E. Grinter,
> Engineering and Engineering Technology Education, *Journal of
> Engineering Technology*, March 1984, 1 (1): 6-8).

From these early events in the evolution of engineering technology comes
a set of basic beliefs or principles from which the programs have
developed.

Founding Principles that have made Engineering Technology Successful

I presented a paper at the 1994 ASEE Annual Conference on the principles
that have made Engineering Technology successful from its beginning.
Those comments were condensed in a *Last Word* article for the February
1995; *ASEE Prism* entitled "Stay the Course."

"The engineering technology programs:

-   emphasize the teaching of industry-standard technological
    information and skills;

-   prepare graduates to be immediately productive in society;

-   integrate general education and technical courses within the
    curriculum;

-   provide application-oriented instruction and are laboratory based;

-   apply mathematics and natural science as an integral part of the
    learning environment;

-   place a strong emphasis on communication skills - both oral and
    written;

-   focus primarily on analyzing, applying, integrating, implementing,
    and improving existing technology and the practice of these skills;

-   provide for problem solving, lifetime learning, and teamwork skills;

-   are taught by faculty with industry experience as well as with
    appropriate academic preparation for the field; and

-   are responsive to changing market demands.

    These principles for engineering technology education are as
    reliable today as they were 35 years ago. In fact, business and
    industry may even recognize the importance of these traits and
    skills in our graduates or products more today than ever before."

    The Spectrum of Engineering Education

    As the field evolved, much time and effort has been spent defining
    the field. Few fields of education have been more studied or had
    more reports issued on their development. One such report, "The
    Engineering Technology Education Study -- Final Report" issued in
    1972 defined engineering technology as:

    "Engineering technology is that part of the technological field that
    requires the application of scientific and engineering knowledge and
    methods combined with technical skills in support of engineering
    activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum between the
    craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the
    engineer."

    The field continued to evolve and grow and in 1992 the Engineering
    Technology Council (ETC) of the American Society for Engineering
    Education (ASEE) adopted the following definition that is used in
    practice today by the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of
    the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to
    define engineering technology programs:

    "Engineering technology is the profession in which a knowledge of
    mathematics and natural sciences gained in higher education
    experience and practice is devoted primarily to the implementation
    and extension of existing technology for the benefit of humanity.
    Engineering technology education focuses on the applications aspects
    of science and engineering aimed at preparing graduates for practice
    in that portion of the technological spectrum closest to the product
    improvement, manufacturing, and engineering operational functions."

    The place of engineering technology in the spectrum of job functions
    in industry was best defined by Robert L. Mott, Associate Dean for
    Engineering Technology Programs, University of Dayton, in an article
    in the Fall of 1992 issue of the *Journal of Engineering
    Technology*.

    Figure III.1

    Design using

    Integration, Test established methods

    and Evaluation

    Manufacturing, Quality

    Development Assurance, Operations Management

    Computer Design Production, Environmental,

    Facilities Management

    Technical service,

    Applications Liaison

    Complex Analysis

    Distribution

    and Sales

    Research

    **More Mathematical Less Mathematical**

    Spectrum of Engineering Technology and Engineering Job Functions in
    Industry.

    Graduates of bachelor of science degree engineering technology
    programs are employed across the technological spectrum, but more
    prominently in applications, implementation, and production-oriented
    positions, as well as in technical sales and customer service.

    The word "engineering" is used as a noun when describing engineering
    programs in academic institutions or by association boards, and as
    an adjective when describing technology programs. The word
    "engineer" is used in industry to generally denote the function of
    the position or the job, such as design engineer, process engineer,
    manufacturing engineer, production engineer, sales engineer, or
    service engineer. Therefore, the spectrum of engineering is very
    relevant to the understanding of the field and how the graduates are
    utilized in industry.

    Continuing Challenges for Engineering and the Role of the National
    Science Foundation

    Many of the issues identified in the 1986 National Science Board
    report, *Undergraduate Science,* *Mathematics, and Engineering
    Education* (NSB 86-100), continue as issues today. Although much
    progress has been made through National Science Foundation and other
    federal programs, the following issues are identified for continued
    focus:

    Students

-   Preparedness of entering students, specifically in the areas of
    mathematics and science continues to be a concern identified by
    engineering technology educators; and

-   The need to provide applications-oriented educational programs
    beyond the baccalaureate degree for bachelor of science degree
    engineering technology graduates.

> Faculty

-   Acquiring faculty with appropriate academic preparation and
    industrial experience;

-   The need to develop incentives and rewards for faculty who teach
    comparable to those who do research;

-   Need to develop more Master\'s Degree Programs to provide faculty
    for technology institutions.

    Instructional Delivery

-   The continued growth of the global economy and the rapid expansion
    of technology will continue to impact curriculum development, and
    points to the need for the development of an adaptive workforce with
    the capability to learn throughout their careers;

-   The Advanced Technological Education program -- the need to
    recognize the important role that can be played by four-year
    institutions in the overall improvement of engineering technology
    programs in relationship to two-year institutions. Some of these
    roles are:

-   to use four-year programs as model showcase sites for laboratory and
    curriculum development;

-   the development of model curriculum for two-plus-two programs;

-   faculty professional development centers; and

-   to model the use and implementation of ever-changing technology.

-   Partnerships and outreach programs to business and industry will
    continue to be a major key to the future growth and success of the
    undergraduate programs. More replication of successful models needs
    to be supported.

-   Sustaining the high quality laboratory base of programs while facing
    the combined forces of cost escalation and rapidly changing
    technology is a major concern of all engineering technology
    institutions. The National Science Foundation's Instrumentation and
    Laboratory Improvement program needs to develop a much larger role
    in supporting this effort.

    None of these challenges is insurmountable. The engineering
    technology community is prepared to work with the National Science
    Foundation and others to find the most appropriate solution to these
    and other continuing concerns. The greatest impact will be felt when
    we all target mutually agreed upon solutions. Engineering technology
    educators greatly appreciate the recognition of our programs by
    being included in your deliberations.

    ***Don K. Gentry** has been a faculty member and administrator in
    the Purdue University School of Technology for 14 years; has served
    as Dean since 1987, is an active member of ASEE, campus
    representative for the Engineering Technology Council (ETC); and a
    board member of the Engineering Technology Leadership Council
    (ETLC). He holds a B.S. and M.S. from Purdue University and a
    Doctorate of Education Administration from Indiana University. lie
    has had over 30 years of experience in education.*

    Appendix

    Scope of the engineering technology programs today:

-   As of October 1994, 173 institutions operated 450 TAC-ABET
    accredited associate degree programs and 113 institutions operated
    320 bachelor of science (B.S.) degree TAC-ABET accredited programs
    Two-birds of the B.S. degree programs were in the
    electrical/electronic, mechanical, and manufacturing disciplines.

