Title  : NSF 96-139 -- SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate
         Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
Type   : Report
NSF Org: EHR / DUE
Date   : October 03, 1996
File   : nsf96139


           *******************************************
[Begin Report]

               S H A P I N G   T H E   F U T U R E

    New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science,
            Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

        A Report on its Review of Undergraduate Education
                               by
                  the Advisory Committee to the
                  National Science Foundation
          Directorate for Education and Human Resources

                            ********

Notices of Disclaimer

1.   This report of the Advisory Committee to the National Science
     Foundation's Directorate for Education and Human Resources has
     been received by the Foundation.  The views, opinions, and
     recommendations expressed in this report are those of the
     Advisory Committee; they are presently being reviewed by the
     Foundation and do not necessarily represent the official
     views, opinions, or policy of the Foundation.

2.   The pronouns "we," "our," and "us" used in the Recommendations
     section of this report refer to the Advisory Committee, not to
     the National Science Foundation or to its representatives.  As
     employed in the remaining text of the report, these pronouns
     may refer additionally or alternatively to the general
     population, to the academic community at large, or to those
     segments of either with special interest in undergraduate
     education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
     technology.

                            ********

Committee on the Review of Undergraduate Education

     Melvin D. George, Chair
     President Emeritus
     St. Olaf College (MN)

     Sadie Bragg
     Borough of Manhattan Community College (NY)

     Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.
     Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ)

     Denice D. Denton
     University of Wisconsin - Madison

     Peter Gerber
     MacArthur Foundation (IL)

     Mary M. Lindquist
     Columbus College (GA)

     James M. Rosser
     California State University--Los Angeles

     David A. Sanchez
     Texas A&M University

     Carolyn Meyers
     North Carolina A&T State University
     (Consultant to the Committee)

                            ********

Advisory Committee
     to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources

Chair: James M. Rosser
Vice Chair: Kerry Davidson

     Susan Agruso
     Director, Authentic Assessment
     State Department of Education (SC)

     Edward W. Bales
     Director of Education, External Systems
     Motorola Corporation (IL)

     Joan Barber
     Director for Student Life
     North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (NC)

     George Boggs
     President
     Palomar College (CA)

     Sadie Bragg
     Acting Dean of Academic Affairs
     Borough of Manhattan Community College (NY)

     Diane J. Briars
     Office of Educational Design and Assessment
     Pittsburgh Public Schools (PA)

     Kerry Davidson
     Deputy Commissioner
     Louisiana Board of Regents

     Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.
     Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ)

     Denice D. Denton
     Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
     University of Wisconsin - Madison

     Charlotte K. Frank
     Vice President, Research and Development
     The McGraw-Hill Companies (NY)

     Alan J. Friedman
     Director
     New York Hall of Science

     Melvin D. George
     President Emeritus
     St. Olaf College (MN)

     Peter Gerber
     MacArthur Foundation (IL)

     N. Gerry House
     Superintendent
     Memphis Public Schools (TN)

     Jane Butler Kahle
     Condit Professor of Science Education
     Miami University (OH)

     Charlotte Keith
     Indian Trail High School (KS)

     Mary M. Lindquist
     School of Education
     Columbus College (GA)

     Stanley S. Litow
     Director, Corporate Support Programs
     International Business Machines Corporation (NY)

     Jack R. Lohmann
     Associate Dean, College of Engineering
     Georgia Institute of Technology

     Charles Merideth
     President
     New York City Technical College

     Robert E. Parilla
     President
     Montgomery College (MD)

     Diana Garcia Prichard
     Photoscience Research Division
     Eastman Kodak Company (NY)

     James M. Rosser
     President
     California State University--Los Angeles

     David A. Sanchez
     Department of Mathematics
     Texas A&M University

     Maria Santos
     Supervisor, Mathematics & Science Department
     San Francisco Unified School District (CA)

     Robert Schwartz
     The Pew Charitable Trusts (PA)

     Calvert H. Smith
     Office of Systemic Reform
     State of Ohio

     Gwendolyn W. Stephenson
     Chancellor
     St. Louis Community College System (MO)

     Uri Treisman
     Department of Mathematics
     University of Texas--Austin

     Leon Ukens
     Department of Physics
     Towson State University (MD)

     Donna L. York
     Science Curriculum Coordinator
     Anchorage School District (AK)

                             *******

Table of Contents

     Executive Summary
               References and Notes for Executive Summary

     I.  To Begin: Background and Purpose of This Review

     II. A Look Back: Recent History of Educational Reform
               History of Undergraduate Programs at NSF Since
                    the Neal Report
               Funding History of the Neal Report Recommendations
               Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements

     III. The Situation Today:  Findings of the Review
               A Changing World and Economy
               Rising Expenditures and Growing Financial
                    Constraints
               Undergraduate Education Today
               Barriers to Improvement
               Lowering the Barriers and Meeting New Expectations

     IV. Recommendations

     References and Notes

                            ********

"NSF is determined that all students at all levels will be exposed
to programs with high standards for understanding and accomplish-
ment; that all students have the opportunity to advance to higher
levels; that all students who enter advanced training at the
professional level are well and broadly trained; and that the
process of learning does not end with the classroom.

"Meeting this goal requires efforts from all parts of the
Foundation.  The undergraduate level plays a pivotal role."

     - Excerpt from "NSF in a Changing World: The National
          Science Foundation Strategic Plan" (NSF 95-24, p. 29)

                            ********

                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Under the auspices of the Education and Human Resources (EHR)
Directorate of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a committee
of the Advisory Committee to EHR has conducted an intensive review
of the state of undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology (SME&T) in America.  The purpose of
this review was to "consider the needs of all undergraduates
attending all types of U.S.  two- and four-year colleges and
universities," addressing "issues of preparation of K-12 teachers
in these fields, the needs of persons going into the technical work
force, the preparation of majors in these areas, and the issue of
science literacy for all." [Reference 1; list following Executive
Summary]

This is the final report of the committee, which was to be "action
oriented, recommending ways to improve undergraduate education in
SME&T ...  not just to the NSF but, as appropriate, to mission-
oriented Federal agencies, business and industry, academic institu-
tions and their faculties and administrations, professional
societies, private sector organizations, state and local govern-
ment, and to other stakeholders in undergraduate education." [1]

While the focus of this review was undergraduate SME&T education,
that is just one part of the continuum of SME&T education in
America that runs from pre-school through postgraduate work.  The
various parts of this continuum are interdependent; undergraduate
SME&T education depends on the students who come from grades K-12,
relies on faculty who come out of graduate programs, and prepares
teachers for the K-12 system and students for graduate school.  The
kinds of programs offered for graduate students have significant
implications for the future of undergraduate education; the profes-
sional standards adopted for student learning in grades K-12 impact
undergraduate education as well.  So, these sectors have mutual
obligations to each other, and the fulfillment of those obligations
is essential for the health of the whole.

Furthermore, as K-12 education changes, as a result not only of
standards but of new emphases on inquiry, on active learning, and
with new uses of technology, students will come to undergraduate
education with new expectations, increasing pressure for reform at
this level as well.  And to sustain the kind of reform occurring in
our nation's elementary and secondary schools, changes in under-
graduate education, perhaps particularly in teacher preparation,
will be essential.  For all these reasons, this report and its
recommendations are important to all parts of the continuum of
SME&T education in the United States.

The goal - indeed, the imperative - deriving from our review is
that:

     All students have access to supportive, excellent
     undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
     engineering, and technology, and all students learn these
     subjects by direct experience with the methods and
     processes of inquiry.

America's undergraduates - all of them - must attain a higher level
of competence  in science, mathematics, engineering, and technol-
ogy.  America's institutions of higher education must expect all
students to learn more SME&T, must no longer see study in these
fields solely as narrow preparation for one specialized career, but
must accept them as important to every student.  America's SME&T
faculty must actively engage those students preparing to become
K-12 teachers; technicians; professional scientists, mathemati-
cians, or engineers; business or public leaders; and other types of
"knowledge workers" and knowledgeable citizens.  It is important to
assist them to learn not only science facts but, just as important,
the methods and processes of research, what scientists and
engineers do, how to make informed judgments about technical
matters, and how to communicate and work in teams to solve complex
problems.  America's businesses and industry, governments, and
foundations must provide active assistance and support in this
critical endeavor.  In an increasingly technical and competitive
world with information as its common currency, a society without a
properly educated citizenry will be at great risk and its people
denied the opportunity for a fulfilling life.

The year-long review of undergraduate SME&T education leading to
this report has revealed that significant change is occurring and
that important and measurable improvements have been achieved in
the past decade.  Much of this progress is attributable to the
leader ship of the NSF, following the National Science Board's
issuance of the 1986 report, "Undergraduate  Science, Mathematics,
and Engineering Education," NSB 86-100 ("the Neal Report") [2].
That report called for a significant program of support for
undergraduate SME&T education and assigned primary, but not
exclusive, responsibility for this activity to a separate division
staffed by scientists, mathematicians, and engineers from many
disciplines - now NSF's Division for Undergraduate Education -
having the education of undergraduate students as its first
priority.

The implementation of the 1986 Neal Report, despite funding of
several key instruction oriented programs at considerably reduced
levels over what was recommended, has produced many positive
results over the past decade.  This success on the part of the NSF
has reflected faithfully the dual mission of the Foundation in
research and education and the conviction not only of the NSF but
also of this committee that undergraduate SME&T education is the
responsibility of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and
technologists alike.

Since the time of the Neal Report and the study that led up to it,
the world has changed.  The Cold War has ended, and public interest
in and support of science have waned correspondingly.  The use of
new technology is exploding in all aspects of life.  The economy is
vastly different, with many fewer unskilled but highpaying jobs
available to those without technical preparation.  The demography
of America and of its student population are changing dramatically.


Notwithstanding promising progress in SME&T education (many
examples of which appear in the body of this report), much more
remains to be done; there is now a broader and even more urgent
agenda than there was in 1986.  This message comes from the many
contributors to this review: from focus groups of students and
graduates, from testimony of employers, faculty, and administra-
tors, from previous studies and surveys of all kinds.  Despite the
observation that America's basic research in science, mathematics,
and engineering is world-class, its education is still not.
America has produced a significant share of the world's great
scientists while most of its population is virtually illiterate in
science.  Undergraduate SME&T education in America is typically
still too much a filter that produces a few highly- qualified
graduates while leaving most of its students "homeless in the
universe." [3]

Too many students leave SME&T courses because they find them dull
and unwelcoming.  Too many new teachers enter school systems
underprepared, without really understanding what science and
mathematics are, and lacking the excitement of discovery and the
confidence and ability to help children engage SME&T knowledge.
Too many graduates go out into the workforce ill-prepared to solve
real problems in a cooperative way, lacking the skills and
motivation to continue learning.

Meanwhile, the world does not stand still.  Knowledge keeps
growing, new fields arise, other nations improve their educational
systems, and new needs emerge.  Governments at the state and
federal level; business, industry, and the professional community;
institutions of higher education; and the National Science
Foundation, playing a key leadership role, must work together with
a sense of urgency to make the necessary improvements.  Students,
for their part, must take learning more seriously.

The pressures on America's two- and four- year colleges and
universities and on their students, facing an uncertain world of
very constrained resources, are great.  We do not ask for more of
the same effort but rather for a more productive and rewarding kind
of undergraduate SME&T education that produces long-lasting results
more effectively and excitingly for both students and faculty.

The testimony of hundreds of participants in this review over the
last year has led to a number of recommendations.  These recommen-
dations (detailed in somewhat different order in the body of the
report) are for action to be taken by:

                Institutions of higher education

We recommend that:

     SME&T faculty: Believe and affirm that every student can
     learn, and model good practices that increase learning; start
     with the student's experience, but have high expectations
     within a supportive climate; and build inquiry, a sense of
     wonder and the excitement of discovery, plus communication and
     teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning skills
     into learning experiences.

     SME&T departments: Set departmental goals and accept responsi-
     bility for undergraduate learning, with measurable expecta-
     tions for all students; offer a curriculum engaging the
     broadest spectrum of students; use technology effectively to
     enhance learning; work collaboratively with departments of
     education, the K-12 sector and the business world to improve
     the preparation of K-12 teachers (and principals); and
     provide, for graduate students intending to become faculty
     members, opportunities for developing pedagogical skills.

     Governing boards and administrators: Reexamine institutional
     missions in light of needs in undergraduate SME&T education;
     hold accountable and develop reward systems for departments
     and programs stressing the importance of SME&T education for
     all students; provide strong programs of faculty development;
     value and reward faculty who demonstrably facilitate student
     learning; reduce organizational rigidities, e.g., foster
     interdisciplinary work; make an institutionwide commitment to
     the preparation of K-12 teachers, in partnership with the
     schools; and support research and faculty dialogue on how
     undergraduates learn.

     Accrediting agencies: Incorporate principles of sound
     undergraduate SME&T education into accreditation criteria,
     focusing on student learning, not just on organizational and
     process issues.

       Business, industry, and the professional community

We recommend that:

     Business and industry: Help those making public policy
     decisions understand the critical importance of quality SME&T
     education; make clear to educational institutions their
     expectations about graduates; and provide both partnerships
     and funding to colleges and universities to advance
     institution-wide reform initiatives.

     National and regional media: Become better informed about the
     condition of undergraduate SME&T education in the United
     States and better inform the public about its critical
     significance for the nation's future.

     Professional societies: Through journals and programs, honor
     and support education as well as research.

     Publishers and testing agencies: Develop, validate, and
     disseminate materials and assessment tools incorporating
     desired goals for learning.

           Governments at the state and federal level

We recommend that:

     The President and Congress: Develop a new social contract with
     higher education, to put in place processes to sustain the
     relative excellence of the nation's higher education and so
     prepare the U.S.  for a new century.

     Other Federal funding agencies and foundations: Make strategic
     investments in support of the common agenda for improving
     undergraduate SME&T education.

     State governments and higher education boards: Ensure that
     funding formulas and state policies provide incentives and
     rewards for excellent undergraduate SME&T education; and
     encourage collaborations among institutions, including sound
     articulation understandings.

                 The National Science Foundation

We recommend that the NSF:

     Make clear the high priority of undergraduate education.  To
     do so, it is crucial to have within NSF a unit (the Division
     of Undergraduate Education, within EHR), staffed by practicing
     scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists from
     many disciplines, that has undergraduate education as its
     first priority and that relates to all institutions providing
     undergraduate SME&T education.  This Division must continue to
     maintain strong linkages with NSF's discipline-oriented
     research directorates, which in turn must continue to support
     undergraduate education within their specific fields.

     Aggressively improve undergraduate SME&T education through a
     variety of programs, beyond the base recommended in the Neal
     Report.  A doubling of the present funding level in real
     dollars in the next decade will be needed to erase the gap
     between that recommended base and present program funding
     levels, and to extend the benefits of those programs to all
     SME&T students.

     1.   First priority must be given to allocation of enhanced
          resources to the activities of the Division of Under-
          graduate Education (DUE) and to the undergraduate part of
          the Alliances for Minority Participation program in the
          Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR).

     2.   The Foundation should encourage the research directorates
          to expand the allocation of their resources to
          discipline-oriented and interdisciplinary research-
          related educational activities that integrate education
          and research and that promote sharing the excitement of,
          and engagement in, research with under graduates - with
          additional emphasis on primarily undergraduate
          institutions.

Further, we recommend that the Foundation:

 *   Lead the development of a common agenda for improving SME&T
     education.

*    Give more priority to implementation, particularly of K-12
     teacher preparation programs, faculty enhancement, and
     institutional reform, without diminishing support of
     innovative ideas and individual faculty curricular and
     pedagogical improvements.

*    Lead the development of and provide support for a research
     agenda in human learning at the undergraduate level, using the
     results to evaluate programs (including long-term evaluation
     of student learning outcomes) and guide future program
     development.

*    Develop an effective means of validating, codifying, and
     disseminating good practices in undergraduate SME&T education.


In all of its undergraduate programs, NSF should put emphasis on
implementation of what is known to work, on genuine institutional
change, and on sustainability of hard-won improvements.  All of
NSF's directorates should:

*    Continue their support of strong activities to correct
     underrepresentation of women, minorities, and persons with
     disabilities among students and faculty at the undergraduate
     level;

*    Support outreach activities that bring SME&T to the general
     public; and

*    Consider funding mechanisms that both assign responsibility
     and provide incentives and rewards for achieving excellence in
     undergraduate programs not just to individuals, but to whole
     departments and entire institutions.

Our final recommendation is that the National Science Foundation
accept leadership of the efforts necessary to implement all these
recommendations.

     This is an exciting agenda for action that concentrates on
     achievable goals.  It requires a change in the way we think
     about SME&T education more than it calls for more hours or
     dollars spent on a task.  It requires motivation as well as
     money, commitment as well as competence, and an interest in
     students as well as in science.  Carrying out this agenda will
     be an energizing and exciting adventure in what is surely the
     most challenging and awesome enterprise in the world human
     learning.

References and Notes for Executive Summary

1.   Luther S.  Williams, Charge to the Subcommittee for Review of
     Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
     and Technology, Advisory Committee to the Directorate for
     Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
     (June 1995).  [Copies available on request; See also Volume II
     of this report.]

2.   National Science Board, Task Committee on Undergraduate
     Science and Engineering Education, Homer A.  Neal (Chairman),
     Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education;
     Role for the National Science Foundation and Recommendations
     for Action by Other Sectors to Strengthen Collegiate Education
     and Pursue Excellence in the Next Generation of U.S.
     Leadership in Science and Technology, (Washington DC: National
     Science Foundation, 1986, NSB 86-100).

3.   Gerald Holton, Professor of Physics, Harvard University,
     Introductory Comments, National Research Council/ National
     Science Foundation Symposium on Science, Mathematics,
     Engineering, and Technology Education, Sponsored by the Exxon
     Education Foundation and hosted by GTE Corporation (Boston,
     MA: November 1995).

                                          [End Executive Summary]
          *********************************************
[Begin Report Text]

SHAPING THE FUTURE

New Expectations for Undergraduate Education
in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology


[Begin Chapter I]

I.  To Begin:
Background and Purpose of This Review

In 1986, the National Science Board (NSB) issued the report
Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education ("the
Neal Report")[Reference 1; list begins after end of Chapter IV],
which has guided the National Science Foundation's undergraduate
education activities in the ten years since.  Much has changed in
the past ten years, and 1996 requires a new and even stronger
vision of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology (SME&T) education in this nation.  This 1996 report,
following an intensive review involving hundreds of thoughtful
people across the country, conveys not only a vision but specific
recommendations designed to bring it to fruition.  This report is
intended to be an agenda for action by the SME&T community and
those who support it.

It is the conviction of this review committee that improved SME&T
education is central to shaping America's future.  The future will
increasingly require that citizens have a substantial understanding
of the methods and content of science and technology - and some
understanding of their potential and limitations as well as their
interconnectedness.  Furthermore, we believe that undergraduate
SME&T education is the linchpin of the entire SME&T education
enterprise - for it is at the undergraduate level that prospective
K12 teachers are educated, that most of the technical work force is
prepared, and that future educators and professional practitioners
in science, mathematics, and engineering learn their fields and, in
many cases, prepare for more specialized work in graduate school.

On the basis of all that we have heard and learned during this
review process, we urgently wish for, and urge decisive action to
achieve, an America in which:

     All students have access to supportive, excellent
     undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
     engineering, and technology, and all students learn these
     subjects by direct experience with the methods and
     processes of inquiry [2].

This is a powerful vision of an America of the future where every
person has an opportunity for a life of economic security and
personal satisfaction through pervasive learning that provides
competence in scientific and technical fields.  This vision derives
from the conviction that SME&T learning has value for its own sake
as well as powerful utility in the workplace and in the exercise of
citizenship.

We wish to help shape a future in which large numbers of students
in America achieve substantially improved competence in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology fields, including better
understanding of connections among disciplines and enhanced skills
important for life as well as for work - problem-solving and
lifelong learning skills, the ability to communicate effectively
and work as part of a team, and personal traits such as adapta-
bility, openness to new ideas, and empathy for the ideas of others.

Our stress is on student learning that is measurable and involves
much more than the acquisition of facts.

