Shaping the Future                                            NSF 98-128
_____________________________________________________________________________
Volume II: Perspectives on Undergraduate Education
in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology





                             Contributions to the

                       Review of Undergraduate Education


                                    by the

                              Advisory Committee

                                    to the

                          National Science Foundation
                 Directorate for Education and Human Resources
________________________________________________________________________________

                 Notices from the National Science Foundation


The Foundation provides awards for research and education in the sciences and
engineering.  The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research
and preparation of the results for publication.  The Foundation, therefore, does
not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation.

The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers
and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to
compete fully in any of the research and education related programs described
here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no
person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from
the National Science Foundation.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with
disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research
assistants) to work on NSF projects.  See the program announcement or contact
the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636.

The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf)
capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate
with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To
access NSF TDD dial  (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:  CFDA 47.076


                             NOTICES OF DISCLAIMER


1. This publication is a companion volume to the report Shaping the Future: New
   Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
   Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139) and its stand-alone Executive
   Summary (NSF 96-141), published by the National Science Foundation in 1996.
   The views, opinions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those
   of participants in the Review of Undergraduate Education, the "National Year
   of Dialogue" and the Advisory Committee to NSF's Directorate for Education
   and Human Resources; they do not necessarily represent the official views,
   opinions, or policy of the Foundation.


2. As employed in the text of the report, the pronouns we, our, and us refer
   alternatively to the general population, the academic community at large, or
   those segments of either with special interest in undergraduate education in
   science, mathematics, engineering, and  technology, not to the National
   Science Foundation or to its representatives.
________________________________________________________________________________

                              SHAPING THE FUTURE
              Volume II: Perspectives on Undergraduate Education
             in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology



                             Contributions to the

                       Review of Undergraduate Education


                                     by the


                              Advisory Committee

                                    to the

                          National Science Foundation
                 Directorate for Education and Human Resources
________________________________________________________________________________

                           The EHR Advisory Committee

                             CHAIR: James M. Rosser

                           VICE-CHAIR: Kerry Davidson


Susan Agruso                            Edward W. Bales
Director, Authentic Assessment          Director of Education, External Systems
State Department of Education           Motorola Corporate Offices
Columbia, SC                            Schaumberg, IL

Joan Barber                             George Boggs
Director for Student Life               President
North Carolina School                   Palomar College
of Science and Mathematics              San Marcos, CA
Durham, NC

Sadie Bragg                             Diane J. Briars
Acting Dean of Academic Affairs         Mathematics Specialist
City University of New York             Office of Educational Design
Borough of Manhattan                    and Assessment
Community College                       Pittsburgh Public Schools
New York, NY                            Pittsburgh, PA

Kerry Davidson                          Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.
Deputy Commissioner                     Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs and Research       for Educational Development
Louisiana Board of Regents              Maricopa Community Colleges
Baton Rouge, LA                         Tempe, AZ

Denice D. Denton                        Charlotte K. Frank
Electrical and Computer Engineering     Vice President
University of Wisconsin, Madison        Research and Development
Madison, WI                             The McGraw-Hill Companies
                                        New York, NY

Alan J. Friedman                        Melvin D. George
Director                                President Emeritus
New York Hall of Science                St. Olaf College
Flushing Meadows Corona Park, NY        Northfield, MN

Peter Gerber                            N. Gerry House
MacArthur Foundation                    Superintendent
Chicago, IL                             Memphis Public Schools
                                        Memphis, TN

Jane Butler Kahle                       Charlotte Keith
Condit Professor                        Indian Trail High School
of Science Education                    Olathe, KS
Miami University
Oxford, OH

Mary M. Lindquist                       Stanley S. Litow
School of Education                     Director, Corporate Support Programs
Columbus College                        IBM
Columbus, GA                            Armonk, NY

Jack R. Lohmann                         Charles Merideth
Associate Dean                          President
College of Engineering                  New York City Technical College
Georgia Institute of Technology         Brooklyn, NY
Atlanta, GA

Robert E. Parilla                       Diana Garcia Prichard
President                               Photoscience Research Division
Montgomery College                      Eastman Kodak Company
Rockville, MD                           Rochester, NY

James M. Rosser                         David A. Sanchez
President                               Department of Mathematics
California State University             Texas A&M University
Los Angeles, CA                         College Station, TX

Maria Santos                            Robert Schwartz
Supervisor                              The Pew Charitable Trusts
Math and Science Department             Philadelphia, PA
San Francisco Unified School District
San Francisco, CA

Calvert H. Smith                        Gwendolyn W. Stephenson
Office of Systemic Reform               Chancellor
State of Ohio                           St. Louis Community College System
Cincinnati, OH                          St. Louis, MO

Uri Treisman                            Leon Ukens
Department of Mathematics               Department of Physics
University of Texas at Austin           Towson State University
Austin, TX                              Towson, MD

Donna L. York
Science Curriculum Coordinator
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, AK


Table of Contents
________________________________________________________________________________


The Charge to Revitalize Undergraduate Education in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology


Introduction to the Second Volume


I.   Activities in the Reform of Undergraduate Education Since Volume I
     of Shaping the Future

        Introduction

        Shaping the Future NextSteps

        External Assignment of Dr. Robert Watson

        Regional Workshops for  "Shaping the Future"

        Strengthening Participation by Corporations and Foundations

        Working Through Scientific Societies and Professional Associations

        Chronological List of Conferences Sponsoring Workshops &
        Presentations in Support of Shaping the Future NextSteps

        Bibliography of New Publications in Support of Shaping the Future
        of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
        and Technology


II.  Program History of Undergraduate Activities at NSF Since the Neal
     Report (NSB 86-100)

        Leadership

        Leveraged Program Support


III. Written Remarks Contributed as Part of the EHR Advisory
     Committee Public Hearings on Undergraduate SME&T Education

        Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Disciplinary Perspectives

          Invited Speakers

          MRC Greenwood, Dean, Graduate Studies & Vice Provost, Academic
          Outreach University of California at Davis

          Rita R. Colwell, President, American Association for the
          Advancement of Science (AAAS) & President, University of
          Maryland Biotechnology Institute

          Alan Tucker, Distinguished Teaching Professor, State University
          of New York-Stony Brook & Chair, Education Coordinating Council
          of the Mathematical Association of America

          Eleanor Baum, Dean of Engineering, Cooper Union for the
          Advancement of Science and Art (NY)

          Winfred Phillips, Dean of Engineering, University of Florida

          Peter J. Denning, Associate Dean for Computing, George Mason
          University (VA)

          Don K. Gentry, Dean of Engineering, School of Technology,
          Purdue University (IN)

          Durward R. Huffman, President, Northern Maine Technical College
          & Academic Officer, Maine Technical College System

          Ernest L. Eliel, Professor of Chemistry, University of North
          Carolina at Chapel Hill

          Angelica M. Stacy, Department of Chemistry University of
          California, Berkeley

          Robert C. Hilborn, Professor of Physics, Amherst College &
          President-Elect, American Association of Physics Teachers

          Eric Mazur, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, Division
          of Applied Sciences & Professor of Physics, Harvard University

          Tanya Atwater, Professor of Geological Sciences, University of
          California, Santa Barbara

        Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Institutional Perspectives

          Invited Speakers

          Pamela A. Ferguson, President, Grinnell College (IA)

          Thomas Morris, President, Emory and Henry College (VA)

          Bruce Leslie, President, Onondaga Community College (NY)

          Gwendolyn W. Stephenson, Chancellor, St. Louis Community
          College

          David R. Pierce, President, American Association of Community
          Colleges (DC)

          Frederick S. Humphries, President, Florida A&M University

          William E. Kirwan, President, University of Maryland,
          College Park

          Paula P. Brownlee, President, American Association of Colleges
          and Universities (DC)

          Saul K. Fenster, President, New Jersey Institute of Technology

          Judith A. Ramaley, President, Portland State University (OR)

          David Ward, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - Madison

          Homer A. Neal, Vice President for Research, University of
          Michigan, Ann Arbor

        Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Employers' Views

          Invited Speakers

          Walter G. Amprey, Superintendent of Public Instruction,
          Baltimore City Public Schools (MD)

          Eugene Galanter, Professor of Psychology, Columbia University

          Peggy Ruth Cole, Director of Program Planning and Development,
          New York Hall of Science

          Israel J. Galvan, President, GHG Corporation

          Albert L. Moye, University Relationships Manager, Hewlett
          Packard Company

          Robert W. Ritchie, Director, University Affairs, Hewlett
          Packard Company

          John H. McMasters, Senior Principal Engineer, Aerodynamics
          Engineering, The Boeing Company

          James D. Lang, Director of the Technology Division, New Aircraft
          and Missile Products, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace

          Roberts Jones, Executive Vice President, National Alliance of
          Business

          John L. Sisler, Manager of Exploration and Production Training,
          Shell Exploration and Production Company

          Patrick White, Vice President, Strategy, Bell Atlantic
          Corporation

        Remarks Contributed to the Social Sciences Workshop

          Participants in the Social Sciences Workshop

          Overview

          Andrew Abbott, Professor in Sociology and Master, Social
          Sciences Collegiate Division, University of Chicago

          John F. Dovidio, Department of Psychology, Colgate University

          Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Vice President for Academic Programs,
          Palnning, and Budgeting, Cornell University

          Kenneth E. Foote, Associate Vice President for Research, The
          University of Texas at Austin

          Rochel Gelman, Professor of Psychology, University of
          California, Los Angeles

          Maureen Hallinan, White Professor of Sociology, University of
          Notre Dame

          Jill H. Larkin, Department of Psychology and Center for
          Innovation in Learning, Carnegie Mellon University

          Frederick Reif, Department of Physics, Carnegie-Mellon
          University

          Nora S. Newcombe, Department of Psychology, Temple University

          Neil Stillings, Cognitive Science Program, Hampshire College


IV.  Findings from the Focus Groups  Conducted During the Review of
     Undergraduate Education

        Introduction

        Summary of Employer Focus Groups

        Summary of Teacher Preparation Focus Groups

        Summary of Student Focus Groups

        Summary of Recent Graduate Focus Groups

        Summary of Parent Focus Groups


V.    Background Data and Information Influencing the Conclusions and
      Recommendations of Shaping the Future by Staff of the Division of
      Undergraduate Education

        Overview

        Education Concerns:  precollege

        Education Concerns: undergraduate

        Post-Secondary Education Issues
               Public subsidies and faculty priorities
               Rising costs
               Pressures on public revenues

        Where are the undergraduate students?
               By type of institution
               By discipline and type of institution

        Distribution of Federal Funds for Science and Engineering,
        by type of institution

        Faculty Teaching Methods and Class Size, by type of institution
        and discipline

        Employers' Perspectives on Features of a Well-Educated
        Undergraduate

        Electronic Technology and Systemic Reform


VI.  Contributors to the EHR Advisory Committee Review of U.S.
     Undergraduate Education in SME&T

        Acknowledgment of Participants by Melvin D. George

        The Request for Comment from Luther Williams, NSF Assistant
        Director for Education and Human Resources

        Respondents to the Letter from Luther Williams, NSF Assistant
        Director for Education and Human Resources

        Undergraduate Convocation Program Steering Committee for From
        Analysis to Action

        Participants in From Analysis to Action, April 9-11, 1995

        The EHR Advisory Committee

        EHR Committee for the Report Shaping the Future: New Expectations
        for Undergraduate Education Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
        and Technology

        NRC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education
        Committee on Undergraduate Education

        NRC "Year of Dialogue" Steering Committee

        Participants in the EHR Advisory Committee Public Hearings on
        Undergraduate Education in SME&T

        Participants in the Shaping the Future Conference,
        July 11-13, 1996


VII. Bibliography for the Review of Undergraduate Education in Science,
     Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
________________________________________________________________________________

                              SHAPING THE FUTURE
              Volume II: Perspectives on Undergraduate Education
             in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology



                             Contributions to the

                       REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION


                                    by the


                              Advisory Committee

                                    to the

                          National Science Foundation
                 Directorate for Education and Human Resources


________________________________________________________________________________
                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
      OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

          Review of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
                          Engineering and Technology
                                   June 1995


                          CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE


I appoint a Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (ACEHR) to conduct a Review of the state of
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
(SME&T); to identify its recent successes and to point out both its needs and
opportunities for its improvement.  Members of the Subcommittee will be: Drs.
Melvin George (chair), Sadie Bragg, Frederick Brooks, James Rosser, David
Sanchez, and Carolyn Meyers (consultant). [Drs. Alfredo de los Santos, Jr.,
Denice Denton, Mary Lindquist, and Mr. Peter Gerber were later added to the
membership of the Subcommittee.]

The Subcommittee should consider the needs of all undergraduates attending all
types of U.S. 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 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.
The review should cover the full range of general issues in undergraduate
education- curriculum, educational technology, pedagogy (including the degree to
which student learning is infused with research), institutional practices and
the need for comprehensive reform, and key student transitions between levels of
education (from high school, between undergraduate institutions, and to graduate
school) and from undergraduate studies to employment. The review should draw
upon a full range of constituent groups having a stake in undergraduate
education-students, parents, faculty, administrators, scientific societies,
accrediting groups, employers, and state and local education officials. The
Subcommittee is requested to develop a schedule of draft reports and activities
leading to a Final Report.

The Final Report should be action oriented, recommending ways to improve
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology for
all students in all types of colleges and universities. Recommendations should
be directed not just to NSF but, as appropriate, to mission-oriented Federal
agencies, business and industry, academic institutions and their faculties and
administrations, professional societies, private sector organizations, state and
local government, and to other stakeholders in undergraduate education.  The
recommendations should reflect an assessment of accomplishments during the
recent past [i.e., those following completion of the National Science Board
study Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education (NSB 86-100,
1986)] and be based on the comments and ideas submitted by individuals and
groups during the course of the Review and on findings and analysis by the
Subcommittee.  The Report should consider carefully future roles for sponsors of
educational improvements and the nature of their efforts to improve
undergraduate education.  In particular, guidance is sought for the National
Science Foundation regarding its support of innovation in educational practice
through a portfolio of programs ranging from sponsorship of individual
investigator-led efforts to catalysis of institutional programs of comprehensive
change and covering the full range of educational settings. I ask that the
Subcommittee complete and transmit its Report to me by March 1996.  Thereafter,
the Report will be submitted to the full ACEHR for its comment and approval and,
when that is obtained, will be submitted to the NSF Director and to the
Director's Policy Group for approval as a NSF Report.

                                               Luther S. Williams
                                               Assistant Director
________________________________________________________________________________


                     Introduction to the Second Volume
________________________________________________________________________________

This is a companion volume to Shaping the Future: New Expectations for
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
(NSF 96-139), the 1996 report of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate
Education to the National Science Foundation's Directorate for Education and
Human Resources.  For this supplement, we have selected the materials that
helped to initiate the discussion and debate of the review, and provided the
framework for the Recommendations presented in the first volume of  Shaping the
Future.

No single document could purport to fully represent the breadth and depth of the
expansive and complicated endeavor of higher education and its reform.  While
the EHR Advisory Committee did a formidable job of soliciting broad-based
community opinion, synthesizing the issues facing contemporary undergraduate
education, and summarizing this process in its report to NSF, the material
presented in this second volume provides an essential resource for anyone
wishing to explore these issues more completely, without the benefit of
interpretation or distillation.  To this end, we have made every effort to allow
these authors to express their views in their own words and present references
and data without undue editorial revision or comment.

The review of undergraduate education and the Shaping the Future report have
already generated much discussion and activity in the U.S. education community.
In recognition of this, the National Science Foundation has initiated its
"NextSteps in Shaping the Future" campaign to capitalize upon this enthusiasm,
coordinate regional efforts, and help guide discussion towards a national
movement to achieve even greater excellence in higher education.  We begin this
volume with a summary of these ongoing, follow-up activities.

Section II of this volume presents a detailed account of NSF programs in
undergraduate education since NSB 86-100, 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, the last substantive review of undergraduate education in this
nation.  Section III presents the written remarks contributed as part of the
public hearings on undergraduate education held in October and November, 1995,
as well as an overview of the Social Sciences workshop held in February, 1996.
Section IV summarizes the series of national focus groups conducted by NSF in
1995 and 1996, while Section V presents data from a variety of sources that
contributed many-but certainly not all-essential facets to the overall analysis.

Finally, no accounting of this remarkable, cooperative achievement would be
complete without proper acknowledgment of the participants and contributors to
this process (Section VI) and the benchmark publications upon which the current
appraisal was founded (the References of Section VII).

The National Science Foundation
Division of Undergraduate Education
Arlington, VA
August, 1998
________________________________________________________________________________


                                 Section I:

            Activities in the Reform of Undergraduate Education
                   Since Volume I of Shaping the Future
________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

During the review of undergraduate education by NSF Advisory Committee for
Education and Human Resources, the deliberate process of acquiring information
from a broad cross-section of the undergraduate community ensured a broad level
of participation by many educators, administrators, employers, and students.
This process occurred during April 1995 to June 1996, and culminated in three
milestones in the summer of 1996:

(1)  the publication of the Committee's report Shaping the Future: New
     Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science Mathematics,
     Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139):
(2)  the publication of the National Research Council's report From Analysis
     to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
     and Technology (National Academy Press, 1996): and
(3)  a major conference in Washington DC to air key findings and recommendations
     in these reports, and to continue discussions about how to implement their
     recommendations. ("Shaping the Future: Strategies for Revitalizing
     Undergraduate Education," held during July 11-13, 1996).  The proceedings
     of this Conference are available at NSF Division of Undergraduate Education
     Web site (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/start.htm).

It was the intent of the Committee from its inception to write a living report,
stimulating an active and vigorous process of reviewing, debating, and improving
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
(SME&T) in all types of post-secondary institutions across our nation.  This
chapter reviews the types of activities the Division of Undergraduate Education
(DUE) has undertaken with the undergraduate SME&T community following the July
1996, national conference on Shaping the Future. Additionally it provides a
bibliography of studies, reports, and recommendations that have been published
during the past several years on the same theme.  Because these activities had
been underway even before the summer of 1996, this overview extends from March
1996 through July 1997.

Shaping the Future NextSteps

The activities have the underlying similarity of engaging educators, academic
administrators, and employers in discussions of methods to improve undergraduate
education in SME&T. Generally, the efforts sponsored by DUE have identified and
disseminated information about needs and opportunities to improve undergraduate
student learning-particularly opportunities for developing effective teaching
practices-and overcoming barriers to the widespread adoption of these practices.

The basic thrusts of these activities are:

o  promoting greater understanding, and identifying ways to improve student
   learning;

o  designing further improvements in courses and learning experiences to improve
   learning by all students;

o  supporting interdisciplinary course and curricula development work by faculty
   from different SME&T disciplines working collaboratively;

o  strengthening internal connections across departments (within all types of
   academic institutions) in support of improved undergraduate education for
   future teachers, and students majoring in non-SME&T disciplines, and students
   preparing to enter technical fields and the professions; and

o  expanding links with SME&T "communities" (government agencies at all levels,
   schools, scientific societies, professional associations, policy makers,
   public interest groups, and employers):

The Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), assisted by members of the
Advisory Committee for NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR),
has addressed the need for such improvements in a variety of ways.  Some of
these are:

o  Providing the full-time support of the Division Director (on assignment from
   the Division of Undergraduate Education) Dr. Robert Watson, to the task of
   disseminating important information to the national undergraduate SME&T
   community from November 1996, through November 1998.  During this period he
   has been leading and participating in workshops at regional events and
   scientific and professional meetings.

o  Leveraging professional staff attendance at scientific and professional
   society meetings as occasions to disseminate findings and recommendations in
   Shaping the Future.

o  Inviting academic institutions to host regional or local workshops in order
   to discuss and actively encourage faculty to participate in reform of
   undergraduate education in SME&T, with some logistical and financial support
   from NSF.

o  Encouraging scientific and professional societies to continue to address the
   issues raised in Shaping the Future.

o  Suggesting that NSF grantees participate in these same types of outreach
   efforts on their own or jointly with NSF program directors.

o  Incorporating principles enunciated in Shaping the Future in the DUE Program
   Announcement, and seeking to evolve our programs in directions considered to
   be most fruitful to further the recommendations of Shaping the Future.

o  Forming an alliance with major corporations and foundations through a
   Memorandum of Understanding, with the purpose of seeking their advice,
   counsel, and support.

o  Continuing to fund the Institution-wide Reform initiative through FY 98.

o  Emphasizing in all DUE programs the need to educate all students, especially
   those preparing to be teachers or to join the technical workforce armed with
   greater flexibility and enhanced skills.

External Assignment of Dr. Robert Watson

A key feature of the past several years is that these objectives are being
pursued not only programmatically through NSF's competitive grant process, but
also through extensive outreach activities by NSF/DUE program officers and
principal investigators.  The external assignment of Dr. Robert Watson, Division
Director (on assignment) from the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education, has
provided many professional groups assistance in accomplishing the objectives of
encouraging improvements and reform in undergraduate SME&T education at the
national level.

Dr. Watson accepted a two-year special assignment during the period November
1996, to November 1998: as visiting scholar at The American University in
Washington, DC (where he is serving as Scientist-in-Residence) and at the
National Research Council, where he is working with the leadership of colleges,
universities, education associations, scientific and professional organizations,
and with groups representing employers of college graduates (business, industry,
school systems, and governments).

The primary purpose of this assignment has been to inform, encourage, and assist
colleges and universities to implement key national improvements that have been
developed, and to engage them actively and comprehensively in the reform of
undergraduate SME&T education.  The principal blueprint for these goals is the
report of the EHR Advisory Committee, Shaping the Future: New Expectations for
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
(NSF 96-139), however other reports-notably the National Research Council's From
Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology-and materials from NSF-supported projects and
programs also are providing valuable examples and information about ways to
achieve successful reform.

A key strategy has been to engage scientific societies, professional
associations, and educational associations in order to take advantage of their
wisdom, and the great leverage and access that they have to many sectors
concerned with undergraduate education.  Dr. Watson has been engaged in doing
this both directly and collaboratively with the assistance of NSF professional
staff and members of the advisory committee to NSF's Directorate for Education
and Human Resources responsible for writing the Shaping the Future report.

The recommendations of both Shaping the Future and From Analysis to Action have
been discussed and presented in large national and regional meetings sponsored
by these associations and societies, and also in planning sessions with their
leadership.  Increasingly, these societies are themselves publicizing Shaping
the Future and sending copies of the report to their membership and to others
with a stake in improving undergraduate education. Members of the societies and
associations are expressing interest in hosting regional workshops at their
campuses.

Campus-based regional workshops utilizing the report to directly promote reform
serve as a second emerging mechanism. These workshops typically involve teams
from institutions coming together to learn of national trends, of the work that
others are doing, to share such information, and to develop their own plans.

As word of these activities has spread, individuals have requested advice and
assistance at an increasing rate in their own efforts to improve SME&T
undergraduate education.  In most cases these are not inquiries about potential
NSF support, but rather, requests for help in identifying best practices,
invitations to on-campus or in-state promotion of education reform, and
nomination of others to provide this type of assistance.  As one example of
this, a university leader called to ask for advice and assistance on the
proposal that they are preparing for submission to the legislature.

Regional Workshops for  "Shaping the Future"

The regional versions of NSF's July 1996 "Shaping the Future" conference are
particularly noteworthy.  The purpose of these regional workshops is to:

o  facilitate specific regional and institutional plans to achieve widespread
   improvements in undergraduate education; and

o  provide information to faculty and administrators on NSF programs and
   national activities to support undergraduate education reform.

The design of these workshops is determined by what is considered most effective
by the host institutions with respect to their unique circumstances. The
planning of these workshops generally embraces the following features:

o  participation of institutional teams, representing faculty, administration,
   students, and business partners;

o  significant involvement of employers of undergraduates;

o  participation of public policy makers to engender public support for
   undergraduate education;

o  development of institutional plans for reform of undergraduate education;

o  exhibits of innovations in undergraduate education; and

o  sessions to assist participants in developing projects and proposals.

Institutions have been encouraged to seek other academic hosts to share in the
planning and design of regional workshops.  Follow-up activities for the
participants are also expected to be an important part of the workshop planning.

Strengthening Participation by Corporations and Foundations

During the last several years, NSF has strengthened efforts to increase
participation by members of the business and foundation community in
undergraduate education reform.  A Memorandum of Understanding, representing
commitment to cooperation for revitalization of the nation's undergraduate
education has been crafted for this purpose.  It reads:

    In these rapidly changing times, the demands placed on the educational
    infrastructure of the nation, at all levels, are enormous and growing.  This
    pace of change will continue to encourage cooperative relationships between
    all of those involved in, and all those who provide support for, the
    undergraduate education enterprise in the nation.

    We, the undersigned, are committed to nurturing the evolution of the highest
    quality undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
    (SME&T) education, and to catalyzing working relationships between all
    parties involved in its delivery, and its support.  Towards this goal we
    intend to cooperate with our colleagues in other private, government or
    industry oriented funding organizations that support undergraduate education
    in the nation.  We intend to share information about our funding plans and
    funding profiles, to work towards common and complete assessment of our
    funded projects, to encourage the widest possible dissemination of project
    results, and, when appropriate, to support these projects through cost
    sharing partnerships. We intend to meet as a group periodically to share
    successes and to cooperate in developing national strategies in education.
    Through cooperation, we intend to amplify the impact of our individual
    efforts.


As of August 1997, the following signatories have joined this alliance:


AirTouch Communications                        Lockheed Martin
Bayer Corporation                              Lucent Technologies
Bellcore                                       Microsoft Corporation
Boeing                                         Motorola
Business-Higher Education Forum                Pew Science Program
The Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.   Shodor Education Foundation
DuPont                                         Society of Manufacturing
Exxon Education Foundation                     Engineers Education
                                                 Foundation
General Electric Fund                          Stratagene Cloning Systems
Global Wireless Education Consortium           Technology Assessment and
                                                 Transfer, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Company                        Texas Instruments
Howard Hughes Medical Institute                Toyota
International Business Machines                Wolfram Research


Working Through Scientific Societies and Professional Associations

Scientific societies, professional associations, and associations of colleges
and universities are key to effective dissemination of the recommendations of
Shaping the Future. Consequently, one of the key focal points of the "Shaping
the Future NextSteps" campaign has been to reach these organizations through the
active assistance of Dr. Robert Watson and members of the Advisory Committee for
Education and Human Resources at NSF.

The following organizations have participated in or otherwise sponsored
activities in the reform of undergraduate education through the NextSteps
campaign:

     Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Inc. (ABET)
     Affiliated Colleges & Universities Office (ACUO)
     American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
     American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
     American Association for Higher Education (AAHE)
     American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)
     American Association of State Colleges & Universities (AASCU)
     American Chemical Society (ACS)
     American Council on Education (ACE)
     American Geophysical Union (AGU)
     American Institute of Physics (AIP)
     American Mathematical Society (AMS)
     American Physical Society (APS)
     American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)
     American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
     Association of Community College Trustees
     Association for Women in Science (AWS)
     Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA)
     Council of Colleges of Arts & Sciences (CCAS)
     Council on Competitiveness
     Council of Scientific Society Presidents
     Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR)
     Education Commission of the States (ECS)
     Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
     Mathematical Association of America (MAA)
     National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
     National Research Council (NRC)
     National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges(NASULGC)
     National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
     National Council for Resource Development (NCRD)
     National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
     National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE)
     SEMATECH
     State Higher Education Executive Officers
     Sigma Xi
     Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science
       (SACNAS)

Chronological List of Conferences Sponsoring Workshops & Presentations
in Support of  "Shaping the Future NextSteps"

The following chronological list indicates many of the meetings, conferences,
and workshops that have been employed by DUE staff to facilitate widening
awareness and increased momentum towards improved undergraduate education in
SME&T.  Members of the Advisory Committee have often joined the DUE staff in
these activities for Education and Human Resources.  This list is not complete,
but is representative of the breadth of activities undertaken.  It extends back
to March 1996, because by then many of the findings and recommendations of
Shaping the Future were being discussed in draft form, in advance of the
report's official release in July 1996.

                                 March, 1996
o  1-3: Meeting of the Education Committee of the Geological Society of America
   (GSA), Boulder, CO
o  21-23: "The Genetics Revolution: A Catalyst for Education and Public Policy,"
   a meeting for community college faculty sponsored by American Association of
   Community Colleges (AACC), local colleges, and Exxon Education Foundation,
   Dallas, TX
o  24-26: 211th annual meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), New
   Orleans, LA

                                  April, 1996
o  13-15: Annual meeting American Association of Community Colleges (AACC),
   Atlanta, GA
o  16-18: Meeting of the Government-University-Industry Roundtable, Seattle, WA
o  26:  Special meeting (invited address) with a number of private firms,
   Phoenix, AZ

                                   May, 1996
o  2-5: Annual Washington, DC joint meeting of the American Physical Society
   (APS) and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)
o  7-10: International conference on Acoustics, Speech, & Signal Processing
   sponsored by the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),
   and the Signal Processing Society, Atlanta, GA
o  20-22:  Spring meeting of the Geological Society of American (GSA),
   Baltimore, MD

                                  June, 1996
o  1-6: Annual meeting of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular
   Biology (ASBMB), New Orleans, LA
o  13: Introductory Physics Reform Conference: An Undergraduate Faculty
   Enhancement (UFE) Project, Joliet, IL
o  16-18: Conference on publishing strategies sponsored by DUE, Hampshire
   College, and Saunders Publishing Co., Amherst, MA
o  27-28: The 6th biennial national conference of the Council for Undergraduate
   Research (CUR), North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC
o  30-July 5: Gordon Research Conference - Innovations in College Chemistry
   Teaching, Plymouth State College, NH

                                  July, 1996
o  11-13: National conference, Shaping the Future: Strategies for Revitalizing
   Undergraduate Education, Washington, DC
o  13-15: EHR annual Partnership Conference, Washington, DC
o  27-30: Annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP)
   and site visit to Trinity College, San Antonio, TX
o  31- August 3: International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
   (ICUPE), College Park, MD

                                 August, 1996
o  4-7: 14th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Clemson University, SC
o  4-8: 47th Annual meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
   (AIBS), Seattle, WA
o  5-10: Summer meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT),
   College Park, MD

                                September, 1996
o  25: Meeting of the Texas Association of Schools of Engineering Technology
   (TASET), Austin, TX
o  28-29: Meeting of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
   (Human Resources Committee), Washington, DC

                                October, 1996
o  4: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) regional meeting, Fargo,
      ND
o  7-8: Meeting of the National Visiting Committee for the University of
   Cincinnati - American Chemical Society (ACS) project "Advanced Technological
   Education in Chemical Technology," Silver Bay, NY
o  11-12: Annual meeting of Mathematical Sciences Department Chairs, Rosslyn, VA
o  16-19: National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), Charlotte, NC
o  25-27: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) Workshop on Interdisciplinary Approaches
   to Teaching Science and Mathematics, Colby College, Waterville, ME
o  30: American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Task Force on Academic
   and Student Affairs, Arlington, VA
o  31-November 1: Annual meeting of the Accreditation Board for Engineering
   Technology, Inc. (ABET), San Diego, CA

                                November, 1996
o  2: Mathematical Association of America (MAA), DelMarVa section, Frederick, MD
o  3-5: Regional meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education
   (ASEE), Fargo, ND
o  5-8: Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE) meeting, Denver,
   CO
o  6-9: 26th Annual meeting of "Frontiers in Education," Salt Lake City, UT
o  7: Annual joint meeting of the Alabama College Chemistry Teachers
   Association, Columbia, AL
o  7-10: Mathematicians and Education Reform (MER) workshop on "Teacher
   Education and Mathematics Departments," University of Illinois at Chicago, IL
o  8: Regional meeting, Issues in Gateway Chemistry Courses,  University of
   Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD
o  8-10: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) workshop, "Revitalizing Undergraduate
   Biology," Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA
o  12: NSF Forum on Distance Learning, Washington, DC
o  12-17: Meeting of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges
   (AMATYC), Long Beach, CA
o  13: Industry-University-Government Roundtable, Bethesda, MD
o  14: American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting, University of Maryland, College
   Park, MD
o  14: Annual meeting of the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences (CCAS) -
   Deans, Philadelphia, PA
o  14-17: NSF sponsored Task Force on "Educating the Next Generation of
   Information Specialists," Omaha, NE
o  15-17: "Spheres of Influence: Shaping the Future of Earth Systems Sciences
   Education" Meeting, American Geophysical Union (AGU) headquarters,
   Washington, DC
o  21-22: Meeting of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
   Computer Society Education Board, Pittsburgh, PA
o  22-23: Workshop on the programs of DUE and key aspects of proposal
   preparation, Inter-American University, San Juan, PR

                                December, 1996
o  10: "Results of NSF Review of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering
   and Technology (SME&T) Education," National Technological University (NTU)
   Faculty Forum (via live national satellite broadcast)
o  15: Meeting with American Council on Education (ACE), Washington, DC
o  28-30: Annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
o  American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Presidents' workshop,
   Washington, DC
o  Annual meeting of the American Society of Cell Biology (ASCB), San Francisco,
   CA
o  National Council for Resource Development national conference, Washington, DC

                                 January, 1997
o  4-10: Annual meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT),
   Phoenix, AZ
o  7: SUMMA (Strengthening Undergraduate Minority Mathematics Achievement)
   meeting, San Diego, CA
o  9-11: NextSteps presentation at the 6th annual meeting of the American
   Mathematical Association (AMA) and the Mathematical Association of America
   (MAA), San Diego, CA
o  15-19: NextSteps presentation at the meetings of the American Association for
   Higher Education (AAHE), San Diego, CA
o  28:  Regional Shaping the Future workshop sponsored by the University of
   Washington and Bellevue Community College, Seattle, WA
o  30-February 2: Louisiana Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Education
   regional workshop on Shaping the Future, Baton Rouge, LA
o  31-February 1: Oakton Community College workshop on Shaping the Future,
   Oakton, CA
o  Joint annual meeting of Mathematics Societies, San Diego, CA

                                February, 1997
o  1-3: SEMATECH annual conference, Austin, TX
o  9-15: American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO), Santa Fe, NM
o  25: Annual meeting of the American Council on Education (ACE), Washington, DC
o  26: Meeting with the executive officers of the American Physical Society
   (APS) and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), with the staff
   from the American Institute of Physics (AIP), College Park, MD
o  28: Meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), Washington, DC
o  27-28: Annual meeting of the ACM Special Interest Group in Computer Science
   Education (SIGCSE) and the ACM 50th Anniversary, San Jose, CA
o  27-28: Annual meeting of the National Visiting Committee of NSF Los Angeles
   Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (LACTE), Los Angeles, CA

                                 March, 1997
o  4: Meeting of the Federal Interagency Chemistry Representatives (FICR),
   Washington, DC
o  6: National meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics,
   Alexandria, VA
o  6-8: Annual conference of Sigma Xi, New Orleans, LA
o  10-11: North Louisiana Research Conference, Louisiana Tech University,
   Ruston, LA
o  13-19: Symposium, New Developments in Education in Analytical Chemistry, held
   at the 'Pittsburgh Conference' on Analytical Chemistry and Applied
   Spectroscopy, Atlanta, GA
o  14: Workshop II of Curriculum Development in Analytical Sciences, Atlanta, GA
o  14-16: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, hosted by California State
   University at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
o  14-16: Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP) - Teacher Preparation
   meeting, Puerto Rico
o  16-17: Meeting of the national conference steering committee for A National
   Urban Summit: Creating a Techno-Literate Workforce Through Major Policy
   Change - Forging Communication Among Business, Education, and Government for
   Strengthening Technical Skills Among Urban Students, Chicago, IL
o  16-19: The Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied
   Spectroscopy, Atlanta, GA
o  23: Meeting with the Consortium for Social Science Associations (COSSA),
   Washington, DC
o  27: Meeting with the Delaware Community College System, Dover, DE
o  27-30: National Society of Black Engineers national conference, Washington,
   DC

                                 April, 1997
o  7: Shaping the Future presentation at Washington & Lee University,
   Lexington, VA
o  10: Shaping the Future presentation at University of California, Davis, CA
o  11-12: The Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) April Dialogue meeting:
   The Teaching-Research Connection, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
o  11-12: The Modular CHEM and ChemLinks consortia pedagogy meeting, Berkeley,
   CA
o  13-17: 213th National meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), San
   Francisco, CA
o  17-18: Meeting of principal investigators and evaluators, Systemic Change in
   Chemistry Curriculum project, Menlo Park, CA
o  18-19: Shaping the Future regional workshop, co-hosted by University of
   Missouri, Columbia, and St. Louis Community College, St. Louis, MO
o  18-19: Spring meeting of the MD/DC/VA Section of the Mathematical Association
   of America (MAA), College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA
o  18-21: Joint annual meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) and the
   American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), Washington, DC
o  20: Arizona State University faculty retreat, Tempe, AZ
o  24-26: National Council for Resource Development (NCRD) Regional IV
   Conference, Savannah, GA
o  24-27: Phi Theta Kappa International convention, Dallas, TX

                                  May, 1997
o  8: Sigma Xi/A*DEC Town Meeting video conference on Shaping the Future,
   "Undergraduate Education to Meet Societal Needs in the 21st Century,"
    Research Triangle Park, NC
o  8-9: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, "Revitalizing Undergraduate
   Mathematics and Science Education: A National Dialogue," Michigan State
   University, East Lansing, MI
o  8-9: Edu.Tech@Work97 Conference and Expo, Bellevue, WA
o  Meeting of the education board of the Association of Computing Machinery
   (ACM), Atlanta, GA
o  10-11: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, "Revitalizing Undergraduate
   Mathematics and Science Education: A National Dialogue," The University of
   Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
o  16: Presentation to the North Carolina Community College System, "Leading the
   Nation: Opportunities for Two-Year Colleges," Smithfield, NC
o  16-17: National Institute for Science Education (NISE) Workshop on
   Collaborative Learning, Madison, WI
o  19-23: 96th Annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM),
   New Orleans, LA
o  24-25: 11th International C. Elegans research conference, Madison, WI

                                  June, 1997
o  5-7: Program workshop, NSF Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher
   Preparation (CETP) program, attended by 10 Collaboratives, California State
   University, Dominguez Hills, CA
o  11-13: Meeting of Mathematics Across the Curriculum (MATC), Villanova
   University, Philadelphia, PA
o  15-17: Annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education
   (ASEE), Milwaukee, WI
o  18: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, Central Washington University,
   Ellensburg, WA
o  20-21: 6th Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, Milwaukee, WI
o  22-27: Unidata Workshop, Using Instructional Technologies and Satellite Data
   for College Level Education in the Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, sponsored
   by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and the
   National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), University of Colorado,
   Boulder, CO
o  30-July 2: McNU 97, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

                                  July, 1997
o  10-12: 1997 Reunion of Research Opportunity Award (ROA) participants
o  14-17: Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
   (SIAM), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
o  19-20: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) workshop, Research-Rich Environments for
   Undergraduate Education, Washington, DC
o  Annual meeting of the American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington,
   DC
o  22: Presentation of Shaping the Future recommendations to reviewers at the
   annual NSF DUE panel reviews of proposals submitted to its Course and
   Curriculum Design (CCD) and Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) programs,
   Arlington, VA
o  24-26: 2nd Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) International Conference
   on Digital Libraries, Philadelphia, PA
o  29: Shaping the Future Workshop at Chautauqua Institute, Chautauqua, NY

                                 August, 1997
o  23-28: ASBMB (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)
   satellite meeting  "2001:  Biochemistry Education for the Millennium,"
   organized by the Human Resources Committee of the ASBMB, University of
   California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

                                September, 1997
o  16: Symposium on "Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Education and The Role
   of University, Industry and Government in the Development of Human Resources,
   "The Inter-American University of Puerto Rico - Metropolitan Campus (IAU-M).

                                 October, 1997
o  4-5: Project Kaleidoscope's annual workshop, "Reforming Earth and Planetary
   Science Curricula: What Works," Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA.
o  8-11: The 1997 Convention of the NABT (National Association of Biology
   Teachers) overview of Shaping the Future, Minneapolis, MN.
o  17: Workshop on "Shaping the Future: The Role of Two-Year Colleges" at  the
   ACCT (Association of Community College Trustees) annual conference,
   Washington, DC.
o  24 - 25: Regional Shaping the Future workshop hosted by Drexel University,
   Philadelphia, PA.
o  25-27: Geological Society of America, GSA's Shaping the Future, Salt Lake
   City, UT.

                                 November, 1997
o  October 31-Nov 2: Project Kaleidoscope  Workshop on "Enhancing Learning-
   Centered Environments: The Biology of the Future," University of Wisconsin,
   Madison, WI.
o  14: State of Maine Regional Follow-Up to Shaping the Future, Bates College,
   Lewiston, ME.

                                 December, 1997
o  4: District of Columbia Section of the American Society of Mechanical
   Engineers, "Shaping the Future" and its implications for the mechanical
   engineering profession, Washington, DC.

                                  January, 1998
o  4-8:  Gordon Research Conference on Innovations in College Chemistry
   Teaching, Ventura, CA.
o  6-10: The annual joint meetings of the American Mathematical Society (AMS) &
   Mathematical Association of America (MAA), Baltimore, MD.
o  16 - 17: Workshop on the New Traditions Chemistry Initiative, Madison, WI
o  22: Maryland Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Workshop on
   "Shaping the Future of Mathematics and Science in Maryland," College
   Park, MD.

                                 February, 1998
o  14-15: Shaping the Future Follow-Up Conference, hosted by Birmingham Southern
   College, Birmingham, AL.
o  19-20: South Carolina Shaping the Future Conference, hosted by the University
   of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

                                   March, 1998
o  20: A Regional Conference on "Transforming Undergraduate Education in SME&T,"
   hosted by New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.

                                   April, 1998
o  3-4:  A Regional Shaping Conference, hosted by Northeastern University,
   Boston, MA.

                                    May, 1998
o  1:  Meeting of the Governing Board of the Hispanic Asssociation of Colleges
   and Universities, Washington, DC.
o  1-2:  A Regional Conference "Shaping the Future with Core Curriculum Reform:
   Guiding Undergraduate Education in SME&T," Colorado State University, Fort
   Collins, CO.
o  6:  Meeting of the Education and Human Resources Committee of the
   Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), Washington, DC.
o  8 - 9:  A Shaping the Future Regional Conference, "From Dialogue to Action:
   Improving Instruction, Collaborations, and Partnerships in Mathematics and
   Science for All Students, A Workshop for Stakeholders in the Future of P-16
   Education," hosted by at Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA.
o  8 - 9:  Regional New York Shaping the Future Conference, New York City, NY.
o  11 - 13:  The North Dakota planning conference, "Reforming Undergraduate
   Science and Mathematics Education," Bismark, ND.


Bibliography of New Publications in Support of Shaping the Future of
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

A much longer bibliography of material that influenced the preparation of Volume
1 of Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139) is available at
the end of Volume 2.   The following bibliography is provided as a separate
listing of those published books and articles that appeared after the
conclusions and recommendations of Volume 1 had been prepared.

Paul E. Adams and Gerald H. Krockover, "Beginning Science Teacher Cognition and
      Its Origins in the Pre-service Secondary Science Teacher Program," Journal
      of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 34 (1997), p. 663.

The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
      (Shirley Strum Kenny, Chair) "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A
      Blueprint for America's Research Universities," 15 May, 1998.  Available
      from http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf

Marvin Druger, "Preparing the Next Generation of College Science Teachers,"
      Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 26 (1997), p. 424.

D. Fulker, S. Bates, and C. Jacobs, "Unidata: A Virtual Community Sharing
      Resources and Technological Infrastructure," Bulletin of the American
      Meteorological Society, Vol. 73, No. 3 (1997).

Jerry Bell and Alphonse Buccino (editors), Seizing Opportunities: Collaborating
      for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (Washington, DC: American
      Association for Advancement of Science, 1997).

William E. Campbell and Karl A. Smith, New Paradigms for College Teaching
      (Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1997).

James Cooper and Pamela Robinson, Annotated Bibliography of Science,
      Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Resources in Higher
      Education (Working Draft, California State University - Dominguez Hills,
      1997).

Gordon P. Eaton, "Re-Shaping America's Earth Science Curriculum," Geotimes, Vol.
      40, No. 4 (1995).

S. C. Ehrmann, "Asking the Right Questions," Change, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1995), pp.
      20-27.

American Geophysical Union, Scrutiny of Undergraduate Geoscience Education: Is
      the Viability of the Geosciences in Jeopardy? (Washington, DC: American
      Geophysical Union, 1995).

S.W. Gilbert, "Teaching, Learning, and Technology," Change, Vol. 27, No. 2
      (1995), pp. 47-52.

J.D. Herron, The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching
      (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1996).

P. Hutchings, Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration
      and Peer Review, American Association for Higher Education (AAHE),
      (Washington, DC: AAHE, 1996).

M. Frank Ireton, Cathryn Manduca, and David Mogk (editors), Shaping the Future
      of Undergraduate Earth Science Education, Innovation and Change Using An
      Earth System Approach, Report of a workshop held November 14-17, 1996,
      convened by the American Geophysical Union in Cooperation with the Keck
      Geology Consortium (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1997).

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities, see
      "National Association of State Universities and Land Grant College."

Susan Lenker, Nancy Cooley, Keith Nelson, and Richard St. Andre (editors),
      Exemplary Programs in Introductory College Mathematics: Innovative
      Programs Using Technology (INPUT), Summaries of the Winning Entries for
      the First INPUT awards competition 1996-97 (Central Michigan University
      and Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1997).

Heather MacDonald and Ann Bykerk-Kauffman, "Collaborative and Cooperative
      Activities for Teaching and Learning Geology," Journal of Geoscience
      Education, Vol. 43 (1995), p. 305.

Eric Mazur, ConcepTests (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996).

Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997).

Susan B. Millar and B.B. Alexander, Teacher Preparation in Science, Mathematics,
      Engineering, and Technology:  Review and Analysis of NSF Workshop,
      Nov. 6-8, 1994 (Madison, WI: National Institute f Science Education,
      1996).

James R. Mahoney (editor), Improving Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
      Technology Instruction: Strategies for the Community College (Washington,
      DC: American Association of Community Colleges, Community College Press,
      1996).

Ann P. McNeal, "Collaboration in Physiology Courses: What Works?" Annual Meeting
      of the Professional Research Scientists on Experimental Biology 97, New
      Orleans, LA, April 6-9, 1997, FASEB Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1997).

____________ and Charlene D'Avanzo (editors), Student-Active Science: Models of
      Innovation in Undergraduate Education (Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College
      Publishers, 1997).

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, What Matter's Most: Teaching
      for America's Future, 1996.

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC),
      Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities,
      Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience (Washington, DC: NASULGC,
      April, 1997).

Taking Charge of Change (Washington, DC: NASULGC, May, 1997).

National Research Council, Improving Teacher Preparation and Credentialing
      Consistent with the National Science Education Standards: Report of a
      Symposium held in February 1996 (Washington, DC: National Academy of
      Sciences Press, November, 1996).

      The Preparation of Teachers of Mathematics: Considerations and Challenges:
      A Letter Report of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board, (Washington,
      DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1996).

      Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, Board on Earth
      Sciences and Resources, Rediscovering Geography Committee (Thomas
      Wilbanks, Chair), Rediscovering Geography, New Relevance for Science and
      Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997).

      Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Science Teaching
      Reconsidered: A Handbook (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997).

      Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Science,
      Mathematics, and Engineering Education, Science Teacher Preparation in an
      Era of Standards-Based Reform (Washington, DC: National Academy of
      Sciences Press, 1997).

      Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, Introducing
      The Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academy of
      Sciences Press, 1997).

      Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in
      Science and Engineering (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1997).

A. Wayne Roberts (editor), "Calculus: The Dynamics of Change," Mathematical
      Association of America (MAA) Notes, Number 39, (1996).

Leonard Springer, Mary Elizabeth Stanne, and Samuel Donovan, Effects of
      Cooperative Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics,
      Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis (Madison, WI: National Center
      for Science Education & Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, 1997).

Tracey E. Sutherland and Charles C. Bonwell (editors), Using Active Learning in
      College Classes: A Range of Options for Faculty, New Directions for
      Teaching and Learning, No. 67 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Fall,
      1996).

Alan Schoenfeld (editor), "Student Assessment in Calculus," Mathematical
      Association of America (MAA) Notes, Number 43, (1997).

Melvin L. Silberman, Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject
      (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996).




                                   Section II:

               Program History of Undergraduate Activities at NSF
                         Since the Neal Report (86-100)
________________________________________________________________________________

As was noted in Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education
in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139), the report of
the 1985-1986 Task Committee of the National Science Board (86-100) has been the
principal guide for the restoration and evolution of NSF undergraduate education
activities since its acceptance by the Board in March, 1986. Presented in this
section is more detailed analysis of some aspects of the Foundation's efforts to
implement the 1986 report in the decade since.  Small portions of text from
Volume 1 of Shaping the Future are repeated here to aid the reader in recalling
the framework.

The numerous recommendations in the Board Report fell into two categories:
Leadership and Leveraged Program Support.

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.  It has evolved into the
present Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) in the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR). DUE staff of program officers is drawn from
across the disciplines of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
Many come from leadership positions in national organizations and from
university faculties and administrations.  Its programmatic offerings devote
attention to the development and dissemination of innovative courses, curricula,
and laboratories, as well as to the preparation and development of faculty,
future preK-12 teachers, and technicians.  Particular emphasis is placed on the
translation of innovations among and between disciplines.

The Board Task Committee made 11 other leadership recommendations to the
Foundation.  It urged NSF to:

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

    NSF has clearly established the desired leadership position of the
    Foundation.  Allocations of resources have been smaller than envisioned
    originally by the Board in some areas, but a little larger in others.

"(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."

    Beginning in 1980 with the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
    Research (EPSCoR) and culminating with the establishment of the Rural
    Systemic Initiatives (RSI) program in 1997, the Foundation has fostered the
    creation of vigorous partnerships involving itself, individual states, and
    various private sector entities in substantial projects to improve research
    and education in mathematics, engineering, science, and technology.  The
    emphasis has been on graduate and K-12 education, but articulation of school
    and college-level programming has been addressed by many of these projects.
    The partnership mode of project operation ranges in scope from adherence to
    matching funds requirements to the basing of projects in consortia and
    collaboratives.  Examples of current undergraduate programs are the
    Alliances for Minority Participation and Advanced Technological Education.

"(3) Provide a forum for consideration of current issues related to such
efforts."

    NSF has gone far beyond this directive by sponsoring workshops, symposia,
    and conferences on disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and institutional
    aspects of undergraduate education.  The reports of these gatherings
    circulate widely and are highly regarded resource documents.

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

    It was apparent to NSF from the start that the emphasis in this
    recommendation lay in the words all types of institutions.  Doctoral
    universities submitted the great majority of successful education proposals
    in 1985-1986; but by 1994, special efforts by NSF resulted in their number
    being at least matched by proposals from two-year colleges, four-year
    colleges, and comprehensive universities. NSF supports the development of a
    broad spectrum of educational products (from innovative texts and software
    to new courses and curricula) has helped expand and improve student learning
    nationwide.

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

    The principal concern in this area in 1986 was particularly the Advanced
    Technological Education program, for improved articulation between two-year
    and four-year institutions. While NSF programs have recently fostered the
    establishment of consortia and other types of cooperative projects, they
    have long addressed broader objectives by including two-year college faculty
    and institutions in the full range of undergraduate programs.

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

    NSF has strong commitments to K-12 and informal science education evidence
    direct concern for public understanding.  It is hoped that activities
    following upon the recommendations of this report will enhance efforts to
    address similar needs at the undergraduate level.

"(7) Stimulate creative and productive activity in teaching and learning (and
(8) conduct 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."

    The next section examines in detail the funding history of undergraduate
    activities at NSF. However, it is the case that the Division of
    Undergraduate Education allocates most of its resources quite directly to
    activities designed to improve teaching and learning.  The Division of
    Engineering Education and Centers in the Directorate for Engineering and the
    Division of Experimental and Integrative Activities within the Directorate
    for Computer and Information Science and Engineering devote substantial
    portions of their budgets to undergraduate engineering education.  Across
    the Foundation it is the scale rather than the scope which needs expanding.
    Although EHR Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication vigorously
    supports research on teaching and learning, a special effort within this
    division, as well as those previously mentioned, should be made to stimulate
    proposals for research on teaching and learning at the collegiate level.

"(9) Bring its programming in the undergraduate education area into balance with
its activities in the pre-college and graduate areas as quickly as possible."

    The balance sought by the Board Task Group was dual-programmatic and fiscal.
    Between FY 1983 (when K-12 education was re-established at NSF) and FY 1986
    (when the Board Committee made its recommendations), the main themes of NSF
    K-12 programs had become firmly established.  While urging the restoration
    of a vigorous undergraduate program, the Committee wanted to ensure that it
    would be coordinated well with the Foundation's activities at the K-12 level
    (which produced undergraduate students and employed graduated teachers) and
    at the graduate level (where the products of undergraduate institutions are
    further educated).

    NSF undergraduate programming in the Education Directorate was brought into
    that balance by three events: transfer of responsibility for Teacher
    Preparation from the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal
    Education (ESIE) to DUE in 1993; establishment of the program in Advanced
    Technological Education in 1994; and start-up of the Institution-Wide Reform
    initiative, begun in 1995.

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

    The Foundation as a whole has a good record of such efforts, and the record
    of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is especially
    good.  In FY 1995, NSF allocated more than 3 percent of its budget to
    programs, in both the education and research directorates, designed to
    address underrepresentation.  While all divisions of EHR share
    responsibility for addressing NSF educational objectives in this area, the
    Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) has the programmatic lead and
    has mounted a variety of programs designed to increase participation of
    women, minorities and persons with disabilities.

"(11) Design and implement an appropriate database activity concerning the
qualitative and quantitative aspects of undergraduate education in mathematics,
engineering, and the sciences to ensure flexibility in its response to changing
national and disciplinary needs."

    NSF Division of Science Resources Studies has principal responsibility for
    such database activity. At the present time, some of the Undergraduate
    Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (SME&T) Education Database
    content envisioned by the Board Committee is being built into the Impact
    Database of EHR's Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication.

Leveraged Program Support

The FY 1995 NSF budget provided a very substantial sum for support of all but
one (Information for Long-Range Planning) of the program categories detailed in
the Neal Report.  The total was actually in excess of the amount recommended for
FY 1989 by the Report of the NSB Task Committee.  In addition, NSF undergraduate
support in FY1995 included programs in categories not mentioned in the Neal
Report (Teacher Preparation and Advanced Technological Education).  How well NSF
has done by the Neal recommendations is a judgement that should reflect ten
years of experience and hindsight; and it should be informed by comparison with
the intent of the recommendations.

                                Section III:

                  Written Remarks Contributed as Part of the
                    EHR Advisory Committee Public Hearings
                       on Undergraduate SME&T Education
________________________________________________________________________________

Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee
Public Hearing on Disciplinary Perspectives of
Undergraduate SME&T Education
________________________________________________________________________________

Convened October 23, 1995
At the National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA



                              Invited Speakers:
         "Disciplinary Perspectives on SME&T Undergraduate Education"


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

Undergraduate Education           MRC Greenwood
in SME&T                          Dean of Graduate Studies, Vice Provost,
                                  Academic Outreach, University of California,
                                  Davis


Biological Sciences               Rita R. Colwell
                                  President, American Association for the
                                  Advancement of Science & Professor, University
                                  of Maryland, College Park

Mathematical Sciences             Alan Tucker
                                  Professor, State University of New York at
                                  Stony Brook

Engineering                       Eleanor Baum
                                  President-Elect, ASEE & Dean of Engineering,
                                  Cooper Union (NY)

                                  Winfred Phillips
                                  President-Elect, ABET & Dean of Engineering,
                                  University of Florida

Computer Sciences &               Peter J. Denning
Engineering                       Associate Dean for Computing, George Mason
                                  University (VA)

Technology                        Don K. Gentry
                                  Dean of Engineering Technology, Purdue
                                  University (IN)

                                  Durward R. Huffman
                                  President, Northern Maine Technical College

Chemistry                         Ernest L. Eliel
                                  Professor, University of North Carolina at
                                  Chapel Hill

                                  Angelica M. Stacy
                                  Professor, University of California at
                                  Berkeley

Physics                           Robert C. Hilborn
                                  President, American Association of Physics
                                  Teachers & Professor, Amherst College (MA)

                                  Eric Mazur
                                  Professor, Harvard University (MA)

Geological Sciences               Tanya Atwater
                                  Professor, University of California, Santa
                                  Barbara


                         Undergraduate Education in
              Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology


                               MRC Greenwood

          Dean, Graduate Studies & Vice Provost, Academic Outreach
                      University of California at Davis
                             Davis, California


Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

    o  Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

    o  Enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals.

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

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

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

    o Raise the scientific and technological literacy of all Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  In 1990, 35 percent of all jobs in the U.S. were unskilled

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

By the end of the decade:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  The economy depends upon it;

    o  Science education and literacy is the business of scientists;

    o  It's the right thing to do; and finally

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

What can be done?

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

Our nation has a system in which:

    o  fourteen million students are enrolled in 3600 institutions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improve the science and technology literacy of all undergraduate students

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

Change the training of graduate students

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

Finally, be concerned about training teachers

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

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

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


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


                        Disciplinary Perspectives of
                National Leaders and Undergraduate Education


                                Rita R. Colwell

     President, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
          President, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute
              Professor of Microbiology, University of Maryland
                            College Park, Maryland


Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  model SME&T undergraduate programs and courses;

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

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

Overall Finding From AAAS SME&T Undergraduate Studies and Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  scientific values and ways of knowing;

    o  collection, organization, and classification of information;

    o  scientific laws, devising models and developing theories;

    o  the limits of scientific knowledge;

    o  the vocabulary and terminology of science; and

    o  the role of mathematical concepts in science.

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

    o  scale and proportion;

    o  change and evolution;

    o  causality and consequences; and

    o  dynamic equilibrium.

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

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

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

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

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

    o  hands-on experimental and laboratory activities;

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

    o  group discussion and projects;

    o  opportunities for writing and communicating science;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  fostering collaboration of science with other liberal art faculties;

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

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

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

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

Administrative Concerns

    o  NSF funding procedures;

    o  Improving the image of the research university;

    o  Responding to budget cuts and reorganization;

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

    o  Dialogue between research universities and "official" Washington;

    o  Strategies for dealing with declining federal funding; and

    o  Need for development activities in a new fiscal climate.

Curriculum and Teaching Issues

    o  Launching interdisciplinary degree programs, such as the science-oriented
       MBA and environmental studies, and science and public policy options;
    o  Offering degrees in the sciences that are intended to lead to
       professional careers in journalism, business, etc.;
    o  Organizational structure of undergraduate biology education;
    o  Encouraging better teaching;
    o  Curricular revisions as a mechanism for fostering interdisciplinary
       research and reaching less traditional science students;
    o  Exchange of benchmark data; and
    o  Tensions between major and non-major courses.

Faculty Development

    o  Mentoring of female and probationary faculty and graduate students;
    o  Improving faculty diversity;
    o  Discussion of the faculty reward structure, including tenure, promotion,
       and post-tenure review;
    o  Faculty resistance to programs for female and minority students;
    o  Evaluation and rewards of faculty for undergraduate teaching; and
    o  Improving faculty teaching.

4.  Outreach Efforts

    o  University relationships with secondary/elementary school teachers and
       students; and
    o  Relationship between college of science and college of education.

5.  Student Issues

    o  Efforts to stem student attrition; special sections for high-risk
       students; remedial instruction;
    o  Programs to promote undergraduate student research; and
    o  Changing employment opportunities for students.

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

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

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


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


                                 Alan  C. Tucker

  Distinguished Teaching Professor, State University of New York-Stony Brook
Chair, Education Coordinating Council of the Mathematical Association of America
                             Stony Brook, New York


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

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

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

    o  increased use of technology;
    o  increased attention to teaching and learning; and
    o  the calculus reform movement.

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

Increased Use of Technology

Technology has had two types of impact:

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

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

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

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

Increased Attention to Teaching and Learning

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

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

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

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

The Calculus Reform Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  changing faculty values and attitudes;
    o  serving a more diverse, and often under-prepared, student body; and
    o  equipment needs

Other problems cited by several respondents were

    o  inadequate coordination across disciplines; and
    o  responding to Standards-based changes in K-12 instruction

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

Changing Faculty Values and Attitudes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equipment Needs

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

Inadequate Coordination Across Disciplines

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

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

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

Responding to Standards-based Changes in K-12 Instruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambivalence and Complacency About the Value of Education

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

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

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


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


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


                                    Eleanor Baum

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


                                 Winfred Phillips

                    Dean of Engineering, University of Florida
                                 Sarasota, Florida


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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  Relevant to the lives and future careers of students;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


            Undergraduate Education in Computer Science & Engineering


                                Peter J. Denning

Associate Dean for Computing, School of Information Technology and Engineering,
                             George Mason University
                               Richmond, Virginia


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

Remaining Trouble Spots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Trouble Spots

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

    o  The demise of the university

    o  Effective teaching in the age of the Internet

Demise of The University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Teaching in the Age of the Internet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

    The factors, arising from information technology and the large increase in
    scientific information that are dismantling the assumptions underlie the
    university as an institution. Among the possible new roles of universities
    are professional education and cross- disciplinary community building.

