Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee

Public Hearing on Institutional Perspectives

*Convened October 25, 1995*

*At the National Science Foundation*

*Arlington, VA*

Invited Speakers:

"Institutional Perspectives on SME&T Undergraduate Education"

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

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Grinnell College**                   | **Pamela A. Ferguson**      |
|                                        |                             |
| *Grinnell, Iowa*                       | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Emory & Henry College**              | **Thomas Morris**           |
|                                        |                             |
| *Emory, Virginia*                      | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Onondaga Community College**         | **Bruce H. Leslie**         |
|                                        |                             |
| *Syracuse, New York*                   | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **St. Louis Community College**        | **Gwendolyn W. Stephenson** |
|                                        |                             |
| *St. Louis, Missouri*                  | *Chancellor*                |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **American Association of Community    | **David R. Pierce**         |
| Colleges**                             |                             |
|                                        | *President*                 |
| *Washington, District of Columbia*     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Florida A&M University**             | **Frederick S. Humphries**  |
|                                        |                             |
| *Tallahassee, Florida*                 | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **University of Maryland, College      | **William E. Kirwan**       |
| Park**                                 |                             |
|                                        | *President*                 |
| *College Park, Maryland*               |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **American Association of Colleges &   | **Paula P. Brownlee**       |
| Universities**                         |                             |
|                                        | *President*                 |
| *Washington, District of Columbia*     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **New Jersey Institute of Technology** | **Saul K. Fenster**         |
|                                        |                             |
| *Edison, New Jersey*                   | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Portland State University**          | **Judith A. Ramaley**       |
|                                        |                             |
| *Portland, Oregon*                     | *President*                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **University of Wisconsin - Madison**  | **David Ward**              |
|                                        |                             |
| *Madison, Wisconsin*                   | *Chancellor*                |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **University of Michigan - Ann Arbor** | **Homer Neal**              |
|                                        |                             |
| *Ann Arbor, Michigan*                  | *Vice President for         |
|                                        | Research*                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

Institutional Perspectives of College and University\
Leaders on Undergraduate Education and\
the National Science Foundation

Pamela A. Ferguson

*President, Grinnell College\
Grinnell, Iowa*

We must ask three questions as we reckon with the worth of existing
programs and entertain the addition or expansion of others:

> 1). What does the nation need in its workforce and its scientists?
>
> 2). What does NSF have to do with filling this need?; and
>
> 3). How does undergraduate education relate to the nation's needs and
> NSF?

I will try to paint the picture as most of my colleagues and I see it. A
vital workforce for the 21st Century is peopled with the technically
literate, inquisitive, and entrepreneurial in spirit. It is this
workforce that will discover new technologies, use these technologies,
and keep us as a major contributor to the betterment of this nation and
the global community. Undergraduate education is not an auxiliary
enterprise − it is a conduit and the birthplace for most scientists and
a significant portion of the workforce.

NSF has successfully created a research infrastructure in which people
are stimulated to have new ideas, with the confidence that, if their
peers find an idea meritorious, funding will be provided to explore the
idea. This is consistent with NSF\'s mission to provide the nation with
both scientific knowledge and scientists − it is consistent with the
nation\'s need to be a competitive force in an ever-changing,
technologically sophisticated world.

This same infrastructure which enables and promotes people to take risks
to do interesting things must be further developed for the undergraduate
sector. We need to improve undergraduate science education so that our
workforce is technically literate as well as to train the small percent
who will be future scientists -- including those few who will join the
likes of Tom Cech (a Grinnell alumnus who recently received the National
Medal of Science) or the late Robert Noyce (a Grinnell alumnus who
co-invented the integrated circuit). Science education should be an
embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit because staid teaching begets
staid students.

NSF can make a difference with funding and programs that are responsive
to innovative ideas coming from the teaching community. It needs to
support faculty and students the way it supports researchers because the
undergraduate sector is the source for the researchers as well as
educational citizens and multitudes of workers. One example of an
extremely successful program is the Instrumentation and Laboratory
Improvement (ILI) program, which provides modest support for
instrumentation for teaching. In effect, however, it catalyzes major
curricular renovation. The ILI program has been evaluated several times
and has received glowing reviews.

In the ILI program, dollars are highly leveraged. A minimum of 50
percent of the funding must come from non-federal sources. Furthermore,
no funds are provided to support personnel to actually develop
experiments making use of the new instrument. There are other leveraged
aspects to the program. Other faculty at the institution will notice the
instrument, learn to use it, and devise unforeseen curricular changes.
Furthermore, students and faculty involved in research projects will
undoubtedly use the instrument. Faculty (either formally through
publication or informally) tell their colleagues at other institutions
of their successes and encourage them to mount similar efforts.

DUE has done a remarkable job, especially considering that funding was
cut to zero dollars in the early 1980s. Since then, they have developed
several programs that serve the community well. To address the issue of
teaching and learning science at the undergraduate level, three areas
need attention.

First, research and teaching still remain divorced at NSF. The programs,
which support undergraduate research, are not cognizant that among the
most important products of research at undergraduate institutions are
the students. At an undergraduate institution, research not only
contributes to the scholarship in a field, but it is a tremendous
learning ground for students. Students learn, by doing science, what it
is to be a scientist, how to ask questions, how to deal with the many
obstacles that inquiry presents and the exhilaration of discovery.

Currently, NSF REU and RUI support is targeted only at the most elite
institutions. It effectively discourages most faculty at undergraduate
institutions from pursuing research projects because they know that
their research can not be as grand as that at large research
institutions, because their research will have multiple roles and thus
may take longer to complete. Cognizance, during review and funding, of
the additional and essential role of research as a teaching tool at the
undergraduate level has the potential for institutional change. As is,
undergraduate faculty finds it difficult to compete for research support
− the effect − fewer students get to learn what science is really about
and there is no mechanism by which an institution can improve its
programs.

Why is integrating education and research, providing hands-on learning
opportunities for students − at all levels and with different career
aspirations -- in the national interest? The answer is clear and I
reiterate: we need a workforce for the future with the kind of skills
learned through a rigorous encounter with science and mathematics; we
need a citizenry prepared to make decisions about issues with scientific
and technological dimensions. Research experiences provide these skills.
The corporate leaders on my Board of Trustees regularly describe the
kind of people they seek to hire: persons who can ask questions, solve
problems and work collaboratively; persons who know how to communicate
the results of their work; and persons who know how to use computers and
other sophisticated equipment.

Such skills are developed when students have the opportunity to "do
science" as scientists do science. More and more, what is happening on
campuses across the country is that students are being taught how to ask
questions, question evidence, and use computers and other sophisticated
instrumentation in seeking answers. Many of the innovative courses now
being developed for beginning students provide "research training"
opportunities. These courses challenge students to take an active
(rather than passive) role in shaping their understanding and to work
collaboratively in teams -- sharing ideas freely and taking collective
responsibility for the results of their work.

We recommend that DUE establish a program of support for undergraduate
research which is cognizant of the impact research has on increasing the
number of scientifically literate students and potential scientists, as
well as the impact that research at undergraduate institutions can have
on the quality of the instructional program and faculty of the
institution.

The second point I would like to make is that attention must be placed
on undergraduate faculty development. A program that truly supports
faculty development in teaching/research is needed. I make research and
teaching a singular noun because at the undergraduate level, research
informs teaching, the two go hand in hand. A program is needed to
provide time for faculty to explore bold initiatives to reach more
students or teach in a new way. Faculty at two and four-year colleges
often teach in an atmosphere where there is not much research occurring.
These faculties need to periodically step back into a research-rich
environment to replenish research skills and their awareness of current
science. Faculties at research universities often are not in an
atmosphere, which is conducive for curricular and pedagogical
development.

We recommend that a program should support summer or academic year
leaves for faculty to work on research or curricular projects that will
have an impact on the vitality of the faculty as well as the academic
program.

The third issue we must address is that the undergraduate sector is
comprised of a great variety of institutions. If we are really attending
to the future workforce, we must be conscious of their educational
origins, which include two-year colleges, four-year public and private
colleges, night schools, and large comprehensive universities. NSF has
had a laser approach to a spectral issue. Funding and programs need to
reach into where the students are. Scientific literacy is not going to
be attained by focusing most support on one, narrow sector of the
populace.

The Neal Report targeted a program of comprehensive institutional
reform, but DUE has not had the resources to implement such a program.
We recommend that such a program be established which would support
promising institutions. This program would recognize that real
improvement would involve instrumentation, curriculum, and
student-faculty research opportunities.

Grinnell has played a leading role in a consortium that has been funded
by NSF to reform calculus and a current project to improve chemistry
education. We can see that these projects have a tremendous local impact
as well as changing the national sense of undergraduate education. It is
unfortunate that DUE can only support programs in mathematics and
chemistry. We recommend that these highly successful systemic reform
efforts be expanded to other science disciplines.

I will conclude with the following observation. We have all talked about
the need for improved educational experiences for our children. We have
publicly acknowledged that our future leadership, tomorrow\'s workforce,
is today\'s children. Yet, we do not adequately support the one
profession in whose hands these children are. I am talking about
teachers from kindergarten through college. NSF, with its dual mission
of promoting the human resources as well as the discoveries, has the
unique opportunity to make a difference. Through programs which fund
teaching and learning science, that barrier between research and
teaching dissolves, and the perception of teaching as a lesser endeavor
diminishes.

NSF has the power not only approve of innovations in teaching but raise
the value of the activity. Such legitimacy will have a direct impact on
this future workforce. NSF grants to the undergraduate community set the
standards for our work in research, research-training, and education;
they provide further incentive to colleges by helping to set parameters
for effective planning for curriculum; they leverage critical dollars
from other donors, and they enable us to make a significant contribution
to the community. To double the budget currently allocated for DUE
programs would support our nation\'s focus on the future workforce. Such
an increase \[would equate to\] doubling a very small fraction (about 3
percent) of NSF budget.

In summary, we have four recommendations:

> 1\) We recommend the creation of program to support research at
> undergraduate institutions, cognizant of the teaching role research
> plays at undergraduate institutions.
>
> 2\) We recommend a faculty development program to support summer or
> academic-year leaves to support research in curricular development at
> the undergraduate level.
>
> 3\) We recommend a program to encourage comprehensive institutional
> reform.
>
> 4\) We recommend a program to support systemic educational reform
> initiatives in the SME&T disciplines.

***Pamela A. Ferguson** is currently president and professor of
mathematics at Grinnell College. Previously she was associate provost
and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Miami where she was
responsible for approximately 45 doctoral and 100 masters programs and
an undergraduate honors program for 1,600 students. Early in her career
she was also an assistant professor of mathematics at Northwestern
University. A graduate of Wellesley College, Dr. Ferguson received M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics from the University of Chicago with
National Science Foundation Fellowship support. A member of Phi Beta
Kappa, Omicron Delta Kappa, and Sigma Xi, she has received numerous
teaching awards. She is a member of the Mathematics and Education Reform
Network, the Mathematical Society of America, the American Mathematical
Society, and the Association for Women in Mathematics. She served on the
Florida Advisory Council for Math, Science, and Computer Education and
currently serves on the board of the Iowa Research Council. Her
professional activities have included lectures or participation in
conferences in the USSR, West Germany, Scotland, England, Hungary,
Italy, and many universities in the United States. She is the author of
more than 45 articles in leading American and foreign mathematical
journals on topics on finite group theory and combinatorics.*

Testimony on the Views of Institutions Toward Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology[^1]

Thomas R. Morris

*President, Emory & Henry College\
Emory, Virginia*

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am a humble social scientist.
I taught political science at the University of Richmond for 21 years
before going to Emory & Henry College, where I am in my fourth year as
president.

As a political scientist at the University of Richmond, an outstanding
small university, I had virtually no contact with natural scientists.
They were on the other side of the lake. But one of the things that I
found to be very different when I went to Emory & Henry College was the
interaction among faculty from different departments. Perhaps it was in
part because I had become an administrator and was more aware of the
contact. However, I also think it was due in part to the smaller size of
the college as measured by faculty size. I moved from an institution
with 160 to 175 faculties to one where the faculty totals only 60 to 62.
I can report to you that the natural scientists *do* talk with people in
the other areas in my institution; there is a great deal of interaction.
Because of this interaction, I think there is an opportunity for
integrating curricula that you might not have even in small
universities, not to mention large universities.

I don\'t go anywhere without at least saying a word about Emory & Henry
College. I believe it is in my contract somewhere. We will be 160 years
old next year. The \"Emory\" was a Methodist bishop, and the \"Henry\"
was Patrick Henry. We consider ourselves to be a premier Appalachian
Region, church-related, small liberal arts institution. And for a good
number of those 160 years in the Appalachian Region of southwest
Virginia and northeastern Tennessee, Emory & Henry have held up the flag
of liberal arts education. We have also had a good tradition over the
years of turning out science graduates who have gone on to graduate and
professional schools and to employment in scientific and technical
occupations. There was a period of time when we had a faculty member
with strong connections with NASA, and NASA employed many of our
graduates. A good number have also ended up in medical professions.

We are associated with the Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges,
one of 15 institutions in that fundraising organization. We are one of
32 institutions in the Appalachian College Association, and we are one
of seven institutions across the country that have Bonner Scholar
endowments that allow us at Emory & Henry to support 85 students who are
of high financial need. In exchange for that financial aid, these
scholars perform ten hours of volunteer service in the community each
week, as well as participate in a summer program.

I mention those associations to just give you some idea of where we fit
into the higher education environment. The University of Richmond, a
member of the Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges, for example,
has an endowment of something over \$450 million. Most of the
institutions in the Appalachian College Association have endowments that
are under \$8 million.

The size of endowments has implications for the ability of small
colleges to improve undergraduate science education. I believe that I am
here to speak on behalf of the less well-to-do small liberal arts
colleges in the country. I would like to recount a story about a small
college president that rings true with me. He was walking in the woods,
happened to look down, and saw a shiny object. He pushed the leaves
aside and picked it up, and discovered it was a lamp. Being
well-educated, he began to rub it, and, sure enough, a genie popped out.
Upon learning that the person rubbing the lamp was a college president,
the genie said: \"I am able to grant you one wish. You may have health,
you may have wealth, or you may have wisdom."

The college president reflected and said, "Well, I deal with ideas, work
with faculty, and make important personnel decisions, so I certainly
should choose wisdom." The genie said, "So be it" and was gone. Endowed
with his new wealth of wisdom, the college president sat down on a log
to reflect and, a few minutes later, stood up and said: "I should have
chosen wealth."

Most of us interested in the health of small liberal arts colleges think
that what we need is wealth. At Emory & Henry College, for example, we
are getting ready to start another capital fundraising campaign. In my
inaugural address, I singled out the arts and the sciences as two areas
where I thought we needed to reinvigorate our programs. One of our goals
is to raise approximately \$8 million to build a new science classroom
building. The building we have now is 40 years old, inadequate for the
kind of program that we would like to have. In addition, we need at
least \$1 million to purchase modern laboratory instrumentation for use
by our students and faculty, and we also have a campaign goal of
accumulating a \$3 million endowment to support the updating of
technology and instrumentation on an ongoing basis.

At a small institution like Emory & Henry College, we are not certain
exactly how we will raise those funds, but that is what capital funds
campaigns are all about. We will approach our alumni, particularly those
who have gone into the sciences and into the medical professions. We
will attempt to do some sight raising with regard to what they might do
to contribute to support of the classroom building and the endowments
that are necessary to maintain a strong science program.

In other areas, I can easily support \[Grinnell College President\] Dr.
Pamela Ferguson\'s recommendations. Certainly her testimony earlier
today is appropriate for all of the college and university presidents
who are talking with you today.

Two major problems for us are limited faculty time and shortage of
resources. These are the major obstacles to a successful undergraduate
science program, at least at the small college level. In preparation for
this session, being a social scientist, one of the things I did was to
sit down with the natural scientists at Emory & Henry College and talk
about some of the things that were important to them.