This vision focuses on students and  on learning, but there are
four other key words in the statement:

*    all - every student should have access, whether in a two- year
     or four-year institution, not just those who intend to major
     in or pursue a career in SME&T; and groups traditionally
     underrepresented in SME&T (women, minorities, and persons with
     disabilities) must be included - for talent is not restricted
     to a pre- determined class of individuals;

*    supportive - our programs must encourage and nurture students
     in subjects that for many seem forbidding and remote, if not
     impossible, and that have traditionally been viewed as the
     proper domain of only the few;

*    excellent - we must have high expectations and provide superb
     educational experiences for every student, of sufficient
     quality that those who do major in these fields or otherwise
     go on to careers in scientific and technical fields are
     prepared at a world- class level; and

*    inquiry - although there is disagreement about the meaning of
     the term "science literacy" and doubt about whether agreement
     is possible on a list of facts everyone should know, there is
     no disagreement that every student should be presented an
     opportunity to understand what science is, and is not, and to
     be involved in some way in scientific inquiry, not just a
     "hands-on" experience.

We heard elements of this vision from many people at many stages
during this review.  For example, in April 1995, approximately 300
faculty in science, mathematics, and engineering, together with
administrators, representatives of professional societies, federal
agencies, and foundations, gathered at the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) for a national convocation: From Analysis to Action:
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology [3].  Working under the auspices of the National
Research Council (NRC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF),
this group discussed for two full days the present state of under-
graduate education and began the development of an agenda for
significant improvements in the future.  The one recommendation
emerging from all the others and reflecting the conviction of this
leadership group was almost identical with the vision above.

Such a vision is possible today only because of the enormous
advances that have been made both in our understandings of human
learning and in SME&T education in the past 10 years, many of them
with the strong support of the National Science Foundation (see
Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements, in Chapter II).  In the
area of learning, we know through research in cognitive psychology
that the mind is active - it always interprets and is not simply a
passive receiver of information "broadcast" to it.  We know that
students interpret new information in terms of what they already
know; so, to promote learning, teachers must provide "stepping
stones" for the minds of students to reach desired understanding
[4].

We know that students rarely realize the applicability of knowledge
from one context to another.  We know that the diverse communities
or cultures from which our students come have different values,
norms, and expectations about the education process; learning is
inhibited when those culturally determined norms clash with what
the instructor is doing.  Research in sociology suggests that
working in groups in a cooperative setting produces greater growth
in achievement than straining for relative gains in a competitive
environment.

Parallel with these increased understandings, the SME&T community
has made enormous advances in undergraduate education in recent
years, with the powerful support of the NSF - reflected particu-
larly through its Division of Undergraduate Education, but in other
divisions of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources
(EHR) as well and with the effective participation of the research
directorates.  For example, the SME&T community has increasingly
developed courses and curricula that stress inquiry, teaching
effectiveness, and learning outcomes; has improved access to SME&T
programs for those in groups that have traditionally been under
represented in these fields; and has significantly increased the
opportunity for undergraduates to engage in a real experience with
inquiry/research.

Through the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI)
program, faculty have been both stimulated and assisted in
upgrading hundreds of laboratories in American colleges and
universities, in connection with revamping courses to incorporate
modern laboratory experiences.  The NSF has helped institutions
develop model teacher education programs, encouraged and supported
collaboratives across institutional boundaries, and helped many
undergraduate faculty enhance their competence.  A major program,
Advanced Technological Education (ATE), centered in the community
colleges, has been initiated for preparation of the nation's
technical work force.  The level of conversation about pedagogy
among faculty has increased, and many good practices and model
programs have been disseminated; notable among these is the
calculus reform effort, which is dramatically reshaping the way
students learn calculus.  All of these activities, stimulated
largely by the recommendations of the Neal Report through programs
designed and implemented by the NSF, have created a real momentum
in SME&T education.

                               ***
A research chemist from a major university recently testified about
undergraduate education in her field: "The curriculum is knowledge
for advanced studies.  (I might argue it is knowledge for what used
to be advanced studies).  And yet 90% of these students will not be
chemists.  The classroom - it is embarrassing.  Chalk and black-
board.  There are hands-on experiments that the students can do.
However, these are largely cookbook, and I think that although NSF
really deserves a lot of credit for attempting to put instrumenta-
tion into these laboratories, I would say that still, at many, many
institutions, my kitchen looks better than those laboratories.  The
textbooks .  .  .  are large collections of facts.  What I see
really missing from these textbooks is the process of science.  And
finally, the exams .  .  .  are really a nice way to give the
student a grade, but I doubt that they really measure what the
students are learning, where their critical thinking skills are."
                               ***

But the data and the community - both those in SME&T fields and
those outside who employ our graduates or influence public policy
- say that there is yet a long way to go.  The chancellor of a
major research university, which is a member of the Association of
American Universities (AAU) and a very large generator of
scientific knowledge in many fields, recently said this: "...
despite the outstanding character of American higher education, the
one place where people see an Achilles' heel is the quality of
science education."

The 1993 report of The Wingspread Group on Higher Education,
chaired by William E.  Brock, was entitled An American Imperative:
Higher Expectations for Higher Education.  [5] While it criticized
higher education generally, several of its points speak especially
to SME&T undergraduate education.  For example, it noted the 1993
National Adult Literacy Survey, which shows that a "surprisingly
large" number of college graduates are unable to perform simple
tasks involving mathematics.  The report states that classroom
learning must be accompanied by "knowledge derived from first-hand
experience," a conviction that applies centrally to SME&T
education.

Employers have consistently pointed out that higher education,
because of the shortening half-life of knowledge, simply must do a
better job of providing motivation and skills for life-long
learning.  And, as an executive of a large oil company testified at
a recent NSF hearing: "Skills such as communications and teamwork
are essential.  Unfortunately, these are often given low priority
during the SME&T professional's undergraduate education."

                               ***
The president of a liberal arts college, at an NSF hearing
recently: "A vital work force for the 21st century is peopled with
the technically literate, inquisitive, and entrepreneurial in
spirit.  .  .  We have all talked about the need for improved
educational experiences for our children.  We have publicly
acknowledged that our future leadership, tomorrow's work force, are
today's children.  Yet we do not adequately support the one
profession in whose hands these children are.  I am talking about
teachers from K through college.  NSF, with its dual mission of
promoting the human resources as well as the discoveries, has a
unique opportunity to make a difference."
                               ***

A statement made by the National Science Board in 1994 [6] includes
this sentence: "At the same time, the American public's level of
scientific literacy and general technical preparedness are [sic]
not adequate to meet the needs of the changing economy." That
statement echoes the goal enunciated in the 1994 White House report
Science in the National Interest [7] to "raise scientific and
technological literacy of all Americans."

The president of an historically black institution spoke with
passion at a hearing conducted as part of this review: "The
intractable movement of African-Americans into the Ph.D.  ranks,
particularly in math, science, and engineering, is a moment of
crisis for this nation.  If every year we are having an erosion of
those numbers, then you have got to ask what it is that we must do
to get the feed system up to snuff so that more can come out of
there.  The inadequacy and obsolescence of laboratory facilities
and the lack of modern technology on many campuses creates a
drudgery syndrome with the teaching and doing of math, science, and
engineering.  So it is drudgery, and it is no wonder kids opt out
of math and science and engineering."

And indeed they do opt out of SME&T.  The extensive study Talking
About Leaving [8] by Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt notes the high
attrition rates among SME&T majors -for reasons having little to do
with two popularly misconceived causes, namely language problems
with foreign Teaching Assistants and large class sizes.  Rather,
the major reasons students identify for dropping out of SME&T have
to do with the intimidating climate of the classroom, the poor
quality of the educational experience (including too much dull
lecturing and poor academic advising), the lack of encouragement
for those interested in becoming K-12 teachers, the lack of
motivation, inadequate counseling about career opportunities, and
general lack of nurture of the student.  SME&T education at the
undergraduate level today is largely passive rather than active.
It is certainly not providing "all students" access to "supportive,
excellent" SME&T experiences that acquaint them with "the methods
and processes of science."

                               ***
A community college president: ".  .  .  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.  The future generation of scientists and technicians will
be recruited by faculty who must democratize the process."
                               ***

Thus, despite the enormous advances in undergraduate SME&T
education in the past ten years, there is a challenge before us; it
can be summed up in the words of David Goodstein: ".  .  .  the
United States has, simultaneously and paradoxically, both the best
scientists and the most scientifically illiterate young people:
America's educational system is designed to produce precisely that
result.  America leads the world in science - and yet 95 percent of
the American public is scientifically illiterate." [9]

Ten years ago the focus was on the problem of ensuring an adequate
supply of world-class professional scientists for national needs.
We must continue this important part of our responsibility for
shaping the future.  However, there is now a much broader agenda,
with equally urgent new components, and it is in this light that
the Directorate for Education and Human Resources of the NSF asked
its Advisory Committee to undertake a new review of undergraduate
SME&T education in the nation.  First, the SME&T education
community is coming to recognize what should have been clear all
along - that the teachers of the students coming out of the K-12
system were prepared primarily at the undergraduate level for their
school careers.  Second, the national work force is changing
dramatically, as high-paying but relatively unskilled factory jobs
disappear in the face of foreign competition and technological
advances; consequently the educational needs of the prospective
work force are now vastly different.  For these two reasons, both
the preparation of teachers and the role of community colleges are
much more central today among SME&T undergraduate education
concerns.  In addition, we have awakened to the long-term disas-
trous consequences of leaving major segments of our society
substantially out of SME&T.  So, while much has been accomplished,
there are new and important agenda items to be addressed.

                               ***
At a hearing conducted as part of this review [10], the superin-
tendent of a major urban school system commented about new teachers
coming out of undergraduate programs: "Many new teachers arrive at
their first assignments lacking sophisticated skills in writing,
speaking, and computing.  All new teachers should be able to use
technology and adapt to its roles and applications.  SME&T content
is also essential for all new teachers.  In their content areas,
SME&T teachers should know more about the subject materials than
they are required to teach .  .  .  (and they) should have the
benefit of sufficient practicum/internship experience before they
graduate."
                               ***

The review process has been overseen by a committee of the Advisory
Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
charged by NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human
Resources, Dr. Luther S. Williams [11], to:

     " .  .  .  consider the needs of all undergraduates
     attending all types of US two- and four-year colleges and
     universities that provide undergraduate education in
     science, mathematics, engineering and technology.  In
     particular, the review should address issues of prepara-
     tion of K-12 teachers in these fields, the needs of
     persons going into the technical work force, the prepara-
     tion of majors in these areas, and the issue of science
     literacy for all."

In June, 1995, the review process formally began, with the sending
of a letter from Dr. Williams to some 200 leaders in the
scientific and industrial community, including professional
societies, and other federal agencies.  More than 150 responses
provided a major part of the information considered in this review,
but they were supplemented in several very important ways.  In
particular, the review was conducted in cooperation with the
National Research Council; the April 1995 NRC-NSF Convocation,
followed by the NRC's "Year of National Dialogue" [12] about
undergraduate SME&T education, provided much rich material.  The
Foundation convened focus groups of SME&T students, graduates, and
parents in the fall of 1995 [13], and hearings were held at NSF
during those months for disciplinary faculty, institutional
leaders, and executives of employers of SME&T graduates [10].  The
research directorates of the NSF have contributed to the review in
several important ways.  Finally, at many meetings of scientific
societies and professional associations over 1994 and 1995, the
issues of the review were discussed and valuable comments and
reactions gathered.  This report is the result of this extensive
process of consultation and review.

                                                  [End Chapter I]
          ********************************************
[Begin Chapter II]

II.  A Look Back:
Recent History of Education Reform

It may be instructive to spend a moment to look back at the recent
history of science education reform, which has, as with so much
human activity, tended to be cyclical.  For example, there was a
flurry of reform activity after the 1957 launch of the USSR's
Sputnik that awakened America to the fact that it was behind in
"the space race" and galvanized the nation to make changes.
Numerous projects were undertaken, many with NSF support, to
develop new curricula and instructional materials, primarily for K-
12, that were inquiryoriented and in which students were to be
active learners, not passive subjects.

Despite the fact that a residue of these notable efforts remains in
the commitment to "hands-on" science classrooms, these reform
projects did not result in systemic change in either K-12 or
undergraduate education.  In part, this failure was due to the fact
that the preparation of teachers did not change fundamentally, and
many K-12 teachers were simply unprepared to deal with the very
different new materials.  In part, simple complacence set in after
the U.S.  became the first nation to land on the moon, which was
taken as a clear (!) signal that the problem had been solved, and
presumably once and for all.  Then, in 1981, funding for much of
the educational effort at NSF, particularly for undergraduate
education, was reduced drastically and almost fatally.

This cycle of intense activity, particularly under an outside
threat, real or perceived, followed by complacence, erosion of
public interest, and shifting of societal priorities, is not at all
uncommon and will likely be repeated.  But it is important to note
that the rest of the world changes as well, so it is essential to
consolidate our domestic gains, to institutionalize improvements,
and to establish a new and higher base for the next cycle.  What is
important now, as we look at undergraduate education, is to put in
place processes that will sustain the relative excellence of U.S.
education in a competitive world.

The next cycle in undergraduate education may have begun with the
issuance of the Neal Report by the National Science Board in 1986
[1].

History of Undergraduate Programs at NSF
Since the Neal Report

The report, Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering
Education (NSB 86100), of the 1985-1986 Task Committee of the
National Science Board has been the principal guide for the
restoration and evolution of NSF's undergraduate education activi-
ties since its acceptance by the Board in March 1986.  The numerous
recommendations in the Board Report fell into two categories:

A.  Leadership

The central leadership recommendation of the National Science Board
Task Committee was that the Foundation

     ".  .  .develop quickly an appropriate administrative
     structure and mechanisms for the implementation of these
     .  .  .  recommendations.  The focal point should be the
     [Education Directorate]; it should foster collaboration
     among all parts of the Foundation to achieve excellence
     in science, mathematics, and engineering education."

The Foundation established such a unit later in 1986, and the
present successor of its evolution is the Division of Undergraduate
Education (DUE) in the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources (EHR).

The Board Task Committee made several additional major leadership
recommendations to the Foundation.  It urged the NSF to:

"(1) take bold steps to establish itself in a position of leader-
ship to advance and maintain the quality of undergraduate education
in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences."

"(2) stimulate the states and the components of the private sector
to increase their investments in the improvement of undergraduate
science, engineering, and mathematics education."

"(3) implement new programs and expand existing ones for the
ultimate benefit of students in all types of institutions."

"(4) actuate cooperative projects among two-year and four-year
colleges and universities to improve their educational efficiency
and effectiveness."

"(5) stimulate and support a variety of efforts to improve public
understanding of science and technology."

"(6) stimulate creative and productive activity in teaching and
learning - and (7) research on them - just as it does in basic
disciplinary research.  New funding will be required, but intrinsic
cost differences are such that this result can be obtained with a
smaller investment than is presently being made in basic research."

"(8) bring its programming in the undergraduate education area into
balance with its activities in the precollege and graduate areas as
quickly as possible;" and

"(9) expand its efforts to increase the participation of women,
minorities, and the physically handicapped in professional science,
mathematics, and engineering."

Substantial progress has been made in all these areas under the
leadership of EHR, particularly DUE; to establish and support this
unit was a wise decision, as can be seen clearly in the many good
things that have happened in SME&T undergraduate education since.
NSF, with leadership from DUE and with major involvement of other
EHR divisions and the research directorates, has made its mark
through the programs described below.

B.  Leveraged Program Support

Undergraduate programs at the NSF in 1986 were limited to the
College Science Instrumentation Program (CSIP) in the Directorate
for Science and Engineering Education (SEE), EHR's predecessor
directorate, and two programs operating across the several research
directorates: the Research In Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)
program, supporting faculty research in predominantly undergraduate
institutions, and the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
program.

The Board Committee recommended specific changes in this pattern of
support.  It envisioned that by FY 1989, NSF's budget would provide
funding for Laboratory Development, Instructional Instrumentation
and Equipment, Faculty Professional Enhancement, Course and
Curriculum Development, Comprehensive Improvement Projects, Under-
graduate Research Participation, Minority Institutions, and Infor-
mation for LongRange Planning.

Laboratory Development (LD) and
Instructional Instrumentation and Equipment (IIE)

Over the decade 1986-1995, the Instrumentation and Laboratory
Improvement (ILI) program, which may be the most widely known and
most highly regarded of NSF undergraduate programs, embodied the
objectives of both LD and IIE, mostly in the support of compact
projects.  Large projects in LD became possible under a Leadership
in Laboratory Development component of the Instrumentation and
Laboratory Improvement (ILI-LLD) program initiated in FY 1994 to
support the development of national models for undergraduate
laboratory instruction that undertake fundamental reform and
improvement.

While the need for such larger-scale programming was recognized by
the NSB Task Committee, the experience of nearly a decade of less
comprehensive projects had to be gained before either the Founda-
tion or its constituent communities were ready to undertake it.

Faculty Professional Enhancement (FPE)

The report of the NSB committee suggested a combination of
instruction-oriented and research- oriented activities, and both
kinds have been supported.  Because there were only researchrelated
undergraduate programs at NSF when the committee's report was
written, it is clear that the emphasis recommended was strongly on
direct improvement of instruction.

*    The pre-existing Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)
     program has grown steadily: RUI awards to faculty in primarily
     undergraduate institutions are now about one percent of NSF's
     total research budget.

*    The Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program in EHR/DUE
     was funded first in FY 1988.  UFE enables faculty members in
     all kinds of institutions to adapt and introduce new content
     into courses and laboratories; to learn new experimental
     techniques and evaluate their suitability for instructional
     use; to investigate innovative teaching methods; to synthesize
     knowledge that cuts across disciplines; and to interact
     intensively with experts in the field and with colleagues who
     are active scientists and teachers.

Course and Curriculum Development (CCD)

A majority of DUE's Course and Curriculum Development (CCD) program
funds support proposals for introductory-level courses, curricula,
and laboratories that address two general priorities: the develop-
ment of multi- and interdisciplinary courses that will contribute
to the scientific, quantitative, and technological literacy of all
students; and, the encouragement of faculty in SME&T to take
leadership roles in developing education experiences that enhance
the competence of prospective teachers and encourage students to
pursue careers in teaching.

The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE), through its CISE Educational Infrastructure
Program, supports innovative educational activities that transfer
research results into undergraduate curricula in its fields.  The
projects are expected to act as national models of excellence.
Engineering Education Coalitions (EEC), begun in FY 1988 as a joint
effort of the Education and Engineering Directorates, became an
Engineering Directorate responsibility in FY 1991.  These
coalitions stimulate bold, innovative, and comprehensive models for
systemic reform of undergraduate engineering education, based on
substantive resource linkages among engineering colleges and
collaborating secondary schools.

*    A joint effort of CCD and NSF's Division of Mathematical
     Sciences exemplifies the systemic effects possible when a
     clear and catalytic plan is funded over a period of years.
     Through a succession of solicitations (Calculus Reform;
     Calculus and the Bridge to Calculus; etc.), these NSF units
     supported a variety of experiments with new methods, peda-
     gogies, and technologies for calculus instruction.  By 1995,
     at least a dozen different innovative courses were being
     taught to at least 35 percent of all students enrolled in
     calculus.

Comprehensive Improvement Projects (CIP)

The program of Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education
in SME&T (the "IR initiative"), begun only in FY 1996, is the first
clearly CIP-like undertaking of the Division of Undergraduate
Education.  As with the ILI-LLD program, considerable experience
with smaller projects was essential before it was feasible to
institute such a large systemic effort.

Undergraduate Research Participation (URP)

The NSB Task Committee's report recommended that FY 1986 expendi-
ture on undergraduate research participation be increased several-
fold.  While the current support from NSF's research account for
the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program has
passed the financial target, important areas of the programmatic
target have not been addressed.  REU projects are concentrated
heavily in researchrich environments, where possibly cutting-edge
research may be, not where the students are.  Such a pattern of
awards leaves unfulfilled in most institutions a central purpose of
URP as proposed by the NSB committee: ". . .  the involvement of
advanced undergraduate students in research in their colleges . ."

Minority Institutions Program (MIP) The Foundation has had programs
designed to correct underrepresentation of minorities in science
and engineering since the mid-1970's.  Most were focused on
individuals and were concentrated on the areas of graduate student
support and faculty member research.  The focus of the NSB Report
was on institutions, specifically minority institutions, but
inferentially on non- minority institutions that were educating
substantial numbers of minority undergraduates.  EHR has two broad
programs addressing these objectives: Alliances for Minority
Participation (AMP, established in FY 1990), and Research Careers
for Minority Scholars (RCMS, established in FY 1989 but consoli-
dated with AMP in FY 1996).  These programs fund efforts in student
and academic enrichment, curriculum improvement, and institutional
enhancement.  An NSF- wide program, Model Institutions for Excel-
lence (MIE), supports both instructionand research-oriented
activities.

Information for Long-Range Planning (ILRP) NSF's Division of
Science Resources Studies has principal responsibility to collect,
study, and analyze information and data (e.g., on undergraduate
science, engineering, and mathematics) to assist long-range
Foundation planning.  However, there is no general undergraduate
SME&T education database at NSF - nor anywhere else, for that
matter.