    The need for a "map" of effective teaching in the age of the Internet and
    for training of teachers. Effective teaching can be approached as a set of
    skills and practices that can be learned, not as a gift given to a select
    few. This map would shift attention from the teacher as a facilitator of
    information processes to the teacher as cultivator of competence in human
    beings.

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


                         Engineering Technology Education
               (Bachelor of Science or Four-Year Degree Component)


                                   Don K. Gentry

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founding Principles that have made Engineering Technology Successful

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

"The engineering technology programs:

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

    o  prepare graduates to be immediately productive in society;

    o  integrate general education and technical courses within the curriculum;

    o  provide application-oriented instruction and are laboratory based;

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

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

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

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

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

    o  are responsive to changing market demands.

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

The Spectrum of Engineering Education

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

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

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

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

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

Figure III.1

Spectrum of Engineering Technology and Engineering Job Functions in Industry.
(For figure, please see PDF version)

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

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

Therefore, the spectrum of engineering is very relevant to the understanding of
the field and how the graduates are utilized in industry.

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

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

     Students

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

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

     Faculty

    o  Acquiring faculty with appropriate academic preparation and industrial
       experience;

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

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

     Instructional Delivery

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

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

          o  to use four-year programs as model showcase sites for laboratory
             and curriculum development;
          o  the development of model curriculum for two-plus-two programs;
          o  faculty professional development centers; and
          o  to model the use and implementation of ever-changing technology.

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

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

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


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


Appendix

Scope of the engineering technology programs today:

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

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

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



                   Enhancing Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
                    Technology Education at the Two-Year College


                                Durward R. Huffman

                   President, Northern Maine Technical College
                 Academic Officer, Maine Technical College System
                                Presque Isle, Maine


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

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

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

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

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

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

    o  Knowledge is doubling every 10 years;

    o  There is an increasingly higher level of competition; and

    o  There is a shift to a lifetime of learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A comprehensive task force within the Maine Technical College System, identified
in its report, Skills For The 21st Century(see endnote 3) has reached similar
conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony.


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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End notes:

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

(2) Morrison, Ian and Schmid, Greg,, Future Tense: the business realities of the
next ten years. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1994.

(3) Burton, Lawrence and Carin A. Celebuski, Technical Education in 2-Year
Colleges, HES Survey Number 17, NSF, Division of Science Resources Studies,
1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Undergraduate Education in Chemistry


                               Ernest L. Eliel

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


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

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

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

Suggestions

    1. A number of departments have adopted a sequence of one semester of
       general chemistry followed by two semesters of organic chemistry and one
       semester of more advanced general-inorganic-analytical-physical
       chemistry - such a sequence may be preferable especially for those not
       majoring in chemistry.

    2. A course of the type based on "Chemistry in Context" should be taught for
       non-science majors.

    3. CPT requires 400 hours of laboratory. This requirement should not be
       shaved. In general, U.S. students are not as proficient in the laboratory
       as students from Switzerland, Germany, and many other countries are.

    4. A seminar course for seniors would assist them in acquiring ability with
       oral presentation of ideas.

    5. The grading of laboratory notebooks and reports should be done with care
       and thoroughness and should include correction of bad English.

    6. It is strongly recommended that chemistry majors be involved in research
       projects, at least during their senior year.

    7. Co-op programs are ideal for acquiring familiarity with industrial
       operations (including teamwork).  Short of that, a chemistry major might
       profitably spend one or two summers in an industrial laboratory.


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


                Strategies for Revitalizing Undergraduate Education:
                         A Perspective from Chemistry


                               Angelica M. Stacy

                             College of Chemistry
                      University of California, Berkeley
                             Berkeley, California


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

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

What are the needs of society?

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

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

What is the current state of affairs in chemistry?

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

What takes place in our classrooms?

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

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

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

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

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

What constraints are placed on faculty?

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

In Conclusion

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


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


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


                            Robert C. Hilborn

                 Professor of Physics, Amherst College
       President-Elect, American Association of Physics Teachers
                          Amherst, Massachusetts


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

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

     1.  The lessons of physics education research.

     2.  The lessons of research in physics education.

     3.  The crisis of careers.

     4.  The dilemma of diversity.

     5.  Preparation of the future professoriate.

     6.  Implementing what works.

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

Physics Education Research

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

Research in Physics Education

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

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

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

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

The Dilemma of Diversity

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

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

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

Crisis of Careers

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

Preparation of the Future Professoriate

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

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

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

Implementing What Works

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

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

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

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

NSF and Undergraduate Science Education

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

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

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

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


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


                             Scientific Elite or Outcast?


                                     Eric Mazur

                      Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics
                                  Harvard University
                               Cambridge, Massachusetts


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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

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


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


           The State of Undergraduate Education in the Earth Sciences


                               Tanya Atwater

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


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

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

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

Computer Literacy

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

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

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

Undergraduate Research Opportunities and Other "Hands On" Activities

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

Modernization and Refocusing of Earth Science Curricula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are ready to listen and to try new approaches.


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee
Public Hearing on Institutional Perspectives
________________________________________________________________________________

Convened October 25, 1995
At the National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA


                               Invited Speakers:
      "Institutional Perspectives on SME&T Undergraduate Education"


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

Grinnell College                              Pamela A. Ferguson
Grinnell, Iowa                                President

Emory & Henry College                         Thomas Morris
Emory, Virginia                               President

Onondaga Community College                    Bruce H. Leslie
Syracuse, New York                            President

St. Louis Community College                   Gwendolyn W. Stephenson
St. Louis, Missouri                           Chancellor

American Association of Community Colleges    David R. Pierce
Washington, District of Columbia              President

Florida A&M University                        Frederick S. Humphries
Tallahassee, Florida                          President

University of Maryland, College Park          William E. Kirwan
College Park, Maryland                        President

American Association of Colleges &            Paula P. Brownlee
Universities
Washington, District of Columbia              President

New Jersey Institute of Technology            Saul K. Fenster
Edison, New Jersey                            President

Portland State University                     Judith A. Ramaley
Portland, Oregon                              President

University of Wisconsin - Madison             David Ward
Madison, Wisconsin                            Chancellor

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor            Homer Neal
Ann Arbor, Michigan                           Vice President for Research



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


                              Pamela A. Ferguson

                          President, Grinnell College
                                Grinnell, Iowa


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, we have four recommendations:

    1) We recommend the creation of program to support research at undergraduate
       institutions, cognizant of the teaching role research plays at
       undergraduate institutions.

    2) We recommend a faculty development program to support summer or academic-
       year leaves to support research in curricular development at the
       undergraduate level.

    3) We recommend a program to encourage comprehensive institutional reform.

    4) We recommend a program to support systemic educational reform initiatives
       in the SME&T disciplines.


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


    Testimony on the Views of Institutions Toward Undergraduate Education
     in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology(See endnote 1)


                              Thomas R. Morris

                      President, Emory & Henry College
                               Emory, Virginia


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what I would want to leave with you is the challenge of recognizing that
opportunities for creating innovations in undergraduate science teaching are
present, particularly at small liberal arts colleges. These colleges do not have
the institutional barriers that are more likely to be in place at the large
research institutions. One of the things I would encourage the National Science
Foundation to do is, support those faculty who are willing to work with
innovative, integrative, and collaborative teaching possibilities; with regard
to undergraduate science education, then follow up on an ongoing basis, evaluate
the effectiveness of new approaches, and find ways to report methods and
findings to the larger academic community, through articles, lectures, and
workshops. I would argue that at this time in our history, it is probably as
important to be putting resources into how students learn science as perhaps it
is into the more traditional type of science research that is going on, and the
laboratories in the form of small liberal arts colleges are there to make that
possible.


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) This text is an edited version of Dr. Morris' verbal testimony to the EHR
Advisory Committee on October 25, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                NSF Review of Enhancing Science, Mathematics,
                    Engineering, and Technology Education


                              Bruce H. Leslie

                   President, Onondaga Community College
                             Syracuse, New York


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

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

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

    1. The growing national agenda to address the needs of youngsters so they
       are adequately prepared for success in school. Programs such as Head
       Start, Eisenhower grants and Success by Six exemplify this trend.

    2. Recognition that youthful excitement and discovery, brought naturally
       into the world, but often suppressed early in childhood, must be enhanced
       and nurtured, especially in a world where "life-long learning is the only
       job."

    3. Capitalizing upon the Nation at Risk movement that has been, for the past
       decade, gradually changing our thinking about how best to foster
       learning.

    4. The infusion of technology, especially computers, into our schools, homes
       and day-to-day world.

    5. The growing interest by the business community to ensure a
       technologically sophisticated populace both to provide the needed
       workforce and a consumer capable of using, and thus interested in buying,
       the increasingly complex products being developed. Our very economy, and
       the success of business, depends upon an educated citizenry. As the world
       becomes better educated, this will become a greater competitive challenge
       and opportunity for business.

    6. The internationalization of the economy, a growing worldwide competitive
       environment, and increasingly sophisticated defense requirements created
       by a changing world, suggest that the nation's continued strength is
       dependent upon maintaining a technological edge across all sectors of
       public and private systems.

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

    1. We know what works. NSF should help the nation's educators implement the
       proven principles. Although continued exploration to improve learning is
       important, fewer resources require us to widely apply what we already
       know.

    2. SME&T must be infused with broader skills, which today are required in
       the workplace: customer orientation, quality, teamwork, problem solving
       and leadership.

    3. Colleges must apply affective domain strategies, especially for second
       and third quartile students who can and must succeed. The traditional
       emphasis on the discipline itself excludes the larger proportion of our
       citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       o  Invest in faculty development as described above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


        National Science Foundation Review of Undergraduate Education
         Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders


                           Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

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


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

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

Our position is pivotal as we consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future NSF support should focus on the following areas:

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Testimony on the Views of Institutions on Undergraduate Education in
       Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology(See endnote 2)


                            David R. Pierce

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) This text is an edited version of Dr. Pierce's verbal testimony to the EHR
Advisory Committee on October 25, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders


                            Frederick S. Humphries

                      President, Florida A&M University
                             Tallahassee, Florida


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      o  Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement;

      o  Course and Curriculum Development;

      o  Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement;

      o  National Science Foundation Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
         Preparation;

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

      o  the Systemic Statewide Initiatives Programs; and

      o  the Advanced Technological Education program.

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

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


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


            Testimony Before the Undergraduate Review Subcommittee
                     of the National Science Foundation


                               William E. Kirwan

                     President, The University of Maryland
                            College Park, Maryland


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

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

Strengthening Curricula in SME&T Fields

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needed Changes in Institutional Policies

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

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

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


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

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

        Testimony Before the Undergraduate Review Subcommittee of the
                       National Science Foundation


                            Paula P. Brownlee

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                 Testimony to the National Science Foundation
                     Hearings on Undergraduate Education


                               Saul K. Fenster

               President, New Jersey Institute of Technology
                             Edison, New Jersey


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

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

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

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

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

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

     o  embraces responsibility

     o  is technologically proficient

     o  communicates effectively

     o  comprehends the interdisciplinary nature of innovative thinking

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

     o  understands the competitive nature of the marketplace

     o  is entrepreneurial

     o  respects the environment

     o  adapts to change with flexibility

     o  is a productive and cooperative team member

     o  appreciates and respects diversity; and

     o  continues to learn throughout life.

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

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

How is all this to be accomplished?

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

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

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

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

There are a few specific features of the new curriculum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The faculty reward system is another powerful tool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At NJIT we approach the problem in two ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


                            Judith A. Ramaley

                   President, Portland State University
                             Portland, Oregon


What our nation's colleges and universities face today

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

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

Undertaking radical change

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

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

What creates a supportive environment for reform?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graduate education has to change, too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


         Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders


                                 David Ward

                Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - Madison
                            Madison, Wisconsin


Introduction - University of Wisconsin-Madison Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Value of Existing NSF and Other Programs

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

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

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


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


                  Presentation Before the National Science
                Foundation Undergraduate Review Subcommittee


                                Homer A. Neal

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


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

Charge to the NSB-100 Task Committee

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

    . . . to consider the role of the National Science Foundation in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     o  A new curriculum development program has been established.

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

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

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

Changes Over the Decade

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

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

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

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

In Search of a New Compact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our draft report continues:

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

Our report also notes that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Remarks

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee
Public Hearing on Employers' Views
________________________________________________________________________________

Convened November 1, 1995
At the National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA


                              Invited Speakers:
        "Employers' Views on the Preparation of SME&T Undergraduates"


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

Baltimore Public Schools                           Walter G. Amprey
Baltimore, Maryland                                Superintendent

Columbia University                                Eugene Galanter
New York, New York                                 Professor of Psychology

New York Hall of Science                           Peggy Ruth Cole
New York, New York                                 Director of Program Planning
                                                   and Development

GHG Corporation                                    Israel J. Galvan
Houston, Texas                                     President

Hewlett Packard Company                            Alfred Moye
Palo Alto, California                              Manager, University Relations

                                                   Robert W. Ritchie*
                                                   Director, University Affairs

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group                   John H. McMasters
Seattle, Washington                                Senior Principal Engineer,
                                                   Aerodynamics Engineering

                                                   James D. Lang*
                                                   Director, Technology
                                                   Division, New Aircraft and
                                                   Missile Products, McDonnell
                                                   Douglas Aerospace, St. Louis,
                                                   Missouri.

National Alliance of Business                      Robert Jones
Washington, District of Columbia                   Executive Vice President

Shell Oil Company                                  John J. Sisler
Houston, Texas                                     Manager of Exploration &
                                                   Production Training

Bell Atlantic Corporation                          Patrick E. White
Arlington, Virginia                                Vice President, Strategy


*  Additional author of contributed remarks.



                   Employers' Views on Desired Capabilities
              of Undergraduate Students Entering the Workforce


                              Walter G. Amprey

     Superintendent of Public Instruction, Baltimore City Public Schools
                             Baltimore, Maryland


I thank the National Science Foundation for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of public education concerning the undergraduate preparation of students
entering the workforce. Our "industry," public education, develops a "product"
that ultimately must support a regional and national economy and must be the
source of problem-solving ingenuity and innovation to meet the challenges of
change. The university undergraduate product we depend upon to mold this
"product" is the new teacher: either a science, mathematics, engineering, or
technology (SME&T) major who often enters secondary education or a non-SME&T
major. Even though these teachers receive formal instruction in content and
methodology, they are not fully prepared to teach effectively as soon as they
graduate.

Many new teachers arrive at their first assignments lacking sophisticated skills
in writing, speaking, and computing. These are essential skills for success in
any workplace. In addition to these "basic" skills, all graduates should be able
to think logically and be able to show their students how to use higher level
thinking skills.

Technological literacy is another basic requirement for successful citizens of
the Information Age. All new teachers should be able to use technology and adapt
to its roles and applications. They also should be able to appreciate the power
of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology in everyday living and
should understand how mathematics and science support, undergraduate, or clarify
concepts in other disciplines such as art, music, and social studies and in
diverse career fields.

Along with these "basic" skills, new teachers should understand organizational
"culture" and the need for continuous improvement. When entering the workforce,
all new teachers should be able to contribute to team efforts that focus on an
organization's goals and respect their co-workers' abilities. New teachers
should also enter the workforce seeking more education. They must understand
that continuous study and research, both formal and informal, are essential, and
that preparation for teaching does not end at college graduation or with a
master's degree.

SME&T content are also essential for all new teachers. Non-SME&T majors,
especially those, who will become elementary teachers, need broad-based
knowledge of SME&T content, so they can integrate material into any subject
area. They also need to be aware of career opportunities for their students and
be able to direct students to appropriate course work for their career goals.

While all teachers should be technologically literate, those who become SME&T
teachers should be able to use technology as a pedagogical tool in their
classrooms on a regular basis. SME&T teachers also should be well grounded in
modern pedagogy and be able to apply modern pedagogical techniques to their
content areas.

In their content areas, SME&T teachers should know more about the subject
materials than they are required to teach. For example, a pre-college
mathematics teacher for senior high school should be able to teach freshman and
sophomore courses at the college level. Similarly, a chemistry teacher should be
able to handle undergraduate skills and concepts in addition to knowing the
state-of-the-art equipment.

New SME&T teachers should have the benefit of sufficient practicum/internship
experience before they graduate. After they graduate, these new teachers should
have mentors who are experienced teachers as well as mentors who are based in
business and industry. SME&T teachers cannot lose focus on the world of SME&T
beyond the classroom.

In general, all SME&T majors must be able to adjust to the changing demands of
the workplace and use the higher level skills of thinking in mathematics and
science to be productive workers. As requirements of business and industry
change and as corporate downsizing becomes a reality, graduates must have the
transferable skills and flexibility that will provide them with successful
livelihoods.

Undergraduate SME&T education for majors and non-majors is influenced by several
trends. First, the increased requirements in mathematics and science in
precollege education will require colleges to introduce more rigors in
college-level courses. Second, the increased number of students in the pipeline
for SME&T at the precollege level will increase the number SME&T majors at the
college level. This will require more college SME&T faculty. Finally, the
increased number of SME&T-literate precollege students will increase the number
of majors in college and technical schools who will request training in
SME&T-related fields.

Ideally, undergraduate SME&T education for potential teachers should be
developed through collaborations of local school districts and universities. For
example, the National Science Foundation funds the Maryland Collaborative for
Teacher Preparation, an alliance of the University of Maryland system, Morgan
State University, Baltimore City Community College, and three Maryland public
school systems. This project focuses on elementary and middle school science and
mathematics instruction and supports joint efforts to meet the needs of teachers
new to the profession. Many informal collaborations coexist with such formal
arrangements. Thus, individual public school staff members interact frequently
with their colleagues on college faculties because of numerous projects that tie
them together. In addition, a number of institutions of higher learning assist
local districts in meeting their identified needs.

The standard school district/University interface, however, is the student
teaching program, where young people preparing to be teachers work in classrooms
under the joint guidance of a classroom teacher and a college professor. Because
individual school systems are institutionally separate from the teacher training
institution, school district needs are not always met as quickly or directly as
possible since universities must meet their own goals and objectives. This
"extended reaction time" sometimes keeps the teacher training institutions one
step behind the needs of the school district. What is needed is a process for
more rapid and direct implementation of system needs into college programs.

Improved articulation between school districts and teacher training programs
also would reduce the need for "remedial" teacher training. Because so many new
graduates need in- service training to perform satisfactorily, it appears that
the training programs at the college level lack content and pedagogy or lack
understanding of the needs of the school district. New teachers must be able to
apply educational theory in their daily teaching practices. Too often, the
practices demonstrated by professors in teacher preparation courses are not the
state-of-the-art pedagogical methods that are needed for instruction in
precollege classes.

SME&T curriculum for both majors and non-majors must be broadened and deepened
if we are to improve elementary and secondary instruction. Preparation of
secondary teachers, for example, usually includes almost as many courses as a
SME&T major; however, new teachers should be up to the standard of all other
graduating SME&T majors. Elementary teachers enter the workforce with very
little content background in science and mathematics. Further, they are not
challenged to become more prepared because "seasoned" administrators whose
backgrounds may be lacking in science and mathematics content supervise them.
Thus, a self- perpetuating cycle of "science and mathematics weak" elementary
curricula establishes and maintains itself

Both pedagogy and curriculum can best be improved through the collaborations of
precollege and undergraduate faculties. With such alliances, curricular and
pedagogical innovations could better address the knowledge and performance bases
of students -- and better prepares them for jobs and career paths.

Finally, as colleges and universities work with school districts to update and
upgrade teacher preparation programs, states should re-evaluate their
requirements for teacher certification. Currently, a limited number of SME&T
courses is required, especially for elementary teachers. New standards should
emphasize the integration of mathematics and science in other disciplines such
as art and history where high-level skills in problem solving and decision
making are required. States also need to increase their requirements for
certification of mathematics and science teachers as more rigor is introduced in
college and precollege courses. In general, certification requirements should
give all potential teachers more practical and comprehensive "hands-on"
experience in mathematics and science.

To meet the requirements of the 21st century workplace, we must work harder to
disseminate needed improvements in educational practice. On the national level,
roundtable discussions and other forums involving school districts and teacher
education institutions could address problems. Direct local interaction on a
regular basis can resolve problems as they occur. Collaboratives already address
some of those needs, but superintendents and college administrators need to
interact more frequently. This will prevent the bureaucratic needs of either
institution from overwhelming the common goal of providing and employing a
competent SME&T workforce in education.

Local districts such as the Baltimore City Public Schools look forward to
continued partnership with the National Science Foundation, other federal
agencies, and other funders. Specially funded programs have produced many
positive outcomes. For example, more minority students enter the SME&T pipeline
and consequently enter lucrative career paths where they have historically been
under-represented. These programs have also provided the dollars to assist these
young people as well as dollars to assist colleges and universities establish
SME&T programs. NSF grants to colleges and universities have provided equipment
-- and resulting technological literacy -- for students training to function
successfully as scientists, engineers, or teachers. Specially funded projects
have developed teacher-training programs, such as "STARS," featuring
state-of-the-art hands-on/minds-on pedagogy. In the future, we hope
organizations such as NSF will develop more collaboratives to help us meet
critical needs.

In recent years, changes in our society have produced changes in the direction
and practices of education. We have become more sophisticated. We have adopted
the principle of ethnic and gender equity. We expect all students to know more
and to perform at higher levels. The growth of technology and its application in
the mathematics and science classroom require that new teachers be computer
literate and that they be adaptable to new technologies and techniques as they
appear. Because we expect students to know more, we expect new teachers to know
more and be prepared to learn more throughout their careers. Also, as we
implement performance-based instruction, cooperative learning, and
"hands-on/minds-on" strategies, teachers must be prepared with an expanded "bag
of tricks" so they can deliver a 21st century curriculum.


Walter G. Amprey has been Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Baltimore
City Public Schools since 1991. From 1973 to 1991, he served in administrative
positions in the Baltimore County Public Schools - associate superintendent for
staff and community relations, associate superintendent for physical facilities,
director of staff relations, and principal and assistant principal. In 1966, Dr,
Amprey began his career in education in the Baltimore City Public Schools as a
social studies teacher then served from 1971 to 1973 as a school administrator,
He holds a doctorate in education from Temple University, a master's degree in
educational administration and supervision from Johns Hopkins University and a
master's degree in history/social science and a bachelor's degree in
history/secondary education from Morgan State University.  Dr. Amprey was
honored as Maryland Superintendent of the Year, 1994-95, and served as president
of the Large City Schools Superintendents of U.S. and Canada, 1995-96. Most
recently, Dr. Amprey served with Reverend Jesse Jackson as facilitator of the
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's Public Policy Education Conference, "Closing the Gap,"
in Chicago, Illinois.


           Testimony to the NSF Undergraduate Review Subcommittee


                               Eugene Galanter

                Professor of Psychology, Columbia University
                             New York, New York


Real improvement in science education (SME&T) at the baccalaureate level will
require: a) revisions in instructor attitudes and interests; b) attention to
multiple cognitive and motivational functions of students; c) revisions in
standard modes of instruction; d) new evaluation procedures; e) augmentation of
new technology; and finally f) serious longitudinal studies. I will attend
mostly to items a - d. The last pair are technical issues that need attention by
experts in these fields.

To begin with, instructors (clearly not all) must recognize that students don't
think science or math is much fun. They are mainly forced into science by
curricular or career path requirements, e.g., chemistry or biology for medicine,
psychology for aspects of medicine or social or technical professions, and
physics and math by those with self-recognized quantitative or computational
skills for technical or scientific program management. Engineering students are
self-selected for these skills, and comprise a less intense problem for
engineering instructors. However, many of these students at research
institutions are more interested in engineering science than real engineering.
In my discipline (experimental psychology), students choose our introductory
courses to satisfy (effortlessly they hope) a requirement, or to find a less
demanding career with the cachet of science. They may then discover that some of
the materials are daunting, or that the substantive materials barely speak to
their interests.

I attack the question of how to advance science education at the undergraduate
level by asking several questions.  First: how many students really want to take
science in college? The answer is very few.  Which sciences do the students
take?  Our data show that except for pre-meds, they opt for the easiest, the
least quantitative, and the most descriptive.  The third question: Do these
sciences provide opportunities for such students to engage seriously in the
technical world: The answer, I am afraid, is maybe not.  The fourth question is:
What can we do?  And that constitutes the heart of my suggestions.  These
suggestions must be tempered by the enormous revolutionary events that are
occurring now in our colleges and universities. My colleague, Eli Noam in the
Columbia Business School, has just published an article in Science on the demise
of the university as the mechanism by which information transfer occurs.  His
point is that, in the past, the user went to the source.  Now the source is
distributed to the user.  So what does the user need our real estate for?  The
consequence is that this will engender enormous changes, changes in which
instrumentality's that we have never thought of as the educational base of our
activities will become the instrumentality's by which information does flow to
our consumers, if you will pardon that expression.

Back to our primary topics.  Once instructors recognize these default attitudes
of students -requirements or jobs - they can often loosen-up the relentless
drive to provide technical materials that span a broad spectrum.  They must
remember that their own initiation required many years of hard work.  Part of
the difficulty is a failure to notice that our students are taking other courses
as well as our own. The demands on their time can create a climate of
anticipated failure. I will say more about this phenomenon later.

Students have limited experience.  The kinds of experiences they have are not
connected to atomic structure, to spiral nebulae, et cetera.  They are connected
to why can't my grandfather remember things any more?  How is it that (I have
been told) still images on a television screen look as if they are really people
moving around?  What is virtual reality? How can athletes do the stuff they do,
and so on.

My own field of experimental psychology is useful for discussion because it
covers an enormous class of phenomena, and also interlocks with biology,
chemistry, and physics through neurosciences and psychophysics on one side, and
the personal and social sciences on the other. As such it will serve to
illustrate and informally substantiate my views on under- graduate SME&T in the
large. To summarize the discussion to follow, I suggest that the paths to
continuing progress in SME&T are:

      o  increasing relevance
      o  restructuring content
      o  modularization
      o  motivational design

In order to make science attractive to students who are not yet career driven,
but who may be drawn into a career choice by their college experiences, our
offerings must have relevance. This much-abused concept refers here to the
ability of a course of study to raise and answer questions important to (the
limited experience of) students. In the last ten years many curricular efforts
have attempted to achieve this relevance, sometimes, unhappily, with a loss of
precision. In my first attempt to make psychophysics an integral part of
introductory psychology(See endnote 1). I opened with the question of how an
airliner is guided to a safe landing during weather conditions that defeat
direct visual control. Such tasks depend on translating visual codes into
skilled action. In recent text materials(See endnote 2) topics in signal
delectability theory center on issues of radiological diagnoses of breast
cancer, and failure of memory in recognizing faces. Such questions engage the
student with problems they can understand. If science informs the answer,
relevance is insured.

Are there enough relevant topics? Again in my own field consider a spectrum of
subjects such as memory loss through aging or accident, virtual reality from
apparent motion through full- fidelity simulations, individual differences in
intelligence and other personal characteristics, cognitive development, social
and political consequences of individual attitudes and prejudices, motor skills
and athletics, sexual preferences and aversions, human error and its
consequences; the list could continue to a score or more.

We are restructuring the content of early science education in psychology to
motivate interest and to offer rational and more importantly -plausible - ways
to understand and solve real problems. I mean to do this by making data
collection one of the centers of effort to confront the questions of fact and
theory.   Students who collect their own data as compared with students who do
problems in a book own the data in a way that the book never provides. When they
are really your reaction times to stimuli of various kinds, then you may say,
"hey, can I respond faster to red or green."  Having those personal data becomes
and intrinsic motivator that is critical to the continuing activities of the
student.  And so rather than follow some preferred sequence, including
prerequisite course work, structure has been changed to show relevance.  The
tested retention of such information in our admittedly minimal current
evaluations suggests enhancements suggest enhancements in understanding by a
factor of six.

A third advance in my own field, and extendible to other disciplines, is the
technique of modularization. This refers to the construction of independent
sub-parts of a discipline along with its own auxiliary technical materials.
Units of study do not need to be timed to coincide with rigid time frames.  If
we want to talk about memory and about lapses of memory, then, we could have a
memory module, and that memory module might last for two lectures or four
lectures or six lectures.  It might include experiments to see how memory works,
how it dissolves and disappears, et cetera.

Our current NSF support has helped us develop a variety of stand-alone
quantitative modules on topics in the human sciences from biology to sociology.
We have modules of varying duration on human genetics, evolution, psychophysics
and decision theory, space and motion perception, and social psychology. We plan
to construct additional modules on cognitive mechanisms in perception and
action, motor organization, language and thought, theories of memory, virtual
reality, human engineering and ergonomics, psychometrics, animal conditioning,
learning and cognition, and quantitative sociology.

Each of these units is supported by quantitative material that undergirds the
topic. We do not demand prerequisites in, say, calculus, statistics, algebra, or
probability theory. Rather, we incorporate the required techniques in the module
itself. Any single module is studied for its nominal duration, which currently
ranges from 4 to 14 fifty-minute lecture/labs. The ancient bookkeeping of
academe proscribes such plans.  Our modules currently fill the standard semester
time scale, and are given in a "rational" order.  The ramifications of these
historic constraints are reviewed later.

Table 3.1:

Theory of      | Goal Orientation    | Confidence in  | Behavior Pattern
Intelligence   |                     | Present Ability|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Theory  | Performance Goal    | if High        | Mastery Oriented
(IQ is fixed)  | gain positive       |                | seeks challenge, high
               | judgments           |                | persistence
               | avoid negative      |                |
               | judgments           |                |
               |                     | if Low         | Helplessness
               |                     |                | avoid challenge, low
               |                     |                | persistence
               |                     |                |
Incremental    | Learning Goal       | High or Low    | Mastery Oriented
Theory         | increase competence |                | seek challenge, high
(IQ is         |                     |                | persistence
malleable)     |                     |                |

From Dweck, C. Motivational processes affecting learning.  American
Psychologist, October 1986.


In psychology the computer has become the required instrument for experimental
research and field data tabulation. It is our microscope, centrifuge,
accelerator, or telescope. Few institutions provide adequate access to these
machines for undergraduate use. In my own department of fifteen tenured faculty,
our financially challenged administration has recognized the importance of such
investment, and has provided 16 machines for undergraduate labs. These
sequestered microcomputers have made "open" labs possible. Only one graduate (or
often an advanced undergraduate) supervisor is needed, and the lab is available
to students in several courses on an essentially ad lib. basis. There are ca.
600 undergraduates per semester in our course offerings, so the ratio is quite
small. On the other hand only about 150 students need access to the machines.
With increased curricular implementations, we anticipate that this 1:10 ratio
will probably increase to 1:25, a figure that is probably close to optimum. As
with any computer implementation, we are hampered by software limits. We have
developed some experiments for use on our machines, and will be offering these
materials on our Internet home page.

Just as lab equipment (in our case microcomputers) is often in short supply, so
also are teaching materials. In the modules we are developing, primary sources
are the vehicle of choice for students to read. However, for many undergraduates
it is often necessary to provide some intellectual resources that may not be
part of their apperceptive mass. To this end we need texts that can provide
explicatory material to permit students to engage the primary source scientific
writings that have cast light on the central issues they study. We are trying to
provide such texts in our curriculum development program, but as any teacher
will recognize, this task is enormously difficult and time consuming.

The limit imposed by academic bookkeeping prevents us from using new formats and
methods creatively. With free standing modules on a variety of topics keyed to
questions of obvious and direct importance, we need to allow students to select
a group of such modules based on their own interests. If we intelligently
metricize the credit value of each module, we can allow students to select from
a menu of topics a personalized subset for study during a standard academic time
period. Students might be expected to take a variety of admixed modules, any
combination of which would be accepted by a registrar for appropriate academic
credit. In combination with newly designed evaluation procedures that we are
currently exercising, the entire task of selection (i.e., advising), pedagogy,
and credentialing could be simplified and packaged to minimize student anxiety
and time constraints. These revisions have direct implications for various sorts
of distance learning, and other forms of non- institution based education.

The previous reference to evaluation needs expansion.  In science education we
have commonly used so-called objective test formats to evaluate student
comprehension. Critics have charged that "constructive" tests better measure
student knowledge. Indeed, this topic is quite current(See endnote 3), but fails
to recognize the cognitive continuum between, say, a true-false test and a
constructive essay. We have developed several waypoints on this continuum, and
is currently analyzing correlation between double blind scoring of quasi-
constructive answers, and items on objective (four-alternative) examinations.
Our preliminary findings support the view that the correlations are very high
(ca. +.85). We score the objective tests by requiring students to eliminate
incorrect answers. Originally we gave unit weight to each incorrect answer. Now
we have installed our examinations on our Web page, and process the test data by
more sophisticated statistics. We will shortly be able to differently weight the
incorrect answers as "easier" or "harder," and in this fashion improve the
ostensible validity of the score. Of course, all of these improvements are based
on plausibility, and wait real longitudinal validation.

Finally, the fourth topic - motivation - stands at the center of our efforts to
bring science to those who are traditionally absent from the feast. Of the
186,013 baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering awarded in 1989, 9325
were awarded to blacks(See endnote 4) (the data are similar in structure for
Hispanics and Native Americans). Roughly 5 percent of the students are drawn
from 13 percent of the population. We characterize this as a motivational
deficit, not an intellectual one(See endnote 5).

To attack this problem we must recognize the distinction between learning and
performance. What we mean by the goals of learning are to increase confidence to
act.  What we mean by performance goals are to seek positive personal judgments.
That is, performance means you have gotten such a good score on the test, or
you have gotten such a bad score on the test. Either of those two can lead to
problems down the road.  When we can make clear that failure to learn is a
natural part of learning, and if we ensure that the goals of learning are
learning goals, then we may observe mastery after failure.  There are now more
than 50 studies that demonstrate that this is the case.  We also believe that an
entity theory of intellect can be replaced by an incremental theory, one where
IQ is malleable.  The format of our modules tries to accommodate these
principles.

We know that failure in performance goals leads to hopelessness and rejection of
the intellectual content.  We must examine how we frame our material so students
understand that it is not their performance that counts, but rather their
ability to grasp the issues and solve the problem.  And if they can't solve the
problem, then that failure is intrinsic to actively searching for more
information.

Let me conclude with some tangential remarks about how we might fix some parts
of SME&T; in particular how some aspects of these revisions would work.  Change
would occur because students would do things.  The teacher would say as little
as possible.  That is hard to implement.  After all, because of my competence in
language and delivery, I can amuse you, and it rewards me to see you smile,
applaud, and so on.  Teachers are mostly like that everywhere.  However, the
rewards to the teacher are mostly irrelevant to the student.  What the student
wants to know is how to do something, not to be told about something.  In
science, doing is everything.  Ideas are cheap.  It is work that is costly.  We
have concentrated too much on the transmission of ideas, and not enough on the
transmission of effort, activity, and the way to do it.

Unless we are proactive in respect of the changes that have to occur, we are
going to be left in the dust.  But there are things we have to know, e.g.,
whether any of these revisions have consequence.  I can talk about students
being happier, students getting better grades, students inviting others to join
the course, et cetera.  But if we don't know how many students go to the right
jobs or whatever, then all of this is just talk.

We need to plan major longitudinal studies to assess the consequences of science
education. We must answer the hard questions: Do the things we are trying to do
now have real consequences?  To find such answers will require a coherent and
well-organized research enterprise to see what happens 5, 10, and 15 years after
these changes go into effect.  In order to do this I think we must mount a
federal enterprise with continuity in design and support.  Management has to be
administratively structured in such a way that students can be tracked into
graduate school, the market place, and their later lives.  Do we change from 3
percent entering technical work to 7 percent because of the changes we make now
or not?

Finally what about our input?  What is K-12 science education today?  We know
that an enormous problem is the turnoff that has occurred in the middle and
senior high schools in science.  Now, attempts to rectify that by talking about
imitation science - I don't mean that in any disparaging way - but things like
nature studies and fanciful ecology are not going to increase our entry quality,
because the first time these kids take a college course that is serious about
these issues, they are going to have to look at population densities and
distribution functions of animals, and genetic structures, and they will say,
"hey, where is the ecology."  And we must answer it is in there somewhere, but
we have to work to get to it.  K- 12 education, as you know, is run in a
political environment that is essentially inviolate when it comes to attempts by
people in collegiate education to impose anything.  We have to suck them into
it. We can't push it down.  They will simply walk away.  They may not have
exactly the training that is needed to accommodate the materials we suggest they
provide.  In which case they are going to be very tough about saying, "well, I
think the stuff I am teaching is much more important than what you are doing,
and my kids love it, and they are doing very well, thank you, and furthermore 70
percent of the class got A's."  To reach the common schools will be a much
harder job than getting our own act together.


Professor Galanter received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in
1953, and advanced from Instructor to Professor from 1952 to 1959. He was
appointed a Research Fellow at Harvard from 1955 to 1957. He was a Fellow at the
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in 1958-59. His work with
George A. Miller and Karl Pribram on a new cognitive psychology was published in
1960 as Plans and the Structure of Behavior. Following his return from the
Center, he began a collaboration that resulted in the three-volume Handbook of
Mathematical Psychology, published during 1963-65. He completed his Textbook of
Elementary Psychology in 1966. In addition to these books, and his three popular
books in the Kids and Computers series published in 1982-84, he has contributed
more than 100 reports, journal articles, and book chapters in the fields of
psychophysics, mathematical psychology, aviation psychology, and utility
measurement. Professor Galanter was made Chair of the Department of Psychology
at the University of Washington in 1962. In 1966 he went to Columbia University
as Joseph Klingenstein Professor of Social Psychology and Race Relations. He was
named Professor of Psychology and Director of the Psychophysics Laboratory in
Columbia University in 1967.


           Testimony Delivered to the National Science Foundation
                Review of Undergraduate Education Hearings on
                 Employers Views on Desired Capabilities of
               Undergraduate Students Entering The Work Force


                               Peggy Ruth Cole

   Director of Program Planning and Development, New York Hall of Science
                  Flushing-Meadows Corona Park, New York


Before coming to the New York Hall of Science 11 years ago, I was principal of
an independent school in New York City, and before that a graduate faculty
member of Bank Street College of Education, a teacher training institution also
in New York City.  I have 15 years of classroom teaching experience at both the
elementary and secondary levels.

While I will limit my examples to issues related to our particular science
center, I am also speaking on behalf of the 300 science-technology centers
around the country serving over 76 million annual visitors including children,
families, school groups, and teachers.  Informal science institutions offer
training to 150,000 teachers annually. All these institutions have an informal
approach to science, mathematics, and technology in common.  Unlike schools,
they are discretionary environments where visitors chose to come and select
their experiences based on interest, attraction, and a variety of other factors.
To quote the late Frank Oppenheimer, founder of the Exploratorium in San
Francisco, "Nobody flunks a museum."

Science centers have the potential to improve the undergraduate preparation of
new teachers. We have an externally evaluated program in operation for 9 years,
which is a model for other science centers.  Our Science Teacher Career Ladder,
a program within our Science Career Ladder, serving mostly women and minority
youth, involves cooperation among the science center, colleges and universities
and schools.  Together, we provide a support and training package which colleges
and universities cannot supply alone.

The program design is effective.  A survey of almost 25 percent of our Career
Ladder alumni showed that 34 percent of them are now teaching.  And our record
of attracting women and minorities to teaching is high.  Of our Science Career
Ladder alumni now teaching, 21 percent are African-American compared with a
national average of 5 percent of current teachers; 14 percent are Asian compared
with a national average of 1 percent; and 13 percent are Hispanic compared with
a national average of 3 percent.

How does the program work?  We employ 40 high school and 60 college youth
annually as our floor staff.  They work part time in a science- and
technology-rich environment, and receive both pay and school credit for the
experience.

Their job is to explain science to a broad public, from pre-schoolers through
senior citizens. The stimuli for both Explainers and visitors are l70 hands-on
interactive exhibits, ten on- floor demonstrations, and science activities
delivered through workshops and special events. Our youth staff learn science
and they learn how to teach science in an environment free from grades and
exams, but rich with science phenomena.  As a result, many discover both an
interest in science and pleasure in sharing it with others.  Consequently, the
majority decides to become teachers.

These students have, on the whole, come through a school system that teaches
science through the traditional avenues of textbooks, lecture/demonstrations,
and structured laboratory experiences with a reward system centered on high
grades.  Most never see the real-world application of science and math and they
rarely get to meet and interact with people who work in these fields while they
are still in decision making positions that will effect their entire futures.
The result, as we all know, is an early turnoff to math and science by the very
population of women and minorities that will, by the year 2000, be the majority
entering the workforce.

The Science Career Ladder is almost 10 years old.  It has been a model for 12
other science centers around the country that have adapted aspects of the
program.  In the past decade we have worked with 20 colleges and universities
and 14 local high schools.  Almost without exception, we have been able to
develop meaningful partnerships with Cooperative Education Departments who do
not offer content course credit.  In some cases we have developed relationships
with Schools of Education but rarely with departments of academic science:
physics, biology, chemistry, etc.  The culture of undergraduate institutions is
curriculum driven, departmentally structured, grade oriented - formal. The
culture of science centers is content driven, discretionary, intergenerational,
exploratory, visitor driven - informal.  We are working hard to bridge this gap
and to help colleges see our program as relevant and meaningful to their
enterprise, but the academic structure that informs course development and
credit makes it very hard.

As employers of youth, in a rapidly expanding industry, with a significant
shortage of well- trained minority youth, we have learned to "grow our own."  We
identify women and minority youth who traditionally are not represented in
science and technology fields, and offer them science-related employment to both
serve our public and to prepare them for the workforce.  And we are succeeding.
In addition to producing science teachers, the 1994 survey showed that 9 percent
are working in museums, and 15 percent are working in science and technology
fields.  The majority of our Career Ladder alumni are African American, Latino,
or Asian, and the minority of white students includes recently immigrated ethnic
groups.  They are poor, often first generation college students.

What are the workplace literacy skills we are developing in our youth staff?
Because these positions are authentic, paid, and essential to the functioning of
the museum, our demands are those of any other employer.  We expect punctuality,
responsibility, appropriate dress and professional demeanor, teamwork, the
ability to meet performance standards, and above all, knowledge of science.  We
pay for training and we expect students to learn the science needed to work with
the public.

The science content we teach is directly related to our permanent, temporary and
traveling exhibitions, and school and public programs.  Interpreting our 170
permanent exhibitions demands a knowledge of anatomy, psychology of perception,
optics, wave theory, resonance, atomic structures, physics of light and color,
feedback systems, quantum physics, audio- technology, microbiology and
chemistry. Delivering programs and interpreting traveling and temporary exhibits
involves knowledge of astronomy, information technology, navigation, earth
science, manufacturing technology, architecture, and the biology of AIDS.  We
also expect our youth staff to use instruments from scanning electronic
microscopes to a functioning steam engine.  Students tell us the skills they
need to work at the New York Hall of Science test and exercise what they learn
in the university in new and more interesting ways.

Career Ladder participants learn questioning techniques, how to adapt
demonstrations for kindergartners and high school seniors, how to present the
same content in different ways to meet different learning styles, how to use
manipulatives to illustrate principles, how to attract and keep attention, and
how to control large groups.  Our Preschool Science Place is a laboratory for
learning about early childhood development and how to work with very young
children and their caretakers.  Unlike traditional undergraduate pre-service
students who get one or two student teaching placements, our Science Career
Ladder participants interact with students at every grade level from preschool
through graduate school, students with disabilities and learning problems,
students who are intellectually gifted, and everyone in between.  Many Career
Ladder participants discover an affinity with a particular grade level or
learning style as a result of their experiences at the Hall of Science.  Our
Career Ladder students get to observe teachers handling groups on class trips
and they form ideas about teachers and teaching from a perspective unavailable
in any other setting.

Some schools of Education offer field credit for the experience, one or two
offer student teaching credit.  Our experienced pre-service Career Ladder
students work in our teacher training programs, interacting with classroom
teachers as museum staff.  But most importantly, our students are rewarded for
exploration, discovery inquiry, experimentation, flexibility; the very
attributes essential for good science teaching and learning and, unhappily
rarely modeled in high schools and colleges.

In sum, the Science Career Ladder and similar programs around the country, are
providing students with workplace skills and science, technology and math
know-how within informal settings that supplement and enhance undergraduate
education.  The evidence is rapidly accumulating and it indicates that work
experiences explaining science in an informal setting have a positive impact on
career choice, science knowledge, and a sense of self-confidence and self
esteem.

The major obstacle science centers face is neither designing nor implementing
successful work-study programs for undergraduates.  It is, rather, convincing
the formal education community that experiences provided by science centers are
legitimate and valuable ways to provide young people with skills, motivation,
and know-how in science, mathematics and technology.  At the moment, science
center staff are included in reform efforts as advisors, committee members, and
representatives of community-based organizations.  But they are not taken
seriously as an integral part of undergraduate teacher preparation despite the
advantages I have just described.

These hearing are designed to help you assess what further needs and
opportunities we see in undergraduate education reform.  I would strongly
recommend a National Science Foundation program that provides major funding for
a few model programs which, like our Science Career Ladder, offer undergraduates
carefully constructed, content rich experiences in informal science centers.  If
requirements for successful proposals included: 1) academic credit in the
disciplines for participants; 2) college level administrative commitment to such
programs; and 3) a planning team of college and science center staff; we could
show the formal education community ways they might work with the informal
science community to reach our mutual goals, which are the preparation and
employment of a scientifically literate, and science- and technology-oriented
workforce.


Peggy Ruth Cole is a senior staff member at the New York Hall of Science
responsible for the planning and implementation of new programs and for the
development department and its fundraising activities. She is the founder of the
Science Career Ladder, the signature, minority access education program of the
New York Hall of Science which is replicated nationally. Before joining the
Hall, Dr. Cole was special project coordinator at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk
, Virginia and the conceptual advisor to the Staten Island Children's Museum's
exhibition, " Once Upon An Island." She was Principal of the Fieldston Lower
School in New York City from 1981-1983. Prior to this, for 12 years, Dr. Cole
was a graduate faculty member of the Bank Street College of Education in New
York City. She serves on the editorial board of Curator, the journal of the
American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Cole is nationally active as a reviewer,
author, and speaker in the field.


    Math, Science, and Technology Undergraduate Education in America: One
                         Small Business Perspective


                             Israel Joseph Galvan

                          President, GHG Corporation
                                  Houston, TX


Introduction

These are the personal views of one small business owner deeply involved in
current and emerging technologies. However, I wish to emphasize that I claim no
special expertise on education.

My name is Israel Joseph Galvan and I am President of GHG Corporation, a
computer systems engineering company based in Houston, Texas. We have been in
business since 1979 and employ about 200 people.

Criticism of the American educational system comes from a variety of directions.
It has increased in volume and intensity and, worse, it has become a permanent
issue in every political campaign. Whether the fundamental role and purpose of a
university education is in need of a serious national debate is problematical.
However, there appears to be some confusion and lack of a unifying principle in
our educational system-a lack of clarity.

Arguably, the last serious debate on the role of the university occurred in the
1930's between the camps of Robert Maynard Hutchins, the traditionalist, and
John Dewey, the progressive. These two giants proposed ideas that were
fundamentally different, but their views were clear and unambiguous. Hutchins
believed that the university should be a community of scholars, a place to train
the intellect and to transmit a Great Tradition of culture. Dewey saw education
as an experience and a process for coming to grips with and solving real world
problems, a bridge between school and society. Hutchins opposed professional
schools; Dewey embraced them. It is safe to say that a hybrid of Dewey's ideas
won.

As it should be in any democracy, the debate on the nature and function of
higher education continues, but the current issues are not as fundamental. The
debate is less on the role and more on quality, efficiency, and economics. It is
centered principally on delivery and implementation issues. The core of
contemporary criticisms, I believe, validates our present educational system.
Our educational system is sound. It is only in need of minor adjustments. Yet
there are some aspects of our educational system that do require further
clarification.

What is the role of our educational system in training our work force, as
opposed to educating our work force? What is the role of our community college
system? What is the relationship between our university system and our community
college system?

These questions are beyond my simple musings. Contrasted to the complex problems
visited on our educational system, I fear that this modest presentation may be
too narrow and parochial. My intent is to simply share the personal observations
and views of a small "high- tech" firm.

The Environment

The world is undergoing a transformation not seen since the Industrial
Revolution, but at an increasingly faster rate. The time from idea to
development to implementation has virtually disappeared. The forces driving this
change began in the early 1960's and were not anticipated. Our finest research
institutions and our finest minds thought that the 1960's were going to be the
decade of nuclear energy. It was going to satisfy our every need for energy.
Energy was going to be so cheap it would not have to be metered.

They were wrong, of course; it turned out to be the decade of the computer, with
IBM as its corporate manifestation. For most of the next two decades, IBM became
the corporate model for the world, emulated for its technical and business
innovation. Little did we know that the heart of IBM's computer, the Central
Processing Unit (CPU), consisting of a dozen circuit boards, would be replaced
by another CPU the size of a dime. Driven by this new CPU, which is embedded in
every facet of our lives, including our psyche, our world and our perceptions of
that world changed, and continue to change before our very eyes. It has created,
and is continuing to create, new industries. It has changed, and continues to
change, existing industries. It has transformed, and is continuing to transform,
every sector of our economy. It has eliminated, and is eliminating, jobs;
created, and is creating, new jobs; and is contributing significantly to our
country's anxieties and sense of uncertainty. Indeed, even IBM feels threatened.
It is threatening the classic American corporate model and creating new ones. It
has empowered the technician and the small business.

Much has been written and said about the economic importance and significance of
the small business community. Small businesses:

     o  provided virtually all of the net new jobs from 1987 to 1992;

     o  were 99.7 percent of all employers in 1992;

     o  employed 53 percent of the private work force in 1992; and

     o  are the source of considerable innovation.

So says the U.S. Small Business Administration. And yet most of our national
educational and economic policies do not reflect the uniqueness, diversity, and
role of small business in the current transformation.

These are fast changing times; these are exciting times; and these are perilous
times. However, there appears to be one universal constant:  "Knowledge is
Power." For the present, this verity could possibly be restated "Mathematical,
Scientific, and Technical Knowledge are Power." And it is the role of our
educational system and this board to insure that all Americans are armed with
this knowledge. Of course, nothing much is at stake, except the economic well
being of this country.

Small businesses, especially "high-tech" ones, live, operate, succeed, and fail
in this environment. Most small businesses share common problems and concerns,
but "high-tech" small businesses, I believe, have a number of unique concerns
and problems intimately tied to undergraduate science, mathematics, and
engineering education. Generally, the small business community has very little
direct contact with the university community, except as a source of talent. In
the university research and development world, cooperative agreements and
sponsored research is the exclusive domain of the large corporation. The
overhead cost of a typical university is daunting to any small business wishing
to fund a research project.

The Real World

Recently, a colleague said that the three most important concerns of his
business were: capital, capital, and capital. Hyperbole not withstanding,
capital is always a problem, but equally important is good management and good
people. This, of course, is true for any business, small or large. We both face
a rapid and sustained force of technological change, and a diminishing life
expectancy and relevancy of particular skills. It is challenging our abilities
to maintain our skill base tuned to this change.

Unlike the large, well financed corporation, the small "high-tech" business has
minimal redundancy in its skill base and less resources to keep that skill base
continuously trained. The loss of a key employee can be devastating. Thus the
recruitment, retention, and continuing training of a quality work force, while
always important, has become critical. In this highly competitive market place,
we can not afford to lose employees, lose our sense of unity, or disrupt the
"team." We can not afford to treat employees as expendable commodities. We have
to nurture them, train them, in short, value them. This is not without a
significant financial burden and increasing pressure to make tough management
decisions. Yet, we must remain competitive. We are still subject to all of the
forces of a competitive market place: being raided by highly skilled
professional recruitment agencies, market demands for increasingly narrow job
descriptions, competitive compensation packages, and the bottom line.

For example, it is not unusual for us to have to pull a highly skilled computer
scientist from a revenue generating project in order to send him or her to an
expensive short course on some very specific emerging and proprietary
technology. An alternative is to establish an internal training program with our
own courses and instructors, and we have. But this is very expensive. Another
option is to lay off employees when their substantial skills are not considered
adequate for more narrowly defined skills. To retain a competitive posture, we
are forced to make decisions at odds with our sense of fairness, our sense of
community with our employees, and the long-term health of the firm. However,
survival is basic and immediate. Though necessary, it is no longer sufficient to
have a solid education in a particular technical discipline., thus demonstrating
a compelling need for the development, implementation, and delivery of
continuing education programs that keep pace with the changing technical
environment.

This fact is equally true in non-degree technical fields. For example, the
transition from mainframes to distributed workstations is abolishing the need
for the traditional computer operator and other affiliated paraprofessionals.
This same transition is creating new jobs such as local area network (LAN)
administrators, managers, and other related jobs. However, instead of training
the current work force, businesses are replacing them.

We expect recent college graduates to arrive at the work place fully armed and
ready to contribute to the bottom line. Perhaps our expectations are misplaced.
Perhaps it is the role of the business community to provide the necessary
training. Additionally, it appears that recent college graduates generally lack
practical, immediate skills; skills demanded by current market forces; skills
such as being able to work in teams, being familiar with current technologies,
and a fundamental understanding of systems engineering are glaring examples.
Unfamiliarity with working in teams and with current technologies and systems
thinking may be a manifestation of dated curriculums. The currency of detailed
technical skills is important, but graduates also lack fundamental skills.
Skills with the written and spoken language are deteriorating. In fact, it has
become a clich that scientists and engineers can not write. This paper is
probably a good example.

In summary, the most glaring deficiencies in Math, Science, and Technology
Undergraduate Education that I have observed are:

     o  Lack of team skills in recent recruits;

     o  Lack of communication skills, both oral and written;

     o  Lack of a dynamic and current curriculum and continuing education
        program; and

     o  Inability of small businesses to access the applied research and
        development capabilities of our educational system.

Modest Recommendations

The National Science Foundation should promote greater participation between the
Small Business community and our educational institutions. More specifically,
the Foundation should:

    o  Encourage the development of curricula allowing undergraduates to work on
       more relevant projects; projects that require multiple disciplines and an
       integrated team effort. This will allow them to experience a project
       through its entire life cycle. This will encourage teamwork, systems
       thinking, and significant practice in the development of their oral and
       writing skills.

    o  Encourage the continuous improvement and relevancy of the curricula.

    o  Encourage the development of a better, more relevant, and more accessible
       continuing education program. This program should be made available to
       non-degree technical people, post graduates, and even post doctoral
       students. Considerations should be given for small businesses to consult
       in the development of such a continuing program. In addition, small
       businesses should be considered in its implementation and delivery.

    o  Encourage an active partnership between small business and our university
       system. Undergraduates should be encouraged and allowed to work on small
       business sponsored projects and receive credit.

    o  Encourage and sponsor more relevant and applied research projects at the
       undergraduate and masters level. The small business community should be
       allowed and encouraged to participate, share cost, and benefit from the
       research.

    o  Encourage the small business community to sponsor application research
       without the burden of the educational institution's overhead. Perhaps,
       the Foundation could make overhead moneys available to the university
       community if they could match it with appropriate direct cost moneys.

    o  Finally, the Foundation should encourage the small business community to
       work more closely with the Community College System in the development of
       curricula more efficacious to small business and to the paraprofessional.


Israel J. Galvan graduated Cum Laude from the University of Houston's Cullen
College of Engineering in 1973; receiving a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Electrical Engineering. He is a member of the Electrical Engineering Honor
Society; received a NASA Space Act Award 1991, received an Honor Award from the
Central Intelligence Agency and the Directorate of Science and Technology in May
1996. In 1973, he joined IBM as a product development engineer. He worked on a
variety of applications research and product prototype projects. He assisted IBM
in establishing a manufacturing plant in Milan, Italy. He began his own company,
GHG Corporation, in 1979 as a systems integration company.


                 Employers Views on Desired Capabilities of
                    Undergraduates Entering the Workforce


                               Alfred L. Moye

                       University Relationships Manager

                              Robert W. Ritchie

                         Director, University Affairs

                            Hewlett-Packard Company
                             Palo Alto, California


Introduction

We applaud NSF for having these hearings and for focusing on undergraduate
science, math, engineering, and technology (SME&T) education.  Significant
change in how we educate in these critical areas is required, and NSF is
uniquely positioned to take the leadership in encouraging this change.  NSF is
the Federal agency looked to by the Academy as having the general health of
higher education as its focus, without the encumbrance of specific, narrowly
defined missions, such as the Departments of Defense, Health, or Commerce.

The organization for this presentation is:

    1. The Environment and Why it Requires Change in Undergraduate SME&T
       Education
    2. The Characteristics Required of Graduates to Succeed in This Environment
    3. The Kind of Undergraduate Education for There to be Such Graduates
    4. Specific Programs to Move Towards These Kinds of Undergraduate
       Experiences
    5. The Environment and Why it Requires Change in Undergraduate SME&T
       Education

The Environment and Why it Requires Change in Undergraduate SME&T Education

Our society is radically different from the one in which the current educational
system developed.  Changes in our world have had a major impact on our sense of
what students need to learn and how the learning should be delivered to them.
Increasingly, we are recognizing that mastering a body of knowledge is simply
not enough.  Students must acquire lifetime skills, such as critical thinking,
quantitative reasoning, effective communications, along with such abilities as
finding needed information and interacting well with others.   We want graduates
who have the capacity to learn not who know everything.

Some institutions are rethinking and redesigning their curricula to reflect the
shift from teaching content to enabling students to develop life-long learning
skills.  Some faculty understands the implications of the information explosion
and has re-engineered their courses accordingly.

An important, and not so subtle, change has been a shift from life-long job
security to a more realistic hope for career security. This shift is not greatly
appreciated because it places responsibility on employees to manage their
careers; and to continue learning in order to avoid technological obsolescence.

Today's worker has to learn to survive and thrive in a world that is globally
interdependent. Workers must be able to operate and communicate
cross-functionally, cross-culturally and across geography.

Teamwork, group problem solving and collaboration characterize today's
high-performance workplace.  Learning in industry shifts from the classroom to
peers and teams.  Knowledge creation shifts from the individual to the
organization where problem solving and decision- making skills are important
components.

Characteristics Required of Graduates to Succeed in this Environment

This environment requires that all graduates have skills for continued learning.
Workers must assume responsibility for managing their careers, for continuous
upgrading of their skills and acquisition of new skills in order to be prepared
for emerging opportunities.  Managing one's career in this way is the way to
guarantee career security--to position oneself to have a career for as long as
one wants to work.  The onus is on the individual.

To prepare students to be productively employed for life in science, math,
engineering and technology, the undergraduate experience must consist of a solid
foundation in mathematics and science fundamentals.

They must have an understanding of the modern, rapidly changing,
high-performance workplace and knowledge of what is required to succeed and
thrive in such a workplace.

They must have the flexibility to expect and embrace change throughout their
careers, skills for and the commitment to working in teams, cutting across
vastly different areas of expertise whether it is development, manufacturing,
marketing, or whether it is with other people from around the globe.

Workers must have an appreciation for the global interdependence of our
communities and have the ability to work across geographies.  In particular,
students planning for careers in science, math, engineering, and technology must
be prepared to understand the business and social implications of the activities
in which they will be engaged.

The Kind of Undergraduate Education for There to be Such Graduates

To prepare graduates, who have the above skills, schools must drastically change
the undergraduate educational enterprise, especially in SME&T education.

An expectation of all undergraduates in the next millennium must be basic
science and technology literacy, regardless of area of concentration.
Information technology will increasingly impact our lives as citizens, voters,
politicians, and parents.  Without an understanding of issues arising from
science and technology, it will be difficult to be a fully functioning member of
a democracy dominated by technology and public understanding of science and
technology will remain very low.

K-12 teachers must have better preparation in SME&T.  K-12 teachers who are
science, math, technology-illiterate, will not be able to encourage students to
consider careers where SME&T skills are needed.

A much higher percentage of our populace must understand science, math,
engineering, and technology to be successful in the workplace, and hence, to
lead financially secure lives.  For this reason, ways must be found to make
SME&T education interesting and attractive for a much broader cross-section of
our populace.

To make education interesting and attractive requires a shift to
student-centered learning environments in which the faculty are guides, in
contrast to the current, largely mass production, teacher-centered ones, in
which the faculty are lecturers imparting information. Someone said it requires
a shift from the sage on stage to the guide at your side.

It requires faculty who are knowledgeable of careers outside the academic world
so that they can make their courses more relevant and advise students of career
opportunities using SME&T knowledge in jobs that are not closely aligned with
the narrow interests of most faculty.

Acquisition and application of a better understanding of the learning process
and of different learning styles is required, especially those which may be the
prevalent styles of segments of our society which have not traditionally been
attracted into mathematical, scientific, and technological careers.   We know a
lot about how people learn, but too few faculty, especially in science and
engineering, are using the results of research on learning in their courses.
The knowledge is there, but our faculty does not use that knowledge.