Our greatest challenge is to generate the resources to purchase,
support, and maintain the instrumentation necessary for our
laboratories. We do benefit from a roving repair van that NSF helped us
with, which is very useful to the small colleges of the Appalachian
College Association, it makes its way around the Appalachian Region and
assists the Labs operated by member institutions with needed repairs.
That form of collaboration and sharing of resources is very helpful in
meeting our instrumentation needs.

With respect to resources, our natural science faculty suggest that
colleges with small endowments and more limited resources, however that
might be defined, should perhaps be offered less challenging matching
requirements and/or longer periods to raise such funds. They also
suggest that the application process for programs that NSF wishes to
encourage with small amounts of money -- up to \$10,000, perhaps -- be
simplified, and they request a simplification of the forms for
application and reporting so that they are relatively easy to fill out.
Perhaps it was somewhat self-serving on the part of the natural science
faculty on our campus, but they suggested that some resources be limited
to persons who have not previously been supported by NSF.

We work with the private sector at Emory & Henry. The college has an
association with the Eastman Company, not too far from where we are
located in southwest Virginia. Recently, Eastman shared with us three
important pieces of instrumentation for our Chemistry Department, which
were happily received by the members of our Chemistry Department.

Now, with regard to faculty development, I would second all that Dr.
Ferguson \[president of Grinnell College\] said about the importance of
that, and particularly the idea of making teaching and research a
singular noun. At Emory & Henry, for example, the Physics Department and
the head of the Education Department are spending time talking about a
conceptual physics course that would be required of all people who are
going into teaching. There is a \"Teaching of Science\" course that is
taught for education majors, and there is a great deal of dialogue that
goes on between the education faculty and the natural science faculty
with regard to what ought to be addressed in that particular course.

The second point I would make is that our greatest contributions to
undergraduate science education are the collaborative and integrated
teaching innovations that characterize our institutions. As we are all
well aware, the excitement of the scientific technique is not generally
a part of what goes on in elementary, middle school, and secondary
education. Students come to undergraduate institutions like Emory &
Henry without having had that experience. Someone has suggested that
there is probably more vocabulary in a high school chemistry class than
there is in most foreign language courses, to the extent that students
have been subjected to simply memorizing and dealing with vocabulary
rather than the excitement of the scientific technique at the K-12
level, that makes it more difficult for students and faculty when they
advance to the higher education level.

So what I would want to leave with you is the challenge of recognizing
that opportunities for creating innovations in undergraduate science
teaching are present, particularly at small liberal arts colleges. These
colleges do not have the institutional barriers that are more likely to
be in place at the large research institutions. One of the things I
would encourage the National Science Foundation to do is, support those
faculty who are willing to work with innovative, integrative, and
collaborative teaching possibilities; with regard to undergraduate
science education, then follow up on an ongoing basis, evaluate the
effectiveness of new approaches, and find ways to report methods and
findings to the larger academic community, through articles, lectures,
and workshops.

I would argue that at this time in our history, it is probably as
important to be putting resources into how students learn science as
perhaps it is into the more traditional type of science research that is
going on, and the laboratories in the form of small liberal arts
colleges are there to make that possible.

***Thomas R. Morris** assumed office on July 1, 1992, as the 19^th^
president of Emory & Henry College. A distinguished Constitutional
scholar and political scientist, he brought to the college 21 years of
higher education experience at the University of Richmond. Dr. Morris
also is well known on a state and national level as an astute political
commentator and writer. A native of Galax, Virginia, Dr. Morris earned a
bachelor's degree in government at Virginia Military Institute, studied
at Princeton University, and then completed Masters and Doctoral degrees
in government at the University of Virginia. He received fellowships for
additional advanced study including a year as a Liberal Arts Fellow at
the Harvard Law School and a year as a fellow of the National Endowment
for the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has also
served as a political analyst for television, radio, and print media
over the past fifteen years.*

NSF Review of Enhancing Science, Mathematics,

Engineering, and Technology Education

Bruce H. Leslie

*President, Onondaga Community College\
Syracuse, New York*

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and those of my
colleagues regarding science, math, engineering, and technology
education (SME&T). The invitation comes at a time when our nation
appears to be redefining itself in the post-Cold War era, but also at a
time when new extraordinary forces are rapidly exerting their influence
upon the void created by the end of superpower military competition,
replacing it with complex economic competition. Science and technology
are, many of us contend, more important in this new era, than ever
before.

There are a number of obvious problems with the current state of science
and technology. Such problems are cyclical and reflect the need for
adjustments in our response to shifts in the environment. Many of us are
the product of such a response by the nation to *Sputnik*, which created
"accelerated" federal initiatives in our math and science education
programs to correct newly perceived deficiencies. Perhaps a similar
response is called for today, despite the differences in the environment
of the late 1990s vis-à-vis the late 1950s. Just as opportunities
presented themselves 30 years ago, today\'s opportunities should be
capitalized upon to positively affect our national competitive and
social objectives. In one sense, NSF has already initiated such a
response by greatly expanding its interest in, and support of, the
nation\'s community colleges. The other half of our undergraduate
students now have the opportunity to be impacted. My colleagues and I
are most grateful.

Rather than summarize perceived problems, for they are explored more
effectively in numerous other venues, and are inferred in my comments,
my intent here is to suggest the possibilities inherent in today\'s
environment. Such opportunities exhibit themselves in the following
themes:

> 1\. The growing national agenda to address the needs of youngsters so
> they are adequately prepared for success in school. Programs such as
> *Head Start*, Eisenhower grants and *Success by Six* exemplify this
> trend.
>
> 2\. Recognition that youthful excitement and discovery, brought
> naturally into the world, but often suppressed early in childhood,
> must be enhanced and nurtured, especially in a world where "life-long
> learning is the only job."
>
> 3\. Capitalizing upon the *Nation at Risk* movement that has been, for
> the past decade, gradually changing our thinking about how best to
> foster learning.
>
> 4\. The infusion of technology, especially computers, into our
> schools, homes and day-to-day world.
>
> 5\. The growing interest by the business community to ensure a
> technologically sophisticated populace both to provide the needed
> workforce and a consumer capable of using, and thus interested in
> buying, the increasingly complex products being developed. Our very
> economy, and the success of business, depends upon an educated
> citizenry. As the world becomes better educated, this will become a
> greater competitive challenge and opportunity for business.
>
> 6\. The internationalization of the economy, a growing worldwide
> competitive environment, and increasingly sophisticated defense
> requirements created by a changing world, suggest that the nation\'s
> continued strength is dependent upon maintaining a technological edge
> across all sectors of public and private systems.

These opportunities describe an agenda for improvements in the SME&T
aspects of our educational system. Three specific recommendations should
drive NSF\'s considerations:

> 1\. We know what works. NSF should help the nation\'s educators
> implement the proven principles. Although continued exploration to
> improve learning is important, fewer resources require us to widely
> apply what we already know.
>
> 2\. SME&T must be infused with broader skills, which today are
> required in the workplace: customer orientation, quality, teamwork,
> problem solving and leadership.
>
> 3\. Colleges must apply affective domain strategies, especially for
> second and third quartile students who can and must succeed. The
> traditional emphasis on the discipline itself excludes the larger
> proportion of our citizens.

In order to profit from the opportunities before us, four themes are
recommended:

> 1\. Improvements must begin with the faculty. Each of us has
> personally experienced or observed the positive affect a teacher can
> have on a student by inviting her/him into a course or discipline.
> Conversely, teachers too often discourage a student from pursuing a
> field or career, especially in math or science, by ignoring or
> redirecting them to \"easier\" studies. Faculty who must democratize
> the process will recruit the future generation of scientists and
> technicians. To achieve this, faculty must:

-   Receive better preparation in graduate school to become recruiters
    and nurturers of the next generation of scientists by learning how
    to excite students into entering these fields. Faculty should become
    skilled at positive reinforcement and the means by which students
    can be encouraged to pursue SME&T. Students of color and women must
    receive strong encouragement to enter these fields. So called
    \"average\" students must be nurtured since almost every future
    employee must be sophisticated in math and technology. Such programs
    as the NAACP\'s *Act-So*, science fairs, and kids colleges create
    enthusiasm that attract potential scientists of any age.

-   Diminish the \"elitism\" of SME&T so that fewer individuals will be
    intimidated by study in these fields and more will choose to enter
    the professions, especially at the technician level where job data
    suggests strong future growth. Faculty is especially important in
    the decisions many students make to pursue or not to pursue such
    studies.

-   Be skilled as learning facilitators, not lecturers, and curriculum
    designers, not just subject matter experts, with an emphasis on
    application, learning outcomes, measurements, and subject
    integration among relevant disciplines. All current faculty must be
    similarly retrained.

-   Be student centered rather than faculty centered. Learn how to
    nurture and/or reinvigorate students\' excitement and positive self
    -concept about learning SME&T.

-   Be steeped in the use of such techniques as classroom research,
    learner-centered instruction and team study.

-   Infuse curricula design and instructional tools with the interests
    of the secondary schools and employers. The transition from school
    to work should be "seamless."

-   Become sophisticated in organizational operations, to better
    structure disciplines within the college or university in ways,
    which facilitate realization of educational ends. The barriers
    between subjects and disciplines must be removed so that the
    integration of knowledge is modeled for students.

-   Be competent in the use of computers, not only in the demands of the
    discipline, but in their use as instructional and class management
    tools as well.

-   Commit to life long learning in order to remain current in the
    discipline *and* in the classroom.

-   Be open to business sector professionals who often have more
    knowledge of learning theory and curricular design than academics.
    ASTD and other professional associations produce and distribute the
    most current research materials in learning theory. Such companies
    as Motorola and Nvnex are demanding outcome accountabilities from
    their educational venders and are teaching college faculty how to
    adopt new learning theories. Educators must become open to such
    expertise, rather than reject it because it\'s from outside the
    academy.

-   Become knowledgeable about the national skills standards program
    and, with employer's active involvement, integrate results into the
    curricula.

-   Make mathematics a more accessible and less threatening language to
    American students. It should become more applicable and less
    theoretical so that students understand its use and importance.

2.  Post-secondary institutions are in the position to provide
    leadership. They must:

-   Invest in faculty development as described above.

-   Ensure faculty have the technology available and working, and the
    means to use it.

-   Structure the college, organizationally and within facilities, so
    that curricula and disciplines are integrated. The academic
    department, both structurally and geographically within the college,
    reinforces isolation of disciplines and faculty. New structures must
    be explored which create an academic version of a business
    environment where information flow, organizational learning and
    technology interface. This is the developing model of the post
    industrial information age. Education should adjust itself, as it
    did in the beginnings of this century, to reinforce demands on both
    its management and \"production.\"

-   Provide the means to define, measure, and continuously improve
    learning ends. This will distinguish the college as accountable at
    both the management and academic levels, and build trust with
    employers, sponsors and, most importantly, students and their
    sponsors.

-   Initiate tech-prep, school to work, co-op, apprenticeship and other
    such models to create the relationship between college, business and
    student, that provide the practical work skills necessary.

-   Ensure the curriculum emphasizes SME&T within a framework of the
    humanities.

-   Partner with business to explore and, where appropriate, implement
    the results of the national skills standards program.

-   Reward faculty for applied teaching rather than research, for being
    risk takers, for being change agents rather than the defenders of
    the proud traditions of academia, for forming alliances with
    business and community.

    3\. Because of the multiple level of employers' interests in a
    technologically sophisticated society they should:

-   Become invested in the development of our nation\'s students. The
    German approach is not the only possible model, but its integration
    of business into the nation\'s educational system provides many
    benefits to both. An \"apprenticeship\" emphasizing science, math,
    engineering and technology already exists through co-op programs and
    is being expanded through tech-prep initiatives. Business should
    greatly expand opportunities by utilizing such models as the Ford
    Asset program, which prepares automotive technicians through
    community colleges and co-ops with the sponsoring dealers. The
    faculty receives annual training and the college new technologies.
    But must important, the students are employed by the dealer upon
    graduation, and ready for a successful technological future.

-   Assist secondary and post-secondary institutions by contracting with
    faculty. Such arrangements increase their knowledge and enhance the
    preparation of students. Many of the skills today\'s employers
    require, including in SME&T, such as teamwork, problem solving,
    leadership, quality, customer orientation, and organizational
    understanding (see Tony Carnavale, Workplace Basics: Skills
    Employers Want, *The American Society for Training and Development,*
    1990), are most effectively taught through work place application.

-   Partner with education to ensure the technology is adequate and
    remains current. The company benefits by ensuring new employees are
    adequately prepared and existing employees are continuously
    retrained without down time at the business. Ford ensures this
    through its *Asset* program; but smaller, local businesses reap
    similar benefits through modest investments. Education\'s ability to
    remain current in technology will depend to a large extent on
    business investment in such alliances.

-   Partner with education to implement the results of the national
    skills standards program. Together, this effort, which is similarly
    occurring in many other nations, may provide important benefits to
    both business competitiveness and development. Jamie Houghton,
    president of Corning, is the chair of the board, indicating the
    level of business interest in the 22 projects underway.

    4\. The National Science Foundation and other federal programs can
    support the necessary changes by:

-   Establishing a national agenda, which integrates employers,
    educators, and students into a "seamless" system of learning from
    elementary through college and life-long education.

-   Nurturing the public\'s awareness of, and interest in, SME&T by
    clearly describing the need and defining understandable national
    objectives. Then funding programs which, on a long-term basis, will
    reinforce the objectives and attain desired ends.

-   Creating long range programs rather than short-term projects. This
    will also benefit educational efforts by reducing uncertainty of
    funding, allowing projects adequate time and resources to achieve
    high levels of impact.

-   Replicating the already excellent work achieved at less cost than
    developing anew. Initiate a mechanism to make the best programs
    available for transfer and to encourage their implementation.

-   Assisting smaller institutions which make up the largest number of
    individual organizations, but lack the resources for professional
    grant writing and are, thus, absent from the benefits of grant
    funds, to develop the means to be included.

-   Emphasizing development of faculty, including counselors and
    advisors, to reinforce the skills required by future and current
    educators, to prepare a citizenry sophisticated in SME&T. Change
    often happens only when money is made available, where there is a
    means to pursue new directions.

-   Support organizational model development and implementation, which
    will foster the integration of knowledge and learning.

-   Broaden the emphasis of science and technology education away from
    only those whose goal is a career in science and math, to all
    students. Eliminate the perception of elitism by opening SME&T to
    all students.

    In summary, an environment exists, which if effectively mustered,
    holds the prospect of much opportunity for SME&T development and
    enhancement. The short-term prospect may appear to be negatively
    affected by current budget balancing. On the other hand, many forces
    favor a national agenda by which government, business and education
    collectively strengthen the means by which teaching and learning,
    curricula innovations, technology, organization and supplemental
    academic programs integrate to prepare a more scientifically
    sophisticated citizenry.

    Today and forever, we must teach a "different" science than in the
    past. Knowledge is expanding exponentially and the classroom by
    itself can no longer remain the single place for learning.
    Technology, including multimedia, the Internet, and simulations hold
    much promise to augment the basics covered in class. But new
    approaches such as learner centered and team based programs, co-ops
    and internships all must be used collectively to provide students
    adequate skills to contribute to their society and employers.

    By focusing on faculty development, the creation of teachers as
    nurturers and facilitators; the integration of learning ends into
    the instructional process; implementation of organizational models
    which enhance the achievement of academic outcomes; partnerships
    between business, students, faculty and colleges which fulfill the
    academic vision; and, with NSF and other federal programs providing
    national leadership, long range direction and funding and a broader
    base of SME&T education. This nation can maintain its competitive
    edge while providing a better standard of living and society for its
    citizens.