-   Over 6,500 Engineering Technology B.S. degrees were graduated from
    TAC-ABET accredited institutions in 1992-93, while the total
    enrollment in B.S. level engineering technology programs was 36,871.

-   The largest public institution producers of B.S. degree graduates
    are: Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and Southam
    College of Technology in Marietta, Georgia. The largest private
    institutions are the DeVry Technical Institute System, operating in
    seven states, the Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston,
    Massachusetts, and Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester,
    New York.

Enhancing Science, Mathematics, Engineering and

Technology Education at the Two-Year College

Durward R. Huffman

*President, Northern Maine Technical College*

*Academic Officer, Maine Technical College System\
Presque Isle, Maine*

It has been gratifying in recent years to observe the increased interest
and leadership, especially at the two-year college level, that the
National Science Foundation has placed on science, mathematics,
engineering and technology education. This significant leadership role
and emphasis is evidenced by such publications from the Division of
Undergraduate Education (DUE), Directorate for Education and Human
Resources as shown in the attached bibliography. DUE\'s major
programmatic areas of Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement,
Curriculum and Course Development, Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement,
NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, and Advanced
Technological Education are critical leadership initiatives for
enhancements in two-year educational programming. It is very important
for all of these initiatives to continue, with periodic reviews and
enhancements as needed. The information and recommendations contained in
a number of NSF publications listed in the bibliography have been and
will continue to be beneficial to administrators and faculty of two-year
colleges. Director Neal Lane\'s interview published in the September 19,
1995, *Community College Times* is again indicative of NSF\'s
leadership\'s view of the importance of two-year education in preparing
highly qualified technicians and technologists for the future workforce.

The individuals comprising the engineering and science technician
segment of America's workforce are typically expected to have an applied
background with a theoretical base at a level that enables those
technicians to be productive at or shortly after employment. The rate of
change of technological innovation and the integration of these new
concepts into curricula offerings necessitates frequent updating of
these programs. The rate of change is illustrated in part by the
comments of Sir Robert Telford, Life President of Marconi Cie, in his
keynote address to a 1994 conference entitled *Technologies Role: New
educational potential and obstacles of distance and flexible learning
infrastructures in the context of regional development*[^1]. He began
his address by stating that, "The success of a company/country is a
function of the sum of the competencies of the employees/populations."
He also provided information about his recent visit to a Marconi plant
in Italy and noted the following interesting facts:

-   The products that the plant was producing in 1990 had been replaced
    with new products;

-   In 1992, one-third of the orders were for products that did not
    exist two years earlier;

-   Production time has been cut drastically. A couple of years
    previously, where it had taken 40 minutes to assemble a mobile phone
    unit; it now took 12 minutes;

-   Employees operating the microelectronics production line are
    required to have university degrees;

-   Knowledge is doubling every 10 years;

-   There is an increasingly higher level of competition; and

-   There is a shift to a lifetime of learning

    Such rapid change requires graduates capable of learning new
    material independently and quickly. Students in their college work
    must develop these skills. Hence, pedagogical methods involving
    various media sources, including the Internet, must continue to be
    integrated into the learning process. Therefore, it is important for
    initiatives to encourage institutions and faculty to continue to
    develop and disseminate new methods to foster independent
    experiential learning. Advisory committees continue to communicate a
    need for additional knowledge and skills in the various areas
    external to the major discipline and within the discipline as a
    result of new technology and/or methods in the workplace. In the
    book *Future Tense*[^2] it is noted that the following traits in an
    individual\'s skill portfolio will help that individual succeed in
    the organization of the future.

-   *Reasoning*. Can these young people think straight? Can they tell
    stories that make sense? Can they develop logical arguments?

-   *Communication*. Can they read, write, talk, present, listen,
    respond, and sell an idea? Three of these are good, five, great, and
    seven exceptional.

-   *Cross-cultural skills*. Can they deal with diversity (race, gender,
    religion, ethnicity, culture, physical attributes, functional areas,
    training, and background)?

-   *Global experience*. Have they been outside the United States? Can
    they speak a second language? Are they keen to try?

-   *Team orientation*. Have they performed in a musical or theater
    group? Did they play team sports? Can they play on teams? What role
    do they like on teams?

-   *Technological literacy.* Do they have a core of technologies they
    can use or learn, particularly computer and communications
    technologies: PCs, local area networks, e-mail, work processing, and
    spreadsheets? Are they interested in new technologies as tools?

-   *Track record of achievement*. Have they had successes in any field?
    What are the interests that motivate them? How do they feel about
    success?

-   *Quick study*. What can they learn? How fast? Do they seek out
    learning situations?

A comprehensive task force within the Maine Technical College System,
identified in its report, Skills For The 2Ist Century3 has reached
similar conclusions*.*

Engineering technology programs accredited by the Technology
Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (TAC of ABET) generally have program criteria developed by
the responsible professional society. These criteria along with the
general criteria for accreditation by the TAC of ABET establish a
minimum standard for these programs. Over the years, the credit hour
content of many of these programs has continued to creep upward.
Recognizing the heavy student workload, some programs have reduced the
required number of credit hours to make the program more attractive to
students while incorporating advances in technology. Others have
addressed these concerns be expanding some two-year engineering
technology programs to the baccalaureate level. A third alternative
under consideration by others is to offer an advanced post-associate
certificate for technical workers to provide the expanded knowledge and
skills needed by their employers.

In my letter of August 4, 1995, to Dr. Watson, I referred to the result
of the foregoing pressures as curricula compression. This presents a
formidable challenge to faculty and administrators given the typical
problems of eroding resources, academic preparation of entering
students, and others as listed on page 22 of *Technical Education in
Two-Year Colleges*[^3].

Another major concern exists with the transition to the information age
economy and the downsizing of many businesses. This has negatively
impacted the availability of jobs for technical workers in various areas
of the nation. While NSF is not directly engaged in economic development
initiatives, it is important to recognize these economic conditions and
to encourage economic development activities by various agencies of
federal and local governments.

The importance of the appropriate level of academic competencies of
incoming students is worthy of special note. Tech Prep and other
initiatives at the secondary level are helping. Continued emphasis by
appropriate government agencies should be directed toward the successful
existing initiatives, toward teacher preparation programs and toward
professional development activities to assure appropriate academic
achievement by students at the secondary school level. Associated with
the secondary school activities is a need for guidance counselors to
understand the opportunities available to science and engineering
technicians and technologists and the academic preparation required for
these careers. Appropriate counseling and encouragement would assist
many students in being better prepared academically to enroll and be
successful in these curricula at the two-year college.