Individualizing education will lead to much heavier reliance on current and
shortly forthcoming technology, enabling learning experiences to be delivered on
the learner's demand across space and time (just-in-time, anytime, any place
learning).  Faculty must become proficient at using the technology for
education.   They must have both the willingness and commitment to use
technology and also the support and time from the university for professional
development.

Undergraduate education programs must find and apply ways to impart basic
written, visual and oral communication skills and skills in working in teams.
In addition, students aiming for science, math, engineering careers need to
learn about business and societal issues to be able to understand implications
of decisions they make.

At a Hewlett-Packard sponsored conference in October, 1995, attended by 18
faculty involved in SME&T education, the topic of appropriate characteristics of
institutions of higher learning in the year 2000 was discussed and debated.  The
conclusion of this group was that the college or university of five years from
now must be learner-centered and include the following:

     o  Anytime, anyplace access

     o  Collaborative learning and problem solving

     o  Support for life-long learning

     o  Significantly improved learning outcomes

     o  Equity, access and success across all populations; and

     o  Economic viability and globally competitiveness

They also concluded that this requires a very different kind of academic
environment: one, which has agile and change-oriented institutions.  One which
applies and integrates appropriate technologies, exhibits cooperation and
resource-sharing among government, industrial, and other educational
institutions, disseminates and applies best practices from elsewhere,
effectively evaluates the results of its activities, and has a faculty reward
structure which encourages these activities.

We absolutely agree with these conclusions.

Specific Programs to Move us Towards These Kinds of Undergraduate Programs

The discussion above indicates where the focus of Federal programs should be,
and they should be designed to move as quickly as possible to the academic
environment outlined above.

To reinvent institutions to be more agile and change oriented, those individuals
within the institution who are change agents should be supported and rewarded.
For example, a program of summer grants and awards to faculty for significant
curricular development, application of best practices into their behavior, etc.,
could be developed.

To encourage use of technologies, infrastructure for learner-centered anytime,
anyplace activities could be mounted.   Faculty at the HP October 1995, workshop
recommended leveraging funding by requiring matching funds from the institution.
Faculty saw this as a way to get institutional commitment and begin to
institutionalize successful programs.  NSF might also require institutions to
state how they intend to sustain funded programs through operating expenses or
endowments for technology upgrades and enhancements.

To enhance collaboration, NSF might fund faculty time to work with industry to
transfer insights from the corporate world to the academy.  Much of the
breakthrough research today is coming out of industry, and faculty would benefit
from the experience.  Similarly, encourage faculty to work with K - 12 teachers
with, for example, summer funding to increase the number of high school
graduates ready to pursue the undergraduate experience.

Faculty who attended the HP workshop ranked new models of collaboration -- among
institutions, commercial-industrial collaboration, as well as collaboration with
government - among their highest priorities.  They also felt it was important to
launch some grand experiments; especially grand experiments with multi-campus
involvement.  To disseminate best practices, NSF could fund centers for
accumulating and distributing best practices much in the model of the Synthesis
coalitions' NEEDS project, which is funded by NSF.

To develop and apply evaluation methods, NSF could fund research into evaluation
of program design to enhance learning, especially learning in populations
previously under- represented in SME&T programs.

To encourage modified faculty reward structures, NSF might consider awarding
summer grants to faculty and administrators to create alternative ways to
recognize faculty involved in educational innovation.  Finally, on this point,
NSF has special leverage with its research programs and could require
descriptions from institutions as to the steps the institutions are taking to
modify their faculty reward structure as a condition of (or at least as a
significant factor in) the award of a research grant.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.  Our environment mandates changes
in SME&T education if we are to produce graduates who can succeed in today's
rapidly changing information society.  We applaud your interests and believe
your focus can have a unique and positive influence on American higher
education.


Alfred L. Moye became Hewlett-Packard's Director of University Affairs in May
1996. He leads HP's worldwide interaction with key universities, including the
company's ongoing programs in such areas as research, recruiting, marketing,
training grants and public advocacy. In addition, because of the crucial role of
universities in developing skills and technologies needed to improve national
competitiveness, Dr. Moy leads the formulation and communication of HP's views
on U.S. policies for technology and higher education. He was previously Manager
of Engineering Education Performance Technology at Hewlett- Packard.  Prior to
joining HP in April 1984, Dr. Moy was national educational sales manager and
director of the Atari Institute for Education Research He was also vice
president for academic affairs at Roosevelt University, Chicago, and vice
chancellor for student affairs and associate professor of chemistry at the
University of Pittsburgh. During the Carter Administration he served as deputy
assistant secretary for higher and continuing education He has published an
organic chemistry laboratory text and has authored several articles in chemistry
and chemical education journals.  He is an officer of the Board of Trustees of
West Virginia Wesleyan College and the National Technological University, and a
member of the Board of Visitors, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of
Pittsburgh. He was recently elected to the Board of Trustees of the University
of Pittsburgh.  Dr. Moy received his B.S. degree from West Virginia Wesleyan
College and his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh, both in chemistry. He
is also recipient of five honorary doctorates.

From January 1990 until his retirement in 1996, Robert W. Ritchie served as the
first Director of University Affairs at Hewlett-Packard Company. He led HP's
worldwide interaction with higher education, including the company's on-going
programs in such areas as research, recruiting, marketing, training, grants and
public advocacy.  Prior to becoming Director or University Affairs, Dr. Ritchie
was Director of the Computer Systems Center in HP Laboratories from 1988 through
1989.  From Science Laboratory of Xerox Corporation's Palo Alto Research Center.
From 1962 to 1983, he was on the faculty of the University of Washington, first
in mathematics and, subsequently, computer science.  He formed the Department of
Computer Science there in 1966, was its first chair, and then chaired the
department again from 1977 to 1983, helping it achieve its current rating among
the top ten in the country.  While at the university, Dr. Ritchie also served as
Associate Graduate Dean and Vice Provost of the University.  From 1960 until
joining the faculty at the University of Washington, he was John Wesley Young
Research Instructor in Mathematics at Dartmouth College. He has served as the
chair of the Committee on New Areas in Applied Mathematics of the Conference
Board of Mathematical Sciences, chair of the Computing Research Board, and
co-chair of NSF Workshop on Quality in Engineering Education.


             Enhancing Engineering and Manufacturing Education:
                Industry Needs, Industry Roles(See endnote 6)


                              John H. McMasters

             Senior Principal Engineer, Aerodynamics Engineering
                      Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
                              Seattle, Washington

                                James D. Lang

    Director of the Technology Division, New Aircraft and Missile Products
                          McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
                              St. Louis, Missouri


The problem of how to provide quality-engineering education (as contrasted with
training) in our universities, and the appropriate role of industry in this
endeavor, has been a topic of controversy and debate for decades. Ever since the
proliferation of research-oriented universities began in the early 1960s, a
widening gulf has been developing between our colleges of engineering and the
industries they support.  It has become increasingly clear to those of us with
an interest in industry-university interactions and recruiting that the
curricula in most of the major universities in this country are now badly out of
balance, with a too heavy emphasis on engineering science (analysis) and
competition at the expense of design (creative synthesis), manufacturing and
cooperative learning (teamwork). Despite an increasing number of recent
refreshing signs of change, the current under-emphasis on the quality of
undergraduate education is further cause for major concern with respect to the
impact this may have on the overall competitiveness of our future industrial
technical workforce. Of particular concern is the inadequate exposure to
manufacturing issues given to most undergraduate engineering students. Design
(engineering) and manufacturing are inextricably bound together in modern
industrial practice, and this fact generally is not reflected in current
engineering education programs in the majority of our research oriented
universities. This situation poses a significant long-range problem for industry
in this country unless sustained, cooperative actions are taken to restructure
and rationalize the present system. Furthermore, industry needs a greatly
increased level of continuing education and training, much of which could be
provided by developing strong and continuous linkages with our universities and
community colleges.

    "Poor ... education wastes human potential If schools are sound...[students]
    will graduate with the knowledge, skills and motivation to help further
    build our nation, and with the foundation needed to help them enjoy full and
    productive lives.
                                                        Frank Shrontz
                                                        CEO, The Boeing Company


    "A scientist discovers that which exists. An engineer creates that which
    never was."
                                                        Theodore von Karman

    "In time, the ... public and possibly even the 'educated class' will come to
    appreciate that engineering is no more applied (and therefore second rate)
    science, than science is theoretical engineering."
                                                  C. R. Chaplin(See reference 1)

    "The mind is not a receptacle; information is not education. Education is
    what remains after the information that has been taught has been forgotten."
                                             Robert M. Hutchins(See reference 2)
                                                       (after Benjamin Franklin)

The Current Situation

The state of education in this country, especially in science, engineering and
technology, has become a matter of increasing concern to many of us. The recent
National Research Council working paper (Major Issues in Engineering Education)
of the Board on Engineering Education, as only one recent example, identifies
many of the major issues that need to be addressed.  While the problems we
perceive encompass the whole system from pre- elementary through post-graduate
education and training, the focus of the present paper is on needed changes in
university undergraduate education programs. Our paper is sometimes strongly
worded, but we believe that the assertions made can be adequately documented and
defended.  Extended discussions with a large number of our colleagues in
industry, academia (including many students) and government show that while
there are significant exceptions to what we have written, and continued denial
that anything very basic is wrong with our current system of higher education,
there is now an increasing degree of admission that the following observations
have validity.

o   Too many of the faculty and administrators in our colleges of engineering
    remain complacent. The primary message from academia continues to be: Give
    us more money and we will do more (of the same) good things.

        o  Improvements in curriculum, etc. are always needed, but nothing basic
           is broken in the educational system we now have. Witness the number
           of foreign students in our graduate programs as only one measure of
           the success of the system.

        o  Research money continues to come (from largely government sources) to
           those willing to work hard enough to get it, which is good because so
           many departments are now so heavily dependent on it. The fact that
           too much of this research is of very limited value to our industry
           seems to be irrelevant.

o   From an aerospace industry vantage, as potential employers of the
    universities' graduates, we see vast opportunities for improvement. We are
    increasingly "dissatisfied customers."

        o  New hires must serve excessively long apprenticeships (three-to-five
           years) before they become fully productive (i.e., we must fill
           significant gaps in their education's as well as provide job-specific
           training).

        o  We see too many new graduates with an inadequate grasp of what
           engineering (as contrasted with engineering science) is and how one
           practices it, particularly in the currently evolving industry
           environment. Too few of our engineering graduates seem to have any
           idea of how to work in teams or how to manufacture anything. Fewer
           still seem to understand the process of large-scale, complex system
           integration, which characterizes so much of what we do in our
           industry.

        o  Based on limited data available to us, academic success (as measured
           by test scores and grade point averages) shows little discernible
           correlation with subsequent performance on-the-job (as measured by
           salary growth and perceived value of an employee to a company). Those
           students who are judged the "best and brightest" on the basis of
           grade point average are Frequently those who have worked hardest in a
           highly competitive academic environment of separate, specialized
           courses, and are often least prepared to work cooperatively in teams
           to engineer an integrated complex system which is economically and
           operationally viable.

o   Industry continues to be limited, and sometimes-underutilized partner in the
    engineering education process. Merely throwing money into the system is
    inadequate.

        o  Industry recognizes its vested interest in education, but is largely
           preoccupied with staying in business while producing a proper return
           on the investment of its shareholders. Improving the national
           educational system is not in most corporate charters.

        o  The modern international marketplace is highly competitive and
           volatile (particularly in the aerospace industry). Historically,
           industry has tended to be shortsighted in its planning, while longer-
           range forecasts have generally proved unreliable. The unknown
           consequences of the present era of world political and economic
           uncertainty only exacerbates the difficulty of making sustained,
           long-term commitments to "lower priority" supporting activities such
           as generic research and pre-employment education. At best, industry
           has too often been viewed as a "fair weather friend" by much of
           academe.

        o  Discussing appropriate engineering education programs is made very
           difficult when a higher-level manager from a given company (with a
           background in one discipline, as practiced when he was an engineer
           years earlier) tells a dean of engineering one version of "what
           industry needs" while a working lead engineer from another discipline
           tells a department chairman quite another story. In the end, both
           stories get lost or the one closest to what the listener wants to
           hear gets heard. Industry really would do all involved a great favor
           by developing and delivering a more coherent position to academia on
           this issue--even if the message is complicated or a mere statement of
           principles. [A listing of the "Desired Attributes of an Engineering
           Graduate" is appended as on candidate for such an industry-wide
           message].

Much more than the above has been written (See references 1-13) on the faults
(and less frequently, the real virtues) of our educational system in general,
and a large number of documents have been prepared recommending a wide range of
reforms. The university system has proved remarkably resistant to many of these
assaults, however, and little real change has been apparent until quite recently
- spurred in part by the massive dislocations caused by the end of the Cold War
and the concomitant "right-sizing" (downsizing) in our industry l4 which has
been further fueled by increasing international competition. In defense of our
universities it also must be pointed out that the increasing complexity of our
technology, the past availability of large sums of government money, the
changing economics of maintaining a high quality (largely graduate student
focused) academic and research program, a lack of adequate industry attention,
and the perceived weaknesses of K-12 public education are in part responsible
for the higher education system we have today - which in the face of greatly
increased international competition, is no longer good enough. While it is easy
enough to point fingers or blame "outside" causes for our current situation, the
problems we now face remain ours to deal with. Since we all (industry,
government and academe) share some measure of culpability for what we have
created, we should now be able to go beyond the point of deciding "whose fault
it is" and work together in a spirit of enlightened self interest to create a
new system which better meets the future needs of all of us and our nation as a
whole. Further studies of the problems we face are not needed; what we do need
are practical plans and processes for cooperative act ion. These plans should be
based on rigorous use of systems engineering principles to define requirements
for and develop the design of, the new approaches needed. Appropriate metrics
must also be developed and applied.

What We Need - Some Opportunities

What is needed is a long-term, sustainable and fully cooperative effort based on
systems engineering principals aimed at producing the sort of education (the
most valued product of the university system from an industry perspective) which
will develop future engineers with the skills and attributes listed in the
Appendix. This program would be based on:

o  Recognition of the basic distinction between "engineering science" (analysis)
   and "engineering" (design/creative synthesis) in both the education and
   employment of our future engineers. "Design" and "engineering" are
   fundamentally synonymous1,6 and thus we must accord design education the
   respect to which it is due.

o  Recognition that what you design is what you have to (attempt to) build and
   therefore that design and manufacturing are inextricably bound together -
   both in professional practice and in university curricula.

o  Recognition that no 4-year (or 5- or l0-year) university program is ever
   going to be able to produce a fully and permanently qualified professional
   engineer, and thus that efforts to cram "everything a student must know" into
   this time frame is futile. A student must be prepared for life-long learning
   and major new partnership efforts are required to provide continuing
   education at all stages of an individual's career.

o  Recognition that our future prosperity depends on industry/university
   teamwork and cooperation at all levels, including student course work and in
   university faculty interactions.

o  Development of a modern approach to teaching design and manufacturing as a
   fully integrated, team focused, part of the university curriculum (including
   such exposure in core engineering science courses) beginning at the beginning
   of a student's freshman year. Intrinsic in this is the recognition of the
   profound importance of systems engineering and information technology (far
   more than mere "computer literacy") both in the curriculum and as a means of
   educational program delivery.

o  Providing our students a proper view of the context (the whole system) within
   which engineering is practiced. This context includes economics, history,
   manufacturing as well as environmental, legal and ethical aspects of our
   profession.

o  Providing an appropriate hiring and reward system for engineering (design)
   and manufacturing educators within a given university structure, and which
   at least provides a faculty with sufficient experience and dedication to
   teach these topics well.

o  Recognition of the distinction between education (a primary university
   function) and training, much of which must be viewed as an industry
   responsibility. We must understand the appropriate (and perhaps new)
   relations between our research universities and our community colleges in
   providing both initial and continuing educational and training services. The
   differing requirements and available resources of large corporations and
   smaller companies for training must also be recognized and dealt with.

o  Proactive leadership and involvement from all relevant professional societies
   (e.g., AIAA, ASME, ASEE, SAE, etc.) in building processes to link industry,
   academia and government participants. Their traditional role should be
   expanded and integrated across societies in recognition of their members'
   current needs. Their role, along with ABET, in formalizing and enforcing
   educational standards provides strong leverage to develop and implement
   engineering curricula changes and to achieve results on a national level.

Roadblocks

It is easy enough to make lists of what we in industry need, but it must be
clearly recognized that there are some serious stumbling blocks to be overcome
in accomplishing the changes previously advocated. Some of the most obvious are:

o  While many in both industry and academe now recognize the need to change,
   there is a serious discrepancy between our two cultures with respect to the
   sense of urgency we each feel regarding the rate at which changes must occur.

o  Too many university administrators and faculty members have little or no
   knowledge of what industry does, how it does it, and what their graduates
   need to know to function effectively in an industrial environment.

o  Too few in industry have an adequate understanding of how our current
   universities function, how the faculty reward system works, or the
   constraints under which faculty members must operate in the system we have.

o  Design education generates little research revenue and leads to few
   publications in "the right journals." Manufacturing has been held in even
   lower esteem until quite recently since, in academic terms, it is perceived
   to lack "intellectual content."

What We Can Do - Recommendations for Action

Engineering education has become "big business" and there is much inertia and
resistance to the sort of changes advocated here, which also echo
recommendations in several recent national studies (i.e., those prepared under
the auspices of the ASEE15 and the NRC). Many believe that no further studies
are needed. We need action. These actions include:

o  Establishment of a process to develop an industry-wide position on: "What we
   (industry) want from our colleges of engineering and what we are prepared to
   do to help provide it."

o  A much better focused use of our "aid to education" resources (both money and
   people). This includes a balance between government-funded research and
   educational programs.

o  A change in the university reward system that recognizes that quality
   teaching must be at least on parity with funded research with regard to
   faculty promotion and tenure.

o  Changes in the degree structure to establish engineering as a true
   professional program and which are consistent with future industrial
   technical workforce needs.

o  Greatly expanded faculty - industry exchange programs. The objective of such
   programs should be to provide faculty with first-hand knowledge of industry
   practice and issues which would allow them to devise curricula which are
   truly responsive to industry needs rather than to merely allow faculty to
   continue their usual research at another (industry) site. Models for such
   exchanges exist in NSF Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry
   (GOALI) and the Boeing-A.D. Welliver Faculty Fellowship programs.

o  No culture change of the magnitude we believe to be required can be
   accomplished in a single meeting or by conducting yet another study.
   Likewise, no single party, working in isolation, can resolve the diverse
   problems we confront What we must do is establish and support (at both
   national and local levels) processes which encourage individuals from
   industry, academe and government to work together on a sustained basis to
   address the practical aspects of how we are going to change. A national forum
   to include relevant professional societies, perhaps in the leadership role,
   should be sought to address these issues and to create the continuing process
   for discussion and resolution. Agreements on curricula options should be
   sought on a periodic basis. ABET accreditation criteria and the ABET
   accreditation process can be used as a mechanism for now to formalize and
   enforce the agreements.

Concluding Comments

The central message of this paper has been that the world is changing
dramatically(See reference 1)4 in the wake of the Cold War, and just as broad
sectors of industry are changing to meet new challenges and opportunities, our
universities (particularly in technical education) must change as well. The
needed changes we can foresee will not come as swiftly as some would wish, nor
will they come easily. But change must come if we are to sustain our prosperity
in an increasing complex and highly competitive international environment. Of
the changes advocated in this paper, perhaps the most profound and sweeping must
be the rethinking and implementation of appropriate partnerships between
industry and academe in the education and training of engineers. In our view, it
is no longer tenable (if indeed it ever was) to accept a practice in which a
university "educates" a student to some level of competence, and thus having
done its job and "completed" its task, turns this "finished product" over to an
employer to do with as may be fitting. From now on we must truly prepare a
student to become a "life long learner" - an individual who will require and
actively seek continuing education as well as training opportunities for the
entirety of his or her career. In this process, industry and academe
(appropriately aided by government) must become active partners, each doing what
it is best qualified to do in fully cooperative efforts from the beginning of
the educational process. We all have much to gain if these new partnerships can
be established, and much to lose if they are not.


Dr. John H. McMasters is an aerodynamicist and airplane design instructor in the
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group and serves as an Affiliate Professor in the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the University of Washington in
Seattle. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Colorado at Boulder
and a Ph.D. from Purdue University; all in aeronautical engineering. Before
joining Boeing in 1976, he served as a Project Officer for air-to-air missile
systems at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory and taught at Arizona State
University and Purdue. He is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and was an ALAA
Distinguished Lecturer in 1992-94. He is also a member of the Board on
Engineering Education of the ASME and the Boeing University Relations
Coordinating Committee.

Dr. James D. Lang is the Director of the Technology Division, New Aircraft and
Missile Products, at McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. He is responsible for
technology development and transition. Dr. Lang is an AIAA Fellow, a member of
ASEE, and a member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board. He retired from the
U.S. Air Force as the Aeronautical Systems Division Deputy Commander for
Engineering. He also led the Avionic Laboratory and the Flight Controls
Division. He has over 3000 flight hours including 320 combat missions as a
Forward Air Controller. He has a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy, a M.S.
from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. from the Cranfield Institute of
Technology, England.


Acknowledgments

This paper is an outgrowth of a series of position papers written for various
audiences over the past several years, the most recent version having been
prepared as part of a study of aeronautics materials and manufacturing
technologies needs conducted in 1994 under the auspices of the National Center
for Advanced Technologies (NCAT) in Washington, D.C. The authors believe that
the issues raised in this paper transcend the more narrowly focused concerns of
the NCAT study, however. We are greatly indebted to a large number of
individuals for providing thoughtful comments and encouragement in the
preparation of this paper and its predecessors. While too numerous to list
comprehensively, a few key individuals must be cited for their special
contributions: Richard Hartke (NCAT), Drs. Joe Bordogna and Elbert Marsh (NSF),
Stephen G. Moran (NASA), Earll Murman (MIT), Lee Nicolai (Lockheed), and Daniel
P. Schrage (Georgia Tech). In addition, P. M. Condit, A. R Mulally, R. L.
Bengelink, R A. Davis, A.M. Erisman, J. F. McGuire, T. Tobey, B. J. White, and
M. H. Wiese of The Boeing Company provided major input and inspiration for
earlier versions of this paper. The authors remain solely responsible for all
opinions expressed, however, and these do not [yet] necessarily represent the
positions of either The Boeing Company or McDonnell Douglas Aerospace.

References

1. Chaplin, C.R., "Creativity in Engineering Design -The Educational Function,"
   The [UK] Fellowship of Engineering, 2 Little Smith Street, Westminster,
   London SWIP 3DL, November, 1989.

2. Hutchins, R.M., The Learning Society, NY: New American Library, 1969.

3. Grinter, L.E. (Chair),  Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education,
   American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 1955.

4. Evans, D.L., McNeill, B.W., and Beakley, G.C., "Design in Engineering
   Education: Past Views of Future Directions."  Engineering Education 80 (5):
   517-522. July/August, 1990.

5. Ferguson, E.S., Engineering and the Mind's Eye.  MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.

6. McMasters, J.H. and Ford, S.D., "The [Airplane] Design Professor as
   Sheepherder (An Industry Role in Enhancing Engineering Education)," AIAA
   90-3259 (Invited), ALAA/AHS/ASEE Aircraft Design and Operations Meeting,
   Dayton, OH, September 17-19. 1990.

7. McMasters, J.H. and Ford, S.D., "An Industry View of Enhancing Design
   Education," Engineering Education, 80 (5): 526-529.  July/August, 1990.

8. McMasters, J.H., "Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained: Paradigm Shifts in
   Engineering Education," SAE (Invited) Paper 91-1179, April, 1991.

9. McMasters, J.H., Holt, S.C. and Derwin, W.J., "Adventures in Engineering
   Education at Boeing (The BCAG Summer Intern Program)," ALAA Paper 92-1093,
   February 1992.

10.Nicolai, L.M., "Designing a Better Engineer," Aerospace America, Vol. 30,
   No. 4, April 1992, pp. 30-33.

11.Hoover, C.W. and Jones, J.B. (Co-Chairs), Improving Engineering Design,
   National Research Council. Washington. D.C., 1991.

12.Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K and Solow, R.M., Made In America, M1T Press,
   Cambridge, 1989.

13.Covert, E.E., "Engineering Education in the 1990s: Back to Basics," Aerospace
   America, 30 (4): 20-23.  April 1992

14.Ellis, R.A., "At the Crossroads (Crisis and Opportunity for American
   Engineers in the

15.1990's)," Engineering Workforce Bulletin No. 130-131, Engineering Workforce
   Commission of the American Association of Engineering Societies, January
   1994.

16.Engineering Education for a Changing World, Report of the Engineering Dean's
   Council and Corporate Roundtable of the American Society for Engineering
   Education, October, 1994.


           Appendix:  DESIRED ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEERING GRADUATE

    o  A good grasp of engineering science fundamentals.
         o  Mathematics (including statistics)
         o  Physical and life sciences
         o  Information technology

    o  A good understanding of the design and manufacturing process (i.e.,
       understand engineering).

    o  A basic understanding of the context in which engineering is practiced.
         o  Economics
         o  History
         o  The environment
         o  Customer and societal needs

    o  Possesses a multi-disciplinary, system perspective.

    o  Good communication skills.
         o  Written
         o  Verbal
         o  Graphic
         o  Listening

    o  High ethical standards.

    o  An ability to think both critically and creatively - independently and
       cooperatively.

    o  Flexibility - an ability and the self-confidence to adapt to rapid/major
       change.

    o  Curiosity and a desire to learn - for life.

    o  A profound understanding of the importance of team work

Note: This is a list of basic, durable attributes into which can be mapped
specific skills reflecting the diversity of the overall engineering environment
in which we in professional practice operate. In specifying desired attributes
(i.e. desired outcomes of the educational process), we avoid specifying how a
given university goes about meeting industry needs. Curriculum development is
viewed as a university task to be done in cooperation with their "customers,"
and in recognition of their own local resources and constraints. Industry, as an
important customer, must be an active partner in this process.


      Testimony on the Views of Employers on Undergraduate Education in
       Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology(See endnote 7)


                               Robert T. Jones

     President and Chief Executive Officer, National Alliance of Business
                       Washington, District of Columbia


Permit me to make three statements that generally characterize business
community positions regarding higher education.

First, higher education should demonstrate greater understanding of the needs of
the private sector.  Too often higher education seems unaware of job
requirements and changes in the workplace.  I believe that maintaining a close
connection between what goes on in our educational system and the rapidly
changing work environment is essential.

Second, higher education curricula should reflect the changing conditions in the
workplace. More students need to experience the challenges and rigor of
contextualized learning.

Third, higher education should help develop the work ethic that will sustain
students in their eventual careers.  Note that many corporate leaders say that
new employees are fine _ even more responsive than they used to be.  These same
leaders point out that they screen a substantial number of potential applicants,
selecting only the best from that pool.  As long as that pool is large enough
and active enough and vital enough, firms will always manage to hire the kind of
people they need.  We must however be concerned about all the rest, those who do
not enjoy the skills needed for employment and advancement.

Corporate leaders tend to believe that the factual knowledge derived from
undergraduate education can quickly become obsolete.  Further, the life
expectancy of new entrants in their first job is very short.  Relatively
inexperienced employees move on to another company or another function or task
more rapidly than ever.  Companies are also increasingly reluctant to hire
recent college graduates.  Before they invest in hiring on a long-term basis,
they want to see degree holders with three to six years of work experience in
the modern corporate system who can show an effective adaptation to the updated
demands of the new workplace.

The typical employer no longer defines educational preparation solely on the
basis of scientific knowledge or experience, or mathematical and technical
competencies. Increasingly, employers are looking for the ability of new
scientists to think clearly and communicate their thoughts, to write clearly, to
negotiate, to listen, to work on teams, and to function effectively as part of a
diverse work force.  Employers' perceptions are that schools are not paying
enough attention to the development of these skills.  They do not seem to be
taking business very seriously, nor listening to our cues that how we hire is
now different.

I urge you to look at the hiring processes that companies are utilizing, to
study carefully the methods of testing and interviewing.  What are the broad and
durable skills and competencies they seek?  It is very clear that when
applicants don't understand the needs of employers, they are not likely to be
hired.

New employees are increasingly expected to demonstrate as one CEO calls it
"boundary-less" skills.  This all happens because of the changing nature of the
way we work.  Engineers and scientists are now "on the factory floor."  They are
not isolated in a lab. Engineers and scientists now deal with customers and
their ability to deal with customers is key to their being hired in the first
place.

There is a growing perception that a college degree per se is of minimal value
to business. Business is more concerned about the level of a job applicant's
competencies, the breadth of that applicant's competencies, and the applicant's
ability to assimilate, manage, and utilize information. How those skills are
acquired -- whether during studies for an MBA or a MS in science or math, or as
part of some other educational experience -- is not of great import.

Related to this focus on competencies rather than credentials is the increasing
demand for certification programs. The demand is growing for continuing
education programs that let employees re-enter the education community in order
to update their skills, to stay current on new technology and procedures and to
do so in short certifiable bites that employers can recognize.  Simply taking
people out of employment for two or three years for an advanced degree for the
sake of improving skills and knowledge doesn't work effectively for many jobs.
The way we traditionally boxed up these degrees doesn't match well with the
needs of today's work force.  We will probably see within the next 24 months a
very rapidly growing discussion about how we create certification programs where
people can engage frequently and efficiently in continuing education.

In summary, business believes more strongly than ever that post-secondary and
continuing education are crucial for all potential workers.  How to sustain the
strengths of our existing system while responding to the vibrancy of the
business environment is a challenge that higher education must meet.


A nationally recognized expert in the workforce development field, Roberts Jones
has over thirty years of organizational management and public policy experience
in the training and education field.  As a lifelong advocate for investing in
people, Mr. Jones is widely credited with helping place workforce development at
the forefront of the nation's public policy agenda.  Prior to joining the
Alliance, Mr. Jones was vice president of RJR Nabisco, Inc.  Mr. Jones served
both Presidents Reagan and Bush as Assistant Secretary of Labor, responsible for
federal workforce development and training policy addressing the significant
changes in work and the workplace.  Jones played a key role in the Hudson
Institute's landmark research project and report, Workforce 2000: Work and
Workers for the 21st Century, and was responsible for the Department of Labor's
SCANS Commission, which for the first time spelled out the skills necessary for
success in the workplace.  Mr. Jones was awarded the Presidential Distinguished
Executive Award, the highest honor in the Federal government, in 1986.  Mr.
Jones received his B.S. in Psychology from the University of Redlands in
Redlands, California, and performed graduate work in Public Administration at
the American University in Washington, DC.  He also served for four years in the
United States Air Force.


                Testimony to the National Science Foundation
                     Undergraduate Review Subcommittee:
          Employers Views on Desired Capabilities of Undergraduates
                           Entering the Workforce


                               John L. Sisler

                Manager of Exploration and Production Training
                   Shell Exploration and Production Company
                               Houston, Texas


Thank you for the opportunity of share views on undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) education from the perspective
of an Energy Industry employer of graduates from these programs.  As manager of
E&P Training in Shell Exploration and Production Company, I am increasingly
aware of the challenges and demands placed on BS and MS SME&T graduates in out
technical professional workforce. How well our Company, Industry, and Nation
surmounts this challenge is of critical importance to future success and
survival in a global market place.

While this testimony is from the viewpoint of a large, primarily domestic oil
and gas exploration company, many of the phenomena discussed appear to extend
beyond the upstream portion of Energy Companies.  They are reportedly
commonplace throughout other portions of US Industry.

One characteristic of the upstream Energy Industry's technical professional
workforce is the mixture of scientists and engineers.  Geosciences (Geology and
Geophysics) together with Physicists and Computer Scientists are combined with
Electrical, Geological, and Petroleum Engineers to form the skill pool
responsible for finding and delineating new hydrocarbon deposits.  Engineering
graduates become increasingly important in developing, producing, and managing
existing oil and gas reservoirs through economic lives to eventual abandonment.
These include Geological, Petroleum, Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, and Civil
Engineering graduates.  They are integrated with the skill groups used to find
and delineate who are also involved in the later phases of the E&P cycle.  This
workforce is predominately BS and MS level with a lesser number of Ph.D.s who
typically transferred from Research into the operating organizations.  The way
work gets done by this mix of SME&T graduates across the spectrum of E&P
activities has changed significantly in the last five years.

Organizational Characteristics

Changes in the job environment associated with organization redesign are
profound.  An ongoing process attempts to create work group structures that are
focused, efficient, and responsive to change.  Nearly all upstream US Energy
companies, including Shell E&P Company, have experienced dramatic organizational
changes.  In most cases these resulted in somewhat smaller SME&T workforces and
significantly fewer supervisors and managers. Work now being done often exceeds
levels prior to the changes.  Further change is very unlikely but a return to
the type of work group structure characteristic of the past is very unlikely.

Integration

Currently, most U.S. Energy companies have emphasized integration at every
organizational level.  Formerly organizations were divided into separate groups
based largely on skills and type of work performed.  Exploration was typically
separate from Production, and within each there were subdivisions such as
Geology and Geophysics in Exploration, and similar splitting within Production
into Operations and Engineering that was in turn split into various engineering
scientific specialty groups.  Today, multidisciplinary teams that are formed to
accomplish a specific project or manage a group of assets within a defined
geographic area do work.  These teams are interlocked to form multi-disciplined
project groups responsible for major business segments.

Today's integrated work team organization has far fewer managers and
supervisors. Typically, supervisors lead large, diverse work teams and do not
exercise the level of detailed control characteristic of past more hierarchical
work structures. Someone will probably lead the SME&T graduate with a dissimilar
educational specialty.

Leadership Style

The style characteristic of successful leaders today is one of coach and
coordinator rather than command and control that was possible when past
supervisors frequently were experts in subordinates' jobs.  Some work was
associated with personnel administration and the individuals now do development
formerly done by managers and supervisors themselves.  The SME&T graduate will
probably find the leader not as deeply involved in how work is done, provided it
is timely and correct.  Today's leader is far more interested in results than
style. Because of the size and diversity of typical work teams the leader today
is rarely as involved in each individual's personal skill development as were
past supervisors.  Individuals are expected to be proactive in defining their
needs and seeking our opportunities to grow.  The leader's role is to enable and
encourage, but not to be prescriptive.

Performance Measures

Performance measures for individuals in today's organizations attempt to focus
on business- relevant results.  Compensation is more directly tied to current
business results.  To a growing extent individual results are tied directly with
Team results.  In contrast, past performance measures too often dealt with style
and activity level.  These may have had only an indirect linkage with business
objectives.  The SME&T graduate is finding that it is increasingly difficult to
prosper personally while the ship of which he or she is a crewmember sinks.
Coming from an undergraduate system that exclusively recognizes individual
achievements this change may cause some to question "fairness."

Skills

Skills needed to successfully function in today's work team environment are
somewhat different from the past.  Each person needs an awareness of the role
and contributions of others on the team.  In-depth specialized knowledge must be
accompanied by skill at relating various parts to the whole and finding
solutions to problems that formerly might have "fallen between the cracks" of
the different specialties and departments.  Skills such as communications and
teamwork are essential. Unfortunately these are often given low priority during
the SME&T professional's undergraduate education.  Working together
interdependently in a team to achieve a common goal rather than competitively to
garner individual recognition is a very satisfying change for many, but one that
does not come easily to some SME&T graduates who have thrived in their former
arena.

Personal Characteristics

Along with the organizational changes there have been changes in expected
personal characteristics of the Technical Professional workforce.  Skill areas
deemed important for success in the current and future work environments include
many areas besides the traditional SME&T subjects.

Technical

Sold preparation in the relevant sciences and mathematics together with their
application to create beneficial products remains the most valuable asset that a
SME&T graduate can bring into our workforce.  Without this, chances of success
are slim.  It is particularly important to gain a broad foundation during the
undergraduate period.  This will provide the means to adapt and thrive as
changes occur that impact the various applications used in the workplace.

One characteristic often missing in graduates of US SME&T programs is ability to
understand system versus segments.  Too frequently graduates who have impressive
transcripts from highly acclaimed universities exhibit limited understanding of
how their segmented knowledge fits together.  An ability to understand context
and to fit pieces into a larger framework are essential in working in an
integrated, multi-disciplined environment.  Critical thinking has greater
importance than problem solving.

Commercial

SME&T graduates are expected to possess more commercial acumen than in the past.
The necessity for improved financial performance has caused accountability for
profit and loss to be at much lower levels, frequently at the work team level.
A vocabulary once restricted to Business School graduates is now routinely used
by technical staff.  Engineers and scientists are no longer as insulated from
accounting, financing, and marketing.

Risk management is particularly important.  SME&T graduates typically are
expected to define uncertainty, develop risk assessment, and play a major role
in managing risk.

While SME&T graduates are not expected to possess abilities to perform
specialized commercial tasks, they do need to understand their importance and
how they must be integrated with technical work to achieve business success.
Clearly SME&T graduates need to respect the importance of the commercial context
of their work.

Information Technology

Without question, advances in computing and information technology (IT) are
enablers for many of the changes discussed here today.  All SME&T graduates are
expected to have skills that allow application of advances in IT to their work.
In fact, many technical professionals in E&P spend the bulk of the time at work
at workstations or PCs.  Most are not developing new software, but are using
increasingly integrated applications systems provided by others. Major concerns
are with data management and getting work done in complex internal IT systems.
Many find their undergraduate programs did not provide sufficient expertise in
the personal productivity tools.

This is one area in which recent SME&T graduates as well as technicians have
exerted leadership.  Without their training that embraces IT as just another of
the natural work tools, progress would have been much slower.

Teamwork

All SME&T graduates must possess teamwork skills.  While many factors go into
developing these, one that is partly a consequence of the undergraduate
educational system stands above the rest.  Respect for others who have different
educational backgrounds is essential.

Academic divisions between sciences and engineering and further subdivisions
within each too frequently imprint SME&T graduates with personal biases.  These
are obstacles to effective teamwork.  Rivalry between academic schools,
departments, and even specialties within a particular field, create stereotyping
of various groups.  Academic role models that participate in such activities are
sending very wrong messages to their students.  In today's business environment,
one's leader and office mates may well be from one of the groups held in low
regard by his or her academic role models.  The need to respect others extends
beyond the SME&T disciplines to include those in business, humanities, and other
groups such as law, which must work together in teams.

Communication

Good communication skills are even more important today.  In addition to the
long-standing expectation that SME&T graduates be able to write and speak
effectively, the challenge today is the audience.  Former audiences were often
composed of specialists who all spoke and understood their specialties' jargon.
Today an important audience is the multi-disciplined work group and its
leadership.  Increasingly the SME&T graduate is also communicating with external
customers and stakeholders who generally do not understand the "insider"
language of science and technology.  This becomes particularly important to
those working with environmental issues.

Electronic tools are playing a bigger role as a means of communication.
However, the skill needed is to understand the cycle of listening,
understanding, creation and delivery of a clear message to a specific audience.
These are independent of the tools and should be incorporated into SME&T
undergraduate programs.

Leadership

More leadership skills are expected from everyone in flat organizations.  Fewer
opportunities exist for formal management jobs, but there are many more
opportunities for individuals to hold ad hoc leadership roles.  As mid-level
managerial and coordinational jobs have disappeared, individuals in teams are
doing some of the work.  The leadership roles and skills are very closely
associated with teamwork rather than exercise of the power of an organizational
position.

Change Management

The final personal skill in this list is the ability to proactively participate
in the processes used to continuously improve.  Change Management is now a part
of every SME&T graduate's responsibilities.  Each must acknowledge that the
future is unpredictable.  Major changes and retaining flexibility to alter
strategies will probably be needed to survive both as business and individuals.

Individuals who accept personal responsibility for their own deployment and take
actions to grow personally and professionally will be more likely to succeed.
The employer of SME&T graduates is no longer providing the level of security and
development direction seen in the past.

Recommendations

1. Support programs, which are interdisciplinary and integrated.  Do not
   restrict this to just the SME&T fields.  Opportunities for undergraduate
   SME&T students to become involved must be provided.

2. Support programs that instill rigor and breadth in BS/MS SME&T studies. Focus
   on teaching and shaping those who constitute the bulk of our workforce.
   Meaningful recognition must be available to faculty and institutions that do
   this well.

3. Support programs that provide BS/MS students with the interpersonal/
   organizational/teamwork skills now essential in today's workplace.


John Sisler is Manager of Exploration and Production Training for Shell Oil
Company in Houston, Texas. He has 36 years of varied Shell experience as a
geoscientist, engineer, and manger.  During his career he has worked on domestic
exploration and production projects in Alaska, California, New Mexico, Texas,
Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico, and outside the United States in The Netherlands
and Iran. Prior to joining Shell he received a BA in geology from Rice
University and a MS in geology from Stanford University.  He is a member of the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, the Geological Association of America, and the Houston Geological
Society.


        Testimony on the Views of Employers on Undergraduate Education
      in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology(See endnote 8)


                              Patrick E. White

             Vice President, Strategy, Bell Atlantic Corporation
                                Arlington, VA


I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk to you about
undergraduate needs, particularly with regards to the telecommunications
industry.

As the telephone industry evolves, one of the first things I think we need more
of is engineering programs designed to educate generalists, to produce graduates
with almost the same kinds of skills that John Sisler of Shell Exploration and
Production Company was just describing.

Very frequently, the kinds of issues that at least our undergraduate engineers
face require participation in multidisciplinary teams, but more than that, they
are often not focused on one specific area of technology.  They cover a variety
of different areas.  I think that a program in undergraduate education designed
to produce engineering "generalists" would perhaps better match that need.

Our situation is analogous to the issue of the best strategy for educating
medical doctors. A general practitioner course of study often meets the greatest
need of communities for medical services.  General practitioners can be coupled
with the selective use of specialists.  In the past there was a tendency to
stress the education of medical specialists.  Now we realize the importance of
general practitioners.

We clearly do have that need for specialists in telecommunications, but for the
vast majority of jobs, a general program matches our needs much better than
specialized programs. Where we do need specialists, a bachelor's degree or even
a master's degree is often not enough to cover the field in depth. We really
need to hire Ph.D. level scientists or engineers to get the best contributions
in specialized areas.

Another aspect that I wanted to bring out is that telephone technology, like
most high-tech, electronics-type fields, is undergoing pretty much a revolution.
For example, just look at one aspect of this field over the last ten years,
fiber optic transmission.  Ten years ago, engineers were talking about
multi-mode fiber with LEDs.  That has shifted very quickly through a number of
different technology stages.  Today, ten years later, nobody ever talks about
multi-mode fiber, and nobody talks about LEDs.  Instead, the talk is about
lasers, fiber amplifiers, and dispersion-shifted fibers.  In other words, the
field is moving so fast that it is pretty hard for me to imagine how the
universities can really keep up with current technology.

In fact, if you look at most programs in engineering, you typically see that
they are pretty much covering the same old topics, and that is surprising, given
the pace at which the technology seems to be moving along.

I think that there is certainly several impediments or several areas within
teaching that need to be dealt with.  Tenure policies, I think, need to be
looked at to make sure they are really encouraging faculty to keep abreast of
technical areas, and that universities continue to hire the best-equipped
faculty or the faculty with the most knowledge in some of these new technology
fields.

I also think that the types of research that are being funded also have an
impact.  If you pick up almost any journal these days, I would say at least
two-thirds, maybe three-quarters, and in some cases even 100 percent of the
selected papers seem to represent minor tweaks in insignificant technical areas,
most of which isn't all that relevant to what industry really needs in terms of
research.

If you have faculty who are moving in that direction, then you can easily see
why there will be a widening gap between what the universities are actually
teaching young engineers and what industry needs if we are to remain at the
cutting edge.

The last thing I wanted to talk about in my prepared remarks - related to the
plea I made at the outset for more a general education in engineering - is that
I believe we should reexamine the lack of a foreign language requirement in most
colleges and universities.  Increasingly there is globalization of just about
every aspect of industry.  Too often we go to meetings with the French, Germans,
and Japanese and find that they can speak English plus their own language.  In
negotiation, I think we are at a significant disadvantage in only knowing
English.

I also would put in a plea that the types of elective options that are
associated with engineering, currently drawing from a traditional liberal arts
menu, might also sensibly include wider options, e.g., business-oriented
courses, finance, economics, intellectual property law. These are all very vital
aspects for a young engineer's education.


Patrick White is Vice President of Research and Development at Bell Atlantic
Corporation.  Prior to his current assignment, he was Vice President of
telecommunications strategies and before that he held a number of positions with
Bell Communications Research, Inc. ("Bellcore"), including Assistant Vice
President of the Network Architecture and Analysis Research Center and Assistant
Vice President, New Architecture and Service Concepts Planning. Prior to joining
Bellcore in January 1984, Dr. White held various software development
supervisory positions with Bell Laboratories, commencing in 1973. Dr. White
holds a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering/Computer Science from
Northwestern University. He has authored numerous technical papers and edited
technical journals.  Dr. White is a member of the Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi
national engineering honor societies as well as a member of the IEEE and the
Association for Computer Machinery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Eugene Galanter, Contemporary Psychophysics, in New Directions in Psychology,
ed. by T.Newcomb. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1962

(2) Eugene Galanter, Psych Tech Notes V .2.1 Adams Bannister Cox, 1994

(3) Construction vs. Choice Cognitive Measurement, ed. by R.E. Bennett &
W.C.Ward. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993.

(4) Adapted from National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators,
Tenth Ed., 1991.

(5) Carol Dweck, Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist. October 1986.

(6) Presented at the 1995 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, CA June 25-28, 1995.

(7) This text is an edited version of Mr. Jones' verbal testimony to the EHR
Advisory Committee on November 1, 1995.

(8) This text is an edited version of Dr. White's verbal testimony to the EHR
Advisory Committee on November 1, 1995.



Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee
Social Sciences Workshop
________________________________________________________________________________

Convened February 22, 1996
at the National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA


                Participants in the Social Sciences Workshop
                          Convened February 22,1997


Listed alphabetically.  Titles indicate the speakers' positions at the time of
the Workshop.

Andrew Abbott                                   Maureen Hallinan
Master, Social Sciences Collegiate Division     Department of Sociology
The University of Chicago                       University of Notre Dame
Harper Box 76                                   Notre Dame, IN 46556-5644
1116 East 59th Street
Chicago, OL 60637

John Dovidio                                    Jill Larkin
Department of Psychology                        Department of Psychology
Colgate University                              Carnegie Mellon University
Hamilton, NY 13346                              Baker Hall
                                                Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Jacquelynne E. Eccles                           Nora Newcombe
Institute for Social Research                   Department of Psychology
P.O. Box 1248                                   Temple University
University of Michigan                          Weiss Hall, 6th Floor
Ann Arbor, MI                                   Philadelphia, PA 19122

Ronald G. Ehrenberg                             Neil Stillings
Vice President for Academic Programs,           School of Communication and
Planning, and Budgeting                         Cognitive Science
433 Day Hall                                    Hampshire College
Cornell University                              Amherst, MA 01002
Ithaca, NY 14853

Rochel Gelman
Department of Psychology
New York University
6 Washington Place, Room 307
New York, NY 10003


    Contributions of the Social Sciences to the National Science Foundation
                      Review of Undergraduate Education


Overview

On February 22, 1996, a group of eight invited scholars from the social and
behavioral sciences met to discuss the improvement of undergraduate education.
Joining them were members of the Advisory Committee for Education and Human
Resources at NSF, the Assistant NSF Director for Education etc. (Luther S.
Williams), the Assistant NSF Director for Social and Behavioral Sciences (Cora
Marrett), representatives from several education and policy associations in
Washington DC, and NSF professional staff concerned about undergraduate
education.   Over 50 people participated in this workshop during the course of
the day.  The discussions were joined by most that were present at the workshop.

The workshop was designed as part of the extensive review of undergraduate
education being conducted by a Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for
Education and Human Resources, which began the previous spring.  This review is
examining the status, conditions, and needs of undergraduate education in the
broad disciplines of the sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology.

The invited participants were asked to prepare short statements prior to the
workshop in response to a set of questions that focused on the contributions of
the social and behavioral sciences to improving our understanding of how to
improve undergraduate education.  The questions were:

     o  What has social and behavioral science research contributed to our
        understanding of how students learn?

     o  What are the obstacles to implementing change in curriculum and
        instruction in undergraduate education?  How do we overcome them?

     o  What are the unanswered questions about student learning that research
        needs to address?

     o  How does knowledge of the social sciences and of technology prepare
        students for the next century?

The following is a summary of the key points made during the workshop.  The
comments can be organized around four major themes: the undergraduate learner,
the teacher, the curriculum, and the institutional context.  To maintain a sense
of authenticity, direct quotes from participants have been included in a number
of places.

The Undergraduate Learner

How the student learns, as well as individual and group characteristics of the
learners, are important factors to be considered.  At the beginning of the
workshop, participants agreed to a basic principle: the mind is active.
Research in cognitive psychology indicates that "the mind always interprets,"
and is not simply "a passive receiver of information that is broadcast to it"
(Rochel Gelman, Department of Psychology, New York University).  Thus, the
presentation of new and interesting information in the classroom is not enough;
we must also understand how the minds of students interpret and manipulate that
information.

The processing of information by students is a vital point of concern.  Students
rarely realize the applicability of information and knowledge from one context
to another, and often view information as facts to be memorized and mechanically
reproduced in an exam.  In a rapidly changing world, a more desirable outcome
would be for students to possess the ability to apply abstract principles to
different situations, e.g. to "recognize situations in their own environments
where the Law of Large Numbers applies" (Neil Stillings, School of Communication
and Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts).

Undergraduate students come from diverse communities and cultures with
distinctive expectations about the education process.  The values, norms, and
expectations of students about what to expect from undergraduate studies in
their chosen institutions of higher education are influenced by the size of the
institution, the selectivity of that institution, and the region of the country
in which it is located (Maureen Hallinan, Department of Sociology, University of
Notre Dame). Learning is inhibited when the values, norms, and expectations of
the student "come into clash with what we are at the moment doing in
institutions" (Rochel Gelman).   This point was underscored by some participants
with respect to the rapid pace of change that has occurred in some institutions.
Change should proceed in an orderly fashion, because "radical change in course
design breaks an unwritten social contract between faculty and students" (Jill
Larkin).

As will be developed in the remaining sections, developing educational
technology has a lot of potential for students in higher education.   However,
in the short run, technology scares a lot of students (Rochelle Gelman), and the
heavy use of technology scares more women than men.  "What we need from the
social sciences is some architectural perspectives on how to make technology
work" most effectively (Uri Treisman, Department of Mathematics, University of
Texas, Austin, and member of the Advisory Committee for Education and Human
Resources).

The Teacher

Because the teacher controls both what is taught and how it is taught, the
teacher is vital.  Five themes were discussed in the context of describing
effective and ineffective teaching techniques.

The disadvantages of the "broadcast model of education" were discussed.  Many
faculty consider the prerequisites for good teaching to be met "if I know and
understand my discipline, and I get up in front of the class and give good
lectures, and I give good assignments" (Jill Larkin, Department of Psychology,
Carnegie Mellon University).  However, there is evidence to suggest that simply
giving students more information does not improve learning.  A preferable
teaching paradigm is where teachers interact with their students and act as
facilitators in the learning process.

While traditional teaching methods often attempt to counter students'
misconceptions by teaching the 'correct' way to think, "curricula which take
misconceptions as a point of departure rather than a road block can be more
successful" (Nora Newcombe, Department of Psychology, Temple University).  New
techniques for teaching science should thus "arrange experiences in which
students realize how different aspects of their thinking are incompatible, then
work to resolve this impasse" (Nora Newcombe).  This will help to counter a
major problem, that many students have a "strange and impairing view of the
natural sciences and mathematics," seeing them as a collection of facts that are
hard to grasp (Jill Larkin).   More stress on applied research in the classroom
will also help, many agreed.

Research conducted by sociologists suggests "that working in groups in a
cooperative setting produces greater growth in achievement that straining for
relative gains in a competitive environment (Maureen Hallinan).  Thus it is
important for teachers to provide students with opportunities to work in groups.

Technology, such as email and bulletin boards, provides opportunities for
faculty to interact with students at a greater frequency, while Web pages
provide new information resources for students. However, technological
innovation is costly in terms of the "human effort that has to go into designing
it," as well as the human investment of educating teachers to use these
innovations (Neil Stillings).  Evaluating the effectiveness of new technology in
the classroom is also problematic because "we don't have quality benchmarks ...
to bring these innovations together with some of our learning theories"
(Kenneth Foote, Department of Geography, University of Texas, Austin).

Improving undergraduate education by teaching faculty how to teach includes
helping them to effectively use everything from "the oldest and most transparent
technology" of a blackboard, to "tens of thousands of dollars worth of
multimedia equipment" (Daniel Goroff, Derek Bok Center for Teaching and
Learning, Harvard University, and National Research Council).  Improving
undergraduate education entails that teachers as well as students invest in
learning new skills.  It is important to use technology effectively, to promote
interactions among students, faculty, and material, and to avoid using it as
merely another method of broadcasting information to passive student recipients.
In learning to use technology, and use it wisely, many older faculty are seen
as irretrievably lost, while younger faculty typically recognize that print
media is losing its effectiveness (Andrew Abbot, Master, Social Sciences
Collegiate Division, University of Chicago).

Curriculum

Much of the current curriculum of the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and
technology in college courses "follows an instructional paradigm, not a learning
one" (Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director, NSF).   The following themes focus
on how curricula can facilitate learning by students.

Students interpret new information in the context of what they already know.
However, students in a classroom begin from different places.  To promote
learning in the classroom, faculty must provide "stepping stones from the minds
of our students who may not overlap" with the structure mapped by teachers, "to
the point where they have in fact achieved understanding that they didn't have
in the first place" (Rochel Gelman).  Thus, the content of the curriculum should
be flexible enough to accommodate students' different learning styles and
starting points.

In many institutions, the majority of students fulfill science requirements
through social science courses.  The "social sciences tend to be great fields
for hands-on experience with science" (Neil Stillings).  To the average
undergraduate, the social sciences offer better accessibility to knowledge
relative to the physical and biological sciences.  " It's very important to put
students in a context where they can connect their understanding of physical and
biological knowledge with social life, with the life of the mind, and that means
we have to put them in classrooms where things about the brain and about
behavior genetics are being taught together with things about behavior and
society so that they can make that connection" (Neil Stillings).  If the study
of experimental design and statistics in the social sciences are combined with
topics in cognitive science such as causal reasoning and normative models of
thinking, and this is done effectively, then greater numbers of students will
achieve a reasonable level of scientific literacy by grasping the significance
of these connections. Also, "cognitive science is a good vehicle for teaching a
lot of mathematics and computer programming" (Neil Stillings).  Thus, in
general, students benefit from a curriculum that has an interdisciplinary
approach.

However, "beyond the question of the social sciences contributing to the broad
issue of the learning of science ... we have to give increased emphasis to the
social sciences themselves" (Luther Williams).  Despite the promise of the
social and behavioral sciences as a metaphor for buttressing student
understanding of the physical and biological sciences, there are problems
specific to these fields that are more extensive than found today in the natural
sciences, namely, that passive learning is perhaps more widespread, and basic
research on curriculum and learning in these fields is considerably behind.
This may be due to the fact that a growing majority of high school graduates now
attend college and enrollments in the social and behavior sciences have been
swelling. Consequently there is less introspection about student learning than
is found in the natural sciences and engineering.

To achieve significant and lasting improvements in undergraduate education, we
must be able to pinpoint whether students successfully learn curriculum content.
Many students have the idea that "understanding something is kind of being
familiar with it" rather than trying "to really master something" (Jill Larkin).
From the perspective of most faculty, current forms of evaluation often mean
that "we give an exam, hand it back and then go on with the next lecture (Jill
Larkin).  This does not tell us, in general, whether mastery of the material has
been achieved.  Successful evaluation should include a feedback loop where
faculty and students together can determine the extent of mastery.

Institutional Context

In order for undergraduate education to improve on a large scale, the
institutional context in which it takes place must be examined.  Change is more
likely to occur if it is supported at the institutional level.  The following
themes suggest some ways to accomplish this objective.

The potential for systemic reform has been improved by the development of new
educational technologies.  New teaching models, often incorporating some of the
potential of new technology, "cut across traditional disciplinary and really
university boundaries" (Kenneth Foote).  With the appearance of the Internet and
the Worldwide Web, the walls of departments and universities must be permeable
enough to "cultivate ... more types of local, regional, and national
collaborations" (Kenneth Foote).  Institutions that promote these kinds of new
linkages are more likely to benefit from new technologies and ideas.

Cost constraints already are demanding that most universities have large class
sizes, despite evidence suggesting that smaller classes have an environment more
conducive to learning.  Thus, administrators of institutions of higher education
need to "start to think about how to facilitate these kinds of needs within the
environment" of large class size that currently exists in many institutions
(Rochel Gelman).   Investment in technology may allow for students and faculty
to have more interaction at a lower cost by providing "other ways to communicate
the same type of lecture material" (Ronald Ehrenberg, Vice President for
Academic Programs, Cornell University).

In the existing institutional context, "we don't have good integrative
mechanisms for thinking about making sensible decisions about how to affect the
trajectories" or paths that students take throughout their undergraduate
education as well as after they leave (Melvin George, Chair of the Subcommittee
of the Subcommittee of NSF Advisory Committee for Education and Human
Resources).  We must focus on issues of choice of major and course-taking, and
pay increased attention to the high percentages of students who do not complete
their undergraduate education.

Meanwhile, the discussion continued to emphasize that though the pace of
institutional change is accelerating, it is important to retain the "human
touch" of contact between faculty and students. There has been a lot of research
on the impact of mentoring on student achievement and persistence that informs
us that careful mentoring is a powerful force.  Furthermore, even modest
indications of faculty interest in their students and student learning outcomes
have a big impact on student effort and persistence.  For example, faculty tend
to get high marks on student evaluations even in courses with difficult material
and examinations if the faculty have demonstrated a minimal level of caring, for
example, being able to call on students by name, keeping track of class
attendance, and demonstrating a willingness to discuss problems outside of class
time.


               The Social Sciences and Undergraduate Education


                                Andrew Abbott

    Professor in Sociology and Master, Social Sciences Collegiate Division
                            University of Chicago
                              Chicago, Illinois


There are two aspects to the role of the social sciences in undergraduate
education. The first is the place of the social sciences in the content of
instruction. The second is the contribution of social science research to
understanding the impact of undergraduate education on those who are taught.

Social Sciences in the Curriculum

Of the place of the social sciences in the content of undergraduate education
there is little doubt. In the ideal curriculum, the social sciences are both an
essential, freestanding constituent of "core learning" and an important subset
of majors for upper level students. That is, the social sciences are crucial to
both general and specific education at the undergraduate level. In my own
university, social sciences constitute six courses in the required curriculum of
22 (of 42 total) quarter courses, and social science majors constitute the
plurality (about 42 percent) of undergraduate majors.

At the level of general education, the social sciences raise two kinds of
issues. In our curriculum these are contained in the two different required
sequences: core and civilizations.

Our core sequences inquire into certain basic problems of social life:
individual and group, freedom and determinism, equality and inequality,
personality and culture, difference and similarity. The exact content of our
five core courses varies, although there is a tendency to focus on classic texts
and on particular modes of inquiry. What does not vary is the classroom
structure and pedagogical technique. The classes are small (maximum 25-30), are
taught largely by Ph.D.-level faculty (about 75 percent), and are largely
discussion-based. This reflects our strong belief that general education is not
about content but about the skill of critical reading and thinking. We aim to
create citizens who can think clearly, critically, and creatively about the
social life that surrounds them. This can be accomplished only in small classes,
where faculty can intimately model the process of reflective thought, and where
students' work - both oral and written - can receive the detailed comments that
alone promote effective learning.

Each of the five core sequences has a number of "tracks" - from five to fifteen
at any given time - taught by individual faculty. Within a course, tracks share
about 70 percent of their curricula, so that student learning continues in the
dormitory and lounge as students from different tracks argue about common
themes. Across tracks, faculty meet weekly to discuss pedagogy, to argue about
text materials, and to plan future curricula. Such staff meetings offer an
important resource to faculty, both in terms of sharing of pedagogical secrets
and in terms of interdisciplinary learning, for the courses are generally
staffed across disciplines.

The five core tracks really shake down to two curricula:
Plato-Aristotle-Machiavelli-Locke-Hobbes- Marx and friends and
Smith-Marx-Durkheim-Weber-Freud and friends. From time to time, we have also had
a core sequence based on empirical social science, which takes students from a
quarter on philosophy of inquiry through a quarter on actual social science
research to a quarter on policy. Even in such a sequence, however, the focus
continues to be on addressing basic questions; classic texts continue to provide
an organizing role, augmented by doing actual social science research.

The other required social science sequence is civilization; a much more
complicated pedagogical structure. There are three teaching rationales behind
the civilization sequences: a concern with contingency and diversity, a concern
that students contact a culture or cultures different from theirs, and a concern
that students truly understand their own culture, whatever that may be. Two of
our civilization sequences are taught in "core format," as just described:
Western Civilization (about 40 percent of students in 16 tracks) and American
Civilization (about 10 percent of the students in 4 tracks). The others are
taught in the more standard lecture/recitation format. All, however, tend to
focus on classic texts. These are reviewed and updated periodically.  (Those for
American Civilization are on-line, for example.)