    ***Bruce Leslie** has been a Director of the American Association of
    Community Colleges, chairing the Association's Public Relations
    Commission. He is currently Chancellor of the Community-Technical
    Colleges of Connecticut. He is also a Director and treasurer of the
    American Society of Training and Development, having chaired its
    Technical and Skills Training Committee, served on its National
    Issues Committee, and served as a member of the Editorial Board of
    ASTD's Technical Skills Training Journal. Dr. Leslie has served on
    the boards of the Urban League, Salvation Army, Private Industry
    Council and similar organizations in Syracuse, Chicago and Seattle.
    He has received the Harriet Tubman award from the Urban League, CEO
    Recognition Award from the American Association of Community College
    Trustees, Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Texas,
    The Paul Dunbar Community Service Award, and Outstanding Community
    Service Award for Excellence in Education from Phi Beta Sigma.*

    National Science Foundation Review of Undergraduate Education

    Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders

    Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

    *Chancellor, St. Louis Community College\
    St. Louis, Missouri*

    Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the National Science
    Foundation's \[EHR Advisory Committee for the Undergraduate
    Review\]. I am sharing my concerns and recommendations with you
    today as chancellor of St. Louis Community College, as a former
    teacher, and as a member of a very strong national network of
    community college leaders. My remarks are concerned primarily with
    instructional programs -- the fundamental exchange of information
    between teacher and student that is at the heart of both personal
    developments for the student and economic development for our
    nation.

    Community colleges pride themselves on the quality of their teaching
    and instructional delivery systems. As open door institutions, we
    must accommodate a diversity of learning styles and many levels of
    ability. Community colleges occupy a unique place in higher
    education. We are midway in the public education continuum that
    extends from pre-school to post-graduate programs and lifelong
    learning opportunities. We are in a position to understand the
    problems and potential of education at all levels and cooperate in
    programs to improve the performance of students of all ages.

    Our position is pivotal as we consider:

-   how to improve literacy in science and technology of students
    majoring in other disciplines;

-   how to strengthen the knowledge base of those earning associate\'s
    and baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and
    technology; and

-   how to change our institutional policies and practices to aid
    undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and
    technology.

    Certainly, we must continually support two overall goals: improving
    student achievement, and improving instruction through the
    development of curricula materials, faculty preparation, and
    instructional activities.

    About one-half of all the nation\'s first-time freshmen are enrolled
    in community colleges, and community college students make up the
    largest sector of higher education in the U.S. − 37 percent. About
    47 percent of all minorities in college attend community colleges,
    as well as more than half of higher education students with
    disabilities.

    Many of these students come to us with academic deficiencies in
    mathematics, and community colleges offer extensive programs in
    developmental studies. In many States including Missouri,
    legislators and educational agencies have mandated that
    baccalaureate institutions scale down or eliminate their remedial
    and developmental programs, thus leaving this complex task almost
    totally to community colleges. I have come across a significant
    number of legislators who resent what they consider double payments
    to prepare students for college-level work in mathematics. They feel
    that their support of secondary-level programs should be sufficient.

    We know better. In St. Louis (and we are not much different from
    most large urban districts) nearly 25 percent of our students who
    enroll for college credit -- or more than 6,800 -- are taking at
    least one developmental course. This is up from 19 percent five
    years ago. These numbers include those students who also exhibit
    deficiencies in language and the ability to read, think critically,
    problem-solve, observe and respond Our faculty would argue that
    language deficiencies contribute significantly to mathematics and
    science deficiencies. We also are seeing a widening gap between the
    upper one-third and the lower one-third of high school classes.

    The problem of under-prepared students clouds our vision of full
    participation in the global economy and of competitive economic
    development at home. In addition, our academically able students
    must master increasingly complex concepts and applications as the
    SME&T curricula evolve to match technological advancements. We are
    deeply concerned about the widening gap between the expectations of
    business and industry and the inability of significant segments of
    the work force to meet these expectations or even to function as
    informed consumers of technology.

    But under-prepared students -- as well as the sheer numbers of able
    students who attend community colleges -- also provide educators the
    challenging opportunity to experiment, to take risks, to find
    innovative ways to teach mathematics, science, engineering and
    technology. If we can be successful with our students, we can
    influence and improve teaching methods at the elementary-secondary
    level, at the undergraduate level, and in industrial training.

    I would like to briefly share with you a few examples of programs at
    St. Louis Community College, which are moving us forward in this
    critical area. Many community colleges across the country currently
    offer similar programs.

-   Our *Minority Engineering Scholarship* program is sponsored in
    conjunction with Emerson Electric Company and the University of
    Missouri-Rolla. Recipients take the first two years of their
    engineering studies at the college, then transfer to UM-Rolla to
    complete the remaining two years. Since the program started in 1988
    80 students have enrolled, seven have graduated from the university
    and 22 are currently in the program\'s pipeline. The completion rate
    compares favorably with a national retention rate of 35 percent.
    Ninety percent of our regular engineering transfers graduate from
    UM-Rolla, and we find they do as well or better academically than
    those students who start as freshmen at the university. The program
    has been so successful that we are exploring a similar tripartite
    relationship with the St. Louis College of Pharmacy and Monsanto
    Company.

-   We are entering our fourth year of leading development of the *St.
    Louis Area Tech Prep Consortium*. Sixteen local school districts are
    members of this initiative, representing more than two-thirds of the
    public high school-age population in the area. Our faculty members
    work with teachers at the junior and senior levels in local high
    schools to blend the curricula and ensure smooth articulation.

-   The college has participated in a NSF-funded program directed at
    middle-school students. Partners in the project included the
    University of Missouri-St. Louis and Harris Stowe State College. In
    addition, our mathematics faculty members have been called upon to
    teach at all levels because of their skills and the measurable
    results that they have achieved.

    I am sure you have noticed a strong, common thread running through
    these sample programs -- and that thread is partnerships and
    collaborative efforts. I am convinced that the only way our
    educational systems and our nation can advance in SME&T education is
    to do so in tandem with other educational institutions and with
    business and industry. The material is too complex, the required
    delivery systems too costly, the technological advancements too
    rapid, and the economic imperatives too critical for educational
    systems to meet the challenges independently. Such laudable programs
    as Tech Prep and School to Work are only the beginning of
    collaborative efforts we must create to prepare our students for the
    demands of the next century.

    When the National Science Foundation is asked to support programs in
    curricula development, science-mathematics literacy, faculty
    development, work force preparation, and laboratory instrumentation,
    it should do so within the context of institutional collaboration.
    As we all know, funding is a powerful motivation for change, and
    *NSF* should insist that institutions demonstrate their concern for
    articulation, cooperation, logical course sequencing, and resource
    sharing in their proposals for support. The concept of teamwork in
    problem solving, so critical in the work force, should be reinforced
    at every level in the educational process.

    Community colleges are most grateful that the National Science
    Foundation has increased its support over the last five years from
    about \$1 million to more than \$30 million. The renewed NSF
    emphasis on teaching − rather than just research -- and work force
    education has been received with much enthusiasm by community
    colleges who are on the front line in the battle for mathematical
    and scientific literacy and career preparation. The Instrumentation
    and Laboratory Improvement program has helped update science labs in
    ways that would not have been possible before the program; and other
    funding has helped update our curricula through acquisition of new
    computers, CD-ROM, and video disks.

    Future NSF support should focus on the following areas:

-   *Increased availability of sophisticated instrumentation in
    laboratory work.* There is a world of difference for students
    between, for example, learning how to interpret an NMR in a textbook
    and actually taking an unknown sample, running the actual NMR
    spectrum and interpreting the information to arrive at the identity
    of the compound. Students become very enthusiastic when they are
    involved in hands-on experiments that mirror what a scientist might
    do. Similarly, the increased use of CD-ROM and videodisks helps
    students visualize the concepts being studied. Science is
    observational, and the use of more video techniques helps students
    -- particularly in the field of chemistry -- see what cannot be
    seen. Computer use should be interactive and kinetic, not limited to
    static data acquisition and display.

-   *Enhanced faculty development.* Such programs as national exchanges
    among colleges and business and industry would reinforce workforce
    expectations. Workshops on technological advancements and curricula
    development would encourage faculty to adapt to change and
    incorporate more innovative teaching methodologies.

-   *Continuous integration of SME&T instruction among
    elementary-secondary, community colleges, and university systems.*
    In every community, these three levels should be linked to produce a
    logical sequence of instruction and an appropriate knowledge base
    for all students, no matter what their major course of study or
    career plans. Particularly in the public sector, our state
    legislators, educational agencies, and taxpayers are beginning to
    demand no less.

-   *Expansion of curriculum reform*. The calculus reform movement and
    the development of standards, such as NCTM, are excellent steps in
    this continuous process. More emphasis (and funding) should be
    focused on interdisciplinary curricula, improved textbooks, and
    assessment methods.

    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to outline concerns and
    recommendations today. Community Colleges look forward to a
    continued productive and mutually beneficial relationship with the
    National Science Foundation.

    ***Gwendolyn W. Stephenson** was appointed chancellor of St. Louis
    Community College in February 1992. She leads an institution that
    includes three campuses -- Florissant Valley, Forest Park, and
    Meramec -- and four education canters; serves more than 120,000
    credit and non-credit students annually; employs more than 3,400
    faculty and staff; and is supported by a budget of more than \$100
    million. From 1988 until her appointment as chancellor, Dr.
    Stephenson served as president of College's Meramec campus. She
    joined the College in 1980 as dean of student services at the Forest
    Park campus. She served as the College\'s vice chancellor for
    planning and academic affairs from 1982 to 1986, and as vice
    chancellor for educational development from 1986 to 1988. Before
    joining St. Louis Community College, Stephenson was employed by
    Washington University in St. Louis for seven years. She also has
    worked for Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, the Missouri
    Department of Education, and St. Louis Public Schools. Dr.
    Stephenson earned a doctorate in education with a minor in research
    methodology in 1975 from St. Louis University and a management
    certificate in 1987 from Harvard University. She received a master's
    degree in counselor education in 1968 from St. Louis University and
    a bachelor's degree in education in 1965 from Harris Teachers
    College. She is a licensed psychologist in Missouri. Dr. Stephenson
    serves on numerous state, regional and national educational advisory
    groups and on the boards of directors of local organizations
    including St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis Children's Hospital,
    St. Louis College of Pharmacy, and the Urban League of Metropolitan
    St. Louis. She also serves on the board of directors of the American
    Council on Education and the Advisory Committee for the National
    Science Foundation\'s Division of Undergraduate Education.*

    Testimony on the Views of Institutions on Undergraduate Education in
    Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology[^2]

    David R. Pierce

    *President, American Association of Community Colleges\
    Washington, District of Columbia*

    My role here this morning is to be here in support of two very fine
    representatives of community colleges \[Dr. Bruce Leslie, President
    of Onondaga Community College of New York, and Dr. Gwendolyn
    Stephenson, Chancellor of St. Louis Community College of Missouri.\]
    These two outstanding leaders have both served on our Association's
    Board and have both been in leadership positions while on the Board.

    I do, however, have a couple of observations to make. First, let me
    congratulate Dr. Melvin George, Dr. Luther Williams, and Dr. Robert
    Watson for their fine leadership in sponsoring these hearings. There
    is a tremendous change going on in our society, and much of it is
    being driven by science and technology developments. The important
    question is: how can the National Science Foundation engage its many
    resources and programs into helping our country and its citizens
    live in this world of rapid change?

    I read an article on productivity two weeks ago in *Business Week*.
    The article stated that we now have 62 PCs for every 100 people; we
    are almost at the point where there is one PC out there per person.
    The country closest to us by that measure is Japan, with only 17 PCs
    per 100 people. This fact can be viewed as a statement of the impact
    that science, mathematics, engineering, and technology are having on
    our society. Consequently, these are very important hearings that
    you are holding and we are pleased that you have invited us to
    present testimony. We know you will benefit from the perspectives of
    these two presenters.

    One other point I\'d like to make is that Bruce Leslie mentioned the
    document *Crossroads in Mathematics: Standards for Introductory
    College Mathematics Before Calculus*. This was funded in substantial
    part by the National Science Foundation. This process that produced
    this document was very significant, because the National Science
    Foundation took leadership to engage the community college sector in
    a leadership capacity relative to higher education. These standards
    are intended to be -- and in fact are they have just been out for a
    month -- the standards for mathematics below calculus in
    undergraduate education, for both community colleges and
    universities. The community college sector considers this document
    as a statement from the National Science Foundation of the
    importance of engaging community colleges and universities together
    in common cause.

    In closing, let me remind you that community colleges are strongly
    community-based. They are engaged with their communities to help
    thrive in this strong technology, science, mathematics, and
    engineering-based society that we live in. Community colleges have
    an important role to play.

    ***David Pierce** has extensive community college experience at the
    local, state, and national levels. During his career he has served
    as a community college instructor, department chair, academic dean,
    president, chancellor, and state director. In addition he holds an
    associate of arts degree from Fullerton College in California.
    Including his time as a student, David Pierce's experience with
    community colleges exceeds 35 years. His professional involvement
    includes service on the Board of the American Association of
    Community Colleges, the AACC Futures Commission, and the Joint
    Commission on Federal Relations for AACC and the Association of
    Community College Trustees; and he serves on numerous boards and
    councils including the Phi Theta Kappa Board, the AAWCC Leaders
    Foundation Board, and the Advisory Board for the Harvard Institute
    for the Management of Lifelong Education.*

    Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders

    Frederick S. Humphries

    *President, Florida A&M University\
    Tallahassee, Florida*

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share my thoughts
    with you on some of the most critical issues impacting undergraduate
    education in Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Technology. My
    comments, while broad in concept, speak to the rapidly changing
    demographic trends that are reflected in the increasing presence of
    members of minority groups in primary and secondary school systems
    today.

    "This country must sustain world leadership in science, mathematics,
    and engineering if we are to meet the challenges of today \... and
    of tomorrow.\" These are the words of President William J. Clinton
    that served as the preamble in the report of the Forum on Science in
    the National Interest, held in January 1994. This report also states
    that \"\... science and mathematics education must provide our
    children with the knowledge and skills they need to prepare for the
    high-technology jobs of the future, to become leaders in scientific
    research, and to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship in the
    twenty-first century.\"

    One of the major roles of the National Science Foundation is that of
    ensuring that the country\'s educational system provides to this
    country\'s citizenry a level of training that will produce the
    technological workforce that will be required in the twenty-first
    century. This system must translate new information rapidly and
    efficiently to students in the classroom, capitalize on new
    technologies that will enhance learning abilities, and afford to
    every student an opportunity to effective utilization of his/her
    creative abilities. As is implied in the words of President Clinton,
    public literacy in science and technology is no longer an option; it
    has become a national imperative.

    Having made these opening observations Mr. Chairman, I must express
    concern that demise of Russia as a major world power has lessened
    this country\'s resolve to maintain a strong and vibrant science and
    engineering education enterprise at the undergraduate level that
    will provide sufficient training to all of its citizenry. We must
    remember that the strong system of secondary and higher education of
    the sixties and seventies produced the American Nobel Laureates of
    the nineties. This country has developed a cadre of science and
    engineering research universities that are unparalleled in their
    ability to provide state-of-the-art graduate education. Data shows
    however, that the majority of American entrants into this graduate
    education system are bachelor degree recipients from the smaller
    liberal arts colleges and comprehensive universities. Accordingly, I
    would argue that we must continue to maintain a strong undergraduate
    science and engineering training program in these institutions so as
    to maintain this country\'s scientific preeminence.

    In the same vein, our education system must ensure ample
    opportunities for training for the increased number of minorities in
    SME&T fields. The stature of America into the twenty-first century
    will be defined by the contributions of all its citizens. We must
    sustain the educational intervention programs that enhance the
    preparation of inner city and rural youths and insure that every
    person has an adequate opportunity to serve as a contributing
    citizen.

    The National Science Foundation has supported the development of
    partnerships of the multiple stakeholders to impact and enhance the
    educational continuum. These coalitions have provided manpower and
    resources that reinforce areas in which we, in academia, require
    assistance. It also serves to provide students real life experiences
    that make classroom learning more meaningful.

    The technological revolution has bypassed the inner cities and is
    deficient in equalizing opportunities provided to this segment of
    the population with the scope of their desires. This failure can be
    attributed to society as a whole rather than the individual
    educational consumer.

    Teachers who do not have access to technological equipment cannot
    teach the technology skills required of a competitive society in the
    next century. Curriculum revision cannot take place if adequate
    resources are not available. The technological age is a cost driven
    age.