Other Programs

The Directorate for Education and Human Resources now has two
substantial programs in areas not included in the recommendations
of the Neal Report.  They were developed in response to emerging
needs, which have been reinforced by the findings of the current
review:

*    The NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation
     (CETP) program, sited in DUE, which supports efforts to
     achieve comprehensive changes in the undergraduate education
     of future teachers and to increase substantially the quality
     and number of teachers well- prepared in science and mathemat-
     ics, especially members of underrepresented groups.

*    The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, managed
     jointly by DUE and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and
     Informal Education (ESIE), which promotes exemplary improve-
     ment in advanced technological education at the national and
     regional levels by supporting curriculum development and
     program improvement through specific activities of associate
     degree granting institutions and of alliances of two-year
     institutions with four-year colleges and universities,
     secondary schools, business, industry, and government.

Funding History of the
Neal Report Recommendations

It is important to examine the funding history of these programs.
[The approach taken in this section is to compare the level of
funding recommended for FY 1989 in the Neal Report with the actual
level of funding in FY 1995, both figures stated in 1995 dollars
for comparability.  In the case of one program recommended in the
Neal Report but not started until FY 1996, we have reported the
planned FY 1996 expenditure in order to give an accurate accounting
of the current status of NSF undergraduate education programs
recommended in the Neal Report.]

The NSF FY 1987 budget estimate (used in the Neal Report as a
starting base for its recommendations) included $17.8M(illion) for
undergraduate programming: $9.9M in SEE for the College Science
Instrumentation Program (CSIP); and $7.9M in the research director-
ates for two efforts - $2.6M for support of the research of faculty
in predominantly undergraduate institutions [mostly through the
Research In Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program], and $5.3M
for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program and
similar activities.

*    The NSB report recommended a total to be achieved by FY 1989
     (i.e., in just two years) of $149.4M for undergraduate
     activities: $18.4M oriented toward research (12.3%), and
     $131.0 million oriented toward instruction (87.7%).

*    NSF's budget in FY 1995 for the categories of program covered
     by the NSB report totaled $178.2M, of which $69.9M (39.2%)
     went for research-oriented activities and $108.3M (60.8%) for
     instruction-oriented programming.

While NSF expended $28.8M more ($178.2M less $149.4M) in FY 1995
than recommended by the Neal Report, this calculation masks serious
deficiencies in several individual program areas.  It is important,
therefore, to examine the funding history in more detail.

*    Laboratory Development and Instructional Instrumentation -
     after more than a decade, its funding ($21.7M in FY 1995) is
     less than a third of that envisioned by the NSB committee
     ($75.7M) - falling unit costs of computers and microprocessors
     have helped stabilize the prices of laboratory instrumenta-
     tion, but demand for it has grown substantively.  The intense
     competition for ILI awards (fewer than one-third of proposals
     receive awards) is but one demonstration of a great unmet
     need.  The funding gap in the LDI area is $54.0 million.

*    Faculty Professional Enhancement (FPE) - Current funding for
     instruction- oriented Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement is
     $7.2M, about 26 percent of that provided through the RUI
     program ($27.3M) to support the research of faculty in
     primarily undergraduate institutions, and far short of the
     $17.1M amount recommended by the NSB Committee for
     instruction-oriented FPE.  The funding gap for
     instruction-oriented FPE is near $9.9 million.

*    Course and Curriculum Development - Its current funding
     ($23.8M in FY 1995) in the Directorate for Education and Human
     Resources (EHR) is more than the NSB committee's target amount
     ($17.1M), and there is substantial support for such activities
     ($23.9M) in other directorates.

*    Comprehensive Improvement Projects - FY 1996 first-year
     funding for the Institution-wide Reform of Undergraduate
     Education initiative ($4.0M) is a small fraction of that
     recommended for FY 1989 ($13.2M).  The funding gap in the
     Comprehensive area is at least $9.2 million.

*    Research Participation - The Neal Report recommended that the
     $5.3M budget estimate for undergraduate research participation
     in FY 1987 be increased by FY 1989 to $15.8M.  NSF expended
     $27.8M for this purpose (Research Experiences for Under-
     graduates [REU] program) in FY 1995.

*    Minority Institutions - The FY 1989 target was $6.6M; the FY
     1995 expenditure on this category of programs was $42.5M.

*    Planning - None of the FY 1989 target ($1.3M) has been funded.


It is clear that in three program areas (LD+IIE, instruction-
oriented FPE, and CIP) current funding (FY 1996 data except for
CIP) is some $73.1M below the level recommended in the Neal Report.

This gap has limited seriously the ability of these programs to
achieve all that was anticipated for them in 1986.  However,
current funding in four areas (CCD, research oriented FPE, URP, and
MIP) is some $103.2M above the level recommended in the Neal
Report.  This overage reflects differences in mechanisms and
priorities from those embodied in the 1986 report.

These NSF programs, notwithstanding the gap in funding some of
them, have produced clear benefits through institutions and faculty
who have used NSF program support to improve the learning experi-
ences of SME&T undergraduates.  There has been a special emphasis
on evaluation of the programs in undergraduate education at the NSF
over the years.  The process of evaluation is lengthy; results are
not usually available until a program has been operating for some
years; and evaluation foci sometimes change as the work proceeds.
It is only in the last few years, for instance, that EHR's evalua-
tions have emphasized student learning outcomes - clearly an
important focus.  Nevertheless, evaluations have demonstrated many
program benefits and have led to modifications that increased
program effectiveness.

            Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements

Program evaluations have documented the fact that a growing group
of faculty in many types of institutions, drawing frequently on
this NSF program support, have developed and tested an impressive
number of curricular and pedagogical improvements in undergraduate
SME&T education in recent years.  As an important part of our
review, leaders in the SME&T community were asked to indicate the
major improvements in undergraduate education in these fields that
had occurred during the past decade.

We begin by summarizing the improvements cited most frequently in
their thoughtful letters.  These include:

*    incorporating new knowledge into lower level courses more
     rapidly and more thoroughly;

*    introducing SME&T concepts by examining current issues for
     which most students have some personal context that are
     illuminated by SME&T knowledge - particularly new knowledge;

*    organizing courses, or often course modules, to address real
     world problems;

*    developing curricula that expose students to key inter-
     disciplinary connections, and multidisciplinary perspectives
     stressing concepts as much as facts;

*    focusing on processes (how to pose researchable questions, how
     to acquire information to address those questions, assessing
     the quality of information) at least as much as on the trans-
     mission of facts;

*    using the vast computational power of modern personal
     computers and mathematics to explore SME&T concepts and
     illustrate properties of matter in ways that entice students;
     ensuring that students have frequent access to active learning
     experiences, in class (such as in peer groups or in laboratory
     classes) and outside of class (as in study teams, using inter-
     active class bulletin boards, and/or in faculty research
     projects);

*    developing curricula that embody some or most of the above
     features, and that take full advantage of modern technology,
     particularly personal computers, multimedia materials, digital
     libraries, hypertext links, and access to vast networked
     resources, including databases and activities on other
     campuses;

     * improving ancillary skills (communication skills, teamwork,
     respect for ideas of others, cognitive skills, etc.) as a
     critical byproduct of modern approaches to teaching and
     learning;

*    ensuring that students have ready access to people who can
     provide them with reasonable assistance (faculty, teaching
     assistants, graduate students, advanced undergraduate
     students, and able peers);

*    demonstrating respect for students' genuine efforts to learn,
     understanding that many learn through initial failures, and
     encouraging further efforts to learn;

*    mentoring students, when this is possible; and

*    devoting more energy to advising students about course
     selections and career options.

A simple precis is that these improvements are attempting to
nurture a sense of wonder among students about the natural world,
and to maintain students' active curiosity about this world while
equipping them with tools to explore it and to learn.

Do these approaches really make a difference? Overwhelmingly,
professional educators and researchers answered "yes." As one
example, Alexander Astin, Director of the Higher Education Research
Institute at UCLA, wrote to us about the findings of his comprehen-
sive study of students and faculty, conducted several years ago
[14].  He found extensive evidence documenting the importance of
these kinds of curricula and pedagogy.  Based on student responses
and faculty interviews, Astin recommended that institutions should
take several steps in order to make their SME&T programs more
attractive and stimulating to a broad base of students.  Institu-
tional leadership appears to play a crucial role.  In particular,
his data suggest faculty will be much more likely to use active
forms of teaching and learning if they work in an environment that
encourages interdisciplinary work, team teaching, research oppor-
tunities for undergraduates, and high levels of faculty-student
interaction; and that provides a supportive campus climate, with a
high priority placed on undergraduate education.

The social sciences workshop we sponsored in February 1996 [4]
described the research knowledge underlying the superior effective-
ness of curricular and pedagogical approaches that are congruent
with the types of improvements described above.  One of the
conclusions of the workshop was that a good teacher must do more
than ensure the presentation of new and interesting information in
the classroom - that teacher must also understand how the minds of
students interpret and manipulate that information.

Stressing the importance of active student engagement, Professor
Eugene Galanter (Director, Psychophysics Laboratory, Columbia
University)observed in a letter to the review committee:

     "Insofar as every science depends on data for both theory
     and application, laboratory or field data collection
     experience is an absolute necessity.  Adding up numbers
     from a textbook example is not the same as recording
     those numbers or qualitative observations based on one's
     own effort.  When students "own" their data, the experi-
     ence, I suggest, becomes a personal event, rather than a
     contrived exercise.  The tested retention of such infor-
     mation in our admittedly minimal current evaluations
     suggest enhancements in understanding by a factor of
     six."

Many contributors to this review noted that major efforts have been
made to improve introductory courses and to develop valuable course
sequences for students who are not planning to become research
scientists or mathematicians, or practicing engineers.  A number of
these improvements require actions on the part of multiple parties
- for example, the delivery of a multidisciplinary course for
introductory students, or special courses built around major public
issues by faculty from different departments.  This shift to a
broader student clientele is considered by these contributors to be
particularly valuable for this nation as an increasing number of
college graduates become "knowledge workers." As we have already
noted, the SME&T education of students preparing to become teachers
and technicians has received increased emphasis.  A number of
educators who wrote to us noted that there has been significant and
sorely needed attention to these two groups of students.

Many contributors called our attention to the value added by
partnerships among colleges and universities, as well as among
faculty.  Virtually all administrators and faculty from community
colleges who wrote to us stressed the value of partnerships in
improving the quality of education in community colleges.  A number
of our contributors, in discussing teacher preparation programs,
noted the importance of partnerships between the education faculty
and SME&T disciplinary departments, including participation by
accrediting and licensing groups.

                               ***
Professor David Hata of Portland Community College (Oregon)
observed that the most significant improvement in undergraduate
SME&T education that had occurred over the last ten years was:
"Recognition of two-year colleges as key players in SME&T education
as exhibited through federal legislation, increased funding
opportunities through the National Science Foundation and other
federal agencies, and inclusion in forums, conferences, and
meetings to discuss undergraduate SME&T education.  .  .  My ATE
grant has promoted partnerships with colleges in New Mexico,
Colorado, California, Arizona, and Oregon as we all endeavor to
install associate degree programs in microelectronics technology,
patterned after the Intel/Portland Community College program
developed here in Oregon."
                               ***

John Goodlad, who conducted a major study of education faculty in
the US six years ago, and who is particularly interested in the
education of K-12 teachers, wrote to us that the growing efforts to
make SME&T fields more accessible to students who do not have a
strong background in them, and are not planning to major in them,
have collectively led to a major improvement among students
planning teaching careers.  Previously, Goodlad had written [15, p.
242]:

     "Again and again, prospective secondary school teachers
     told me that they were unable to make connections between
     their undergraduate subject matter education and the high
     school curriculum they were required to teach.  This is
     not a "methods" problem; it is a problem of understanding
     what curriculum reformers of the 1960's referred to as
     "the structure of the disciplines." The probability that
     few teachers graduate from college with the necessary
     understanding merely illustrates the probability that few
     college graduates of any persuasion do."

In his current letter, Goodlad wrote that he was particularly
impressed with the success of efforts to promote accessibility
through interdisciplinary learning over the last few years.

                               ***
Goodlad stated: "This [success] has been [achieved] primarily
through some relaxing in the boundaries separating these fields
from one another.  Through a greater focus on topics and problems
cutting across the traditional subject fields, science and
mathematics in particular have become somewhat more compelling for
students."
                               ***

The possibilities for such interdisciplinary learning are high in
the immediate future, partly due to the fact that information
technology increases the ease of such efforts.

Many curricular and pedagogical improvements are mutually
reinforcing.  Also very important is the observation made by many,
particularly employers, that a welldesigned, active learning
environment assists in the development of other skills and traits
they seek in employees: cognitive skills (problem solving,
decision-making, learning how to learn), social skills (communica-
tions and teamwork), and positive personal traits (adaptability and
flexibility, openness to new ideas, empathy for ideas of others,
innovative and entrepreneurial outlook, and a strong work ethic).
This point has been made repeatedly in testimony at our hearings
and in published studies and reports (see [16], for example).

The technology revolution has helped to accelerate much of the
improvement in SME&T education.  For instance, Doyle Daves, Jr.,
Dean of the School of Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
wrote to us:

     "As the tools of the information, communication, and
     computing technology revolution become integrated into
     the educational process, the traditional classroom
     reliance on the lecture format becomes increasingly
     anachronistic.  The essence of the new technology is the
     empowerment of the user.  Inevitably, in use of computer-
     based technologies, learning becomes both active and
     under the control of the learner.  Similarly, when
     students are actively engaged in the learning process
     using multimedia and information technology tools, almost
     inevitably they work together in groups or teams sharing
     insights and experiences and, in the process, learn
     teamwork, communication and organizational skills as well
     as subject matter."

At the social sciences workshop (February 1996) mentioned earlier,
Kenneth Foote, Professor of Geography and Associate Vice President
for Research at the University of Texas - who both advocates and is
developing a network of departments and faculty from many univer-
sities through the World Wide Web - noted that his students would
frequently photocopy the electronic text that was part of their
assigned homework until they realized that in paper form it was
"dead," in other words, had lost the dynamic qualities provided by
its hypertext links to other material.  By the end of the course,
students typically had become enthusiastic about the value of these
links personally, very much in support of the Dean Doyle Daves'
observation about empowerment.

                   Some Specific Improvements

There have been many specific curricular and pedagogical improve-
ments over the last ten years.  These are covered in greater detail
in Volume II of this report.  Here we will restrict mention to a
few in order to provide a sense of what is being developed.

A large number of respondents identified calculus reform as perhaps
the most mature curricular and pedagogical innovation over this
recent past.  Professor Hyman Bass of Columbia University (and
Chair of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board) was one of many
letter writers who nominated the calculus reform movement as one of
the significant successes.  This movement has achieved widespread
adoption across every kind of campus, and has made calculus
accessible to a much larger number of students.  Overall, calculus
learning is much less "from books," and much more akin to "an
apprenticeship model."

                               ***
Professor Bass observed that, "Originally, calculus reform was
conceived as an effort to streamline and focus the content of
calculus courses.  It was expected that the emerging modules and
textbooks, and the increasing pedagogical use of technology would
be the most significant products." He went on to note that most
people close to this activity now recognize that new pedagogy has
been the most significant outcome.  Teachers use these materials
with considerable discretion and variation, not as tight scripts to
follow.  Of common concern to them are pedagogy and experimentation
with its new forms: cooperative learning, open-ended problems,
hands-on learning, and authentic assessment.
                               ***

As often happens with  educational improvements, there is currently
a backlash to calculus reform [17].  Criticisms have been made that
this new approach oversimplifies the subject, is too reliant on
graphing calculators and personal computers, and has gone too far
in making calculus look easy.  While obviously there is need for
long-term assessment of student achievement resulting from calculus
reform approaches, even critics admit that the calculus reform
movement has had a positive impact on the attitudes of mathematics
faculty toward teaching.

An early and successful effort to improve physics instruction has
been achieved by the Workshop Physics Project initiated at Dickin-
son College by Professor Priscilla Laws.  Workshop Physics involves
a redesign of the teaching methods in introductory physics courses
to take advantage of recent findings in physics education research
and to start students using modern computer tools.  Integrated
computer applications include microcomputer-based laboratory tools
for data collection and display, spreadsheets for mathematical
modeling and data analysis, and digital video analysis tools for
the study of two-dimensional motion and electrostatics.  Activity
guides have been developed in order to support interactive teaching
approaches in the traditional laboratory setting.  Workshop Physics
is continuing to work with faculty at institutions with conven-
tional course structures to incorporate interactive teaching
approaches in their programs without restructuring the entire
program.  A number of institutions now use this approach, mentioned
by several letter writers.

With NSF support, Louis Gross at the University of Tennessee
(Knoxville) Department of Mathematics has developed entry level and
second-year curricula in biology emphasizing the great utility of
quantitative approaches in analyzing biological problems, drawing
on many examples from recent biological research.  Software has
been developed to allow students to experiment with a variety of
biological assumptions by means of mathematical models and assess
the resultant  quantitative and qualitative behavior of these
assumptions.  This project was completed in the summer of 1995 and
the software and approaches are still being developed and tested.
The project has also been used as a springboard for workshops to
bring together faculty working on similar efforts.

An example of efforts to bring new research results into the
undergraduate curriculum is found in another curriculum project in
biology.  Jack Chirikjian of the Georgetown University Medical
Center has been developing creative curriculum models to teach the
core technology of biotechnology through theory and hands- on
experiments applied in a context that demonstrates recent develop-
ments and applications of biotechnology in such areas as medicine,
agriculture, forensics, and industrial procedures and processes.

NSF has provided significant support to the BioQUEST Curriculum
Development Project through awards to Professor John Jungck at
Beloit College.  BioQUEST was started by a group of biologists who
initiated the development of curricular and instructional materials
around an approach to learning that stresses problem posing,
problem solving, and persuasion of peers ("the three P's").
Initial work was followed by a demonstration project leading to the
development of a network of biologists who are working to improve
introductory courses and courses for students who are not majors in
biology, by stressing open-ended problems in biology.  The project
has matured into major efforts to develop instructional materials,
including additional software simulations and tools, materials that
are not computer dependent, and materials that can be used in large
lectures to engage students in problemposing, problemsolving, and
persuasion.  The use of BioQUEST materials has been spreading.

The use of peer learning techniques in lecture courses is beginning
to spread as faculty become convinced of the effectiveness of this
approach measured in student learning.  One of the best known
efforts of this kind is Professor Eric Mazur's ConcepTests and Peer
Instruction, developed originally for an introductory physics
course at Harvard University.  In each course, the students'
educational background and preparation are assessed, and each
student's understanding of basic concepts is tested, in order to
discover common student misconceptions.  The results of this
testing are incorporated into lectures that have three defining
characteristics: brevity, emphasis on conceptual material, and
active class involvement.  In the active portion of class time, all
students are required to try to explain concepts to one another in
small groups.  (Eventually, correct explanations are provided by
the instructor and selected students.) Use of this technique has
led to Mazur's conclusion (shared by others) that students are able
to explain concepts to each other more efficiently than instructors
- in all likelihood because they have only recently mastered them,
are thus aware of the difficulties in understanding them, and know
what to emphasize in their explanations.

More Things that Work

Another large scale effort supported extensively by NSF, headed by
Art Ellis of the University of Wisconsin, focuses on extensive
collaboration among chemists.  It has led to the publication by the
American Chemical Society of A Materials Chemistry Companion to
General Chemistry.  This "Companion" is comprised of text, problem
sets, model kits, software, videotapes, and demonstration and
laboratory experiments, showing how most topics covered in intro-
ductory chemistry courses can be illustrated with solids such as
polymers, semiconductors, metals, superconductors, and ceramics -
permitting reductions in the cost of laboratory courses.  The
project is stressing the adoption of these materials into intro-
ductory chemistry courses nationwide.  Ellis has also worked in
numerous other ways to enhance student learning of science and
technology.

Multimedia approaches have been used more frequently in recent
years.  For example, Timothy Rowe, of the University of Texas'
Department of Geological Sciences and Vertebrate Paleontology
Laboratory, developed under NSF support multimedia software modules
for a freshman level course for students not majoring in science
that is called "The Age of Dinosaurs." This course now enrolls
several thousand students annually at more than 20 colleges and
universities in the U.S.  The modules employ photographic-quality
color images, 3-D models, animation, and sound as well as text
coupled with hyperlinks that allow users to gain quick and easy
access to other information that is remedial, basic, and supple-
mentary -- a clear advantage in classes where the incoming SME&T
preparation of students differs widely.  The modules are being
published on CD-ROM for both Macintosh and IBMcompatible personal
computers.