From my perspective, there will be a need for continued improvement
and/or revision of teaching techniques for the foreseeable future to
continue to incorporate technological changes into the teaching and
learning process. Until there is substantial improvement in the
economies in many states and/or regions of the nation, resources at the
local level will continue to be limited. Consequently, the continued
leadership of NSF is most important in such initiatives as the ATE
program and dissemination of the results of promising practices. Efforts
based on the results of such initiatives as well as work previously
disseminated can be most useful to two-year mathematics, engineering
technician and science technician programs. Please continue these
programs, expand into other activities that look promising, and
encourage other government agencies and/or departments to support the
technician segment of the workforce of American.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony.

***Durward R. Huffman** serves as president of Northern Maine Technical
College, one of seven colleges in the Maine Technical College System.
11e also serves as the academic officer for the system. He has technical
college administrative experience at all levels and has taught at both
associate and baccalaureate levels. He has an Ed.D. in higher education
from the University of Sarasota; a masters degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Colorado; and a bachelor of science
degree in electrical engineering from Heald Engineering College. He is a
registered professional engineer, and his industrial experience includes
the design of electrical power systems and process control systems. He
holds professional membership in the American Society of Engineering
Education, the American Technical Education Association, and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He is presently
serving as a member of the Community and Workforce Development
Commission of the American Association of Community Colleges and is
active in various community organizations. His activities in
accreditation include service on regional teams and on TAC/ABET teams He
has served as chair of the Technology Accreditation Commission of the
Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology and is editor-in-chief
of the* Journal of Engineering Technology.

References

Cvancara, K.J., 1995. \"Interview: Neal Lane,\" *Community College
Times,* American Association of Community Colleges, Washington, D.C.,
Vol. VII. No. 18, September 19, 1995, p. 6.

Kabat, E., J. N. Friedel and M. Senew, 1995. *Partnering To Build A
Quality Workforce: Critical Issues in Environmental Technology Education
at Two-Year Colleges,* Advanced Technology Environmental Education
Center (ATEEC), Bettendorf, IA.

National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing Position Paper, *Preparing
Technical Workers for The New Industrial Area: The Need for a
Fundamental Shift in Federal Policy Toward Technical Education,*
Washington, DC, 1993.

National Science Foundation, *DUE Awards to Two-Year Colleges 1993,*
Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), Washington, DC, 1993.

National Science Foundation, *DUE News,* Division of Undergraduate
Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Fall 1994.

National Science Foundation, *Gaining the Competitive Edge: Critical
Issues in Science and Engineering Technician Education,* Division of
Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
Washington, DC, July 1993.

National Science Foundation, *Matching Actions and Challenges: Report of
a National Science Foundation Workshop on Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Education in Two-year Colleges,* Directorate for Education
and Human Resources Washington, DC, May 1992.

National Science Foundation, *Partners in Progress: Report of a National
Science Foundation Workshop on the Role of Professional Societies in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in Two-year
Colleges,* Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Washington,
DC, October 1992.

United States Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Labor, 1993.
*Workplace of the Future: A Report of the Conference on the Future of
the American Workplace.* U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of
Labor Washington, DC, July 26, 1993.

Undergraduate Education in Chemistry

Ernest L. Eliel

*Professor of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill\
Chapel Hill, North Carolina*

I believe it is worth stating at the beginning that undergraduate
education in chemistry in the U.S. is in quite good shape overall,
thanks to the operation of the American Chemical Society\'s Committee on
Professional Training (CPT) over some 60 years. Students in the
approximately 60 percent of U.S. chemistry departments that are ACS
approved (about 90 percent of all undergraduate chemistry majors) are
well prepared for continuing graduate studies in chemistry as well as
many areas of molecular biology, polymer and materials science,
environmental science etc. Provided, of course, they follow the ACS
approved curriculum. (Only about 50 percent of chemistry majors do.) The
possibility of specialization in the last two years of study, e.g. in
biochemistry, environmental chemistry, polymer science, etc. now
provided in the approved curricula has enhanced their value. It is less
clear if these curricula prepare a chemistry B.S. well to enter directly
into industry. Our industrial colleagues complain about problems in oral
and written communication, lack of experience with teamwork, and lack of
knowledge of industrial needs and practices.

While chemistry curricula for chemists may need no more than fine
tuning, it must be remembered that the majority of students taking
freshman and sophomore chemistry are not chemistry but biology majors,
pre-pharmacists or pre-medical students. The needs of that majority may
not be the same as those for chemists.

Finally it must be said that the standard freshman chemistry course is
not particularly suitable as a terminal course for majors in the
humanities, fine arts or social sciences who need a science course to
fill a distribution requirement. Few such majors take chemistry; they
tend to prefer biology, geology, or psychology. As a result -- and
especially -- if they are among the 45 percent of all students who have
evaded chemistry in high school -- they may never learn about the
chemistry (food, materials, environment, etc.) that is so important in
everyday life.

Suggestions

> 1\. A number of departments have adopted a sequence of one semester of
> general chemistry followed by two semesters of organic chemistry and
> one semester of more advanced general-inorganic-analytical-physical
> chemistry -- such a sequence may be preferable especially for those
> not majoring in chemistry.
>
> 2\. A course of the type based on \"Chemistry in Context\" should be
> taught for non-science majors.
>
> 3\. CPT requires 400 hours of laboratory. This requirement should not
> be shaved. In general, U.S. students are not as proficient in the
> laboratory as students from Switzerland, Germany, and many other
> countries are.
>
> 4\. A seminar course for seniors would assist them in acquiring
> ability with oral presentation of ideas.
>
> 5\. The grading of laboratory notebooks and reports should be done
> with care and thoroughness and should include correction of bad
> English.
>
> 6\. It is strongly recommended that chemistry majors be involved in
> research projects, at least during their senior year.
>
> 7\. Co-op programs are ideal for acquiring familiarity with industrial
> operations (including teamwork). Short of that, a chemistry major
> might profitably spend one or two summers in an industrial laboratory.

***Ernest L. Eliel** is W. R. Kenan Jr. Professor emeritus in the
Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
His research interests are in the area of organic chemistry, especially
stereochemistry. In the latter area he has authored, co-authored and
edited several influential books, including* Stereochemistry of Carbon
Compounds *(McGraw Hill, 1962),* Conformational Analysis *(Wiley,
1965),* Topics in Stereochemistry *(21 volumes, Wiley, 1967-94) and*
Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds *(Wiley, 1994). He is the author or
co-author of about 300 scientific papers in the area of chemistry. Dr.
Eliel has taught undergraduate courses (both lecture and laboratory) as
well as advanced organic chemistry courses at the University of Notre
Dame and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over a period
of more than 40 years.*

Strategies for Revitalizing Undergraduate Education:

A Perspective from Chemistry

Angelica M. Stacy

*College of Chemistry*

*University of California, Berkeley\
Berkeley, California*

I think it is fair to say that I have goals, as do many of my
colleagues, for all undergraduate students attending our institutions.
As the role of science and technology in our lives expands, it becomes
increasingly evident to us that we need to ensure that students leave
our institutions with the scientific and technological literacy
necessary for them to be able to participate in improving society and to
lead productive lives.