The civilization sequences (the largest eight of them cover 95 percent of the
students) generally involve history and anthropology faculty. For faculty, the
problems of curriculum planning and design again produce the interdisciplinary
contact of the core courses. For students, this interdisciplinary gives rise,
again, to a complicated, nuanced approach to learning.

Beyond the required curriculum, we also have, as I noted, a steady 40-45 percent
of the majors in the College. As in most colleges, the largest is economics, but
social science in fact dominates the University of Chicago undergraduate scene;
we have four of the largest six majors (economics, political science,
psychology, and history). Extensive research, which I mention below, shows that
students treat their majors essentially as an advanced form of liberal
education. Most of our students do not perceive their choice of major as related
to a career decision. (Two-third of our premeds major outside biological
sciences, for example.) As a result, learning in the majors is driven again by
the problem of mastering a specific body of skills and thinking, the skills and
thinking of advanced inquiry in a particular field. It is this specific
discipline, not the content that alumni report as important in their later
lives.

The center of this specific learning is the B.A. paper, required in most of our
majors. At its best (in our history program), the major introduces the student
to the problems of advanced thinking with a junior colloquium, then advances by
associating paper-writing seniors with preceptors at a ten to one ratio. The
resultant papers are read and improved by faculty in their later drafts, once
they have been effectively pre-prepared. Other majors work essentially like
mini-curricula, with introductory sequences, methods courses, and upper-level
electives. In general, our majors are effective but "quick" curricula. The
exigencies of the core, the tendency of students to front-load their science
requirements (we require year-long sequences in BOTH physical and biological
science), and the tendency of many students to switch into social sciences late
in their career.  It means that the social science majors must move students
through the discipline of advanced knowledge faster than is done elsewhere.

It should be noted that our curriculum assumes that the social sciences are an
independent area of knowledge, between the social sciences and the humanities.
They are not a stepchild of either, but rather proudly freestanding. In part
this reflects institutional history; we are perhaps the only major university in
which the social science departments enjoy higher national rankings than those
in either humanities or natural sciences, a situation that has persisted from
the 1920s. Moreover, the curricular structure has been etched into the internal
administrative organization since 1929, when Robert Maynard Hutchins divided the
faculty into Divisions (Humanties, Social Sciences, Physical Sciences,
Biological Sciences), each with a Dean responsible for graduate teaching and
general oversight and (since the end of a separate College Division in 1963) a
Master responsible for undergraduate teaching and the College's half of the
personnel jurisdiction. We have no faculty of Arts and Sciences and no
overarching Dean. Divisions report to the Provost.

Thus a central question of this [EHR Advisory Committee] Review - whether the
social sciences can serve as a vehicle for "science education" - is ruled out of
court. Our faculties do not feel that social science learning can be collapsed
into natural science learning or vice versa.

Social Science Research and the Undergraduate Experience

In the area of research on the curriculum, however, the social sciences have
much to say. I here report on a large investigation under way at Chicago with
the help of the Ford Foundation.

Three years ago, the Foundation provided us with a grant for the support of
social science majors at the University. (This was part of a larger program
involving a number of leading universities.) With this funding, I have
undertaken a large body of research aimed at two fundamental questions, neither
of which has ever seen much study.

The first and simpler of these questions is that of origins. Nobody seems to
have asked why we have majors in the first place. There was one dissertation,
long ago, on the subject. I have supported research into the history of majors
with an idea to finding out the original pedagogical rationale as well as the
administrative forces driving the change. It has indeed proved that to a
considerable extent we have majors because we have departments, majors proved a
way of solving the administrative problem of regulating universities that, for
the first time, had numbers of faculty concentrated in particular areas. On the
other hand, majors were also a crucial part of reining in the chaos of the
electives-based curriculum of the late 1 9th century, and in that sense an
alternative to the core-based programs (at Columbia, Chicago, and elsewhere)
that attempted the same structuring of the curriculum but in a different manner.
Other than the conflict with core-based curricula, there has been no serious
challenge to the idea of majors in the 20th century. As with the graduate
intellectual life, however, it seems that there is much more overlap in the
actual contents of majors than in the disciplinary origins of the faculty
teaching them. On the ground, considerable interdisciplinarity has probably been
the normal state of affairs.

The second and more difficult question we have addressed is the impact of the
major on the later life of students. Because Chicago has had for at least twenty
years a curriculum with both a serious core and serious majors, we are able to
ask specific questions about the relation of these for students in choosing
Chicago, in studying here, and in their later lives. Ideally, such research
should be prospective, and I would certainly propose that for the future. But at
present, we have mounted a large "synthetic cohort" examination of the problem.

This analysis includes the following components:

     1. A survey of the class of 1995
        o  300/700 responded information on parents' majors, employment, hopes
           for children on respondents' aims in high school and later, choice of
           major, choice of career, satisfaction with education, etc.

     2. A sequence analysis of exact transcripts of 1995 class (entire) to study
        changing of majors, juggling of required curricular elements, the actual
        "experience" of education in terms of order and structure.

     3. A survey of all alumni who have been out 2,5,7,10,15,and 20 years
        1400/3600 responded (still coming in)
        o  information on parents' majors, employment, hopes on respondents'
           choice of major, impact of major and of core on later occupational
           and intellectual experience (we have data at the level of specific
           intellectual skills - problem analysis, writing, creativity, etc.)

     4. A diary project
        o  ten students have kept detailed diaries of their educational
           experience across three years.

     5. A retrospective course examination
        o  twenty-five students (1996 seniors) will prepare essays discussing
           their experience in retrospect.

These data will permit us to examine the impact of different parts of the
curriculum on later experience.

Our central research questions here all involve the "trajectory" of education; a
topic that seems relatively little studied. Questions include:

     1. How are core and major related to later occupational life?

     2. How is core and major related to other parts of respondents' lives?
        citizenship? participation in cultural life?

     3. How do students imagine their college careers?

     4. How does reality cut across students' expectations and early college
        experiences?

     5. What are the impacts of parents' hopes and dreams on students' lives?
        are these specific to specific ethnic groups? occupational types?

     6. Which parts of the curriculum produce or support which kinds of skills
       in adult life?

The underlying vision here is one envisioning education as a process and seeking
the forces that channel that process in a particular direction. My own
expectation is that skills training lasts far longer into and proves more
valuable for adult life than does specific content, and that the disappearance
of major content from the horizon of adult experience is quite quick. But these
are empirical questions, to be addressed only by surveying an alumni body with
long-standing experience of a particular curriculum.

The University of Chicago is an elite institution. Results, and indeed research
questions, will probably be quite different at another kind of university. This
issue seems to me one of the most difficult facing the workshop. I am confident
we could agree more on the content of the kind of education proposed here than
we can either on the content of other forms of education or indeed upon the idea
that education for elites and masses are likely to be fundamentally different.
But the latter point - the recognition that elite and mass higher education is
likely to differ - seems a crucial one. Such research as we have on learning
seems to indicate that amount and quality of feedback to students is the strong
predictor of good education, and effective feedback requires staff quality and
intensity unreachable at most public institutions. I propose this issue without
any idea of how we should address it.


Andrew Abbott is Professor in Sociology and Master of the Social Sciences
Collegiate Division at The University of Chicago.  His current work includes a
theoretical book on time and social structure as well as diverse analyses in the
methodological area of optimal alignment and sequence analysis.  He is also
currently writing a book on the concept of college majors and the experience of
generations of University of Chicago Students with the University's
concentration program.


                 Scientific Literacy and the Social Sciences


                              John F. Dovidio

                          Department of Psychology
                             Colgate University
                             Hamilton, New York


In a world increasingly shaped by science and technology, a fundamental
understanding of science is an essential aspect of contemporary education. We
can no longer talk of science and the liberal arts; science must be an integral
part of a liberal arts education. While I suspect that there will be little
debate about the importance of scientific literacy, there may be fewer
consensuses about how this can be generally achieved. The focus of this brief
presentation will therefore be on question #3: In many institutions, students
take courses in the social and behavioral sciences as a means to fulfill their
science distribution requirements. In what ways can and do these courses
effectively promote scientific and quantitative literacy?

As a basis for the presentation, I will use the case study of Colgate
University.  Colgate is a selective undergraduate liberal arts institution
enrolling approximately 2,800 students and employing about 240 faculty members.
It has a strong emphasis on majors (concentrations), as well as a distribution
requirement - two courses in the sciences: social sciences, and humanities and a
core general education program. Of course, I choose this example not solely
because of its representativeness, but also because of the availability of the
data I will be presenting.

Despite the increasing need for general science education, there are currently
several practical barriers to achieving this objective successfully. First,
although there is renewed interest in the sciences among students compared to a
decade ago, still relatively fewer students major in the science compared to the
social sciences and humanities. Five years ago, 22 percent of the graduating
Colgate students majored in the sciences; today that figure has improved to 28
percent. Nevertheless, 33 percent currently major in the humanities and 39
percent major in the social sciences. Therefore, we cannot necessarily depend on
science concentrations to provide a science education for students in general.
The vast majority of students do not major in science.  Second, perhaps because
of lack of interest or lack of preparation, a substantial portion of students
take the minimal amount of science possible within the liberal arts curriculum.
As I noted earlier, Colgate has a two-course-per-Division distribution
requirement. Thirty-four percent of Colgate students graduate with only these
two science courses on their transcript (compared to 24 percent with the minimum
social science and 9 percent with the minimum humanities requirements). Third,
in a time of diminishing financial resources to higher education, the costs of
traditional science education are high and are escalating. At Colgate, the
average department budget allocation per faculty member in the sciences is six
times what it is in the humanities and four times what is in the social
sciences. Start-up costs are ten times higher in the sciences than in the
humanities or social sciences. Because of teaching credit for laboratories,
science instructors teach only .8 of the range of courses per year as other
instructors, and the sciences accommodate only about 28 percent of the total
enrollments. Recently, the controversial study from the University of Rhode
Island has raised questions about the overall cost- effectiveness of pursuing
research grants.  An Important question then becomes: How can we provide a
better general science education for students in the face of these barriers?

The answer I propose is that the social sciences can effectively and efficiently
contribute to science education in ways that complement and support the
traditional sciences. Colgate's experiences offer some insights because it's
unusual Division structure. The Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
consists of biology, chemistry, computer science, geology, mathematics,
physics/astronomy and psychology. Psychology is considered a social science on
many, if not most, other college campuses. Using the social sciences more
effectively can help overcome each of the obstacles I just raised; the first
issue involves capturing student interest in courses that can potentially make
major contributions to scientific and quantitative literacy. Among the seven
science departments, psychology's enrollments have consistently been the
highest. In addition, unlike each of the other departments, it did not
experience the dramatic decline in enrollments of the 1980s. Among those
students taking only the minimum two-course science distribution, psychology
courses are clearly the courses of choice: 73 percent of those students had a
psychology course as one of those two courses. Geology was second with 37
percent. The traditional, central sciences, such as chemistry and physics were
largely represented in these students' records (3 percent and 4 percent; see
Figure 2.2). The attraction of Psychology is not likely easy grades; the average
grade in the introductory psychology courses is the lowest of all of the
introductory science courses. Thus, social science courses may provide an
inherently attractive avenue among students for achieving the essential goals of
a general science education.

The curricula of some social science disciplines may also be particularly
well-suited to developing general scientific and quantitative literacy because
of their explicit focus on methodology and statistical analysis. Table IV.1
lists the departments in which a statistics (or mathematics course) is a
required or elective course in the major.

Table IV.1
    Departments with statistics or mathematics courses as required or elective
    courses (science departments in boldface type).

                       Required                 Elective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Computer Science             Biology
                       Economics               Education
                      Mathematics              Geography
                        Physics            Political Science
                       Psychology              Sociology


The science concentrations not on this list - astronomy, chemistry, and geology
- instead have required instrumentation courses. Although experience with
sophisticated, state-of-the-art scientific equipment may be essential for
students continuing on in science, the development of transferable quantitative
and information management techniques may be significantly more useful to the
general student who will not pursue formal scientific training beyond graduation
- and can be provided effectively at a fraction of the cost of equipment,
supplies, and overhead.

At the introductory course level, social science courses that emphasize the
application of the scientific method and experimental approaches to verification
can be as effective as traditional science courses in achieving essential goals
of scientific literacy in a context or personal relevance to students. Figure 2
[projected slide not published here]  illustrates a comparison of student
responses (1 = "disagree strong1y" to 7 = "agree strongly") to three statements
identified by science faculty as central objectives of a general science
education:  (1) "The course required me to engage in scientific reasoning"; (2)
"After taking this course, I am more able to evaluate current issues and
problems"; and (3) "The course improved my problem-solving skills." The
responses to these items for three traditional introductory science courses
(biology, chemistry, and geology) are compared to Introductory Psychology and to
an interdisciplinary Introductory Environmental Studies course (reflecting an
integration of areas of biology, geology, and geography). The two "non-science"
courses are generally as effective - and in some ways are more eff6ctive - in
achieving the general goals identified by the faculty.

Because of the hierarchical nature of science curricula, the burden of providing
the prerequisite factual information to prospective majors may interfere with an
emphasis on the process of scientific inquiry that may be an essential aspect of
a general science education for non-majors. Thus curricula that offer
alternative entries to the major, rather than a strict linear sequence, may
offer more opportunity for pedagogical innovation and flexibility and time to
devote to an understanding of the process of scientific inquiry. Among the
sciences, only geology offers multiple alternative entries to the concentration.
The majority of the social sciences (i.e., not psychology or economics) allow
different entry points. Recently Colgate has introduced a series of pilot
Scientific Perspectives courses, which are staffed by social scientists as well
as natural scientists as part of the required Liberal Arts Core program. These
are designed to enhance scientific literacy, by focusing on the process of
scientific inquiry with the mastery of a specific body of factual information,
as a secondary concern. The results of student responses to these courses,
separated by those taught by social scientists (economists and psychologists)
and those taught by natural scientists, are presented in Figure 3 [projected
slide not published here]. These results compare favorably to the results for
the traditional science courses depicted on the previous figure. Thus, teaching
introductory science may not be the only or the most effective way to achieve
scientific literacy among non-science majors. In addition, science literacy may
be achieved at least as effectively through selected social science courses.

In conclusion, it is currently particularly important to recognize and support
the role of the social and behavioral sciences in science education. The
incorporation of selected social science courses to complement traditional
science courses in scientific education programs is valuable because:

o  Social science courses are currently attractive to students
      o  the topics and issues are of immediate relevance to students
      o  these courses may be accessible to a wide range of students because
         they normally do not rely on pre-requisite high school preparation

o  Social science courses may provide a cost-effective alternative
      o  these courses normally have lower start-up equipment expenses and
         reclaiming costs for supplies
      o  these courses do not normally require dedicated laboratory space; when
         equipment (such as computers, network links, graphics equipment) is
         needed, it frequently can be used for multiple other purposes
      o  the skills that are acquired in laboratory experiences (e.g., computer
         or networking skills, skills in information retrieval, evaluation, and
         management, and skills in quantitative analysis) are highly
         transferable skills that will benefit students beyond graduation.

o  The social and behavioral sciences may offer curricular and pedagogical
   flexibility
      o  this flexibility may allow the adaptations needed to meet the needs of
         non-science students
      o  more flexibility in the amount and nature of information presented can
         permit a more deliberate and self-conscious examination of the
         scientific method, experimental procedures, and data analysis
      o  the topics of study may offer more obvious and direct connections to
         the use and misuse of scientific information and technology
      o  the use of less structured laboratories can encourage the use of a
         wider range of pedagogical strategies, such as cooperative learning and
         creative problem solving.


John Dovidio is Director of the Division of University Studies, past Director of
the Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and Professor of Psychology at
Colgate University.  He served on the Executive Committee of the Society for
Experimental Social Psychology and is Editor of the Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin and the author of several books, book chapters, and numerous
articles focusing on racism and on altruism. Academic Press and Prentice-Hall
will, soon publish two new works, Experimental Design and Statistical Methods
and Social Psychology, respectively.  Dr. Dovidio is the recipient of many
awards and distinctions, including the Professor of the Year award conferred by
Eta Sigma Phi, a first year students' honors society.


         Why Study Economics? Why Teach It Using Frontier Technology?


                             Ronald G. Ehrenberg

        Vice President for Academic Programs, Planning, and Budgeting
  Irving M. Ives Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations and Economics
                             Cornell University
                              Ithaca, New York


Teaching Introductory Economics at Cornell University Using the Worldwide Web

Cornell University has revamped the way it teaches Introductory Microeconomics
using Worldwide Web technology. Partially as a result of the need to conserve
faculty resources, Cornell reduced the number of lecture sections of
Introductory Microeconomics that are taught throughout the University and
increased the average lecture class size by roughly 50 percent (from 250 to
380). My colleague, John Abowd, who is a continual NSF Economics Program grant
winner and a former NSF Economics Program Advisory Committee member, assumed
responsibility for one of the classes. He did so motivated by the belief that
students at selective research universities should be exposed early on in their
education to prominent researchers and that they should be taught using frontier
technologies.

Abowd's course is structured as follows:

On the first day of class students are given a multiple-choice exam that tests
their knowledge of, and ability to apply, all the concepts to he learned
throughout the semester in the class. Scores on each question for each student
are stored on his server for future use by him.

Students are forced on to the Worldwide Web as lecture notes for the class are
placed on the Web in advance of the professor's in-class lectures. Not
surprising, attendance is lower than one observes in comparable size classes in
which the lectures have to be attended to learn the professor's views. However,
as noted below, Abowd can actually test if attendance, per se, improves
performance.

Given the scale of his class, Abowd has enough teaching assistant (TA) resources
to conduct office hours for multiple hours each day. Cornell is located on a
very spacious campus and while the TAs are physically located in one room,
students do not have to actually go to that room to see them. Rather, they can
go to any one of a number of locations on campus and be "connected" to a TA
using a computer technology that allows two way audio and visual contact between
the students and the TA. Alternatively, they can communicate with the TAs by
electronic mail.

Whenever a student asks a question relating to a point in the lecture notes, a
star is placed on that spot on the Worldwide Web copy of the lecture notes. By
"clicking" on that star any student in the class can read the question and see
the answer. Effectively, use of the Web has multiplied the value of office
hours. All students now have the potential to learn from the questions of any
one. In the language of economists, office hours, which once were a private
good, have become a public good.

Periodic exams are given in the course. Some of the questions are, in fact,
identical to those given on the pretest. Thus Abowd can learn which specific
concepts/questions are the ones that the students are having the most difficulty
learning. Put another way, he can learn which sections of the lectures confuse
rather than clarify things. Given the students self-reported class attendance,
he can also estimate if attendance per se influences what students learn.

Weekly problem sets are given in the form of spreadsheets found on the web sight
and answers must be submitted over the web. While students have complained about
being forced to learn a new technology that is not essential to economics, they
quickly master it and then observe how spreadsheet programs facilitate "what
if?" discussions.

This course has not been an easy one to get off of the ground in spite of the
Herculean efforts of Abowd for a number of reasons. First it has required a
substantial initial capital outlay for equipment, including remote
teleconference sites. Individual departments do not have the resources needed to
develop such equipment funds; the university as a whole has to at least be
partially responsible for them.

Second, it has required funding for all of the Web programming for the lecture
notes, problem sets and exams. While it is rapidly getting easier to translate
word processor files into Web-compatible format, this is not something that most
"mature" professors feel themselves capable of doing. Many new undergraduates
have mastered the technology and they provide the necessary labor pool for this
activity.

Finally, Abowd is easily among the top 5 percent of all Cornell professors in
terms of his facility with new technology. Once he has created the course
structure, other colleagues can adapt it for their own courses. But how many of
us will? And who will pay for the extra support costs such courses entail? Our
saving in faculty time is only a saving to the university if we reduce the size
of the faculty and/or use the freed up faculty type in some other revenue
producing activity (e.g. off- campus learning or continuing education on
campus). So far, most faculty and universities show little inclination to do
either.

The Importance of Economics in the Curriculum

Research by economists (some of it funded by NSF) has demonstrated that the
likelihood that any individual will spend his or her career with a single
employer, or even in a single occupation, has declined in recent years. To have
a successful career, individuals must be flexible and adaptive to continually
changing technologies and economic forces. Learning to become accustomed to the
former while in college may be almost as valuable to students in the long-run as
the subject matter they study.

I say "almost" because I strongly believe that it is important that students
study economics in college. Economics provides a conceptual framework that they
can use to analyze private and public decision problems throughout their lives.
Such basic (to an economist) concepts as demand and supply, the tendency of
markets to move towards equilibrium, maximizing behavior under constraints,
marginal analyses, externalities, opportunity costs, the prisoner's dilemma, the
importance of relative prices, moral hazard, unintended side affects of
decisions, adverse selections and rational expectations provide students with
"tools" to help them evaluate their own private decisions and the issues they
read about in the newspapers that policy makers continually face.

I regularly taught a course at Cornell for about 15 years called the "Evaluation
of Social Programs." For six weeks I dazzled the students with my knowledge of
quasi-experimental design and Campbell and Stanley's "threats" to internal and
external validity.  Showed the students how to implement the designs in the
context of regression models and how each of the "threats" corresponded to an
econometric problem, demonstrated how to compute sample sizes needed to obtain
statistically significant program effects, and finally introduced them to
benefit/cost analysis in a social context. I then spent the final eight weeks
applying these models and techniques to the evaluation of labor market programs
and policies, always using simple microeconomic models to conceptualize things.
By the end of each semester I was always convinced that I had "wowed" students
with how much I knew and with how exciting social policy analysis was.

Several years ago I ran into one of my former undergraduate students, who by
then was high up in the human resource department of a major corporation. He
told me that my course was the most valuable course that he had taken at Cornell
and that he used concepts from it regularly in his work. I was dumbfounded. My
course dealt with social programs; he was working for a private corporation.
Ultimately I realized that he understood much better than I did what the course
was really all about. Our job as academic economists is to increase our
student's analytical abilities, not to cram them full of specific applications
that interest us. Fortunately, the tools of economists are sufficiently useful
that sometimes students understand this point, even if we don't ourselves.


Ronald Ehrenberg is the Irving M. Ives Professor of Industrial and Labor
Relations and Economics, Director of Research, and Director of the Institute for
Labor Market Policies at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic
Research.  He received a Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1970
and has authored or co-authored over 100 papers and books in the areas of public
sector labor markets, wages in regulated industries, labor market programs and
legislation, resource allocation issues in education, and the incentive effects
of compensation systems.  Effective July 1, 1995, he became Vice-President for
Academic Programs, Planning, and Budgeting at Cornell.


             Social Science Education, Information Technologies,
                          and Virtual Universities


                              Kenneth E. Foote

                   Associate Vice-President for Research
                     The University of Texas at Austin
                                Austin. Texas


I wish to concentrate on only a few of the issues that are the focus of today's
agenda. My stress will be on technology and the way it is transforming the
entire learning process, affecting our vision of how and what to train students,
and changing our repertoire of best practices. First I want to draw attention to
the role of the social, behavioral, and economic disciplines in basic science
education.

On my campus, the fact is not always appreciated that the social, behavioral,
and economic sciences play a major role in basic science education, whether
measured in student numbers or innovative projects. For a large cohort of
students, basic science requirements are met by courses outside of the natural
and biological sciences and engineering. Instead, their contacts will arise from
courses in sociology, demography, anthropology, archeology, psychology,
economics, geography and the like. Even though this is the case at many other
campuses too, I realize that it is not always weighted as heavily as it perhaps
should be in efforts to improve scientific literacy and the quality of the
American scientific workforce. Yet within these disciplines, faculty is clearly
concerned with these issues. They are taking the challenge of scientific
literacy to heart and developing very promising models that address the broader
concerns of general science education, in at least two ways.

In the first, stress has been placed on cultivating the analytical and
problem-solving skills of students through active learning strategies. Too
often, science curricula seem to value mastery of content over comprehension of
the process of research and investigation. New prototypes seek to redress this
situation and reassert the importance of cultivating analytical reasoning skills
in the undergraduate curriculum. Social scientists are using small-group
learning techniques and collaborative problem-solving to engage students in
active debate and investigation of pressing scientific, political, and social
issues.

Second, many social scientists are attempting to span disciplinary boundaries by
challenging students to consider concepts and issues from interdisciplinary
perspectives. The sense here is that conventional disciplinary boundaries are
increasingly blurred in both theory and practice and students must learn to
apply conceptual and analytical skills from many disciplines, rather than those
of a single field. These projects often rely on a team of faculty drawn from
several departments to address a single important and interesting topic, such as
sustainable development or environmental quality, from a variety of
perspectives. All of these projects take a fresh look at the curriculum and
attempt to move away from compartmentalizing knowledge within time-worn
disciplinary categories. Such projects are likely to increase in number and
scope in coming years as means of reintegrating specialized undergraduate
curricula.

The Impact of New Technologies

Some of the most exciting curriculum development projects involve creative
applications of information technology. As recently as a few years ago,
information technology was equated solely with the use of microcomputers in
traditional quantitative subfields such as econometrics, demography,
experimental psychology, or my own field of geographic information systems.

But it is now apparent that information technologies are rapidly and
irreversibly transforming higher education and the ways in which students and
scholars learn, teach, communicate, conduct research, disseminate knowledge, and
serve the public. Scholars from all disciplines are experimenting extensively
with multimedia, hypertext, Internet resources, distance learning, and many
other techniques that fall under the broad heading of information technology.

Hypermedia authoring techniques have just recently become accessible to large
numbers of scholars and in the past two years Internet and the Worldwide Web
have made it possible to develop high- quality on-line course materials. As the
academic community masters these resources, experiments will go even further. It
is now easy to envision "virtual" departments, disciplines, or universities in
which ready access to educational resources of all sorts is available through an
easy-to-use graphical interface. The idea of using the Internet and hypermedia
resources to link faculty and students from many departments and universities
is, in some respects, just around the corner. Such cooperative endeavors would
not only expose students to a richer educational environment but also help to
average out the high development costs of hypermedia resources. This summer I am
starting up NSF- funded Geography Virtual Department Project. Over the next
three years, geographers from all over the United States will gather at the
University of Texas to plan and develop materials to support an entire
undergraduate geography curriculum on-line in the Worldwide Web. The Western
Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications has just made public a sound plan
for a Western Virtual University that can begin to be realized almost
immediately.

Toward the Virtual University: Needs, Requirements, and Programs of the Future

Support will be required for disciplines and entire universities as they
re-invent themselves to serve new and diverse clienteles throughout the nation
and world using a new generation of learning technologies, but how? It is not
just a question of massive new investment. Change is taking place so rapidly
that large investments in unproved technologies can be very risky.

But, unfortunately, a wait-and-see attitude is just as risky. It can jeopardize
the lead American universities have assumed in cyberspace. My suggestion is to
look carefully at the processes of change themselves. If these new technologies
are to benefit students and society through the educated used of information,
people and systemic reform of institutions will be as critical to the process of
change as the evolution of the underlying technologies. The "virtual university"
must be viewed as the product of a process of change across the entire knowledge
base of higher education. The transformation will involve:

    1.  Active collaboration of faculty, students, and staff in the development
        of new teaching and curriculum models and materials that will link
        across traditional disciplinary and university boundaries and result in
        systemic change of undergraduate and graduate education.

    2.  Careful evaluation and testing of prototypes including the cultivation
        of new modes of peer review, planning, and collaboration.

    3.  Comprehensive support for time invested in developing these new models
        including equipment, staff, and rewards that cut across conventional
        distinctions among educational, research, and public service.

    4.  Sustained support for collaborations and partnerships that will
        contribute to and draw upon far broader efforts to interlink advances in
        K-12 and collegiate instruction at the local, regional, national, and
        international levels.

This means that some traditional distinctions are gradually losing their
relevance. Even the clearest divides among disciplines are disappearing as
faculty and students build intellectual bridges electronically. Separate
universities are finding themselves no more than a click away from one another
on the computer screen. The sharp distinctions that were once made among
research, teaching, and public service have blurred substantially. The most
pressing question in this situation is what can be done at the national level to
insure that these changes support the nation's lead in science education.
Attention should be give to programs that:

    1. Stress systemic reform of science education within individual
       institutions by reinforcing collaborative linkages among disciplines and
       approaching the knowledge-base of higher education as more than the
       simple sum of the social, behavioral, economic, biological and natural
       sciences. A strong faculty enhancement component is essential so that
       faculty can gain the skills and support needed to make a success of these
       efforts. American universities have never before been asked to "retrain"
       faculty on the scale they are today. It will be very important to adjust
       the academic rewards system to recognize this fact

    2. Promote innovative educational partnerships at all levels to highlight
       the fundamental relationship between K-12, collegiate, and graduate
       science education. Such partnerships might also benefit from close
       connections with business and industry. Consortia must be cultivated at
       the local, regional, and national levels.

    3. Establish rigorous benchmarks for the review, testing, and evaluation of
       these internal linkages and external partnerships. These benchmarks must
       be suited to the demands of new modes of technology enhanced learning and
       must address both the process of development and the products that are
       created.

    4. These internal linkages, external partnerships, and quality benchmarks
       must be conceived with an eye toward broader education horizons, both
       temporally and spatially. What are needed are models and prototypes that
       can be scaled up to encompass the emergence of other linkages and
       partnerships through time and are robust enough to be applied to many
       different types of institution all across the country.


Kenneth Foote joined the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin in 1983
after training at the University of Chicago and the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.  In addition to his research in cultural geography and
American landscape history, Dr. Foote has many years' experience teaching
computer cartography, geographic information systems, and spatial statistics.
He is the director of his department's Environmental Information Systems
Laboratory.  He is now beginning the Geography Virtual Department project to
interlink geography curricula nationally and internationally using the Worldwide
Web.  Dr. Foote was awarded the University of Texas President's Associates
Teaching Excellence Award in 1992.


              Contributions to the NSF Social Sciences Workshop


                                Rochel Gelman

                           Professor of Psychology
                    University of California, Los Angeles
                           Los Angeles, California


The last twenty years or so of research on learning and cognition has born
witness to a theoretical sea change. The widespread view that the mind absorbs
whatever data it is offered has given way to an alternative. This is that the
mind actively selects, interprets and even creates environments with reference
to existing knowledge bases.

These active tendencies of mind are pervasive; they reveal themselves as much in
studies of social cognition as they do studies of learning about mathematics and
physics. When the same news clip is shown to Israelis and Palestinians, both
report that it is a biased presentation in favor of the other. When fractions
are introduced to the curriculum, children interpret them as novel examples of
the natural numbers, reporting that 114 is more than 1/2 "because 4 is more than
2" or 1/76 is more than 1/65 "because 76 is more than 65." We are more inclined
to attend to things we know something about; we interpret what we encounter with
reference to what we already know. These active tendencies of mind have deep
implications for education.

Educators no longer can assume that they material they offer learners will be
interpreted as intended. Whether or not learning proceeds depends heavily on
whether there is structural overlap between what is already known and the
to-be-learned body of knowledge. When there is overlap, there is a reasonable
chance that students will move along domain-relevant learning paths. When there
is not overlap, there is a non-trivial chance that students will unwittingly
misinterpret what they are offered, often enough in ways that are hard to
anticipate. For example, it never occurred to me that my undergraduates would
"hear" Kant as Can't. (I now write Kant's name on the board when I first
introduce his ideas about knowledge and learning).

These facts about cognition are especially relevant to our discussions for
today. When our goal is to teach a new body of knowledge to undergraduates
expertise in one's discipline does not guarantee success in the classroom. The
odds are high that there are qualitative differences between the knowledge
structures of learners and teachers. Indeed, there is reason to anticipate gaps
between learners and learners given our commitment to universal literacy be it
in the humanities, social, physical or biological sciences, sciences,
humanities. I will expand on this point in my remarks about the way that
cognitive research can facilitate the goals of undergraduate education.


Rochel Gelman is a Professor of Psychology at UCLA and Visiting Scholar at NYU.
NSF supports her research on the early understandings and subsequent learning of
mathematical and scientific concepts.  She also collaborates with cognitive
scientists on programs designed to support the acquisition of scientific and
technical literacy - in ways that are appropriate for preschool settings, high
school English as a Second Language classes, and beginning undergraduate courses
in the biological and physical sciences.  She is the author of The Child's
Understanding of Number (1978) with C.R. Gallistel and the editor of The
Epigenesis of Mind (1991) with Susan Carey.  Gelman's awards include fellowships
from the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Studies, Palo Alto, a
Guggenheim Fellowship, and ones for an Early Career Research Contribution and
Distinguished Scientific Contribution from the American Psychological
Association.


               Social Science Research and the Learning Process


                             Maureen T. Hallinan

                        White Professor of Sociology
                          University of Notre Dame
                             Notre Dame, Indiana


Learning is a function of student ability, motivation and effort. These three
factors interact in a non-linear manner to produce knowledge. In addition,
learning takes place in a social context, which differs for each student by
their ascribed and achieved characteristics. The contribution of the social
sciences, and sociology in particular, to an understanding of how to improve
undergraduate education is based, in large part, on the research that has been
conducted on the various components of this learning model.

In general, psychology has led the social sciences in broadening our
understanding of student ability. Recent research on the nature of intelligence
has challenged old narrow definitions of intelligence that were almost solely
related to analytical abilities and to cognitive thinking. Identifying different
bases for intelligence and for understanding the world has made a significant
impact on attitudes toward the learning process and toward achievement. More
research needs to be conducted in this area, both to increase our understanding
of intelligence and to disseminate this work to educators. The implications of
this work for curriculum content, pedagogical techniques and performance
evaluation are profound.

Psychologists also have made significant advances in understanding of individual
differences in learning strategies. Their research has identified several
different learning styles, such as visual learners and kinetic learners, and
demonstrated that the better the fit between a teacher's instructional
techniques and the student's learning style, the more the student learns.

Both psychologists and sociologists have addressed the issue of student
motivation. While psychologists have been concerned about intrinsic motivation,
sociologists have studied extrinsic motivation in the form of rewards and
sanctions. Sociological research has examined whether students are more
motivated in cooperative or competitive environments and working individually or
in groups.  Findings suggest that working in groups in a cooperative setting
produces greater growth in achievement than straining for relative gains in a
competitive environment.

Motivation also is affected by student interest in the subject matter.
Sociological research on the organization of instruction in secondary schools
demonstrates that the higher the quality of instruction, the more interesting
the curriculum and materials, and the greater the amount of time exposed to the
curriculum, the greater the growth in achievement.  The social organization of
students for instruction affects the quality and quantity of instruction.
Organizational arrangements such as ability grouping and tracking at the middle
and secondary levels have been shown to differentially channel opportunities to
learn to students who differ in ability. The higher the ability group or track
level, the higher the quantity and quality of instruction and, even with ability
controlled, the greater the growth in achievement. At the college level, the
quantity and quality of instruction also varies across courses. Access to the
most favorable learning situations varies by student characteristics, such as
ability, and linkages to faculty and peers who can provide relevant information
about courses.

Another factor affecting student motivation is the influence of peers. A large
body of sociological research demonstrates that peer groups are a significant
factor in the learning process. Students who belong to a peer group that
devalues academic work are less likely to succeed academically than those who
have peer models who are serious about academic achievement.  Peers affect the
amount of time spent studying, the nature of non-academic activities (wholesome
or dangerous), the choice of courses, educational aspirations and academic
achievement. Some studies show that school personnel can modify an anti-academic
peer culture through the creation of desired rewards and through the expansion
of the bases for social hierarchies.

Research reveals that individuals differ in the relationship they see between
motivation and effort. Students with similar levels of motivation may expend
different amounts of effort to attain their educational goals. Coleman's
research identified a race effect on students' sense of "locus of control", with
black students believing that luck played a greater role in outcome than white
children. Cultural differences in the value and effects of effort also have been
documented. With the increased racial, ethnic and cultural diversity of college
campuses, the need to take these differences into account only increases.

Other contextual variables that affect learning include the size and composition
of the class. A large body of research demonstrates that the larger the class
the slower the growth in achievement. The linkages between class size and
academic achievement include degree of student participation in class, number of
teacher-student interactions, and student self-esteem. Studies also show that
the stronger the academic climate of the class, usually related to the student
distribution of achievement, the greater the effort and achievement. Here, the
mechanism connecting academic composition to learning involves role models and
socialization.

In addition to the contextual variables that affect the dynamics of learning
depicted in the learning model, individual ascribed and achieved characteristics
affect learning. In a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Jerome Kagan cites studies showing that the components of self- esteem differ by
the history and cultural background of the individual.


Similarly, the way the components of the learning model interact to produce
knowledge differ by the gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age of
students. They also differ by family characteristics and by school factors. This
is undoubtedly true at undergraduate institutions as well as primary and
secondary schools. A better understanding of these interconnections will provide
better direction to educators who design and implement college curriculum and
instruction.


Maureen Hallinan is the White Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre
Dame and President of the American Sociological Association.  Her research
interests are in the area of sociology of education.  She is currently studying
the effects of tracking on mathematics learning.


       The Social Sciences Contribution to the EHR Undergraduate Review:
                        Comments on Guiding Questions


                               Jill. H. Larkin

        Department of Psychology and Center for Innovation in Learning
                         Carnegie Mellon University
                          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


Background

Personal experience underlies many of the following comments. Therefore, I
provide here a brief summary of the most relevant experience.

            The Carnegie Mellon Center for Innovation in Learning

Carnegie Mellon University provides funds for a center with a charge to use
research results, experimentation, and technology to improve education at
Carnegie Mellon. Four tenured faculty, as well as one senior scientist, have
full- or part-time appointments within the Center. Other faculty may apply for
one-semester sabbaticals at the center. During this time they work to improve
one or more undergraduate courses, and gain general expertise in the science of
education, which they can continue to apply to their work and share with others
in their department. These faculties remain associated with the Center as
"affiliates" and have desk and computer space to continue to work there when
they wish.

The center also supports graduate students and post-doctoral fellows who work
jointly with CIL faculty and an outside faculty member to apply scientific
education to improve a target undergraduate course.

             Applying Cognitive Science to Pre-College Education

For six years I headed the James S. McDonnell Foundation's Program in Cognitive
Studies for Educational Practice. It provided good support (~$300,000/yr for
three year terms), for cognitive researchers to begin to move research results
towards pre--college classroom applications. The program produced some stunning
examples of how well this approach can work. (See, Bruer, J. and McGilley, K.)

      Developing an Innovative Introductory Course in Cognitive Psychology

Over the past 12 years I have taught an increasingly innovative course which
provides an introduction to cognitive psychology. I organize the course around
three main models appearing in modern cognitive psychology (network models such
as ACT, rule models such as Soar and CAPS, and neural or parallel-distributed
processing models).

The student body is diverse, including students from all four years and all five
of the "colleges" of Carnegie Mellon (Humanities and Social Science, Fine Arts,
Engineering, Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Computer Science). Thus
there is an enormous range in type of interest and ability to handle the
quantitative aspects of the course. I have experimented extensively with
technology use, and with various pedagogical methods.

At this time, I believe the course is a cognitive success, with highly mixed
sociological and motivational results. By the end of the course, most students
can solve problems, write essays, and answer a special kind of very challenging
multiple-choice question indicating understanding of the three model-types, and
ability to apply them to a variety of data and every-day situations. However, as
indicated by course evaluations and student comments.  Many students do not
"feel" they have learned much, and are others dissatisfied with the course
format.

What other research efforts in the social and behavioral sciences inform us
about the learning process?

                              Social Psychology

Social psychology has had little attention from scientific educators with
consequences that are now becoming obvious. Everyone I know who dramatically
restructures an undergraduate course initially experience hostility and
unhappiness from the students. (A recent report in Science dramatically
documents this effect for NSF sponsored introductory calculus courses.) However
good the instructional design, and even the instructional effectiveness, unhappy
students are undesirable. Ultimately courses that students don't like are not
viable.

We need to understand how school-sophisticated undergraduates' view their
"social contract" with a professor. What should and should not happen and why?
Can we work with students' expectations instead of against them? Can we exploit
other features of the student-professor relationship in achieving good learning
outcomes? This is uncharted territory, and crucial to continued success in
applying results of behavioral science to improve instruction.

                               Applied Research

The McDonnell Program (briefly described above) was successful because it
recognized an area ripe for exploitation and provided realistic funds to attract
first-rate scientists to attack the problems of doing the exploitation. Research
results do not jump to classroom application without several years of
experimentation, and trial and error. Prototypes must be expanded to coherent
curricula. Materials appealing enough in the laboratory must now catch and hold
attention of more varied students in an environment with many distractions. New
methods, practical for groups of students must be developed. Through this
process, one wants to avoid simply trying to make a curriculum, but to maintain
a goal of keeping the instruction tied to learning principles. Without this, the
result is merely one more curriculum, and not a contribution to the science of
education.

                          Meta-Knowledge of Science

Students have well-known misconceptions in both physical and behavioral sciences
(e.g., the so-called "cognitive illusions" in probability). Less well
documented, but apparent to all thoughtful teachers, are students'
misconceptions about the goals and nature of science. Most students believe
science is a collection of facts and rules, and that their learning task is to
memorize some of this collection, perhaps along with some straightforward ways
to apply the rules.

The behavioral sciences can, in my view, provide a particular opportunity for
teaching how science works. Introductory physics (for example) teaches a
well-developed theory that has been stable for many years. It may look to
students like immutable fact, unconnected with human enterprise. In contrast,
the younger behavioral sciences involve smaller scale models, which are
regularly challenged and modified as new experimental evidence appears. Most
students find this sequence baffling at first. (But in Chapter 3, they said...!)
But this confusion gives an entree to discussing science as a process for better
describing observations.

Most students lack the ability to construct a scientific argument, including
data, theoretical statements, and links between them. We have repeatedly
observed students' omitting any or all of these components in both history and
psychology.

                           General learning skills

Just as students lack knowledge of the nature of science, and often have
misconceptions that interfere with effective learning, there are parallel
problems in students' knowledge and beliefs about learning.

                              Passive Learning

Many students see learning as a passive process. They attend lectures, read
assignments. Study consists of ... "sitting somewhere comfortable, preferably in
bed, and paging through notes and textbook" - quote from a parent. The idea that
learning requires active practice seems often entirely foreign. "It's a strange
thing with this course. 1 don't understand what's going on until after I've done
the homework and taken the exam" - email from a student in my psychology course.
"I've learned twice as much in class as in the other two Psychology courses
combined. The reason is that this is a hands-on course. Here I've done things" -
paraphrase of a comment from another student in the same course. Students' model
of understanding often seems to be mere familiarity with the terms and phrases.

                        Failure to Learn from Errors

Students too rarely have the ability (or the motivation) to use mistakes as an
opportunity for learning. For example, in my course, if a student believes there
is a correct explanation for a multiple-choice answer graded as incorrect,
sending me an explanation by email produces either a grade change (if I agree
with the student) or a careful explanation of where the student's thinking is
wrong. About 30 percent of the students never use this opportunity. The answers
I've heard to the question, "Why not?" include: "I didn't really understand that
I could do this. It's so firm in my head that an exam is an exam, and you get
the grade, and that's that." "Arguing with the professor is for grade-grubbers
and poor students." "I did so poorly I just didn't want to think about it any
more."

Although my particular treatment of tests is unusual, these quotes illustrate
clearly that many students do not use test results as an opportunity to learn.
(See also Gagne, E., Cognition & Instruction) We need to teach students how to
use errors as a cue to their own misunderstandings, and how to work towards
detecting and preventing similar misunderstanding in the future.

              Lack of Even Primitive School and Learning Skills

Colleagues who regularly visit many classes at Carnegie Mellon tell me that
40-50 percent attendance is common, and that of those present, there are still
the sleepers and the note-passers in the back. I have reluctantly developed a
system of requiring and checking attendance (collecting a class assignment in
each lecture). Many students have great difficulty taking notes, especially on
class discussion. And, as reflected by some of the previous comments, many have
little idea how to study.

Specifically, I believe that many of my students have no idea how to study
"actively." I suggest repeatedly a technique of working either with oneself or a
partner to generate and answer questions about the material. I show a method for
generating such questions. We maintain a bulletin board where students post
questions they can't answer. Sometimes other students answer. Ultimately I
either endorse some students' answers, or provide comments of my own. But, as
indicated by some of the comments quoted above, this is clearly not an activity
many students use.

The difficulties are almost certainly both cognitive and social or motivational.
The methods of effective study are certainly as difficult as the methods of
psychology or physics. We need to analyze them and teach them effectively. But,
even more than subject-matter procedures, these must be procedures students are
motivated to use. Thus again, I emphasize the need for more social psychology
to use as a base in improving instruction.

In many institutions, students take courses in the social and behavioral
sciences as a means to fulfill their science distribution requirements. In what
ways can (do) these courses effectively promote science and quantitative
literacy?

                                 Difficulties

       1. Traditional teaching methods (lectures & reading)
          The student is passive, except for one or two exams, and perhaps a
          term paper.
          There is no weekly homework, often any regular discussion sessions. If
          there are discussion sessions, the teaching assistants may receive
          little or no training or guidance.

       2. Little background of basic research
          There has been little research in cognitive processes in these arenas
          (and little financial support for such work). Thus we must translate
          from research in other fields (e.g., physics, mathematics), and begin
          some basic research in these areas.

       3. Current textbooks

          o  Textbooks (at least in psychology) usually have a historical
             organization, and do not integrate material so as to make it easier
             to learn.
          o  Worse, textbooks often make integration especially difficult for
             students. For example, introductory psychology textbooks
             universally refer to experiments by authors' names and publication
             date. Since few students know automatically what Posner and Boyes
             did, if they wish to integrate, they must go to the author index,
             and then back to the page describing Posner & Boyes' experiment.
             Use of mnemonic titles for key experiments could solve this whole
             problem.

Opportunities

     1. Modern social science is highly quantitative.
        Therefore perhaps we can transfer approaches similar to those effective
        in the physical and mathematical sciences.

     2. There are educational journals in this area, which may contain useful
        lore to use as guidance.

     3. As the behavioral sciences mature, it becomes possible to better
        integrate the material we teach. (See, for example, my comments on
        structuring cognitive psychology.

What are the ways in which technology is being incorporated into courses in the
social and behavioral sciences to enhance learning and the curriculum and also
to promote technological literacy?

The notes below summarize how I use technology, or have seen it used
effectively.

     1. Presentation software: sideshows, animation, integrated video material.

     2. Visualization: before presenting formal models, I use animation to show
        how the model works qualitatively.

     3. Interaction software: class response systems (Classtalk) bulletin
        boards; Web.

     4. Computational instruction: computer-assisted learning, tutors,
        hypertext.

     5. Commercial software: spreadsheets, graphs, outlining, and writing.

     6. Public domain research-level models. Increasingly researchers make
        available their model code.

     7. Data analysis: Many commercial packages aid in qualitative and visual as
        well as quantitative data conceptualization.

     8. Distribution: Material placed on the web often gets a lot of access from
        surprising places.

     9. Evaluation: (See appended essay by F. Reif.) In my course, using some
        computer-assisted grading, three people grade roughly 100 exams (half
        essay, half multiple choice) in one afternoon.

What can the social and behavioral sciences recommend that will enable faculty
to meet the challenges posed by a student body that is increasingly diverse with
respect to level of academic preparation and cultural background?

                           Long-term stable effort

Many of these issues are addressed above. A central remaining issue is how more
effective practices can become available to a wider group of faculty.

The central issue, I believe, is that most faculty have a "broadcast" model of
pedagogy. That is, a professor who knows the subject matter, lectures clearly
provides good assignments, grades well, etc. - this professor teaches well, and
the rest is up to the student. Shifting to a model of analyzing the learning
task, and asking how to facilitate that learning in a particular course - this
is a difficult shift of view. Once the shift is made, then there is a large body
of knowledge about learning mechanisms and how teaching can make use of them.
This needs to be mastered, at least in a form relevant to the professor's own
teaching. We believe that this process takes at least one semester of dedicated
effort, and therefore provide the one-semester "sabbaticals" at the Center for
Innovation in Learning.

What are the obstacles to determining, implementing, and evaluating "best
practices"?

                                 Evaluation

I have appended an essay by Frederick Reif discussing possibilities for
evaluating instruction in physics. There has been far more work in physics
education than in the behavioral sciences (and far more financial support of
such work). Thus the behavioral sciences may or may not be ready for such an
approach. However, an effort such as Reif describes could aid in better defining
reasonable learning goals, a crucial step towards improving instruction.

                              Collegial support

(Quoted from an abstract for a talk by Herbert A Simon) One striking contrast
between our research lives and our teaching lives are that research is a highly
social activity, teaching most often a solo performance. Research is carried on
with colleagues, local, national and international; It's products are widely
published; it is constantly judged by peers - and sometimes rewarded. Typically
there is little intellectual interchange with colleagues about teaching, and few
of our thoughts about it or its products are communicated.

Thesis: To give teaching the same intellectual excitement as our research (if it
doesn't have it already), and equal claims on our attention, we must convert it
into a collegial activity like research.

                                 New talent

Other than the new and small effort at Carnegie Mellon, and a slightly larger
effort (aimed at technology) at Georgia Institute of Technology, there are (to
my knowledge) no locations for training new talent in instructional research,
application, and innovation at the undergraduate level. NSF could have a big
influence by providing relatively long-term training grants to establish or
support centers that could train the new young talent desperately needed if we
are to address any of the issues discussed above.


Jill Larkin has joint appointments in the Psychology Department and in the
Center for Innovative Learning at Carnegie Mellon University, where she also has
a courtesy appointment in the Computer Science Department.  Her research has
demonstrated strategic differences in problem solving between physics students
and expert physicists, and has elucidated how diagrams and displays function in
supporting effective reasoning.  These observations have been part of the
research base used to develop an introductory physics course that raised
students' scores on comparable final exams from averages in the 60's to averages
in the 80's.  For six years Professor Larkin directed the McDonnell Foundation's
Program in Cognitive Studies for Educational Practice.  During this time a
number of cognitive scientists, using results from cognitive science, produced
new learning results in a variety of pre- college classrooms.


Appendix
To be published as a "guest comment" in the American Journal of Physics.


                   Standards and Measurements in Physics:
                        Why not in Physics Education?


                               Frederick Reif

        Center for Innovation in Learning and Department of Physics
                         Carnegie-Mellon University
                          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


Standards and measurements have played a centrally important role in the
development of physics. They have yielded reliable data based on accurate and
reproducible observations. They have facilitated meaningful sharing of results
among different scientists. They have allowed unambiguous checks of theoretical
ideas and have thus led to cumulative improvements of valuable knowledge. For
these reasons physicists have, throughout history, expended considerable efforts
on refining their standards and measurement methods.

The situation has been quite different in physics education, although the needs
are no less. There, a lack of reliable standards and measurements has made it
difficult to assess the efficacy of different instructional approaches. Although
it is easy to proclaim the virtues of various innovative curricula or teaching
methods, how do we really know in what respects one teaching method is more
effective than another? Or how do we know whether a teaching method, seemingly
effective in helping students acquire some abilities, does not fail in helping
them acquire other abilities that are even more essential?

Can we expect to achieve much progress in physics education (both in
understanding of the basic issues and in practical efficacy) if we lack at least
reasonably reliable common measurement standards? Could we not perhaps develop
and use better standards? The following comments explore these questions in the
hope of stimulating more serious consideration of them.

Formulating basic standards

Scientists, concerned with accurate measurements, who sometimes officially meet
to arrive at a consensus reflecting their best judgments, establish standards in
physics. Standards in physics education would similarly need to be formulated by
a careful process leading to a consensus among knowledgeable workers in the
field.

Better standards might perhaps most usefully be developed for the introductory
college-level physics course for physical science or engineering students. Not
only is this an important course faced by many instructors and students.
Physicists would probably also find it easier to agree about the aims of this
course than about courses intended for biology majors or non- scientists.

The first need would be to agree about what the standards should specify. The
aim of any instruction is designed to endow students with new capabilities
enabling them to cope better with later courses, jobs, or other tasks in their
lives. Mere specification of a syllabus, listing the topics to be "covered" in a
course, does not indicate what students actually learn. Accordingly, educational
standards need to be performance standards specifying what students should
actually be able to do after completing a course.

One should, at least, be able to agree on some minimal performance standards.
e.g., on a half dozen or so kinds of basic capabilities expected of all students
emerging from a one-semester course. One might perhaps hope that students learn
more than that. But any course in which students fail to acquire these basic
capabilities could then be clearly judged a failure.

The mere discussion of basic standards would force physicists to examine more
closely their teaching goals and to specify the actual capabilities expected of
their students. I am sure that there would be heated debate reflecting diverse
points of view and previously unexamined assumptions. But the debate would be
very healthy in confronting issues that are often not explicitly addressed. For
example, should students rely on various memorized formulas or be able to reason
from a few basic principles? Should they be able to solve problems
mathematically or should they also be able to do qualitative reasoning? Should
they mostly engage in numerical manipulations or also be able to obtain
algebraic results that they can examine for their qualitative implications?
Should they just be able to obtain answers or also be able to articulate
well-based scientific explanations?

Operational specification of standards

Operationally meaningful standards need to be accompanied by procedures
specifying how they can be determined by actual measurements. Some detailed work
would, therefore, need to be done to design questions or tasks exemplifying the
basic capabilities specified by these standards. There would also need to be
agreement that a student's ability to answer such a question, or to perform such
a task, would provide good evidence that he or she possesses the specified
capability.

The Hestenes tests(See endnote 1) provide good examples of questions designed to
assess one basic kind of capability desired of students in an introductory
physics course. However, other basic capabilities important in such a course
would also need to be specified (e.g., the ability to apply Newton's laws to
solve simple mechanics problems).

Utility for assessments. Suppose that consensus had been reached on a few basic
performance standards in a course and that each were accompanied by a set of N
questions designed to assess achievement of the specified performance. These N
questions (where N might be about 30) should be approximately equivalent and
could have been empirically tested to ensure that they are of comparable
difficulty.

One could then construct an assessment instrument (e.g., a final examination) by
selecting at random one question for each of the specified kinds of performance.
No one, including the instructor teaching the course would know beforehand,
which of these questions would be selected. Hence one would eliminate the
dangers of bias, e.g., of deliberate or inadvertent teaching directed at
particular questions on the test. (If the number N of possible questions is
large enough, trying to teach students to answer all of them would pretty much
ensure that students have attained the desired competence.)

Persons interested in assessing instructional effectiveness would then have
available measuring instruments allowing them to determine more reliably in what
ways a teaching method used one year is more effective than another one used
previously - or more effective than another method used by others willing to use
the same measurement methods(See endnote 2).

Purely individual efforts might help to achieve some of these aims, but would
suffer from some insurmountable limitations. In particular, there would then be
no assurance that measurements made by one individual would be deemed legitimate
or significant by others. Even more important, there would be no meaningful ways
to compare the efficacy of instructional interventions devised by different
people. Good standards and measurements in the domain of physics education, as
well as in physics, necessarily require the collaborative efforts of the
community of workers in the field.

Practical realizability

The preceding proposals are not beyond the bounds of realistic feasibility,
especially if the following points are kept in mind: 1) These proposals aim to
improve the present situation in physics education, but do not pretend to
achieve perfect standards. However, even modest improvements could be quite
valuable; 2) Standards are not to be cast in stone, but can be periodically
reexamined and modified. (Even in physics standards get periodically refined or
even redefined.); and 3) There is no compulsion forcing anybody to abide by any
formulated standards. However, such standards could be used to good advantage by
people interested in more reliable assessments of instructional effectiveness.
Furthermore, the very existence of these standards could beneficially influence
teaching practices.

Well-specified performance criteria in any field help to avoid fruitless debates
and wasted efforts. When the goals are clear, it becomes much easier to decide
the merits of alternative approaches and to ensure cumulative progress. It will
probably always be more difficult to specify standards and measurements in
physics education than in physics, but it seems possible to do significantly
better than is currently the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Halloun, I.A. and D.Hestenes, 1985. The initial knowledge state of college
students. American Journal of Physics. 53:1043-1055. Hestenes, D. and M.Wells,
1992. "A mechanics baseline test." The Physics Teacher. 30:159-166. Hestenes,
D., Wells, M. and G.Swackhamer, 1992. "Force concept inventory," The Physics
Teacher. 30:141-158.

(2) Some statistical sampling issues would need to be addressed in these
measurement procedures, but they would be less severe than those prevalent at
present.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Contributions of Cognitive Science to Undergraduate Education


                               Nora S. Newcombe

                           Department of Psychology
                              Temple University
                          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary endeavor involving cognitive and
cognitive - developmental psychology, computer science, and the neurosciences.
The aim of cognitive science is to understand the workings of the mind/brain.
Hence, its insights are basic to the development of an understanding of human
mastery of mathematical and scientific material and habits of thought.  An
emerging subdiscipline within cognitive science aims explicitly to develop
knowledge relevant to learning and instruction. (For a readable and eloquent
summary of this movement, see John Bruer's 1993 Schools for Thought). This
emerging sub- discipline can be seen as reinventing, or at least reshaping,
traditional educational psychology.

Educationally oriented cognitive scientists have worked on several problems
whose solution is necessary to effective teaching of mathematics and science. In
this short paper, to give participants in the Social Sciences Workshop a sense
of the potential for cognitive scientists to contribute to the improvement of
undergraduate education, I discuss two problems which cross cut various
mathematical and scientific fields, and two developments with specific relevance
to the teaching of certain fields (physics and geometry). Thus, this paper is
mainly addressed to answering the first question posed to the Workshop ("What
are the implications of cognitive research for an understanding of how students
learn?"), although I also touch on issues of promoting flexibility and life-long
learning (question 6), issues of diversity (question 5) and what is needed in
terms of a research agenda (question 8).

Transfer of learning from one context to another

One issue basic to effective education is devising conditions under which
students will show transfer, or generalization of learning.  That is, having
1earned a skill in one context (e.g., mathematical operations of compounding in
the context of calculating compound interest), we want people to be able to
apply this knowledge in a different context (e.g., velocity problems). Transfer
of skills and knowledge from domain to domain will likely be increasingly
important, as we move into an era in which workers will need to adapt flexibly
to changing technology and to different work situations.  Unfortunately, the
cognitive literature shows that people are frequently distressingly narrow and
rigid in their transfer, realizing the applicability of existing knowledge and
skills only when its relevance is explicitly pointed out to them.

At the same time, there are beginning to be demonstrations that this narrowness
and rigidity can be overcome. Teaching needs to be aimed at producing
decontextualization, while at the same time not itself being decontextualized.
That is, people learn best when they study a problem in context, motivated by
interaction with physical materials and relevance to real- world problems.  But
they also need to encounter multiple instantiations of underlying principles,
each in context, but with the deeper similarities a focus of instruction.  For
example, students appear to learn compounding in a more generalizable fashion in
mathematics classes, in which they encounter a variety of problem types, than in
finance or in physics classes, in which the domain of application is narrower.
Teaching based on the principles of contextualized instruction with a range of
domains of application can help students learn general principles and
procedures, whose relevance to new situations they can see spontaneously.

This newly achieved understanding of the nature of the instruction, which is
necessary to result in transfer, and generalization presents a research
opportunity to NSF. Cognitive scientists can build on their understanding of
when transfer is and is not achieved to work in partnership with instructors of
specific mathematical and scientific disciplines to devise curricula which will
maximize deeper understanding (and hence transfer) of an identified number of
basic principles. Facilitating interdisciplinary research partnerships involving
the mathematical and scientific disciplines with cognitive sciences should be an
important priority for NSF.

Student diversity as related to patterns of cognitive ability and learning
styles As we all know, undergraduate student bodies are increasingly diverse in
cultural background, age, and level of academic preparation.  This fact is
sometimes interpreted as implying that instructional styles need to be
correspondingly diversified, to accommodate the different patterns of
intellectual strengths and weaknesses seen in different groups and to
accommodate what is conceptualized as different learning styles shown by
different groups. However, while appealing, research support for these
assumptions is largely lacking.

One subtopic in this general realm of discourse concerns visuospatial ability,
generally agreed to be one of the two most important components of general
intelligence, the other being verbal intelligence. Certain types of visuospatial
ability show fairly sizable sex differences. There are recurring attempts to
link this fact to sex differences in mathematical achievement and to recommend
that different instructional strategies be used with males and females because
of this difference. However, such recommendations are shortsighted. There is
compelling evidence that visuospatial ability is underdeveloped in both men and
women and extremely responsive to training and instruction (see review by
Baerminger and Newcombe, 1995). There is a need for research on the benefits of
linking interventions designed to maximize the spatial potential of
undergraduates to facilitating their mathematical and scientific learning.

Second, diversity is frequently conceptualized in terms of hypothesized
differences in learning styles across populations. However, the cognitive
literature is not encouraging of this conceptualization.  To be useful, learning
styles would need to be operationally definable, reliably assessed, show
long-term stability, and, most importantly, be related to instructional style so
that particular types of instruction could be paired with particular students.
The search for such aptitude-treatment interactions has been an active one, but
few have been found.