Another good example of multimedia-based curricula comes from an
Advanced Technological Education project at CUNY Queensborough
Community College.  Professor Bernard Mohr in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology is developing
materials to support technology education in data acquisition,
embedded systems, and multimedia, and high speed networks.  These
materials - which include networked laboratory manuals, text, and
student exercises - are available also in a modular format to
facilitate their use in technology education courses at other
institutions.  This project has placed a heavy emphasis on
disseminating its results to other campuses through five-day
workshops for faculty, and there is evidence that its use is
beginning to spread.

Another innovative approach of high interest to students and
relevant to their base of experience is introducing fundamental
science in the context of major public problems, stressing their
multidisciplinary nature.  For example, NSF is supporting Zafra
Lerman at Columbia College (Illinois) to work collaboratively with
faculty at Indiana University and Princeton University to develop
a course built around environmental issues: "From Ozone to Oil
Spills: Chemistry, the Environment, and You."  Environmental issues
offer an excellent vehicle to introduce the major scientific
disciplines because many of them have important physical,
geological, chemical and biological dimensions, while others
feature aspects of engineering, economics, political science, and
psychology.

There have been many NSF supported efforts in all of the major
disciplines of science and engineering to improve the teaching of
statistics - an important objective given the crucial role that
statistical tools have in an information society.  One of the early
projects of this type was the development of a new introductory
mathematical statistics course called CHANCE.  Developed at
Dartmouth College with the cooperative efforts of five other
institutions - Grinnell College, King College, Middlebury College,
Princeton University, and Spelman College - the course is designed
to teach fundamental ideas of probability and statistics in the
context of real world questions of current interest.  Examples are
statistical problems related to AIDS, the effects of lowering serum
cholesterol on heart attacks, the use of DNA fingerprinting in
courts of law, reliability of political polls, and the tendency of
basketball players to shoot in streaks.  Students learn how
statistics are often manipulated, how to process information more
effectively, how to ask the right questions, and are drawn into
reading scholarly articles published in journals such as Chance,
Nature, Science, and Scientific American.

The California Alliance for Minority Participation (CAMP) in
Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics is one of the 13 sites
supported by NSF under the AMP program, designed to reduce barriers
to fuller minority student participation in undergraduate programs
in the natural sciences and engineering.  Organized around eight of
the University of California campuses, CAMP is a faculty-based
alliance operating statewide, involving the University of Califor-
nia, California State University, California community colleges and
various independent colleges and universities, as well as corporate
partners, national laboratories, and affiliated organizations.
CAMP introduces students to SME&T fields through research oppor-
tunities and mentorships throughout their undergraduate education.
The program consists of: (1) a CAMP undergraduate research scholars
program, enabling minority students to participate in research with
scientists at four-year colleges and universities in California, at
national laboratories, and industrial research sites; (2) community
college and precollege alliances strengthening the preparation of
minority students to pursue baccalaureate degrees in the sciences;
(3) corporate alliances aimed at increasing the role of business
and industry in the preparation of minority scientists and
engineers; and (4) Alliance faculty symposia and colloquia
addressing central issues in the sciences and in undergraduate
education.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the work of those disci-
plinary faculty who are working to expand our knowledge of how
students learn the subject matter of disciplines.  The most
promising and ambitious of these combine research programs on
improved methods of promoting student learning with programs of
instruction that impart this knowledge to future educators.  A good
example is the Physics Education Group at the University of
Washington, under the leadership of Professor Lillian McDermott,
which has received substantial NSF funding to develop their
comprehensive, multifaceted program as a model for other institu-
tions to adopt.

And So?

The many strong curricular and pedagogical practices developed
under the sponsorship of the Division of Undergraduate Education,
and the wide variety and large number of institutions participating
in DUE- funded programs, have improved the national prospects for
comprehensive institutional reform, leading to revitalization of
undergraduate education in SME&T disciplines and to greater atten-
tion and priority being accorded to undergraduate education.
Recall that it was previously noted that the 1986 Neal Report [1]
recommended that NSF should begin to encourage comprehensive reform
- a recommendation that went unfunded and may have been ahead of
its time.  Recently, however, NSF's new IR program (Institution-
Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology), initiated in FY 1996 [18], drew more
than 200 letters from two- and four-year college and university
presidents indicating an intention to submit a proposal, and more
than 130 formal proposals.  This is a salutary result, considering
that the aim of the IR program is to use its awards "to motivate
changes in priorities and allocation of resources that will enable
institutions themselves to support their reform initiatives." The
fact that so many institutions felt ready to apply for an IR grant
is further evidence of the advances made in undergraduate SME&T
education in the past decade.

The programs put in place by the NSF during these recent years have
clearly provided important leverage and encouragement to take
undergraduate education in SME&T fields more seriously and to make
it more oriented toward active learning by students.  The progress
made by the SME&T community as a result, the broader interest in
and commitment to change for the better in undergraduate education,
and the enormous societal changes that have occurred in the last
ten years have resulted in demands on undergraduate SME&T education
almost unanticipated a decade ago and have led to the review we
have undertaken.

                                                 [End Chapter II]
         ***********************************************
[Begin Chapter III]


III.  The Situation Today:
Findings of the Review

Education in America exists, of course, in the context of a
particular society at a given moment in time.  In the decade just
past, there has been enormous change in the world external to
education.  These changes have profoundly influenced the climate
for education and, in particular, this review of undergraduate
SME&T education.

                  A Changing World and Economy

In this period, the Cold War has ended, and with it, there has
certainly been some lessening of concern for science and tech-
nology, which have tended to have public support in times of an
external national threat.  At the same time, the use of technology
has increased exponentially.  Ten years ago there was virtually no
Internet, no World Wide Web, and computers in classrooms were few
and far between.  Robots in factories were still something of a
novelty.  Today, however, there is an information technology
revolution.

The economy has changed just as drastically.  Manufacturing jobs
have declined, while service and information-based segments of the
economy have come to dominate.  The economy is much more global-
ized, as corporations have become multinational in scope and global
in their outlook.  These corporations search the world for plant
and office locations with cost-effective and productive workers.
Their first concern is to increase their market value, and their
major decisions are scrutinized frequently by investment analysts
around the world.  In many cases, high-paying jobs on American
assembly lines for relatively unskilled workers have migrated
overseas or are no longer necessary because of improved technology
in the workplace.

As a result of these changes in the economy, the work force in our
nation is changing dramatically.  More and more, the distribution
of jobs is bifurcated in the sense that jobs requiring relatively
low levels of skill are paying low wages (primarily in the service
sector) while those that provide  decent economic opportunity
demand skills far more sophisticated than those required by routine
assembly line jobs in decades past.  In the period following the
late 1970's, annual income adjusted for inflation has fallen for
typical workers who have not acquired at least several years of
undergraduate education.  The further below this standard of
education workers are, the more their income has fallen.  It is
equally clear that those Americans who have technical skills will
fare much better in the workplace of the world of tomorrow than
will those who lack such skills and the educational preparation
that helps produce them.  Thus, SME&T education must play a new and
expanded role in  the preparation of the American work force for
the next decade.

One of the realities of this changing economy is the fact that that
lifelong learning skills have reached a stage of paramount impor-
tance.  In an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled:
"Consulting Giant's Hot Offer: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," [19], Gene Wright
of Andersen Consulting, seeking to underscore the need for experi-
enced workers to take full responsibility to ensure their skills
are up-to-date, stated: "There's a new skill set required.  And it
is the responsibility of the individual to retool, not the corpora-
tion."  We must shape a future for America recognizing that the
nation whose people are not well educated will lose out in the long
run in this kind of economic world.

America's demography is also changing.  SME&T and SME&T education
have historically been the domain primarily of white males.  Ques-
tions of value and equity aside - and they are not aside - the
facts that the majority of Americans are women and that the
proportion of Americans aged 18-22 who are members of racial or
ethnic minority groups will rise in the aggregate from 25% in 1980
to more than 35% by the turn of the century (and that number is
expected to rise above 40% by the year 2015) have profound
implications for SME&T education.  Unless SME&T education is much
more inclusive than it has been in the past, we will be denying
ourselves as a society the talents of the majority of our popula-
tion.  This is an intolerable situation - it is both morally wrong
and economically foolish.

There is no doubt that our society is now less committed to formal
programs of affirmative action than was the case ten years ago.
But the imperative described above - to be much more inclusive in
SME&T education - is even stronger.  And, while K12 programming can
expand the pool of those interested in pursuing careers in SME&T,
it is at the undergraduate level where attrition and burnout can be
most effectively prevented.  What we in undergraduate SME&T educa-
tion must do is to concern ourselves with all our students, not
just those who historically have been represented in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology.  Such a breadth of
concern has important educational benefits as well, as it will
force us to think more about how individuals learn and recognize
what research has made clear: that there are differences in
learning style which profoundly affect achievement.  And let us not
forget that increasing student achievement in SME&T education is
exactly what is needed.

Rising Expenditures and
Growing Financial Constraints

At the same time these general societal influences have changed so
dramatically, there have been additional pressures on higher
education.  Public finances for higher education have become
constrained for a variety of reasons (e.g., reduced growth in state
tax revenues; competing demands from other areas, particularly K-12
education, the penal system, and delivery of health services), and
there has been  growing resistance to increases in tuition charges
that exceed the rise in the Consumer Price Index.

The cost per student of delivering undergraduate education rose
from 1980 until the early 1990's, largely as a consequence of
increases in the prices of educational inputs that have risen much
faster than the CPI.  According to national data, in the ten years
ending in 1989, average education and general expenditures per
student in all institutions of higher education grew at a rate 2.7%
higher than the rate of inflation [20;p.300], and a careful
estimate is that three-fourths of this aboveaverage expense growth
was due to rapid increases in the costs of instructional inputs,
particularly faculty and staff salaries (which had declined
considerably during the 1970's), rather than provision of more
resources per student.  Much of the remaining growth in expendi-
tures financed sorely needed capital improvements and modern
instructional equipment.

In public institutions of higher education, this extraordinary
inflation had to be financed or accommodated by means other than
raising public appropriations per student, due to the competing and
pressing demands for public revenues from other sources.  For
example, consider the competition for public state-level revenues
from the K- 12 sector.  Measured in constant 1994 dollars, expendi-
tures per student in grades K-12 rose from about $4,000 in 1980 to
nearly $5,500 in 1993, and state governments have provided a
growing share of these public revenues over the last three decades
- 40% in 1970, 47% in 1980, and nearly 50% since the mid-1980's.
However, over this same period of time, public revenues for higher
education, chiefly from state governments, remained in the vicinity
of $4,500 per student in 1994 dollars, and have remained flat at
1.0% of Gross Domestic Product [21].

In both public and private institutions of higher education it was
necessary to raise tuition charges faster than the CPI has
increased in order to pay for the rapid inflation in the price of
educational inputs.  From 1980 to 1992, the sum of tuition for in-
state students and "room and board charges" rose in constant 1994
dollars from $4,300 to $5,750 in public institutions, and from
$9,920 to $15,700 in private institutions.  Even allowing for the
fact that 1980 was the low cost year, these annual charges are now
substantially above their previous highs (reached in 1972) of
$5,200 in public institutions and $10,850 in private institutions
[21; year 1994, p. 182].

In most public institutions, and many private ones, the effects of
these financial pressures have been noticeable to administrators
and faculty: nationally, average class size has crept upward at
about 0.4% per year during 1979-89 [20]; there is currently less
variety in course and class offerings [22]; there is more incentive
for (and greater resort to) hiring of teaching assistants and
parttime adjunct faculty; and, budgets for student equipment,
teaching laboratory facilities, and faculty development  have been
badly squeezed, according to our sources.  Current financial
constraints present major challenges and reduced opportunities in
many institutions to try innovative approaches to undergraduate
instruction while placing a premium on productivity-enhancing
changes.  These pressures were discussed by many who wrote to us.

Differences by Type of Institution

These increases in expenditures per student after 1980 varied
considerably among different types of institutions.  Using the
classification reported in A Classification of Institutions of
Higher Education [23], both percentage and dollar increases were
highest in  highly selective bachelor's colleges and private
research universities, and next highest in public research
universities.  In the remaining types of institutions, spending
increases were either at the rate of increase in the CPI (in public
two-year colleges) or moderately above this rate (in public and
private doctoral institutions, master's institutions, and the
remaining public and private bachelor's institutions).

One consequence of these uneven rates of growth in expenditures per
student is that current spending per undergraduate student now
varies widely across different types of institutions (although the
data are not precise, particularly in large institutions with
multiple missions).  In recent years, the highly selective, private
bachelors and research universities have been spending about 75%
more per undergraduate student than public research universities.
Public research universities have been spending about 20% to 40%
more than other types of four-year institutions, and 60% more than
public two-year colleges.

Changes in Higher Education

In addition to these financial pressures, there are other external
influences complicating the picture for higher education.
Governors, legislators, and parents in many states are raising
questions about how undergraduates are treated, especially at major
research universities with their heavy faculty research commitments
and significant involvement of graduate assistants in the under-
graduate instructional program.  The whole debate over "teaching
vs. research" in faculty workloads and in faculty rewards is being
revisited by major controllers of educational purse strings.

Several universities are making significant changes in the internal
culture surrounding undergraduate education, including in the way
faculty are evaluated and rewarded.  The American Association for
Higher Education (AAHE) has taken a leadership role in finding and
publicizing better ways to evaluate teaching effectiveness and in
helping institutions think about revising promotion and tenure
policies [24]; some of the disciplines (e.g., mathematics) have
also given significant attention to such issues.  But examples of
such effort are few in number, are not yet pervasive in the higher
education scene, and are counterbalanced by other forces: for
example, some liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions
are putting increased stress on research, on adding  graduate
programs, and on the acquisition of research grants by faculty.
Not only do institutions need to make more changes in this
important area, other stakeholders must assist them - for example,
educational achievements would likely be accorded greater recog-
nition in faculty reward systems if there were more effective ways
of validating and disseminating such accomplishments, ways akin to
the publication of research results.

The information technology revolution mentioned previously has been
felt also by higher education.  Faculty and administrators alike
understand that more technology is needed on campus - to enhance
productivity; to help to prepare students for the world they are
entering (whether in the work force or as citizens); and to satisfy
the demands of many entering students who are used to computers,
the Web, CDROMs, and video, and who find learning from print and
passive listening increasingly foreign.

Moreover, rapid changes in technology have created possibilities
for organizations other than traditional colleges and universities
to offer multimedia instructional packages of great sophistication
and consumer appeal, independent of location.  Some western state
governors are proposing the creation of a "virtual university"
using such technology, which might offer instruction more cheaply
than a campus could.  Whether or not such an institution can
actually do all that a traditional campus can do in the human
development process (which seems to require a social as well as an
information context) is probably irrelevant; the fact that such
technology offers the promise of cost reductions is enough to
insure that such possibilities will be considered seriously by the
political structures of this nation.

It is clear that large private corporations with major expertise in
software and media could become serious "competitors" in the higher
education arena in the near future.  William Wulf, writing recently
in Issues in Science and Technology [25] makes clear the importance
of such an issue to higher education:

     "Universities are in the information business, and
     technological developments are transforming that industry
     .  .  .  Outside forces are always acting on univer-
     sities.  Some of them, notably the political ones, have
     great immediacy and hence get a good deal of attention.
     For example, university administrators are acutely aware
     of the .  .  .  desire for greater "productivity" from
     the faculty, and so on.  As important as these changes
     may be, I believe that information technology has a far
     greater potential to provoke fundamental change in our
     system of higher education.  Moreover, I am certain that
     these changes are much closer than most people realize."

A paper by Eli Noam in Science [26; "Electronics and the Dim Future
of the University"] observed: "Today's production and distribution
of information are undermining the university structure, making it
ready to collapse in slow motion once alternatives to its function
become possible."

Noam notes that more articles on chemistry had been published in
the previous two years than throughout all of history prior to
1900.  With this kind of growth of knowledge has come increased
specialization, which has led scholars in increasingly narrow
fields to find electronic peers outside institutions that can no
longer maintain all the subdisciplines.  In addition, our students
now come to the campus with electronic access to more information
than is contained in the faculty, library, and laboratories of the
college or university - and access to that information is available
24 hours a day at the student's convenience.  Noam continued:

     "This scenario suggests a change of emphasis for univer-
     sities.  True teaching and learning are about more than
     information and its transmission .  .  .  (are) based on
     mentoring, internalization, identification, role
     modeling, guidance, socialization, interaction, and group
     activity.  In these processes, physical proximity plays
     an important role.  Thus, the strength of the future
     physical university lies less in pure information and
     more in college as community; less in wholesale lecture,
     and more in individual tutorial; less in Cyber-U, and
     more in Goodbye-Mr.-Chips College.  Technology would
     augment, not substitute."

                  Undergraduate Education Today

Turning now from external influences on higher education generally,
we must examine the present picture of undergraduate SME&T educa-
tion in America.  Here, too, much has changed in ten years, even
the answer to the question, "Where are the students?" For the
students are, in fact, not in the kinds of institutions many people
might guess [27, 28].

In the fall of 1992,

*    Two-year institutions accounted for 44% of enrolled under-
     graduates, 41% of all undergraduate SME&T courses offered for
     credit, and 34% of all undergraduate SME&T course enrollments.

     Their share of SME&T enrollments is lower than either their
     share of SME&T courses or their share of total undergraduate
     enrollments, because nearly one-half of two-year college
     students are attending college parttime, and SME&T class sizes
     are relatively small - on par with those found in baccalaure-
     ate institutions.

*    Research universities enrolled 16% of all undergraduates in
     the fall of 1992, and had nearly 25% of undergraduate SME&T
     course enrollments.  However, the number of SME&T courses
     taught for credit by research universities was only 15% of the
     total, because of a high frequency of very large classes.

*    Doctoral universities accounted for 9% of all undergraduates
     and of SME&T courses, and for 10% of undergraduate SME&T
     course enrollments.

*    Master's institutions and engineering schools with enrollments
     of 2,000 or higher accounted for 21% of all undergraduates,
     and for 22% of SME&T courses and SME&T enrollments; and,

*    Bachelor's institutions and small master's institutions
     enrolled 10% of all undergraduates, 9% of those enrolled in
     SME&T courses, but 13% of all undergraduate SME&T courses
     offered for credit, reflecting a high frequency of small class
     sizes.

In FY 1992, 53% of undergraduates were enrolled in institutions
that had no NSF funding for research or education, and another 12%
were in institutions that received less than $100,000 from the
Foundation.  Only 25% were enrolled in institutions receiving more
than $500,000 that year.

The picture is similar for all Federal agencies combined [29].
More than 88% of all Federal obligations to academic institutions
for science and engineering in FY 1992 went to the 125 research
universities.  A second somewhat distinct group of 461 institutions
received virtually all of the remainder (more than 11%) of this
funding: this group comprised the 111 doctoral universities (with
6.2% of the total), the top 200 master's level institutions (with
4.2% of the total), the top 100 bachelor's colleges (with 0.7% of
the total), and the top 50 two-year colleges (with 0.2%).  Funding
was also very highly concentrated within the doctoral and master's
subgroups of this set of 461: the top one-eighth of each subgroup
- 12 doctoral and 25 master's institutions - received more than 50%
of the funds awarded in their subgroup.

And who the students are is changing, too, even though less rapidly
than the demographic makeup of America is changing.  "College" has
become a nearly universal rite of passage in the 1990's.  Overall,
nearly 67% of female and nearly 60% of male high school graduates
enter post secondary education within a few months of graduation.
Another 10% to 15% of adults in their twenties will enter college
a few years after graduating from high school, or after leaving
high school and earning their general equivalency diploma [21, 30].


*    At every age in the span from 18 to 24 years old, the percent-
     age of US residents enrolled in colleges and universities has
     risen steadily since 1980.  For example, 30% of 21-year olds
     were enrolled in college in 1980 compared to 40% in 1993.

*    At older age levels in the interval from 25-34 years, there
     have not been increases in the fraction of the adult popula-
     tion enrolled in college during 1980-1993, but there have been
     growing numbers enrolled due to an expanding U.S. population
     in this age range.  Overall about 8% of adults aged 25-34 were
     enrolled in college during this period - from 11-13% of
     25-year olds and from 5-6% of 34-year olds.  Equal percentages
     of the black, Hispanic, and nonHispanic white populations in
     this age range were enrolled in college, but those enrolled
     were disproportionately women.

Due to these population demographics, undergraduate enrollments
continued to rise through 1992, despite a drop in the number of
high school graduates after 1988.  [Under graduate enrollments at
the national level dropped in 1993, and began to drop slightly in
large public institutions in 1992.] Most of the increase in under-
graduate enrollments during 1985-1992 was fueled by rising numbers
of part-time students (particularly women in two-year colleges) and
older students.