In this testimony, I want first to highlight some needs of our society
with regard to science and technology. Then I hope to paint a picture of
the current state of affairs with regard to undergraduate education in
chemistry. I will follow this with a discussion of some of the
constraints placed on faculty with regards to their role in chemistry
education. Finally, I will leave you with a few key recommendations.

What are the needs of society?

There is a need for continued development of science and technology, for
better living. For example, we need a sufficient food supply,
non-polluting and renewable energy sources, and a cure for cancer. There
is a clear need for students educated in science and technology who will
spend their careers seeking and implementing processes and products to
meet the ever-increasing needs of society. As chemists, we have a unique
opportunity to educate most of these students; they are required to take
our first-year chemistry course before going on in studies of science
and technology.

Second, there is a need for citizens who are scientifically and
technically literate. As the role of science and technology in our lives
increases, we continually face decisions that require a certain degree
of such literacy. Should we use pesticides or eat genetically engineered
fruits? Are electric cars better? Is vitamin C a magic cure? All
citizens must have some degree of scientific and technological literacy
to use technology effectively and make informed decisions.

What is the current state of affairs in chemistry?

The undergraduate chemistry curriculum is much the same as it was 30
years ago. The curriculum is focused on basic knowledge necessary for
advanced studies in chemistry despite the fact that more than 90 percent
of those enrolled in the large freshman chemistry courses will not
become chemists, and despite the changing needs of industry and the need
for better teacher preparation.

What takes place in our classrooms?

The methods presently used in most institutions for teaching chemistry
involve faculty transmitting chemical principles with chalk in hand to
large numbers of students using a lecture format. This manner of
teaching has a long history, with origins in the old European system
where the professor describes his knowledge from the front of the
lecture hall to an eager audience of a generally well-prepared,
ethnically and culturally homogeneous group of young men. Times have
changed.

Certainly, a highlight of our curriculum is our laboratories. Students
have the opportunity to do hands-on experiments. Unfortunately, many of
the laboratory experiments offered to the students require merely
following a recipe from a science cookbook. Furthermore, although the
National Science Foundation deserves credit for putting some new
instrumentation into these laboratories, I would say that still,
compared with the laboratories at many, many institutions, my kitchen is
better equipped.

The textbooks have grown larger and more colorful, but contain few
meaningful descriptions of the process of science and applications of
the scientific method. The role of science in society and "real"
examples of contributions of science to society is absent. Moreover,
since a small fraction of faculty participates in writing these
textbooks, most faculties have little opportunity to define and/or
reshape the curriculum.

The exams are written for convenience of grading rather than true
assessment of conceptual knowledge, and thinking skills. Few of us
recognize the impression with which these exams leave the students. Do
we really want students to believe that all problems are solvable, and
moreover, that there is always one correct solution?

While this is the state of affairs in many of the freshman chemistry
courses throughout our country, the Division of Undergraduate Education
at the National Science Foundation has taken a leadership role in
revitalizing the curriculum. Several major chemistry curriculum reform
efforts are underway. Presently, there is a substantial community that
has emerged and is engaged in building a vision. We want to enhance the
quality of education that we offer students taking chemistry courses,
build consensus throughout the entire community regarding this vision,
and develop and implement materials to revitalize our courses. New
technologies are being employed extensively, and research in cognitive
science is being embedded.

What constraints are placed on faculty?

Chemistry faculty continues to be rewarded for research. Not only are
activities in education not rewarded, but also such activities hold
faculty back from promotion because they come at the expense of
research. Doing a good job in the classroom is perceived to require
minimal intellectual effort compared with research activities. While
strict requirements for review of research are imposed, there is little
assessment of teaching and, thus, no accountability. In short, tenure
and promotion are tied to research. Spending time teaching counts
against faculty because it takes time away from research.

Moreover, there is an implicit assumption that having done research in
chemistry qualifies a faculty member to be an expert teacher. Most
faculties walk into their first class with no formal training in
education.

Following up on this issue of teacher training, we as a large community
of scientists often complain about the level of scientific literacy in
our Country. Yet, we take little responsibility for educating the K-12
teachers, and indeed also our future political leaders, business leaders
and citizens, who come through our institutions.

There is another major constraint placed on chemistry faculty. If you
observe from outside the discipline, you will conclude that you need to
be white male. Few institutions can claim even one African-American
graduate student. At the assistant professor level, some institutions
have still to hire their first woman. And sadly, some still believe that
the women and minorities who have been permitted to enter the profession
are there only because they belong to underrepresented groups.

Recommendations

I strongly believe that systemic curriculum efforts are key if we are to
reform chemistry education specifically and science education generally.
In this regard, the National Science Foundation deserves to be applauded
for its efforts and should continue these efforts. Although there have
been many notable small programs in recent years, these programs do not
have wide impact, and are not easy to disseminate effectively. One
reason is that there is no widespread discussion and buy-in that comes
with participating in the project. The systemic curriculum reform
efforts that are underway have engaged many in a major rethinking. This
is having a huge impact because of the publicity, and the
acknowledgments that come with having received a major grant. I believe
that it is fair to say that the National Science Foundation has nearly
single-handedly raised the status of scholarship in chemistry education.

There has been less success regarding diversity. Large segments of the
population continue to be excluded. Curricular changes may help to
increase diversity when course materials are more suitable for students
from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. But if the most
significant changes are to occur, the culture in our institutions must
change. Those presently on the inside need to reevaluate their behavior,
their prejudices, and their perceptions, and find effective ways to
welcome excluded groups.

In Conclusion

Reform efforts will be successful if the value system and reward
structure at our institutions are changed. Definitions of scholarship
that emphasize the central importance of teaching must be embraced.
Diversity must become more than a slogan. Promoting issues of diversity
and the scholarship of teaching will require a rapid evolution of
institutional and cultural changes championed by enlightened leadership.
The National Science Foundation\'s leadership in these efforts is
essential if cultural change is to become a reality at our nation\'s
institutions.