    Several years ago the National Science Foundation budget was about
    \$1.7 billion. President Bush promised that he would double NSF
    budget to approximately \$3.5 billion. The member institutions of
    the American Association of State Colleges and Universities through
    its Science and Technology Committee recommended that as the
    National Science Foundation budget increased, the increase would
    place a significant emphasis on education -- two-thirds research and
    one-third education. This would have increased the education budget
    to something on the order of \$1.2 billion if our recommendation had
    been followed.

    Education today is more expensive than it has ever been but it will
    cost more to ignore this inequality than it would to provide the
    proper resources for science education at the undergraduate level.

    The National Goals, which were proposed in the early 1990s,
    represent a framework for addressing the educational needs of all
    citizens.

    As this nation forges ahead to become first in the world in science,
    mathematics, engineering and technology, the needs of minorities
    must be addressed. The stature America will hold in the 21st century
    will be defined by the contributions of all of its citizens.
    Education will play a major role if this mission is to be
    accomplished. Educational interventions that are inclusive of all
    citizens, that are sustained and substantial, are the only means for
    success.

    The growing diversity of industry/education partnerships, which are
    coming together, enhances education. These coalitions provide
    manpower and resources that shore up areas in which we, in academia,
    have lost support. It also serves as a means of providing a needed
    continuum in education.

    In a similar view of cooperation, collaborations are beginning to
    emerge between our two-year anal four-year institutions. Since the
    two-year institutions serve a large number of minority students, the
    linkages, which are developing between the institutions of higher
    learning, appear to be facilitating student access to the
    upper-division level. More effort needs to be made in this regard.

    There is a crisis in graduate education. The intractable movement of
    African Americans into the Ph.D. ranks, particularly in mathematics,
    science, and engineering, is unacceptable. This nation cannot seem
    to surpass the progress made in the 1970s for Ph.D.s in engineering,
    or even secure double digits for Ph.D.s in mathematics. Barely 19 or
    20 Ph.D.s are being awarded annually. It is an embarrassment to this
    nation that we cannot do any better than that in the production of
    African Americans in the Ph.D. arena.

    A second significant point pertaining to graduate education is the
    continuing erosion of Ph.D.s in science, mathematics, and
    engineering given to native-born Americans. Every day that we live,
    more and more Ph.D.s are awarded in mathematics, science, and
    engineering to a greater number of international students and a
    lesser number to native-born Americans. This nation is failing to
    train its best people. This should be of serious concern to
    everybody who is concerned about the production and the development
    of the human resource in this Nation.

    The federal government has recognized the value of early and
    sustained intervention in preparing minority youth for careers in
    the science, mathematics, engineering and technology areas. The last
    decade has seen support for the efforts being made at the university
    level. The level of support must be projected on a long-range basis
    granted that the programs demonstrate success. The system-wide
    approach to reform sparked by the National Science Foundation is
    taking hold in the various states, which are receiving support.
    There is more evidence of partnership and collaboration than at any
    time in our history. These partnerships and collaborations have
    generated the feeling that, it will take the efforts of an entire
    nation to educate our youth.

    In the K-12 system there is a lack of first-rate science and
    mathematics education providers to the rural and urban sectors of
    our society. Most of the well-trained science and mathematics
    teachers are not teaching in the inner cities and rural areas of
    America. We have a modest level of success with mathematics and
    science teachers in the suburban areas. That is where the best
    education in science and mathematics is happening.

    In rural and inner cities, many of the schools lack mathematics and
    science infrastructure. This results in inadequate mathematics and
    science laboratories. When many of the students graduate from these
    school systems, they are termed "underprepared" and need remediation
    in mathematics and science to be competitive in any reasonably good
    university or college in our Nation.

    We have all kinds of circumstances where we reward and pay homage to
    distinction and achievement in research. There are a tremendous
    number of opportunities for the people who make contributions to the
    advancement of knowledge through research to be acknowledged for
    their significant and dedicated hard work. We need an organization
    that focuses on and requires annual professional meetings dealing
    with this whole issue of making scientists, engineers, and
    mathematicians. What works effectively in the curriculum? What is
    the curriculum restructuring mechanism?

    The National Science Foundation needs to use its tremendous
    influence to make way within the National Academy of Science and
    Engineering so that the great teachers of science and mathematics
    can be afforded the privilege to belong to the academy in an
    educational capacity and not in a research capacity.

    There are teachers who develop good scientists, mathematicians, and
    engineers; teachers who are inventive in finding ways of captivating
    the interest of young people to go into those fields; and master
    teachers who can solidify that interest by inspiring a student to
    become a Nobel Laureate. *Build a mechanism, which reinforces the
    notion that it is worthwhile to pay attention to these very
    important activities in our society.*

    Programs developed in the Education and Human Resources Directorate
    of the National Science Foundation are tremendous and excellent
    starts, but they are not the end in terms of what is needed to be
    done to continue this role of increasing the numbers, particularly
    of minorities, and increasing the numbers generally of our society
    in mathematics, science, and engineering.

    Given the political climate of the past several years, it is evident
    that the academic arena cannot accomplish this mission on its own.
    We must have the full commitment of partners who believe in a system
    of fair and equal opportunity for all. One of my major concerns is
    the fact that support for public colleges is becoming more dependent
    on revenues from tuition and fees owing to the decrease in funding
    from State and Federal sources. This situation has even greater
    impact on the number of minorities progressing through the system
    and receiving baccalaureate degrees in four to six years.
    Increasingly, minorities enrolled in college are required to carry
    reduced course loads or even delay college owing to the combination
    of limited financial aid, rising tuition and the limitation of
    course availability. Budget compression is forcing institutions to
    increase class size in order to maintain existing levels of
    enrollment.

    If America is serious in its desire to maintain its lead in the
    world in science and technology, then America must be committed to
    providing the necessary resources to see that adequate SME&T
    training is available to all students in secondary and
    post-secondary education.

    Listed below are my recommendations of a realistic approach to a
    comprehensive action-oriented revolution of our educational system:

-   Promote the development of new curricula emphasizing virtual reality
    and simulation training in the teaching of science, mathematics,
    engineering, and technology subject areas at the undergraduate
    levels.

-   Promote the development of State/Federal partnerships to fund the
    replacement of aging facilities and equipment utilized in teaching
    science, mathematics, engineering and technology subject areas.

-   Increase the level of science, mathematics, engineering and
    technology funding designed to attract students from the inner city
    and rural areas.

-   Promote collaborative efforts among faculty that will facilitate a
    multidisciplinary approach to the education of all students
    regardless of major.

-   Promote the dissemination and utilization of science, mathematics,
    engineering and technology curricula that have proven successful.

-   Establish an organization to focus on the professional development
    of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

-   Encourage the National Academy of Science and Engineering to expand
    membership requirements to include science and mathematics in an
    educational capacity.

-   Fund and promote the utilization of distance learning facilities to
    infuse science, mathematics, engineering and technology instruction
    into secondary and post-secondary curricula.

-   Fund and promote partnerships between higher education and industry
    that will ensure relevant laboratory experiences for the next
    generation of the science, mathematics, engineering and technology
    workforce.

-   Ensure the education of a sufficiently diverse science, mathematics,
    engineering, and technology workforce so as to afford each citizen
    an opportunity to contribute to the country\'s well being.

-   Forge at both the state and national levels, communities of
    stakeholders -- students, parents, faculty, administrators,
    scientific sources, accessible bodies, employers and local, state
    and national leaders -- who demonstrate their support for education.

-   Create an environment where faculty can effectively integrate their
    research and teaching at the undergraduate level.

-   Provide a level of support, which will enable the K-12 system to
    effectively administer programs, which demonstrate and enhance
    comprehension of scientific and technological subjects.

-   Introduce prospective teachers to the classroom setting early in
    their preparation and continue this exposure while developing their
    proficiency in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.

-   Promote the development of University-Community College articulation
    agreements that provide services to promote scientific interest and
    scientific literacy before students complete their associate degree
    programs.

    Recently there has been a high level of concern about the quality of
    the products of our undergraduate institutions and questions
    regarding their preparation for diverse post-matriculation
    endeavors. The enhancement programs, which are emerging with Federal
    and State support, have demonstrated that a comprehensive and
    holistic approach to learning will produce students who are up to
    the challenges of post-graduate education.

    I strongly endorse continuation of the Following National Science
    Foundation Initiatives:

-   Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement;

-   Course and Curriculum Development;

-   Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement;

-   National Science Foundation Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
    Preparation;

-   the Alliance for Minority Participation in Science, Engineering, and
    Mathematics;

-   the Systemic Statewide Initiatives Programs; and

-   the Advanced Technological Education program.

    Furthermore, I strongly support the continuation of undergraduate
    programs sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, Minority
    Access to Undergraduate Careers Research Program, Minority
    Biomedical Research Support Program -- and the office of Naval
    Research such as BIONR. All these programs have played a vital role
    in increasing the pool of minority scientists and engineers in our
    country.

    I urge you to make the tough decisions and redirect funding so that
    all undergraduate students would have access to state-of-the-art
    equipment, modern facilities and innovative curricula anchored by
    inspiring and well prepared professors. We must rise to the
    challenge if we are to meet the technological demands of leadership
    in the 21st century.

    *When **Frederick S. Humphries** was appointed President of Florida
    A&M University in 1985, he brought new tools and ideas designed to
    dramatically impact the national perception of Historically Black
    Colleges and Universities. He set as a major goal early in his
    administration to challenge Harvard University in the race for
    National Achievement Scholars, the most academically talented black
    students in the country. He accomplished his goal in 1992-93 and
    again in 1994-95 when FAMU led the nation in the recruitment of
    National Achievement Scholars. He serves on numerous boards and
    committees including the White House Advisory Committee on
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and as a member of the
    Board of Directors for the Wal-Mart Corporation. His honors include
    the University of Pittsburgh's Bicentennial Medal of Distinction and
    the 1990 Thurgood Marshall Educational Achievement Award. He
    received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Florida A&M
    University and the Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from the
    University of Pittsburgh.*

    Testimony Before the Undergraduate Review Subcommittee

    of the National Science Foundation

    William E. Kirwan

    *President, The University of Maryland\
    College Park, Maryland*

    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to appear before the committee
    created by the National Science Foundation to review undergraduate
    education the areas of science, mathematics, engineering, and
    technology (SME&T). I hope that my comments will be useful to you as
    you begin this important undertaking.

    You have identified a number of broad issues relating to science and
    technology education in our nation\'s colleges and universities. My
    remarks will focus on two of your major concerns: improving the
    quality of the undergraduate curricula in SME&T areas, and
    identifying changes in institutional policies and practices that
    might contribute to the desired changes. I would be happy to address
    the remaining issues, if time permits, in response to the
    committee\'s questions.

    Strengthening Curricula in SME&T Fields

    Certainly one key to improving instruction in areas of science and
    technology will be affording our students greater access to powerful
    and easy-to-use computers for data analysis, simulation, and
    instrument interfacing. The networking of computers has opened up
    the processes of information gathering, analysis, and the
    dissemination of knowledge, and the effects are already visible in
    many of our classrooms. Computer linkages with federal agencies and
    private industry now offer invaluable opportunities for our
    undergraduate engineering and science students to use
    state-of-the-art design models. In the near future we can expect to
    see a dramatic increase in the number and variety of electronic
    texts being made available for use in undergraduate instruction. In
    our electronic classrooms at College Park we have observed
    first-hand the tremendous potential of computers to enhance
    learning, and there is every reason to think we are just at the
    beginning of this era.

    There is also now widespread acceptance of the proposition that, in
    science areas as in other disciplines, students learn best when they
    work within problem-focuses formats. Where students can take an
    active or \'constructivist\' approach to problem-solving, where they
    are able to take a direct role in the development of their knowledge
    rather than mimic behavior of the past. They can more quickly
    overcome their misconceptions as well as acquire a greater degree of
    interest in the subject matter. In the process they also gain
    experience in the kind of cooperative, collaborative approach to
    research that will be characteristic of later stages of their
    careers. At the moment, however, student- and problem-centered
    instruction is found in many institutions largely in the form of
    pilot projects supported by external grants, with special, sometimes
    Herculean efforts on the part of individual faculty and staff. These
    successful pilot projects must become the norm, and not the
    expensive, labor-intensive exceptions in our science and technology
    curricula.

    In addition to mastering the skills and knowledge specific to the
    field of study, students enrolled in SME&T disciplines will
    increasingly need to improve their communication and problem-solving
    skills, to acquiring a positive attitude lifelong learning, and to
    be able to deal effectively with the ethical dimension of their
    professional lives. At present few courses in areas of science and
    technology offer significant opportunities for students to develop
    facility in oral and written expression, or to pursue broader
    questions relating to the nature of scientific knowledge and
    inquiry.

    In light of what we now know about the ways in which science and
    technological development affect the environment, for good as well
    as for ill, it is also imperative that we afford our students
    opportunities to reflect on how their actions as individuals will
    contribute to the larger problem, or to its solution. As David Orr
    recently put it, "the kind of discipline-centric education that has
    enabled us to industrialize the Earth will not necessarily help us
    to heal the damage caused by industrialization."[^3]

    In thinking about improvements in the quality of education at the
    college and university level we should also keep in mind that many
    of our students are entering their programs of study with inadequate
    preparation and knowledge in the sciences, especially in
    mathematics. This lack of proficiency manifests itself even in such
    everyday activities as solving simple proportional equations and
    graphing X-Y plots. I am aware of a number of reform efforts that
    are underway at the elementary and secondary level, and many of
    these show great promise.

    The point is that those of us within the higher education community
    must regard what goes on at the elementary and secondary level of
    education as our concern as well.

    Needed Changes in Institutional Policies

    It is my view that to a large extent upgrading the quality of the
    undergraduate educational experience is a matter of individuals and
    institutions having the determination to put into general practice
    the kinds of innovative approaches that have already been shown to
    be successful in various pilot projects. But, to a very large
    degree, this moans we must give considerable thought to what we
    expect our universities faculty to be doing in future years.

    A significant number of faculty throughout the nation, and in all
    disciplines, have some sense of the importance of upgrading the
    quality of undergraduate instruction. But many others have little
    desire and incentive to take part. Indeed, to be perfectly frank, a
    significant percentage of faculty resist taking the time and effort
    required to incorporate new scientific and instructional
    technologies within their own instructional activities. And many,
    perhaps most instructors carry out their teaching assignments with
    little understanding of the nature of the learning process and which
    approaches to teaching might be most conducive to their students\'
    learning. At our nations\' research universities, most existing
    faculty performance-assessment and reward systems afford little
    opportunity for recognizing the effort of those faculty who are
    prepared to make a major commitment of time and effort to work
    toward improving the quality of undergraduate instruction. To some
    extent, then, enhancing the quality of undergraduate education will
    require a fundamental change in the priorities by which faculty
    decide how to spend their time, as well as a more learning-focused
    set of performance reward systems.

    The magnitude of the impact of poorly prepared entering students on
    instruction at the college and university level highlights the
    importance of improving communication and forging new alliances with
    teachers at elementary and secondary levels. In my view, improvement
    in SME&T instruction at the college and university level requires
    that K-12 teachers participate in the process of setting the reform
    agenda and that colleges and universities undertake to provide
    teachers with the kind of preparation and in-service training they
    will need in order to introduce new materials, concepts, and
    teaching styles into the classroom. It is essential that we work to
    increase understanding of the ways in which our nation\'s
    educational system is a unified whole. The various levels depend on
    one another in many ways, but we rarely plan and execute programs
    accordingly. So here also universities must find ways to support the
    efforts of teachers at the elementary and high school levels, and to
    reward the members of the university community who are prepared to
    build stronger school-university relationships. Thank you very much,
    Mr. Chairman.