The fact that undergraduate studies are being pursued by growing
fractions of high school graduates and older "nontraditional"
students means that the effort required of the SME&T faculty to
reach all students with basic course learning experiences that will
work for them has grown considerably in recent years.

From School to College

When these students arrive at America's two-year and four-year
colleges and universities, they are (according to the higher
education community) not well prepared for collegiate level
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
Analysis of high school transcripts does show some apparent
improvement during the 80's in the SME&T courses taken by students
during high school.  The percentage of high school graduates taking
the core curriculum recommended by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education (4 units of English, 3 units of science, 3
units of social studies, and 3 units of mathematics) increased from
13% in 1982 to 47% in 1992 [22; The Condition of Education, 1994].
An increased number of students took more serious mathematics and
science courses than had been the case.  Specific gains made during
1982-92 were: 48% to 70% (geometry), 37% to 56% (algebra II), 32%
to 56% (chemistry) and 14% to 25% (physics).  But the levels
reached in 1992 are still too low.  For instance, only 22% had
taken biology, chemistry, and physics, and only 21% had studied
trigonometry.

In some states, high school graduation standards are being raised,
and a number of major state universities have put pressure on the
high schools by increasing coursespecific entrance requirements.
But, overall, the picture of the preparation of first-year incoming
students for higher education is not a bright one - and the
improvements that have occurred in the past decade have been over-
shadowed by the exponential growth of knowledge and the changing
demands of society.

Many faculty in SME&T at the postsecondary level continue to blame
the schools for sending underprepared students to them.  But,
increasingly, the higher education community has come to recognize
the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all
people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in
situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough
their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's
teachers.  The Neal Report [1] devoted one brief sentence to
teacher preparation, for example (though much more to teacher
enhancement).  But, virtually every participant in the review work
of this committee has expressed concern over the way the under-
graduate SME&T education community is working in the preparation of
teachers.

With a more intensive and effective commitment on the part of
institutions to the preparation of K-12 teachers, colleges and
universities can raise their expectations about the preparedness of
entering students.  One way to do that might be for institutions to
enter into "treaties" with the secondary schools providing that,
after a certain date, credit will not be given at the collegiate
level for remediation in SME&T.

Students in SME&T Classes

When the students arriving on our campuses begin to take SME&T
courses, what do they find, and what do they experience?

As noted earlier, there have been a number of improvements on many
campuses.  There are more interdisciplinary opportunities; there
are many more opportunities for some students to have research
experience with a faculty member; and many more courses stress
inquiry and feature active, collaborative learning.  Students also
find much more technology: on some campuses every student is
expected to have a laptop computer; on many, each student has an
e-mail account and can interact with faculty electronically.
Unfortunately, none of these improvements is widespread and,
overall, students report that their experiences in undergraduate
SME&T education are not very positive.

Seymour and Hewitt's study, Talking About Leaving [8], produced
findings that are very critical of faculty teaching practices.

                               ***
Seymour and Hewitt conducted a large ethnographic study over the
three-year period 1990-93 with 335 students majoring in the natural
sciences and engineering (NS&E) drawn from seven campuses that were
among the most productive contributors to the nation's flow of new
baccalaureates in these fields.  Most data were gathered by
personal interview.  Some data were obtained in focus groups of 3-5
students.  An additional 125 students took part in focus group
discussions on six other campuses.  Half the students were in the
biological sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics; the other
half were in engineering.  All of the students had SAT mathematics
scores above 649 and, thus, were considered well-prepared to under-
take NS&E studies in college.  The student sample was designed to
include slightly more students leaving (55%, all juniors or
seniors) than remaining in NS&E majors (45%, all of whom were
seniors).  Underrepresented groups were over-sampled.
                               ***

Generally poor teaching by the science and engineering faculty was
by far the most common complaint of able students.  Nine out of 10
one-time NS&E majors who switched to a non-NS&E major, and three
out of four who persevered, described the quality of teaching as
poor overall.  The next most frequent complaint of NS&E majors was
inadequate faculty advisement, mentioned by more than half of the
successful majors.

Students were very clear about what was wrong with the teaching
they had experienced.  They strongly believed that faculty do not
like to teach (especially lower division courses); that they do not
value teaching as  a professional activity; and that they lack
incentive to improve.  In their explanations for the poor teaching
they had experienced, students constantly referenced faculty
preoccupation with research as the overt reason for their failure
to pay serious attention to the teaching of undergraduates, and for
specific inadequacies in attitude or technique.  Student condemna-
tion of the faculty obsession with research changed dramatically,
however, when students were allowed to observe or participate in
that research.  The few students who had this experience liked the
pleasant and open way in which faculty treated undergraduates in a
research relationship, compared with their apparent indifference to
them in a teaching context.

According to Seymour and Hewett, the perceived dislike of the
natural science and engineering faculty for pedagogical contact
with students cannot be simply explained by a greater interest in
research, or by the bias of departmental reward systems.  Students
offered many examples of non-NS&E faculty who evidently enjoyed
teaching, saw it as an integral part of their work, and took the
trouble to do it well.  Important elements in what students saw as
good teaching were openness, respect for students, the encourage-
ment of discussion, and the sense of discovering things together.
Student comparisons of NS&E teaching styles with those in other
disciplines are permeated with strong contrasts: coldness versus
warmth; elitism versus democracy; aloofness versus openness; and
rejection versus support.

The distancing of faculty from students was sometimes increased by
sarcasm, degradation, or ridicule.  These practices, apparently
rare in nonSME&T courses, had the effect of discouraging voluntary
student participation in classroom discussions, and created an
atmosphere of intimidation.

Student criticisms focused on:

*    Lack of student-teacher dialogue, which was thought also to
     reflect faculty indifference.  Classes were mainly one-way
     lectures, which students compared unfavorably to the high
     school experiences of many of them, in which there was
     considerable dialogue.

*    Evident poor preparation for lectures, indicating to students
     that faculty were disinterested in student learning.  Students
     were particularly frustrated by faculty who seemed unable to
     explain their ideas sequentially or coherently.

*    Students also wanted but typically did not find many illus-
     trations, applications, and/or discussions of implications.
     Nevertheless, students did not believe there was anything
     intrinsically dull about NS&E class material, even though
     student interest in many classes began to flag when faculty
     failed to present material in a stimulating way.  Many
     students made reference to the "monotone" voices and dry
     recitations of their instructors lecturing.

*    Class tedium grew in instances where faculty were "over-
     focused" on getting students to memorize material.

*    Students identified as worst practice reading or copying
     material straight from text books.  Reports of this practice
     were common in every SME&T discipline and on every campus.
     Another version of this teaching style was sometimes referred
     to as silent teaching - an instructor writing on the board
     with his/her back to the class, whom he/she addresses
     minimally and infrequently.

*    Seniors who were going to graduate in SME&T made it clear that
     the focus on weed-out objectives and use of poor teaching
     practices in the first two years had given them a shaky
     foundation for higher level work.  They expressed resentment
     that their own education had suffered in the effort to discard
     others.

*    Non-majors also expressed the opinion that their needs for
     basic understanding of science and mathematics had not been
     met in lower division SME&T courses.

The focus groups of students convened for the current review
covered [13] a broader cross section of undergraduates than those
created for Talking About Leaving; but, it is noteworthy that the
opinions expressed about introductory courses were similar.

In our focus groups, students identified introductory SME&T courses
as a major barrier.  Many non-SME&T majors were discouraged (or
screened out) from pursuing further studies.  SME&T majors found
the introductory courses very challenging, and often described them
as "weed-out" courses.  All types of students objected to the large
lecture format often used in these courses.  (Students from two-
year colleges, historically black colleges, and comprehensive
institutions were not as negative about these courses as those from
research and doctoral universities, which have the largest
classes.) Even the recent graduates had no difficulty recalling the
generally unpleasant experiences they had had in introductory
courses.

*    Students singled-out the practice in some large lecture
     classes of using television monitors in separate rooms to
     serve students who could not fit into the lecture hall as very
     discouraging.  The perceptions of many students was that the
     faculty did not want to teach these courses.

*    A significant number of students objected to the competitive
     atmosphere in introductory SME&T courses, calling it a barrier
     to learning.

*    Seymour and Hewitt found the most frequent student complaint
     to be the often weak relationship between classes and
     supporting laboratory work.  Students in our focus groups
     found similar fault; some found laboratory exercises to be
     mechanical - seemingly unconnected to concepts of science.
     Lack of faculty or teaching assistant expertise on site in the
     labs was cited as another weakness.

Students not only find problems in individual courses - they also
experience a weaker curriculum.  For instance, they find fewer
laboratory opportunities because some institutions have made
decisionsto lower overall costs by reducing the number of labora-
tory sections and adding or substituting nonlaboratory courses.

*    Comparative data from two national samples provide us with the
     12-year, undergraduate course-taking histories of two high
     school classes: the Class of 1972 (sampled by the National
     Longitudinal Survey, NLS) and the Class of 1982 (sampled by
     the High School & Beyond Survey, HS&B).  These data indicate
     that laboratory courses offered and taken dropped by more than
     20% from the 1970's to the 1980's.

*    The 1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty [28] indi-
     cated that only a small fraction of SME&T courses offered in
     the fall of 1992 were primarily laboratory courses.  At the
     freshman and sophomore level, these fractions ranged from
     around 20% in the biological sciences, physical sciences, and
     engineering, to under 5% in the mathematical sciences and
     social and behavioral sciences.  Only about 10% of students in
     the physical and biological sciences enrolled in the 20% of
     courses that were laboratorycentered, while 20% of engineering
     students enrolled in the 20% of courses so centered.

Evidence of erosion in undergraduate science requirements was
provided recently in a study conducted by the National Association
of Scholars, The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993 [31],
in which the Association reported that 90% of 50 highly selective
institutions required  their students to take courses in the
physical and biological sciences in 1964, whereas in 1993, only 34%
of them maintained this requirement.

In addition to the data about current deficiencies in undergraduate
SME&T education discussed above, we have reviewed the opinions of
the many leaders in the SME&T community who provided input for our
work.  In the letter initiating this review, Dr. Luther S.
Williams (NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human
Resources) asked not only that respondents identify improvements
attained in the past decade but also that they comment on remaining
barriers to further improvement, reflecting the needs of society
[32].  Improvements and barriers were discussed also in the
hearings at NSF in the fall of 1995 and in the reviewfocused
sessions at many meetings of scientific and professional organiza-
tions in the past two years.

                     Barriers to Improvement

Some weeks before this review was initiated by Dr. Williams, he
expressed concern about barriers to improvement of undergraduate
SME&T education in the keynote address to an NSF-sponsored
conference [33]:

     "The [various types of] two-year and four-year .  .  .
     institutions have not yet responded substantially to the
     recognized need for cooperation and collaboration.  Walls
     still exist between disciplines and academic units.
     These walls are ill suited to educating the many
     different individuals seeking preparation for a vast
     array of personal and professional goals in an
     increasingly complex world.  These institutions have
     failed to prepare adequately for the new ways of learning
     that begin at the precollege level and must be continued
     at the undergraduate level.  There is growing concern
     that what is taught does not adequately prepare students
     for the world they enter upon graduation.  [Institutions]
     have not yet [developed] the potential of educational
     technologies fully, nor [applied] what is known from
     research on teaching and learning fully.  We can no
     longer alter students to fit the abilities of educational
     institutions; we must alter the institutions to fit the
     needs of students."

A wide variety of such barriers were identified and discussed in
the over 150 letters the review committee received from the
community.  Collectively, these letters identified several hundred
specific problems.  We found it convenient to consider them in
seven broad categories:

1.   Widely varying levels of student ability, and poor preparation
     for SME&T studies by many.

2.   Curricular and pedagogical problems, including a lack of
     interdisciplinary courses.

3.   Ineffective use of instructional technology.

4.   A faculty reward system that does not emphasize the importance
     of instructional effectiveness.

5.   The related problem of inadequate use of evaluation for making
     informed choices about new curricula and teaching methods.

6.   Lack of resources for faculty development, for efforts to
     disseminate improved practices, and to provide modern
     instructional equipment and materials to their students.

7.   Organizational issues: poor institutional articulation among
     institutions (high schools and colleges; two-year and four-
     year colleges; colleges and employers and states) and within
     institutions (linking teaching and research roles, linking
     SME&T departments, especially the education and science
     faculty); resistance to change by key people within academe;
     indifference to the need for comprehensive change.

The comments we received were often tinged with optimism about the
prospects for improvement but also frequently conveyed a sense of
urgency.  Often there was a satisfaction expressed about the
progress achieved over the last few years, inter mingled with
expressions of alarm about the size of the improvements yet needed.

It is very noteworthy that many contributors to this review used
largely the same language to describe both significant improvements
in undergraduate SME&T education and current barriers.  For
example, the growing incidence of departments and faculty offering
courses that allow students to design their own smallscale research
projects and work in teams with faculty guidance to carry these
projects forward was noted as an improvement.  It was also
described as a barrier, namely, it has revealed the poverty of
traditional "cookbook" laboratory approaches.  What is a signifi-
cant improvement also has served to reveal and define lingering
problems.  Frequently, the "problem" or "barrier" side of the
"improvement" is the perceived lack of widespread implementation of
the "improvement."

The subjects of each of the seven categories are discussed briefly
below.

1. Variety in Student Preparation

Participants at the April 1995 convocation on undergraduate
education sponsored jointly by the National Research Council and
the NSF took note of the tremendous (and growing) diversity of
students and of the institutions they attend, and of the
concomitant breadth of student needs and institutional objectives
[2].  For example, Professor Mary Beth Monroe of Southwest Texas
Junior College stated:

     "I recently heard a speaker comment that although our
     teaching has improved, learning has decreased overall
     because our students are not the same students we were
     nor taught twenty years ago.  The conferences, seminars
     and workshops I have been privileged to attend within the
     last five years indicate that our educational community
     is beginning to realize this and is beginning to take
     important and collaborative strides to address this
     issue."

Convocation participants concluded that such breadth would make
very difficult the setting of widely applicable goals for what all
undergraduates should learn and be able to do in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology.

They found the current system, which rarely establishes specific
goals beyond those associated with individual classes and courses
of study, to be quite unsatisfactory.  But, at the K-12 level, the
national standards developed for science and mathematics define
what students should know and be able to do in these subjects [34].

It was particularly striking to a number of contributors to this
review that a need has developed to connect improvements occurring
now in K-12 mathematics, science, and technology - and improvements
that will be put in place in the future at the K-12 grade levels -
with the design and implementation of new undergraduate curricula
and improved pedagogical practices.  This will require deeper
involvement of college and university faculty with SME&T teaching
in grades K-12.  It will most urgently require attention to
evolving K12 science and mathematics standards by those college
faculty actively engaged in improving the preparation of future
K-12 teachers, because these teachers will play an important role
in increasing the ability of schools to implement improved
standards.

Two-year colleges in particular have valuable experience in
teaching a student body with widely varying levels of preparation;
hence, these colleges could be a significant resource to assist
faculty in four- year institutions to work more effectively with
students having a wide range of backgrounds.

2. Curricular and Pedagogical Problems

Given these widely varying levels of student preparation, many
participants observed that different courses may be required for
different kinds of undergraduate students.  In many institutions
two or more introductory sequences of courses for undergraduates
are available.  Options range from separate courses rooted in
individual departments to interdisciplinary courses that range
across SME&T.  This diversity of introductory courses is troubling
to some.  For example, the National Association of Scholars in
their recent report [31] noted that in 50 highly selective
institutions, the number of courses offered with no prerequisite
courses rose from 127 in 1964 to 582 in 1993.  It is, however, more
sensible to offer single introductory sequences when an institu-
tion's lower division undergraduates are relatively homogeneous
with respect to education and experience.Once our nation's schools
have come closer to meeting agreed science education standards, it
should be possible to reduce the number of parallel introductory
SME&T courses.

Advanced Placement courses have begun to influence the design of
introductory courses in some institutions, according to some
faculty with responsibility for freshman courses who wrote or
talked to us.  There are complicated issues involved.  For example,
an admissions office can put such emphasis on Advanced Placement
course credits from high school that precollege students are
discouraged from taking a range of sciences.

The areas of curriculum and pedagogy were identified as rich in
recent accomplishments but requiring broader implementation in
order to bear full fruit.  The National Research Council concluded
[2; p.5]:

     "Undergraduate education in [science, mathematics,
     engineering, and technology].  .  .  is often hampered by
     outmoded instructional techniques,fragmentation of
     knowledge by disciplinary specialization more appropriate
     to advanced research, and frequent inertia in updating
     and improving undergraduate curricula.  [These weaknesses
     are not inherent in the enterprise.  There is under way
     an explosion of new ideas, technologies, methods for
     improving the quality of SME&T undergraduate education.]"

Quite a number of letter writers suggested that NSF and other
sponsors of educational improvement should turn their attention to
the issue of implementation.  For example, Rita Colwell, President
of AAAS and a distinguished biological scientist, suggested this
should be a priority.  Joan Girgus of the science program in
undergraduate education of the Pew Charitable Trusts wrote:

     "[T]he most crucial task now facing the NSF and other
     funders is the conversion of innovation to broad and
     sweeping change.  We know a good deal about what works
     well for SME&T students; it will require deep commitment
     to integrate the best of these innovations into the
     ongoing life of undergraduate SME&T education, thereby
     effecting the comprehensive educational change that is
     needed."

Jerrier Haddad (President, Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology) put it this way:

     "Perhaps the largest problem is that piece of academic
     culture that requires collegial consensus and the leader-
     ship of leading faculty and institutions before the bulk
     of academe will consent to break new ground.  Clearly
     this greatly slows the process of innovation and improve-
     ment.  It also militates against scholarly research in
     education."

There is also the issue of connection between curricula design and
the needs of employers.  The summary of the 1995 NRC-NSF convo-
cation on undergraduate education states this clearly [2; p.17]:

     "The needs of the work force are changing (American
     Society for Engineering Education, 1994; National Academy
     of Sciences, 1995).  Rapid shifts in the labor market are
     creating a paucity of jobs in some areas and exciting new
     opportunities in others.  This dynamism in the labor
     market is putting a premium on students who have a broad
     knowledge of different subjects, skills in synthesizing
     and communicating information, and the ability to work in
     teams.  Students educated with a narrow disciplinary
     focus and in solitary learning styles can have difficul-
     ties adjusting to such an environment.  Indeed, such
     difficulties are a dominant theme in the complaints
     voiced by business leaders about contemporary
     undergraduate education."

This point was made by a very broad group of letter writers,
providing clear evidence that academic administrators and faculty
are starting to hear this message, and that scientific societies
are taking note, too.  For example, in the summer of 1995 the
American Institute of Physics (AIP) was completing a survey of
students who graduated in physics and were working, in order to
rate the importance of various skills and knowledge in their places
of employment.  Preliminary findings (communicated by AIP President
C.  Kumar N.  Patel) indicated that the top two items were ability
to solve complex problems and interpersonal skills.  Leadership
skills were also important, and advanced computer skills and
technical writing ability were also found to be key in many work
settings.  However, as indicated by Dr.  Eve Menger (Director,
Characterization Science and Services, Corning Glass Works, and
member of the National Science Board):

     "In recent years there has been some attempt to remedy
     this situation but there is a long, long way to go.  The
     topic of realities in the industrial world is usually
     introduced, if at all, by members of the science faculty
     who have good intent but little knowledge whereof they
     speak."

Dr. John McMasters, Principal Engineer of the Boeing Company,
described during the November 1, 1995, hearing at NSF [10] a
promising program that invites faculty to spend a semester on leave
at Boeing facilities

     ".  .  .  not to show them how we do research, but rather
     to show them what the graduates of their programs do when
     they come to work for a company like Boeing.  .  .  We
     pretty badly underestimated what we could actually
     accomplish with this."

One important trend reported in the design and delivery of innova-
tive SME&T courses - one that places greater emphasis on concepts
and the processes of the disciplines and less emphasis on facts -
is considered generally to be a positive antidote to the deadening
effects of rapidly and broadly covering a large range of course
material.  The problem with a major emphasis on "covering the
material" is that many of the facts that constitute this material
appear to most students as nuggets of information that are both
disconnected from themselves and from a context that has meaning
and interest to students, such as major societal issues or
exploration of new technological opportunities.  A valuable way to
ground students in the basic processes of SME&T, and perhaps entice
them, is to build into introductory courses real or simulated
research experiences.  The idea is to allow students to experience
SME&T as researchers experience it.  This design can lead naturally
to student discovery of the importance of certain facts.  Some who
wrote to us also made the point that it is possible to find
examples of introductory courses that have gone to excess in
avoiding dependence on learning facts.  Facts, of course,  are
essential.  It is also possible to find "new" introductory courses
that avoid over- emphasis on covering the material, but do not
provide the benefit of grounding their students in processes.
Innovative courses that succeed for most students seem to have in
common a balance between facts and concepts, and they provide - and
this is crucially important - a context for the material.