***Angelica M. Stacy** joined the Department of Chemistry at Berkeley as
an Assistant Professor in 1983 and has been a Professor since 1994. Her
educational interests include the development of environmental and
biologically-relevant chemistry laboratory experiments for freshman
chemistry; development of curriculum materials using a modular approach
to lecture and laboratory, where each module is motivated by an
overarching question of interest to the students; this serves as a
springboard to teach chemical concepts; and implementation of teaching
methods which emphasize active learning and metacognition and
incorporate mutimedia tools. Additionally, Dr. Stacy's research
interests include the synthesis and characterization of new solid state
materials with novel electronic and magnetic properties; development of
new synthetic methods, including the use of molten salts for the
synthesis of oxide materials; discovery of new layered niobium oxide
superconductors; synthesis of polymeric transition metal chalcogenides;
and studies of cooperative phenomena in rare earth transition metal
phosphides.*

Disciplinary Perspectives in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
Technology Undergraduate Education: Physics

Robert C. Hilborn

*Professor of Physics, Amherst College*

*President-Elect, American Association of Physics Teachers\
Amherst, Massachusetts*

There is an old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." For
undergraduate science education, these are indeed interesting times.
With the passing of the Cold War and the arrival of a newly-elected
majority in Congress, we are all part of a massive re-examination
(sometimes explicit, but more often implicit) of the role of science and
technology in our society and the mechanisms by which society supports
research and development in science and technology. No one has easy
answers to the questions of how many scientists and engineers we need as
we enter the 21st century and what level of support the nation ought to
provide for research, development and science education and how should
that support be apportioned between the public and private sectors. I
certainly will not pretend to be able to provide answers to those
questions here, but I will focus on how these issues bear on
undergraduate science education and undergraduate physics education in
particular. In fact, I will argue that these "interesting times" are
more a blessing than a curse for all of undergraduate education. They
force use to address fundamental problems, some of which have been with
us for decades.

For all of those concerned with the health of physics, both as the
foundation science for the education of scientists, engineers, and a
scientifically-literate citizenry, and as a key link in the development
of the entire scientific and technological enterprise, the dilemmas we
face have many horns. I have grouped my remarks into six categories.
After discussing these categories I will address the issue of how the
National Science Foundation can best help the scientific community
grapple with these problems. We face several qualitatively new
challenges:

1.  The lessons of physics education research.

2.  The lessons of research in physics education.

3.  The crisis of careers.

4.  The dilemma of diversity.

5.  Preparation of the future professoriate.

6.  Implementing what works.

In addressing each of these challenges, I shall focus on physics because
that is the field I know best, but I believe that what I have to say
applies equally well to all undergraduate science education.

Physics Education Research

Thanks to the widespread efforts of many physicists working in physics
education research (the study of how real students learn and how real
teachers teach, and the relationship, if any, between the two). We now
have overwhelming evidence that the standard introductory physics
courses dominated by lectures and cookbook-type laboratory exercises,
succeed only with the most highly motivated and best-prepared students,
and even with those students the gaps in their conceptual understanding
rivals the budget gaps of Washington. Our standard approaches to
teaching, like our standard approaches to budget making in Washington,
just seem to widen the gap between what we want to achieve and what the
outcome actually is to exacerbate the problem. Introductory physics
instructors suffer a kind of pedagogical schizophrenia; they want to
provide students with a solid and broad grounding in fundamental
principles and techniques, but they also want to let students know about
contemporary issues and excitement in physics. No one claims to know how
to do both in the standard two-semester introductory course.

Research in Physics Education

Within the last ten years the science teaching community has developed a
remarkable consensus of "what works," the theme song of Project
Kaleidoscope. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that engaging
undergraduate students in active learning and active research, in close
contact with faculty and other students encourages students of all kinds
to continue toward a career in science. This engagement takes several
forms:

-   Instruction that keeps students active in the classroom working on
    problems and questions and laboratory exercises with each other aids
    conceptual understanding, problem solving abilities, and students'
    attitudes towards science.

-   Early participation in scientific research in close association with
    faculty members and other students is a strong motivator for those
    who stay on in a scientific career. NSF has clearly played a major
    role in this area with its support of URE and RUI programs, but the
    Pew Charitable Trusts, Research Corporation, and the Howard Hughes
    Medical Institute have been important players as well.

-   The appropriate use of technology can enhance active learning even
    in large "lecture" classes. Interconnected small computers provide a
    focus for small group discussions with immediate feedback to the
    students and to the instructor about the range of answers. The use
    of spreadsheets has provided a means for numerical computation with
    almost no programming and permits even introductory students to
    produce sophisticated graphs and curve-fitting. Digital
    video-processing provides means to study realistic applications of
    Newtonian mechanics. We also know that some kinds of technology are
    not very effective: computer simulations of experiments easily done
    in the lab are the work of the devil. Science is about understanding
    the natural world, not a computer simulation of the world.
    Computer-aided instruction, at least in its traditional
    implementation, both isolates students from one another, and is also
    extremely time-consuming to develop.

    The Dilemma of Diversity

    The face of science is changing. The number of women and minorities
    in science has increased dramatically in the last 10-20 years. This
    is a very positive sign for physics and all the other sciences. But
    we have a long way to go. The science professions are still not
    making use of the full spectrum of the nation's talent. This is bad
    for the science professions and bad for society as a whole. Most
    professional career decisions are made at the undergraduate level,
    so we must all focus our attention here.

    But there is also another kind of diversity -- a diversity that cuts
    across the lines drawn by gender and ethnic background -- a that is
    much more important for our concerns in undergraduate science
    education: this is the growing diversity in the backgrounds and
    experiences students bring to their college-level courses. If we
    could afford to teach all introductory science courses in sections
    of 20-25 students, we could handle the problem. But we don't and, at
    least during our teaching lives, we probably never will. Therefore,
    any introductory physics course that fails to acknowledge that
    diversity and the design of teaching strategies to deal with that
    diversity is bound to miss the mark.

    A related diversity issue is the future impact of the National
    Science Standards and related projects, such as the National Science
    Teachers Association's *Scope, Sequence and Coordination* and the
    AAAS *Project 2061*, on the science preparation of secondary school
    students. All of these standards efforts are still in a period of
    gestation, and it is too soon to tell what impact, if any, these
    programs will have on what students bring to their college-level
    courses. The past ten years have shown signs that high school
    science and math is progressing. The percentage of students taking
    chemistry has risen; the increase for physics is smaller, but still
    evident.

    Crisis of Careers

    Job prospects for doctorates in academe and basic research range
    from poor to miserable. The shortage of scientists and engineers
    predicted in the Neal report never materialized for a host of
    reasons, most of which could not have been foreseen at the time the
    report was written. As a consequence, the physics community is
    beginning to re-examine the structure of Ph.D. and Masters programs
    to make physics graduates more employable. Similar efforts are
    beginning to emerge at the undergraduate level for example in
    numerous physics and cross-disciplinary programs (physics and
    engineering, physics and business, physics and computer science, for
    example). Although I applaud these programs, I believe that to some
    extent they miss the crucial issue. Physics programs already prepare
    physicists for a wide variety of careers. For example the October
    1994 issue of *Physics Today* provides an impressive list of the
    diverse careers of physics majors graduating from Haverford College.
    The crucial points are ones of career counseling -- ­letting students
    see the wide range of career possibilities and reducing the strong
    bias toward graduate education, aiming only for a career in basic
    science. NSF plays a role here. For example, as part of a grant
    application, I filled out some NSF forms that asked how many of our
    undergraduate majors went on to graduate school in physics? With the
    clear implication that the more, the better. We also need to change
    our language. For example, the physics community traditionally talks
    about "traditional" (academic jobs and basic research jobs in
    industry and the national labs) and "nontraditional" employment. In
    fact, it has never been the case that more than approximately 40
    percent of physics doctorates have taken academic and basic research
    positions.