    ***William English Kirwan** has served as President of the
    University of Maryland at College Park since 1989. A member of the
    College Park mathematics faculty since 1964, Dr. Kirwan has played a
    pivotal role in shaping the destiny of the state of Maryland\'s
    flagship campus. In 1981, after serving as Chair of the Mathematics
    Department for three years, he was appointed to University\'s chief
    academic post. As Provost and Vice Chancellor, he raised admission
    standards, increased the number of merit scholarships and
    fellowships, and established an academic planning process. When he
    became President, the University undertook a major restructuring of
    its academic organization, and a renewed emphasis on undergraduate
    education. One of the nation's most respected educators, Dr. Kirwan
    has served as Chair of the Mathematical Sciences in the Year 2000
    Committee, a task force created by the National Research Council to
    improve mathematics education at the nation\'s colleges and
    universities during the next decade, and as charter member of the
    NRC's committee on Undergraduate Science Education.*

-   Testimony Before the Undergraduate Review Subcommittee of the

    National Science Foundation

    Paula P. Brownlee

    *President, Association of American Colleges and Universities\
    Washington, District of Columbia*

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before this
    committee. I am very appreciative of the chance to share some of Dr.
    William (Brit) Kirwan\'s time here. He serves as a member of our
    Association\'s Board and provides important leadership to the work
    of AAC&U. The review that you are undertaking of undergraduate
    education in science and technology is timely and important, and it
    is a privilege to join so many fine colleagues in trying to
    contribute to your efforts.

    You are receiving excellent testimony from colleagues representing
    the disciplines and colleges and universities, whose experiences
    with advances in science and engineering education are current and
    in depth. The perspective I bring is that of an association whose
    activities involve working with academic administrators and faculty
    leaders across hundreds of universities and colleges.

    The AAC&U mission is to strengthen and promote liberal education. We
    interpret contemporary liberal education as an education that
    prepares students to best understand, analyze and contribute their
    developed knowledge to the world they can come to know. Such an
    education includes the study of the arts and sciences, implies the
    understanding of interdisciplinary connections and anticipates
    integration of theory into their lives, lived in a changing world.
    The study of science and mathematics, engineering and technology all
    have absolutely essential places in such a liberal education--and
    for students who major outside these fields as importantly as for
    those of us who majored within them. My own background includes a
    number of years as an organic chemist, briefly in industry then in a
    university, before I moved into campus administration.

    AAC&U has long been involved in projects, a number of which have
    been funded by NSF, which address the improvement of curricula and
    teaching practices in the scientific disciplines--for undergraduate
    majors and in general education courses.

    Brit Kirwan, in his testimony spoke of \"upgrading the quality of
    the undergraduate educational experience\" as being to a large
    extent \"a matter of individuals and institutions having the
    determination to put into general practice the kinds of innovative
    approaches that have already been shown to be successful in various
    pilot projects.\" He talks of the need for \"determination\" in
    order to translate successful pilots into general practice. I think
    that his \"engendering the \'determination\' to translate successful
    pilots into general practice\" is a central issue for us. This is
    the only way we shall ever see widespread improvement in
    undergraduate science education for all students.

    AAC&U works with many hundreds of individuals and campus science and
    engineering departments, and we are impressed with the range of
    effective innovations being made. At the same time, too often it
    appears that the faculty members have thought up their own ideas in
    relative isolation. A chemistry faculty friend recently said to me:
    \"NSF knows that it is getting good value for its dollar investment
    in research. But teaching is not the result of training comparable
    to research, and the reform of teaching often seems to me driven by
    uninformed bright ideas.\" Maybe each innovation is too much a
    separated pilot project. Much of others\' testimony will speak well
    to many of the best practices, and will be important for the review.

    We do all lack knowledge of how to spread the best practices for
    others to access. Once disseminated, how is interested faculty
    inspired to transmute them into their *own* laboratories, classrooms
    or technology-aided instruction? I think that complex understanding
    of this process is needed to successfully propagate multiple
    improvements.

    At AAC&U it is said that we try \"to enable our member institutions
    or departments to do together what they cannot do alone.\" In
    earlier decades, our projects aimed to bring together faculty to
    spark each other's initial ideas around a particular reform. This is
    probably still the underlying premise of content-filled educational
    meetings. Sometimes we can return to our own campus ready to adapt
    the new ideas to our own setting. Very often, however, on our return
    the initial idea with its attendant energy just dies.

    In more recent years, our association has strongly encouraged campus
    *teams* to participate in our annual meeting; almost all our funded
    projects now involve teams also. A group of colleagues sharing an
    off-campus experience can better enable the work to be sustained
    back on campus. The group brings back a tiny encouraging community.

    A continuing use of this practice is in the AAC&U \"Asheville
    Institutes.\" Two of these, in which interdisciplinary science with
    humanities general education courses were designed, NSF helped fund.
    Over the past five summers, 105 colleges and universities have sent
    five-member teams of faculty and an academic administrator for 6
    days. Administrative commitment from the beginning enhances the
    likelihood of the innovations being adopted and supported on campus.
    For particular projects, the involvement of a trustee or the
    president of the institution is required. I cite these examples to
    illustrate the complexity of the process by which the initial bright
    idea for the improvement of some aspect of undergraduate science
    teaching will finally be spread (and often changed en route) to
    lastingly improve quality.

    Wherever dramatic transformation is planned, efforts must be
    sustained by multiple means. The pairing of institution teams, with
    occasional trips to each other's campuses, enables exchange of
    experience at much deeper levels. We are beginning to utilize
    listserves and other electronic communications; these hold great
    promise for the future. When a team can stay connected with a
    project for a year, much more opportunity for help with economic and
    political issues surrounding the introduction of reforms can occur.
    In such cases, nationally respected consultants can offer informed
    assistance. As an example, the lack of faculty rewards for teaching
    and the lack of recognition for innovative developments are widely
    cited as a disincentive to reform. Consultant help might offer
    outside credibility and cite other positive experience.

    Sometimes projects falter along the way. A planned final gathering
    of project leaders can spur sustained effort. The goal is always to
    achieve students studying well in the reformed curriculum and
    assuming that good assessment tools are in place. In just one AAC&U
    project (not one in science education alas!), funding was provided
    so that we could, several years later, send an outside evaluator to
    each campus involved. I have the written report now, and I think
    this is an extraordinarily good means for a funding agency, and
    others, to know how deeply a reform is rooted. Such evaluations
    would also inform the design of later funded projects. I believe
    that this Review Subcommittee might consider this idea further.

    I have asked here for you to consider how best to multiply the
    impact of fine examples of undergraduate curriculum reform. Simple
    dissemination is not enough, whether by print, electronic or
    face-to-face means. We are rapidly learning that students learn best
    when they are enabled to actively construct their own understanding.
    It is scarcely surprising then, that faculty, too, learn to teach
    best when they can use others' ideas -- out of which they are
    enabled to construct their own teaching. *Enabled* means having
    others to talk and debate with, having support to experiment and
    being recognized for the intellectual effort demanded.

    I cannot finish my testimony without adding a word on the continuing
    needs of women and minority faculty to be supported and "enabled" as
    creative reformers in the world of science and engineering
    education. This world is still a more difficult one for a variety of
    reasons; the past support of NSF is deeply appreciated. Many of us
    hope it can be sustained.

    A final word on the role of graduate education as a preparation for
    the role of future professor. AAC&U is undertaking, with the Council
    of Graduate Schools, a project on "Preparing Future Faculty." Under
    it, Ph.D. students (many of whom are science and mathematics
    students) at 17 research universities are having a planned "field
    exposure" to the life of professors at the neighbor college, these
    graduate students are receiving unprecedented introductions to the
    professoriate. We are particularly pleased to have minority students
    in these programs, which we hope will be encouraged to seek faculty
    positions on graduation. I hope that NSF and other government and
    private agencies will help us plan ahead for the kind of informed
    young faculty members we want to design and teach our undergraduate
    science, mathematics, engineering and technology courses of
    tomorrow. Thank you.

    *As president of the Association of American Colleges and
    Universities (AAC&U), **Paula P. Brownlee** heads the only higher
    education organization of member institutions that focuses on
    strengthening liberal education on our nation's campuses. AAC&U was
    founded in 1915 and is now composed of more than 660 public and
    private colleges and universities, whose presidents, deans, and
    faculty members are the active participants. The goals of AAC&U are
    carried out through its research and publications, projects,
    national meetings, and specialized workshops. Before becoming
    president of AAC&U in September 1990, Dr. Brownlee was president and
    professor of chemistry at Hollins College for nine years.
    Previously, she was dean of the faculty and professor of chemistry
    at Union College for five years and a dean and tenured faculty
    member in chemistry at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
    She received her bachelor's and doctoral degrees in chemistry from
    Oxford University and held a post-doctoral fellowship at the
    University of Rochester before working briefly in chemical industry.
    She was recently elected Honorary Fellow of her college, Somerville
    College, Oxford.*

-   Testimony to the National Science Foundation\
    Hearings on Undergraduate Education

    Saul K. Fenster

    *President, New Jersey Institute of Technology\
    Edison, New Jersey*

    I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the subject of
    undergraduate education in the fields of science, mathematics,
    engineering, and technology (SME&T). This subject lies at the heart
    of what we do at New Jersey Institute of Technology. The leadership
    of the National Science Foundation is exceedingly important to us,
    and I am delighted to participate in this dialogue.

    In 1986, a National Science Board task committee under the
    leadership of Homer Neal, issued a report that has contributed to
    significant change in undergraduate education in science,
    mathematics, engineering, and technology.

    That report -- an analysis of the weaknesses and findings of
    traditional attitudes and approaches to SME&T instruction, followed
    by specific recommendations for reform -- set the tone for a decade
    of rethinking and retooling. Although much remains to be done, I
    think it is fair to say that the stimulus provided by the National
    Science Board, and the advice and support subsequently provided by
    the National Science Foundation, have helped transform the way
    faculty approach the mission of undergraduate instruction in SME&T
    fields.

    Today I would like to share with you my assessment of the impact
    those efforts have had at one institution, New Jersey Institute of
    Technology. I will describe our philosophy of undergraduate
    education. Cite some of the specific steps we have taken, and offer
    some comments on what is working best.

    A recurrent theme in what I have to say will be *the importance of
    context.*

    Let me begin, therefore, with a bit of context for my remarks. The
    central purpose of undergraduate education at NJIT is to prepare
    students for careers as \"complete professionals\" with the
    potential for leadership in their chosen fields of endeavor. Let us
    review for a moment the specific characteristics of such a person.
    It goes without saying that \"professional\" conduct implies honesty
    and integrity. In addition, a "complete professional\":

-   embraces responsibility

-   is technologically proficient

-   communicates effectively

-   comprehends the interdisciplinary nature of innovative thinking

-   can see the totality of an enterprise and the inter-relatedness of
    its goals

-   understands the competitive nature of the marketplace

-   is entrepreneurial

-   respects the environment

-   adapts to change with flexibility

-   is a productive and cooperative team member

-   appreciates and respects diversity; and

-   continues to learn throughout life.

    I believe that our success as a nation will depend upon such people.
    People who can lead in a global economy, keep our corporations at
    the cutting edge, design and produce goods, employ natural resources
    in an environmentally benign way­ and do all these things with
    respect and appreciation for diversity.

    The key, of course, is to provide a comprehensive, well-rounded
    education that maximizes *all* of the values listed above. The
    package is incomplete if scientific and technical excellence is
    sacrificed; but it is also inadequate if the pursuit of scientific
    and technical expertise precludes attention to the external context
    within which the science and technology enterprise functions. The
    old saw about the value of a broadening general education at the
    undergraduate level holds true today, perhaps more than ever.

    How is all this to be accomplished?

    There is no simple formula for success. But it is certainly possible
    to point out a number of contributing factors that have demonstrated
    effectiveness. Reforms of curricular design and course content, the
    introduction of improved pedagogical methods and new technologies,
    the integration of research into undergraduate teaching, and
    institutional recognition of faculty efforts in undergraduate
    education are among them.

    In each case, NSF has served as a powerful catalyst for change. NJIT
    and many other institutions have benefited from its guidance and
    support.

    In the balance of my remarks I will try to demonstrate why I make
    that assertion.

    We know that one objective of SME&T education must be to captivate
    students: we must literally *capture their imagination*, and then we
    must *hold their interest.* The key, I believe is to teach in
    context and to give students a realistic preview of the roles played
    by the engineer, the architect, the scientist, and the manager. With
    NSF support through the Gateway Coalition and two major grants under
    the Technology Reinvestment program, we are reconfiguring the shape
    and content of the undergraduate curriculum at NJIT.

    There are a few specific features of the new curriculum

-   A new required full-year course, *Fundamentals of Engineering
    Design*, involves all freshmen in complex, open-ended design
    problems from the very beginning of the curriculum.

-   Traditional freshman humanities and social science courses are
    coupled to the *Fundamentals of Engineering* course to create a
    cohesive sequence that emphasizes connections among the fields of
    human knowledge.

-   Multi-lifecycle and pollution prevention concepts will be introduced
    throughout the curriculum to show students that economic viability
    and environmental responsibility are essential considerations in
    developing design solutions.

-   We are developing computer-assisted decision-making tools that
    introduce environmental concern in the form of "clean\"
    manufacturing considerations at every stage of the design process
    for use in freshman chemistry classes as well as for direct use by
    industry.

-   Our factory floor, summer internships, and cooperative education
    programs offer immediate hands-on experience.

-   A required seminar series will bring to the campus speakers from
    industry to discuss manufacturing topics from the perspective of
    their direct experience.

-   In chemical engineering, required courses link communication and
    critical thinking to the analysis of chemical processes, unit
    operations, and plant design.

-   Required courses in economics and management have been combined into
    a single, year-long course that leads students through the critical
    financial considerations that must be taken into account in
    producing goods and services.

-   A course for seniors gives them the opportunity to carry out
    projects from product conceptualization through commercialization as
    a capstone experience.

Thus, throughout the curriculum, we will provide integrating learning
experiences that provide a foretaste of the complexities of the
workplace. Students will realize *before* they graduate that
professional success depends upon the ability to organize a variety of
human resources as well as apply science and mathematics. This is truly
science, mathematics, and technology *in context.*

Other new modes of undergraduate education supplement these curricular
developments. For example, we now offer undergraduate students the
opportunity to work directly with a faculty mentor, thereby experiencing
the kind of thinking and experimental activity that goes on in the world
of basic or applied research.

The use of computer technology in delivering the undergraduate
curriculum also takes the form of distance learning. With the support of
the Sloan Foundation, NJIT now offers an entire undergraduate degree
program (the Bachelor of Arts in Information Systems) through
computer-mediated instruction supplemented by videotapes.

The curricular improvements we have undertaken appear to be having
beneficial effects on our students. One indication of this is last
year's 85 percent retention rate from the freshman to the sophomore
year. Another is the enthusiasm reported by many of our faculty members.

Yet the curriculum as a whole might best be characterized as a \"work in
progress.\" It is surely not perfect, nor has it been developed to our
full satisfaction. The individual strands I have described have yet to
be woven together as a coherent a fabric as we would like to see, with a
pattern that commands immediate recognition when viewed from a distance.

The ultimate goal is to educate professionals with a better
understanding of their calling, thereby rendering them better prepared
to lead others. The means is a curriculum bound together not only by a
traditional set of academic objectives that are related to the notion of
preparing students for professional practice, but also by a broad
thematic expression that represents the profession directly. Real
curricular integration demands explicit linkage between and among
sources.

A desirable consequence will be higher retention and graduation rates.
If the broad thematic motif is sufficiently compelling, it will arouse
curiosity and stimulate interest. We can then hope to spur better
teaching on the part of faculty and better learning on the part of
students.

The challenge to university leaders is to nurture a unity of purpose
within the campus community. It is no trivial matter to do this with
individuals, both faculty and administrators, who tend to view the world
from a discipline-oriented perspective. Moreover, the academic
enterprise rightly values individual creativity. Curricular unity must
be achieved without compromising the "free market" of ideas, without
sacrificing open-ended debate and intellectual controversy.

Clearly, the university community will need more time to internalize the
conceptual framework embodied in the new curriculum, and to capitalize
more fully on its pedagogical possibilities.

Two additional points arise from the notion of a broad reform of the
undergraduate curriculum based on integrating themes.

First, undergraduate education does not take place in a vacuum. The next
generation of faculty is emerging from Ph.D. programs across the nation.
They will be expected to teach a new undergraduate curriculum. It
follows that the nature and content of Ph.D. programs themselves deserve
reconsideration, especially in the SME&T fields. If we need faculty
attuned to new approaches in undergraduate education, we should
deliberately build the necessary components into our doctoral programs.