3. Ineffective Use of Instructional Technology

One important barrier noted frequently is a specific lack of
knowledge about the hardware and technology that has been spreading
into increasing use, and to which many students are already
attracted.  Patricia Cunniff (Director, Science and Technology
Resource Center, Prince Georges County Community College [MD])
wrote:

     "I see the following as serious problems: (1) successful
     utilization of the computer in instruction within all
     types of institutions and within [every] discipline; (2)
     the challenge of teaching faculty and students how to
     access, utilize, and incorporate the vast amounts of
     information available in print and electronically; [and]
     (3) [learning] how to utilize technology in making educa-
     tion more attractive to students who might otherwise lack
     motivation or interest in SME&T courses."

Kenneth Foote (Associate Professor of Geography and Associate Vice
President for Research, University of Texas at Austin) observed
that:

     "Senior faculty often lack many of the fundamental skills
     needed to make use of the information technologies that
     are changing education.  The point has been reached where
     college students are arriving on campus with information
     technology skills far superior to three-quarters of the
     faculty - which is very intimidating to them."

A very thoughtful letter from Julius Dasch of NASA reported the
responses of 143 faculty in the NASA/ASEE (American Society  for
Engineering Education) Summer Faculty Fellows program and 45 under-
graduate or first- year graduate students in summer programs at
NASA facilities to the questions posed in Luther Williams' letter.
Seventy one percent of the NASA Faculty Fellows stated the biggest
problem preventing employment of the best curricular and pedagogi-
cal practices was lack of access to hard technology (including
software).  But, in comparison, 71% of the NASA students nominated
poor or apathetic teaching (including faculty woefully unfamiliar
with modern technology) as the leading issue, compared to a smaller
38% who directly identified lack of access to modern technology,
illustrating that hard technology by itself is not enough to
produce improved pedagogy.

Seymour and Hewett [8] observed from their extensive interviews
with students and faculty that, often, faculty's first instinct in
coping with student dissatisfaction with a course is to modify the
course curriculum and seek improvements in instructional technol-
ogy, rather than tackle the issue of their pedagogical approach,
and the appropriate balance among curriculum, technology, and
pedagogy.

4 & 5. The Faculty Reward System and Related Problems

The faculty reward system in general was one of the most frequently
cited barriers, both by those who wrote to us and in the published
literature.  The existing balance of rewards is seen to be slanted
towards research in part because the system for measuring teaching
performance on most campuses does not include broad evaluation of
faculty accomplishments in improving the learning of all students.
This was one of the three central conclusions of the National
Research Council [2; p.5, paraphrased]:

     Considerable uncertainty surrounds the vital matter of
     what institutional value is attached to the different
     kinds of professional work.  Faced with this uncertainty,
     faculty members are apt to stress the one activity for
     which relatively clear objectives and rewards exist:
     research that results in peer- reviewed publications .
     .  .  Linkages between teaching and research are often
     neglected.  The low priority on teaching is partly a
     reflection of the low priority placed on broadly-defined
     scholarship.  If this were to include a range of design
     and writing activities related to improving student
     learning, such as software designed for teaching in
     innovative ways that promote active student learning,
     case materials, and even videos aimed at increasing
     popular understanding of an issue, teaching effectiveness
     would receive higher priority.

Professor Jaleh Daie (University of Wisconsin; President-elect of
American Women in Science) considered the faculty rewards system to
be the number one issue:

     "Dissonances exist between the research, teaching, and
     service missions of the university resulting in reduced
     emphasis on undergraduate education.  Furthermore, incon-
     sistencies between a university's mission statement and
     its policies, procedures, and practices for rewarding
     faculty create mixed signals.  .  .  Greater integration
     and a sense of community are prerequisite to effectively
     engage the faculty in the improvement of undergraduate
     education.  The federal funding agencies share [some]
     responsibility for such inconsistencies."

Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
identified this issue as the leading barrier in his letter:

     "At major research universities, the most prestigious
     faculty appointments are those with no teaching responsi-
     bilities.  The reward structure is especially problematic
     for junior faculty, for whom earning tenure often depends
     primarily or exclusively on the number and quality of
     their research publications.  Although many professional
     organizations and disciplinary societies have published
     guidelines for recognizing and rewarding scholarly work
     in education, these guidelines are not widely accepted.
     [Y]ounger faculty .  .  .  are often advised by their
     more senior colleagues to delay [developing innovative
     courses and experimenting with new teaching methods]
     until after they receive tenure."

Frequently, discussions of this issue lead to the realization that
we need to inculcate an institutional culture that elevates
learning to a position of importance on par with the discovery of
new knowledge.  Progress here would facilitate (among other things)
the development of research programs within existing academic
structures that focus on learning effectiveness, thereby creating
valuable knowledge that can be employed to help make informed
choices about new curricula and teaching methods.  The lack of
adequate rewards for improvements in education is seen by many as
the fundamental problem that makes more difficult the widespread
acceptance of responsibility for the learning of undergraduates,
and puts the burden on single, committed individuals.  But, as
concluded by the April 1995 convocation [2; p. 5]:

     "Undergraduate education will not change in a permanent
     way through the efforts of Lone Rangers.  Change requires
     ongoing interaction among communities of people and
     institutions that will reinforce and drive reform."

6. Lack of Resources

This most frequently cited problem is perhaps the largest barrier
of them all, because - as many contributors to this review have
claimed - it will take substantially more resources to achieve the
rapid pace of improvement that is needed.  Virtually all of the
faculty and administrators from two-year colleges, and many others,
who wrote to us stressed three areas in which needs are not being
met due to resource scarcity: (1) faculty development; (2) efforts
to disseminate good practices among faculty; and (3) the provision
of modern instructional equipment and materials to their students.

(1) Faculty development.  Dr. Dale Ewen (Vice President for
Academic and Student Affairs, Parkland College, Champaign,
Illinois) wrote:

     "The grave importance of this critical need is evidenced
     by the following factors: (a) [Nearly] all current
     faculty have not been trained in the use of the technol-
     ogy and pedagogy [developed in the last few years], (b)
     The significant use of part-time faculty in most disci-
     plines and their limited access to such professional
     development is a serious concern/issue, and (c) the very
     large number of faculty expected to retire within the
     next five to ten years - will prove a most difficult
     issue [because] many .  .  .  have no interest in
     changing their curriculum and teaching styles."

Marilyn Mays, President of the American Mathematical Association of
Two-Year Colleges, indicated in her letter to us that part-time
faculty usually get left completely out of professional development
efforts: "What little professional development money is available
in times of reduced resources usually goes to fulltime faculty .."

The issue of faculty development seems to loom large in many types
of institutions, and across disciplines.  For example, Professor C.
Kumar N. Patel wrote us (this time as President of the American
Physical Society):

     "The American Physical Society believes our faculty are
     still not, in general, familiar with the research about
     learning and the positive impact of research-based
     learning strategies on student performance.  Most of the
     innovation occurs in the classes and laboratories of
     individual professors and has little impact on other
     faculty at the same institutions.  In general there seems
     to be greater effort needed to support institutional
     systemic change."

Jean MacGregor (Interim Director of the Washington Center for
Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, Evergreen State
College) reflected a similar sentiment in her letter, observing:

     "The biggest problem still facing us in our efforts to
     improve SME&T education is lack of adequate faculty
     development.  There is a crying need .  .  .  for faculty
     members to have the time and support they need to adapt
     reform curricula to their own teaching contexts."

(2) Dissemination of good practices.  A number of contributors to
this review emphasized the need for easy access by faculty to
databases in which vital information about new courses and curric-
ula could be explored.  This is one of the major ingredients neces-
sary for faculty development.  C.  Bradley Moore (Professor of
Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, and Chair of
the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Undergraduate Science
Education) wrote that there is a need for materials specialized to
all types of institutions, reflecting the importance of the diverse
curricula offered by American undergraduate institutions to a wide
variety of students, and suggested that these materials should be
available in "databases [designed] for faculty to find appropriate
materials for individual courses."

Jane Coulter, Deputy Administrator, Science and Education Resources
Development, of the US Department of Agriculture's Cooperative
State Extension, Education, and Extension Service, nominated the
need for dissemination of knowledge as a key issue for USDA:

     "We truly believe and can provide evidence that USDA's
     higher education competitive grant programs are, indeed,
     addressing regional, national, and international educa-
     tional needs in the SME&T areas.  However, so much more
     could be gained if better mechanisms were in place for
     the dissemination of project products and results.
     Dissemination of outstanding program/project accomplish-
     ments needs to be enhanced."

To underscore this point, the need for a dissemination link between
the development of innovative approaches to undergraduate instruc-
tion, and the implementation of these innovations emerged as a key
point from the 1995 joint NRC-NSF Convocation From Analysis to
Action [2; pp.5-6]:

     "[I]nnovations and successes in education need to spread
     with the speed and efficiency of new research results."

It seems clear also that a better dissemination system that
incorporates assessment and validation would be of significant
assistance in changing the faculty reward system.  Research may
have such a prominent role in the current faculty reward system in
part because of the well-established peer review and dissemination
mechanisms that are in place.

(3) Provision of modern instructional equipment and materials.
Good pedagogical practice is facilitated by access to modern
instructional equipment that is not widely available in American
institutions.  C. Peter Magrath (President of the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges)
indicated in his letter that:

     "Today, there is a serious decline in the quality of
     academic facilities, particularly in terms of state-of-
     the-art instructional materials and equipment, high-
     performance computer technology, and well-equipped
     instructional labs and centers."

This sentiment was echoed widely in the letters we received, and
during the 1995 convocation.  A straightforward framing of this
issue as it applies broadly to the teaching of introductory courses
was stated by Jerome Pine, Professor of Biophysics at California
Institute of Technology:

     "There is the problem of administrative support for non
     lecture introductory courses aimed at the entire college
     community.  They may cost more in personnel, space, and
     materials.  It must be realized that there is no free
     lunch, and that quality science instruction will cost
     more than mass-produced lecturing.  More need not mean
     prohibitively more, however.  It simply means more than
     now, which is too little.  Computer science also costs
     more than it used to, and it gets the support it needs."

7.  Organizational Issues

One of the most imposing barriers identified by our correspondents
was the collection of rigid organizational structures and poor
attention to the linkages between and among various types of
organizations -- which many refer to as "articulation issues." One
of the most frequently mentioned issues was the very high autonomy
of individual faculty in departments, and also the autonomy of
departments themselves.  Dr. Joseph Perpich (Vice President for
Grants and Special Programs, Howard Hughes Medical Institute)
considered this to be the foremost barrier, writing:

     "Reform of departmental structures is needed to foster
     educational collaboration among faculty members from
     different scientific fields."

The importance of a sense of departmental responsibility is indi-
cated by the work of Sheila Tobias [35].  Her studies show that the
institutions at which things work have departmentally-based
continuous improvement philosophies rather than relying on outside
grants that expire (after which the situation reverts to what it
was previously).

There are numerous types of organizational connections that need
further development.  Frequently cited was the need for improved
articulation between two-year and four-year institutions - to ease
the transition of students from the former to the latter, and to
ease the burden of paying for college by allowing undergraduates to
take fuller advantage of community colleges.  This requires that
much collaborative work be done by faculty in both types of
institutions.

A similar issue is the need for collaboration between faculty in
schools or colleges of education and the SME&T faculty.  Numerous
contributors to our review identified the need for improved
preparation  of undergraduate teachers; a subset targeted joint
work between education and SME&T faculty as the key means of
accomplishing this.  Lack of interaction among SME&T faculty,
faculty in other academic disciplines, and faculty in schools of
education is a serious flaw in much of precollege teacher prepara-
tion, arising in a separation of methods from content.  The
National Research Council [2] recommended that content should not
be separated from methods in preparing future teachers; the two
should be embodied in the same course or run in parallel --
desirable outcomes that require interdepartmental interaction.

Another frequently cited issue was the need for more joint activity
between academic institutions and employers.  This issue was most
frequently mentioned by employers who wrote to us or who testified
at our hearings.  However, it was also recognized as an issue of
growing importance in other studies [16] and was mentioned a number
of times by academic administrators.  The program described by John
McMasters (see 2. Curricular and Pedagogical Problems, above) is
another good example of this interest in increased joint activity
between academic institutions and employers.

       Lowering the Barriers and Meeting New Expectations

When all of these pieces of the picture of the situation today are
put together, it is apparent that there have been major changes in
the world, the economy, and higher education, creating new expec-
tations for undergraduate SME&T education, different from the
situation of 10 years ago, when the major focus was on the
"pipeline problem" - the production of an adequate number of
professionals in the individual SME&T fields, resulting in a focus
on those majoring in SME&T.  These new expectations are reflected
in the broad charge to this review committee and in the statement
of our vision.  It is also clear that there are major barriers to
meeting these new expectations.

During the last ten years, we have seen NSF programs lead to
significant improvements.  Innovative ideas of individual faculty
members, in various departments on many campuses, were funded
through these programs.  These single changes evolved into broader
curriculum projects such as those referred to as "the Calculus
Reform movement" and to consortial efforts such as the NSF
Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) and the
Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP).  Those broader efforts
have now led to the beginnings of institution-wide reform on
college and university campuses.  A modest investment in NSF
education programs has, therefore, leveraged significant
improvements on many campuses.  But, as we have seen from the
community's description of barriers, most of the changes are still
rather isolated and transitory - too often dependent on a faculty
member acting in solo (a "Lone Ranger") - and not well dissemi-
nated, even to other parts of the host institution.  Too few of the
nation's undergraduates are affected.  Systemic changes that will
spread and sustain reform have been only tentative.

                               ***
During the October 23, 1995, hearing [Disciplinary Perspectives]
Professor Alan Tucker of SUNY Stony Brook summarized letters
written as part of our review by members of the mathematics
community: "[T]omorrow's calculus student will have a better under-
standing of the power of math than the student today.  This is
something that you folks at NSF deserve credit for.  Lots of little
things have been tried over the years, but to break out of a rut,
one really needed a little extra help, and one needed the confi-
dence of this funding to believe it was worth trying and pushing
further.  It was an initiative that in the end involved close to
200 awards .  .  .  and this doesn't include subcontracts, which
would double the number here .  .  .  I just think the impact of
this was a grassroots effort, and this is the strength of higher
education, that there are so many good people out there waiting to
be helped.  Hundreds and hundreds of workshops were run.  .  .
typically six or seven faculty had been to reform workshops before
they had started changing.  Now there are hundreds of pedagogical
talks at the national meeting .  .  .  NSF did this with $3 million
dollars a year for six years.  Calculus as an industry is over a
half a billion dollar a year business.  So this was a fraction of
one percent for just half a decade, and yet it has changed things."
                               ***

The specific recommendations we make in the next section reflect
the conviction, based on all that we have heard, read, and learned
during the course of this review, that what is necessary is that
undergraduate SME&T education become:

*    More central in the curriculum, in faculty rewards.

*    More centered in the student, in the processes of the
     disciplines.

*    More connected with student experience, across knowledge
     boundaries.

*    More collaborative among students, across institutions/
     organizations/ industry.

*    More comprehensive across each institution, in all
     institutions.

To produce increased learning in all students, the
SME&T undergraduate education community will have to broaden its
view so as to

*    seek to serve all students - focusing not on what faculty
     teach but on what it expects those students to learn; and

*    develop more effective curricula and pedagogy - drawing on
     research knowledge about human learning and on technology.

                               ***
"It dawned on me about two weeks into the first year that it was
not teaching that was taking place in the classroom, but learning."
- Pop star Sting, reflecting on his early career as a teacher.
                               ***

Institutions must systemically support these efforts, both

*    internally on the campus (e.g., helping graduate students
     learn how to facilitate student learning as part of their
     training; advancing research on human learning and its use in
     practice; reallocating funds to provide for faculty develop-
     ment and instructional equipment; working to break down walls
     between departments; focusing faculty reward systems more on
     teaching and learning; holding whole units accountable for
     enhanced student learning); and

*    through links with other organizations (such as articulation
     agreements to facilitate student transfer and partnerships to
     enhance teacher preparation programs).

Funders and other external constituents must encourage and enable
these changes to occur throughout the array of institutions
providing undergraduate SME&T education, while holding those
institutions accountable for results.  Our recommendations are
designed to accomplish these changes.

Before detailing specific recommendations, it may be helpful to the
reader to describe our conclusions more generally and provide ref-
erences to the listing of recommendations in Chapter IV, where they
are grouped according to the constituency to which they are direc-
ted.  As indicated in the previous paragraph, our review leads us

TO ASK the SME&T undergraduate education community to:

*    seek to serve all students, focusing on student learning.
     (See recs. I.B; IV.A; V.B; VI.A, B, F-H; VII.A, B, E, F, I,
     J.)  Study in SME&T fields must no longer be seen solely as
     narrow preparation for particular, specialized careers, but
     must be accepted as important to every student, including
     those groups historically underrepresented in SME&T.  We
     recognize that there are vast differences in basic ability
     levels across humankind; not all students will be able to
     learn equal amounts with equal effectiveness.  But all
     students must have an opportunity to learn and decades of
     research and experience have demonstrated that if one expects
     a pupil to learn, learning likely will improve, often
     substantially [36].  In particular, the SME&T undergraduate
     education community will have to be concerned much more
     inclusively about:

     a)   Preparation of K-12 teachers in these fields.  (See recs.

          II.C; IV.D; VI.C; VII.H, I.) Programs to prepare teachers
          must include substantially more scientific and mathemati-
          cal content, with stress on agreed standards and on the
          methods and processes of science.  In particular, pro-
          spective teachers must understand that even "hands on"
          laboratory experiences may or may not be inquiry-based
          (i.e., involving the student in asking questions and
          finding answers).  Teacher preparation programs must also
          have strong components in areas such as the arts and
          humanities, recognizing the vital role these fields play
          in supporting teachers in their responsibility to foster
          creativity, curiosity, and inquiry.

          Prospective teachers must be expected not only to learn
          SME&T content but also to come to appreciate that all
          students can learn and to approach their tasks as
          teachers from that perspective.  They must also learn how
          to become effective facilitators of student learning in
          their teaching careers.  There is increasing evidence
          that prospective teachers can learn about teaching mathe-
          matics from studying the "practice" of mathematics
          teaching.  A recent letter report of the Mathematical
          Sciences Education Board cites a number of ways in which
          even substitutes for classroom expertise (e.g., videos or
          case studies) can assist in the preparation of teachers.
          Actual experience in  a classroom with a master teacher
          and involvement with prospective employers of high school
          graduates, however, are extremely important parts of an
          effective program to prepare teachers.

          Since an increasing number of people seek to enter K-12
          teaching some time after having completed basic courses
          in SME&T at the collegiate level, special upper division
          courses in SME&T that stress inquiry and reflect sound
          pedagogy are becoming essential, as the previous SME&T
          coursework taken by the student in many cases will not
          have met the expectations of these recommendations.

          A large percentage of prospective K-12 teachers begin
          their education in two- year colleges.  These institu-
          tions, with their clear commitment to teaching and with
          so many prospective teachers as students, must be more
          significant partners in the system of teacher
          preparation.

          Regardless of the specific structure and content of
          teacher preparation programs, improved undergraduate
          SME&T teaching generally is an essential precondition of
          more effective teacher preparation.  It seems likely that
          elementary and secondary teachers will tend to teach as
          they were taught as undergraduates.

          It should be kept in mind also that many prospective
          teachers prepared at the undergraduate level eventually
          will become principals and superintendents.  In such
          leadership positions, they will influence the learning
          throughout entire schools and school systems.  Their
          attitudes toward science, mathematics, and technology,
          and ultimately the extent to which they can improve
          education in those fields, will depend in part on the
          kind of experience they had in SME&T as undergraduates.

     b)   Needs of persons going into the technical work force.
          (See recs.  I.B; II.B; VI.E; VII.D, J.) We have discussed
          at length the changes occurring in America's work force
          and the perceptions of employers about our graduates.
          SME&T education has value in and of itself, but it surely
          is a function of higher education (not to mention an
          expectation of students and parents) that a college
          education will provide a basis for meaningful employment.