    Preparation of the Future Professoriate

    Graduate education in science has traditionally focused solely on
    research. Undergraduate programs focus on preparation for graduate
    school. Neither has provided much in the way of professional
    training for those who aim to teach. As a consequence we teach as we
    were taught without much recognition of what has been learned about
    science pedagogy. This feedback system then tends to reward those
    who can learn best with traditional lecture instruction, thereby
    contributing perhaps unintentionally to the dichotomy between the
    scientific haves and have nots. Support and training for new faculty
    members and teaching assistants (the forgotten teaching force in
    undergraduate education) informing them of the results of science
    education research and new pedagogical methods must come at all
    levels: individual departments, colleges and universities,
    professional societies, and federal agencies.

    Special attention needs to be paid to two-year college faculty, who,
    for example, teaches almost half of the nation's students who take
    calculus-based introductory physics. These faculty work often in
    very small departments with very little professional contact with
    other faculty members in their discipline. Programs such as the
    *AAPT TYC21* program supported by NSF are needed to help develop
    both the sense and the reality of professionalism for this important
    group of science educators.

    Undergraduate science education is also crucial for prospective K-12
    teachers, with special needs and problems for K-8 teachers who must
    be prepared to teach a wide range of disciplinary materials.
    Developing curricular materials such as NSF supported *Powerful
    Ideas in Physical* Science, which allow the teachers to learn
    science as they will teach it, with an emphasis on hands-on projects
    that cut across the traditional disciplines, is of crucial
    importance.

    Implementing What Works

    There is a two-fold problem here: First, the new pedagogy is at odds
    with the standard "fire hose" pace of what passes for teaching in
    most introductory courses. The demands for "coverage" outweigh the
    demands for conceptual understanding and true learning. To
    complicate matters, many of the innovative pedagogical strategies
    still focus on the standard topics of introductory physics,
    particularly mechanics and electromagnetism. There are only a few
    brave efforts to apply the new pedagogy to twentieth century
    physics, though we are beginning to see some efforts in this
    direction. Indeed we will soon need to think about the physics of
    the 21st century.

    The second problem is what I might call Newt's First Law: The Law of
    Institutional Inertia. Research universities see graduate science
    education and research as a source of both prestige and cash. For
    them undergraduate science education is an unruly and sometimes
    aggravating stepchild. Even comprehensive universities and four-year
    colleges are not immune to the "glamour" of research over education.
    We still talk about teaching "loads" and research "opportunities." I
    urge NSF to use its bully pulpit for renewed focus on undergraduate
    education. We need to remind (or convince) researchers and
    university administrators that their efforts in undergraduate
    education will in the long run help graduate education by providing
    them with better prepared students and more thoughtful support for
    research with a well-informed citizenry.

    But reforming undergraduate education is often expensive at least in
    terms of one-time capital costs. Setting up a *Workshop Physics*
    program to service several hundred introductory physics students
    would cost several hundred thousand dollars. What we need is a way
    of recognizing the fact that the equipment will be used by those
    students and succeeding classes of students for hundreds of hours.
    The cost per student-hour is then quite modest. Is there a way that
    NSF can assist financially in this endeavor?

    How are reforms to be promulgated and made effective? I argue that
    most science faculty members feel more loyalty to their profession
    than to their home institution - and are more responsive to
    "pressure" from the profession than the home institution. (If the
    Dean says so, we do it reluctantly - if the profession moves in a
    certain direction, we join in enthusiastically). Thus I believe that
    NSF and other groups seeking to implement effective reforms in
    undergraduate science education will need to work closely (as they
    have already in some cases) with professional societies such as the
    American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Physical
    Society, and the American Chemical Society.

    NSF and Undergraduate Science Education

    NSF's role should, I believe, focus on providing catalysts and
    leverage. The classic example of leverage is the ILI program. But we
    also need to leverage people as well as equipment. We need at the
    undergraduate level a program like the highly successful Physics
    Teacher Resource Agents (PTRA) program that has now reached hundreds
    of high school teachers with workshops and programs that bring them
    up-to-date on physics content and pedagogical issues. Of course, the
    culture of college faculty is different from that of high school
    teachers, but the notion of faculty working with faculty to
    disseminate what works seems to be the best way to leverage limited
    NSF funds.

    NSF ought to encourage the development of central repositories, for
    example on the Worldwide Web, where science educators can find
    information on everything from the latest curricular innovation and
    pedagogical research to lists of textbooks available for various
    courses.

    Major curricular development and reform is time-consuming and
    expensive. Producing a complete set of text materials, assessment
    materials, software and so on requires many person-years of effort
    and considerable field-testing and evaluation if the curriculum is
    to have widespread acceptance. NSF already has played a major role
    in physics by supporting programs such as the *Introductory
    University Physics Press* project, which has made radical change in
    introductory physics possible and in fact intellectually
    respectable. At the high school level NSF's support for Active
    Physics, designed to reach 80 percent of the high school students
    who have not taken the traditional physics courses.

    Major efforts are needed to develop science courses aimed at
    non-science majors. In most cases, these students bring to their
    college-level science courses different levels of motivation and
    preparation compared to science majors. Putting them all into the
    same introductory courses serves neither audience well and makes
    large courses even larger. NSF support would aid in providing a
    ready repertoire of such courses.

    ***Robert C. Hilborn** received a B.A. in physics from Lehigh
    University in 1966 and his Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University
    in 1971. Following a two-year postdoctoral position at the State
    University of New York at Stony Brook, he taught physics for 13
    years at Oberlin College. In 1986 he moved to Amherst College as
    Professor of Physics, where, in 1993, he was named Amanda and Lisa
    Cross Professor. He has been a visiting faculty member at the
    University of California at Santa Barbara, Taiwan Technical
    University in the People\'s Republic of China, and at Georgia
    Institute of Technology. During 1996 he served as President of the
    American Association of Physics Teachers. He is also a member of the
    American Institute of Physics Governing Board and the Council of the
    American Physical Society. In 1994 Oxford University Press published
    his book* Chaos and *Nonlinear Dynamics: An Introduction for
    Scientists and Engineers.*

-   Scientific Elite or Outcast?