Some of the necessary components are obvious. More emphasis on making
interdisciplinary connections and on filling the lacunae in the matrix
between the disciplines. More opportunities to teach. More emphasis on
preparing for non-academic careers by working in teams and learning
leadership skills. More emphasis on the roles of quality and cost in an
era of global economics. More emphasis on the need to realize the
commercial value of research.

Second, I cannot leave the matter of undergraduate curriculum without
reference to the training of schoolteachers. Since so much more can be
accomplished when the interest and motivation start at an early age, the
teaching of "SME&T in context" should begin in the elementary and
secondary schools. It therefore stands to reason that colleges and
universities, and -- more importantly -- those individual faculty
members who know how to teach SME&T in context, should be playing a
central role in the education of future K-12 teachers of math and
science, rather than institutions and faculty whose primary focus is on
pedagogical methods. And there should be far more interactions between
elementary/secondary schools and universities that teach the sciences,
engineering, and technology.

The faculty reward system is another powerful tool.

As I see it, the distinction between a Ph.D.-granting institution and
other colleges and universities is *not* based on a difference in the
importance attached to undergraduate education. NJIT\'s academic culture
is defined by the presence of a faculty engaged in undergraduate
instruction as well as graduate education, research, continuing
professional education, and professional practice. The faculty\'s
experience of research and professional practice adds freshness and
excitement to the classroom and the laboratory. They integrate what they
have learned from their own work into the material they teach. The unity
of teaching and research is becoming a way of life at NJIT precisely
because it contributes powerfully to excellence in professorial
education.

Once again, NSF support has encouraged us in the right direction. With
two grants under the CRCD (Combined Research-Curriculum Development)
program, new graduate courses will incorporate current faculty research
in the fields of particle technology and optoelectronics, and the
fundamentals can be integrated into undergraduate courses long before
they appear in textbooks.

That said, it remains necessary to remind faculty that the university
values undergraduate instruction.

NJIT's promotion and tenure processes emphasize good teaching as well as
research productivity. In the review of each candidate for promotion
and/or tenure we examine the record of teaching -- including curriculum
and course design, advisement, and very importantly the results of
student evaluations. No one who is rated less than "good\" as a teacher
is recommended for advancement, regardless of the individual's
intellectual research record.

Recognition can take other forms as well. NJIT has a program of annual
awards for excellence in teaching. I can report that faculty take great
satisfaction from the recognition they receive from their peers and from
students. Some have been heard to say with pride that they devote
themselves primarily to teaching undergraduates.

The transition from school to college can be particularly difficult for
students interested in the SME&T fields. Most of them come with no prior
experience of what to expect, or what will be expected of them. The high
national rates of attrition from collegiate SME&T programs can be
attributed in part to this discontinuity.

At NJIT we approach the problem in two ways.

First, we think some prior experience provides a useful bridge to
college. In 1970, we started a pre-college program in urban engineering
with 30 high school students from the Newark area. Today, with support
from a large number of foundations and corporations, our pre-college
programs have expanded to include 3000 students per year from elementary
school through high school and several hundred teachers. One program,
funded by NSF since 1990, introduces rising 8th and 9th graders to
research in the fields of environmental science and civil and
environmental engineering. All of these programs provide a foretaste of
college and are designed to plant the seed of interest in the fields of
science, engineering, math, technology, and architecture as potential
careers. Again, teaching in context.

To assure greater continuity for students who begin their college
careers at community colleges, a consortium of New Jersey colleges and
universities that includes NJIT, together with local industries, high
schools, and professional societies, has been awarded another NSF grant
to create a national center of excellence in engineering technology
education. The center will develop a model associate degree program in
Mecomtronics Technology[^4] and work toward the restructuring of
existing engineering technology programs.

The second approach, one that has become standard at many colleges and
universities, is to provide far more extensive orientation and
adjustment programming than was traditionally the case. At NJIT this
takes the form of a pre-­freshman year summer orientation experience we
call "miniversity," a first semester freshman seminar designed to
develop early awareness of the attitudes and behaviors that contribute
to long-term success in college; an "early warning" system designed to
call attention to students who may need special advice, tutoring, or
counseling; and an academic advisement system that operates from the
first semester through the senior year.

It is also important to emphasize fuller participation by members of
groups underrepresented in the SME&T fields, especially women and
minorities. I say this for two fundamental reasons: First, fuller
participation is a simple matter of equity. In light of the long history
of social inequities, attempts to deal with the effects of economic and
educational disadvantage are desirable on purely moral grounds. Beyond
that, however, America's future depends to a large extent on our ability
to assure an adequate supply of well-prepared professionals, people who
can keep our corporations at the cutting edge and provide leadership in
a global economy. The nation needs more such people, and will find them
*only* if previously under-represented populations participate.

The confluence of a compelling moral imperative with the human resource
needs of the twenty-first century constitutes a powerful mandate to
higher education.

Institutions such as NJIT have a special role to play. We believe that
this university's complementary and mutually reinforcing goals of
excellence and access clearly reflect the responsibilities of a public
institution with a public mission.

In this area, too, the National Science Foundation is providing
leadership and support.

I would like to close with a sobering thought. It is the realization
that our agenda is incomplete. Colleges and universities understand that
they occupy a unique position in-service to the Nation. We think we have
fulfilled this role well in the past, and we want to do so in the
future. What we need from Washington, from our state capitals, and from
our many other partners, is some assurance that the value of higher
education will be recognized in the form of continuity in our sources of
support. With tangible support from the National Science Foundation and
others, higher education will continue to enrich our future and that of
generations to come.

***Saul K. Fenster** is the sixth President of New Jersey Institute of
Technology. He earned a Bachelor degree from the City College of New
York, a Masters Degree from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from the
University of Michigan. He has authored or co-authored two textbooks and
numerous research papers and technical articles. His current board
memberships include the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology,
Research and Development Council of New Jersey, which he chairs, the
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering and the Liberty
Science Center. He is a member of various committees of the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. He is a
fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a Fellow of
the American Society for Engineering Education, and a member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, and the Council on Competitiveness.*

Needed Improvements in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology
(SME&T) Education, and Institutional Policies that Would Aid
Undergraduate SME&T Education

Judith A. Ramaley

*President, Portland State University*

*Portland, Oregon*

What our nation\'s colleges and universities face today

Colleges and Universities are facing a number of external pressures that
create tensions among the competing values of affordability (cost),
quality of programs, and access. These pressures include: 1) financial
constraints brought about by the redistribution of state funding from
higher education to other purposes such as corrections and school equity
funding; 2) demands for increased accountability and enhanced
productivity; 3) expectations that higher education will make student
learning its central purpose and introduce values and social
responsibility into the curriculum; and 4) concerns about the
employability of new graduates.

In response to these pressures, ten percent of this nation\'s colleges
and universities sharpened their missions in the past year and 70
percent began to examine the contributions and productivity of their
academic departments. This climate of renewed concern for responsibility
and accountability and the growing emphasis on the importance of student
learning provides an ideal opportunity for institutional leaders to
reassert the importance of the preparation of teachers, for K-12 and for
higher education. To emphasize the need for the introduction of
significant reforms at both K-12 level and in higher education in SME&T
for both students who plan to major in these fields and for students who
do not.

Undertaking radical change

At the same time, institutional pressures affect the ability of our
colleges and universities to undertake the major transformation of their
science, mathematics, engineering and technology curricula, which are
needed if we are to enhance the capacity of this nation in these
disciplines. Also, to advance the ability of our citizens to make
informed decisions utilizing information from these fields.

Radical rethinking of academic programs entails genuine rethinking of
the entire educational enterprise, including the design and content of
the curriculum, the creation of a new institutional environment through
the design of many aspects of campus infrastructure, a new approach to
faculty and student roles and responsibilities, and the use of unusual
and creative inter-institutional and interdisciplinary partnerships.
Observers of academic reform have observed that reform this sweeping is
rare. More commonly change is sporadic and occasional, progresses in
fits and starts, and is characterized by bouts of housecleaning followed
by years of inertia (after J.B. Lon Hefferlin, *Dynamics of Academic
Reform* Jossey-Bass, 1969).

What creates a supportive environment for reform?

To succeed in such an ambitious undertaking, an institution or a cluster
of institutions, must have adequate time and financial resources, access
to knowledgeable advocates who are committed to transformational change,
and a campus and academic environment that is receptive to outside
influences. In our experience, institutions that are at the edge of the
academic mainstream because of their youth or the recent emergence of
their institutional type (e.g. regional colleges, urban universities),
or because they enjoy unusual and creative leadership, are more likely
to undertake a genuine, rather than a piecemeal change process. These
kinds of institutions are not likely, however, to be sought out by
policy-makers seeking to identify promising and productive models for
educational reform.

Once an institution embraces the importance of transformational change,
it helps to have: 1) continuity of leadership; 2) a supportive governing
body; 3) partners in the community who offer ideas and shared resources,
as well as alternate learning environments; 4) outside resources from
foundations, mission-related agencies such as NSF, and consultants who
promote change through offering financial resources, political support,
and the validation needed to affirm and support both the necessity and
the value of change; and 5) a number of venues for discussing curricular
reform, exchanging ideas, and participating in peer-reviewed and
invitational meetings and workshops.

The role of institutional leaders in supporting improvements in SME&T
education

Many colleges and universities, whatever their mission, have experienced
"mission creep" toward the values and expectations of research
institutions as faculty have sought to develop individual scholarly
careers using the strategies that they learned in graduate school. To
link what faculty do more effectively to the particular mission of the
institution; academic leaders are turning to the redefinition of faculty
roles and rewards and are focusing on the academic department as the
primary focus of support both for individual faculty development and for
the collective responsibilities of the faculty in organizing and
offering the curriculum. During these discussions, there is an
opportunity to introduce curricular reform as priority areas of faculty
activity that will be supported by the institution.

In addition, some new approaches to interdisciplinary programs have been
introduced across the country in recent years. These efforts can provide
additional opportunities for students to integrate what they are
learning and apply what they know to community issues that require
multi-disciplinary approaches.

Presidents, Provosts, and Deans can encourage the trend toward a broader
mission-related definition of faculty scholarship and faculty roles by
providing incentives at the institutional level and the departmental
level for both individual faculty excellence and for collaborative
teaching and research that crosses departmental lines. Effective
curricular reform that reflects recent changes in K-12 education as well
as changing needs of employers who will hire our graduates requires
close collaboration between faculty in education programs, engineering
and business and arts and sciences as well as cooperation with local
public schools and other post-secondary institutions. Often campus
policies, campus support structures and campus rewards do not assist
faculty who work on curricular reform or K-16 reform and who must spend
significant time in the field or in collaborative activities with
colleagues on campus in other disciplines.

To increase the importance attached to the improvement of SME&T
education and to provide a supportive environment for curricular reform,
administrators can do a number of things:

1.  Utilize a clear campus mission statement as a framework for defining
    the goals and aspirations of the institution. Make clear to
    everyone, including trustees, faculty, staff and students, that
    constant curricular advancement is an important campus priority and
    that every graduate of the institution should be able to use
    scientific and mathematical problem-solving techniques and
    information competently and confidently.

2.  Personally acquire a thorough knowledge of educational reform
    efforts in public schools and in higher education and speak
    consistently and knowledgeably about the importance of the reform of
    graduate education to incorporate both the acquisition of research
    and teaching skills and a familiarity with contemporary issues in
    curricular reform, and K-16 curricular reform itself by articulating
    the importance of designing the goals and outcomes of a college
    education upon the foundation provided by the reform movement in
    K-12. Talk with faculty about these issues regularly.

3.  Encourage the reinterpretation of faculty roles and rewards to make
    them compatible with the demands of educational reform, teacher
    preparation in SME&T, interdisciplinary and collaborative research
    and teaching, and community-based work.

4.  With faculty guidance, create a campus infrastructure and policies
    that support the activities needed to support curricular reform on
    campus, to reflect changes occurring in the public schools as well
    as employer expectations, and to promote the exploration and the
    reform of graduate education in SME&T. This will require,
    introducing new assessment strategies that evaluate student learning
    and that document the outcomes of curricular reform as well as
    providing technical assistance for faculty who engage in curricular
    innovation at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

5.  Provide opportunities for faculty to discuss educational reform with
    their colleagues in workshops and campus-wide seminars.

6.  Support faculty who are interested in educational innovation and in
    graduate education by providing campus resources such as mini-grants
    and release time for such work.

7.  Participate in national discussions of faculty roles and rewards as
    well as K-16 and graduate educational reform and encourage faculty
    and staff to do so as well. Where appropriate, subsidize the cost of
    travel to such conferences and meeting in the same way that the
    campus encourages faculty to participate in discipline-based
    professional meetings and workshops.

8.  Be prepared to invest in educational reform and in new faculty roles
    and responsibilities, drawing resources from a restructuring of
    campus administrative operations or redistributing resources from
    academic programs that are no longer in high demand.

9.  Encourage institutional partnerships with other organizations to
    encourage innovations in education and to provide a supportive
    environment for faculty involvement in the local community.

10. Encourage a greater local understanding of the importance of SME&T
    education and K-12 reform by participating in community efforts to
    improve the local schools. The local Chamber of Commerce or other
    local business associations often sponsor such activities.

11. Activities of this kind offer occasions for colleges and
    universities to introduce discussions of how high school must
    prepare for post-secondary education as our nation's post-secondary
    institutions continue to improve SME&T education. While there has
    been a lot of talk about the need for a high skills workforce, many
    employers still want only reliability, basic skills, and good
    attitudes towards customers and fellow workers, and are not yet
    introducing the elements of a "high performance" environment into
    their business practices. As a result, universities and colleges
    must work simultaneously to promote higher standards of performance
    for their students and for the organizations that will employ their
    graduates.

Graduate education has to change, too

There is a growing demand for universities to become concerned with the
issues of society in the hopes that our involvement will help to clarify
the competing values that are at stake, frame clear and critical
questions, and build a wider repertoire of responses that will rebuild
the workings of civic life in this country and the core of democracy
itself. If colleges and universities become properly engaged with our
communities, we can become the source of social capital for a new era. A
critical component of this capacity-building must be provided by SME&T
education. We must prepare the next generation of college and university
faculty to offer the kind of undergraduate education that our students
really need.

We must take a long hard look at how we prepare graduate students now.
What are we really doing in our graduate curriculum and in our research
programs? In higher education today, are we really building social
capital, which sociologist Robert Putnam describes as "features of
social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit," and are we
preparing people who can create and work within such networks? Are we
preparing a generation of faculty who can design a curriculum that can
accomplish these goals and, themselves, model for their students a more
interactive and collaborative form of learning and discovery? Will our
graduate education put teaching and research on an equal footing by
introducing values, skills, and professional goals that encourage a
balanced career?

The process, rooted in the 19th century, that has led to greater and
greater differentiation of academic life into definable disciplines,
each with its own world view and culture and objects of discourse, has
drawn our process of socialization of new scholars into the academy
further and further away from the influence of the questions and
concerns of the citizens who support us.

Do we really know whom we are preparing in our masters and doctoral
programs and how they will use their education? What principles should
we adopt to guide the design of our graduate studies as we think about
what responsibilities our graduates will undertake after they complete
their formal education?

One problem we have in higher education is that we are trapped in our
own, still successful, model of graduate education. We are proud of
saying that graduate education in this country is the envy of the world.
We still continue to attract talented students from around the world to
study in our nation\'s universities. Our model of a research-based
doctorate has served as a *world* model for preparing scientists and
engineers as well as scholars for other fields.

So, why should we question a clearly successful enterprise? The problem
is that this model works effectively for a smaller and smaller
percentage of the students who enter doctoral study and then take
positions at our nation\'s research universities. The others, who will
find employment elsewhere, are less well prepared.

According to a recent study completed by the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, we are
producing students who are prepared for traditional research roles while
employers are calling for doctoral graduates who have expertise in more
than one discipline, who can collaborate across fields and in various
settings, who can adapt quickly to changing conditions and learn in new
fields and who work well with other people. Furthermore, we are
preparing our graduates to join us in the academy, while more and more
of them will find employment elsewhere in business and in government.