There is a possibly interesting exception to this rule, however, in recent work
by Robert Sternberg at Yale University. Sternberg has reported reliable and
valid assessment of analytic, creative and practical intelligence, coupled with
maximization of learning in an introductory psychology course when instructional
styles are matched to student learning styles. Following up on this finding in
teaching mathematical and scientific content represents another example of a
research opportunity for NSF in efforts to pair cognitive scientists with
instructors m mathematical and scientific subjects.

Changing student misconceptions about physics

Cognitive scientists have documented that students, even at the college level,
frequently have intuitive notions of physics which are fundamentally different
from physics the way physicists think of it. College students may predict that
balls shot out of curved tubes will follow curved paths of motion after release,
or think that a heavier object dropped from a tower will hit the ground before a
lighter one dropped at the same time from the same height. Such misconceptions
may appear discouraging to instructors. Or, instructors may simply attempt to
contradict these beliefs, lecturing on the "correct" way of thinking about these
problems. Unfortunately, traditional teaching techniques are frequently
ineffective. For instance, students are prone to predict a curved path for the
ball shot from a curved tube even after taking a college course covering
mechanics.

Curricula, which take misconceptions as a point of departure rather than a
roadblock, can be more successful. A program developed for a high school physics
course by Jim Minstrell, in collaboration with Earl Hunt, a cognitive scientist
at the University of Washington, is frequently cited as an example. The
Minstrell approach takes students' thinking about physical phenomena as a point
of departure, working to arrange experiences in which students realize how
different aspects (or facets) of their thinking are incompatible, and then work
to resolve these impasses. Teaching through impasse resolution is slow, but
effective. Impasse resolution approaches could easily serve as the basis for
college curricula as well. The research challenge for NSF is again to commission
interdisciplinary groups of cognitive scientists and mathematicians/scientists
to work together on curricular developments suggested by cognitive science.

A technology-based program of geometry instruction

Students frequently dislike geometry, and relatively few master the skill of
constructing geometric proofs. John Anderson, a cognitive scientist at
Carnegie-Mellon University, has devised an interactive computer program, which
can impressively increase high school students' ability to do proofs. The
approach taken in building the program is one that does not necessarily depend
on technology. Teachers also could learn to teach using the ideas, which the
program uses, such as those experts frequently approach proofs by trying both to
reason forward from the givens and backward from the desired conclusion. Again,
the research challenge is implementation.

Conclusion

This short paper was aimed to give workshop participants a sense of the
relevance of cognitive science to instruction by presenting four examples. Much
has been achieved, but basic research is far from over. For instance, there is
still considerable controversy about how one can maximize transfer in
problem-solving situations, and several competing models of the process exist
(see review by Reeves and Weisberg, 1994).

NSF could contribute to improving undergraduate instruction by supporting
cognitive science in two ways. First, funding is needed for basic research in
cognitive science on topics with educational relevance. While there are,
theoretically, existing funding mechanisms within NSF for such research, in
actuality the SBER programs such as Human Cognition and Perception frequently
look askance at educationally-oriented proposals and the EHR programs may find
cognitive-science proposals too theoretical and too far removed from the field.
Joint programs would be helpful, in which the announced goal is to fund
proposals in the intersection of the two research domains. Second, funding is
needed for the research/practice collaborations necessary to effective
implementation of the insights and achievements, which already exist. There are
many difficult steps between scientific understanding and widespread adoption of
specific curricula and practices. Detailed recommendations, along these same
lines, are elaborated in a report written on an NSF-sponsored conference on a
very similar topic, namely the contributions of cognitive science research to
K-12 mathematics and science education (Hawkins and Newcombe, 1994).

Nora S. Newcombe is Professor of Psychology at Temple University.  Her research
is on cognitive development, and concerns spatial processes and also early
memory.  At Temple, she is working with the Center for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation, a project to improve the ability of K-12 teachers to educate
children in science and mathematics.

References

Baenninger, M.A and Newcombe, N., 1995. Environmental input to the development
      of sex-related differences in spatial and mathematical ability. Learning
      and Individual Differences.  7: 363-379.

Bruer, J.T., 1993.  Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom.
      Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hawkins, J. and Newcombe, N., 1994. Developing a new research agenda to
      facilitate innovation in the teaching and learning of science and
      mathematics. Report to the National Science Foundation.

Reeves, L.M and Weisberg, R.W., 1994. The role of content and abstract
      information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 381-400.


               Cognitive Science and Undergraduate Education


                               Neil Stillings

                         Cognitive Science Program
                             Hampshire College
                                Amherst, MA


The primary purpose of this paper is to address questions 3 and 6 in the guide
to the workshop discussion from the perspective of the cognitive sciences. From
this perspective, question 3 asks how introductory undergraduate courses in the
cognitive sciences effectively promote scientific and quantitative literacy.
Question 6 asks how knowledge of the cognitive sciences prepares students to
meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I will also address the research and
development efforts (Questions 7 & 8) that are needed to realize the potential
of cognitive science as an area of undergraduate science instruction.

Undergraduate education in cognitive science

Cognitive science is the science of intelligence in humans, other animals, and
artificial systems. It includes the study of perception, learning, memory,
knowledge, meaning, reasoning, language, attention, affect, consciousness, and
the control of action. In undergraduate curricula, the field is offered both as
a new scientific discipline that emphasizes computational models of cognitive
processes and as an integrative interdisciplinary field that draws together
insights from several traditional disciplines, including psychology, biology,
computer science, linguistics, philosophy, and anthropology. In the context of
the present workshop, it should be pointed out that cognitive science highlights
the somewhat arbitrary nature of traditional distinctions between physical,
biological, and social sciences. Cognitive science has significant social,
behavioral, biological, and even physical (e.g., psychophysical studies of
sensory systems) dimensions. Stillings (1995) is a recent report on the current
status of undergraduate education in cognitive science. Stillings et al. (l995)
is a survey of the field.

Scientific literacy and the social sciences

Before answering Question 3 for the cognitive sciences, the larger context of
the question should be considered. We should not assume that the typical
undergraduate science distribution requirement could effectively promote
scientific literacy, if only the mix of physical, biological, and social
sciences were optimal. Undergraduates may not be taking enough science, and the
science that they take may not be taught effectively. Empirical research, of the
kind described by other participants in this discussion, is required to assess
the effectiveness of and to improve college-level science instruction.

We should also not assume that instruction in the physical and biological
sciences alone provides, or is even capable of providing, a superior or
sufficient path to scientific literacy. For the foreseeable future, many policy
issues that will concern a scientifically literate citizenry fall at least
partly in the domain of the social and behavioral sciences. Furthermore, as I
will suggest below, the social and behavioral sciences are equal, and in some
cases superior, to the physical and biological sciences as arenas for general
science education.

How courses in the cognitive sciences can promote scientific and quantitative
literacy

The contributions of courses in the cognitive sciences to science education fall
into five areas. First, cognitive science provides a scientific approach to a
distinctive set of questions that is of great interest to contemporary
undergraduates: What is the nature of meaning? What distinguishes perception
from knowledge objective? What is the relationship between mind and brain? What
is consciousness? Cognitive science's empirical approach to such questions can
bring science to a new group of undergraduates, and it can show them the
connections between science and areas of life and academic pursuit that can seem
distant from science. Cognitive science can also play a crucial role in helping
students to critically understand mind-brain-behavior relationships in an era of
rapidly expanding knowledge in neuroscience and behavior genetics, as well as in
cognitive science.

Second, cognitive science is a superb field for giving beginning and
intermediate undergraduate students hands-on experience with science.
Instrumentation costs, even for sophisticated original research, are generally
low, and many currently active research questions are accessible to
undergraduates. Often, a personal computer can serve as the student's
laboratory. A wide range of cognitive psychological experiments on perception,
memory, language, thinking, and motor control can be run and analyzed on
unmodified desktop computers. Students can both replicate experiments and work
with high-level software that allows them to design and run original
experiments. Artificial intelligence and cognitive simulation software that is
powerful, flexible enough to support original research, and usable by
undergraduates can also be run on personal computers (e.g., Anderson, 1993;
McClelland and Rumelhart, 1986).

Third, students can study reasoning, critical thinking and the scientific method
in a context where normative conceptions of rationality are compared with
empirical research on human thought. This naturalistic approach to epistemology
allows the student to see the motivation for normative conceptions and to learn
to recognize situations in which biases and heuristics in everyday thinking lead
to sub-optimal conclusions. Recent research suggests that it is possible to
train people to apply abstract rules of reasoning more successfully in varying
real situations (Nisbett, l993), and this research is finding its way into
curricular materials on critical thinking (e.g., Halpern, 1995a, 1995b). A more
naturalistic epistemology can also provide a realistic appreciation of the
special strengths of scientific reasoning to students who have lost, or perhaps
never possessed, an uncritical faith in science (Giere, 1988; Thagard, 1988).

Fourth, cognitive science is an excellent field for attracting students into an
encounter with formal mathematical intellectual disciplines. Within the context
of attractive questions about the mind and brain, the student can encounter such
disciplines as experimental design and statistics, probability and decision
theory, formal logic, the theory of algorithms, and the theory of dynamical
systems. Students who become fascinated with artificial neural networks as
freshmen, for example, discover that they must take calculus and linear algebra
to pursue their interest further.

Finally, cognitive science is being applied in important areas of public policy
and technology. Cognitive scientists are pursuing issues in human-computer
interaction, workplace organization, reading remediation, mathematics education,
cognition and aging, and the reliability of traumatic memories, among many
others. Increasingly, some familiarity with cognitive science will be a
condition for informed citizenship.

Not all courses in the cognitive sciences have all of the characteristics
mentioned.  The range of courses that possess at least some of them is fairly
broad, including courses in cognitive science, courses in constituent
disciplines of cognitive science such as psychology or psycholinguistics,
courses in overlapping disciplines such as psychology or neuroscience, or
special interdisciplinary topics courses such as critical thinking.

Considerable faculty development and research on and development of
instructional approaches and materials are also needed to fully realize the
potential just sketched.

How knowledge of the cognitive sciences helps prepare students to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century

The characteristics of the cognitive sciences discussed above are equally
relevant here. The cognitive sciences can engage students in science. They are a
context for learning critical thinking and formal quantitative and scientific
methods. They are critical to the understanding of many emerging public policy
issues.

Students who major or minor in cognitive science tend to have a broad
intellectual base and strong analytical and writing skills. Many of them, of
course, go on to graduate work in the cognitive sciences, computer science,
neuroscience, medicine, or education. There are also anecdotal reports from
faculty members involved in cognitive science programs that their students are
successful in the job market upon graduation. They have skills in computer
programming, research design, data analysis, and writing, and they have
knowledge of human cognition that is of value in the rapidly growing
information-intensive sectors of the economy.

Research and development in cognitive science instruction

The potential for undergraduate instruction in the cognitive sciences has not
been fully realized. The improvement of undergraduate programs in cognitive
science and their curricula for majors are addressed in Stillings (1995).

The potential of the cognitive sciences to contribute to scientific and
quantitative literacy in non-science majors would be enhanced by targeted
support for the development of new instructional approaches and materials. The
analysis above suggests three particularly promising areas for funding.

The first area is the development of critical thinking courses that blend the
cognitive psychology of reasoning and decision making with training in
normatively correct reasoning that is based on recent research in transfer of
training and skill decontextualization (see Nora Newcombe's contribution to this
workshop). Such courses might blend material in deduction, causal reasoning,
experimental design, probability theory (particularly reasoning with conditional
probability and Bayes's theorem), and topics in elementary statistical
inference, such as the law of large numbers and statistical regression.

The second area is the development of introductory courses that give students
significant hands-on experience with cognitive science research, either by
running original experiments or by performing original simulations.

The final area is the development of courses that explore public policy issues
that have significant cognitive science content. Such courses could be taught in
a way that focused on the learning of transferable critical thinking skills as
well as on a particular content area. Such courses also offer many avenues for
collaboration between the cognitive sciences and other disciplines. For example,
a cognitive scientist, an economist, and a philosopher could jointly develop a
course on cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis.

Neil Stillings is Professor of Psychology in the Cognitive Science Program at
Hampshire College.  He is the editor and first author of Cognitive Science: An
Introduction, 2nd edition, MIT Press, 1995.  He has organized national workshops
on cognitive science education for the Sloan Foundation and the National Science
Foundation.


References
Anderson, J.R., 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Giere, R.N., 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University
      of Chicago Press.

Halpern, D.F., 1995a.  Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical
      Thinking, 3d Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D.F., 1995b. Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking. Hillsdale,
      NJ: Erlbaum.

McClelland, J.L. and D.E. Rumelhart, l989. Explorations in Parallel Distributed
      Processing: A Handbook of Models, Programs, and Exercises. Cambridge: MIT
      Press.

Nisbett, R.E., 1993.  Rules for Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stillings, N.A., 1995. Undergraduate education in cognitive science current
      status and future prospects. Final report of a planning workshop for the
      National Science Foundation. Washington, DC, May 21-23, 1993. Available on
      the Worldwide Web at http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~nasCCS/nsfreport.html.

Stillings, N.A., Weisler, S.E., Chase, C.H., Feinstein, M.H., Garfield, J.L. and
      E.L. Rissland, 1995.  Cognitive Science: An Introduction, 2nd Edition.
      Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thagard, P., 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: M1T
      Press.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







                                 Section IV:

             Findings from the Focus Groups Conducted During the
                   Review of Undergraduate SME&T Education
________________________________________________________________________________

The following section presents excerpted portions from the SRI (Stanford
Research Institute) report on the Focus Groups conducted by the EHR Advisory
Committee on Undergraduate Education (published 24 February 1997).  Details on
the full text, including the methods and presentation of the analysis, may be
obtained by contacting the Division of Undergraduate Education of the National
Science Foundation.

                                Introduction

Overview of the Focus Groups

As part of the year-long review of the condition and needs of undergraduate
education in the United States in the areas of science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology (SME&T), SRI International, under contract to NSF,
conducted a series of 32 focus groups over an eight month period (beginning in
November 1995).  Six types of stakeholder groups were included, which together
represented approximately 200 individuals:

   o  General employers (SME&T and non-SME&T)

   o  Teacher employers

   o  Teacher graduates (SME&T and non-SME&T)

   o  Current students (SME&T and non-SME&T)

   o  Recent graduates (SME&T and non-SME&T)

   o  Parents of current SME&T students.

The focus group methodology was well suited for eliciting the opinions and
recommendations of individuals regarding SME&T preparation.  The groups were set
up so that individuals within constituent groups interacted with others from the
same constituent group, and the opinions of all participants in a group related
to one particular institution(See endnote 1). Groups were replicated to improve
the validity of findings.  The focus groups were audiotaped, allowing analysts
to work directly from transcripts of the sessions.

NSF identified four types of institutions of higher education from which to
select participants: two- year community colleges, liberal arts colleges
(including one historically Black college or university [HBCU]), comprehensive
universities, and research universities.  In consultation with NSF staff, two
institutions were chosen in each of four regions (the West, Midwest, South, and
East).

Highlights of the Meetings

Summarized below are focus group findings that cut across the six constituent
groups.  The findings are grouped into two categories:  (1) aspects of SME&T
preparation that participants generally viewed as strong, and (2) aspects of
SME&T preparation that most participants thought should be changed or improved.

                Strong Aspects of SME&T Preparation

o  General Quality of SME&T Preparation - Undergraduate programs generally do a
   good job of preparing SME&T majors.  Employers are satisfied with the depth
   of SME&T programs but generally favor more breadth.  In general, most SME&T
   students feel confident that they will do well when they transfer to the next
   level, whether to a four-year institution, graduate school, or the workplace.
   Recent SME&T graduates were very pleased with the quality of the SME&T
   education they had received.  One of the most valuable aspects of a SME&T
   education is that it teaches students problem-solving skills that are highly
   valued by employers.

o  Quality of SME&T Instruction - Students and recent graduates from two-year,
   comprehensive, and liberal arts institutions were more positive than those
   from research universities regarding the quality of undergraduate
   instruction.  Students enrolled in these non-research institutions saw their
   instructors as more caring and motivated to teach, and as more accessible
   and willing to provide help outside of class.  Students from Historically
   Black Institutions were the most positive with respect to the quality of
   instruction they received.

o  Introductory versus Advanced SME&T Courses - Students found the pedagogy and
   content of advanced SME&T courses (including laboratory work) to be
   stimulating and to reinforce prior learning in the area.  These courses had a
   strong conceptual emphasis and smaller class sizes, and they promoted more
   interactions between students and between students and the instructor.  In
   general, students recommended this approach to be used whenever possible in
   introductory courses.  Students felt that the best introductory courses
   struck a good balance between facts and concepts, and provided a meaningful
   context for learning the material.

o  Access to SME&T Preparation - Women and underrepresented minority students
   reported good access to SME&T programs.  On the other hand, women and
   minorities continue to face barriers in pursuing SME&T careers.

o  Work Experience - Students and employers were very supportive of work
   experience.  Recent graduates felt that work experience facilitated
   transition to the world of work because it helped them to better understand
   their SME&T course work and better define their interests, and it provided a
   reality check on their expectations.  Employers valued work experience
   because it gave them a chance to "try out" employees before formally hiring
   them. However, students acquire this experience infrequently.

             Aspects of SME&T Preparation That Should Be Improved

o  SME&T Introductory Courses - More than any other aspect of SME&T, students
   targeted SME&T introductory courses as being in need of improvement.  They
   found that such courses often were not geared to their individual ability
   level, were boring and difficult to follow because of the large lecture
   format, and were taught by instructors who seemed to care little about the
   subject matter or student learning.  They recommended that introductory
   courses be taught more like advanced SME&T courses, which they generally
   valued highly.

o  SME&T Laboratory Sections - The relationship between the lecture portion of
   courses and supporting laboratory work is weak.  Additionally, some students
   found laboratory experiences to be mechanical, with little connection between
   tasks and scientific concepts, and they found little support from faculty or
   teaching assistants while in the lab setting.

o  Experience of Non-majors - Many non-science majors with an initial interest
   in SME&T drop out (or are "screened out") of undergraduate SME&T courses
   because of the large lecture format typical of introductory SME&T courses.
   Early negative experience with SME&T courses is a major barrier to pursuing
   further studies.

o  Teacher Preparation - Because of the current design of undergraduate SME&T
   courses, many new K-12 teachers enter school systems under-prepared to teach
   science and mathematics, and therefore lack the confidence and ability to
   engage their students in understanding scientific and mathematical concepts.
   Faculty often actively discourages SME&T majors from becoming K-12 teachers,
   seriously interfering with the recruiting efforts of teacher preparation
   programs.

o  Workplace Readiness - SME&T graduates enter the workforce ill prepared to
   solve real problems and to apply the interpersonal skills most desired by
   employers.  Employers put a premium on students with technical competence who
   also have social skills, a broad knowledge of different subjects, skills in
   synthesizing and communicating information, and the ability to work as part
   of a team.  Many SME&T graduates lack these critical characteristics.

o  Partnerships - Linkages among institutions and with industry are poor.  For
   example, many teacher preparation programs do not work with K-12 systems, and
   there are too few examples of strong university-industry partnerships.
   Further, interdisciplinary collaboration within institutions is limited.

o  Technology - Access to technology varies greatly across campuses.  The fact
   that, in general, non-research institutions have much more limited access to
   current technology was a major concern for students.  There was also general
   agreement that many instructors are "behind the times" when it comes to their
   knowledge and application of technology.


                       Summary of Employer Focus Groups

Together, the employer focus groups included 35 employers: 23 participants
represented SME&T employers, and 12 participants represented non-SME&T
employers. The majority of participants was in the human resources departments
of their companies and had responsibility for recruiting from college campuses.
Participants from small or start-up firms were often the owners or CEOs of their
firms.

Summarized below are their opinions about the skills and attributes desired in
recent graduates, diversity issues considered by employers, quality of SME&T
preparation, and the need for industry/higher education collaboration.

Skills and Attributes Needed by Employers

The focus groups generated especially rich data with respect to what employers
look for in new employees.  We organized their input into five clusters:

     o  Interpersonal skills and teaming

     o  Proactive approach to work

     o  Technical competence

     o  Experience in the workplace

     o  Basic skills.

Employers participating in focus groups repeatedly mentioned these five clusters
of skills and attributes.  The initial focus group findings were summarized and
presented to the final group (the Boston group). Participants in that group were
asked to rate individual skills/attributes on a five- point scale, from 1,
"factor not considered at all in recruitment/hiring," to 5, "upper-most factor
considered."  All of the individual skills/attributes were rated 3 ("moderate
consideration") or higher. The ratings from the Boston group were used to order
the discussion of the clusters, beginning with those rated as most important.

Participants were especially eager to share their views, opinions, and
experiences with respect to characteristics of "successful" and "unsuccessful"
employees.  Much of what they had to say focused on particular skills or
attributes within the clusters.  However, the following two quotes, the first
provided by a SME&T employer who recruited SME&T graduates primarily from a
research university and the second offered by a non-SME&T employer who focused
her recruitment on a two- year college in the same region, provide a flavor of
the desired "mix" of employee characteristics:

    Sherry, regarding a research university:  "We go in looking for students
    that are above average, with some basic qualifications, but then what we're
    really searching for is someone who has those basic qualifications and then
    has the communication skills, some kind of relevant technical experience,
    and has leadership skills and can really communicate ... They're screened
    out initially based on their technical experience, their grade point
    average, and technical ability... the two things that draw the line would be
    their communication skills or the fact that they don't have experience.
    They don't have internships."

    Wendy, regarding a two-year college:  "The ideal candidate for us, at least
    for the training position, would have at least an associate's degree   What
    I look for most of all is the personality and the oral and interpersonal
    skills.  Do they express themselves well?  Do they have energy; do I see a
    spark upon that person's eyes?  Are they vibrant?  Are they well spoken?
    Are they dressed appropriately ...  Major doesn't really matter.  We'll have
    majors in history, psychology, sociology, engineering, technical, and
    computer, because if they are interested in going to college, we see some
    interest in higher education, which we prefer. There's some ethic there in
    studies and some belief in getting some kind of course work completed, and
    the effort of going to school is a plus for us, regardless of the degree."

Interpersonal Skills and Teaming

The attributes included in this cluster were interpersonal skills, or "people
skills," and the ability to work as a productive member of a team.

Interpersonal skills, or "people skills."  Participants could not say enough
about the importance of interpersonal skills (e.g., "human relations skills,"
"knowing how to deal with people," "getting along with others") in the
workplace.  Given a choice of technical skills or interpersonal skills,
employers invariably said they would opt for interpersonal skills.  Employees
who lacked interpersonal skills either did not last long in an organization or
presented problems to their managers, who had to spend an inordinate amount of
time working with them to develop such skills.  Many employers voiced the
concern that interpersonal skills cannot be "taught," as other skills can, and
doubted whether colleges or universities could do anything to promote their
development.

Ability to work as part of a team.  Being a successful team member depends on
strong interpersonal skills.  In the workplace of today, teamwork is the norm.
As one employer pointed out, "The R&D function has traditionally always been
teamwork."  Recruiters are so sensitive to this issue that they probe for it in
screening interviewees.

Although the above quote was taken from an employer of an international
high-tech firm, the concept of teaming applies to non-SME&T employers as well:

    Johnnie, regarding an historically black liberal arts college:  " what is
    important in this instance is how well you can interact in a team
    environment, because I don't care what your scenario is, you have got to be
    a team player - and you are not going to find that out until you actually
    get somebody in the job and see how they react in an adverse situation."

Several employers had ideas of what colleges/universities could do to promote
this skill:

  o  Emulate the MBA model of team assignments.

  o  Designate that project work be done in teams.

  o Use cooperative learning techniques in instruction.

  o  Do group performance assessment.

Such activities teach students about sharing the workload and depending on
others for results.

Proactive Approach to Work

Prospective employees or new employees who demonstrated a proactive approach to
work were highly attractive to employers because, according to participants,
this type of individual tends to have good problem-solving skills, takes
initiative, is capable of independent and self-motivated learning, and has
leadership skills - all characteristics that relate to success in the workplace.

Ability to solve problems.  Unfortunately, employers noted that they encounter
many graduates, even from top-notch schools, who do not demonstrate good
problem-solving skills.  One employer said, "I think a lot of people don't know
how to attack a problem."  They related this deficit to the concomitant lack of
critical-thinking skills they see in SME&T graduates.

One employer noted a particular school in the area that required seniors to do
outside projects. Students were required "to go out and ask for help - talk to
people, get answers - and that is a skill in itself. And when you interview:
'Tell me what your senior project is.'" He said that in interviewing candidates
about their senior projects, it was interesting what valuable information he
could pick up about their problem-solving skills.

Initiative.  Taking initiative seems to go hand in hand with problem-solving
capabilities.  Employers put a high value on employees who can analyze
situations and take steps to address a problem on their own.

Another employer, one who recruited from two-year colleges, said that she can
tell from the interview process whether candidates have initiative and hence
will be successful in her firm:  "It really starts in the interview process.
You can see it.  They have the ability to inject themselves into the company,
and they can articulate. 'Okay, here is how I see myself contributing to the
company.' 'Here is what I can do.'"

Independent and self-motivated learning.  Employers stressed the importance of
employees' taking responsibility to learn what they need to know on their own
because their academic preparation often does not prepare them for what they
eventually do for a living. Technology and the needs of the workplace change so
rapidly that no one, no matter how up-to-date he or she may be at graduation,
can afford not to continue to learn and adapt as situations demand.

Leadership skills.  Leaders must be able to solve problems, take initiative in
their workplace, and seek out information that will help them make sound
business decisions. Technically prepared graduates are particularly vulnerable,
probably because their training is narrowly focused on specific SME&T skills.
Some firms have addressed this issue with internal management training.

Technical Competence

When discussing "technical competence," employers talked about specific
technical skills related to programming, hardware or software applications,
academic course work (major concentration or field of study), and (to a lesser
extent) GPA.  Although employers valued technical competence, many took it for
granted that by the time candidates were undergoing the interview process, their
technical competence had been established. Several employers said that technical
competence was relatively not as important as the capacity to learn, because
in-house training would supplement whatever technical skills were lacking.

Specific technical skills.  Technical skills desired by employers varied
according to their industry segment.  The SME&T skills discussed by our
employers ranged from the highly technical to general. As indicated by these two
excerpts, one from a high-tech employer who recruits from the best technical
research universities and one from a scientific staffing firm that seeks
two-year graduates for entry-level positions in technology firms.

Academic Course Work.  Many employers, especially large, high-tech firms, look
at the number of graduates in particular technical fields (e.g., computer
science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering) as a guide to focusing
their recruitment resources.  Although academic course work is clearly a factor
that is considered seriously by employers, one informed participant suggested
that it may not be as important today as it was just a short while ago:

    Dennis, regarding a research university:  "You know what is going on right
    now in Silicon Valley is that it doesn't matter what they graduate in.  The
    companies are dying for people to do certain types of software, and they
    will just take anything technical and say, 'Come on in and we will figure
    out how to get you to be productive.'  So, that is a big message that
    schools need to hear right now, and I do not know how long this is going to
    last."

Importance of GPA.  Several employers said that they still relied on GPA as the
first screen in weeding out candidates.  But many others, SME&T and non-SME&T
alike said that their firms are trying to get away from depending so heavily on
GPA and cited shortcomings of that approach.

Experience in the Workplace

Judging from the sheer volume of discussion around particular topics, job
experience would appear to be the most salient factor to employers.  However,
the quantitative ratings from the Boston group showed that it was perceived by
employers as somewhat less important than interpersonal skills, having a
proactive approach, and technical competence.  Employers discussed three related
characteristics with respect to work experience: specific job-related
experience, understanding the work environment, and the ability to apply
academic preparation to the workplace.

Specific job-related experience.  Students often picked up job-related
experience via internships, coops, work-study, and prior employment.  The fact
that there did not appear to be standardized definitions of "internships" or
"coops," even within schools, was confusing to employers as they discussed the
various work experiences they were familiar with.  But, no matter what the
specific structure of job-related experience, all employers agreed that it
enhanced a candidate's chances of being hired and being successful on the job.
Job experience helps the candidate really find out what his/her interests are;
it provides "cultural exposure"; it helps students understand the work
environment; it helps them have realistic expectations about work; it helps
students "grow up"; and "it gives them confidence."

Understanding the work environment.  Job experience is particularly useful in
exposing students to the culture and norms of the workplace environment.  Norms
and expectations vary from company to company, but there are certain basic
"rules" that most employers expect, such as taking direction from supervisors,
acting in a professional manner, showing up for work at the correct time,
dressing appropriately for work, etc.  Employers noted that unsuccessful new
employees often did not "pick up on" the informal (often unspoken) rules of the
workplace.  Coops and internships give students firsthand experience in the work
environment, which helps them transition more smoothly from college life to the
working world.

Ability to apply training to workplace.  There is no substitute for actual job
experience in helping students to apply what they have learned to the workplace.
A good coop or internship will show them the applied side of the theory they
learned in their course work.  One employer said that she gets consistent
feedback from managers that undergraduates "lack the ability to look at the
problem and create the appropriate application from all their theoretical
knowledge."

Basic Skills

When employers referred to "basic skills," they included oral and written
communication skills, reading, simple mathematics skills, and rudimentary
computer skills.  Many employers that recruit from comprehensive and research
universities assume that, with the exception of communication skills, candidates
possess such basic skills.  Basic skills seemed to be more of an issue for
employers who recruit from two-year colleges. Communication skills include oral
and written communication, public speaking, and listening skills.

Other employers mentioned the necessity of basic math skills and basic computer
skills, as the following quotes illustrate:

    Cathy, regarding a comprehensive college:  "I think math [is important] - I
    mean being able to do the metric math, especially in the medical fields, if
    you can't do the metric math you are going to kill somebody - bottom line!"

    Dennis, regarding a research university:  "Oh, I think math is essential!  I
    think - I mean, employers today are looking for people who can do the
    basics, and...you would like to assume that people coming out of college
    could do that.  So, math and speaking ability and listening ability are very
    important."

    Cecil, regarding a historically black liberal arts college:  "Everyone is
    going to need to know something about computers.  ... learn a software
    program.  Learn [a leading word processing system] or anything."

Diversity Issues Considered by Employers

Many of the employers in the focus groups noted that they considered diversity
when recruiting graduates.  Some employers focused their recruitment on colleges
and universities with relatively high proportions of minority students and
females, especially in the technical fields.  Other employers were more
proactive in looking for underrepresented graduates and had put in place
collaborative programs with particular colleges/universities to ensure diversity
in their hiring.  Other employers were not as concerned about bringing in
underrepresented candidates, but they had programs in place to support them once
they were hired.

Several employers discussed issues that they ran up against in their efforts to
recruit a diverse workforce.  One problem was obtaining the appropriate legal
clearance to use foreign-born graduates at the bachelor's level because,
compared with those who had advanced degrees, it was harder to make an argument
that there were no available U.S. citizens with the required skill set.  Another
problem employers ran into related to poor English-speaking ability among
foreign-born graduates and the lack of other essential workplace skills.

Quality of SME&T Preparation

In general, employers were satisfied with the technical preparation of graduates
of liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges, and research universities.
They were less satisfied with the job readiness of candidates and noted that
they often lacked good communication skills.  Employers who dealt with two-year
colleges had mixed opinions about the technical skills of graduates; some
thought they were adequate, while others did not.  Many had serious complaints
regarding these students' readiness for employment.

Depth versus breadth of SME&T preparation.  Employers at all levels generally
favored breadth over depth, but they were sensitive to the fact that breadth
often meant limiting technical competence in a specific area.  Employers
recognized the advantages of a liberal arts education that naturally included
more breadth.

Current Technology.  With respect to the status of technology at the
undergraduate level, most employers felt that it was not up-to-date (especially
at two-year colleges) but that this did not represent a critical problem for
them.  They expected to have to train graduates in whatever technology they
used.  As long as the student had some interest and understanding of technology,
they were not concerned.  At the rate that technology is changing, they felt
that it was unrealistic to expect colleges and universities to keep pace.

Need for Collaboration between Higher Education and Industry

Employers were in agreement that higher-education/industry collaboration was
needed and that an active role on the part of employers was appropriate.  Two
aspects of collaboration were addressed in the focus groups: work opportunities
for students and higher-education/industry partnerships.

Coops, Internships, Summer Work Opportunities. As mentioned earlier, work
opportunities take a variety of forms and vary from company to company and from
university to university.  Employers concurred that work opportunities of any
type had benefits, not just for students (see work experience section above) but
for employers also.  A principal benefit was cost savings in the hiring process.
Work experiences gave employers a chance to try out students as potential
employees and lowered the risk that the new employee would leave or be asked to
leave after a short time because of misperceptions about the nature of the job.
As noted above, one employer said that her high-tech firm uses the coop program
as a feeder program and subsequently hires half or more of coop students.
Employers pointed out that there were costs associated with sponsoring work
opportunities in terms of additional time and effort on the part of employers.

Higher-Education/Industry Partnerships

All employers who participated in the focus groups recognized the value of
building stronger higher- education/industry partnerships and the value of more
frequent communication between the sectors. Among the many advantages of
partnerships, the following were brought up most frequently:

   o  keeping the university in touch with industry and in touch with the
      workforce;

   o  keeping universities technology focused;

   o  providing more opportunities for students in terms of donated state-of-the
      -art instruments and computers; and

   o  facilitating work opportunities for students.

Several of the participants in our employer groups had direct experience working
with university staff and faculty.  Some arranged for equipment to be donated.
A recruiter who sought out underrepresented students worked with heads of
departments at Historically Black Institutions and gave them continuing feedback
regarding how they need to strengthen the preparation of their students.
Another employer was on an academic advisory board at the local university that
included both people from academia and industry.  Their charge was to outline
needs for new course work, lab work, and internships.  This individual noted,
"You know, it takes time and resources to go out and make those connections, do
the networking, set up the liaisons and arrangements and working relationships."
Another participant was a member of a panel of employers that talked to classes
of graduating seniors about their organizations and career opportunities.  Other
participants took the initiative in contacting universities and volunteered to
give talks to classes and various student groups.  One participant invites
students and faculty to come to the company and have lunch with employees who
were graduates of the same school and talk about their experiences with the
company.  They follow the lunch with a tour of the company.

                      Summary of Teacher Preparation Focus Groups

Forty-four participants were included in the eight teacher preparation focus
groups (three were teacher employer groups, and five were recent teacher
graduate groups).  Participants in the teacher employer groups included district
administrators (e.g., an assistant superintendent for human resources, a
curriculum director, a director of human resources) and school principals;
participants in the teacher groups were mainly elementary and high school
teachers, with lower representation of preschool and middle school teachers.

This section summarizes participants' input related to the supply and demand for
K-12 SME&T teachers, attributes/skills sought by K-12 employers, and teacher
preparation.

SME&T Teacher Supply and Demand

K-12 employers noted a critical shortage of SME&T teachers, particularly in the
physical sciences at the middle and high school levels.  As one Western
administrator who recruits from a research university said, "There simply is a
higher demand for physical science, chemistry, and physics than there is a
supply."  Employers of K-12 teachers were frustrated with this situation, also
noting that there is a pool of potential SME&T teachers in industry that cannot
be used because of credential requirements.

These administrators recognized that the shortage of SME&T teachers is in some
part due to the fact that promising SME&T students, particularly minorities and
females, are discouraged from pursuing teaching careers by well-intended SME&T
faculty. Not surprisingly, administrators bemoaned the shortage of female and
minority SME&T teachers who could serve as role models for future female and/or
minority scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.  One participant remarked
that talented individuals from underrepresented groups "just have a lot of other
options now."  Participants also stressed the need for male SME&T teachers.

From the students' perspective, money is also an issue, in terms of both the
additional cost of a two- year master's program (required to teach at the
secondary level in some states), which keeps them out of the workforce, and
teachers' relatively low salaries compared with those in industry.

In keeping with the current trend of high attrition in the first five years of
teaching, some of the recent teacher graduates we spoke with said that they did
not plan to remain in teaching for long. They cited the low pay and the lack of
resources and supplies.  Despite their frustrations, nearly all expressed an
attitude of "loving teaching."

Administrators also discussed the problem of high attrition of beginning
teachers.  One pointed out that the common practice of giving new teachers the
most difficult assignments (e.g., remedial classes, heavy course loads,
extracurricular duties) is one thing the profession could change to limit
attrition.

Skills and Attributes Needed by Teacher Employers

K-12 teacher employers articulated a wide range of attributes and skills they
look for in hiring new teachers for SME&T teaching assignments.  This summary
first addresses characteristics specifically related to SME&T and then covers
characteristics desired for all types of teachers, including those who teach
SME&T subjects.

Attributes/Skills Specific to SME&T Teachers

School administrators sought teachers who had a strong grasp of SME&T content,
both in depth and in breadth.  When asked to describe attributes and skills of
ideal science and mathematics teachers, they stressed the importance of a solid
academic background in math and science, as indicated by grades and the number
of SME&T courses on the applicant's transcript.  Elementary teachers were viewed
as far more deficient in SME&T areas than were high school teachers.

The issue of depth versus breadth was seen as particularly relevant at the high
school level.  Single- subject majors with a rich background in a particular
SME&T field generally do very well teaching in their field of specialization,
according to participants, but are often out of their element when required to
teach out of field (which many are).  The importance of breadth is illustrated
in the following comment by a biology major with a master's degree in education:

    Beth, teacher, about her student experiences in a research university:  "I
    think the area I wasn't prepared for was earth science.  In biology, I'm
    perfectly fine, but when I started teaching environmental science, I hadn't
    had a geology course or an earth science course since high school.  And, yet
    I had to teach this stuff; so right before I have to teach it, I have to
    learn it.  And that's where I did not have a very strong confidence level.
    Because I have to learn this stuff and then I have to turn around and teach
    it!  I definitely think I was not prepared to teach that course at all."

On the other hand, participants felt that depth is still critical for top-notch
teaching in a subject area.  A teacher with a physics major and master's degrees
in both mathematics and education had this to offer:

    Lawrence, teacher, about his student experiences in a research university:
    "Obviously, you want as much depth as possible in the subject you're going
    to teach, because you start seeing new connections that way and you start
    saying, 'Well, oh, I see what this thing is good for.' I know in my own
    teaching of the kids, seniors who are going to be college students next
    year, if you cover something superficially, their ideas that they come out
    with are mush. So trying to get that breadth really doesn't work unless you
    go into some detail that sort of solidifies it in their mind or links it to
    something.  Otherwise, it's just-you might as well not teach it at all."

Despite the fact that a solid background in SME&T was viewed as extremely
important by K-12 teacher employers and teacher graduates alike, other skills
and attributes were seen as just as important, if not more important.  This
finding parallels that of the general employer group, that technical skills are
important, but relatively less so than interpersonal skills.

General Teacher Attributes/Skills

K-12 employers discussed many different skills and personality characteristics
as desirable in a teacher candidate.  Those discussed most often were:

  o  Ability to relate to students

  o  innovative teaching

  o  classroom management skills

  o  technology skills

  o  willingness to learn

  o  ability to apply knowledge/skills in the classroom

  o  communication skills.

Ability to relate to students.  In the educational context, being able to relate
to people means relating to students - a wide diversity of students - and to
their parents.  This was the most frequently discussed "desired attribute"
across the K-12 teacher employer groups and prompted many participants to speak
up in favor of teacher preparation programs that introduce prospective teachers
to the classroom as early as their freshman year, to ensure that they have
adequate exposure to children and to what school settings are like today.  K-12
teacher employers recognized the value of experience working with children from
urban as well as suburban settings, being familiar with cultural factors that
could influence teaching and learning styles, and feeling comfortable in school
settings that include highly diverse student populations.

Innovative teaching.  K-12 teacher employers were interested in teachers who
were prepared to teach in innovative ways, such as using hands-on experiences in
instruction, differentiating instruction to fit the diverse needs of learners,
teaching and encouraging critical thinking, and using an interdisciplinary
approach.

Classroom management skills.  K-12 teacher employers pointed out that new
teacher graduates are generally unprepared in classroom management.

K-12 teacher employers blamed teacher preparation programs for not addressing
classroom management more directly.  As a middle school principal put it, "I
will say unequivocally, education courses do a miserable job in behavior
management for teachers."  This issue is addressed further in the section below
on teacher preparation programs.

Technology skills.  For the most part, K-12 teacher employers felt comfortable
with new teachers' technology skills and ability to integrate technology into
instruction.  With very few exceptions, the teacher graduates we spoke with felt
well prepared in technology and ways to integrate technology in instruction, but
they noted that they were generally the exceptions in their schools.  Many
experienced teachers apparently either do not use technology at all, or use it
for classroom management tasks, such as keeping track of students' grades.

One of the participants graduated from a master's program that specialized in
educational technology.  She noted that she was considered an expert in her own
school, where she now teaches high school biology and math.  She said:  "I think
not only is it being comfortable with computers, but it's having a certain
attitude that you're not afraid to not know everything, because the students
know more than you do.  The students know more about computers than I do, than I
think probably all of us."  Technology changes teachers' roles in a number of
ways - they have less traditional "control" of the classroom, they act in the
role of facilitator more than information provider, and they must often defer to
students' more advanced technological skills.

One administrator pointed out the importance of not only being "technology
literate" but being familiar with a range of technology and software, including
the use of multimedia technology.

Willingness to learn.  Given that students, schools, theories of learning,
teaching strategies, and technology are rapidly changing, administrators looked
for evidence that teacher candidates would be willing to learn and have the
flexibility to respond to ever-changing situations and demands.

Ability to apply knowledge/skills in the classroom.  K-12 teacher employers,
particularly for SME&T teachers noted this as a problem.

Communication skills.  K-12 teacher employers agreed with SME&T and non-SME&T
employers that communication skills were critical for the teaching profession.
Administrators and principals frequently use teacher applicants' rsums to
evaluate their writing skills and the job interview to gauge their communication
skills.  The following story is a sad testimonial on the lack of good
communication skills among some teacher candidates:

    Rick, administrator, regarding an historically black liberal arts college:
    "[Here is] one of the things that bothered me this past summer when I needed
    a teacher: I went to the personnel file and checked the references of
    persons, and...then I went to the personnel file and pulled out the
    applications and I ... read over the applications.  I was extremely
    disappointed because the [written responses to] questions ... - the manner
    in which they expressed themselves - ..., the written communication skills -
    were very disappointing, and I said to myself, how could that person have
    received a degree and not know how important the application was ... .  And
    I was very disappointed, because I wanted to hire those persons."

Quality of Teacher Preparation

Inputs regarding the preparation of preservice teachers are organized in four
sections: preservice training, student teaching, beginning teacher support, and
higher-education/K-12 collaboration.  This organization flowed naturally from
participants' comments.

Preservice Training

K-12 teacher employers felt that preservice teachers are generally being
adequately prepared in the SME&T content areas but not adequately prepared for
what they face in the classroom.  Recent graduates, too, generally felt well
prepared, with the exception of those single-subject teachers who were required
to teach out-of-field at the high school level.

The key shortcoming of teacher preparation programs from the perspective of both
K-12 employers and teacher graduates was that they do not give preservice
teachers practical skills to apply to classroom teaching.  Participants
suggested that teacher preparation programs should focus more on application in
the classroom - relating subject matter content to teaching, and focusing more
on teaching methods than educational theory.

With respect to general teaching methods, classroom management was singled out
as an area in particular need of an applied approach.  An elementary school
principal recommended that preservice teachers should have "more experience with
classroom management techniques and not just from a textbook ...  Because it is
real different, and ... new teachers have said that when they get in the
classroom, things that they thought would work, often do not.  They need
experiences with children to know what works and how to manage a classroom."

Participants recommended that teacher preparation programs put more emphasis on
dealing with diversity in the classroom and on urban school issues.

Student Teaching

Recent teacher graduates' student teaching experiences varied from very useful
to horrific!  The two excerpts below illustrate the range of the continuum from
positive to negative.

    Stacy, teacher, regarding teaching experiences in a comprehensive college
    program:  "Well, I had a really good [student teaching experience].  I had
    the [sixth grade] math teacher, and she had her room set up into groups.
    She had great kids. It was great!  She wrote me notes all of the time.  We
    had a ... journal book where we would write notes back and forth to each
    other.  We would sit down during planning time, and she would always check
    and see what I wanted to do and what I was doing and stuff like that.  The
    kids were very well behaved.  I had a great experience, and my supervisor
    was also real supportive and really good, and they actually hooked up, and
    they got along real well, so it was kind of like a threesome and everything
    just tied in.  I wish I had them still!"

    Jerry, teacher, regarding teaching experiences in the same comprehensive
    college program: "My cooperating teacher was, at the time, 4 or 5 years from
    retirement, and he gave me classes two days.  The third day I was there, he
    gave me all of his classes and he would sit in the back of the room and
    start snoring....  I am the student teacher trying to explain balancing
    equations and I hear this snoring.  He would write me up for something when
    he wasn't even there and I did it, or when he was asleep, so it was
    interesting.  I wanted to get somebody who could do cooperative learning,
    and he says he does cooperative learning, but it is more:  'Here is the
    book, here is the thing; now you guys go and teach yourself how to do it,'
    instead of a designed kind of thing.  In middle school, you can either do
    cooperative learning well or really bad.  It is very little in the middle,
    and I was very interested in that.  I could do what I wanted; it was a lot
    of work and it turned out well; it's just that I received very little
    feedback.  I latched on to another teacher who was there who seemed
    interested, and she helped me a lot."

As indicated in the excerpts above, the value of the student teaching experience
is related to the quality of involvement and feedback on the part of the
cooperating (or master) teacher.  The match between the teaching methods the
student is learning (and wants to practice) and the way the cooperating teacher
teaches, and the extent to which university supervision is integrated and
consistent with input from the cooperating teacher.  Some administrators felt
that universities did not make enough effort to place their students with good
cooperating teachers.

Two other factors were discussed as integral to the value of the student
teaching experience: the amount of time spent student teaching and the diversity
of placements.  Both recent teacher graduates and K-12 teacher employers
discussed the need for longer student teaching experiences. Preservice teachers
need time to put into practice what they have been taught.

The participating administrators believed that not only should preservice
teachers spend more time student teaching, but also they should be exposed to
children and schools much earlier in their programs.  They noted that this would
not necessarily mean student teaching; it could be time spent observing
classrooms and being around children, perhaps in the context of one-on-one
projects with children.  Administrators generally supported the move toward
five-year programs because they give students the opportunities to student teach
for a full year.  From their point of view, students with more student teaching
experience "tended to be stronger."  Commenting on a program that put students
in the classroom for two years (first observing, then teaching), an
administrator noted: "The difference in their ability to go in and take over a
classroom is remarkable."

The second factor that affected the value of student teaching was the diversity
of placements. Students who had had two different placements valued both their
experiences. As noted in the above section, exposing student teachers to
students from diverse backgrounds makes them more attractive new hires.  An
elementary school principal stressed the value of having students placed in both
an inner-city school and a suburban school.

Beginning Teacher Support

Teacher graduates' descriptions of their first day of teaching would make good
material for a new sitcom.  Nearly all of our participants had not only a bad
first day, but also a very difficult first year of teaching.  These new
teachers' experiences were typical:

    Stacy, teacher, and graduate of a historically black liberal arts college:
    "And in this particular classroom the students were wild, I mean, they were
    wild, because so many substitute teachers were in and out.  I started right
    after winter break in January.  I didn't have anything prepared, of course.
    My room was not decorated, and I was not happy about that, and because the
    kids were not in a stable [environment] they were behind their work, so I
    was hysterical.  I do agree with her [another participant's horror story].
    I feel like I got a very good education here at [name of program], and I
    really feel they prepared us for the classroom.  However, once you walk into
    the classroom, it's a totally different ball game."

    Jerry, teacher, graduate of a comprehensive college:  "My favorite
    expression that really helped me relax in my first year of teaching was from
    the department head who came in  - saw I was really worried about something
    - I don't know what it was - and said, 'Don't worry about it; your first
    year is a waste anyway.  We don't expect you to do anything.'  Just learn
    how to teach during your first year, and in your second year, you better
    know what you are doing   [another participant interjects:  "Survival."]
    Yes.  It's like she just said, 'Hang on and do the best that you can and
    don't worry about it.'  Everyone knows your first year [can be problematic]
    - you will do great sometimes, and then sometimes you just go flop, and you
    just get used to it."

K-12 teacher employers pointed out that their districts were aware of the need
for beginning teacher support.  They described a range of support programs,
structured mentor programs that paired beginning teachers with experienced
teachers for both instructional and moral support, regular support meetings for
new teachers that provided opportunities to share experiences and discuss
problems, and new-teacher orientations that gave beginning teachers a "head
start" on the school year and an introduction to the school's procedures.  The
various support programs described received mixed reviews from both teacher
graduates and administrators, although the majority of both believed that such
support programs were valuable.

Higher-Education/K-12 Collaboration

Throughout discussions of teacher preparation, administrators consistently
pointed out the need for more dialogue and sharing between the faculty of
teacher preparation programs and K-12 school staff.  None of the administrators
felt that the current level of interaction between their districts and local
teacher preparation programs was adequate.  Administrators and teacher graduates
also voiced the need for teacher preparation faculty to spend more time in
schools.


                       Summary of Student Focus Groups

Nine student focus groups were conducted at seven different institutions across
the country(See endnote 2).   This section summarizes the perceptions of 69
students with respect to different aspects of their SME&T courses, SME&T
laboratories, the value of work experience, and diversity issues in SME&T
preparation.

SME&T Courses

Introductory Versus Advanced Courses. Both SME&T and non-SME&T students often
targeted introductory SME&T courses as a major barrier.  They discussed problems
with their difficulty level (too easy or too hard); their traditional lectures
format, and disengaged instructors.

Introductory SME&T courses for nonmajors were generally perceived as
"watered-down science."  As one student put it, "It's frustrating because in
high school, even if it was hard, at least it was interesting.  Here, it's
really easy, but it's really boring."  Introductory SME&T courses for majors
were viewed as very challenging, often serving to "weed out" less capable and/or
less prepared students.  Non-SME&T students at a large research institution
recognized the need for intermediate- level courses targeted somewhere between
these two extremes.

Students from two-year colleges and comprehensive universities brought up
problems related to the way introductory SME&T courses were taught to
accommodate the wide range of student abilities represented in their diverse
student populations.

    Toby, enrolled in a two-year college:  "I know there's a lot of people in
    the class; I meanthere's such a mixture of typesfrom just straight out of
    high school to those with two or three previous science courses.  And I know
    the instructor is trying to teach [to] the middle or the lower middle, but
    sometimes it just gets so slow!  I would have the instructors go down to a
    high school to see what they teach, and then don't teach that again.  See
    their labs at high school, but don't do those labs again."

Attrition rate estimates among potential SME&T students soared at one research
university, mainly because of the introductory courses.  Students there
estimated that at least 80 percent of potential SME&T majors either change their
major or decide to leave their course of SME&T study in the first couple of
years of school.  At one of the two-year institutions, many advanced courses
were reported to have a 50 percent dropout rate.  Some students believed that
the system was designed that way to eliminate some of the SME&T students.  They
agreed that "you have to be really motivated to stay in a science major."

Both SME&T and non-SME&T students objected to the large lecture format often
used in introductory courses.  In worst-case scenarios, some of the introductory
courses disintegrated into video presentations of material.  One introductory
chemistry class reportedly had an enrollment of approximately 600 students and
was described as a "horrendous experience."

A frequent student perception was that professors did not want to, or had been
forced into, teaching introductory SME&T courses.  Students imagined certain
faculty members saying, "Oh God, I have to go teach this 101 course now."

Students from both comprehensive universities and two-year colleges recognized
that part-time instructors taught many of the introductory courses.  These
instructors are often brought in at the last minute by administrators to fill a
course request.  Some students were critical of many of these instructors; other
students preferred part-time instructors, especially if they were from local
firms.

SME&T students frequently praised upper-level classes as wonderful alternatives
to the stressful, less personal introductory classes.  They found the pedagogy,
content, and format of advanced courses to be stimulating and reinforcing.
These courses had a strong conceptual emphasis, had smaller class sizes, and
promoted more interactions among students and between students and the
instructor.  In general, students recommended that this approach be used in
introductory courses whenever possible.

Older SME&T students in the focus groups often reassured younger students that
there would indeed come a day when it all would make sense.  In a number of
different instances, students told stories in which "light bulbs" went on inside
their heads and much of the SME&T material that they had been studying for years
really began to make sense.

Quality of Instruction/Assessment

There was consensus among students that the quality of instruction, not the
subject matter, usually determined the value of a particular course.  In
general, students in two-year, comprehensive, and liberal arts institutions had
slightly more positive attitudes about the quality of SME&T instruction than did
students in research universities.

Students discussed many different skills and attributes as desirable in a
teacher, but three characteristics came up in nearly every student focus group.
The abilities most sought in a professor (and some examples) were:

  o  Tailoring instruction to the learner

  o  Making connections to the real world and other disciplines

  o  Being accessible and caring

Common complaints about "bad instructors," especially from students in research
universities, were that they knew their subject matter but did not know how to
teach and/or that they were difficult to understand because English was not
their first language.  Many students, especially those from research
institutions, asked for more frequent and varied types of assessment to better
determine students' understanding and to help students stay on top of material.

Group work was often a popular element of both SME&T and non-SME&T courses.  It
tends to work best when responsibility is built in for all involved partners.
Otherwise, according to students, group work can disintegrate if each person
involved does not have a specific role, or if the method is used too frequently.

Technology/Technical Currency

The state of technology varied widely across campuses.  Research universities
and one of the liberal arts institutions had good access to the Internet and
e-mail.  "Chat rooms," a new resource at one research university was very
popular among SME&T students, especially as a way of sharing information about
courses and instructors.  Two students gave their impressions of this new
technology:

    Betty, from a research university:  "We used the computer [connections] ...
    you can go to a computer anywhere and you can see what the professor talked
    about in the lecture, and you can post notes; he can post old exams
    everybody can look at."

    Sue, from a research university:  "... and you can be sitting there and it's
    like, oh, there's another student on the program, too.  Do you want to talk
    to them?  And you can talk to them.  And you can rag on the professor
    and..."

Other students were excited about new technology being used in their SME&T
courses, realizing that exposure to technology would help them in the job market
and lack of exposure would hurt them. On the other hand, some computer science
majors complained that they would probably be hurt in the job market because
they had not learned current programming languages (e.g., C, C++).

Unfortunately, several of the student groups noted that their institutions
lacked resources to keep technology up-to-date or to purchase enough hardware or
software to serve students adequately.

Competitiveness in SME&T Preparation

Some students said that the structure of SME&T programs and SME&T courses
fostered competitiveness among students, especially at the introductory level.
They viewed this as a barrier to learning and a negative aspect of the SME&T
experience.  This competitiveness was most apparent at research universities,
where admittance to higher-level SME&T courses was contingent on high grades in
introductory courses.  Students also felt pressure to compete for limited
openings in medical schools and other types of SME&T graduate programs, and
noted that SME&T programs tended to be less competitive at the advanced stages.

SME&T Labs

Most students criticized SME&T labs as being mechanical, predictable exercises
that lacked meaning or connections to science concepts.  They often felt
frustrated because there was no instructor or informed TA to answer questions
during the labs.  Students felt that their creativity was being stifled when
they were forced to follow a "cookbook" type of lab.

Students noted that labs improved in their more advanced courses.  Aspects they
valued in a lab were teamwork, real-world scenarios, freedom in design, and
interesting analysis.

    Nancy, from a comprehensive college: "But in upper-level courses it is [much
    better].    In advanced organic, in the lab, we had certain problems that
    we had to find solutions for, and we were in groups.  Like, one group was
    the spectroscopy group; one group was the wet chemistry group, so we would
    have to go and get another group to do certain things if we didn't have the
    time to do it. ...  That is the real world, and that was a phenomenal
    experience.  And then the other lab that I really got a lot out of...was a
    6-hour lab, and you decided what you wanted to make, how you wanted to make
    it.  You went in there and you made sure earlier in the week that the
    chemicals you needed were available, and you synthesized your own reactions
    and it was good."

One SME&T laboratory program that addresses the problems noted above and
promotes student learning in ways generally associated only with advanced SME&T
courses is NSF-sponsored Discovery Chemistry Program, which was the topic of a
special student focus group.

Work Experience

Coops, Internships, or Current Work Experience. All SME&T students recognized
the value of work experience such as coops or internships during their
schooling.  They noted that such experience helped them to better understand
their SME&T material/course work and/or helped bridge the technology gap between
university and the workplace.

Future Job/Graduate School/Transfer Prospects. Most SME&T students appeared
comfortable about their impending job or graduate school search.  The two-year
students were fairly confident that they could either find work or transfer to
four-year institutions.  Although they believed that work experience would help
with any type of transition, students especially hoped it would facilitate an
easier transition to graduate school or the work world.

Diversity Issues in SME&T Preparation

Students at institutions with diverse populations viewed diversity as a positive
aspect of their experience.  Some minority students reported involvement in
minority alliances and targeted programs as helpful.  Others were frustrated by
their institution's lack of commitment to diversity. Most students acknowledged
that women and minorities face more barriers than do men or non- minorities in
pursuing SME&T.  Students discussed three types of bias: ethnic/racial bias,
gender bias, and age-related bias.

Responding to a point made by fellow students that Black students tended to drop
out of SME&T programs, a Black female student responded this way:

    Annabelle, regarding a Midwestern research university:  "It's a mentality
    and, like I said, a lot of it starts before college.  ...  I'm still dealing
    with it - I can't think of an appropriate word for it, but, I mean, as an
    African-American woman and as a female, I'm always told that, "You're going
    to get lower scores and you're not as capable as a white male".  It's like a
    self-fulfilling prophecy, if you let it be.  I vehemently struggled with my
    freshman and sophomore year. I remember this summer; I was presenting
    research at a conference; I was presenting my research ...  And, I mean, for
    the first time, ever, I wasn't the only Black person in the room, and more
    importantly; I met another Black woman who was brought in there, but she
    didn't want to talk to me.  [Laughter]  But I saw her, and it was so
    shocking.  I mean, I went and I called my mother from a pay phone... I mean,
    when people are coming up to you [at the conference and saying], 'Oh, I'm so
    impressed.  I'm so impressed.'  Okay, are you impressed because I'm first
    author on this?  Are you impressed because of my research? Are you impressed
    because you don't ever see Black women in chemistry?  And it's just
    something that you deal with each and every day."

Students who had chosen to attend an Historically Black Institution generally
felt that they had made the right decision, but almost all were ready to move
out of the all-Black environment by the end of their schooling.

One woman was angry about the loss of a talented female professor at her
institution and felt that it reflected poorly on the program:

    Paula, regarding a research university:  "As of last spring, one of them [a
    female professor] left, and the reason was she wanted to spend more time
    with her kids and they wouldn't let her teach part-time.  Now, when they
    lost her, I lost a lot of respect for that department, a whole lot of
    respect.  Because, you know, they keep trying to encourage us, you know, to
    get more women into the field, yet... they pull this kind of crap, you know,
    and it makes me mad."

Other students, mostly those at the two-year colleges and comprehensive
universities, accused some SME&T professors of "age bias" (i.e., favoring older
students).  At these institutions, it is not rare for 18-year-olds to be mixed
with reentry students who are sometimes over 50 years of age.


                   Summary of Recent Graduate Focus Groups

Six focus groups of recent graduates were conducted, which included a diverse
mix of 36 individuals who had completed their undergraduate education within the
last three years.  Recent graduates had much to say about their experiences in
SME&T courses as undergraduates, transition to the workplace, the value of SME&T
preparation, skills and attributes needed by employers, and diversity issues in
SME&T preparation and the workplace.

SME&T Courses

The findings on SME&T courses are divided into four sections: introductory vs.
advanced courses, quality of instruction/assessment, technology/technical
currency, and competitiveness.

Introductory Versus Advanced Courses.  Recent graduates agreed with current
students that introductory SME&T courses were problematic.  Their main concern
centered on the large sizes of these courses, as well as the lecture format.
Graduates who had taken SME&T courses with smaller class sizes (i.e., students
in two-year colleges, liberal arts colleges, and comprehensive universities)
usually had better early SME&T experiences.  They did not "have to go through
those large, weed- out courses that will kill you," as one graduate put it.  To
these students, a very important feature of smaller courses was the opportunity
to have a more personal relationship with the professor.  Two graduates compared
the quality of instruction in small versus large classes, in this case-courses
at comprehensive colleges versus courses at research universities:

    Roger, regarding experiences at a comprehensive college:  "... and at [name
    of larger research university], Physical Chemistry was the weed-out class
    ... and he [the professor] was having 55 to 60 students in a class, and half
    of the class was failing and that sort of thing. Here [at the college] we
    had seven or eight students who were very, very supportive, [and the
    professor was] holding your hand the whole way through it and she said 'I
    want you to learn this ...'"

    Katherine, regarding experiences at a comprehensive college:  "But I think
    they kept the classes small enough where they could really concentrate on
    the personal problems, issues, concerns, whatever it might be.  That is one
    thing, whether it be computers or history or economics, whatever it was, the
    class was never too large where you really got consumed by a bunch of people
    around you....  It was really personal - a personalized approach, and I
    think that is what makes this college more successful than, say, a [larger,
    nearby research institution] in a big lecture hall.  With this one, you can
    go right up to the teacher, and you know where they are."