    Eric Mazur

    *Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics*

    *Harvard University\
    Cambridge, Massachusetts*

    There is no doubt that since the beginning of this century the
    United States ranks first in generating outstanding scientists. It
    is therefore ironic that as a whole, the population of the United
    States does not rank first in Science and Mathematics. One only need
    turn to the media to see that society does not value science and
    science education as it did just a few decades ago. In spite of all
    the advances in science and the many contributions of related
    technological developments to society, science illiteracy is
    rampant. The average person has little faith in scientists and there
    are more pressing problems than science education on the agenda of
    most people. These are worrisome developments because it is in the
    interest of society that everyone understands at least what science
    is about. No one can deny the formidable advances that have been
    achieved in science and their impact on the quality of life −
    advances that would not have been made without the outstanding
    quality of American scientists. What happens now in the classrooms
    across the United States will directly affect the health and well
    being of this country in the next century. We must act now to
    prevent losing our edge in science and technology.

    At the college level, the introductory science course often is one
    of the biggest hurdles in the academic career of a student. For a
    sizable number of students the course leaves a permanent sense of
    frustration. I only have to tell people I am a physicist to hear
    grumblings about high school or college physics − almost to the
    point of making me feel embarrassed about being a physicist. This
    general sense of frustration with introductory science is widespread
    among non-science majors required to take science courses. Even
    science majors are frequently dissatisfied with their introductory
    courses, and a large fraction of students initially interested in
    science end up majoring in a different field. What have we done to
    make it that way, and can we do something about it?

    I believe science education has been focused much too long on
    competitively generating a steady supply of future scientists. We
    must direct our science education not just at students going on to a
    scientific career but also at those majoring in other fields. It is
    time to realize that the demand for scientists is determined to a
    large extent by people for whom the introductory science course is
    the only direct exposure to science and who remember science only by
    the frustration it has caused them. It is time to realize that those
    who become successful scientists do so in spite of the current
    educational system, not because of it. It is time to realize that
    better science education for all will ultimately lead to a higher
    standard of living.

    Broadening and improving science education will require a major
    change in attitude. The current mode of instruction is
    self-perpetuating: post-secondary faculty educates both their own
    successors and future secondary teachers; secondary teachers, in
    turn, prepare the next generation for a new cycle. At all levels one
    can find excellent teachers, but for the most part instruction in
    science is geared at the scientist, not the general public.

    Recommendations

-   *Teacher enhancement:* To restore public opinion of and support for
    science I suggest making an all-out and systematic effort to place
    the nation\'s best, most innovative, and most dedicated instructors
    at all levels of education. This will require a new reward structure
    --currently successful research is rewarded much more highly than
    successful teaching. A new role model -- that of the
    "teacher-scholar" -- must replace the current role model of the
    hard-core researcher in a white coat who prefers not to deal with
    students.

-   *Innovating Pedagogy:* The science education literature abounds with
    innovative ideas, but unlike innovations in science and technology,
    few of these ideas are adopted by anyone besides the innovator. Even
    techniques that have been demonstrated to work have not found
    widespread acceptance. Overcoming this inertia is becoming an urgent
    problem. I therefore recommend rewarding not just the developers of
    successful innovations, but also those who adopt these innovations.

-   *Using Technology:* New advances in information technology must be
    used to increase and accelerate dissemination of new ideas and
    materials in education. Widespread availability of materials will
    lower the threshold for adopting innovative ideas in science
    education.

I firmly believe science has done more for society than it is generally
credited for---a view that unfortunately is not widely held outside the
science community. It is therefore more important than ever that we
direct some of our energy at educating the public about science---energy
that has been directed almost exclusively at research and at educating
and training future scientists. It is time for science educators and
researchers to become more pragmatic, to step down from their ivory
towers, and to reach out to society not only through scientific
accomplishments, but also through better education and information.

***Eric Mazur** is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics and
Professor of Physics at Harvard University. He obtained his doctorate in
experimental physics at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in
1981. In 1982 he came to Harvard and in 1984 he joined the faculty. He
currently divides his time between research in laser physics and
teaching, and is interested in educational innovations and applications
of instructional technology. In 1988 he was awarded a Presidential Young
Investigator Award. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and
a member of the Society\'s Committee on Education and of the Physics
Programs Policy Committee of the American Institute of Physics.*

The State of Undergraduate Education in the Earth Sciences

Tanya Atwater

*Professor of Geological Sciences, University of California, Santa
Barbara\
Santa Barbara, California*

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the \[EHR Advisory
Committee\]. I speak as a professor from the university trenches, and I
draw upon the thoughtful written letters and comments of about ten
colleagues, the results of several meetings and workshops, and informal
discussions with many dozens of colleagues from many diverse
undergraduate and K-12 venues.

I speak for the Earth Sciences and I speak with great conviction and
urgency, for I believe that the generation of students that we are
presently educating are going to be increasingly forced to make profound
decisions concerning the fate of planet Earth, our home. The outcome of
our human experiment called "civilization" will be highly dependent upon
their coming to understand and incorporate Earth systems into their
thinking and planning. They will need a host of well-trained Earth
Science professionals and, just as important, a citizenry that is Earth
cognoscente and Earth caring.

I shall address four topics; two are issues that apply quite generally
to SME&T educational goals: 1) computer literacy; 2) undergraduate
research opportunities, and two aspects that more specific to Earth
Sciences; 3) the modernization and refocusing of Earth Science
curricula; and 4) the need for major systemic changes in the teaching of
Earth Science to non-scientists, especially to in-service and
pre-service K-12 teachers. The latter two subjects concern a major
turmoil in our field, one that may be particularly amenable to help from
a NSF Earth Science initiative.

Computer Literacy

The last decade has seen a revolution in computer accessibility,
usefulness, and user-friendliness and NSF has played a major role in the
spread and use of this powerful technology. Basic computer literacy is
now a must for all science professionals for computing/modeling/data
processing and for communication at all levels. It is fast becoming a
mandatory aspect for success in most professions. The impact of the
Worldwide Web is only beginning to be felt but will surely be enormous.
NSF should continue to urge and support projects that provide computer
training and accessibility for all faculties and all students. Basic
computer training should be particularly provided and stressed for
future K-12 teachers, as they will in turn reach the vast pool of
non-college bound students.

While the spread of computer access and training and of access to the
Web has been tremendous, it is far from complete. There is a legitimate
concern that this revolution may only exacerbate the gap between "haves"
and "have nots" in our society. NSF would do well look into the
distribution of this technology across the educational spectrum.