          SME&T programs must include appropriate provision for the
          short- term needs for many kinds of skilled positions
          requiring an associatelevel education; but such programs
          should incorporate basic principles of SME&T as well as
          particular vocational skills, so they do not become
          useless in a brief period.  Programs must have strong
          linkages with employers, with adequate opportunities for
          internships and practicum experiences (note, in this
          regard, the success of programs like School-to-Work and
          TECH-PREP).

          At the baccalaureate level, SME&T programs should analyze
          the needs of employers and work with them to ensure
          effectiveness of preparation.  At any level, programs
          must recognize that employers need graduates who can
          communicate and who can work in teams to solve problems;
          such skills, along with lifelong-learning skills, for
          example, do not simply appear mysteriously in students.

     c)   Preparation of majors in these areas.  (See recs. VI.B,
          J; VII.C, G, J.) SME&T does a generally good job of
          preparing majors, particularly those headed for graduate
          schools and eventual academic employment.  Even here,
          however, there is work to be done - as suggested by the
          following questions: What is really essential for majors
          to understand and be able to do? How do our programs
          prepare them to work at the boundaries between fields,
          where much cuttingedge work goes on?  Do our programs for
          majors really provide students with a basic understanding
          of SME&T generally, and acquaint them with the methods,
          processes, history, and societal context of SME&T? Do we
          adequately help our majors understand the ethical respon-
          sibilities of SME&T practitioners?  Should we do more to
          help those going to graduate school prepare for the
          different environment and culture of a doctoral program,
          for example?  Do we adequately provide our students
          information about career options for majors? And how can
          our programs better enable students to acquire the
          ability and motivation to continue learning and the
          skills to communicate and work effectively in teams?

     d)   Science literacy for all.  (See recs. VI.A, B; VII.A, C,
          E.) This is a difficult topic, as there is not substan-
          tial agreement about what is meant by "science literacy"
          or whether it is actually feasible for all students to
          acquire it.  We believe that what is necessary is that
          every student have an opportunity to learn what science
          (broadly defined) actually is; what SME&T professionals
          actually do; how to evaluate information presented as
          "scientific"; and how society should make informed
          judgments about science and engineering.  Not only is
          such knowledge important for the exercise of good
          citizenship in a technical world, but an educational
          system that provides this opportunity also gives
          individual students a basis for further work in SME&T
          fields at some later date - it expands options rather
          than closing them off.

*    develop more effective curricula and pedagogy.  In addition to
     the curricular and pedagogical suggestions contained in a),
     b), c), and d) above, there are some general principles that
     are clear from our review.  (See recs. IV.A; V.M; VI.B-E, G-
     I, K; VII.A-F, I.)

The variety of student preparation requires a variety of peda-
gogical methods.  The effective use of technology and the
modularization of courses can also assist faculty to deal with
individual differences.

It is certainly not the case that students enter higher education
knowing exactly what they plan to do and then sticking with that
plan.  There should, therefore, be in place a curriculum as
flexible as possible.  That curriculum should provide reasonable
options for students to move onto or off of different career-
preparation paths (e.g., a), b), and c) above) as well as the
useful understanding of SME&T fields needed by all students for the
effective exercise of citizenship.  Adequate advice should also be
available to students about the various career opportunities for
those prepared in SME&T fields.  Thought also should be given to
pathways through which students might gain access more easily to
science and mathematics; for instance, study in engineering,
technology, the earth or the social sciences may provide easier
entry for more students to science and mathematics than more
traditional pathways.

                               ***
"An appreciation of what is happening in science today, and of how
great a distance lies ahead for exploring, ought to be one of the
rewards of a liberal arts education.  It ought to be a good in
itself, not something to be acquired on the way to a professional
career but part of the cast of thought needed for getting into the
kind of century that is now just down the road.  .  .  It is worth
a try." Lewis Thomas [37].
                               ***

There must be high expectations of every student, but there must
also be a welcoming and encouraging climate for learning.  A
hostile atmosphere assuming that only a select few can learn at a
worthwhile level does not produce good results for the many - and
leads many students to leave SME&T entirely.  For faculty, their
disciplines are exciting and fun; SME&T education should convey
that same sense to students.  SME&T education must connect desired
learning with the student's previous experience and with other
fields in which the student is learning, incorporating inter-
disciplinary work that transcends even SME&T departments.  It must
include attention to skills and attitudes that students must learn
(e.g., the ability to work in teams to solve problems and the
ability to communicate with others).  SME&T education must put
greater emphasis on active, collaborative learning; focus on the
processes of inquiry and discovery; and rekindle the unique
curiosity, the sense of wonder, with which every child is born.
Consider the following passage from The Washington Post by
columnist Steve Twomey about his son Nick's first birthday (March
25, 1996):

     "My son tries to pick up holes.  .  .  He tries to pick
     up shadows, too.  But I'm being unfair.  There is nothing
     he won't try to pick up, because there is no such thing
     as an uninteresting object, and I'm really kind of
     jealous.  Nick has a full sense of wonder, and I don't
     anymore."

TO ASK institutions to support these changes systemically:

*    internally on the campus.  The evidence from this review is
     clear - the improvements achieved have not been widely
     implemented and are not sustainable without significant change
     in the culture, policies, and practices of higher education.
     It is not enough that individual faculty members in isolated
     ways advance student learning.  Many contributors to this
     report have suggested that what we need is not more innovation
     but more implementation, so that local improvements are both
     spread throughout the institution and made sustainable over
     time.  Otherwise, gains will be transitory and depend on the
     comings and goings of individual faculty and administrators.

     What is needed now is institutional action, not just
     commitment.  It does little good, for example, for
     administrators to speak eloquently about the importance of the
     undergraduate experience while setting budgets based on a
     department's ability to attract research dollars.  What is
     important is that every institution ensure that its mission;
     its personnel, planning, and budgeting decisions; student
     support mechanisms; and facility designs all support enhanced
     undergraduate learning in SME&T.  Especially noteworthy is the
     need to modify departmental and faculty reward structures and
     policies, as these will determine where faculty devote their
     energies.  For instance, promotion and tenure policies can
     discourage attention to undergraduate teaching and learning,
     and the definition of "research and scholarship" can leave out
     the kind of broad scholarship so powerfully urged by Ernest
     Boyer.  Faculty should be more engaged in the intellectually
     exciting questions about how students learn; institutions
     should foster that engagement and support research, both
     discipline specific and disciplineindependent, about human
     learning.  (See recs IV.B; V.A-J; VI.J.)

     Resource allocations are equally important - including funds
     for equipment, decent facilities, and classroom and laboratory
     assistance.  It is perhaps even more essential, however, that
     institutions provide for comprehensive faculty development and
     for faculty time to consider, plan, and implement desirable
     changes.  Institutions offering graduate programs should see
     that preparation for careers as effective undergraduate
     teachers is included in those graduate programs - to aid in
     increasing the number of faculty committed to undergraduate
     education and able  to help students learn more effectively.
     Similarly, institutions of higher education should make a
     commitment to more effective programs of preparing K-12
     teachers, not only as a contribution to education generally
     but, as an investment, to improve over the long term the
     preparation of future incoming first-year students and so
     diminish the need for remedial education.  (See recs. IV.B;
     V.E, I; VI.J.)

     Institutions should also act to reduce organizational
     rigidities by fostering cooperative efforts and reducing
     financial disincentives to interdepartmental work.  Walls
     between departments can be broken down.  (See recs. V.I, L, M;
     VII.G.)

*    through links with other organizations.  As has been
     repeatedly noted by participants in this review, no single
     part of the education continuum can, on its own, accomplish
     what needs to be done.  Institutions of higher education must
     work together with the schools and with employers to lift
     undergraduate SME&T education to the next level.  We do not
     suggest these linkages in order to create the appearance of
     cooperation; not only are meaningful partnerships necessary to
     make education easier for students, but numerous examples in
     the body of this report illustrate the ways in which different
     organizations have specialized knowledge and/or experience to
     offer, to the benefit of the whole.  (See recs. II.C; IV.C;
     V.I,K; VII.H.)

TO ASK funders  and other external constituents to enable and
encourage these changes while holding institutions accountable.

     The context in which SME&T exists must be supportive; namely,
     it is vital that the organizations and agencies that relate to
     higher education act thoughtfully to reinforce and accelerate
     the kinds of changes we recommend.  It may be time, for
     example, for a new definition of the relationship between
     higher education and the Federal government.  In the history
     of this nation, such Federal initiatives as the various
     Morrill Acts and the GI Bill have substantially changed the
     course of higher education.  Should not there now be estab-
     lished a new framework, through legislation, that would
     recognize the essential role that SME&T and technology
     transfer play in the national wellbeing; that would reconnect
     the research base of our institutions to both the learning of
     students and the wider society; and that would provide
     incentives for implementing systemic reform of SME&T under-
     graduate education in America's two- and four-year colleges
     and universities? (See recs. I.A-C; II.A-C; III.AC; IV.A-E;
     V.F.)

     It is essential that criteria for accreditation focus on
     teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes rather than on
     formulaic counting of courses; some old models reflect
     attitudes of "turf protection" that reinforce the kinds of
     interdepartmental and interinstitutional barriers that good
     practice seeks to lower.  An accrediting agency should pay
     attention to inter-institutional relationships and the
     movement of students between institutions (examining the
     facility of transitions from K-12 education to the collegiate,
     from two-year colleges to four-year, and from undergraduate to
     graduate or professional); it should look for evidence of
     active partnerships with K- 12 and with business and industry;
     examine programs to help both new and seasoned faculty be more
     effective teachers; and consider carefully the faculty reward
     system.  (See recs. VII.A-J; VIII.A, B.)

                               ***
Karl Pister, Chancellor of the University of California at Santa
Cruz, wrote in a recent article [38]:

"Through the structure provided by the federal landgrant college
legislation in the nineteenth century, the nation's public
universities were instrumental in the successful development of
natural, industrial, and agricultural resources.  By updating the
land grant model, we can put universities to work developing our
vastly underutilized human resources -- and, in the process,
tackling the immense challenges we face today.

"Three cultural shifts must occur if we are to succeed.  First, we
need to encourage innovative ways of looking at problems, moving
away from the increasing specialization of academia to develop new
interdisciplinary fields that can address complex real-world
problems from new perspectives.  Second, the orientation of faculty
effort and the faculty reward system in our universities must
support the full range of institutional missions in a more balanced
manner.  Third, our society must be willing to make  quality
education, especially in science and technology, accessible at all
levels for all students.  Education must be seen more as an
investment in society's well- being and less as a cost."
                               ***

     Professional societies, publishers, and testing agencies all
     must support institutions working to implement more effective
     SME&T education.  Flexible teaching materials must help
     students learn attitudes and processes as well as facts.  Good
     curricular resources must be available to teacher educators in
     science and mathematics.  Assessment tools must reinforce
     departmental and faculty goals for student learning.
     Professional societies must provide forums for research
     results in learning and for dissemination and adoption of
     sound educational practice.  (See recs. IX.AD; X.A-B; XI.AB.)

     The NSF itself must reflect through its organization, its
     rhetoric, and its leadership activities, a holistic approach
     to undergraduate SME&T education.  Its research directorates
     must continue their good work to integrate research and
     education, while the Directorate for Education and Human
     Resources continues to provide overall leadership through a
     cadre of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers whose first
     priority is education and who provide a multidisciplinary view
     not available elsewhere.  Both  the disciplinary perspectives
     of the research directorates, focused primarily on research,
     and the student-centered perspective of EHR, focused primarily
     on education, are necessary - since research and education are
     neither divorced nor identical.  (See recs. XIII.A.3, A.4,
     A.6, A.9, C.2, C.4.)

     Programs of the National Science Foundation and other funders
     intended to improve under graduate SME&T education must be
     designed to provide explicit incentives to make the kinds of
     educational changes we are urging on institutions, depart-
     ments, and faculty.  There must be a variety of such programs,
     since it is not the case that "one size fits all"; but these
     programs must have attributes in common of consistency with
     our recommendations to the SME&T community, of sustainability,
     of validation and dissemination, and of propagation to other
     settings.

     There must be continued and expanded close collaboration among
     Federal agencies, industry groups, and foundations so that
     their programs complement each other and do not send mixed
     messages to the SME&T community.  Programs must be sustained
     over a period of years, since educational improvement is a
     long-term process; and the NSF should do all it can to
     encourage creation of other funding sources to sustain
     educational enhancement, e.g., endowments at the statewide or
     institutional level.  Evaluation of programs and assessment of
     results must also be long-term; for instance, the NSF should
     return to a campus long after expiration of a grant to
     determine the permanence of desired changes, and it should
     fund longitudinal studies of performance of graduates over
     many years.  All NSF educational programs must stress
     activities that have considerable direct impact on student
     learning rather than those that focus on creation of
     administrative structures.  (See recs. XII.A-B; XIII.A.1, A.5,
     A.7, A.8.)

     Finally, there must be expanded funding of NSF undergraduate
     programs to provide leverage to accomplish all these changes.
     The Neal Report focused on SME&T majors only, but even its
     recommendations have not been fully funded.  In fact, as
     pointed out earlier (see Funding History of the Neal Report
     Recommendations, in Chapter II), there is a gap of more than
     $73-million between present funding of three key instruction
     related programs (Laboratory Development and Instructional
     Instrumentation; instruction-oriented Faculty Professional
     Enhancement; and Comprehensive Improvement Projects) recom-
     mended by the Neal Report and the level of support which it
     urged.  To overcome just that gap would require a 41% increase
     in present funding of NSF undergraduate programs.  That
     present funding, however, reaches only some of the students in
     institutions enrolling fewer than half of America's under-
     graduates (see Undergraduate Education Today, in Chapter III),
     and its good results have not been deeply and widely implemen-
     ted across those institutions.  We are convinced, therefore,
     that the NSF's funding for undergraduate education - and hence
     its ability to leverage much greater sums - must be at least
     doubled in real dollars in the next decade if this nation is
     to have any hope of accomplishing what is described above.
     This increased level of support for undergraduate education is
     necessary, in part, to sustain the reform of K-12 education,
     which has been a high priority for the nation and to which
     substantial resources have been allocated.  Such an increase
     for undergraduate education programs at the NSF would amount
     to approximately $178-million, an amount representing only
     about 0.8% of the total estimated expenditures by higher
     education institutions on undergraduate SME&T education.  We
     believe we cannot afford to do less.  (See recs. XIII.A.2, B,
     C.1, C.3.)

Our recommendations, therefore, are comprehensive, designed to make
possible continuous improvements in undergraduate SME&T education
so as to maintain, in an everchanging environment, a level of
quality that will ensure economic security and cultural richness of
life for each of America's citizens, for

we can no longer be satisfied with incremental improvement in a
world of exponential change.

                                                [End Chapter III]
          ********************************************
[Begin Chapter IV]

                      IV.  Recommendations

To accomplish the ambitious goals we have set forth will require
actions of various kinds by many different individuals and agencies
working in concert.  Our recommendations to these several audiences
are listed below.  We hope that no  one will read these recommenda-
tions and assume that someone else will carry them out everyone has
an important part.

Our recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather
a framework for improved undergraduate SME&T education within which
we hope individuals will act and institutions and organizations
will make decisions and allocate resources in ways specific to
them.  While all of the recommendations are important, the National
Science Foundation  bears  special responsibility in this area: its
leadership and funding of programs to improve under graduate SME&T
education have been the drivers of the significant progress made in
the last ten years, and will be central to the even greater
progress we must make in the next ten.

The interrelatedness of our recommendations should be noted
carefully.  It is crucial to successful implementation  of these
recommendations that everyone concerned with undergraduate SME&T
education, from policy makers to administrators and teachers, work
in concert - to the benefit of student learning and ultimately,
therefore, to the benefit of this society.

We recommend that:

I.  The President and the Congress

A.   Establish, in consultation with the higher education
     community, a new social contract for higher education in
     America.  What is needed may be a new act to reconnect the
     research base of these institutions to the learning of
     students and to service to the wider community.

B.   Develop a national human resources policy that focuses on
     using the talents of all of America's people to improve the
     nation's productivity and quality of life.

C.   Support a level of federal funding for undergraduate SME&T
     education sufficient to accomplish the recommendations of this
     report, recognizing that the undergraduate level plays a
     critical role in the continuum of educational programs and
     that SME&T fields constitute a cornerstone of America's future
     economic and political security.

II.  Business, industry and other employers
                                 of SME&T undergraduate students

A.   Participate in national and state public policy decisions,
     helping those making such decisions (as well as their own
     colleagues) understand the critical importance of quality
     SME&T education to the national well-being.

B.   Communicate clearly to colleges and universities their expec-
     tations about the desired characteristics of potential
     employees and, hence, of the kind of educational preparation
     needed at the undergraduate level.

C.   Expand both partnerships with - and funding of - colleges and
     universities to advance institution-wide reform initiatives,
     expand student internships and faculty exchanges, develop more
     practicum experiences for students, make more effective use of
     existing resources, and provide for the retraining and
     continuing education of the work force (including K12
     teachers).

III.   National and regional media

A.   Become better informed about the broad range of issues in
     collegiate-level science, mathematics, engineering, and
     technology education.

B.   Inform the public more fully about the issues and successes in
     undergraduate SME&T education and its critical significance to
     the future well- being of this nation.

C.   Continue and expand engaging ways to bring SME&T content to
     the general public, to increase awareness that will foster a
     context of concern for education in these fields.

IV.  State governments and statewide higher education boards

A.   Raise expectations about the kind and quality of undergraduate
     SME&T learning in the state.

B.   Ensure that funding formulas and state policies are modified,
     as necessary, to provide incentives and rewards for increased
     undergraduate student learning in SME&T at institutions in the
     state.

C.   Encourage formal and informal collaborations between institu-
     tions, especially between two-year and fouryear colleges,
     including development of firm articulation agreements to make
     student transitions efficient and effective.

D.   Collaborate with external accrediting agencies to make
     strengthened science, mathematics, and technology standards
     for K12 the norm in accrediting teacher education programs and
     in licensing K-12 teachers.

E.   Raise, over time, expectations for achievement of students
     graduating from high schools so as to reduce demand for
     remediation at the postsecondary level.

V.  College and university governing boards and administrators

A.   Reexamine institutional missions in light of needs in
     undergraduate SME&T education.

B.   Accept responsibility for the learning of all students and
     make that clear not only by what the institution says but also
     by putting in place mechanisms to discharge that responsibili-
     ty at the institutional and departmental levels.

C.   Hold accountable and develop reward systems for departments
     and programs, not just individuals, so that the entire group
     feels responsible for effective SME&T learning for all
     students.

D.   Ensure that in hiring faculty careful attention is paid to
     interest in teaching, ability to help students learn, and
     concern for students.

E.   Provide resources to ensure that faculty, particularly new
     faculty, have the opportunity to both learn how to and have
     the time to design effective instruction, use technology
     appropriately, foster inquiry-based and collaborative
     learning, and assess learning achieved.

F.   Inform the public and the media about what SME&T professionals
     do and be advocates for the importance of SME&T to society.

G.   Make sure that the faculty reward system, in practice as well
     as in theory, supports faculty who effectively help students
     learn in hospitable environments that recognize individual
     student differences and that provide reasonable opportunities
     to address those differences.

H.   Ensure that there is a supportive climate across the campus
     for student learning, including sound academic advising and
     effective career development services (so that the varied
     opportunities available to persons having backgrounds in SME&T
     are known to students).

I.   Create or strengthen an institution- wide commitment to the
     preparation of K-12 teachers and principals, bringing together
     departments of education, SME&T and other departments, K-12
     staff, and employers of teachers to design and implement
     improved teacher preparation programs having substantial SME&T
     content and stressing rigorous standards, along with emphasis
     on engaging students in learning.

J.   Support broad-based, sound, peer- reviewed research on human
     learning (both discipline-specific and more general), so more
     will become known about how undergraduates learn most effec-
     tively, and encourage cross-campus conversation about this
     topic.

K.   Reach out in partnerships with other institutions of higher
     education, the schools, informal science education organiza-
     tions, and employers to improve SME&T education collabora-
     tively.

L.   Ensure that responsibility for lower level SME&T courses
     resides in the full-time permanent faculty.

M.   Encourage and support development of interdisciplinary SME&T
     curricula.

VI.  SME&T departments

A.   In collaboration with other departments and with prospective
     employers, set departmental goals for undergraduate learning.
     These goals must include clear expectations, the attainment of
     which is measurable, about what all students in the
     institution should learn.

B.   Provide a curriculum that engages and motivates the broadest
     spectrum of students, enabling every student to learn and
     providing reasonable flexibility for students to move onto or
     off of various career-preparation paths without undue penalty.


C.   Develop upper division SME&T courses and other educational
     opportunities appropriate for prospective and current K-12 and
     two-year college faculty.