Like current students, recent graduates also enjoyed their advanced courses more
than their introductory courses.  Two-year graduates were very pleased with the
practical applications provided in much of their second-year course work, and
research graduates said that the advanced courses were excellent because they
emphasized the understanding of concepts more than memorization of facts.
Advanced SME&T courses were described as more intensive, directed, personal,
group oriented, challenging, and tailored to the learners.

Graduates of liberal arts colleges noted a special problem pertaining to the
availability of advanced SME&T courses. Some graduates of two-year and
comprehensive universities also remarked that the availability of certain
courses had been a problem during their course of study, especially if a
required or prerequisite course was offered every other year.  In one extreme
instance, a graduate felt that it had cost her dearly:

    Rhiannon, regarding experiences at a comprehensive college:  "... that was a
    requirement, not an elective that I had a choice with, and it was actually a
    prerequisite to other things, which was a problem for me.  I graduated a
    year later than I really had to because they only offered certain courses
    every other year.

Quality of Instruction/Assessment

Graduates seemed relatively pleased with the quality of instruction they
received, even though most of their courses had been lecture based.  The types
of professors that SME&T graduates valued most were approachable, affable,
helpful, familiar with their students' knowledge base, and willing to let them
make mistakes in order to learn.

According to recent graduates, students can (and do) play active roles in
ensuring that they get top- notch instruction by talking with other students
about their experiences with particular instructors. Graduates had complaints
about some SME&T instructors who did not seem to care about teaching. Faculty
tenure systems were discussed as one reason why professors do not focus more of
their time and energy on teaching.  Some of the more savvy graduates realized
those tenure systems usually reward research over teaching ability.  One
graduate of a comprehensive institution, where teaching is supposed to be more
of a focus, remarked that professors should be treated "like teachers, not
publishers."

Recent graduates also complained about foreign-born teachers or teachers who had
problems with English.  They said SME&T courses were difficult enough without
language barriers.  Graduates had mixed responses concerning the types of
assessment they encountered in their SME&T courses. Some thought they should
have had more regular and varied assessments to keep them up-to-date in their
studies (as did current students); others thought that it was the responsibility
of the student to stay on top of the material.

Technology/Technical Currency

Like current SME&T students, graduates reported that technology often helped
them better understand certain concepts in the laboratory.  One student said
that the lab techniques he had been using at his liberal arts college were so
up-to-date that he was using some of them in his current research:

    Elvis, regarding his experiences at a liberal arts college:  "A lot of the
    techniques that I used in the labs are the techniques that I use to do the
    research now."

However, some two-year college and liberal arts college graduates complained
that instructors needed to better integrate technology into their classrooms and
make more of an effort to keep up with the rapid changes in technology.  There
was general agreement that many instructors were often "behind the times."  Some
graduates also complained about a lack of computer hardware at their schools.

Some graduates echoed current students' concerns about not being as marketable
because they had not been exposed to the latest computer languages (they
mentioned C and C++ specifically).  These graduates had completed their
schooling a few years ago without learning either language.  They considered
taking the languages in their spare time away from their jobs, but thought their
colleges should have made these languages a requirement for majors.  These same
graduates also recommended that colleges provide courses on computer hardware
with "real-life applications."

Competitiveness

Unlike current students, graduates reported little competitiveness among
classmates during their SME&T preparation.  It may be that they remember their
more recent years of college better, when, according to current students, there
tends to be less competition.

Transition to the Workplace

Recent graduates recognized the value of coops or internships in helping them
find jobs after graduation, often with the company they worked for during their
coop or internship.  Graduates also said that work experiences helped them
define what it was that they wanted to do. Other students noted the "catch 22"
that without any job experience, it was difficult to find a job.

Some graduates did have problems finding jobs.  Graduates from comprehensive
institutions reported the most difficult time with their transitions and
remarked that they did not receive help from their career placement centers or
school-sponsored job fairs.

Graduates believed that more industry/higher-education partnerships would help
student's transition from school to the workplace.  Such partnerships could also
potentially enhance the undergraduate experience by bringing employers into the
classroom.

Value of SME&T Preparation

In general, recent graduates were quite pleased with the value of the education
they had received. Many graduates (especially research university and liberal
arts college graduates) agreed that one of the best qualities of a SME&T
education is that "it teaches you to think in a certain way."  The following
comments were in response to a question asking graduates whether they would
recommend SME&T study to an incoming student:

    Christina, regarding a research university:  "As far as the technical area
    [goes], I'd definitely do it because I think your job prospects are almost
    unlimited when you have a technical degree, compared to some other
    nontechnical degrees."

    Nicole, regarding a research university:  "I also know employers, I think,
    look at you with more respect if you have that background, because they know
    it's not an easy program, and they also know, whether or not you realize it,
    [that] you have that very logical thought process that you use every single
    day ...  It's a very solid background."

    Keith, regarding a research university:  "- the whole beauty of the SME&T
    education is being able to learn how to logically solve a problem.  The
    logical pursuit of answers."

    David, regarding a liberal arts college:  "I consider [it] in more of laying
    a foundation in your mind - how to think logically and attack problems."

Other graduates believed that the SME&T preparation they had received was
valuable despite the fact that "what you really need to know you will learn on
the job."  They believed that it is critical for graduates to bring basic
scientific abilities to the job.

Some graduates noted that there was a "ceiling" on the value of an undergraduate
SME&T degree, as these comments by students with engineering degrees indicate:

    Keith, regarding a research university:  "If you want to live in the United
    States, you can't really make a very good living as an engineer because
    businesses don't respect engineers.  It's more or less, you get out as an
    engineer and then you'll make-you'll get raises up to about the
    $50,000-a-year level and you'll stay there."

    Christina, regarding a research university:  "When you look at the starting
    salary for engineers compared to other folksit's wonderful, but within a
    couple of years, there really is not that much growth."

Another graduate agreed that technical careers do flatten out and felt that if
he wanted to advance, he would have to develop his business skills.

Skills and Attributes Needed by Employers

Recent graduates thought that the following skills were most desired by
employers: technical competence in a subject area, writing and communication
skills, flexibility (e.g., a willingness to turn to management and other areas
for advancement), and business skills.  Like employers themselves, graduates
repeatedly commented that employers were looking for well-rounded individuals
who would fit well into their work climate.  Liberal arts graduates felt
particularly well prepared in terms of breadth and were satisfied with their
choice of undergraduate institution.  Graduates of research universities
generally did not feel as broadly prepared and faulted their SME&T programs for
not giving them much flexibility in selecting courses and for not requiring
language arts courses.

One research university graduate disagreed that SME&T preparation should focus
on breadth, such as courses in teamwork or communications skills, versus depth
in SME&T preparation:

    Nicole, regarding a research university:  "Employers, I think, need to be
    careful.  You can teach someone in a seminar better speaking skills.  You
    can't send someone to a weeklong seminar in physics.  You [the student] are
    paying a lot of money.  We have a great amount of expertise; [I would rather
    they] teach me the engineering skills.  Also, just on a personality level,
    if someone is extremely introverted, you can send them to three different
    classes but - guess what? - they are not going to be an inspirational
    speaker.  So, it is good to round yourself out, but I think there are other
    ways you can do it, rather than spending your tuition dollars in your very
    short time here in developing those skills."

Most recent graduates agreed that, although it might be good to have a
broad/general undergraduate degree, it is better to be prepared in some sort of
SME&T specialty, if possible.  The liberal arts graduates knew they were at a
distinct disadvantage due to the limitations of their course offerings.

Diversity Issues in the Workplace

All recent graduates agreed that women and minorities need more role models in
science and that there are far too many obstacles in the way of underrepresented
students who want to succeed in SME&T.  One young woman's experience
demonstrates the persistence of gender bias and the lack of role models in SME&T
fields:

    Nicole, regarding a research university:  "I was in a facilities and
    services department, comprised predominantly of engineers.  The only female
    role model we had, did very well for herself, she was the director of HR.
    What I have also seen are some women who are doing very well.  Their careers
    are undermined, because their competition is thinking, 'She got the job
    because she is female, not because she had the same skill set and just beat
    me out, or she had the same skill set and they were looking at numbers, so
    she inched me out.'"

  She went on to say:

    [When] "you graduate as a female with an engineering degree, entry-level
    opportunities are there.  ...  When you get into the working world, senior
    management is making decisions on your career, and they are older, they
    don't have exposure to female engineers, and it is a very difficult concept
    for them ...  it is a culture change for them ..."

Other recent graduates related stories of female SME&T graduates not getting
certain jobs or promotions that they deserved.  Males, who generally agreed that
women had a tougher time of it at work, reported many of these anecdotes.  Some
of the graduates worked for government subcontractors who were forced to
consider diversity in hiring to meet certain quotas.  Often, this resulted in
overworking the limited number of female employees, who commonly were assigned
to multiple projects.

Some underrepresented graduates said that they benefited from both formal and
informal mentoring programs sponsored by their employers.  Female graduates felt
that having a mentor was important for a successful professional life.


                        Summary of Parent Focus Groups

Composition of Groups

Thirteen parents participated in the focus groups.  The parents tended to focus
on aspects of college life that were important to them as parents (e.g., safety,
living arrangements, and peer support for academic success).  For example, when
asked to make recommendations about how to improve the quality of the program at
her daughter's institution, one parent said:

    Michael, whose daughter attended a comprehensive college:  "I cannot really
    tell them how to improve, because I am satisfied and I am not in a position,
    really, because I was too much removed from her experience here to really
    honestly answer that question - except more parking, parking, parking!"

Parents were also less informed than other focus group participants regarding
the quality of SME&T education.  Thus, the number of parent groups was reduced
from the planned number, and the number of other groups increased to maximize
the cost-effectiveness of the study.

Quality of SME&T Preparation

With just a few exceptions, most parents were very pleased with the quality of
the general preparation their sons and daughters received at the undergraduate
level.  However, they had little to say about SME&T preparation specifically.
Their impressions of quality were based primarily on the reputation of the
institution as a whole.  Parents could offer very little feedback with respect
to whether an institution's technology was up-to-date.  When asked about
quality, parents had this to say:

    Dawn and James, regarding a research university:  "So far, I think [the
    quality of education] is good.  We have had other relatives who've gone here
    before, so, based on that we're seeing quality that has lasted over 20
    years.  My brother went here, and he's now a physician and he's doing quite
    well."

    Carlette, regarding a research university:  [Name of school] "Engineering
    has an excellent record, good reputations of different professors.  At my
    daughter's graduation speech (she was salutatorian), a couple of faculty
    came up to her and said 'That's a top program over there at [Name of
    school].'"

    Laura, regarding a research university:  "People will ask where my son went
    to school, and I will say he goes to [name of school], the cash signs go
    into their eyes.  I keep telling my son that if you walk out of the [name of
    school] campus with a degree in engineering, you are going to be making such
    and such.  The outside world is telling them, if you get a degree from [name
    of school], you are going to make mega bucks!

Transitions

Unlike other groups, parents tended to discuss "transitions" in terms of the
move from high school to higher education, rather than the move from higher
education to employment.  In the former case, they expressed a general concern
(not focused on SME&T) that colleges should do more to facilitate the transition
from high school to college (e.g., special summer programs to teach "survival
skills" to underrepresented entering freshmen).

    Nancy, regarding a comprehensive college:  [With respect to transition from
    high school to college]  "It is a form of orientation, but it is more of a
    career orientation   It helps you decide where you are going and what you
    are doing and why you are doing it.  Everyone is required to take it."

Parents in both groups strongly supported work experience opportunities because
they believed that SME&T education should be linked to the application of
knowledge (this was their one criticism of SME&T preparation).  They also felt
that work experience increased their students' chances of finding a job and
being successful in the work environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes:

(1) The Boston employer group was organized differently than the other groups in
the study. Employers in that group recruited from a broad range of colleges and
universities in the Boston area, rather than one specific college or university
(as was the case in the other employer groups). Quotes taken from Boston group
participants are identified as "northeastern college/university," since
multiple types of institutions were represented.

(2) One of the student groups consisted of chemistry majors who had participated
in the Discovery Chemistry Program, an innovative, NSF-funded chemistry program
at a northeastern college.











                                  Section V:


       Background Data and Information Influencing the Conclusions and
                    Recommendations of Shaping the Future
________________________________________________________________________________
             by Staff of the Division of Undergraduate Education

Numerous changes of some significance have occurred, since 1980, in the fabric
of influences affecting higher education. The cumulative impact of these changes
has important implications for undergraduate education. Attention has been
focused on entering students, mission priorities, faculty practices, technology,
and needed skills.

I. Overview of Developments

A number of key concerns and promising developments were identified in the first
volume of this report, Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate
Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139),
influencing its recommendations. In this overview, these are summarized briefly.
In the following section, each of the points listed under A and B are discussed
and some of the data and information are provided in summary form (often in
charts and graphs).    

A. Education Concerns
---------------------

1. Over the past 20 years, evidence has mounted that public, K-12, mathematics
   and science education in the U.S. is far from the best in the world.  (In 
   particular, see the next three items.) 

2. Too many K-12 teachers are inadequately prepared in mathematics and science 
   to properly teach these subjects.  

3. Measured educational progress of 8th grade and 12th grade students indicates
   a decline over the high school years in the fraction who can perform at least
   at basic levels of proficiency in mathematics and science.  It also indicates
   that only a small fraction of 12th grade students are fully prepared to
   undertake college level studies in mathematics and science.  

4. Measured educational progress, in mathematics and science, by 
   underrepresented minority students in the 8th and 12th grades is often 
   significantly below average.  

5. Nevertheless, there has been a steadily rising percentage of high school 
   graduates entering undergraduate programs; more than 60 percent of high 
   school graduates were entering college in the early 1990s.  

6. The situation described above has fueled a growing awareness of the 
   importance and enormity of the task of recruiting and educating future K-12 
   teachers in mathematics and the sciences.   

7. Focus groups have indicated that the majority of undergraduates in the early 
   to mid 1990s were often dissatisfied with their experiences in lower division
   courses in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T).  

8. Following the peak reached in 1986, a declining percentage (and number) of 
   students were earning bachelor's degrees in many disciplines in the natural
   sciences, engineering, and technology.   

The evidence also supports the claim that improvements have been achieved in our
educational system. The following kinds of improvement were examined during the
review of undergraduate education that preceded the drafting of Volume I of
Shaping the Future.

Improvements at the K-12 Level
------------------------------

1. On average, more course work in grades 9-12 is now taking place in subjects 
   that constitute important building blocks for college studies, including 
   mathematics and science.  Advanced placement courses have become increasingly
   widespread.  These data were reviewed in Volume I of Shaping the Future.   

2. Average student achievement levels in mathematics and science in the 4th,
   8th, and 12th grade have been improving since the late 1970s, particularly
   among African American and Hispanic students.  

3. A number of standards have been developed for mathematics and science
   learning during the K-12 years, including those of the National Council for
   Teachers of Mathematics, the National Research Council, the National Science
   Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of 
   Science.  These help to focus attention on needed minimum levels of 
   achievement and help guide educators in incorporating new course materials
   and laboratory approaches to meet those standards.  

4. A growing number of states have instituted higher standards for high school
   graduation.  

5. Within the U.S., some states were achieving high levels of performance on the
   National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1992 [on par with the best 
   foreign nations].  This fact informs us that there are high achieving school
   systems to examine, replicate, or improve upon for implementation in other 
   settings.

6. The inflation adjusted pay of teachers and faculty has been improving since 
   1980, thereby aiding the effort to attract good students to teaching careers.  

7. Attention to needed improvements in the preparation of K-12 teachers of
   mathematics and science has grown considerably in the 1990s.  

Improvements at the Undergraduate Level
---------------------------------------

1. A large portfolio of highly promising educational practices and materials
   has been developed for undergraduate education over the  past decade.  These
   practices and materials were discussed in a generic way in Volume I of 
   Shaping the Future.  Some of these approaches are now starting to spread into
   wider use.  

2. Faculty and college and university administrators have become ever more aware
   that there are a variety of pedagogical practices that can yield improved 
   student learning. 

3. Federal agencies have increased their support of innovative activities aimed
   at improving undergraduate education in SME&T disciplines.  They often play
   the role of "venture capitalists," financing new national models of learning
   that are too expensive for individual schools, school districts, colleges,
   and universities to develop.  

4. Systemic efforts to improve K-12 school systems are helping us to understand
   the challenges and potential in adapting comprehensive approaches to
   reforming education in institutions of higher education.  NSF is starting to
   assist model institutions to develop comprehensive improvements.  

5. Educational technology promises to provide attractive learning dividends when
   it is developed and applied correctly.  

B. Important Changes in the Social, Economic, Political, and Technical
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment 
-----------

1. There are pressures on colleges and universities to reconsider their mission
   priorities following the declining military imperative for scientific
   research and the rising tide of criticism about the cost and quality of 
   undergraduate education.    

2. The status accorded to teaching and student advising by faculty at many 
   colleges and universities is increasingly perceived as being low.  

3. Because a college education now confers a major advantage in lifetime
   earnings, there are some public officials who think that public subsidies of
   higher education should not grow.  

4. However, there is growing pressure on family budgets as a consequence of
   rising levels of tuition (in response to the rising costs of higher
   education).  

5. Institutional differences in resource expenditures per undergraduate student
   have grown considerably in recent years. 

6. Public higher education competes for funds with public K-12 education and
   other demands for state resources.  The increased expenditure of state-level
   resources on K-12 education during the 1980s has tightly constrained most
   states' capacity to fund transitional resource needs in higher education to
   accelerate their adaptation of new practices and educational technology.  

7. Federal funding for science and engineering education, research, and 
   facilities are concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of 
   institutions, while the distributions of SME&T majors and other students 
   taking SME&T courses are widely spread over a large number
 of institutions 
   differentiated by size and type.  

8. The type and size of SME&T classes appear to be influenced by type of 
   institution and discipline, suggesting that there is a need for a variety of 
   approaches to improved undergraduate instruction.  

9. There are a variety of faculty practices that would assist students in
   mastering basic concepts and materials.  However, the extent of their use is
   often far from universal, indicating that more needs to be done to encourage
   faculty to adopt or adapt improved teaching practices. 

10.A number of large employers have voiced dissatisfaction, in recent years, 
   about the lack of broad skills evidenced by many recent college graduates in
   certain key areas. Improvements in curriculum and pedagogy would help to 
   develop many of these skills. 

11.The rising tide of educational and learning technologies threatens legions of
   faculty and students who are not familiar with much of it. 

II. A Look at Some Basic Data and Information

A. Education Concerns
---------------------

1. Student Achievement - International Perspective.  Some of the latest data on
comparative achievement in mathematics and science in the U.S. (including the
state level) and foreign nations can be found in The Learning Curve; What We are
Discovering About U.S. Science and Mathematics Education (NSF 96-53, January,
1996).  This report shows, for example, that the Plains states of Iowa, North
Dakota, and Minnesota had mathematics achievement scores for eighth grade
students, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1992, on par
with the 13-year olds in the highest scoring other nations (Taiwan, Korea, The
Soviet Union, and Switzerland).  (See page 9.)  However, the U.S. as a whole
ranked substantially below these four nations and nine others on this test of
proficiency.


2. Teacher Preparation in Mathematics and Science. Secondary teachers active in
teaching mathematics and science are under-prepared in these disciplines. 
Consider the education credentials in academic year 1990-91 of those public
secondary school teachers whose main teaching assignment was mathematics or
science.  Only 52 percent of those teaching biology, 35 percent teaching
chemistry, 26 percent of those teaching physics, and 23 percent teaching
mathematics had earned a baccalaureate (or higher) in the corresponding science
discipline.  Minors in the same discipline were earned by another 13 percent
teaching biology, 25 percent teaching chemistry, 15 percent teaching physics,
and 7 percent teaching mathematics.  [Source: 1990-91 Schools and Staffing
Survey, as reported in U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1995, NCES 95-273, pages
419-422.]

In 1993, 72 percent of the science teachers had science baccalaureates (or
higher) as measured by the less strict credential of counting any field of
science, including science education. Similarly, 63 percent of the mathematics
teachers had baccalaureates (or higher) as measured by the standard of
mathematics or mathematics education.  [Source:  I.R. Weiss, M.C. Matti, and
P.S. Smith, Report of the 1993 National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education, Chapel Hill, NC:  Horizon Research, Inc.]  For elementary teachers
with teaching assignments in science and mathematics, typical preparation is
still overwhelmingly in pedagogy rather than subject fields.  (The importance of
this fact is discussed in number 5 below.)  There has been modest improvement in
teacher credentials during the past 10 years.

3. Educational Progress in High School.  This progress has continued over the
past decade, but evidence suggests that substantial additional progress is
vital.  One source of evidence for basic achievement in mathematics and science
of 13-year olds (typically 8th grade students) and 17-year olds (typically 12th
grade students) is the test known as the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP).  The "anchor point" of basic proficiency for 13-year olds is a
NAEP score of 250.   Proficiency at this level in mathematics means that
students have an initial understanding of the four basic operations.  They are
able to add and subtract whole numbers in one-step word problems and money
situations.  They can find the multiplication product of a 2- and 1-digit
number.  They can also compare information from graphs and charts.  [See: US
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress, Trends in Academic Progress: Achievement of
U.S. Students in Science, 1969 to1992; Mathematics, 1973 to 1992; Reading 1971
to 1992; Writing, 1984 to 1994.]  However, fully successful 13-year old
achievement in mathematics would be reflected in a score of 300 or higher, the
anchor point level of basic proficiency for 17-year olds.

At the 300 level, students can compute with decimals, fractions, and percents. 
They can identify geometric figures, measure angles, calculate areas of
rectangles, interpret simple inequalities, and solve simple linear equations. 
However, students taking mathematics each year have been exposed to most of this
knowledge by the 9th grade, and full mathematics proficiency for 17-year olds
planning on earning baccalaureates and studying mathematics (and other
quantitative subjects)  for another year in college would be demonstrated by a
NAEP score of 350 or higher.  At this level, students can solve a variety of
two-step problems using variables, identify equivalent algebraic expressions,
and solve linear equations and inequalities.  They are developing an
understanding of functions and coordinate systems.

The achievement data in the table below indicates several trends.  The good
trend is that in all cases, the fraction of students demonstrating achievement
at the 250, 300, or 350 level has been rising.  The negative trend is a little
more difficult to see.  In both mathematics and science, the fraction of 17-year
olds scoring 300 or higher (or 350 or higher) is less than the fraction of
13-year olds scoring 250 or higher (or 300 or higher) in the same discipline
four years earlier.  In this sense of maintaining measured progress, students
appear to be losing ground during the high school years.  The amount of ground
lost appears to be greater in mathematics, where there is more ground to lose
because the fractions of 13-year olds scoring 250 or higher is greater than the
counterpart fraction in science.

 Fractions of a National Sample of Students Scoring Above Key Anchor Points in 
                        Mathematics and Science on the
              National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|13-year Olds             | Percent in 1986 |Percent in 1990|Percent in 1992  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|250 or higher in math    | 73%             | 75%           | 78%             |
|300 or higher in math    | 15%             | 17%           | 19%             |
|250 or higher in science | 53%             | 57%           | 61%             |
|300 or higher in science |  9%             | 11%           | 12%             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|17-year Olds             | Percent in 1986 |Percent in 1990|Percent in 1992  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|300 or higher in math    | 52%             | 56%           | 59%             |
|350 or higher in math    |  6%             |  7%           |  7%             |
|300 or higher in science | 41%             | 43%           | 47%             |
|350 or higher in science |  8%             |  9%           | 10%             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A key observation is that only small percentages of 12th grade students score
350 or higher (7 percent in mathematics and 10 percent in science in 1992).  Yet
more than one-half of thes
e students will shortly enter college.

4. Minority Achievement.  Although minority achievement has improved for years,
it has far to go.  Using the anchor points for basic achievement on the NAEP
test in 1992, 85 percent of eighth grade white (non Hispanic) students scored
250 or higher in mathematics, compared to 63 percent of Hispanic and 51 percent
of African American students.  [US Dept. of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1995, NCES 95-273, pages
216-218.]

At the 12th grade level, 66 percent of twelfth grade white students scored 300
or higher in mathematics, compared to 39 percent of Hispanic and 30 percent of
African American students.  In comparing basic achievement in mathematics in the
8th grade and 12th grade, we see not only the decline in the percentage of
students in each demographic category able to achieve minimum basic proficiency
for their age level, but also a growing relative gap on the basis of race and
ethnicity.  The fraction who demonstrated at least basic proficiency in
mathematics declined from the 8th to the 12th grade by 22 percent for white (non
Hispanic) students, 38 percent for Hispanic students, and 41 percent for African
American students. The pattern of NAEP scores in science is similar.

5. Rising Rate of College Attendance.  The percentage of students continuing
their schooling after high school has risen steadily. Undergraduate enrollments
rose throughout the 1980s, and continued to rise in the 1990s through 1992,
along with the annual expenses paid by students to attend college, indicating a
strong growth in demand for college education after 1980.  One important
indicator of this rising demand is the growing percentage of high school
graduates entering four-year institutions without interruption (e.g., June
graduates entering college in August or September).  The percentage of female
high school graduates attending four-year institutions within a few months of
graduation rose from 33 percent in the early 1980s to 41 percent in early 1990s.
Similarly, the percentage of male graduates rose from 31 percent in the first
half of the 1980s to 38 percent in the second half of the 1980s, fluctuating
slightly after 1990 in the 35 to 38 percent range. Including matriculation in
two-year colleges, nearly 67 percent of female high school graduates and nearly
60 percent of male high school graduates entered post secondary education within
a few months of graduation in 1992.  Another 10 to 15 percent will enter college
a few years after graduating from high school, or after leaving high school and
earning their general equivalency diploma. College attendance has become a
nearly universal rite of passage into the workforce in the 1990s.

Another perspective is provided by the rise in percentage of U.S. residents of
college age enrolled in school in October of selected years.  As the following
chart indicates, at each age in the span from 17 to 24 years old, this fraction
has risen since 1980.  This fact has had a large impact on undergraduate
enrollments, which have continued to rise through 1992 despite a drop in the
number of high school graduates after 1988.


                   Percentage Enrolled in School in October
                       Ages 17 to 24 in Indicated Years
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current
Population Surveys.


6. Importance of Recruiting and Preparing K-12 Math & Science Teachers. 
Starting at least with A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983), educators and policy makers began to give teacher preparation
high priority, particularly after the decline in the quality of K-12 schools was
linked to declining economic productivity in Time for Results (National
Governors' Association, 1986), and we collectively began to realize that school
reform would not succeed without programs to improve the quality of teacher
education.  [See, for example, The Preparation of Teachers: An Unstudied Problem
in Education (Sarason, Davidson, and Blatt, 1986).]

The evidence of need for improvement has grown considerably, and the total body
of evidence now indicates that it would be hard to overstate the size of this
problem.  In his study, Teachers for our Nations Schools (1990), Goodlad
measured the magnitude of the problem of achieving meaningful reform and
explained the need and value of systemic approaches - an approach that is now
embodied in NSF's State, Urban, and Rural Systemic Initiatives for K-12
education, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement,
and the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program.

Researchers and educators believe the most effective teachers are those who (1)
are lifelong learners who regularly update their subject and pedagogical
knowledge; (2) are willing to learn from others, including students; (3) have a
vision of how they want to change, spend time reflecting on their own teaching
strategies, and devise strategies that are effective in addressing the diverse
learning styles that their students exhibit (which they comprehend through
skillful observation of student's learning processes).

Increasingly, we want that knowledge to include a knowledge of - and a comfort
with - mathematics and science.  Even though, as a  nation, we are making
progress, elementary teacher candidates can still receive a bachelor's degree
without ever learning content approaching the depth of understanding expected of
mathematics and science majors. Instead, subject matter knowledge is transmitted
through mathematics and science courses tailored to education majors.  Some
states do not require elementary majors to have taken any mathematics or science
content courses.

What does the evidence indicate about the value of subject matter training in
mathematics and science?  Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988 (NELS:88), a national study of 24,599 students in the eighth grade
and their teachers, indicates that students of those teachers who majored or
minored in science and mathematics performed significantly better on achievement
tests.  The following summary deals with direct effects only, leaving out
indirect effects and associative effects (such as giving the best teachers the
best students). The results are reproduced below in Panel A (mathematics
teachers) and Panel B (science teachers).

Student achievement scores rise for each descending step in each column:

A.  Mathematics

---------------------------------------------         -----------------------
|Teachers Mathematics Preparation           |   and   | Teachers Math GPA   |
---------------------------------------------         -----------------------
|No courses in math (low frequency)         |         | 2.5 or lower        |
|Math at calculus level or lower;           |         | 2.5+ to 3.0         |
|  in math education                        |         |                     |
|Math at calculus level or lower and        |         | Above 3.0           |
|  math education                           |         -----------------------
|Math above calculus level; no math         |
|  education                                |
|Math above calculus level and math         |
|  education                                |
---------------------------------------------


B. Science

---------------------------------------------         -----------------------
|Teachers Science Preparation               |   and   |Teachers Science GPA |
---------------------------------------------         -----------------------
|No science courses, or sci. ed. only       |         | 2.5 or lower        |
|  (low frequency)                          |         |                     |
|Science and sci. ed. courses (< 41 credits)|         | 2.5+ to 3.0         |
|Science courses only (< 41 credits)        |         | Above  3.0          |
|Science and sci. ed. courses (> 40 credits)|         -----------------------
|Science courses only (> 40 credits)        |
---------------------------------------------


A brief summary of the
 impact of teacher preparation in subject area and
pedagogy on student test scores indicates that:

o  There is no pattern based on teachers' highest academic degrees.
o  Mathematics scores are higher if  teachers majored in mathematics.
o  Science scores are higher if teachers majored or minored in science, and
   somewhat higher yet if teachers majored in science as graduate students.
o  Training in pedagogy helped only if the teacher had training in subject area
   too.

7. Student Dissatisfaction with Lower Division SME&T Courses.  Seymour and
Hewitt's large study, Talking About Leaving (1994), produced findings that are
very critical of faculty teaching practices.  They conducted a large
ethnographic study over a 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 three to five students. 
An additional 125 students took part in focus group discussions on six other
campuses.  One-half of 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 prepared to
undertake NS&E studies in college.  The student sample was designed to include
slightly more students leaving (55 percent, all juniors or seniors) than
remaining in NS&E majors (45 percent, 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 ten one-time NS&E majors
who switched to a non- NS&E major, and three out of 4 who persevered, described
the quality of teaching as poor overall.  The next most frequent complaint of
non-switchers was inadequate advising by the faculty, mentioned by more than
one-half of these 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 faculty 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 the
failure of faculty to pay serious attention to the teaching of undergraduates
and for specific inadequacies in attitude or technique.  (Student perceptions of
faculty research activities changed considerably, however, when students were
allowed to observe or participate in that research. The few students who had
this experience were pleased with 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.)

The perceived dislike displayed by the NS&E faculty for pedagogical contact with
students cannot be simply explained by a greater interest in research, or by the
bias of departmental rewards systems, according to Seymour and Hewitt.  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 encouragement of discussion, and the sense of discovering
things together.  Student comparisons of NS&E teaching styles with those in
other classes are permeated with strong contrasts including:

o  coldness versus warmth, 
o  elitism versus democracy,
o  aloofness versus openness, and
o  rejection versus support.

The distancing of the NS&E faculty from students was sometimes increased by
sarcasm and ridicule, which created an atmosphere of intimidation and had the
effect of discouraging voluntary student participation in classroom discussions.


The focus of student criticisms were the following:

o  There was a lack of student-teacher dialogue, which was also thought to
   reflect faculty indifference.  Classes like this were one-way lectures and
   contrasted poorly to the high school experiences of many students, where
   there was considerable dialogue.  
o  Faculty were evidently poorly prepared 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.
o  Students also wanted (but typically did not find) many illustrations, 
   applications, and discussions of implications.  Nevertheless, students did
   not believe there was anything intrinsically dull about any 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.  
o  Class tedium grew in instances where faculty were "over-focused" on getting 
   students to memorize material.  

Turning briefly to the findings derived from focus groups of students convened
for this study, covering a broader cross section of undergraduates than those
participating in Talking About Leaving, it is noteworthy that the students'
opinions about introductory courses are similar. (These findings are reviewed in
substantially greater detail in Section IV of Volume II, pages 243 to 270.)  In
the focus groups for this study, students identified introductory SME&T courses
as a major barrier.  Many students majoring in other fields who were interested
in improving their competence in SME&T fields were discouraged (or screened out)
from pursuing further studies.  SME&T majors found their 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 masters 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 in introductory courses.   In particular, 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 being very discouraging.  The perception of many students was that the
faculty did not want to teach these courses.  In addition, a significant number
of students objected to the competitive atmosphere in introductory SME&T
courses, calling it a barrier to learning.  Students also found considerable
fault with introductory lab courses and sections.  Some found them to be
mechanical exercises that were seemingly unconnected to concepts of science. 
Lack of faculty or teaching assistant expertise on site in the labs was cited as
another weakness.

8. Declining Baccalaureate Degrees in SME&T Disciplines.  Starting pay for
graduates in engineering, the computer sciences, the mathematical sciences,
economics, and the physical and environmental sciences has remained higher than
in the social and behavioral sciences, the biological sciences, and most other
non-SME&T fields.  (The exceptions are accounting, finance, and a few other
fields.)  Yet, students have tended increasingly to major and earn bachelor's
degrees in these lower-paying fields.  The higher-paying SME&T fields jointly
accounted for 19 percent of all bachelors in 1985, but bachelor's degrees
awarded in this group fell by nearly 20 percent during 1985-1993, while total
bachelor's awarded in all fields rose by almost 20 percent (reducing the
proportion of bachelor's in the high-paying fields to 13 percent during 1993 -
95).

In the more frequently used subtotal of NS&E, degree awards have declined from
215,000 in 1986 (21 percent of t
otal bachelor's) to 175,000 in 1991 (15 percent
of total bachelor's), recovering thereafter to 201,000 in 1995 (16.5 percent of
total bachelor's) due to growing interest in the life sciences.  Changing
student interest in the life sciences accounted for only about 5 percent of the
decline in NS&E bachelor's awards during 1986-91, but more than 90 percent of
the rise in these awards during 1991-95.  Associate of Arts degrees in these
same disciplines exhibited the same pattern to a more limited extent.  These
trends are shown in the following charts.


    Bachelors Degrees Awarded in Science, Engineering, & Technology Fields
                              Number of Bachelors
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 
Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) and HEGIS (Higher
Education General Information Surveys) surveys of U.S. postsecondary
institutions.


One concern that derives from these trends is that there may be similar declines
at other levels of learning in the SME&T disciplines, such as a reduced number
of minors elected in NS&E, or reduced percentages of students taking
introductory courses in these fields. Unfortunately, national time series data
to track these concerns are not available.

There are a variety of hypotheses for the decline in "popularity" of SME&T
majors.  One is the poor preparation of many high school graduates to succeed in
NS&E courses.  Although this is still a sizable problem, it is important to
observe that, by all national quantitative measures, it has diminished during
1985-95.
 
 
              Associate of Arts Degrees Awarded in SME&T Fields 
                        Number of Associate Degrees
                   (For diagram, please see PDF format)         
                   
Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) and HEGIS (Higher
Education General Information Surveys) surveys of U.S. postsecondary
institutions.


It is possible that the growing number of older and part-time students include
many whose mathematics skills and basic science preparation have become rusty
from disuse, precluding the choice of an NS&E major.  For example, data from the
High School and Beyond panel surveys indicate that, from the perspective of
1993, nearly all of the baccalaureates in NS&E earned by students who were high
school sophomores or seniors in 1980 were earned within six years by students
who persisted with, at most, relatively short periods of absence from their
studies.

B. Important Changes in the Social, Political, and Technical Environment for
Higher Education

1. Pressures on Public Institutions to Reexamine Their Priorities.  The Pew
Higher Education Roundtable ("To Dance with Change," Policy Perspectives, Vol.
5, No. 3, Section A, April, 1994) found that:

    There is less inclination to trust government to establish public services
    or define public priorities.  It is part and parcel of the general
    inclination to resist new taxes from the conviction that individual
    consumers make better and more appropriate choices than any government can
    (page 5A);... There is real anger at higher education ... from the makers and
    shapers of public policy - governors, legislators, regulators, heads of
    public agencies, and surprisingly, an increasing number from the world of
    private philanthropy.  ... Many ... believe that colleges and universities
    have become too isolated from the economic pressures that are forcing most
    other American enterprises to rethink purpose and mission ... (page 6A).

The Pew Roundtable traces this anger to two concerns, both of which are central
to this Review.  The first is the growing unease in recognizing that higher
education has far to go before it fulfills the promises that have often been the
implicit basis of its funding, namely the creation of a skilled citizenry,
buttressed by the improved access of underrepresented minorities, leading the
way to economic development for states and regions.  The Roundtable claims that
there is a growing sense that too many institutions frequently confer academic
degrees on students who have not demonstrated sufficient skills to be effective
workers or informed citizens.  The best graduates are often seen as "exhibiting
a self-centered aggressiveness rendering them incapable of working with others."
[Page 6A]  This situation is seen as the consequence of excessive academic
competition for the best students and competition within classes.

2. Status of Faculty Teaching and Advising.  The Pew Roundtable (in the same
1994 publication) also reported a public perception that academic institutions
"have become havens for a privileged class." [Page 6A]  Some states are actively
pursuing (and others are considering) legislatively mandated requirements to
increase faculty teaching.  Statements, from state officials, that the principal
job of the faculty is to teach students are increasingly common in the news
media. Now, let us examine the faculty perspective.

Data on faculty teaching and research activities, taken from the 1993 National
Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93; US Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics), indicate that most faculty must teach.  Nearly
80 percent of these taught primarily undergraduates in 1992, with another 6
percent teaching both undergraduates and graduate students.  Even in Research
Universities, 50 percent of the teaching faculty taught primarily
undergraduates, with another 16 percent teaching at both the undergraduate and
graduate level.


           Primary Teaching Level of Science & Engineering Faculty 
                              All Institutions
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)


Not surprisingly, the fraction of faculty teaching primarily undergraduates
rises as the research intensity of the institution drops.  [See the following
two charts.]  A less obvious fact is that sizable proportions of the faculty who
teach primarily undergraduates are also engaged in research.  More than 50
percent of the "undergraduate" faculty in Research universities (and nearly 30
percent of the undergraduate faculty in Doctoral universities) are principal or
co-principal investigators or included on externally funded research projects.
These data suggest that student perceptions that faculty attention may often be
focused on their research may be on target, but they also indicate the high
potential for allowing students to observe or participate in faculty research.


               S&E Faculty Teaching: Primary Level of Students
                           by Type of Institution
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                     

           Percentage of S&E Faculty Teaching Primarily Undergrads
         by Type of Institution & Extent of Invovlement in Research
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)


What were the faculty preferences for altering the distribution of their 1992
work efforts in teaching, student advising, and research?  This is, in a sense,
the faculty side of Seymour and Hewitt's profile of SME&T education.  In every
type of four-year institution, much greater percentages of faculty want to
devote less time to teaching (40 to 50 percent) and more time to research
(again, 40 to 50 percent) than would prefer spending more time engaged in
teaching activities (10 to 15 percent) or less time doing research (8 percent or
less).  Despite widespread dissatisfaction of students with the quality of
faculty advising, only 20 to 25 percent of the undergraduate faculty said they
were somewhat or very dissatisfied with the (little) time available for student
advising.  The reasons faculty expressed these preferences are not available. 
One may speculate whether the reasons include a dislike for teaching by those
who are not very good at it, ignorance of students' preferences due to
inadequate contact between students and faculty, or a reward system that
frequently favors successful re
search over successful teaching.  
 

               S&E Faculty: Percent Who Want More or Less Time
                    for Advising, Teaching, or Research
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                                     

3. Public Attitudes About Public Subsidies.  Among the sources of revenue for
undergraduate education, public (chiefly state-level) sources have collectively
been the most important. However, the share of total cost derived from this
sector may be in long-term decline. According to the Pew Higher Education
Roundtable (1994), a major force reshaping American higher education is the
increased substitution of market revenues for public funds:  

    Having heard the message that a college degree translates into the higher
    earnings that come with a good job, the conclusion being drawn is that a
    college education in fact contributes more to individual advancement than to
    the nation's social fabric. The result is that students at public
    institutions everywhere are being asked to pay for an ever greater share of
    the costs of their higher education (page 4A); ... There are new adherents
    to the proposition that appropriations for public higher education,
    particularly at flagship institutions, amount to a public tax for the
    benefit of the economically advantaged, whose children neither need nor
    deserve such subsidy for their college education. (page 5A)

Turning to data on the sources of employment growth and the effect of education
on unemployment, there is ample evidence that college does confer important
advantages on job holders and seekers.  In the early 1980s, the following chart
(based on employment data published on the Web Page of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor) indicates that job losses were
occurring disproportionately among those who were not college graduates (in each
of three separate categories).   By the early 1990s, employment of workers with
less than high school diplomas had shrunk from 21 to 13 percent of the total,
and employment of  those with some college and a college degree each rose by 4
percentage points of the total.  The growth in the pool of workers with "some
college" and with college degrees was evidently large enough that job losses in
the early 1990s were disproportionately higher among workers with some college
than among those with less than a high school education.  Workers with college
degrees were still experiencing the lowest frequency of job losses.


        Distribution of Employment & Job Losses by Level of Education
                     for the periods 1981-83 and 1991-91
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                     
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics data reported in
the New York Times on March 3, 1996, page 27.


4. Rising Per-Student Costs in Higher Education.  Undergraduate education is
part of the academic enterprise which spans graduate and professional education,
research, and service to the community.  Expenditures by this combined academic
enterprise have grown rapidly for decades, funded by revenues from a variety of
sources.  Even though precise estimates of expenditures by type of activity
(e.g., undergraduate education) are lacking because key resources (e.g.,
faculty) are shared by multiple activities, we can still infer valuable
information from examining expenditures data.  Because academic institutions are
nonprofit organizations, trends in expenditures approximate trends in resource
costs.

The unit costs of undergraduate education have been rising, at least since 1980,
although it is hard to measure these costs with precision.  An explanation is
offered in the following text box. National estimates depend on financial data
from the HEGIS and IPEDS surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. (Extensive documentation is available
at http://www.ws.gov.edu/NCES/...)  The following chart indicates that the unit
costs of education rose during 1980-85 in each type of institution represented,
but that thereafter they leveled off in public two-year colleges and public
Masters I institutions.  (This chart does not cover all types of institutions,
but the included types cover the entire range of unit costs.)  The high level of
expenditure in the highly selective private Research I and Bachelors I -
formerly known as Liberal Arts I - institutions is due in large measure to
higher resource levels per student.  These greater resources include
substantially larger expenditures on "student services."

    How do you measure the unit cost of undergraduate education?  Estimates of
    the "educational and general expenditures" per undergraduate student
    full-time equivalent require some understanding of differences in education
    costs by level, because these expenditures are reported for undergraduate,
    graduate, and professional students combined. If all post-secondary
    education students are counted equally and total instructional costs are
    divided by the sum of all FTE students, the resulting calculated unit cost
    would overstate the level of expenditure per undergraduate in Research and
    Doctoral institutions and also the increase in this unit cost (because
    graduate and professional enrollments have been rising more rapidly than
    undergraduate enrollments).  We do not know the exact nationwide "weights"
    to give graduate and professional students compared to undergraduates. 
    However, specialized studies of individual institutions and programs have
    shown that graduate or professional students  require at least twice (and
    often much more) the value of resources used to instruct undergraduates.  In
    the fourth chart, unit undergraduate costs have been estimated, counting
    graduate and professional students as three times as costly to educate as
    undergraduates.  This ratio was selected because it is representative of
    cost studies and brings the unit costs in private research universities into
    close proximity with unit costs in Bachelor's I institutions (formerly
    called selective Liberal Arts Institutions).  


      Current Expenditures Less Internal Scholarship Aid per FTE Student
  Exp's in 93' Dollars N et of Pell Grants, Sponsored Research, & Pub Service
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)


Also note that the rate of increase in unit costs in public Research and private
Doctoral and Masters I universities slowed appreciably after 1986.  Also a
factor in explaining the higher level of unit costs in these two groups and in
public Research universities ("flagship public institutions") is the much higher
average compensation of their faculty.  In fact, growing faculty compensation
during the 1980s is the most important cause of growth in resources expenditures
per student in academic institutions during that period.  For example, according
to Getz & Siegfried (1991, page 300), the rapidly rising prices of instructional
inputs accounted for about 75 percent of the 2.7 percent per year increase in
academic "education and general" expenditures per student over and above the
general rate of price increase of GNP during the 1980s.

The values in the previous chart should be compared to those in the chart below
to illustrate the point that the rise in costs per student (unadjusted for the
mix of student types) was partly a consequence of growing proportions of
graduate students in research and doctoral institutions.  In particular, the
large and growing difference in unit student costs by type of institution is
partly a result of the growing proportions of graduate students.


      Current Expenditures Less Internal Scholarship Aid per FTE Student 
   Exps in 93' Dollars Net of Pell Grants, Sponsored Research & Pub Service
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                     
                     
These estimated costs per student, unadjusted for the mix of undergraduate and
graduate students, indicate a widening of unit costs in different types of
institutions
that took place during the 1980s and the early 1990s.

5. Impact of Growing Differences in Per-Student Costs.  The cessation of growth
in externally sponsored support, in combination with reduced or tightening state
budgetary support (which is discussed in the next section) has likely had some
impact on lower-division courses in NS&E within universities with externally
supported research faculty and doctoral students.  The replacement of retiring
faculty has not been complete during the 1990s. Faculty retirements are often
being used as a source of academic downsizing, which puts increasing pressure on
existing faculty to raise external grant funds and teach more students. These
reductions in faculty resources for instruction have created pressures within
undergraduate courses - larger classes, less variety, more incentive for hiring
inexpensive teaching assistants or part-time adjunct faculty.  Average class
size rose throughout the 1980s (Getz & Siegfried, 1991, page 391).  These
developments may have reduced the opportunity to try innovative approaches to
offering courses and curricula in these institutions at the same time that it
has increased the need for productivity enhancing improvements.

However, it is also important to realize that these data indicate a wide
difference in institutional capacity to finance faculty release time.  Such
release time is valuable because it allows older faculty to engage in teaching
enhancement workshops and seminars and to retool their teaching skills by
studying the growing body of material and approaches to successful undergraduate
education (and adapting those that best fit their needs).  For national programs
focused on improving the quality of undergraduate education, such as those found
in NSF's Directorate for Education and Human Resources or in the Department of
Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the
challenge and need are to ensure that all types of institutions participate in
these programs.

6. Pressures on Sources of Revenues.  Public expenditures per pupil in grades
K-12 began to rise shortly after the publication of A Nation at Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).  This increase is likely to have
resulted from a growing awareness generated by this and other studies of the
need for substantial improvements in quality - a conscious parallelism of action
by many groups.  The following chart indicates that the cumulative rise during
1983-1993 was large.


                  Public Education Expenditures Per Student
              K-12 and Higher Education [Constant 1994 Dollars]
                      (For diagram, please PDF format)

Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
The Condition of Education 1994, NCES 94-149 pp. 148, 149, 325 - 328.  


There has been a growing fiscal reliance on state governments to fund public
education in grades K-12 during 1970-1990, as real expenditures per pupil were
rising.  This has constrained state-level funds for higher education.  States
provided 40 percent of public revenues for K-12 in 1970, 47 percent in 1980, and
nearly 50 percent in the second half of the 1980s.  During this period, public
expenditure per student in the higher education sector did not grow in real
dollars, although it has remained a constant 1 percent of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP).   (See the following chart.)


                 Public Education Revenue as a Pct of GDP 
                        K-12 and Higher Education
                    (For diagram, please PDF format)
                   
Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
The Condition of Education 1994, NCES 94-149 pp. 148, 149, 325-328.


            Undergraduate Enrollment in 4-Year Instns: Fall 1992
             Distribution by Type of Instn and Enrollment Status
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)
  
Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1994, NCES 96-440 and detailed data runs
using the NSF CASPAR data system.  Enrollment data are collected as part of the
IPEDS and HEGIS surveys.   


And, as was discussed in Sections 4 and 5 above, graduate student enrollment in
Research and Doctoral universities was increasing more rapidly than total
undergraduate enrollment during this period, so public funds available for
undergraduate students were declining in real dollars.

Public expenditure per undergraduate and graduate student dropped briefly during
the 1978-1983 period as the rate of growth in undergraduate enrollments finally
dropped after several decades of high levels.  As it increased once again, it
coincided with (and helped to cause) an increase in the inflation-adjusted
compensation of the faculty, noted above in section 4, which experienced a
cumulative growth of about 25 percent during 1980-1992.    

 
     Undergraduate Enrollments by Region by Institution Type & by Control 
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)


7a. Distribution of Undergraduates and SME&T Courses.  In this section, we
examine the distribution of undergraduate students and SME&T courses and the
headcount of undergraduates enrolled in those SME&T courses.  Undergraduates are
found in a large variety of institutions.   Within four-year institutions in
1992, about 37 percent were enrolled in Large Masters Institutions (more than
2,000 undergraduates), compared to 29 percent in Research universities, 18
percent in small Masters and Bachelors colleges, and 16 percent in Doctoral
universities.  This distribution does not include other four-year institutions,
such as Religious colleges, Business schools, and Art institutes, which were
excluded from the chart because they do not have science and engineering degree
programs.

Two-year institutions accounted for 46 percent of all undergraduates, counting
part-time and full-time students equally, and the excluded four-year
institutions would add about another 5 percent to the 4-year total.  As the set
of four regional enrollment charts indicates, community colleges are even more
important as educators of high school graduates in the West and South. Large
public Masters institutions are well-represented in all four regions, but most
prominently in the Northeast.  Large private Masters enroll considerably more
students in the Northeast than in any other region. And, in general, all types
of private institutions are proportionately most prominent in the Northeast and
least prominent in the West. Finally, public Research and Doctoral universities
enroll more undergraduates in the Midwest and the South.

[These data were obtained from the NSF CASPAR data system, now available to the
general public from a web site supported by the NSF: http://caspar.qrc.com. This
system obtains its data from the U.S. Department of Education surveys known as
HEGIS (or Higher Education General Information Surveys) and its successor IPEDS
(Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System).  Special tabulations were made
because the standard tabulations available in Enrollment in Higher Education:
Fall 1994, NCES 96-440 do not use the same institutional categories.]

Compared to two-year institutions, four-year institutions have a larger share of
SME&T courses than total undergraduates.  [The information about SME&T courses
was derived from data collected through the 1993 National Survey of
Postsecondary Faculty, NSOPF-93; US Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.]  (See the charts on the following page.)  But within
four-year institutions, the distribution of SME&T courses is moderately less
concentrated in Research and Doctoral universities than the distribution of
undergraduate enrollment.  Compared to these distributions of SME&T courses by
type of institution, the distribution of students enrolled in SME&T courses is
moderately more concentrated in four-year institutions than in two-year
colleges, and - within 4-year institution groups - more concentrated in Research
universities than in Masters and Bachelors institutions.

Overall, ab
out 500,000 SME&T courses were taught for credit and about 17,000,000
students were enrolled in these courses.  (Many students were enrolled in two or
more courses.)  On average, the enrollment in SME&T courses averaged 1.3 courses
per undergraduate student.

In a number of disciplines at the lower-division level (freshman and sophomore
level), more courses were taught in two-year colleges than in four-year
institutions.  In descending order, these disciplines were the mathematical
sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering (including engineering
technologies), psychology, agriculture, and the biological sciences.  In
mathematics, computer science, and psychology, there were also a larger number
of enrolled students in two-year colleges compared to lower-division students in
four-year institutions.

In the aggregate, including all disciplines and institutions, there were more
than twice as many lower-division courses as upper-division courses, and almost
three times the number of students enrolled for credit in the lower-division


                  Pct Distribution: Students & SME&T Courses
                         4-Year Vs 2-Year Institutions
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 
 
          Pct Distribution of All Undergrad Students & SME&T Courses
                        by Type of 4-Year Institution
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                     
                     
courses.  Mathematics is the discipline most oriented towards lower-division
courses and students, followed by the physical sciences and the biological


               SME&T Course Count: 4-Year and 2-Year Institutions
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 

sciences.  Engineering is the most oriented towards upper-division courses. 
This pattern of enrollment indicates the importance and strategic value of
ensuring that students in lower- division courses are served with effective
course designs and good teaching practices and ensuring that two-year colleges
are included whenever possible in efforts to improve student learning in SME&T.  

 
                    Estimated Enrollment in SME&T Courses
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format)


Finally, we turn to the distribution of Federal funds for Science and
Engineering (S&E) in academic institutions, a category of Federal support that
includes research and development (the largest category), equipment and
facilities for S&E (the second largest), and education and training in S&E (the
smallest). The Federal Government (which includes NSF) is by far the largest
external sponsor of academic S&E.

7b. Distribution of Federal Obligations for Science and Engineering.  Federal
funds are highly concentrated in a number of ways.  First, within each
institutional category, research funds are highly concentrated. Second, funds
are also highly concentrated across classes of institutions. The following chart
shows the distribution of S&E funds among all 125 Research universities.  (The


            Federal Obligations for Science & Engineering: FY 1992
               Research Universities Ranked in Descending Order
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 
 
distribution in other classes of institutions was similar.)  Research
universities received 88.5 percent of total Federal obligations for science and
engineering in FY 1992 and are clearly in a class of their own.  In contrast,
all 111 Doctoral universities received only 6.2 percent of total Federal S&E
obligations.  The top 10 Doctoral universities received slightly less than the
ten Research universities ranked 91-100.   Other categories receiving
significant funds include the top 200 Masters I institutions (with 4.2 percent
of the total), the top 100 Bachelors colleges (with 0.7 percent of the total),
and the top 50 two-year colleges (with 0.2 percent).  Funding is also very
highly concentrated within the Doctoral and Masters subgroups: the top 12
Doctorals and 25 Masters received more than 50 percent of the funds in their
subgroups.

The following table shows a ranking of these 575 institutions.  They are shown
in groups of 50 (except for the third group of 25 of Research universities) in
descending order based on Federal S&E funding received in 1992.  The table
demonstrates the highly concentrated nature of these


Distribution of Federal Funds for Science & Engineering in FY 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Categories of Institutions               |Federal S&E       |FTE Undergrads  |
|  in Descending Order:                   |Per Institution   |Per Institution |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Research Univs  Ranked      1-50         | 147,835,000      | 15,620         |
|Research Univs  Ranked    51-100         | 46,148,000       | 14,028         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Research Univs  Ranked   101-125         | 15,867,000       | 12,754         |
|Doctoral  Univs Ranked     1- 50         | 11,784,000       | 8,330          |
|Masters  Instns Ranked     1- 50         | 7,126,000        | 6,230          |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Doctoral  Univs Ranked   51- 100         | 2,131,000        | 7,606          |
|Masters  Instns Ranked   51- 100         | 1,540,000        | 7,867          |
|Bachelors  Cols Ranked    1-  50         | 1,160,000        | 2,186          |
------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
|Masters  Instns Ranked  101- 150         | 645,000          | 5,318          |
|Masters  Instns Ranked  151- 200         | 355,000          | 5,010          |
|Bachelors  Cols Ranked   51- 100         | 339,000          | 1,929          |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Federal Science & Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and
Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1992 (NSF, Division of Science Resources Studies),
and U.S. Department of Education, NCES, the IPEDS/ HEGIS  surveys of students
enrolled.  FTE (=full-time equivalent) enrollment was calculated as full-time +
40% of part-time enrollment.


funds.   The average enrollment level is provided to give a sense of  difference
in average size among these groups of institutions.  The next chart provides
additional perspective, illustrating institutional differences in the ratio of
Federal S&E funds per FTE undergraduate, and how these have changed (primarily
risen) since 1980.

Within NSF, the distribution of S&E funds is less concentrated than overall
Federal funds, partly because of the broad base of institutions participating in
the programs of its Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). The
awards made by EHR have both expanded the number of institutions receiving NSF
funds (from 578 to 828 in FY 1994) and reduced the concentration of funds in the
hands of the top 20, 50, 100 (etc.) institutions.  It is still the case that
institutions receiving the most funds from NSF research programs also tend to
receive the largest amounts of education funds.  As the next table indicates, it
is also the case that about one-half of all undergraduates were enrolled in
institutions that received no NSF funds in FY 1992.

 
              Ratio of Sponsored Research to FTE Undergraduates
                           (Shown on a log scale)
                    (For diagram, please see PDF format) 
              
Source: These data were calculated from data obtained from the U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics surveys: HEGIS (Higher
Education General Information Surveys) and the replacement IPEDS (Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System).  Extensive documentation is available at
http://www.ws.gov.edu /NCES/.  FTE (=full-time equivalent) enrollment was
calculated as full-time + 40% of part-time enrollment.  


    Distribution of Undergraduate Students in 4- and 2-year Institutions
         by Level of NSF Funding in FY 1992  (Each Row Sums to 100%)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|NSF funds = f:      |f=$0  | f<$100K | $99<f<$250K| $249<f<$500K |   f>$499K  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. Undergraduates Counted on an FTE Basis.                                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  4-Yr Institutions | 23%  |  14%    | 9%        |  7%          |  47%        |
|  2-Yr Colleges     | 87%  |  10%    | 2.3%      |  0.3%        |  0.3%       |
|  All Institutions  | 49%  |  13%    | 6%        |  4%          |  28%        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. Full-Time & Part-Time Undergraduates Counted Equally.                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  4-Yr Institutions | 24%  |  14%    |  9%        |  7%          |  46%       |
|  2-Yr Colleges     | 87%  |  10%    |  2.3%      |  0.3%        |  0.3%      |
|  All Institutions  | 53%  |  12%    |  6%        |  4%          |  25%       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  NSF funding for all science and engineering was taken from Federal
Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit
Institutions: FY 1992 (NSF, Division of Science Resources Studies). Enrollment
data were taken from the IPEDS/ HEGIS surveys of the U.S. Department of
Education, NCES.


These patterns suggest that we will often find faculty in research intensive
institutions developing innovative approaches to teaching and learning in a
variety of SME&T disciplines, but that NSF has also helped increase the pace of
innovation in undergraduate education by making education awards to a larger
base of institutions.  In order to maximize the impact of NSF funding, it is
important to ensure that promising innovations used initially only by their
developers are made accessible to other faculty in other institutions.  Making
NSF program funds accessible to faculty (in institutions where there is little
current award activity) in order to adopt and adapt innovations developed
elsewhere is one direct way to accomplish this.

8. Institution Type, Class Size, and Choice of Teaching Methods. The information
in this section and the following Section 9 was derived from data collected
through the 1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-92; U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics).  There are
both institutional and disciplinary differences in average class size.  These
differences are shown in the next pair of charts, which reflect average teaching
practice in the Fall of 1992. Lower-division SME&T courses tended to be the
largest (by a considerable margin) in Research universities, and the smallest in
Bachelors, small Masters, and two-year colleges.  (They averaged 83 in Research
universities and 26 in small Masters institutions.)  The same ordering was also
found in upper- division courses, but the differences were less pronounced.  In
four-year institutions, the average size of lower-division SME&T classes appears
to have had some influence on the percentage of those courses and students
taught primarily by lectures.  (This influence is also apparent in
upper-division courses.)

The much larger class sizes in lower-division courses in Research and Doctoral
universities were supported in part by a much heavier reliance on teaching
assistants.  Lower-division classes averaged 1.5 teaching assistants per course
in Research universities, and 0.5 in Doctoral universities, but no higher than
0.25 in other institutions.  Upper-division classes averaged 0.6 teaching
assistants per class in Research universities, but under 0.3 in Doctoral
universities and well under 0.2 in other institutions.

Recall that estimated costs per FTE undergraduate (in all fields) were highest
in research universities and next highest in doctoral universities despite the
larger class sizes and greater reliance on teaching assistants.  Clearly, the
higher costs in these universities were due to other factors and held partially
in check by resorting to large class sizes.

The reliance on lectures is striking.  About 80 percent of lower-division
courses in large four- year institutions and all two-year colleges were taught
primarily by lecture, and about 70 percent of classes in small four-year
colleges relied on lectures.  Large enrollment courses tend more often to be
taught by lecture, with the consequence that about 93 percent of students
enrolled in lower-division SME&T courses in Research universities were taught by
lecture (87 percent in Doctoral and large Masters universities, and 80 percent
in small four- year colleges).  The situation was somewhat better in
upper-division SME&T courses, but even there more than 80 percent of enrolled
students from large institutions were in lecture courses.  Only in Bachelors
colleges were less than 70 percent of students taking SME&T courses in those
taught primarily by lecture.