How can we promote more versatility? Faculty today needs both
disciplinary strength and the ability to interpret and apply
disciplinary perspectives in collaborative settings. The faculty we are
hiring now and will hire in the future will need to be able to work
effectively together to create opportunities for meaningful involvement
of students, community members, and local practitioners in SME&T
education. They will require: a) *communication skills* including the
ability to listen well; b) *collaboration skills* which include the
building of mutual trust and respect, ability to problem-solve in
complex groups with different experiences, goals, and definitions of
success; c*) time management skills* - the need to spend time creating a
common set of goals, a common vocabulary, shared definitions of success
with partners from other organizations; and d) *team-building skills -*
the ability to work with many different kinds of people with different
expertise and motivations.

If we really need faculty with these skills, we will need to recognize
these competencies and achievements as significant factors for promotion
and tenure and during the distribution of discretionary salary increases
and other faculty rewards.

Genuine teamwork and partnership are difficult modes for faculty to
adopt who have only operated within disciplinary-based frameworks, where
in most cases, the questions, the assumptions and the methods of inquiry
are agreed upon and understood by everyone involved. Partnerships
require time, trust and patience, and a different repertoire of skills,
skills that can be incorporated into our graduate and professional
programs.

Few institutions are actively addressing graduate education as yet, but
the time is rapidly approaching when we must do so. In *Campus Trends
1995,*^1^ Elaine El-Khawas reviews the results of a survey sent to an
array of 506 colleges and universities. Of our peers, only 10 percent
report extensive change going on at the graduate level, 70 percent
report some, and an alarming 21 percent report no activity at all. If we
approach this new challenge in a way similar to our commitment to
active/service learning for undergraduates, we will again find ourselves
in the forefront of a concern that many people are talking about,
acknowledge must be addressed, but are reluctant to approach.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must reshape graduate education in
SME&T, both at the Masters and at the Doctoral level. In preparation for
this, we must take time to retrace the same steps that the faculties who
are redesigning our undergraduate curriculum are taking. We must ask:
Who are our students? What are they experiencing and why do so many
students fail to achieve their educational objectives or take so long to
do so? What do our students plan to do with their education? What is
happening to the marketplace for people with an advanced education?

Let us bring this challenge close to home. With respect to our own
colleges and universities, what attributes and skills will we seek as we
hire a new generation of faculty? Are our doctoral programs likely to
produce the kinds of versatile faculty we would want on our own campus?
Will our new faculty be prepared to undertake the collective
responsibilities that are required to deliver a curriculum of the kind
we have recently introduced? One that requires teamwork and
cross-disciplinary perspectives? Will they know how to conduct effective
community-based research with partners from other programs,
institutions, and community organizations?

Might we define a kind of \"general education\" for graduate students,
similar to the goals we have for our undergraduate students - a set of
goals or principles that will guide us to design opportunities for our
graduate students to develop advanced problem-solving skills,
communication skills, collaborative skills, an appreciation for diverse
viewpoints, an ability to continue to learn, and an ethical and socially
responsible basis for their research and practice?

Can we design a different form of professional development for teaching
and research assistants that provides mentoring and school and business
and industry based experiences?

What can NSF do to reinforce and support the changes that will be
necessary to create a genuine K-16 SME&T reform movement and to assist
institutions that wish to redesign the study of SME&T at the college
levels for both majors and non-majors?

1.  Provide individual investigator awards for research on the-impact
    and sustainability of instructional innovation. We need research on
    fundamental questions concerning teaching, learning and assessment
    in undergraduate SME&T education.

2.  Provide support for summer workshops that bring students, parents,
    community participants, and faculty and public school teachers
    together to work on community problems and to engage in curricular
    reform. Provide summer stipends for the faculty who design and
    participate in these summer programs. Faculty who do research during
    the summer can often obtain two full months' pay to support their
    time spent doing research. Faculty who engages in curricular
    innovation or in summer workshops and K-16 initiatives do not have
    access to such funds. This sends a signal that basic research is
    valued more than K-16 initiatives or curricular innovation. In
    addition, although it is understandable that NSF would want to
    stretch its resources as far as possible, these programs are often
    under-funded and the financial condition of most of our colleges and
    universities precludes any significant local supplements to the
    project budget.

3.  Make provision in undergraduate research awards for introducing new
    faculty into the process and for supporting faculty teams. The
    current funding levels for REU grants do not allow for variations in
    the faculty configuration or encourage the mentoring of graduate
    students or new faculty by more experienced faculty.

4.  Provide opportunities for faculty who are engaged in curricular
    reform to present their work and to publish their findings in
    invitational and peer-reviewed publications and conference
    proceedings.

5.  Take a leadership role through both advocacy and financial
    sponsorship in persuading more professional societies and
    professional journals to provide exposure for exemplary work in
    undergraduate and graduate curricular reform.

6.  Recognize that curricular advancement is an on-going process and
    requires sustained faculty support. While workshops and conferences
    can stimulate an interest in reform and promote the exchange of
    ideas, continuing assistance will be necessary for faculty who plan
    to apply the ideas generated in these workshops and summer projects
    to their on-going courses and curricula. This support can be
    provided in the form of release time, graduate assistants, and
    periodic gatherings to review and interpret the results of work to
    date. It is becoming increasingly difficult for universities to
    offer this support. Most NSF-sponsored projects can only launch a
    change process. In the normal 2-3 year time span of a grant, work
    can barely get underway. Requirements to demonstrate actual changes
    in student achievement in such short time frames can actually
    interfere with the change process by forcing the participants to
    focus on very short-term goals. It is better to evaluate very
    concrete outcomes such as the development of new curricular
    materials and courses, effective involvement of faculty in the
    exploration of new techniques in teaching and learning, and the
    like. If possible, projects should be funded for 3-5 years to
    provide the sustained support needed to move from design to
    introduction of a new curriculum to accurate and effective
    assessment of the impact of the new approaches on student learning,
    competence, and confidence. In addition, the current grant process
    often results in a succession of faculty being involved, when in
    some cases, it may be important to keep at least a core of
    participating faculty together for a longer period of time,
    introducing new participants according to the nature and development
    of the project.

7.  Graduate programs must require participation in work on curricular
    reform as well as offer significant teaching opportunities. NSF
    fellowships and training programs can promote this by emphasizing
    the importance of teaching, curricular reform, and interdisciplinary
    work. Annual and end-of-grant reports should include a request for
    information about the nature and impact of activities of this kind
    conducted under the sponsorship of the grants.

8.  We must find ways for all undergraduates, both majors and
    non-majors, to have an opportunity to do "real" research, and to do
    so throughout the undergraduate experience, not just in a limited
    number of distribution courses that satisfy a science or math
    requirement. At Portland State University, we involve undergraduates
    who enroll in our *Science and the Liberal Arts* curriculum in
    active research projects over the full four years of their
    undergraduate curriculum because of our belief that the habits,
    values, and ethics of the SME&T disciplines must be practiced and
    learned over a long period of time. This is true for both non-majors
    as well as majors. SME&T taught in conventional ways using standard
    textbook and laboratory exercises is about as interesting as reading
    an instruction manual. Furthermore, this approach addresses only one
    type of learning style and disadvantages students who learn best in
    other ways. Taught as a liberal art, however, SME&T courses for both
    majors and non-majors call human curiosity to attention and make
    such inquiry and learning a deeply satisfying and
    imagination-expanding experience. The liberal art of mathematical,
    scientific, and technical inquiry allows our faculty and students to
    try out -- to test -- their imaginations for accuracy, precision,
    credibility and acceptance by a community of knowledgeable peers.
    NSF can offer sponsorship for such experiments at any institution
    willing to undertake the significant and radical reform necessary to
    introduce this kind of curriculum.

9.  After years of under-funding, our nation\'s instructional facilities
    and equipment are badly out of date and there is a enormous need
    simply to provide better laboratory and classroom environments. We
    must upgrade our equipment remodel our classroom and laboratory
    spaces to accommodate new approaches to learning and we must make
    significant investments in technology such as computers and
    telecommunications. The accumulated need for retrofitting and new
    equipment would vastly exceed the ability of any Federal source to
    support, but NSF could develop ways to encourage additional support
    for these needs by its use of equipment funds. The emphasis recently
    has been on the need for curricular reform. This is frustrating to
    many faculty, including many at Portland State University, who have
    already made radical changes in the curriculum, introduced new
    pedagogical approaches, established new areas of emphasis--including
    the use of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary options to
    tailor the educational experience of individual students to reflect
    their educational goals more directly, and used community
    interactions and partnerships to create richer learning environments
    for our students. What these faculty need now is the equipment to
    support the curriculum, the encouragement to solidify the reforms
    that the have already begun, and the resources to assess the results
    of what they have done.

10. It is unclear whether the goal of the investments made by NSF in
    undergraduate education are designed to identify and support
    innovative work or to promote an overall systemic improvement in the
    level and impact of SME&T education and research capacity in this
    country. Often the process of preparing a proposal and doing the
    necessary work to show the feasibility of a project are extremely
    worthwhile for an institution undertaking significant reform for the
    first time. But if the ideas are not new to the community-at-large,
    even though they are innovative at the applicant institution, will
    NSF decide to fund the project? This poses a significant policy
    question for NSF. Is it better to generate and facilitate the
    distribution of new ideas and positive results or is it better to
    build the nation\'s core capacity to provide effective SME&T
    undergraduate education by providing incentives to encourage
    institutions willing to undertake major curricular reform. This key
    policy question deserves serious attention.

11. NSF support programs for new faculty should include attention to
    teaching, general education, and the reform of SME&T curricula. In
    general, so should regular research grants. Whenever possible, a
    research program can effectively include undergraduates, and, in
    some cases, serious high school students. This should be encouraged
    where feasible and the grant review process should include a
    knowledgeable review of the potential benefits for undergraduate
    education and K-16 articulation. NSF can powerfully shape the focus
    and emphases of grants for research and education in science and
    engineering by calling for a thorough discussion of the human
    resource implications of the work to be done and requiring a
    thoughtful analysis of the outcomes. The Application Guide published
    in October 1992 (NSF 92-49) had an extensive section on this (p.4),
    which appears to have been omitted from later application guides.

12. Wherever possible, projects should be funded that connect reforms in
    SME&T undergraduate education to the rest of the liberal arts.
    Reform undertaken in conversation and in collaboration with faculty
    in the humanities, social sciences and fine arts can stimulate fresh
    thinking throughout the university and reinforce the efforts being
    made by SME&T faculty. This practice can direct more faculty
    attention to undergraduate education and advising, the dissemination
    of improved practice, and the effective integration of reform
    efforts across the curriculum. NSF can play a truly catalytic role
    in promoting changes in the entire undergraduate experience through
    encouraging effective linkages of SME&T reform with both the rest of
    the liberal arts curriculum and to professional education in
    engineering and technology.

***Judith Ramaley** is President and Professor of Biology at Portland
State University. Portland State University has received national
recognition for its innovative curriculum, campus management, leadership
in interpreting service learning, and commitment to an urban mission.
Dr. Rarnaley received her undergraduate education at Swarthmore College
and Ph.D. at UCLA. She is Chair, Commission on the Urban Agenda of
NASULGC; member, Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and
Land-Grant Universities; members Board of Directors of AACU; past Chair,
Biological Sciences Advisory Committee of NSF; and member of many local
civic organizations in the Portland metropolitan area.*

Elaine El-Khawas. *Campus Trends 1995*. New Directions for Academic
Programs. Higher Education Panel Report, Number 85. American Council on
Education, July 1995.

Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders

David Ward

*Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - Madison*

*Madison, Wisconsin*

Introduction - University of Wisconsin-Madison Programs

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. The issue of science and
math competency at the undergraduate level is one of obvious importance
to us and to society. As an institution of higher learning, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison has labored much in recent years to come
to grips with a problem that threatens our quality of life and our
ability as a nation to compete in the world market. The absence of broad
science literacy poses significant dilemmas for society and for higher
education itself.

Over the past 10 years, the community of scholars at Wisconsin and
elsewhere has pursued broad and far-reaching initiatives to attack the
problem of science competency. To its credit, the National Science
Foundation has also strongly encouraged change at research universities
through its own programmatic initiatives. These joint efforts are
laudable and they merit continued support and experimentation. The
research university must play a critical role in the improvement of
science education. That role must include new and stronger relationships
among different kinds of educational institutions, and better
connections between our primary and secondary schools and higher
education.

At Wisconsin alone, there are many examples of programs that seek to
alter, reform or redirect the way science, math, and engineering are
taught. The teaching and learning infrastructure is being rebuilt, and
it is being connected in new ways with schools, students, teachers and
the other critical components o£ the educational system.

Through entities such as the Institute for Chemical Education and the
Center for Biology Education, universities like Wisconsin are creating
new tools for learning. Thousands of students across the country and at
all educational levels now have the opportunity to track genetic change
through generations of plants in a single semester, thanks to the
Wisconsin Fast Plants Program. Memory metal and other materials science
innovations are becoming integrated into freshmen chemistry courses
around the country, refreshing a dated curriculum. These are two
examples from Wisconsin of research university-based innovations that
are having broad impact.

This year at Wisconsin, with the support of NSF, faculty is embarking on
an ambitious program to revamp the way chemistry is taught nationally at
the college level. Employing the latest instructional technology,
offering new contexts for learning and incorporating the most effective
cooperative learning techniques, these researchers will attempt to make
the first sweeping instructional changes in decades.

Wisconsin has established a teaching academy for faculty as a mechanism
through which to identify, through evaluation, exemplary teaching
practices, and to support widespread application of the best techniques
across disciplines and curricula. Superimposed on these and other
activities is a state-of­-the-art means of evaluation through our LEAD
Center. It is crucial to acknowledge the need to measure steps taken and
to hold claims to improvement to a critical standard.

Thanks in large measure to the track record of educational innovation of
some of Wisconsin\'s most distinguished researchers, the university has
now been given the opportunity to enter into an interdisciplinary
partnership with NSF known as the *National Institute for Science
Education*. This unique partnership is expected to yield new strategic
and tactical means of building the nation\'s science and math education
infrastructure.

There seems to be no shortage of creativity among the faculties of
research universities. However, tradition-laden institutions like
universities must find more effective ways to sustain innovation.

Issues

*Science for All.* There is a critical need now for colleges and
universities to more broadly and effectively integrate science, math and
technology into the general education curriculum. Science is a
significant and pervasive influence in the lives of all Americans, and
universities need to do a much better job of preparing all of our
students − not just science and engineering majors, to think more
analytically and to live in a world increasingly shaped by the forces
*of* science and technology. The earlier we can do that in the course of
a student's education the better. Of critical importance is providing a
seamless but flexible connection between high school science and the
very first science experiences of higher education.

*Changes in Higher Education.* We need to envision the classroom of the
future and not simply improve the traditional classroom approach to
learning. Faculty who invest time, energy and creative power to enhance
the learning environment or develop new learning tools should be
encouraged to apply for educational grants with the same conviction
brought to bear in the quest for research grants. In addition the reward
system for faculty must evolve to recognize the importance of work by
those who break new instructional ground.

*Empowering Teachers and Future Teachers.* Moreover, we need to do much
more to develop our faculty and future faculty, to empower them to be
effective innovators in science education. The academy needs to look
beyond its own borders, expanding the involvement of staff and teaching
assistants in the development and application of innovative teaching
techniques and styles. The research university can play an important
role by providing our graduate students with more exposure to innovation
in the learning process and especially to cross-fertilize the research
interest with the general dialogues about science.

*Evaluation.* It is also very important that universities begin to
evaluate seriously novel learning approaches. Critical evaluation and
assessment must be integrated into a system through which we can
identify, develop and disseminate the most effective approaches to
learning. Given all the resources that have been provided for education
reform over the last decade, there are relatively few devoted to
measurement of success or failure. It is essential that we incorporate
some kind of outcome assessment into our education reform efforts. In
addition, we must strive to communicate these results, make them
accessible, and then act on them. This is a daunting task. At many of
our institutions, obtaining the quantitative data -- grades, retention
rates, demographics -- ­requires effort on the part of the investigator.
The data are simply not available in most places. Rigorous qualitative
analysis is even rarer.