D.   Foster interdisciplinary education.

E.   Develop meaningful connections with employers to provide
     appropriately responsive educational experiences for
     prospective and current members of the work force.

F.   Encourage faculty to work toward the understanding of and
     resolution of serious educational issues, and reward those who
     most effectively help all students learn.

G.   Create and support learning communities for students and
     faculty, including clubs, social events, and peer learning and
     group study opportunities.

H.   Use instructional technology effectively.

I.   Make use of resources available in colleges and departments of
     education to strengthen the pedagogical foundations of SME&T
     undergraduate education.

J.   Provide opportunities for graduate students to learn about
     effective teaching strategies as part of their graduate
     programs.

K.   Encourage and participate in research on learning.

VII.  SME&T faculty

A.   Believe and affirm that every student can learn; recognize
     that different students may learn in different ways and with
     differing levels of ability; and create an environment in each
     class that both challenges and supports.

B.   Be familiar with and use the results of professional
     scholarship on learning and teaching.

C.   Build into every course inquiry, the processes of science (or
     mathematics or engineering), a knowledge of what SME&T
     practitioners do, and the excitement of cuttingedge research.

D.   Devise and use pedagogy that develops skills for
     communication, teamwork, critical thinking, and lifelong
     learning in each student.

E.   Make methods of assessing student performance consistent with
     the goals and content of the course.

F.   Start with the student's experience; understand that the
     student may come with significantly incorrect notions; and
     relate the subject matter to things the student already knows.

G.   Build bridges to other departments, seeking ways to reinforce
     and integrate learning, rather than maintaining artificial
     barriers.

H.   Develop partnerships and collaborations with colleagues in
     education, in the K-12 sector, and in the business world, to
     improve the preparation of teachers and principals.

I.   Model good practices that increase student learning.

J.   Take seriously academic advising that helps students have as
     much flexibility as possible and is linked to career
     development services of the institution.

VIII.  Accrediting agencies

A.   Incorporate the principles of effective SME&T education for
     all students (as identified in V, VI, and VII above) into
     criteria for institutional accreditation.

B.   Look for evidence in student learning outcomes of genuine
     commitment to and effective practice of undergraduate
     education that reaches all students, including groups
     historically underrepresented in SME&T.

IX.  SME&T professional societies

A.   Work together to promote education as well as research, focus
     on student learning as well as teaching, and help departments
     in their disciplines find realistic ways to implement these
     recommendations.

B.   Ensure that their activities, especially their journals and
     meeting programs, reflect concern for SME&T education for all
     students.

C.   Assist members to obtain working knowledge of research results
     in undergraduate education.

D.   Encourage and support participation of undergraduates in their
     regional and national meetings by providing opportunities for
     undergraduate research symposia as well as including on
     programs some topics of interest to undergraduates.

X.  Producers of educational materials

A.   Work closely with creative faculty to develop and refine the
     high-quality, flexible instructional materials required to
     support the educational environment described in previous
     sections.

B.   Disseminate these materials, assist faculty in their effective
     use, and provide feedback to authors.

XI.  State and national testing agencies

A.   Develop, in collaboration with the higher education community,
     assessment tools that better measure achievement of the kinds
     of SME&T learning recommended herein.

B.   Support research that will aid in the validation of the extent
     to which these tools actually measure what is intended.

XII. Private foundations and Federal funding agencies

A.   Recognize the interrelatedness of reform efforts; support a
     common agenda for improving undergraduate education through
     programs that provide long-term, consistent attention to
     undergraduate education; and focus resources on strategic
     investments that will compliment the support of others and
     lead to wide- spread reforms.

B.   Participate, in particular, in the promotion and support of
     institution-wide reform at institutions making a commitment to
     systemic change.

XIII.  The National Science Foundation

As an essential part of its dual mission of education and research,
the NSF must make clear the high priority of undergraduate educa-
tion.  To do so, it is crucial to have within NSF a unit (the
Division of Undergraduate Education, within EHR), staffed by
practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists
from many disciplines, that has undergraduate education as its
first priority and that relates to all institutions providing
undergraduate SME&T education.  Such a unit is critical to maintain
strong linkages with NSF's discipline-oriented research director-
ates, which must continue to support undergraduate education within
their specific fields.  This framework, consistent with the view
that education and research cannot be divorced, will enable NSF to
act effectively in three arenas (A, B, C below) to lead and support
the improvements in undergraduate SME&T education reflected in the
preceding sections of these recommendations.

A.   Take actions internally to NSF that will advance undergraduate
     education:

     1.   Lead the development of a common national agenda for
          improving undergraduate SME&T education, in a collabora-
          tive way with other Federal agencies and foundations (see
          XII.A. above).

     2.   Strengthen its efforts to engage all two-year colleges,
          four- year colleges, and universities (and their facul-
          ties and, as appropriate, their students), as well as
          informal science organizations, in all of its education
          programs.

     3.   Make clear to all colleges, universities, and other
          educational institutions receiving grants and contracts,
          that the NSF expects its awards to contribute positively
          to the quality of undergraduate SME&T education.

     4.   Establish an intra-Foundation mechanism to provide a
          forum for discussion of undergraduate SME&T education
          issues and to establish a common agenda and an NSF- wide
          set of strategies for improving undergraduate education.

     5.   Lead the development of a rigorous research agenda about
          human learning at the undergraduate level to answer
          questions not yet fully answered about SME&T education,
          ensuring that results flow back into funding priorities,
          program decisions, and educational practice.

     6.   Ensure that good principles of SME&T education are
          incorporated into the design and construction of physical
          facilities that NSF supports.

     7.   Intensify the evaluation of current program results and
          invest in long-term evaluation of program effectiveness
          in increasing student learning; and, codify and publish
          what is known about effective practices - to aid in
          future improvement of student learning, to inform insti-
          tutional reform efforts, and to provide a validated base
          for wider and more effective dissemination as well as for
          future research in learning.

     8.   In all it does to enhance undergraduate education, NSF
          must undertake educational improvement as a long-term and
          continuous process requiring consistent attention and
          investment.  NSF should avoid a "strike force" approach,
          rushing in to do something and then quickly leaving a
          program area.

     9.   Indicate consistently the significance of undergraduate
          education in presenting the NSF's priorities; use the
          language of learning as contrasted with teaching; and
          lift up discovery as a concept uniting education and
          research.

B.   Aggressively improve undergraduate SME&T education through a
     variety of funding programs, beyond the base recommended in
     the Neal Report.  Virtually a doubling of resources will be
     needed to erase the gap between present funding of those
     programs recommended as compared with the totals that report
     urged, and to extend the benefits of those programs to all
     SME&T students.

     1.   First priority must be given to allocation of enhanced
          resources to the activities of the Division of Under-
          graduate Education (DUE) and to the undergraduate part of
          the Alliances for Minority Participation program in the
          Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR).

     2.   The Foundation should encourage the research directorates
          to expand the allocation of their resources to
          discipline-oriented and interdisciplinary research-
          related educational activities that integrate education
          and research and that promote sharing the excitement of,
          and engagement in, research with undergraduates - with
          additional emphasis on primarily undergraduate
          institutions.

In all of its undergraduate programs, NSF should put emphasis on
implementation of what is known to work, on genuine institutional
change, on propagation of validated good practices, and on
sustainability of hard-won improvements.  Priorities should be
revisited over time and modified as necessary on the basis of
continuing assessment and evaluation of program results.

For EHR programs, we recommend expanded support through:

*    Implementation of both current and new strategies within the
     Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement program to promote
     excellence in faculty educational activities and related
     scholarship; to expand projects to educate graduate students
     in effective ways to help students learn; and to provide
     workshops for new faculty at all kinds of institutions, to
     help them facilitate effective student learning.

*    The Institution-wide Reform initiative, which can engage every
     directorate in the Foundation in support of disciplinary and
     departmental changes that will improve student learning.

*    The reach of the Advanced Technological Education program into
     the broad and diverse domain of technology education through
     its fostering and support of collaborations, alliances, and
     centers in which twoyear colleges, four-year colleges,
     universities, and industry develop and sustain strong
     educational synergy that builds on basic educational prin-
     ciples to engender problem-solving and lifelong learning
     skills, as well as provide quick response to industry's
     educational needs.

*    Programs stimulating and focusing on the scholarship of
     individual faculty members, like DUE's Course and Curriculum
     Development and Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement
     programs - whose projects can build a base for improvement of
     undergraduate SME&T education, generate wider enthusiasm for
     change, and thus lay the necessary foundation for future
     institution-wide reform.

*    K-12 teacher preparation projects - especially through the NSF
     Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation program,
     where we would recommend funding only projects that clearly
     incorporate the principles of effective SME&T education (in V,
     VI, and VII above) and show promise of reaching a larger
     fraction of those entering the profession.  And, through

*    Expansion of the undergraduate part of the Alliances for
     Minority Participation program.

For the research directorates of the NSF we recommend:

*    Expanded support of the Research in Undergraduate Institutions
     and Collaborative Research at Undergraduate Institutions
     programs, which strengthen faculty research capability and the
     involvement of undergraduate students in predominantly under-
     graduate institutions.  The Research Opportunity Awards
     component of the former is an example of effective address of
     the needs of faculty in undergraduate institutions by its
     support of their work in research-rich environments.

*    Development of tracks within the Research Experiences for
     Undergraduates program that carry funding not only to where
     the research traditionally is done (i.e., to research-rich
     institutions, as the program does now) but to where the
     majority of the students are (i.e., to two-year and four-year
     institutions).

*    Adaptation of the Career Advancement Awards programs
     (presently limited to women and underrepresented minorities)
     to the needs of all faculty members, by supporting a wider
     variety of shifts in career emphasis (e.g., from disciplinary
     research to educational research; from instructional research
     to disciplinary research) than at present.

*    Expansion of the Faculty Early Career Development program (the
     "Career" program) from concentration on junior faculty to
     include support of faculty in mid-career who have strong
     records of research and teaching - to further strengthen the
     ties between their research efforts and instructional activi-
     ties, and to illuminate their service as role models for
     junior faculty and graduate students.

*    Modification of the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison
     with Industry (GOALI) program, and its well-conceived
     industryuniversity partnerships, to include wider faculty
     participation in programs that will enhance their familiarity
     with industry's expectations of the background and
     qualifications of potential SME&T employees.

And, for the whole set of NSF's directorates, we have four cross-
cutting recommendations.  All of the Foundation's grant-making
units should:

*    Continue their support of strong activities to correct
     underrepresentation of women, minorities, and persons with
     disabilities among students and faculty at the undergraduate
     level.

*    Expand support of the research agenda in human learning at the
     undergraduate level (see A.5 above).

*    Support outreach activities that bring SME&T to the general
     public through science museums, television, demonstrations in
     shopping malls, as SME&T education is dependent ultimately on
     the general public's support for science and technology.

*    Consider funding mechanisms that both assign responsibility
     and provide incentives and rewards for achieving educational
     excellence for undergraduates not just to individuals, but to
     whole departments and entire institutions.

C.  Provide additional leadership for change in undergraduate SME&T
education, beyond program funding, specifically:

     1.   Together with other major players (such as the NRC, AAAS,
          ERIC, and the National Library of Medicine), explore the
          establishment of a national electronic system for
          validating and disseminating successful educational
          practices.

     2.   Support those changes occurring in the faculty reward
          system that will enhance the quality of undergraduate
          education, e.g., by convening groups of administrators
          and faculty to deal with issues such as evaluation of
          instruction and student learning in SME&T.

     3.   Provide specific problem-solving training sessions for
          faculty across institutions, in topics such as how to do
          inquiry and collaborative learning in large "lecture"
          classes, how to assess learning outcomes, and how to
          document learning gains at the departmental and
          institutional levels.

     4.   Implement activities that will further engage private
          industry, business, and foundations in supporting
          improvement of undergraduate SME&T education.

Our final recommendation is that the National Science Foundation
accept leadership of the efforts necessary to implement the
thirteen sets of recommendations above.

                               ***
      "And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." [39]
                               ***

                                                 [End Chapter IV]
        ************************************************
[Begin References and Notes]

                      References and Notes

1.   National Science Board, Task Committee on Undergraduate
     Science and Engineering Education, Homer A. Neal (Chairman),
     Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education;
     Role for the National Science Foundation and Recommendations
     for Action by Other Sectors to Strengthen Collegiate Education
     and Pursue Excellence in the Next Generation of U.S.
     Leadership in Science and Technology, (Washington DC: National
     Science Foundation, 1986, NSB 86100).

2.   National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics,
     and Engineering Education, From Analysis to Action: Under-
     graduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
     Technology, Report of a Convocation (Washington, DC: National
     Academy Press, 1996), paraphrased from page 4.

3.   National Research Council, From Analysis to Action: Under-
     graduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
     Technology, a National Science Foundation/ National Research
     Council Convocation, April 9-11, 1995.  See also the Challenge
     Paper for this NRC/NSF Convocation (Washington, DC: National
     Academy of Sciences, 1995).

4.   National Science Foundation, Contributions of the Social
     Sciences to the National Science Foundation Review of
     Undergraduate Education, A Workshop, February 22, 1996.  See
     Draft Report (March 6, 1996).

5.   Wingspread Group on Higher Education, William E. Brock
     (Chair), An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for
     Higher Education, (Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, 1993).

6.   National Science Board, Toward the Next Century: The State of
     U.S. Science and Engineering (NSB 94-24) February 1994.

7.   Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
     Technology Policy, Science in the National Interest (August
     1994).

8.   Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt, Talking About Leaving:
     Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science,
     Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors (Boulder,
     CO: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado,
     1994).

9.   David Goodstein, "Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiter-
     ates," Sigma Xi, Proceedings of a Forum on Ethics, Values, and
     the Promise of Science (New Haven, CT: Sigma XI, February
     2526, 1993).

10.  Three public hearings were convened at the National Science
     Foundation to invite previously prepared public comment on the
     issues.  The first hearing focused on "disciplinary perspec-
     tives" on undergraduate education, and featured testimony from
     faculty and officers in scientific societies (October 21,
     1995).  The second hearing provided a forum for "institutional
     perspectives," and gave us a broad perspective on major
     changes, actual and needed, from primarily college and univer-
     sity presidents (October 23, 1995).  The third hearing was for
     employers of new graduates, and provided testimony from
     leaders in business, industry, and a public school superinten-
     dent employing new teachers.

11.  Luther S.  Williams, Charge to the Subcommittee for Review of
     Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
     and Technology, Advisory Committee to the Directorate for
     Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
     (June 1995).  [Copies available on request; See also Volume
     II.]

12.  The National Research Council announced a "Year of National
     Dialogue" following the conclusion of the April 1995 Convo-
     cation jointly sponsored by NRC and NSF (see reference 3).  In
     order to facilitate this dialogue, the NRC and NSF sponsored
     four regional symposia underwritten by the Exxon Education
     Foundation.  The first was hosted by the University of
     Michigan (October), the second by GTE Corporation in Boston
     (November), the third by the Johnson Space Center in Houston
     (January), and the fourth by Pomona College in California
     (February).

13.  The NSF sponsored focus groups in support of this review.
     They were conducted by SRI International under contract with
     the National Science Foundation.  They were held in four
     locations - Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Boston during
     the period October 1995 to April 1996.  Nine distinct focus
     groups were conducted in each region, split between two nearby
     institutions of higher education.  Each focus group was drawn
     from one of: current students (SME&T majors or non-majors),
     recent graduates (in SME&T or non-SME&T), students' parents,
     employers of recent graduates, teacher graduates, and
     employers of new teachers.

14.  Alexander W.  Astin, Undergraduate Science Education: The
     impact of different college environments on the educational
     pipeline in the sciences: Final Report (Los Angeles, CA:
     Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of
     Education, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992).

15.  John I. Goodlad, Teachers for Our Nation's Schools (San
     Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1990).

16.  Tora K. Bikson and S.A. Law, Global Preparedness and Human
     Resources, College and Corporate Perspectives, RAND (Santa
     Monica, CA: RAND, 1994).

17.  Barry Cipra, "Calculus Reform Sparks a Backlash," Science
     (February 16, 1996), page 901.

18.  National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate
     Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
     Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science,
     Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: Program Announcement
     and Guidelines (NSF 95-127).

19.  Gene Wright, Andersen Consulting, in "Consulting Giant's Hot
     Offer: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," The Wall Street Journal (March 16,
     1996), page B6.

20.  Malcolm Getz and John Siegfried, Costs and Productivity in
     American Colleges and Universities, Part III in Economic
     Challenges in Higher Education, A National Bureau of Economic
     Research Monograph (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
     Press, 1991) pp.  261-392.

21.  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
     Statistics, The Condition of Education: A Statistical Report
     (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES 94-149 and NCES
     95 273: 1994 and 1995 editions).

22.  Clifford Adelman, The New College Course Map and Transcript
     Files: Changes in Course-Taking and Achievement, 1972- 1993
     (Draft Manuscript, Fall 1995).

23.  The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A
     Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: A
     Technical Report, 1994 Edition (Ewing, New Jersey: California
     / Princeton Fulfillment Services, 1445 Lower Ferry Road).

24.  American Association for Higher Education, Forum on Faculty
     Roles and Rewards, and Teaching Effectiveness.  AAHE
     publications addressing the Forum's concerns include: Jon
     Wergin, The Collaborative Department: How Five Campuses Are
     Inching Toward Cultures of Collective Responsibility (1994);
     Ernest Lynton, Making the Case for Professional Service
     (1995); and Robert Diamond and Bronwyn Adam (editors), The
     Disciplines Speak: Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, and
     Creative Work of Faculty (1995).  (Washington, DC: One Dupont
     Circle).  Further information is currently available at the
     URL: http://www.ido.gmu.edu/AAHE/welcome.html.

25.  William A. Wulf, "Warning: Information Technology Will
     Transform the University," Issues in Science and Technology,
     (Summer 1995), pages 46-52.

26.  Eli M. Noam, "Electronics and the Dim Future of the
     University," Science, (October 13, 1995), pages 247-249.

27.  The enrollment data were obtained from data tapes prepared by
     the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Dept. of
     Education), available through the NSF CASPAR data system,
     using the 1994 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of
     Higher Education (ref 23).

28.  The data on the number of students enrolled in undergraduate
     SME&T courses, and the number of these courses offered, come
     from special tabulations of data collected in the 1993
     National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, by the National
     Center for Education Statistics.  The tabulations were done by
     Pelavin Associates of Washington DC.

29.  These data are collected by NSF (Division of Science Resources
     Studies).  They were tabulated from raw data for this review.
     See Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit
     Institutions: Fiscal Year 1992 (Surveys of Science Resources
     Studies, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF 94-324).  These data
     are the funds obligated during FY 1992, as reported by 15
     federal agencies to the NSF.  The totals are for all fields of
     science and engineering.

30.  The data on post high school graduation college activity are
     drawn from the National Center for Education Statistics Panel
     Surveys of the high school classes of 1980 and 1982, called
     High School and Beyond.

31.  The National Association of Scholars, The Dissolution of
     General Education: 1914-1993 (Princeton, NJ: March 1996).  An
     executive summary is available on the Internet at the NAS home
     page.

32.  Letter dated June 14, 1995 from Dr. Luther Williams to a
     widespread mix of educators, administrators, and employers in
     the science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and higher
     education communities.  See Volume II for the full text of
     this letter.

33.  National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate
     Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
     Project Impact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate
     Education, Conference Proceedings (May 1994, NSF 95-69).

34.  Recommended Standards for high school graduates are found in
     the following carefully crafted reports: (1) National Research
     Council, National Committee on Science Education Standards and
     Assessments, National Science Education Standards (Washington,
     DC: National Academy Press, 1995); (2) American Association
     for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Benchmarks for
     Science Literacy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
     1993); (3) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
     Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
     (Reston, VA; 1989).

35.  Sheila Tobias, Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some
     Things Work and Most Don't (Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation,
     1992).

36.  Robert Rosenthal, "Teacher Expectancy Effects: A Brief Update
     25 Years after the Pygmalion Experiment, Journal of Research
     in Education (Spring 1991), pp. 3-12; results of a meta
     analysis of 448 studies.  See also, Robert Rosenthal,
     "Pygmalion in the Classroom; Teacher Expectation and Pupils'
     Intellectual Development )New York NY: Holt Rinehart &
     Winston, 1968).

37.  Lewis Thomas, Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's
     Ninth Symphony, (New York, NY: Viking Press; 1993), page 155.

38.  Chancellor Karl Pister, "Renewing the Research University,"
     University of California at Santa Cruz Review (Winter 1996).

39.  Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales; Prologue.  Line 308.

                                       [End References and Notes]
                                                     [End Report]
           *******************************************
------ end of nsf96139.txt -- ascii -- complete ------