               Ave Class Size & Lecture Frequency by Instn Type
                   Lower Division & Upper Division Courses
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)

 
          Ave Class Size in 4-Yr Instns. by Field and Level of Course
                         Enrollments in the Fall, 1992
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)


In four-year institutions, average class size at the lower-division level in
different fields varied considerably, ranging from over 61 in the biological
sciences to 33 in the mathematical sciences.  At the discipline level, average
class size seems to have had only a small effect on the choice of the lecture
method of instruction.  In two-year institutions, in every discipline, the
average class size was smaller than in four-year institutions.  And, although
the ordering of size by discipline is not the same (see the last bar graph on
the previous page), average class in the first four disciplines was higher (with
a range of 30 to 34) than in the last four disciplines (with a range of 18 to
27).

In those courses not relying on lectures, the second most common instructional
method used was a laboratory (problemsolving or clinical) approach, followed by
"group" approaches to learning (i.e., cooperative learning groups, group
projects, class discussion groups, class presentations, and role playing and
simulation in class).  The frequency of these approaches is illustrated in the
two charts at the bottom of this page.  A few courses were essentially
apprenticeships or internships.  These were much more common at the
upper-division level.

These more active and interactive modes of instruction were more typically used
in small classes, with the result that the percentage of students enrolled in
these courses was considerably less than the percentage of courses employing
these methods as their primary instructional technique.  The high reliance on
lectures has been addressed in a number of studies as well as in many published
opinions.  Consider, for example, the informed opinion published recently by the


                 Non Lecture Courses : Freshman & Soph Level
                              Percent of Courses
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 
 
                 Non lecture Courses: Junior and Senior Level
                              Percent of Courses
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
                     
                     
president of a community college, observing that the "instruction paradigm" is
still the dominant model for community colleges (Boggs, 1995/96, page 26):

    Under the instruction paradigm, community colleges are responsible only for
    providing instruction, not for student learning.  Responsibility for
    learning is the student's.  ...  Under [this] paradigm, faculty are
    primarily lecturers.  Students are often competitive and individualistic. 
    Faculty members carry out their functions independently of one another. 
    Teachers classify, sort,
and grade students.  

Data obtained from ethnographic studies and from focus groups of students
support the hypothesis that most students learn most when reliance on lecturing
is reduced.  Boggs' careful statement is that he prefers "the learning
paradigm," where colleges, as well as students, are responsible for student
learning.  In this paradigm:  

    ...faculty are primarily designers of learning methods and environments. 
    They are ... facilitators of student learning in much the same way as a
    coach facilitates the best performance of an athlete.  They and their
    students work in teams with each other and with other college staff.  ... 
    The learning paradigm does not automatically define the lecture method as
    bad, ... [but it]  will require that lectures prove their value in promoting
    student learning against other methods.  ...  Already there is a lot of
    research to indicate that more active methods of learning are usually more
    effective.

9. Faculty Practices that May Influence SME&T Course-Taking and Student
Learning.  The ethnographic studies of Seymour and our own focus groups indicate
the importance of student access to teachers, teaching assistants, and
themselves as peer learners.  Even though the lecture format predominates in
undergraduate education, it is still possible to improve the learning


           SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use: Feedback Mechanisms
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
 
 
environment considerably by employing techniques that ensure more frequent and
helpful feedback on student learning.  In the first two charts, the reported
frequency of some such techniques in lower-division courses are illustrated


             SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use of New Technology 
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)


from the 1993 Survey of Post-secondary Faculty.  These charts illustrate that
these techniques were used widely enough during the Fall of 1992 to be familiar
at some level of detail to most SME&T faculty.   However, teaching practices in 
SME&T courses taught during that Fall semester more frequently did not employ
these methods.   


           SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use of Student Presentations 
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)

 
This was particularly true in Research Universities, and also to a large extent
in Doctoral and large Masters institutions.  Only the use of computational tools
and software could be called widespread.

The final two charts examine other good practices in both lower-division and
upper-division courses taught by the SME&T faculty.  The use of student
presentations was most widespread in Bachelors colleges and was also found more
frequently in upper-division than in lower- division courses.  Grading on the
curve, a practice associated with so called "weed-out" courses, is now absent in
the majority of SME&T courses.  So is the practice of  basing grades on multiple
choice examinations, particularly in Research universities and Bachelors
colleges. This suggests that faculty practices are beginning to change for the
better.  

 
            SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use: Grading on a Curve
                     (For diagram, please see PDF format)
            
            
10. Employer Perspectives on Desirable Outcomes from Undergraduate Study. 
Employers today are seeking entry-level employees at the associate or
baccalaureate degree level who can demonstrate solid basic (disciplinary) skills
and a full complement of other skills.  These other skills make the recently
acquired specialized knowledge more valuable to the organization, which
increasingly seeks to combine diverse areas of expertise embodied in individual
employees by bringing them together to work in teams.  Private firms have become
more demanding and cautious in screening potential new employees, and
increasingly require a full complement of skills in their new hires.

Statements made by employers about their needs and preferences have been growing
in number during the 1990s.  Yet these show a remarkable degree of consistency
in identifying the skills sought from college educated, entry-level employees.
(These skills are described in a subsection below.)  Employers' preferences have
also had a noticeable influence on undergraduates' strengthened sense of
purpose.

Many employers also agree that the growth in skills needed to fulfill many jobs
- including many professional occupations - has been rapid, and seems to have
outstripped the capacity of many undergraduate institutions and their programs
to keep pace.  This is because most undergraduate programs are not specifically
designed to help students develop these skills directly.

The deficits in skills identified most frequently by employers are usually not
defined in terms of the disciplinary knowledge of recent graduates.  In fact,
employers of SME&T graduates have often indicated their basic satisfaction about
the specific knowledge that recent graduates with good grades bring from most
academic institutions to entry-level positions. However, while many academic
SME&T departments are thought to produce able college graduates from able high
school graduates, the bulk of them are often seen as not serving the needs of
the remaining students to achieve a desirable level of SME&T competence or
literacy, and there is growing concern about the breadth of learning of
high-achieving SME&T graduates (as there is at the graduate student level).

There is also some concern about the low numbers of able graduates.  Metaphors
abound to convey this judgment of limited success.  Faculty are advised to
switch from playing the role of "filter" to being a "pump" (Steen, 1991, page
19).  Departments are disparaged for conducting "weed-out" courses and employing
excessively competitive grading practices (Seymour and Hewitt, 1994). 
Undergraduate SME&T education during the past three decades is described by
Goodstein (1993) as:

   ... a mining and sorting operation, designed to cast aside most of the mass
    of common human debris, but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds
    in the rough, that are capable of being cleaned and cut and polished into
    glittering gems, just like us, the existing scientists.  ... [This] explains
    why we have the best scientists and the most poorly educated students in the
    world.  It is because our entire system of education is designed to produce
    precisely that result.

Employers are articulate in describing in general terms the types of skills that
enhance the value of their employees, but they are not comfortable prescribing
either methods for bringing undergraduate programs into better alignment with
their stated needs or specifying actual levels of knowledge that recent
graduates should have mastered in various disciplines. (See, for example, Bikson
(1995), Verville (1995), Pew Higher Education Roundtable (1994), Wingspread
Group on Higher Education (1993), and the National Center on Education and the
Economy (1990).  See also the written testimony of employers participating in a
hearing at NSF on November 1, 1995, particularly the statements of Israel Galvan
(GHG Corporation), Roberts Jones (National Alliance of Business), John McMasters
(Boeing), Alfred Moye (HP), John Sisler (Shell Oil), and Patrick White (Bell
Atlantic).

There are sound reasons for this reluctance to prescribe specific features of
improved college programs.  One is that the overarching need is for employees
that can continuously adapt, adjust, and re-educate themselves to remain
productive in a changing environment.  As one employer commented to the National
Academy of Sciences, "we may place a new employee in a position which exploits
any special expertise [learned] in order to provide 'a soft landing,' but he or
she will eventually be called upon to handle a wide range of problems that go
far beyond the [formal course work] received during the completion of the Ph.D."
(National Academy of Sciences, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists
and Engineers, 1995).

Another reason is that competence in mathematics, scie
nce, engineering, and
technology serves a broad range of objectives, and needs vary by student major
and intended career (for example, consider the literacy needs of a chemistry
major, a mathematics major, and an English major).  This broad range of needs is
often a difficult issue for academic departments seeking to redesign their
curricula.  A representative minimum level of literacy was recommended by Lynne
Cheney when she was Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1989). 
She suggested a core 50-credit-hour curriculum for college students comprised of
three civilization courses, a foreign language course, and a year of mathematics
and science that is more than most undergraduates typically are required or
elect to take. The study of mathematics would examine mathematics as a field of
inquiry.  The science course would cover the physical and life sciences,
focusing broadly on how scientists have historically developed and validated new
concepts and past concepts of matter, energy, and life.

A Brief Look at Desired Workforce Competencies.  Jobs increasingly require basic
knowledge of SME&T, as does the capability of individuals to engage in lifelong
learning in broad directions. There is a growing expectation that successful
students must acquire those skills that will allow them to be lifelong learners,
often in non-academic settings. We are increasingly told that change itself is
the status quo.  Broadly speaking, a minimum requirement for lifelong learning
is a basic grasp of mathematics and its uses, science and its methods, and
technology and its effects.  The expected need for this knowledge in the future
is widespread among professional jobs and is spreading rapidly in so-called
blue-collar occupations.  Verville (1995) notes that about 65 percent of all
workers in the U.S. use some type of information technology in their jobs, and
this figure is anticipated to be 95 percent by the year 2000.  (Recall from
Section 3, Public Attitudes About Subsidies, that most of the job growth in the
past decade has occurred in government, personal, and business services.)

A college graduate seeking employment must currently demonstrate the following
skills in order to successfully compete for professional positions in a number
of  manufacturing or service firms with national or international operations. 
[These are borrowed from Bikson (1995).]  The job seeker's academic major and
associated transcript and grades open the door to job interviews, but the
following skills are sought by employers to justify offers of employment:

Generic cognitive skills
          Problem solving skills
          Learning how to learn
          Decisionmaking skills
Social skills
          Communications skills
          Interpersonal skills (teamwork)
Personal traits
          Adaptability and flexibility
          Openness to new ideas, empathy for ideas of others
          Strong work ethic
          Innovative and entrepreneurial outlook

Many of these skills are seen as important because employees are more typically
working together in teams comprised of demographically and functionally more
diverse coworkers. Many firms are employing greater numbers of women, minority
males, and employees from foreign countries, whose specialized training spans
R&D, engineering, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and legal services. 
Compounding the challenges of diversity is the pace of technological change. 
Products and services are being changed rapidly under intense competitive
pressure to accommodate regional preferences and to incorporate quality
improvements.

Among recent baccalaureates who have demonstrated some mastery of their
coursework in a college or university whose academic program is known to the
potential employer, each of the above competencies was considered more important
than academic achievement in predicting a job candidate's performance on the
job. Some employers expect colleges and universities to inculcate these skills
and traits more deliberately as part of the undergraduate learning experience. 
Such skills cannot be expected to develop in passive learning environments where
the dominant pedagogical approach is lecturing by the faculty and note taking by
the students, punctuated by cookbook laboratory exercises or, in some courses,
recitation sections devoted to unimaginative sets of problems to be solved
(designed to develop familiarity in using tools through repetitive practice).

These skills needs of employers can be developed as part of undergraduate
studies to a much greater extent through the choice of sound pedagogical
(learning-enhancing) practices and the increasing use of curricular improvements
in SME&T courses.  Many of these practices have been clearly identified by many
contributors to this Review as more effective than traditional methods for most
learners.  In essence, this crucial finding is described by the following set of
points:

1.  Students acquire SME&T knowledge and retain it years later far more
    effectively when courses are designed with learning effectiveness as the
    highest priority, as opposed to covering a fixed body of "material." 
2.  Pedagogical techniques that teach teamwork and communication, sharpen 
    cognitive skills, and help to develop openness to new ideas, adaptability,
    and flexibility are known to also enhance subject matter learning. 
3.  There should be a focus on concepts that apply across fields, and on 
    connections across the disciplines and between science and technology,
    especially in basic introductory courses.  At advanced levels of education, 
    this translates as a recommendation for breadth as well as depth of 
    learning.  This is perhaps the most prescriptive recommendation for SME&T
    courses identified by contributors to this Review.  
4.  A much higher percentage of students from a given pool would be drawn to
    SME&T if curricular and pedagogical "best practices" were more widely 
    employed.  

11. Electronic Technology and Systemic Reform. The realization is growing that
academic institutions no longer have a collective monopoly on knowledge, and
access to that knowledge (which traditionally has been located in libraries,
textbooks, and the brains of faculty).  [See, for example, Noam (1995),
Duderstadt (1995), Denning (October 23, 1995 NSF Hearing Testimony), Ward
(October 25, 1995 NSF Hearing Testimony), and Massy and Zemsky (1995).]  Noting
that there are numerous examples of applications of new technology, Massy and
Zemsky predict that, in most institutions, the demand for using information
technology to assist teaching and learning will grow exponentially over the
foreseeable future and "will change teaching and learning profoundly, no matter
what the response of traditional higher education institutions."  Competition
from nontraditional providers of education will pressure colleges and
universities to exploit these new technologies, a theme echoed by many others.

However, it is also realized that there is a lot of exploratory work to do
before we can exploit the full potential of new technology (e.g., Noam, 1995,
and Vest, 1996). For example, Vest (1996, page 4) warns us that we do not yet
know how best to use the new information technology for many education
objectives. Massy and Zemsky agree, stating:

    Across American higher education the lure of the new information 
    technologies remains as uncertain as it is unsettling.  While few doubt that
    information technology has the potential to enhance teaching and learning, 
    there is no agreement on how that technology should be used to boost 
    academic productivity - or whether such an increase is in itself a valid 
    goal if its enhancement means substituting technology for the more 
    traditional, labor intensive rhythms of higher education.

Many believe that the opportunity to become an effective lifelong learner
outside of academic settings has been improved immensely by technological
improvements in personal computers, the Internet (and other computer networks),
the World Wide Web, and numerous software tools.  We are making increasingly
sophisticated use
of video and audio technology in connection with these other
advances, which "softens" this technology, making it more "personable."  We are
on the threshold of widespread access to digital libraries, with the promise of
powerful tools becoming available to individuals, which will assist them to
find, extract, understand, and connect information from a variety of sources. 
This will form a building block for the development of "virtual universities." 
The opinions of many who have discussed using these technologies in
undergraduate settings agree that we have only started to exploit its potential.
Faculty are increasingly expected to become knowledge guides rather than
center-stage actors.  As the National Academy of Science stated about the future
of education, the promise of these related technologies is that:

    ... all students will be held to far higher standards of learning because
    everyone will have to be prepared to think for a living and everyone will
    have to be capable of learning many new skills over the course of a
    lifetime.  ... The timing and location of education will be more flexible
    ... The distinction between learning inside of school and outside of school
    will blur.  (Reinventing Schools..., 1993).
                                  Section VI:


                 Contributors to the EHR Advisory Committee
                Review of U.S. Undergraduate Education in SME&T
________________________________________________________________________________


Acknowledgments

Shaping the Future is the product of many people, and it is a pleasure to
acknowledge their contributions to this report.  My only fear is that I will
overlook someone, and I hope for forgiveness if that is the case.

First, I thank Luther Williams for the idea to do the report in the first place
and the unfailing support and encouragement to complete it and to implement it.
To Bob Watson, Division Director for Undergraduate Education is owed an enormous
debt of gratitude.  Bob opened the Division to me, provided whatever I needed to
get the job done, allowed me to observe and participate in many aspects of the
Division's work, and gave invaluable advice and suggestions at every stage.
Throughout, however, he was careful to allow me to be independent.  Any lapse of
objectivity is my responsibility, not his.

The staff in DUE were helpful beyond belief, though they had a full plate of
responsibilities without this review! They provided information and assistance
at every turn, seemingly never too busy to answer a question or offer a
suggestion.  They planned the conference, "Shaping the Future," in such a way as
to provide a superb sendoff for our report. Thanks to all of them, who became
and still are good colleagues.

Special thanks are due to Myles Boylan and Peter Yankwich, who did most of the
staff work, analyzing information, commenting on early drafts, gathering data,
and providing invaluable historical perspectives. Anita Broadus was our faithful
secretarial support, solving all sorts of problems and providing all sorts of
assistance, always with a smile.  Ranetta Roseboro was always available as
backup, helping me with computer or administrative problems.

Outside the NSF, I acknowledge with gratitude my colleagues at the NRC with whom
we worked so closely. Thanks to Don Kennedy, who provided the overall leadership
for "From Analysis to Action," along with Brad Moore, Chair of the NRC's
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, and Nancy Devino, NRC staff. They
were faithful colleagues whose commitment and wisdom are reflected in many ways
in Shaping.

The RevUE committee was wonderful.  They trusted me, corrected me, improved my
writing, made me think, broadened my horizons.  The report would not have been
nearly so complete or accurate without their invaluable help.

I thank my several institutions, who permitted me the time to work on Shaping
the Future. I am particularly grateful to the University of Minnesota for giving
me the opportunity to do the major part of this work, on an IPA with the NSF.
But St. Olaf College and The University of Missouri have also generously shared
me (or maybe they were glad to be rid of me!) for some of this work.  I trust
they will think it has been worthwhile.

Finally, I thank most sincerely all those around the country who participated in
the review, through writing letters, testifying at hearings, sending
information, responding to my questions, being part of the opening convocation,
regional symposia, discussions at professional meetings, or the final conference
itself.  Your ideas, not mine, are reflected in the report.  It was you who have
done so much to improve SME&T undergraduate education in the past 10 years--and
it is that progress that created a climate in which the vision we tried to
articulate in Shaping could even be conceivable.  Thank you, on behalf of all of
our students, today and in the years to come.

Melvin D. George
Columbia, Missouri
March, 1997


Reproduction of the letter sent out by NSF Assistant Director Luther Williams to
initiate discussion and commentary on the national state of undergraduate
education.  Respondents to Dr. Williams' letter, the various NSF and NRC
steering committees, participants and contributors to the process are listed
following the Description of the review.

OMB 3145-0156 EXP. DATE 12/95

June 14, 1995

Dear ____________

     I seek your assistance with a comprehensive review of undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) that is
being carried out by the National Science Foundation.  SME&T education in the
United States takes place in different types of institutions and in very diverse
settings; we are seeking guidance from every major sector.  At this early stage,
I am soliciting the views of a small number of persons experienced and strongly
interested in the subject of the review in order to identify major themes,
topics, and focal points for consideration.

     The attached memorandum, NSF Review of Undergraduate Education, describes
the structure of the effort, indicates the policy context, lists the goals of
the Foundation's SME&T education activities, and indicates some of the broad
areas of inquiry to be studied.  This solicitation of views occurs at the
beginning of Phase I.

     I invite you to participate now in the Review by writing a substantial
letter based on your experience with contemporary undergraduate SME&T education
and focusing on two questions:

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

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

     I hope you will use student learning in SME&T fields as the primary frame
of reference for your remarks, and the quality of the resulting student
preparation for diverse post-matriculation pursuits as the primary criterion for
judging educational merit.  Your letter (or any questions) should be addressed
to "Undergraduate Review," c/o Dr. Robert F. Watson, Director, Division of
Undergraduate Education, Room 835 at the above address.  Your input is needed by
August 1, 1995. A report summarizing the findings and recommendations of the
review should be available to share with you early in 1996.

     Your letter will be an important addition to the contributions you have
made to undergraduate education.  I thank you for it.

                                                 Sincerely,

                                                 Luther S. Williams
                                                 Assistant Director

              NSF Review of Undergraduate Education: Description

The Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) is undertaking a general review of the condition and needs of
undergraduate education in the United States in the areas of science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T). This review includes wide
consultation with students, educators, and employers.  It will produce, by late
spring 1996, a set of recommendations for accelerating progress in the
improvement of undergraduate education.  Concurrent with the review is a
national dialogue on this subject conducted by the National Research Council and
following from the joint NRC-NSF Convocation on Undergraduate Education held in
April 1995 in Washington DC.  The NSF review is coordinated with this
dialogue--drawing on it and on other sources of input from individuals,
organizations, and groups across the country.

Acting in an advisory capacity to Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director of NSF
for EHR, are members of the Subcommittee for Undergraduate Education of the
directorate's Advisory Committee:

     Sadie Bragg, Borough of Manhattan Community College
     Denice D. Denton, University of Wisconsin - Madison
     Melvin George, University of Minnesota, (Chair)
     Peter Gerber, MacArthur Foundation
     Mary M. Lindquist, Columbus College  (Georgia)
     James Rosser, California State University - Los Angeles
     David Sanchez, Texas A&M University
     Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr., Maricopa Community Colleges (Arizona), and
     Carolyn Meyers, North Carolina A&T State University, (Consultant)

The Foundation is undertaking this review of the central enterprise of
undergraduate education at a critical moment.  National efforts to improve
precollege education in SME&T, including those of the NSF, have been extensive
and have involved efforts to create both innovative local improvement and larger
systemic changes.  The support of such efforts at the undergraduate level is
more recent and has emphasized innovative improvement projects at single sites.
The necessity for--and possibility of--larger-scale changes in undergraduate
education is the primary question the review will investigate.  While the
Foundation recognizes that it raises this question at a time when the nation's
colleges and universities are facing unprecedented financial and programmatic
challenges, it is expected that the review will reveal ways of increasing the
effectiveness of these institutions in undergraduate education. The provision of
excellent educational services requires a robust infrastructure whose components
at all institutions include faculty, curriculum, and capabilities for teaching
and scholarship.  The condition and support of these components will be
examined.

The goals of improved undergraduate education in SME&T are:

     o  citizens who are empowered to be full participants in a scientific and
        technological society;

     o  a technically well-prepared workforce that can both participate and lead
        in a high-performance workplace employing advanced technologies;

     o  teachers who are solidly grounded in both science and pedagogy, and
        scientists and engineers who are well-prepared for their occupations;
        and

     o  young people with diverse backgrounds, reflecting the changing face of
        America, successfully involved in SME&T.

Consistent with its chartered responsibility to "initiate and support ...
science education programs at all levels ...", the NSF seeks to ascertain the
extent of effective innovation in undergraduate education in SME&T, and  to
determine what steps, if any, should be taken next to bring about further
significant improvements.  The specific areas of inquiry listed below are
designed to lead to implementable recommendations to universities and colleges,
scientific societies, and government and private funding and credentialing
agencies (including, particularly, NSF itself):

     o  What are the innovations in undergraduate education and what is the
        evidence that their adoption represents a superior practice of
        undergraduate education?  [The areas of inquiry regarding superior
        practice will involve:  curriculum of all types and levels, faculty
        maintenance and development, pedagogy, instructional technology,
        instrumentation and facilities, research opportunities for students and
        faculty, and connections of instructional programs to the world of
work.]

     o  What are the unmet educational needs of those who are receiving and have
        received undergraduate SME&T instruction?

     o  What infrastructure needs of institutions offering undergraduate
        instruction must be supported for them to implement the best
        instructional practices and meet the needs of students and employers?

In the context of an institution's entire undergraduate enterprise, what are the
problems that need to be addressed to achieve the goals of undergraduate SME&T
education?  What are suggested solutions to these problems?  Who should do what,
and how?

The effort through which the Foundation plans to address these questions will
consist of three phases:

Phase I, now well advanced, involves direct, systematic investigation of the
considered points of view of a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations
who may be regarded as the customers of the diverse educational programs and
institutions that deliver undergraduate education.  Four major means are being
employed: (a) Responses are being analyzed to letters soliciting the views of
nearly 200 individuals and organizations. (b) Comments are being invited at a
number of disciplinary and educational conferences. (c) Hearings were held to
receive testimony from representatives of disciplinary groups, institutions of
higher education, and business/industry.  (d) Focus groups of students, recent
graduates, parents, employers, and graduate/professional schools admission
officers are being conducted.  In addition, existing reports and data on
undergraduate SME&T education are being analyzed.

Phase II of the review will present a summary of preliminary findings and
tentative recommendations from Phase I for comment and elaboration to a large
number of persons experienced in undergraduate education: individuals and
organizations will be contacted, regional hearings will be held, and there will
be discussions with faculty and administrators attending key professional
society meetings.

In Phase III, the review will formulate, based on Phases I and II, specific firm
recommendations in a plan for action to achieve the goals stated above for
improved undergraduate education in SME&T.  The report conveying the results of
the review is expected to be ready in the spring of 1996 and will be
disseminated first through a major event planned for July 1996 in  Washington,
DC.

For further information contact the Division of Undergraduate Education of EHR.



               Respondents to the Letter from Luther Williams,
           NSF Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources



Jane Armstrong                          Alexander W. Astin
Director of Policy Studies              Allan M. Carter Professor and Director
Education Commission of the States      University of California, Los Angeles
Denver, CO                              Los Angeles, CA

Hyman Bass                              Osa Brand
Department of Mathematics               Educational Affairs Director
Columbia University                     Association of American Geographers
New York, NY                            Washington, DC

George R. Boggs                         Laurence J. Boucher
Superintendent/President                Dean, College of Natural and
Mathematical
Palomar College                         Sciences
San Marcos, CA                          Towson State University
                                        Towson, MD

Ernest L. Boyer                         Jim Burke
President                               Colloquium Committee, Department of
The Carnegie Foundation for the         Mathematics
Advancement of Teaching                 University of Washington
Princeton, NJ                           Seattle, WA

William L. Briggs                       Alice Brown (et al.)
Mathematics Department                  Director
University of Colorado at Denver        Appalachian College Association, Inc.
Denver, CO                              Berea, KY

Lillian N. Cassel                       Thomas R. Cech
Department of Computing Sciences        Teacher
Villanova University                    Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research
Villanova, PA                           Laboratories
                                        University of Colorado at Boulder
                                        Boulder, CO

Kenneth Chapman                         Orville L. Chapman
Education Division                      Professor of Chemistry &
American Chemical Society               Associate Dean for Educational
Washington, DC                          Innovation
                                        University of California, Los Angeles
                                        Los Angeles, CA

Robert Christman                        John Clevenger
NAGT Executive Director                 Professor of Chemistry
National Association of Geology         Truckee Meadows Community College
Teachers                                Reno, NV
Bellingham, WA

William S. Cohen                        Johnetta B. Cole
Department of Biology                   President
University of Kentucky                  Spelman College
Lexington, KY                           Atlanta, GA

Rita R. Colwell                         K. Jane Coulter
President,                              Deputy Administrator
American Association for the            Science and Education Resources
Advancement of Science                  Development
Washington, DC                          United States Department of Agriculture
                                        Washington, DC

G. A. Crosby                            Patricia A. Cunniff
Professor of Chemistry and Materials    Director, Science and Technology
Science                                 Resource Center
Washington State University             Prince Georges Community College
Pullman, WA                             Largo, MD

Jaleh Daie                              E. Julius Dasch
Science Advisor, UW System              National Space Grant College and
University of Wisconsin                 Fellowship Program
Madison, WI                             National Aeronautics and Space
                                        Administration
                                        Washington, DC

G. Doyle Daves, Jr.                     Kerry Davidson
Dean, School of Science                 Deputy Commission of Higher Education
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        State of Louisiana Board of Regents
Troy, NY                                Baton Rouge, LA

Eugene M. DeLoatch                      Denice D. Denton
Dean                                    Professor of Electrical and Computer
Morgan State University                 Engineering
Baltimore, MD                           University of Madison - Wisconsin
                                        Madison, WI

Paul R. Dickenson                       Catherine J. Didion
Executive Director                      Executive Director
Partnership for Environmental           Association for Women in Science
Technology Education                    Washington, DC
Pleasanton, CA

Richard P. D'Onofrio                    John A. Dossey
President                               Distinguished University Professor of
Franklin Institute of Boston            Mathematics & Past-President, NCTM
Boston, MA                              Illinois State University
                                        Normal, IL

Ronald G. Douglas                       Marvin Druger
Vice Provost & Professor of Mathematics Chairperson, Department of Science
State University of New York at         Teaching & Professor, Biology
Stony Brook                             and Science Education
Stony Brook, NY                         Syracuse University
                                        Syracuse, NY

Patricia A. Dyer                        Robert H. Edwards
Vice President Academic Affairs         President
Palm Beach Community College            Bowdoin College
Palm Beach, FL                          Brunswick, ME

Arthur B. Ellis                         Royce C. Engstrom
Meloche-Bascom Professor                Professor of Chemistry
University of Wisconsin - Madison       University of South Dakota
Madison, WI                             Vermillion, SD

E. W. Ernst                             Dale Ewen
Allied Signal Professor of Engineering  Vice President, Academic and Student
University of South Carolina            Services
Columbia, SC                            Parkland College
                                        Champaign, IL

Etta Falconer                           Lyle D. Feisel
Associate Provost for Science Programs  Dean, School of Engineering and Applied
& Policy                                Science
Spelman College                         Binghamton University
Atlanta, GA                             Binghamton, NY

Evan R. Ferguson                        Pamela A. Ferguson
Deputy Executive Director               President
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research       Grinnell College
Society                                 Grinnell, IA
Research Triangle Park, NC

Samuel C. Florman                       Kenneth E. Foote
Kreisler, Borg, Florman Construction    Associate Professor of Geography
Company                                 The University of Texas at Austin
Scarsdale, NY                           Austin, TX

Norman L. Fortenberry                   Shelley Fisher
Executive Director                      President
National Consortium for Graduate        National Science Teachers Association
Degrees for Minorities                  Sand Springs, OK
in Engineering and Science, Inc. (GEM)
Notre Dame, IN

Marye Anne Fox                          Carver C. Gayton
Vice President for Research             Corporate Director, College and
The University of Texas at Austin       University Relations
Austin, TX                              The Boeing Company
                                        Seattle, WA

Edward E. Geary                         Joan S. Girgus
Coordinator for Educational Programs    Director,
The Geological Society of America       Pew Science Program in Undergraduate
Boulder, CO                             Education
                                        Princeton, NJ

Elma Gonzalez                           John I. Goodlad
Professor of Biology                    Professor and Director, Center for
University of California, Los Angeles   Educational Renewal
Los Angeles, CA                         University of Washington
                                        Seattle, WA

William H. Graves                       Lawrence P. Grayson
Professor of Mathematics,               Executive Director
Associate Provost for Information       National Academy for Science, Space and
Technology                              Technology Scholarship Program
The University of North Carolina at     United States Department of Education
Chapel Hill                             Washington, DC
Chapel Hill, NC

Norman Hackerman                        Jerrier A. Haddad
President Emeritus                      President,
Rice University                         Accreditation Board for Engineering
Houston, TX                             and Technology
                                        Baltimore, MD

Gene E. Hall                            William C. Harris
Professor, College of Education         Assistant Director, Mathematical
University of Northern Colorado         and Physical Sciences
Greeley, CO                             National Science Foundation
                                        Arlington, VA

David M. Hata                           Robert M. Hazen
Chair, Microelectronics Technology      Carnegie Institution of Washington
Portland Community College              Geophysical Laboratory
Portland, OR                            Washington, DC

James G. Heideman                       Curtis J. Hieggelke
Department of Technology                Professor of Physics
California State University,            Joliet Junior College
Los Angeles                             Joliet, IL
Los Angeles, CA

Alice S. Huang                          Frank L. Huband
Dean for Science and Professor          Executive Director
New York University                     American Society for Engineering
New York, NY                            Education
                                        Washington, DC

Durward R. Huffman                      Frederick S. Humphries
President                               President
Northern Maine Technical College        Florida A&M University
Presque Isle, ME                        Tallahassee, FL

Jerry Johnson                           Karen L. Johnson
Chair, Department of Mathematics        President
University of Nevada Reno               American Association of Physics Teachers
Reno, NV                                College Park MD

John R. Jungck                          Jane Butler Kahle
Professor, Department of Biology        Condit Professor of Science Education
Beloit College                          The Ohio Mathematics/Science Project
Beloit, WI                              Oxford, OH

David Kaufman                           Penelope Kegel-Flom
Associate Dean, College of Engineering  President
The University of New Mexico            Association for Women in Science
Albuquerque, NM                         Washington, DC

Donald E. Kirk                          William E. Kirwan
Dean of Engineering                     President
San Jose State University               University of Maryland at College Park
San Jose, CA                            College Park, MD

George D. Klein                         Priscilla W. Laws
President                               Professor of Physics
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium   Dickinson College
Fort Hancock, NJ                        Carlisle, PA

Joan R. Leitzel                         Stephen R. Lewis, Jr.
Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic     President
Affairs                                 Carleton College
University of Nebraska Lincoln          Northfield, MN
Lincoln, NE

Ivo E. Lindauer                         Mary Lindquist
Professor of Botany                     Past President
University of Northern Colorado         National Council of Teachers of
Greeley CO                              Mathematics
                                        Columbus, GA

Jean MacGregor                          C. Peter Magrath
Interim Director                        President
Washington Center for Improving the     National Association of State
Quality of Undergraduate Education      Universities and Land-
Olympia, WA                             Grant Colleges
                                        Washington, DC

Ted Marchese                            Marilyn Mays
Vice President                          President
American Association of Higher          American Mathematical Association
Education                               of Two-Year Colleges
Washington, DC                          Memphis, TN

Eve L. Menger                           Stanley A. Mertzman
                                        Associate Dean of the College,
Painted Post, NY                        Dean of Research
                                        Franklin and Marshall College
                                        Lancaster, PA

Mary Beth Monroe                        C. Bradley Moore
Department of Physics                   Professor of Chemistry
Southwest Texas Junior College          University of California at Berkeley
Uvalde, TX                              Berkeley, CA

Calvin C. Moore                         Manual T. Pacheco
Department of Mathematics               President
University of California at Berkeley    The University of Arizona
Berkeley, CA                            Tucson, AZ

Robert E. Parilla                       Edward A. Parrish
President                               Centennial Professor and Dean
Montgomery College                      Vanderbuilt University
Rockville, MD                           Nashville, TN

C. Kumar N. Patel                       Ernest J. Peck
President                               Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
The American Physical Society           University of Nebraska at Omaha
College Park, MD                        Omaha, NE

Joseph G. Perpech                       Frederic K. Pfaender
Vice President, Grants and Special      Chairman, Board of Education and
Programs                                Training
Howard Hughes Medical Institute         American Society for Microbiology
Chevy Chase, MD                         Washington, DC

Winfred M. Phillips                     George D. Peterson
Dean, College of Engineering            Executive Director
University of Florida                   Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Gainesville, FL                         Technology, Inc.
                                        Baltimore, MD

David R. Pierce                         Jerry Pine
President                               Professor of Biophysics
American Association of Community       California Institute of Technology
Colleges                                Pasadena, CA
Washington, DC

Karl S. Pister                          Jack Price
Chancellor                              President
University of California, Santa Cruz    National Council of Teachers of
Santa Cruz, CA                          Mathematics
                                        Reston, VA

William A. Prothero, Jr.                Judith A. Ramaley
Department of Geological Sciences       President
University of California, Santa Barbara Portland State University
Santa Barbara, CA                       Portland, OR

William H. Rauckhorst                   Stephen Rodi
University Director for Scholarship
and Teaching
Miami University
Oxford, OH

Kenneth A. Ross                         James M. Rosser
President                               President
Mathematical Association of America     California State University, Los Angeles
Eugene, OR                              Los Angeles, CA

Brian M. Rushton                        David A. Sanchez
President                               Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
American Chemical Society               Texas A&M University
Washington, DC                          College Station, TX

A. Mickey Sarquis                       Robert B. Schwartz
Director, Center for Chemical Education Director, Education Program
Miami University                        The Pew Charitable Trusts
Middletown, OH                          Philadelphia, PA

Joyce A. Scott                          Mary Shaw
Vice President for Academic and         School of Computer Science
International Programs                  Carnegie Melon University
American Association of State           Pittsburgh, PA
Colleges and Universities
Washington, DC

Calvet H. Smith                         Edward A. Prather
Office of Systemic Reform               Assistant Dean
State of Ohio                           College of Engineering
Cincinnati, OH                          University of Cincinnati
                                        Cincinnati, OH

William F. Snyder                       Dorothy L. Stout
President                               Past President, National Association
Wytheville Community College            of Geology Teachers
Wytheville, VA                          Cypress College
                                        Cypress, CA

Bob Swenson                             Judith Tavel
Vice President for Research and         Department of Mathematics, Physical
Creative Activities                     and Computer Sciences
Montana State University                Dutchess Community College
Bozeman, MT                             Poughkeepsie, NY

John G. Truxal                          Alan Tucker
Distinguished Teaching Professor        Chair, Coordinating Council for
Emeritus                                Education
State University of New York at         The Mathematical Association of America
Stony Brook                             Stony Brook, NY
Stony Brook, NY

Stephen B. Tucker                       Gordon E. Uno
Program Manager, Higher Education       President, National Association of
Programs                                Biology Teachers
General Electric Fund                   The University of Oklahoma
Fairfield, CT                           Norman, OK

Christopher J. Van Wyk                  Kenneth L. Verosub
Department of Mathematics and           Professor of Geology
Computer Science                        University of California, Davis
Drew University                         Davis, CA
Madison, NJ

Nathaniel T. Wheelwright                Laurel L. Wilkening
Associate Professor of Biology          Chancellor
Bowdoin College                         University of California, Irvine
Brunswick, ME                           Irvine, CA

Paul H. Williams                        Karen Worth
Department of Biology                   Senior Associate
University of Wisconsin - Madison       Education Development Center, Inc.
Madison, WI                             Newton, MA

Wm. A. Wulf                             Richard N. Zare
AT&T Professor of Engineering           Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor
University of Virginia                  of Chemistry
Charlottesville, VA                     Stanford University
                                        Stanford, CA

Maria E. Zavala
California State University Northridge
Northridge, CA




                           Undergraduate Convocation
            Program Steering Committee for From Analysis to Action


            Undergraduate Convocation Program Steering Committee

Donald Kennedy                          Melvin D. George
Department of Biology                   President Emeritus
Stanford University                     St. Olaf College (MN)


                    Members, Board on Engineering Education

Karl S. Pister                          Denice D. Denton
Chancellor                              Professor of Engineering
University of California-Santa Cruz     University of Wisconsin-Madison


            Members, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education

C. Bradley Moore                        Sharon R. Long
Department of Chemistry	                Department of Biology
University of California - Berkeley     Stanford University


                Members, Mathematical Sciences Education Board

Hyman Bass                              Sylvia T. Bozeman
Department of Mathematics               Department of Mathematics
Columbia University                     Spelman College (GA)


                               Members-at-Large

Dudley R. Herschbach                    Gerald Holton

Harvard University                      Harvard University

Angelica Stacy                          Marilyn J. Suiter
Department of Chemistry
University of California - Berkeley     American Geological Institute


      Participants in From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in
               Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
                           The NRC/NSF Convocation

                              April 9-11, 1995


Abraham, Neal                           Apple, Martin A.
Professor of Physics                    Executive Director
Bryn Mawr College                       Council of Scientific Society Presidents
101 North Merion Avenue                 1155 16th Street, NW
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010                     Washington, DC 20036

Agogino, Alice                          Agrawal, Askok
Professor                               National Science Foundation
University of California                Division of Undergraduate Education
Department of Mechanical Engineering    4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
5136 Etcheverry Hall                    Arlington, VA 22230
Berkeley, CA 94720

Ahnert, Edward                          Alberts, Bruce
President                               Chairman
Exxon Education Foundation              National Research Council
225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway      2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Irving, TX 75062                        Washington, DC 20418

Atkiss, Anthony                         Baker, Gregory
Chairman                                Professor
Exxon Education Foundation              Ohio State University
225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway      Department of Mathematics
Irving, TX 75602                        231 W. 18th Avenue
                                        Columbus, OH 43210

Bass, Hyman                             Berriozabal, Manuel
Professor of Mathematics                Professor of Mathematics/Coordinator
Columbia University                     University of Texas at San Antonio
Department of Mathematics               Division of Math, Computer Science and
New York, NY 10027                      Statistics
                                        San Antonio, TX 78249-0661

Beltz, Barbara                          Boggs, George
Professor                               President
Wellesley College                       Palomar College
Wellesley, MA 02181                     11140 West Mission Road
                                        San Marcos, CA 92069-1487

Bordogna, Joseph                        Borland, Robert
Assistant Director for Engineering      University of Nebraska at Lincoln
National Science Foundation             Department of Mathematics & Statistics
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 505         Box 8800323
Arlington, VA 22230                     Lincoln, NE 68588-0323

Boutte, Kenneth                         Boylan, Myles
Xavier University                       National Science Foundation
P.O. Box 120C                           Division of Undergraduate Education
New Orleans, LA 70125                   4201 Wilson Boulevard
                                        Arlington, VA 22230

Bozeman, Sylvia                         Bragg, Sadie
Professor and Chairman, Department of   Acting Dean of Academic Affairs and
Mathematics                             Professor of Mathematics
Spelman College                         Borough of Manhattan Community College
350 Spelman Lane, Box 270               199 Chambers Street
Atlanta, GA 30314-4399                  New York, NY 10007


Brown, Malcolm                          Brownstein, Barbara
Director of Academic Computing          Professor
Dartmouth College                       Temple University
Kiewit Computing Center 6028            Department of Biology
Hanover, NH 03755                       Philadelphia, PA 19122

Brunkhorst, Bonnie                      Bruns, Peter
Professor of Geology and Science        Director, Division of Biological
Education                               Sciences
California State University             Comell University
Institute for Science Education         169 Biotechnology Building
5500 University Parkway                 Ithaca, NY 14853
San Bernardino, CA 92407

Bunce, Diane                            Burrill, Gail
The Catholic University of America      President-Elect, NCTM
Chemistry Department                    University of Wisconsin NCRMSE
Washington, DC 20064                    12155 West Luther Avenue
                                        Madison, WI 53706

Bybee, Rodger                           Campbell, George
Associate Director                      President
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study    National Action Council for Minorities
5415 Mark Dabling Boulevard             in Engineering
Colorado Springs, CO 80918-3842         3 West 35th Street
                                        New York, NY 10001

Cannon, Peter                           Capco, David
Managing Partner VRE                    Professor, Arizona State University and
4848 Colt Street, Suite 1               Program Director National Science
Ventura, CA 93004                       Foundation
                                        4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 605
                                        Arlington, VA 22230

Cappellari, Ann                         Carlson, William
Beloit College                          Professor and Chairman
Beloit, WI 53511                        University of Texas at Austin
                                        Department of Geological Sciences
                                        Austin, TX 78712

Carpenter, John                         Carr, Stephen
Director                                Associate Dean , Engineering
University of South Carolina Center     Northwestern University
for Science Education                   Robert R. McCormick School of
Columbia, SC 29208                      Engineering and Applied Science
                                        Evanston, IL 60208

Celeste, Richard                        Chamot, Dennis
Celeste & Sabety, Ltd.                  Assistant Executive Director
240 North 5th Street                    Commission on Engineering and
Columbus, OH 43215                      Technical Systems
                                        National Research Council
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA280
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Chang, Amy                              Chapman, Orville
Director, Education and Training        Professor
American Society for Microbiology       University of California
Office of Education and Training        Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW           405 Hilgard Avenue
Washington, DC 20020                    Los Angeles, CA 90095-1569


Chapman, Sally                          Clark, Robert
Professor of Chemistry                  Professor of Physics and
Barnard College                         Associate Dean of College of Science
3009 Broadway                           Texas A&M University
New York, NY 10027-6598                 College Station, TX 77843-4242

Conroy, Brian                           Crosby, Glenn
The Catholic University of America      Professor of Chemistry and Materials
Chemistry Department                    Science
Washington, DC 20064                    Washington State University
                                        Pullman, WA 99164-4630

Crowley, Kevin                          Daie, Jaleh
Senior Program Officer                  Senior Science Advisor and Professor
National Research Council Board on      Office of the Senior Vice President for
Earth Sciences                          Academic Affairs
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 372    University of Wisconsin
Washington, DC 20418                    329 Birge Hall
                                        Madison, WI 53706-1559

Dalrymple, Brent                        Deloatch, Eugene
Dean and Professor                      Dean, School of Engineering
Oregon State University                 Morgan State University
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric      Baltimore, MD 21239
Sciences
Oceanography Administration
Building 104
Corvalis, OR 97331 -5503

Denton, Denice                          Dickison, Alexander
Associate Professor                     Professor of Physics and Chair
University of Wisconsin at Madison      Seminole Community College
Department of Electrical and Computer   100 Weldon Boulevard
Engineering                             Sanford, FL 32773-6199
Madison, WI 53706-1691

Donaldson, James                        Douglas, Ronald
Professor, Department of Mathematics    Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Howard University                       and Professor of Mathematics
2441 6th Street, NW                     State University of New York at Stony
Washington, DC 20071                    Brook
                                        E3350 Main Library
                                        Stony Brook, NY 11794

Dowell, David                           Downing, Shenyata
Princeton University                    Xavier University
Department of Physics                   P.O. Box 120C
P.O. Box 708, Washington Road           New Orleans, LA 70125
Princeton, NJ 08544

Doyle, Michael                          Duffey, Mary
Dr. D.R. Semmes Distinguished           OWeefe Duffy
Professor of Chemistry                  350 Fifth Avenue
Trinity University                      New York, NY 10118
San Antonio, TX 78212

Duvall, Betty                           Eckstrand, Irene
Community College Liaison               Acting Director
U.S. Department of Education            National Institutes of Health
600 Independence Avenue, SW             Office of Science Education
Washington, DC 20202                    6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5H01
                                        Rockville, MD 20892

Edgerton, Russell                       Edgington, Samantha
President                               Princeton University
American Association for Higher         Department of Physics
Education                               P.O. Box 708, Washington Road
One DuPont Circle, Suite 360            Princeton, NJ 08544
Washington, DC 20036

Erdman, Carl                            Ernst, Edward
Director of Academic Development and    Allied Signal Professor of Engineering
Foundation Coalition                    University of South Carolina
Texas A&M University                    College of Engineering
Division of Educational Programs        Swearingen Engineering Center
Research                                Columbia, SC 29208
2037 WERC College Station
TX 77843-3126

Falconer, Etta                          Feldberg, Melissa
Associate Provost for Science Programs  Wesleyan University
and Policy                              Department of Earth and Environmental
Spelman College Box 1005                Sciences
350 Spelman Lane Atlanta, GA 30314      265 Church Street
                                        Middleton CT 06459

Ferguson, Pamela                        Ferguson, Veronique
President                               Bronx Community College
Grinnell College                        University Avenue/West 181st Street
P.O. Box 805                            231 Colston Hall
Grinnell, IA 50112                      Bronx, NY 10453

Florman, Samuel                         Forman, Susan
Vice President                          Director of College & University
Kreisler Borg Florman Construction      Programs
Company                                 Mathematical Sciences Education Board
97 Montgomery Street                    National Research Council
Scarsdale, NY 10583                     2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 476
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Fortenberry, Norman                     Foster, Anthony
National Science Foundation             Bronx Community College
Division of Undergraduate Education     University Avenue/West 181stStreet
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         231 Colston Hall
Arlington, VA 22230                     Bronx, NY 10453

Friedel, Janice Nahra                   Fromm, Eli
President                               Vice Provost for Research and
Lexington Community College             Graduate Studies
209 Oswald Building, Cooper Drive       32nd and Chesnut Streets
Lexington, KY 40506-0235                Philadelphia, PA 19104

Froyd, Jeffrey                          Fuchs, Bruce
Professor of Electrical and Computer    National Institutes of Health
Engineering                             Office of Education
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology     6121 Executive Boulevard, Suite 450
Department of Electrical and Computer   Rockville. MD 20854
Engineering
5500 Wabash Avenue
Terre Haute, IN 47803

Gabriel, Clifford                       Gangolli, Ramesh
Executive Director                      Professor of Mathematics
American Institute of Biological        University of Washington
Sciences                                Department of Mathematics GN-50
730 11th Street, NW                     Seattle, WA 98195
Washington, DC 20001-4521

Geary, Edward                           Gentile, James
Coordinator for Education Programs      Dean for the Natural Sciences
Geological Society of America           Hope College
3300 Penrose Place                      Holland, MI 49423
Boulder, CO 80301-9140

George, Melvin                          Gerardi, Donna
Vice President for Institutional        Director
Relations                               National Research Council
University of Minnesota                 Coordinating Council for Education
432 Morrill Hall, 100 Church Street     2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450
Minneapolis, MN 55455                   Washington, DC 20418

Girgus, Joan                            Glass, Sandra
Director, Pew Charitable Trusts         Program Vice President
Pew Science Program in Undergraduate    W.M. Keck Foundation
Education                               555 South Flower Street, Suite 3230
Princeton University, Green Hall        Los Angeles, CA 90071
Princeton, NJ 08544

Goldberg, David                         Gonzalez, Mario
Professor                               Associate Vice Chancellor
University of Illinois at Urbana        University of Texas System
Champaign                               601 Colorado Street
Department of General Engineering       Austin, TX 78701-2982
104 South Matthews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801

Goroff, Daniel                          Greenhouse, Cheryl
Professor, Department of Mathematics    Media Relations Associate
Harvard University                      National Research Council
Carnbridge, MA 02138-2901               Office of News and Public Information
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Greenwood, MRC                          Groat, Charles
Associate Director for Science          Executive Director
Office of Science and Technology        Louisiana State University
Policy                                  Center for Coastal, Energy,
Executive Office of the President       and Environmental Resources
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW        Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Washington, DC 20500

Hackerman, Norrnan                      Haddad, Jerrier
Chairman, Scientific Advisory Board     President
The Welch Foundation                    Accreditation Board for Engineering
4605 Post Oak Place, Suite 200          and Technology
Houston, TX 77027                       162 Macy Road
                                        Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

Harrison, David                         Hata, David
Director, Advanced Integrated           Department Head
Manufacturing Center                    Portland Community College/Intel
Sinclair Community College              Corporation
444 West Third Street                   Micoelectronics Technology
Dayton, OH 45402-1460                   1705 SE 29th Avenue
                                        Portland, OR 97214

Hatcher, Robert                         Hawkins, William
Distinguished Scientist and Professor   Director, SUMMA
University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge       Mathematical Association of America
National Laboratory                     1529 18th Street, NW
Department of Geological                Washington, DC 20036
301 G and G Building
Knoxville, TN 37996-1410

Haynes, John                            Hazen, Robert
Professor of Biology                    Professor
Morehouse College                       George Mason University
Department of Biology                   5251 Broad Branch Road, NW
830 Westview Drive, SE                  Washington, DC 20015
Atlanta, GA30314

Herschbach, Dudley                      Hill, Constance
Baird Professor of Science              Environmental Protection Specialist
Harvard University Department of        Federal Highway Administration
Chemistry                               Environmental Quality Branch
12 Oxford Street                        400 7th Street, SW
Cambridge, MA 02138                     HEP-42 Room 3240
                                        Washington, DC 20590

Hill, Wendell                           Hixson, Susan H.
University of Maryland                  National Science Foundation
Institute for Physical                  Division of Undergraduate Education
Science & Technology                    4201 Wilson Boulevard
College Park, MD 20742                  Arlington, VA 22230

Hodge, Daniel                           Holton, Gerald
National Science Foundation             Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and
Division of Undergraduate Education     History of Science
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Harvard University, Department of
Arlington, VA 22230                     Physics
                                        358 Jefferson Physical Laboratory
                                        Cambridge, MA 02138

Hoopes, Laura                           Horn, Christine
Vice President and Dean of the College  The Catholic University of America
Pomona College                          Chemistry Department
Claremont, CA 91711                     Washington, DC 20064

Houston, Johnny                         Howell, Kathleen
Professor, Math and Computer Science    Professor of Aeronautics and
Elizabeth City State University         Astronautics
Elizabeth City, NC 27909                Purdue University
                                        West Lafayette, IN 47907

Huang, Alice                            Hughes Hallett, Deborah
Dean for Science                        Professor of Mathematics
New York University                     Harvard University
6 Washington Square North               Cambridge, MA 02138
New York, NY 10003

Hunt, William                           Hutchings, Patricia
Professor of Electrical Engineering     Director, Teaching Initiative
Georgia Institute of Technology         American Association of Higher Education
School of Electrical and Computer       One DuPont Circle, Suite 360
Engineering                             Washington, DC 20036
Atlanta, GA 30332-0250

Jaco, William                           Jarmul, David
Executive Director                      Director of Communications
American Mathematical Society           Howard Hughes Medical Institute
P.O. Box 6248                           4000 Jones Bridge Road
Providence, RI 02904-2213               Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Johann, Eileen Delgado                  Johnson, Raymond
Miami-Dade Community                    Professor and Chair, Department
College at Kendall                      of Mathematics
11011 SW 104th Street                   University of Maryland
Miami. FL 33176                         College Park, MD 20742-0001

Jones, Therese                          Joyner, Jacquelyn Scotton
Chairman, Division of Sciences and      Mathematics Instructional Specialist
Engineering                             Richmond Public Schools
Amarillo College                        Department of Instruction
P.O. Box 447                            301 North 9th Street, 12th Floor
Amarillo, TX 79178-0001                 Richmond, VA 23219

Jungck, John                            Justus, Joyce
Professor, Department of Biology        Office of Science Technology Policy
Beloit College                          Room 432, Old Executive Office Building
700 College Street                      17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Beloit, WI S3511                        Washington, DC 20500

Kahle, Jane                             Kennedy, Donald
Condit Professor of Science Education   Bing Professor of Environmental Studies
Miami University                        Stanford University
418 McGuffey Hall                       Encina Hall 200
Oxford, OH 45056                        Stanford, CA 94305-6005

Kennedy, Ian                            Keynes, Harvey
Professor and Vice Chairman             Professor of Mathematics
University of California                University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical and            127 Vincent Hall
Aeronautical Engineering                Minneapolis, MN 55455
Davis, CA 95616

Khoury, Bernard                         Kincaid, W. Brad
Executive Director                      Mesa Community College
American Association of Physics         Department of Life Science
Teachers                                1833 West Southern Avenue
One Physics Ellipse                     Mesa, AZ 85202
College Park, MD 20740

Klausner, Richard                       Korshin, Caryn
National Institutes of Health           Program Officer
National Institute of Child Health and  Exxon Education Foundation
Human Development                       225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway
Building 18T, Room 101                  Irving, TX 75062-2298
Bethesda, MD 20892

Kowalski, Frank                         Kraus, Pamela
Professor of Physics                    University of Washington
Colorado School of Mines                Department of Physics
Golden, CO 80401                        Physics FM-15
                                        Seattle, WA 9819

Krylova, Irina                          Kulacki, Francis
The Catholic University of America      Dean, Institute of Technology
Chemistry Department                    University of Minnesota
Washinato4 DC 20064                     105 Walter Library
                                        117 Pleasant Street, SE
                                        Minneapolis, MN 55455

Labov, Jay                              Lacampagne, Carole
Study Director, Committee on            Senior Research Associate in Mathematics
Undergraduate Science Education         U.S. Department of Education
National Research Council               Institute for Student Achievement,
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW            Curriculum, and Assessment
Washington DC 20418                     555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
                                        Washington DC 20208-5649

Lane, Neal                              Lappan, Glenda
Director                                Professor, Department of Mathematics
National Science Foundation             Michigan State University
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   101 Wills House
Arlington VA 22230                      East Lansing, MI 48824

Laws, Priscilla                         Lee, Peter
Professor of Physics                    Dean, College of Engineering
Dickinson College                       California Polytechnic State University
P.O. Box 1773                           Grand Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013                      San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Leitzel, James                          Leitzel, Joan
Associate Professor of Mathematics      Senior Vice Chancellor
University of Nebraska at Lincoln       University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Department of Mathematics & Statistics  Academic Affairs
Box 8800323                             202 Canfield Administration Building
Lincoln, NE 68588-0323                  Lincoln, NE 68588-0420

Lester, William                         Levitan, Herbert
Senior Fellow for Science &             Section Head, EHR/DUE
Engineering                             National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation             4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Arlington, VA 22230
Arlington, VA 22230

Lawrence, Bettye                        Lewis, Donald
National Science Foundation             Professor of Mathematics
Division of Undergraduate Education     University of Michigan
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Angell Hall
Arlington, VA 22230                     Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003

Lewis, Margaret                         Lichter, Robert
Director of Applied Technology and      Executive Director
Vocational Education                    The Camille and Henry Dreyfus
School Board of Brevard County          Foundation, Inc.
Department of Curriculum Services       555 Madison Avenue, Suite 1305
2700 Street Johns Street                New York, NY 10022-3301
Viera, FL 32940

Lightbourne, James                      Lindquist, Mary
Program Director                        Callaway Professor of Mathematics
National Science Foundation             Education
Division of Undergraduate Education     Columbus College
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Curriculum Instruction
Arlington, VA 22230                     Columbus, GA 31901

Lisensky, George C.                     Lohmann, Jack
Professor of Chemistry                  Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Beloit College                          Georgia Institute of Technology
Beloit,WI53511                          College of Engineering
                                        Room 302 Administration Building
                                        Atlanta, GA 30332-0360

Long, Sharon                            Madison, Bernard
Professor of Biology                    Dean, Fulbright College of Arts
Stanford University                     and Sciences
216 Gilbert Laboratories                Fullbright College, Main 525
Stanford, CA 94305-5020                 Fayetteville, AR 72701-3025

Mahlab, Minna                           Mahood, Gail
Research Assistant                      Professor of Geological and
National Research Council Committee on  Environmental Sciences
Undergraduate                           Stanford University, MC 2115
Science Education                       Stanford, CA 94305-2115
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418

Malcom, Shirley                         Marshall, Diane
Head, American Association for the      Associate Professor of Biology
Advancement of Science                  University of New Mexico
Directorate for Education and Human     Department of Biology
Resources                               Albuquerque, NM 87131
1333 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Mateja, John                            Matthews, Pamela
Deputy Program Manager                  Associate Dean of Mathematics
U.S. Department of Energy               Mt. Hood Community College
Office of Science Education Programs    26000 SE Stark Street
1000 Independence Avenue, SW            Gresham, OR 97030
Washington, DC 20585

Mays, Marilyn                           Mazur, Eric
President, AMATYC and Professor of      Professor of Physics
Mathematics and Computer Science        Harvard University
North Lake College                      Department of Applied Sciences
5001 MacArthur Boulevard                29 Oxford Street
Irving, TX 75038-3899                   Cambridge, MA 02138

McBride, Duncan                         McDermott, Lillian
Section Head, EHR/DUE                   Professor of Physics
National Science Foundation             University of Washington, Physics
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   FM- 15
Arlington, VA 22230                     Seattle, WA 98195

McKenney, James                         McWethy, Patricia
Director, Economic Development          Executive Director
American Association of Community       National Science Education Leadership
Colleges                                Association
One DuPont Circle, Suite 410            P.O. Box 5556
Washington, DC 20036                    Arlington, VA 22205

Merritts, Dorothy                       Mertzman, Stanley
Associate Professor, Department of      Professor of Geosciences
Geosciences                             Franklin and Marshall College
Franklin and Marshall College           P.O. Box 3003
Lancaster, PA 17604-3003                Lancaster, PA 17604-3003

Metzger, Norman                         Miller, Catherine
Executive Director                      32nd and Chestnut Streets
Commission on Physical Sciences,        Philadelphia, PA 19104
Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418

Minster, Jean-Bernard                   Mohrig, Jerry
Professor of Geophysics and             Professor of Chemistry
Director, System-wide Institute of      Carleton College
Geophysics and Planetary Physics        Department of Chemistry
University of California at San Diego   Northfield, MN 55057
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093-0225

Molter, Lynne                           Monroe, Mary Beth
Associate Professor of Engineering      Physics Instructor
Swarthmore College                      Southwest Texas Junior College
Department of Engineering               2401 Garner Field Road
500 College Avenue                      Uvalde, TX 78801-6297
Swarthmore, PA 19081

Moore, C. Bradley                       Moore, John A.
Professor of Chemistry                  Professor Emeritus of Biology
University of California at Berkeley    University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1460                 Department of Biology
                                        900 University Avenue
                                        Riverside, CA 92521

Moore, Lawrence                         Moore, Penny
Duke University                         Piedmont High School
Department of Mathematics               800 Magnolia
P.O. Box 90320                          Piedmont, CA 94611
Durham, NC 27708-0251

Morawetz, Cathleen                      Moye, Alfred
Professor Emeritus                      University Relations Manager
CIMS--New York University               Hewlett-Packard Company
251 Mercer Street                       1501 Page Mill Road, MS 3L7
New York, NY 10012-110                  Palo Alto, CA 94304

Nally, Terry                            Neale, Bridget
American Chemical Society               Harvard University
Educational Division                    Department of Mathematics
1155 - 16th Street, NW                  Cambridge, MA 02138
Washington, DC 20020

Narum, Jeanne                           Nocera, Daniel
Director, Independent Colleges Office   Professor of Chemistry
Project Kaleidoscope                    Michigan State University
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, Suite 1205    Department of Chemistry
Washington, DC 20036                    East Lansing, MI 48824

O'Brien, Ruth                           O'Connell, Suzanne
Staff Associate                         Assistant Professor
Commission on Physical Sciences,        Wesleyan University
Mathematics, and Applications           Department of Earth and Environmental
National Research Council               Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW            265 Church Street
Washington, DC 20418                    Middleton, CT 06459