Many Earth Science databases are particularly amenable for use in
combined computer and science education projects of great intrinsic
interest. For example, the study of events such as storms, earthquakes,
volcanoes, floods, and meteor showers, and of observable phenomena such
as moon cycles and tides, can be made much more immediate with real-time
data from the Web. Projects that create user-friendly educational
pathways through the Web should be particularly encouraged.

Undergraduate Research Opportunities and Other \"Hands On\" Activities

One of the most important aspects in the education of a future scientist
is the actual experience of "hands on" scientific investigation. NSF has
long had a strong role in urging and supporting opportunities for
undergraduates to be involved in ongoing research projects, and it
should not slacken its efforts in this activity. Furthermore, related
hands-on scientific experiences such as lab projects and field studies,
all situations in which students collect data and draw their own
conclusions are crucial at all levels of scientific education and should
continue to be supported. In the earth sciences, these experiences often
occur in the field, with students observing and interpreting natural
objects and processes in their natural \"habitats\". This real,
experiential component must never be lost (no matter how many computer
models we make). The student exhilaration after a day in the field
speaks for itself.

Modernization and Refocusing of Earth Science Curricula

There is presently a widespread turmoil within the nation\'s Earth
Science departments, an identity crisis of sorts. The traditional,
classical Geology Department was deeply tied to the solid earth with,
perhaps, a recognition of fluids, but only as they occur within the pore
spaces of rocks. In recent decades, other earth science fields such as
oceanography, meteorology, climatology, environmental science, marine
geochemistry, modern hydrology, and satellite geodesy, to name a few,
have blossomed and taken center stage. Some of these subjects have been
accepted and integrated into existing departments and curricula, but
more often they are appended to geology departments like uneasy
stepchildren. Often they are scattered across related departments (such
as geography, environmental science) or simply ignored. Most recently,
there has emerged a new, much more encompassing view, known as \"Earth
Systems Science\", which considers the Earth and all its spheres
(lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, atmosphere) as an
intricately interacting system (which, of course it is!). Some geology
departments have changed their names and broadened their visions; others
are making half-hearted attempts or have simply hunkered down. There is
a lot of confusion.

The curriculum for undergraduate geoscience majors is, for the same
reasons, in great flux. Many different experiments are being tried to
trim traditional subjects to make room for others and many would-be
reformers report great resistance to these changes. Furthermore, many
attempts to reorganize are hampered by the complicated need for
cross-departmental integration. The result is that, at present, there is
very little consensus as to what constitutes a good geology or earth
science education. It is clear that some changes are needed. It is
equally clear that there is not one "correct" solution for all
institutions or for all students. None-the-less, the earth science
community could sorely use a careful introspective review of our subject
and of the likely directions and needs of our majors, our future earth
science professionals. An Earth Science Initiative from NSF, examining
this subject, would be greatly welcomed and would lend needed credence
and weight to any recommended changes that might emanate from such a
review.

Needed Systemic Changes in the Teaching of Basic Earth Science to
Non-Scientists and, especially, to In-service and Preservice K-12
Teachers

Earth Science can be a great subject for general science education. It
can be an excellent vehicle for introducing basic physics and chemistry
using familiar examples in the locally observable world. Furthermore, it
lies at the core of many environmental, hazard reduction, and public
policy issues and therefore is a central subject for an educated
democratic citizenry. In fact, introductory courses in geology,
oceanography, meteorology, and environmental science are very commonly
taught as large "general education" type classes, for many of these
reasons.

Unfortunately, professors (and their textbooks) tend to teach the same
way that they were taught. The traditional approach -- highly content
driven, lecture/lab/exam format -- is not usually fatal for science
majors (it succeeded with them, after all) but it is often inaccessible,
alienating, and highly irrelevant to others. Whole generations of former
students, including many of our present K-12 teachers were turned off to
science by this approach. These courses are presently commonly organized
as an "introductory" overview of the field for potential majors, even
though a very few percent of the students fit this category. The rest
are very poorly served. There is a need for a profound reevaluation of
the goals in these courses and of the pedagogical means to get to those
goals. In many respects, this is another face of the curriculum
confusion described above, and could very productively be addressed
within the same proposed Earth Science Initiative.

If an Earth Science initiative were constructed, it would do well to
include a separate consideration of the needs of future teachers,
particularly the K-6 group. This group is highly likely to find
themselves teaching many basic aspects of Earth Science and having to
invent activities to illustrate these subjects. These teachers are
responsible for the most fundamental science teaching and, perhaps, for
the establishment of society\'s attitudes toward science, as well.

In recent years, NSF and other funding agencies have supported many
excellent individual experiments toward more effective science pedagogy.
These range from slight variants on the lecture-exam format to quite
radical alternate approaches, incorporating elements of constructivism
and of group learning strategies. The reports from educators who have
taken these leaps are generally full of enthusiasm, but so far seem
scattered and anecdotal and often lack clear ways to prove their
efficacy to the busy skeptic. It may be time to put some energy into a
systematic collection, sifting, and dissemination of these results. We
need good, practical, concise descriptions of a wide variety of changes,
large and small that have been shown to make a difference. I believe the
science education community is ready to change our ways if we can see
how to do it with relative efficiency. (We know we are not doing very
well.)

We are ready to listen and to try new approaches.

***Tanya Atwater** is a Professor of Tectonics at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. She received her schooling at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at
Berkeley, and Scripps Institute of Oceanography, completing her Ph.D. in
1972. She was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
before joining the faculty at UCSB in 1980. Dr. Atwater\'s research has
concerned various aspects of tectonics, ranging from the fine details of
sea floor spreading processes to global aspects of plate tectonics. She
is very well known for her works on the plate tectonic history of the
San Andreas fault system in particular and of western North America in
general. Atwater is devoted to education, both in the University setting
and for the broader public. She is deeply involved in the undergraduate
program, working to revitalize teaching techniques, especially in large
general education classes, and to modernize science curricula. She works
at many levels (with the media, with museums, in teacher workshops) to
spread Earth information and Earth passion across the wider citizenry.
Tanya serves on numerous national and international committees and
panels. She is a fellow of the AGU and the GSA and a co-winner of the
AAAS Newcomb Cleveland Prize.*

[^1]: ^1^ Telford, Sir Robert, *The role of education and training as a
    strategy for a regional development policy. What are the criteria
    for success and/or failure?* Keynote Address for Technologies Role:
    New educational potential and obstacles of distance and flexible
    learning infrastructure in the context of regional development,
    Nancy, France, May 1994.

[^2]: ^2^ Morrison, Ian and Schmid, Greg, *Future Tense: the business
    realities of the next ten years*. William Morrow and Company, Inc.
    New York, NY, 1994.

[^3]: ^4^ Burton, Lawrence and Carin A. Celebuski, *Technical Education
    in 2-Year Colleges*, HES Survey Number 17, NSF, Division of Science
    Resources Studies, 1995.