Fortunately, instructional technology is providing us with a wealth of
new feedback opportunities, such as electronic mail. At research
universities electronic mail is greatly enhancing access to faculty and
staff and is providing timely information on the successful
comprehension of course material. A spate of questions on a particular
lecture topic -- delivered by electronic mail − provides a compelling
signal to the lecturer that he or she missed the mark. A student too shy
to sign up for a face-to-face appointment may find the courage to send
an e-mail with a pressing question. Faculty and staff ought to be
strongly encouraged to make greater use of these now almost-commonplace
technologies.

*A Changing Infrastructure.* Another set of related and pervasive issues
lie in our infrastructure and the evolution of new technologies and
instructional materials. Will the formal classroom exist a decade from
now? This is an area of rapid development that outstrips the ability of
any single institution to manage and guide it. Who will take leadership
in identifying effective approaches? Will the academy recognize and
reward contributions by faculty members in this arena? If not, how will
we move forward?

We also must recognize that technology costs money. Who will pay? While
the information superhighway is changing the way many of us function, we
must be aware that very large numbers of students -- from kindergarten
to college -- do not have access to this technology. To help remedy
these inequities, we must begin to explore new partnerships with the
private sector and others that have a stake in a technologically
literate workforce.

*Equity and Diversity.* Equity and diversity within our institutions are
critical and related issues as well. The demographics of the
twenty-first century demand that we renew our commitments to access and
opportunity for all. Human resources are our greatest asset and the
needs of the twenty-first century will require the inclusion of the full
diversity of our population in order to avoid squandering valuable
intellectual resources.

*Making Better Connections.* Universities must also become catalysts for
the development of new networks between different types of institutions.
Research universities do not exist in an institutional vacuum, nor do
they have a monopoly on education. We must use existing programs such as
our summer programs, integrated general education for non-scientists,
and distance learning to help us weave a web of learning between
different educational systems.

The Value of Existing NSF and Other Programs

Clearly, research universities can change creatively in partnership with
NSF and other funders. NSF and other federal and private granting
organizations have already made serious investments in innovative and
effective improvements in science education. These investments now need
to be better connected to a rapidly changing learning environment and
the possibilities of a new networked educational system. Continued and
expanded support of these developments is needed to drive change.

NSF and other granting entities can begin to require some kind of
relationship between research proposals and their broad impact on
science education. This strategy has been discussed at a number of
national meetings on science, math and engineering education, and is
likely to provide the kind of motivation needed to encourage pilots and
experiments.

In closing, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
express some views and ideas of how research universities can and should
change to foster change in the science education landscape. We are
committed to addressing this problem and we look forward to continuing
our partnerships with NSF to attain a common goal.

***David Ward** was named chancellor of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison in June 1993, becoming the 25th individual to serve as
the university's chief executive. Ward had served as interim chancellor
since January 1993. Ward became vice chancellor for academic affairs at
UW-Madison in 1989, and in 1991, he was also named provost, chief deputy
to the chancellor. His UW-Madison faculty career spans 30 years, and he
holds the Andrew Hill Clark Professorship of Geography. For the past
eight years, Ward has provided strong leadership for efforts to improve
the quality of undergraduate education. The next step, says Ward, is to
redefine undergraduate education, not simply through improvements of
existing programs and processes, but by developing new ways for learning
to occur on college campuses. To that end, he recently published a
comprehensive strategic planning document, outlining priorities for the
next decade as the university attempts to balance its teaching, research
and outreach missions. Ward has given new expression to The Wisconsin
Idea, the venerable philosophical framework for the university's public
service role. The Wisconsin Idea is embodied by a vast array of
partnerships between the university and both the public and private
sectors, says Ward, from economic development activity and sharing of
faculty expertise to educational collaborations with K-12 schools.*

Presentation Before the National Science

Foundation Undergraduate Review Subcommittee

Homer A. Neal

*Vice President for Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor\
Ann Arbor, Michigan*

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate in today\'s
hearings on undergraduate education in engineering, science and
mathematics. I have chosen to depart somewhat from the suggested format
of comments in order to provide the subcommittee with a brief overview
of the work of the task force I chaired in 1985 which resulted in the
issuance of NSB Report 100-86, which has served to guide NSF development
in undergraduate science, engineering and mathematics education over the
past decade. I will also share with you a current initiative in which I
am involved, that bears on undergraduate science education at our
nation\'s research universities, as well as some of my own thoughts
about the important changes that we must consider with respect to
undergraduate education in the future.

Charge to the NSB-100 Task Committee

At the start of the work of our committee in 1985, the charge we were
given was as follows:

> . . . to consider the role of the National Science Foundation in
>
> "undergraduate science and engineering education . . .to determine
> what is an appropriate NSF role in undergraduate science and
> engineering education . . . and to examine what are possible
> mechanisms for carrying out that role. Should NSF move to establish
> undergraduate science, engineering and mathematics programs, apart for
> support for undergraduates provided in some research grants? Should
> NSF have a role in shaping undergraduate curricula?\..."

We set about the task of collecting data in just about every imaginable
way. We reviewed extensive literature on the subject, consulted with
higher education organizations and held several hearings in Washington
at which faculty, university administrators, federal agency officials,
and industrial leaders testified, in much the same way as the current
hearings are planned.

What we learned was not very reassuring. Among the key problems we
uncovered were:

-   deteriorating quality of the college-level science-educational
    infrastructure

-   laboratory instruction that was typically, \"uninspired, tedious,
    and dull.\"

-   lack of opportunity for faculty to update either their disciplinary
    or their pedagogical skills

-   outdated curricula that failed to convey the essence or excitement
    of contemporary science

-   declining student interest in careers in science, engineering, or
    mathematics, or in education in these disciplines

    In looking back over the years since our report was completed one
    can sense that real progress has been made at NSF in undergraduate
    science and engineering education:

-   A new Office of Undergraduate Science, Engineering and Mathematics
    Education has been established and now administers or monitors over
    \$100 million dollars for undergraduate programs.

-   A new program to provide research experiences for undergraduates has
    been established, the REU program. Indeed, Director Bloch initiated
    the REU program while our committee was still in the midst of its
    hearings, being immediately convinced that this was an activity much
    needed and very much in keeping with the mission of NSF.

-   A new program for undergraduate faculty enhancement has been
    established.

-   A new curriculum development program has been established.

-   A special undergraduate curriculum development program in calculus
    has been developed and, from all indications, the results are very
    positive.

-   A new instrumentation and laboratory improvement program has been
    developed.

    There can be no doubt that NSF has taken the recommendations of our
    committee very seriously, and that the leadership actions of NSF
    have had an impact on other agencies and foundations. For example,
    the Howard Hughes Foundation initiated its own program for support
    of undergraduate education shortly after our report was completed
    and has already committed many millions of dollars in this area.
    Leadership was, and still is, an extremely important element of NSF
    actions.

    Changes Over the Decade

    Indeed, the leadership that NSF shows in the years ahead will be
    critical. Since the issuance of NSB Report 100-86, there have been
    an enormous number of developments that will potentially influence
    the nation\'s commitment to undergraduate science education and
    which must certainly be taken into account as plans are made for
    advancing undergraduate education. As unlikely as it may have seemed
    in 1986, we have seen the end of the Cold War. This single event
    raised the hope that, by unleashing resources that might be more
    productively directed toward the overall improvement of life for our
    citizens, education needs could be more adequately addressed. But it
    also raised the question as to what extent a large technically
    educated workforce would be needed, given the apparent diminished
    national security requirements. Coincident with the change in the
    balance of world power has been the realization that the U.S.
    federal budget deficit must be reduced and that federal outlay will
    be made with a heightened degree of scrutiny. Though many voices
    caution against neglecting investments with long term benefits,
    there will be an increased tendency to focus federal and state
    resources on major issues of immediate urgency -- a recipe that
    often neglects the needs of higher education.

    There are further developments that serve to shape the environment
    within which policies and practices in undergraduate science and
    engineering education must exist. As a result of a few highly
    publicized incidents in recent years, there has been some erosion in
    the public\'s confidence in its higher education system. Compounding
    the effects of these events are the ever-present debates about
    indirect costs, high tuition, and stories of the difficulty some
    students claim in gaining access to faculty, who are characterized
    as only being interested in their research.

    While we note the growth in the total number of baccalaureate
    degrees over the past decade − rising by almost 20 percent − it is
    also of interest to note that the number of degrees in the natural
    sciences and engineering has fallen by almost 20 percent. We note
    that undergraduate enrollments in laboratory courses continue to
    fall. Furthermore, though there has been significant growth in NSF
    budget for education and human resource activities, we note that
    most of this growth has been primarily in the K-12 programs.

    These are issues that it will be critical for NSF to address in the
    years ahead, as we try to craft undergraduate education in science,
    engineering, and mathematics for a rapidly changing world. I also
    believe that, while NSF has a key leadership role to play, it is
    also incumbent upon universities themselves to think more creatively
    than ever in trying to deal with *these* same issues.

    In Search of a New Compact

    Over the past year, several research vice presidents at Midwestern
    universities have been engaged in a cooperative effort to construct
    what might be the principles that would guide the partnership
    between research universities and the federal government in the
    decades ahead. I might note that, given the end of the Cold War,
    many of the original guideposts in the Vanovar Bush era are no
    longer viewed as being sufficient to fully determine what the
    relationship should be between universities and the federal
    government.

    In the quest for developing these principles, we have had numerous
    discussions with officials in the Executive Branch, with several
    leaders in Congress, and with industrial leaders. It is our hope and
    expectation that these consultations will continue in the months
    ahead and will culminate in one or more symposia where these items
    will be discussed in more detail.

    What I can report to you today, however, is strong support for
    universities participating with the government to ensure a strong
    program of research and education in the sciences, engineering and
    mathematics.

    In the set of draft principles we have developed to date is the
    following reference in the section on education for the next
    century:

-   Education for productive life in an age that is information
    intensive, technologically demanding, culturally complex, and
    globally competitive.

-   Education that will continue to assist our citizens in adjusting to
    the rapid changes in the modern world.

-   Public understanding of the key technological, economic, cultural
    and social issues that we face.\"

Our draft report continues:

> \". . . education of the nation\'s citizens for productive life and
> work is one of the primary function of the research universities, and
> a function to which they can bring unique assets. One of the greatest
> strengths of the research university has traditionally been graduate
> education -- the training of new generations of scientists and
> scholars. The same assets of the university that have made our
> doctoral programs the envy of the world can be turned, and are being
> turned, to improvements in other areas of education as well.
> Universities, in addition to training the next generation of
> researchers, seek to instill in their undergraduate students the
> culture of rational inquiry, and the skills to be effective workers
> and knowledgeable citizens. In our rapidly developing world, education
> is more than ever a life-long process; this implies that one of the
> most important outcomes of undergraduate education is the ability to
> think clearly and to learn effectively. It also implies that
> universities have a larger role to play in ongoing education and in
> serving as a resource that the broader public can draw upon in trying
> to understand new issues and problems that arise.\"

Our report also notes that,

> \"universities should seek, review, and implement ways to further
> utilize their research competency to enhance undergraduate education,
> by expanding opportunities for undergraduates to participate directly
> in research and scholarship; and by endeavoring that all students who
> graduate have attained the necessary levels of scientific and cultural
> literacy . . . universities should explore creative ways to make their
> resources for knowledge and understanding available and accessible to
> the public; they should explore and implement ways to facilitate
> timely public understanding of important scientific and technological
> issues; they should be increasingly receptive and responsive to public
> interests and concerns and should seek to facilitate meaningful
> dialogue between the public and academic communities.\"

I must note again that these statements are taken from a document that
is still in draft form -- and that not even all of those vice presidents
who have been involved in their development are necessarily in complete
agreement with every phrase as it currently stands. Nonetheless, I also
note that this document has gone through a number of iterations and
extensive discussion. I believe that, in its current form, it already
represents a well-founded distillation of considered thinking about the
issues, from a number of sources.

Two things have become abundantly clear from these discussions: since
1986, universities have made a great deal of progress in enhancing
undergraduate science and mathematics education, utilizing the resources
available from NSF that I mentioned above, as well as from other
sources, including internal sources. At my own university, for example,
direct participation by first- and second-year undergraduate students in
research projects has been growing at a substantial rate for the past
several years. The Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, and Physics
departments have all undertaken major successful reform of their
introductory science curricula. Such experiences are, I am sure,
increasingly widespread among institutions of higher education.

It has become clear that universities must think even more broadly
comprehensively, and creatively about undergraduate education. The pace
of change in the world that our undergraduates enter upon graduation
appears to be accelerating. In addition, with enhanced technology, the
typical means and methods of education have the potential to change
dramatically. These changes place the traditional obligation of
undergraduate education − to provide a well-rounded education − in a new
light. It will be incumbent upon us to employ the new technologies
wisely and to be innovative in our mapping of a liberal education onto
the demands of the current world. In this regard, the recently announced
NSF program on Comprehensive Undergraduate Science Education Reform is a
welcome addition to NSF portfolio.

I would like to set forth just two ideas, by way of example, of the
kinds of discussion in which I would like to see major research
universities engage internally, as we confront the need to enhance
undergraduate education.

First is an idea that I have proposed for discussion at my own
institution: namely, that the university consider requiring that all
undergraduate students at some point in their undergraduate career have
some direct participation in research. Whether such a university-wide
requirement is feasible for the University of Michigan; whether one
should focus instead on providing opportunities for all students to
engage in research; or whether, indeed, one should focus on building
research experiences more directly into courses. These are all issues
that have been discussed as alternatives to the original proposal. The
underlying point of them all, however, is the one that I think
universities must take very seriously: with all of the research taking
place at a major university. There must be some way to harness it, to
utilize it in inculcating in students the sort of appreciation and
understanding for science and rational inquiry that comes best as a
result of relatively direct experience.

The second idea has to do with the rapid changes in information
technology, and the impact that these changes will have upon
undergraduate education. What should we think, for instance, about the
importance of the classroom and the laboratory to science education,
when technology will soon make possible more dispersed, distributed, and
virtual means for learning the basic facts? How do we ensure that new
educational technologies do not simply contribute to an information glut
but instead are used to help our students genuinely learn how to use
information effectively, i.e., how to get it, evaluate it, and convert
it into knowledge? One can imagine education proceeding without any
classrooms as we understand them today, but it is hard to imagine
education proceeding without some direct guidance from those who are
truly skilled in the development and use of knowledge. Can we imagine,
then, a university without classrooms, where \"courses\" are available
electronically, and every undergraduate student is engaged in a research
team?

In the above comments I have focused on the role of research
universities, because that is the setting for the current initiative in
which I am involved. But, as in our findings in 1986, I must note the
seamless link of the contributions to undergraduate science education
issues by the entire spectrum of institutions, including community
colleges, four-year colleges, research universities, and museums.

Concluding Remarks

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the National
Science Foundation and the National Science Board for convening this
current set of hearings. Clearly, there have been sufficient changes in
our world to fully justify taking a fresh look at where we now stand in
undergraduate science and engineering education, and to chart a course
that will guide us through the next decade, which will be one far from
what any of us could have envisioned in 1986.

Undergraduate science and engineering education, and the partnership
required between universities and the federal government to ensure that
the highest quality experiences are provided to our students, is as
important now as ever. The work done by the Board and Foundation over
the past decade has clearly laid the groundwork for increasing the
appreciation of the importance of undergraduate science and engineering
education to our nation. Now what is needed is a refinement in the
strategies and goals to make sure that progress continues.

[^1]: This text is an edited version of Dr. Morris' verbal testimony to
    the EHR Advisory Committee on October 25, 1995.

[^2]: This text is an edited version of Dr. Pierce's verbal testimony to
    the EHR Advisory Committee on October 25, 1995.

[^3]: ^1^ David Orr *Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the
    Human Prospect.* (Washington, D.C. and Covelo California, 1994) p. 2

[^4]: ^\*^ "Mecomtronics" is the engineering technology discipline that
    combines the areas of mechanical and electronics technology, and
    computer hardware and software systems linked through
    telecommunications.