Offenbacher, Jeanette                   O'Keefe, John
Senior Project Assistant                OKeefe Duffy
National Research Council               350 Fifth Avenue
Coordinating Council for Education      New York, NY 10118
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450
Washington, DC 20418

Oliver, Michael                         Olson, Steve
Inverness Research Associates           7608 Sebago Road
5545 Trinhardt Drive                    Bethesda, MD 20817
Fairway, KS 66205

Osheroff, Douglas                       Oyewole, Saundra Herndon
Chairman and Professor of Physics       National Science Foundation
Stanford University                     Division of Undergraduate Education
Varian Physics, Room 108                4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Stanford, CA 94305-4060                 Arlington, VA 22230

Parilla, Robert                         Patmore, Stacey
President                               Senior Project Assistant
Montgomery College                      National Research Council
900 Hungerford Drive                    Committee on Undergraduate Science
Rockville, MD 20850                     Education
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Perpich, Joseph                         Perry, Robert
Vice President, Grants and Special      Associate Professor of Physics
Programs                                Ohio State University
Howard Hughes Medical Institute         174 West 18th Avenue
4000 Jones Bridge Road                  Columbus, OH 43210
Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Phillips, Monte                         Pierce, David
Professor of Civil Engineering          President
University of North Dakota              American Association of Community
Box 8115                                Colleges
Grand Forks, ND 58202-8115              One DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 410
                                        Washington, DC 20036

Pine, Stanley                           Pings, Cornelius
Professor of Chemistry                  President
California State University             Association of American Universities
Los Angeles, CA 90032                   One DuPont Circle, Suite 730
                                        Washington, DC 20036

Pister, Karl                            Pollack, Kerstin
Chancellor                              Acting Director
University of California at Santa Cruz  National Research Council
296 McHenry Library                     Board on Engineering Education
Santa Cruz, CA 95064                    2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Pollard, Beth                           Poodry, Clifton
National Research Council               Director, National Institutes of Health
Coordinating Council for Education      Minority Opportunities Research Division
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450    45 Center Drive, Suite 2AS.37
Washington, DC 20418                    Bethesda, MD 20892-6200

Prados, John                            Prakash, Ravi
Senior Education Associate              Embassy of India
National Science Foundation             Science Counselor
Engineering Education and Centers       2536 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Division                                Washington, DC 20008
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 585
Arlington, VA 22230

Prelas, Mark                            Quinn, Helen
Professor of Nuclear Engineering        Senior Staff Specialist
University of Missouri                  Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Columbia, MO 65211                      Theoretical Physics, Education and
                                        Public Outreach
                                        P.O. Box 4349
                                        Stanford, CA 94309

Ramirez, Martin                         Rasaq, Ramon
Greenfield Academic Director            Bronx Community College
UDM Engineering and Science             University Avenue/West 181st Street
4001 W. McNichols Road                  231 Colston Hall
P.O. Box 19900                          Bronx, NY 10453
Detroit, MI 48219

Ray, Janet                              Razzaghi, Amir
Seattle Central Community College       Princeton University
Mathematics Department, BE 5104         Department of Physics
1701 Broadway                           P.O. Box 708, Washington Road
Seattle, WA 98122                       Princeton, NJ 08544

Reynolds, Ann                           Rhoades, Sandra
Chancellor                              Smith College
City University of New York             Department of Mathematics
535 East 80th Street, Room M700         Northampton,, MA 01063-001
New York, NY 10021

Richtol, Herbert M.                     Ridgway, Kenneth
Program Director                        Purdue University
National Science Foundation             Department of Earth and Atmospheric
Division of Undergraduate Education     Sciences
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         1397 CIVIL Building
Arlington, VA 22230                     West Lafayette, IN 47907-1397

Ridky, Robert                           Rigden, John
Professor of Geology                    Director of Physics Programs
University of Maryland                  American Institute of Physics
College Park, MD 20742                  One Physics Ellipse
                                        College Park, MD 20740

Roden, Christie                         Rodi, Stephen
University of Wisconsin at Madison      Division Chair
Department of Plant Pathology           Austin Community College, Rio Grande
1630 Linden Drive                       Mathematics and Physical Sciences
Madison. WI 53706                       1212 Rio Grande Street
                                        Austin, TX 78701-1785

Romig, Phillip                          Roohk, Bonita
Professor and Head of Department        Golden West College
Colorado School of Mines                Department of Biological Sciences
Department of Geophysics                15744 Golden West Road
Golden, CO 80401                        Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Rosa, Victoria                          Rosamilia, Armand
The Catholic University of America      The Catholic University of America
Chemistry Department                    Chemistry Department
Washington, DC 20064                    Washington, DC 20064

Rosser, James                           Roy, Swati Dutta
President                               Princeton University
California State University at          Department of Physics
Los Angeles                             P.O. Box 708, Washington Road
5151 State University Drive             Princeton NJ 08544
Los Angeles, CA 90032

Sampson, Kirsten A.                     Sarquis, Arlyne
Program Officer                         Director, Center for Chemical Education
National Research Council               Miami University
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450    4200 East University Boulevard
Washington, DC 20418                    Middletown, OH 45042

Sawrey, Barbara                         Schneiderman, Jill
Vice Chair                              U.S. Senate Office of Senator
University of California at San Diego   Tom Daschle
Department of Chemistry and             Hart Senate Office Building, Room 509
Biochemistry                            Washington, DC 20510
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0303

Schneider, Carol                        Schowengerdt, Frank
Executive Vice President                Vice President for Academic Affairs
Association of American Colleges        and Dean of Faculty
and Universities                        Colorado School of Mines
1818 R Street, NW                       Golden, CO 80401
Washington, DC 20009

Schuster, Gary                          Sechrist, Chalmers F.
Dean, College of Science                National Science Foundation
Georgia Tech                            Division of Undergraduate Education
Atlanta, GA 30332-0400                  4201 Wilson Boulevard
                                        Arlington, VA 22230

Shearer, Clement                        Shiflett, Ray C.
Dean for Budget and Planning and        Executive Director
Professor of Geology                    California Polytechnic University
Carleton College                        at Pomona
One North College Street                Office of External Relations
Northfield, MN 55057                    3801 West Temple
                                        Pomona, CA 91768

Simpson, Patricia                       Sjoerdsma, Ted
Associate Professor, Science Education  National Science Foundation
and Biology                             Division of Undergraduate Education
St. Cloud State University              4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
720 4th Avenue South                    Arlington, VA 22230
St. Cloud, MN 56301

Snow, John                              Spencer, James
Dean, College of Geosciences            Atlantic Philanthropic Service Company
University of Oklahoma                  120 East Buffalo Street
Sarkeys Energy Center                   Ithaca, NY 14850
100 East Boyd, Suite 710
Norman, OK 73019-0628

Squitieri, Louise                       Stacy, Angelica
Professor of Biology                    Professor, College of Chemistry
Bronx Community College                 University of California at Berkeley
University Avenue/West 181st Street     Berkeley, CA 94720
231 Colston Hall
Bronx, NY 10453

Stakgold, Ivar                          Steen, Lynn
Director, American Mathematical         Executive Director
Society                                 Mathematical Sciences Education Board
Washington Office                       2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 476
1527 Eighteenth Street, NW              Washington, DC 20418
Washington, DC 20036

Stellar, Diana                          Stewart, Barbara
Hartnell College                        Associate Professor of Biology
798 Pine Street, #2                     Swarthmore College
Monterey, CA 93940                      Department of Biology
                                        Swarthmore, PA 19081

Stewart, Joanne                         Stith, James
Associate Professor of Chemistry        Professor of Physics
Hope College                            Ohio State University
65 Eustis Street, # 1                   Department of Physics
Cambridge, MA 02140                     174 West 18th Avenue
                                        Columbus, OH 43210- 1106

Stoddart, Trish                         Stone, David
Associate Professor                     Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of California at Santa Cruz  and Computer Science
Department of Education                 Georgia Southern University
211 Crown College                       Landrum Box 8093
Santa Cruz, CA 95064                    Statesboro, GA 30460-8093

Stout, Dorothy                          Straley, Tina
Professor of Geosciences                National Science Foundation
Cypress College                         Division of Undergraduate Education
Physical Sciences Department            4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
9200 Valley View Street                 Arlington, VA 22230
Cypress, CA 90630

Straumanis, Joan                        Strobel, Kevin
Program Officer                         University of Minnesota at Minneapolis
U.S. Department of Education            Mathematics Department
Fund for the Improvement of Post        206 Church Street, SE
Secondary Education                     Minneapolis, MN 55455
7th & D Streets, SW, ROB-3, Room 3100
Washington, DC 20202-5175

Suiter, Marilyn                         Suplee, Curt
Director, Education and Human Resources The Washington Post
American Geological Institute           1150 15th Street, NW
4220 King Street                        Washington, DC 20071
Alexandria, VA 22302-1507

Swann, Marie Johnson                    Sward, Marcia
Bronx Community College                 Executive Director
University Avenue/West 181st Street     Mathematical Association of America
231 Colston Hall                        1529 Eighteenth Street, NW
Bronx, NY 10453                         Washington, DC 20036-1385

Taylor, Jean                            Teague, Daniel
Professor, Department of Mathematics    Instructor of Mathematics
Rutgers University                      North Carolina School of Science and
Hill Center, Busch Campus               Mathematics
Piscataway, NJ 08855                    1219 Broad Street
                                        Durham, NC 27705

Teles, Elizabeth                        Thompson, Joe
National Science Foundation             Director, NSF Engineering Research
Division of Undergraduate Education     Center for Computational Field
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Simulation
Arlington, VA 22230                     Mississippi State University
                                        P.O. Drawer 6176
                                        Mississippi State, MS 39762

Thompson, Jr., Albert                   Tobias, Sheila
Chair and Professor of Chemistry        Research Corporation
Spelman College                         724 North Campbell Avenue
Box 281                                 Tucson, AZ 85719
Atlanta, GA 303144399

Trefil, James                           Tucker, Alan
Clarence J. Robinson Professor of       Distinguished Teaching Professor
Physics                                 State University of New York
George Mason University                 Department of Applied Mathematics
Department of Physics                   and Statistics
207 East Building                       Stony Brook, NY 11794-3600
Fairfax, VA 22030

Turro, Nicholas                         Udomprasert, Patricia
Professor of Chemistry                  Princeton University
Columbia University                     Department of Physics
Box 610, Havemeyer Hall                 P.O. Box 708, Washington Road
New York, NY 10027                      Princeton, NJ 08544

Verosub, Kenneth                        Waintraub, Jack
Professor, Department of Geology        Department Chair and Professor
University of California at Davis       Middlesex County College
Davis, CA 95616                         Department of Physics/Electrical
                                        Engineering Technology
                                        Edison, NJ 08818-3050

Walker, Graham                          Ward, Samuel
Professor of Biology                    University of Arizona Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology   of Life Sciences
Department of Biology, 68-633           MCB South 444, Park & Lowell
Cambridge, MA 02139                     Tuscon, AZ 85721

Warner, Frank                           Watson, Robert
Associate Dean and Professor of         Director, National Science Foundation
Mathematics                             Division of Undergraduate Education
University of Pennsylvania              4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Schools of Arts and Sciences            Arlington, VA 22230
116 College Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6377

West, Russell                           Wettack, F. Sheldon
The Catholic University of America      Vice President and Dean of the Faculty
Chemistry Department                    Harvey Mudd College
Washington, DC 20064                    301 East 12th Street
                                        Claremont, CA 91711

Wigdor, Alexandra K.                    Wilkinson, David
Director, Commission on Behavioral      Professor of Physics
and Social Sciences and Education       Princeton University
Division on Education, Labor and Human  P.O. Box 708, Washington Road
Performance                             Princeton, NJ 08544
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 178
Washington, DC 20418

Williams, Antoine                       Williams, Luther
The Catholic University of America      Assistant Director,
Chemistry Department                    National Science Foundation
Washington, DC 20064                    Directorate for Education
                                        and Human Resources
                                        4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 805
                                        Arlington, VA 22230

Williams, Paul                          Williams, Richard
Professor, Department of Plant          Dean, College of Engineering
Pathology                               California State University at
University of Wisconsin at Madison      Long Beach
1630 Linden Drive                       1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Madison, WI 53706                       Long Beach, CA 9084

Williams, Theodore                      Wilson, Jack
Professor, Department of Chemistry      Dean, Undergraduate and Continuing
College of Wooster                      Education
943 College Avenue                      Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Wooster, OH 44691                       C11 Room 4011
                                        Troy, NY 12180

Witte, Robert                           Wong, Tamae
Senior Program Officer                  Senior Program Officer
Exxon Education Foundation              Commission on Physical Sciences,
225 E. John W. Carpenter Freeway        Mathematics, and Applications
Irving, TX 75062-2298                   National Research Council
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                        Washington, DC 20418

Woodin, Terry                           Wood, Sally
National Science Foundation             Professor, Department of Electrical
Division of Undergraduate Education     Engineering
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Santa Clara University
Arlington, VA 22230                     Santa Clara, CA 95053

Woolsey, Suzanne H.                     Wubbels, Gene
Chief Operations Officer                National Science Foundation
National Research Council               Division of Undergraduate Education
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW            4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
NAS 206                                 Arlington, VA 22230
Washington, DC 20418

Wyche, James                            Zare, Richard
Associate Provost                       Professor of Chemistry
Brown University                        Stanford University
Campus Box 1963                         Stanford, CA 94305
Providence, RI 02912

Zdravkovich, Vera
Dean of Science, Mathematics and
Health Technology
Prince George's Community College
301 Largo Road
Largo, MD 20772



                          The EHR Advisory Committee


                            CHAIR: James M. Rosser

                          VICE-CHAIR:  Kerry Davidson


Susan Agruso                            Edward W. Bales
Director, Authentic Assessment          Director of Education, External Systems
State Department of Education           Motorola Corporate Offices
Columbia, SC                            Schaumberg, IL

Joan Barber                             George Boggs
Director for Student Life               President
North Carolina School                   Palomar College
of Science and Mathematics              San Marcos, CA
Durham, NC

Sadie Bragg                             Diane J. Briars
Acting Dean of Academic Affairs         Mathematics Specialist
City University of New York             Office of Educational Design
Borough of Manhattan                    and Assessment,
Community College                       Pittsburgh Public Schools
New York, NY                            Pittsburgh, PA

Kerry Davidson                          Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.
Deputy Commissioner,                    Vice Chancellor
Academic Affairs and Research           for Educational Development,
Louisiana Board of Regents              Maricopa Community Colleges
Baton Rouge, LA                         Tempe, AZ

Denice D. Denton                        Charlotte K. Frank
Professor,                              Vice President,
Electrical and Computer Engineering,    Research and Development
University of Wisconsin, Madison        The McGraw-Hill Companies
Madison, WI                             New York, NY

Alan J. Friedman                        Melvin D. George
Director                                President Emeritus
New York Hall of Science                St. Olaf College
Flushing Meadows Corona Park, NY        Northfield, MN

Peter Gerber                            N. Gerry House
MacArthur Foundation                    Superintendent
Chicago, IL                             Memphis Public Schools
                                        Memphis, TN

Jane Butler Kahle                       Charlotte Keith
Condit Professor                        Indian Trail High School
of Science Education                    Olathe, KS
Miami University
Oxford, OH

Mary M. Lindquist                       Stanley S. Litow
School of Education                     Director, Corporate Support Programs
Columbus College                        International Business Machines
Columbus, GA                            Corporation
                                        Armonk, NY

Jack R. Lohmann                         Charles Merideth
Associate Dean,                         President
College of Engineering                  New York City Technical College
Georgia Institute of Technology         Brooklyn,  NY
Atlanta, GA

Robert E. Parilla                       Diana Garcia Prichard
President,                              Photoscience Research Division
Montgomery College                      Eastman Kodak Company
Rockville, MD                           Rochester, NY

James M. Rosser                         David A. Sanchez
President                               Department of Mathematics
California State University             Texas A&M University
Los Angeles                             College Station, TX
Los Angeles, CA

Maria Santos                            Robert Schwartz
Supervisor,                             The Pew Charitable Trusts
Math and Science Department             Philadelphia, PA
San Francisco Unified School District
San Francisco, CA

Calvert H. Smith                        Gwendolyn W. Stephenson
Office of Systemic Reform               Chancellor
State of Ohio                           St. Louis Community College System
Cincinnati, OH                          St. Louis, MO

Uri Treisman                            Leon Ukens
Department of Mathematics               Department of Physics
University of Texas at Austin           Towson State University
Austin, TX                              Towson, MD

Donna L. York
Science Curriculum Coordinator
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, AK


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


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


Sadie Bragg                             Mary M. Lindquist
Acting Dean of Academic Affairs,        School of Education
City University of New York             Columbus College
Borough of Manhattan Community          Columbus, GA
College (NY)


Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.           James M. Rosser
Vice Chancellor for Educational         President
Development                             California State University, Los Angeles
Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ)


Denice D. Denton                        David A. Sanchez
Professor of Electrical and Computer    Department of Mathematics
Engineering                             Texas A&M University
University of Wisconsin - Madison

Peter Gerber
The MacArthur Foundation
Chicago, IL


                                Carolyn Meyers
                             Dean of Engineering,
                      North Carolina A&T State University
                          Consultant to the Committee




             NRC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
               Education Committee on Undergraduate Education


                               C. Bradley Moore*
                            Department of Chemistry
                    University of California at Berkeley
                                     Chair


Isaac D. Abella                         Neal B. Abraham
University of Chicago                   Bryn Mawr College (PA)

George Boggs                            Denice Denton
Superintendent/President                Professor of Engineering
Palomar College (CA)                    University of Wisconsin - Madison

Michael P. Doyle                        Marye Anne Fox*
Trinity University                      Vice President for Research
                                        University of Texas - Austin

Dorothy Gabel                           Ramesh Gangolli
Indiana University                      University of Washington

Frederick T. Graybeal                   Norman Hackerman*
ASARCO Incorporated                     The Robert A. Welch Foundation


John K. Haynes                          Eileen Delgado Johann
Morehouse College (GA)                  Miami-Dade Community College

William E. Kirwan                       Paul J. Kuerbis
President University of Maryland        The Colorado College

Sharon Long*                            Dorothy Merritts
Professor of Biology                    Franklin and Marshall College (PA)
Stanford University (CA)

John A. Moore*                          Penny Moore
University of California - Riverside    Piedmont High School

W.  Ann Reynolds                        James H. Serum
City University of New York             Hewlett-Packard, Inc.

David T. Wilkinson*
Princeton University (NJ)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Member, National Academy of Sciences
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   NRC "Year of Dialogue" Steering Committee


                               Norman Hackerman
                        The Robert A. Welch Foundation
                                     Chair


Hyman Bass                             Glenda Lappan
Department of Mathematics              Michigan State University
Columbia University (NY)

Denice Denton                          Sharon Long
Professor of Engineering               Professor of Biology
Michigan State University              Stanford University

Ramesh Gangoli                         C. Bradley Moore
University of Washington               Department of Chemistry
                                       University of California at Berkeley

Melvin Geroge                          Jeanne Narum
President Emeritus	                   Project Kaleidoscope (DC)
St. Olaf College (MN)

Donald Kennedy                         Karl S. Pister
Professor of Biology                   Chancellor
Stanford University (CA)               University of California - Santa Cruz

Harvey Keynes
University of Minnesota

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Participants in the EHR Advisory Committee
              Public Hearings on Undergraduate Education in SME&T


                           Disciplinary Perspectives

Convened October 23, 1995:	UNDERGRADUATE SME&T EDUCATION - MRC Greenwood,
Dean of Graduate Studies, University of California, Davis (CA) * BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES - Rita Colwell, Professor and President, AAAS University of Maryland,
College Park (MD) *  MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES - Alan Tucker, Professor of
Mathematics, State University of New York, Stony Brook (NY) *  ENGINEERING -
Eleanor Baum, Dean of Engineering, Cooper Union (NY); Winfred Phillips, Dean of
Engineering, University of Florida (FL) * COMPUTER SCIENCES - Peter Denning,
Professor of Computer Sciences, George Mason University (VA) * TECHNOLOGY -  Don
Gentry, Dean of Engineering Technology, Purdue University (IN); Durward Huffman,
President, Northern Maine Technical College (ME) * CHEMISTRY - Ernest Elial,
Professor of Chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (NC); Angelica
Stacy, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley (CA) * PHYSICS
- Robert Hilborn, Professor and President, AAPT, Amherst College (MA); Eric
Mazur, Professor of Physics, Harvard University (MA) * GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES -
Tanya Atwater, Professor of Geology, University of California, Santa Barbara
(CA).

                          Institutional Perspectives

Convened October 25, 1995:	Pamela Ferguson, President, Grinnell College (IA)
* Thomas Morris, President, Emory and Henry College (VA) * Bruce Leslie,
President, Onondaga Community College (NY) * Gwendolyn Stephenson, Chancellor,
St. Louis Community College System (MO) * David Pierce, President, American
Association of Community Colleges (DC) * Frederick Humphries, President, Florida
A&M University (FL) * William Kerwan, President, University of Maryland, College
Park (MD) * Paula Brownlee, President, American Association of Colleges and
Universities (DC) * Saul Fenster, President, New Jersey Institute of Technology
(NJ) * Judith Ramaley, President, Portland State University (OR) * David Ward,
President, University of Wisconsin, Madison (WI) * Homer Neal, Interim
President, University of Michigan (MI).


                               Employers' Views

Convened November 1, 1995:	Walter Amprey, Superintendent, Baltimore Public
Schools (MD) * Eugene Galanter, Professor of Psychology, Columbia University
(NY) * Peggy Cole, Director, Program Planning, New York Hall of Science (NY) *
Israel Joseph Galvan, President, GHG Corporation (TX) * Alfred Moy, Manager,
University Relations, Hewlett Packard Company (CA) * John McMasters, Principal
Engineer, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (WA) * Roberts Jones, Executive Vice
President, National Alliance of Business (DC) * John Sisler, Manager of
Exploration, Shell Oil Company (TX)  * Patrick White, Vice President, Strategy,
Bell Atlantic Corporation (VA).


                                Social Sciences

Convened February 22, 1996:	Andrew Abbott, Master, Social Sciences Collegiate
Division, University of Chicago (IL) * John Dovidio, Professor of Psychology,
Colgate University (NY) * Ronald Ehrenberg, Vice President, Academic Programs,
Professor of Economics, Cornell University (NY) * Kenneth Foote, Professor of
Geography, University of Texas, Austin (TX) * Rochel Gelman, Professor of
Psychology, New York University (NY) * Maureen Hallinan, Professor of Sociology,
University of Notre Dame (IN) * Jill Larkin, Professor of Psychology, Carnegie
Mellon University (PA) * Nora Newcombe, Professor of Psychology, Temple
University (PA) * Neil Stillings, Professor of Cognitive Science, Hampshire
College (MA)


               Participants in the Shaping the Future Conference
                               July 11-13, 1996


Clara I. Adams                          Reza Adhami
Vice President for Academic Affairs     Associate Chair & Associate Professor
Morgan State University                 Dept. of Electrical & Computer
Cold Spring Lane & Hillen Road          Engineering
Baltimore, MD  21239                    The University of Alabama in Huntsville
                                        Huntsville, AL  35899

Andre Adler                             Vijendra Agarwal
Manager, Foundations of Scientific      Professor and Chair
Inquiry                                 Dept. of Physics/Astronomy
Department of Physics                   Moorhead State University
New York University                     Moorhead, MN  56563
2-4 Washington Place, Room 256
New York, NY  10013

Ashok K. Agrawal                        Edward F. Ahnert
Program Consultant                      President
Division of Undergraduate Education     Exxon Education Foundation
National Science Foundation             5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Irving, TX  75039-2298
Arlington, VA  22230

Richard Alaniz                          Bruce Alberts
Student, California State Univ.,        Chairman
Fullerton                               National Research Council
800 N. State College Blvd.              2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Fullerton, CA  92634                    Washington, DC  20418

Deborah Allen                           Deborah E. Allen
Editor                                  Dept. of Biological Sciences
W.H. Freeman and Company                University of Delaware
825 LaBonne Parkway                     209 McKinly Laboratory
St. Louis, MO  63021                    Newark, DE  19716

Joseph D. Alviani                       James Ammons
Executive Director                      Provost, Department of Academic Affairs
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative  Florida A&M University
75 North Drive                          301 FHAC
Westborough, MA  01581-3340             Tallahassee, FL  32307

Walter G. Amprey                        Alan J. Anderson
Superintendent                          Manager, DCAC Define Implementation
Baltimore City Public Schools           Airplane Integration
200 East North Avenue, Suite 405        P.O. Box 3707, MS 74-89
Baltimore, MD  21202                    Seattle, WA  98124

Martyn L. Apley                         Josefina Arce
Chair, Department of Sciences           Director, Curriculum Assessment
Western State College of Colorado       & Dev. Ctr.
Hurst Hall 110                          University of Puerto Rico
Gunnison, CO  81231                     P.O. Box 23334
                                        University Station
                                        San Juan, PR  00931-3334

Rick Aycock                             Pamela J. Baker
Customer Service Manager                Associate Professor of Biology & Chair
Seal Right                              Div. of Natural Sciences
P.O. Box 202                            Bates College
Garner, NC  27529-0202                  Lewiston, ME  04268

Rebecca A. Baker                        John Bakum
Department of Physics & Astronomy       President
Southwest Missouri State University     Middlesex County College
Springfield, MO  65804                  155 Mill Road  P.O. Box 3050
                                        Edison, NJ  08818-3050

E.G. Banucci                            Pamela Barnhouse-Walters
President                               Associate Dean, College of Arts
Advanced Technology Materials, Inc      & Sciences
7 Commerce Drive                        Indiana University - Bloomington
Danbury, CT  06810                      Kirkwood Hall, Room 104
                                        Bloomington, IN  47405

Celeste Bartscher                       Wolfgang Bauer
Student, Eastern Iowa Community         Associate Professor
College                                 Department of Physics-Astronomy
27046 183rd Avenue                      Michigan State University, Room 207
Eldridge, IA  52748                     Cyclotron Laboratory
                                        East Lansing, MI  48824-1226

Joel Baulch                             Michael Beals
Student                                 Professor of Mathematics.,
Texas State Technical College           Dean, Arts & Science,
300 College Drive                       Dept. of Mathematics
Sweetwater, TX  79556                   Rutgers University
                                        Hill Center, Busch Campus
                                        New Brunswick, NJ  08903

John Beatty                             William G. Becker
Associate Professor                     Director, Center for Science Education
Dept. of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior  Portland State University
University of Minnesota                 P.O. Box 751
St. Paul, MN  55108                     Portland, OR  97107

Glen Bedgood                            Valerie J. Bergeron
Instructor                              Medical Assistant Coordinator
Texas State Technical College           Delaware Technical & Community. College
300 College Drive                       19 Noble Court
Sweetwater, TX  79556                   Newark, DE  19713

Jaymee Bick                             Arlene G. Billock
Student                                 Department of Biology
Dept. of Environmental Science          University of Southwestern Louisiana
Salish Kootenai College                 300 E. St. Mary Avenue
P.O. Box 117                            P.O. Box 42451
Pablo, MT  59855                        Lafayette, LA  70504

Bruce B. Birkett                        Eve M. Bither
Physics Department                      Executive Director
University of California Berkeley       Department of Education
#7300                                   OERI Resources Board
Berkeley, CA  94720-7300                80 F Street, N.W.
                                        Washington, DC  20208

Bettye Blakney-Lawrence                 John Blong
Program Consultant, EHR/DUE             Chancellor
Department of Undergraduate Education   Eastern Iowa Community College District
National Science Foundation             306 West River Drive
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Davenport, IA  52801-1221
Arlington, VA  22230

Duane D. Blumberg                       Wendy M. Blume
Dean, College of Sciences               Curriculum Supervisor
Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana         Culture, Science and Technology
P.O. Box 43290                          Curriculum
104 University Circle                   Community College of Philadelphia
Lafayette, LA  70504-3290               1700 Spring Garden Street
                                        Philadelphia, PA  19130

Shelby J. Boardman                      Howard A. Bohm
Associate Dean                          Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Carleton College                        Keene State College
One North College Street                Keene, NH  03470
Northfield, MN  55057

Richard Bonacci                         J. Jose Bonner
Publisher, Computer Science Press       Associate Chairman and Professor
W.H. Freeman                            Department of Biology
41 Madison Avenue                       Indiana University
New York, NY  10010                     Jordan Hall 127
                                        Bloomington, IN  47405

John Bonte                              Jean S. Bowen
Chemistry Instructor                    External Funding Officer
Eastern Iowa Community College          College of Education
District                                The University of Georgia
872 14th Avenue, N.W.                   Athens, GA  30602
Clinton, IA  52732

Myles G. Boylan                         Tom Brady
Program Director, EHR/DUE               National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation             4201 Wilson Boulevard
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Arlington, VA  22230
Arlington, VA  22230

Sadie C. Bragg                          John Brahms
Acting Dean, Academic Affairs           Technical Associate
City University of New York             Middlesex County College
Borough of Manhattan Comm. College      155 Mill Road
199 Chambers Street                     Edison, NJ  08818
New York, NY  10007

Rolando M. Branly                       Anita S. Broadus
Assistant Professor                     Staff Assistant, EHR/DUE
Dept. of Natural Sciences               National Science Foundation
Broward Community College               4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Bldg. 14/128 - 3501 S.W. Davie Road     Arlington, VA  22230
Davie, FL  33155

Paula Brownlee                          Jerry L. Bryant
President                               Director, UNCF/Merck Science Initiative
American Association of Colleges        The College Fund/UNCF
and Universities                        8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive
1818 R Street, N.W.                     Fairfax, VA  22031-4511
Washington, DC  20009

Donald Buckley                          Ken Burgdorf
Department of Biology                   Senior Project Director
University of Hartford                  Westat
200 Bloomfield Avenue                   1650 Research Boulevard
West Hartford, CT  06117                Rockville, MD  20850

Anabelle Burghi                         Daniel D. Burke
Student, Chemeketa Community College    Senior Staff Associate, EHR
4000 Lancaster Dr., N.E.                The National Science Foundation
P.O. Box 14007                          4201 Wilson Boulevard
Salem, OR  97309-7070                   Arlington, VA  22230

William P. Butz                         Rodger W. Bybee
Division Director, SBER                 Executive Director
National Science Foundation             Center for Science, Mathematics
4201 Wilson Boulevard, #995N            & Engineering Education
Arlington, VA  22230                    National Research Council
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
                                        Washington, DC  20418

Amber Campbell                          Aldo Caporale
Student, St. Andrews Presbyterian       Consultant
College                                 Community College of Philadelphia
1700 Dogwood Mile                       1700 Spring Garden Street
Laurinburg, NC  28352                   Philadelphia, PA  19130

Vernon B. Cardwell                      Robin Carr
Professor of Agronomy                   Dept. of Math & Computer Science
University of Minnesota                 Drexel University
1991 Upper Buford Circle                32nd and Chestnut
St. Paul, MN  55108-6026                Philadelphia, PA  19104

Doris Carver                            Frank A. Cerreto
Dept. of Computer Science               Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Louisiana State University              The Richard Stockton College
Coates Hall, Room 298                   of New Jersey
Baton Rouge, LA  70803-4020             Jim Leeds Road
                                        Pomona, NJ 08240-0195

Alverna Champion                        Elaine M. Charlson
Program Officer, EHR/ESIE               Associate Provost
National Science Foundation             University of Missouri-Columbia
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885         114 Jesse Hall
Arlington, VA  22230                    Columbia, MO  65211

Elisabeth Charron                       Russell Chianelli
Co-Director, STEP Project               Chair, Associate Professor, Chemistry
Montana State University                Chemistry Department
Linfield Hall                           University of Texas at El Paso
Bozeman, MT  59717                      500 W. University Drive
                                        El Paso, TX  79968

Connie Churchill                        Julia Clark
Dean, Science/Allied Health Division    Program Director, EHR/ESIE
Oakton Community College                National Science Foundation
1600 E. Golf Road                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885
Des Plaines, IL  60016                  Arlington, VA  22230

Allison S. Clements                     Mary E. Clutter
Student, School of Natural Resources    Assistant Director/Biological Sciences
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor       National Science Foundation
1320 South University #32               4201 Wilson Boulevard, #605
Ann Arbor, MI  48104                    Arlington, VA  22181

Judy F. Coakley                         James W. Colby
Budget Program Analyst                  Staff Assistant
National Science Foundation             National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855
Arlington, VA  22230                    Arlington, VA  22230

Arthur Cole                             Thomas W. Cole
Acting Director                         President
U.S. Department of Education            Clark Atlanta University
School Improvement Program              223 James P. Brawley Drive
Portals Building, Room 4500             at Fair Street, S.W.
600 Independence Ave. S.W.              Atlanta, GA  30314
Washington, DC  20202-6140

Collie Coleman                          Suzanne R. Coll
Vice President for Academic Affairs     The Boeing Company
Shaw University                         P.O. Box 3707, M/S 6H-PR
118 E. South Street                     Seattle, WA  98124
Raleigh, NC  27601

James P. Collins                        Lillian Cook
Professor, Department of Zoology        Chairperson, Letters Department
Arizona State University                Panola College
Tempe, AZ  85287-1501                   1109 W. Panola
                                        Carthage, TX  75633

Donald H. Cooley                        Claire D. Cornell
Head, Computer Science                  Director,
Department of Computer Science          College of Liberal Arts Grants Office
Utah State University                   The University of Iowa
UMC 4205                                463 Phillips Hall
Logan, UT  84322-4205                   Iowa City, IA  52242

K. Jane Coulter                         Geoff M. Cox
Deputy Administrator                    Vice Provost & Dean
Cooperative State Research, Education   Institutional Planning & Operations
& Extension                            Stanford University
U.S. Department of Agriculture          Provost Office, Building 10
Room 338-A, Whitten Building            Stanford, CA  94305-2061
14th and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC  20250

Susan E. Cozzens                        Jack Crocker
Director, Office of Policy Support      Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
National Science Foundation             Florida Gulf Coast University
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   17595 S. Tamiami Trail, Suite 200
Arlington, VA  22230                    Ft. Myers, FL  33908-4500

Khela D. Cuccaro                        Patricia A. Cunniff
Reporter, Education Daily               Director
1101 King Street, #444                  Science & Technology Resource Center
Alexandria, VA  22314                   Prince George's Community College
                                        301 Largo Road, M-2011
                                        Largo, MD  20774

Catherine E. Curtis                     John Czaja
Department of Mathematics               Professor, Department of Psychology
Mount Hood Community College            Miami University
26000 S.E. Stark                        107 Roudebush Hall
Gresham, OR  97030-0330                 OAST
                                        Oxford, OH  45056

Zeev Dagan                              Joseph Dahm
School of Engineering                   Student, Department of Chemistry
City College of New York                Oakton Community College
Convent Avenue at 138th Street          1600 E. Golf Road
New York, NY  10031                     Des Plaines, IL  60016

Jaleh Daie                              Peter A. Dale
President                               Vice Provost, Undergraduate Studies
Association for Women in Science        University of California, Davis
AWIS Magazine                           Mark Hall, 5th Floor
430 Lincoln Drive, Birge Hall           Davis, CA  95616
Madison, WI  53706-1381

William Dando                           Joseph G. Danek
Chairperson and Professor               Senior Vice President
Dept. of Geography and Geology          The Implementation Group
Indiana State University                1420 New York Avenue, N.W.
Terre Haute, IN  47809-0001             Washington, DC  20005

Jewel Daniel                            Mamani Datta
Student, Department of Biology          Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
City College of New York                c/o 49 Benito Street
30 Rogers Avenue, Apt. 3C               East Meadow, NY  11559
Brooklyn, NY  11216

Kerry Davidson                          Lois Davis
Project Director                        Education Policy Specialist
Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program  Higher Education Program/CSREES
150 3rd Street, Suite 129               U.S. Department of Agriculture
Baton Rouge, LA  70801-1389             Washington, DC  20250-2251

Roland L. De Lorme                      Alfredo G. de los Santos
Provost and Vice President              Vice Chancellor, Student & Educational
Department for Academic Affairs         Development
Western Washington University           Maricopa Community Colleges
516 High Street                         District Support Services Center
Bellingham, WA  98225-9033              2411 West 14th Street
                                        Tempe, AZ  85281-6941

Eugene M. DeLoatch                      Denise Descoteaux
Dean, School of Engineering             Senior Producer
Morgan State University                 Addison Wesley Interactive
5200 Perring Parkway                    Jacob Way
Baltimore, MD  21239                    Reading, MA  01867

Nancy L. Devino                         Eric L. Dey
Senior Program Officer                  Assistant Professor, School of Education
National Research Council               University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.          2117D School of Education Bldg.
Washington, DC  20418                   Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1259

Alexander Dickison                      Clayton Dillon
Professor of Physics                    Founding Director
Seminole Community College              Communication Resources Assoc., Inc.
100 Weldeon Boulevard                   Northeastern University
Sanford, FL  32773                      176 Strasser Avenue
                                        Westwood, MA  02090

Elvira Doman                            Michael V. Doran
Program Director                        Associate Professor
National Science Foundation             School of CIS
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 685         Univ. of South Alabama, FCW-20
Arlington, VA  22230                    Mobile, AL  36688

John E. Drumheller                      Kelly D. DuBose
Interim Provost and Vice President      Program Assistant
for Academic Affairs                    National Science Foundation
Office of the Provost                   4201 Wilson Boulevard
Montana State University                Arlington, VA  22230
212 Montana Hall
Bozeman, MT  59717

Charles Duke                            James F. Duke
Vice President, Academic Affairs        Instructor, Department of Science
& Dean                                  John C. Calhoun State
Grinnell College                        Community College
P.O. Box 805                            P.O. Box 2216
Grinnell, IA  50112-0805                Decatur, AL  35609-2216

William W. Durgin                       Herby Duverne
Associate Provost for Academic Affairs  Vice President, Academic Affairs,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute         Student Government Association
100 Institute Road                      Northeastern University
Worcester, MA  01609                    332 Student Center
                                        Boston, MA  02115

Dave Dysinger                           Janice Earle
Owner, Dysinger Tool and Die            Program Director, EHR/ESIE
2900 Dryden Road                        National Science Foundation
Dayton, OH  45439                       4201 Wilson Boulevard
                                        Arlington, VA  22230

Larry L. Earvin                         Marshall Hall Edgell
Dean, School of Arts & Sciences         Kenan Professor of Microbiology
Clark Atlanta University                Dept. of Microbiology
James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW     University of North Carolina
Atlanta, GA  30314                      CB# 7290, Rm. 741 FLOB
                                        Chapel Hill, NC  27599

Russell Edgerton                        William F. Edmonson
President, American Association for     President
Higher Education                        Panola College
One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 360      1109 W. Panola
Washington, DC  20036                   Carthage, TX  75633

John Edwards                            Ryan Edwards
Program Officer, BIO/IBN                Student, University of Michigan -
National Science Foundation             Dearborn
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   c/o 6530 Woodmere Drive
Arlington, VA  22230                    Canton, MI  48187

Betty J. Eidemiller                     Clarence M. Eidt
Undergraduate Education Coordinator     President
American Society for Microbiology       Exxon Research and Education Foundation
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.         180 Park Avenue
Washington, DC  20005                   Florham Park, NJ  07932

Jonathan A. Eisen                       Karolyn K. Eisenstein
Graduate Student, Stanford University   Program Director, MPS/CHE
Herrin Hall #356                        National Science Foundation
Stanford, CA  94305-5020                4201 Wilson Boulevard, #1055

Cory Emal                               David J. Ernst
Student, Department of Chemistry        Associate Dean
University of Nebraska-Lincoln          Vanderbilt University
228 Hamilton Hall                       311 Kirkland
Lincoln, NE  68588-0304                 Nashville, TN  37240

William Ethridge                        Charlene Evans
President                               Chairperson
Engineering, Science & Math,            Department of Computer &
College Div.                            Engineering Tech.
Prentice Hall Publishers                Daytona Beach Community College
One Lake Street                         1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.
Upper Saddle River, NJ  07458           Daytona Beach, FL  32114

Neil Evans                              Norma Sue Evers
Executive Director                      Chairperson, Chemistry &
Northwest Center for Emerging           Physics Department
Technologies                            Panola College
3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E. #A202      1109 W. Panola
Bellevue, WA  98007-6484                Carthage, TX  75633

Etta Falconer                           Roya Farhoosh
Associate Provost for Science Programs  Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemistry
Spelman College                         Saint Joseph College
Box 1005                                1678 Asylum Avenue
Atlanta, GA  30314                      West Hartford, CT  06117

Jeff Farmer                             Saul K. Fenster
Assistant Professor, Mathematical       President
Sciences                                New Jersey Institute of Technology
University of Northern Colorado         University Heights
Greeley, CO  80639                      Newark, NJ  07102

Douglas E. Fenwick                      Victor Ferrall
Dean, Div. of Business, Science and     Office of the President
Technology                              Beloit College
Community College of Philadelphia       700 College Street
1700 Spring Garden Street               Beloit, WI  53511
Philadelphia, PA  19130

Joan Ferrini-Mundy                      Isabella N. Finkelstein
Director                                Professor of Biology
Mathematical Sciences Education Board   Clark Atlanta University
National Research Council               Brawley and Fair Streets
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.  HA 476  Atlanta, GA  30314
Washington, DC  20418

P. David Fisher                         Shawn E. Flanigan
Department of Electrical Engineering    Student, Grinnell College
Michigan State University               1801 Windsor Court
East Lansing, MI  48824-1226            Iowa City, IA  50112

Jean Floten                             Paul A. Flowers
President                               Associate Professor of Chemistry
Bellevue Community College              Department of Physical Science
3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.            Pembroke State University
Bellevue, WA  98007                     College Street
                                        Pembroke, NC  28372

Alexander H. Fluellen                   Susan G. Forman
Professor and Chair                     Vice President for Undergraduate
Department of Mathematical Sciences     Education
Clark Atlanta University                Rutgers University
James P. Brawley Dr. & Fair St. NW      105 Geology Hall
Atlanta, GA  30314                      New Brunswick, NJ  08540

Norman L. Fortenberry                   David Foss
Executive Director                      Environmental Coordinator
GEM Consortium, Central Office          Rock Island Arsenal
P.O. Box 537                            28024 230th Street
Notre Dame, IN  46556                   LeClaire, IA  52753

Brian L. Foster                         Michael A. Fox
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences        Ohio House of Representatives
University of Nebraska-Lincoln          77 South High Street
1223 Oldfather Hall                     Columbus, OH  43266-0603
Lincoln, NE  68588-0312

Faye Fulton                             Gary A. Gabriele
Student                                 Chair, Dept. of Eng. Science & Core Eng.
Community College of Philadelphia       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1700 Spring Garden Street               110 8th Street
Philadelphia, PA  19130                 Troy, NY  12180

Susan L. Ganter                         J. D. Garcia
Area Research Fellow                    Program Director, DUE
National Science Foundation             National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855         4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Arlington, VA  22230                    Arlington, VA  22230

Sharon Garner                           Charles A. Gaston
Summer Intern, DUE                      Director, NSF-ATE Project
National Science Foundation             Pennsylvania State University
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         1031 Edgecomb Avenue
Arlington, VA  22230                    York, PA  17403-3398

William Gearhart                        Edward E. Geary
Professor of Mathematics                Coordinator for Education Programs
California State Univ., Fullerton       The Geological Society of America
800 N. State College Blvd.              P.O. Box 9140  3300 Penrose Place
Fullerton, CA  92634                    Boulder, CO  80301

Melvin D. George                        Peter Gerber
St. Olaf College (Ret.)                 2305 North Atlantic Boulevard
1509 West Rollins Road                  Fort Lauderdale, FL  33305
Columbia, MO  65203

Moheb A. Ghali                          Rose M. Gibson
Vice Provost for Research               Vice President & Director,
Western Washington University           Research & Development
Old Main 430, 516 High Street           Motorola GSTG
Bellingham, WA  98225-9038              P.O. Box 1417, MD H3122
                                        Scottsdale, AZ

Anita Gilkey                            Joan S. Girgus
Technical Writer                        Director, Pew Science Program
Wren Industries                         Department of Psychology
265 Lightner Road                       Princeton University
Tipp City, OH  45371                    Green Hall
                                        Princeton, NJ  08544-1010

Milton E. Glick                         Jim Glickert
Sr. Vice President & Provost            Data & Communications Manager
Arizona State University                The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 872803                         P.O. Box 3707, M/S 1F-05
Tempe, AZ  85287-2803                   Seattle, WA  98124

Judy Gobert                             Donald Goldberg
Director, All Nations AMP               Associate Dean of Faculty
Salish Kootenai College                 Office of the Dean
P.O. Box 117                            Occidental College
Pablo, MT  59855                        Johnson Hall, Room 111
                                        Los Angeles, CA  90041-3384

Dennis Golden                           Manuel Gomez
Chair, Board of Trustees                Director, PR-AMP
Panola College                          Resource Center for Science
1109 W. Panola                          and Engineering
Carthage, TX  75633                     University of Puerto Rico
                                        PO Box 23334, Univ. Station
                                        San Juan, PR  00931-3334

David L. Goodstein                      Daniel L. Goroff
Vice Provost                            Postsecondary Division Director
Dept. of Physics, Mathematics           National Research Council
& Astronomy                             2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
California Institute of Technology      Washington, DC  20418
Pasadena, CA  91125

Greg Gothreaux                          Andrew Gray
President and CEO                       Intern, National Research Council
Lafayette Economic Development          2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Authority                               Washington, DC  20418
2014 W. Pinhook Road, Suite 100
Lafayette, LA  70508-3289

Sandra R. Gregerman                     Joseph G. Griswold
Program Director                        Professor of Biology
Undergraduate Research Opportunities    City College of CUNY, J526
Program                                 138th Street & Convent Avenue
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor       New York, NY  10031
L110 West Quad
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1360

Craig Gunn                              Gregg Haan
Professor                               Student, College of Engineering
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering         University of Texas at El Paso
Michigan State University               500 W. University Drive
East Lansing, MI  48824                 El Paso, TX  79968

Jimmie Haines                           Louise Hainline
Director, Technical Resource            Professor, Dean of Grad Studies & Res.
Management                              Brooklyn College
The Boeing Company                      2900 Bedford Avenue
P.O. Box 3707,  M/S 7A-13               Brooklyn, NY  11210
Seattle, WA  98124-0346

Timothy Halpin-Healy                    Franklin D. Hamilton
Associate Professor of Physics          Vice President for Research
Barnard College/Columbia Univ.          Florida A&M University
3009 Broadway                           400 Foote Hilyar Admin. Center
New York, NY  10027-6598                Tallahassee, FL  32307

Stephanie Hamilton                      Sarah Hammes
Director of Teacher Programs            Student, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Foundation for Advancements in          145 West Gilman, #202
Science and Education                   Madison, WI  53703
1223 D Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20002

Peirce Hammond                          Vivian H. Hampton
Acting Director, ESIE/OSR               Assoc. Professor, Coordinator, N.C. AMP
National Science Foundation             College of Engineering
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   North Carolina A&T State University
Arlington, VA  22230                    640 McNair Hall
                                        Greensboro, NC  27411

Richard Haracz                          Marieta W. Harris
Associate Provost                       Project Director
Drexel University                       Memphis Urban Systemic Initiative
32nd & Chestnut                         Memphis City Schools
Philadelphia, PA  19104                 2385 Central Avenue
                                        Memphis, TN  38104

David T. Harrison                       Mako Haruta
Director, AIM Center                    Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Sinclair Community College              Dept. of Mathematics
444 W. 3rd Street                       University of Hartford
Dayton, OH  45402-1460                  200 Bloomfield Avenue
                                        West Hartford, CT  06117

John R. Hayes                           Ann Heath
Professor of Psychology                 Associate Professor of Mathematics
Carnegie Mellon University              Immaculata College
Pittsburgh, PA  15213                   1145 King Road
                                        Immaculata, PA  19345

Jack G. Hehn                            Robert Hilborn
Associate Executive Officer             President
American Association of                 American Assoc. of Physics Teachers
Physics Teachers                        Amherst College, Dept. of Physics
One Physics Ellipse                     Amherst, MA  01002-5000
College Park, MD  20740-3845

William E. Hill                         Gilberto M. Hinojosa
Director, MDAMP                         Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Metropolitan Detroit Alliance for       University of the Incarnate Word
Minority Participation - WSU            4301 Broadway
656 W. Kirby, Room 4107 FAB             San Antonio, TX  78209
Detroit, MI  48202

Holly Peters Hirst                      Susan Hixson
Appalachian State University            Program Director, EHR/DUE
329 Walker Hall                         National Science Foundation
Boone, NC  28608                        4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
                                        Arlington, VA  22230

Star F. Hobson                          Holly Hodder
Student, Wake Technical                 Senior Editor
Community College                       W.H. Freeman and Company
1919 Myron Drive                        41 Madison Avenue
Raleigh, NC  27607                      New York, NY  10010

Dan Hodge                               Tom Hogan
Program Director, EHR/DUE               Dir., Organizational Development
National Science Foundation             and Training
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Mitsubishi Silicon America
Arlington, VA  22230                    1351 Tandem Avenue, N.E.
                                        Salem, OR  97303

David Holger                            Robert Holkeboer
Associate Dean of Engineering           Director of Research Development
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering          Eastern Michigan University
Iowa State University                   Office of Research Development
104 Marston Hall                        Ypsilanti, MI  48197
Ames, IA  50011

Jim Houdeshell                          Curtis Howard
Principal Investigator                  Program Officer, EHR/ESIE
National Center of Excellence for       National Science Foundation
Advanced Manufacturing Education        4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885
444 West Third Street                   Arlington, VA  22230
Dayton, OH  45402-1460

Thomas H. Howell                        Deh-I Hsiung
Director, Bull Information Systems      Budget Officer, NSF/EHR
Arizona State University                National Science Foundation
8201 E. Del Cadena Drive                4201 Wilson Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ  85258                   Arlington, VA  22230

Sam Hsu                                 Durward Huffman
Assistant Professor                     President
Dept. of Computer Science & Engin.      Northern Maine Technical College
Florida Atlantic University             33 Edgement Drive
777 Glades Road                         Presque Isle, ME  04769
Boca Raton, FL  33431-6415

Gerunda Hughes                          Kenneth D. Hughes
Associate Professor                     Assistant Professor
School of Education                     School of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Howard University                       Georgia Institute of Technology
2400 Sixth Street, N.W.                 Atlanta, GA  30332
Washington, DC  20059

Deborah J. Hughes Hallett               Frederick S. Humphries
Professor, Department of Mathematics    President
Harvard University                      Florida A&M University
Cambridge, MA  02138                    400 Lee Hall
                                        Tallahassee, FL  32307

Robert Hunter                           Patricia Hurley
Director of Research                    Director, Environmental Science
Yellowstone Environmental Science       Dept of Environmental Science
920 Technology Boulevard                Salish Kootenai Community College
Bozeman, MT  59715                      P.O. Box 117
                                        Pablo, MT  59885-0117

Barbara H. Iglewski                     Frank Ireton
Vice Provost                            Manager, Precollege Education Programs
University of Rochester                 American Geophysical Union
Elmwood Avenue                          2000 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Rochester, NY  14456                    Washington, DC  20009

Magdy F. Iskander                       Elizabeth Ivey
Electrical Engineering Dept.            Provost, Department of Academic Affairs
University of Utah                      University of Hartford
Salt Lake City, UT  84112               200 Bloomfield Avenue
                                        West Hartford, CT  06117

Andrea Jackson                          Ricardo B. Jacquez
Student, Department of Zoology          Director, New Mexico AMP
Arizona State University                P.O. Box 30001, Department 3AMP
Tempe, AZ  85287-1501                   Las Cruces, NM  88003-8001

David James                             Ryan James
Professor, Department of Mathematics    Student
University of Michigan-Dearborn         University of Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Evergreen Road                     6530 Woodmere Drive
Dearborn, MI  48128                     Canton, MI  48187

Kolf O. Jayaweera                       Norma Jeanne
Dean, School of Natural Science         Program Assistant, DUE/ORISE
& Mathematics                           National Science Foundation
California State Univ., Fullerton       4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 835
800 N. State College Blvd.              Arlington, VA 22230
Fullerton, CA  92634

John E. Jelen                           Michelle Jenkins
Vice President                          Summer Intern
Quantum Research Corporation            National Science Foundation
7315 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 400W          4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 685
Bethesda, MD  20814                     Arlington, VA  22230

Daniel A. Jewel                         Clay Johnson
City College of New York (CUNY)         President
30 Rogers Avenue, Apt. 3C               Texas State Technical College
New York, NY  11216                     300 College Drive
                                        Sweetwater, TX  79556

Elmima C. Johnson                       Roosevelt Y. Johnson
Staff Associate                         Deputy Executive Director
National Science Foundation             The GEM Consortium
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   P.O. Box 537
Arlington, VA  22230                    Notre Dame, IN  46556

Donald E. Jones                         Patricia L. Jones
Program Director, EHR/ESIE              Assistant Professor of Mathematics
National Science Foundation             Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885         P.O. Box 41010
Arlington, VA  22230                    Lafayette, LA  70512

Wayne E. Jones                          Trace Jordan
Assistant Professor, Department of      Assistant Director, Foundations of
Chemistry                               Scientific Inquiry Curriculum
State University of New York            New York University
at Binghamton                           151 Lexington Avenue, #3C
P.O. Box 6000                           New York, NY  10016
Binghamton, NY  13902-6000

Gary Judd                               Ellen Kabat
Dean of the Faculty                     Director, Advanced Technological
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        Environmental Education Center
Pittsburgh Building                     Eastern Iowa Community
110 8th Street                          College District
Troy, NY  12180                         500 Belmont Road
                                        Bettendorf, IA  52722

Katherine Kalil                         John P. Keating
Professor, Department of Anatomy        Provost
University of Wisconsin-Madison         University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Room 255                                Third Floor, Signers' Hall
Bardeen Medical Labs                    Fairbanks, AK  99775-7850
Madison, WI  53706

Linda S. Kelly                          William H. Kelly
NCSR Director                           Program Director, EHR/DUE
Chemeketa Community College             National Science Foundation
4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.              4201 Wilson Boulevard
P.O. Box 14007                          Arlington, VA  22230
Salem, OR  97309-7070

Paul B. Kelter                          Yvonne Kemp
Associate Professor                     Instructor, Middlesex County College
Department of Chemistry                 155 Mill Road
University of Nebraska-Lincoln          Edison, NJ  08818
228 Hamilton Hall
Lincoln, NE  68588-0304

John V. Kenkel                          Donald Kennedy
Dept. of Environmental Laboratory       Center for Science, Mathematics &
Technology                              Engineering Education
Southeast Community College             National Research Council
8800 O Street                           2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Lincoln, NE  65520-1227                 Washington, DC  20418

Jeff Kinder                             Donald F. Kirwan
Division of Undergraduate Education     LaCEPT Science Advisor
National Science Foundation             Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
4201 Wilson Boulevard, #835             Louisiana Systemic Initiatives
Arlington, VA  22230                    Program (LaSIP)
                                        202 Nicholson Hall
                                        Baton Rouge, LA  70803

Keith E. Klein                          Stephen B. Klein
Science Education Analyst               Professor, Dept. of Psychology
National Science Foundation             Mississippi State University
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   P.O. Box 6161
Arlington, VA  22230                    Mississippi State, MS  39762

Wayne Klohs                             Kelly Knudson
Associate Research Fellow               Student
Dept. of Cancer Research                Beloit College
Warner Lambert/Parke Davis              224 Elmwood Drive
Pharmaceutical                          Council Bluffs, IA  51503
2800 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI  48105

Maria Koszalka                          Roger A. Kovar
Program Analyst                         Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Howard Hughes Medical institute         University of Northern Colorado
4000 Jones Bridge Road                  Michener L-54
Chevy Chase, MD  20895                  Greeley, CO  80639

Stephen T. Kowel                        Gary D. Krenz
Professor & Chair                       Asst. to the Vice President for Research
Electrical & Computer Engineering       University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
The University of Alabama               4080 Fleming
in Huntsville                           503 Thompson Street
Huntsville, AL  35899                   Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1340

David Krinsky                           Kenneth Kruempel
Student                                 Associate Professor
Harvard University                      Iowa State University
30 Crescent Street                      109 Coover Hall
Cambridge, MA  02138-1908               Ames, IA  50011

H.O. Kunkel                             Bill Kurtis
Professor, Department of Animal         Columbia Broadcasting System
Science                                 630 North McClurg Court
Texas A&M University                    Chicago, IL  60611
100 Kleberg Center
College Station, TX  77843-2471

Jay B. Labov                            Jason Lairamore
Associate Professor, Dept. of Biology   Summer Intern, EHR/DUE
Colby College                           National Science Foundation
5720 Mayflower Hill                     4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Waterville, ME  04901                   Arlington, VA  22230

Jean Lane                               Neal F. Lane
Professor                               Director
Union County College                    National Science Foundation
15 Stone Run Road                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1205
Bedminster, NJ  07921                   Arlington, VA  22230

James I. Lankford                       Douglas Lapp
Chair, Division of Mathematical,        Executive Director
Natural & Health Sciences               National Science Resources Center
Saint Andrews Presbyterian College      Smithsonian Institution, MRC 403
1700 Dogwood Mile                       Washington, DC  20560
Laurinburg, NC  28352-5521

Anita J. LaSalle                        Mark Lender
Division of Undergraduate Education     Director, Advanced Study & Research
The National Science Foundation         Kean College of New Jersey
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Morris Avenue
Arlington, VA  22230                    Union, NJ  07083

Phyllis Leonard                         Joshua A. Leslie
Instructor of Mathematics               Chairman of Mathematics
Chemeketa Community College             Howard University
P.O. Box 14007                          2400 Sixth Street, N.W.
4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.              Washington, DC  20059
Salem, OR  97309-7070

Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky               Herbert Levitan
Assistant Professor                     Section Head, EHR/DUE
University of Nebraska, Lincoln         National Science Foundation
163 Behlen Lab                          4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Lincoln, NE  68588-0111                 Arlington, VA  22230

Suzanne Liberty                         James Lichtenberg
Director, Division of Research          Vice President, Higher Education
Clarkson University                     Division
143 Clarkson Hall, P.O. Box 5625        Association of American Publishers
Potsdam, NY  13699-5625                 71 Fifth Avenue
                                        New York, NY  10003

James H. Lightbourne                    Mary M. Lindquist
Section Head, EHR/DUE                   Callaway Chair, School of Education
National Science Foundation             Columbus College
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         14 Seventh Street
Arlington, VA  22230                    Columbus, GA  31901

Dianne Littwin                          Baird W. Lloyd
Publishing Development Manager          Research Associate
Wolfram Media, Inc.                     Center for Chemical Education
115 E. 92nd Street                      Miami University Middletown
New York, NY  10120                     4200 E. University Blvd.
                                        Middletown, OH  45042

George Lobell                           Jack R. Lohmann
Mathematics Editor                      Associate Dean
Prentice Hall                           College of Engineering
One Lake Street                         Georgia Institute of Technology
Upper Saddle River, NJ  07458           225 North Avenue
                                        Atlanta, GA  30332-0360

Frank A. Lombardo                       Reginald K. U. Luke
Senior Professor                        Chair, Math Department
Daytona Beach Community College         Middlesex County College
1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.    Woodbridge & Mill Road
Daytona Beach, FL  32114                Edison, NJ  08818

Rodney C. Lusain                        James J. Madden
Student Intern                          Professor of Mathematics
National Science Foundation             Dept. of Mathematics
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Louisiana State University
Arlington, VA  22230                    Baton Rouge, LA  70803

David G. Mader                          Wayne E. Magee
Professor, Dept. of Computer Science    NES Professor of Bioscience
Marietta College                        Dept. of Bioscience & Biotechnology
302 Mills Hall                          Drexel University
Marietta, OH  45750                     32nd & Chestnut Streets, 01-320
                                        Philadelphia, PA  19104

Susan G. Magliaro                       Minna Mahlab
Associate Professor                     Research Assistant
Virginia Tech                           National Academy of Sciences
313 War Memorial Hall                   2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA-476
Blacksburg, VA  24061-0313              Washington, DC  20418

Norman Maldonado                        Judith F. Marks
President                               Business Area Manager
University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez      Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 364984                         Owego, NY  13827
San Juan, PR  00936-4984

Gary Marotta                            Linsey C. Marr
Vice President for Academic Affairs     Student
University of Southwestern Louisiana    Division of Engineering
P.O. Box 41810                          & Applied Sciences
Lafayette, LA  70504-1810               Harvard University
                                        1024 Marine Street, #3
                                        Boulder, CO  80302

Paxton Marshall                         Paul C. Martin
Associate Professor, Electrical Eng.    Dean, Div. of Engineering
School of Engineering &                 and Applied Science
Applied Science                         Harvard University
University of Virginia                  217A Pierce Hall
C210, Thornton Hall                     Cambridge, MA  02138
Charlottesville, VA  22903-2442

Lakeisha N. Massey                      Michael A. Mayhew
Intern Student                          Program Director
National Science Foundation             National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 785
Arlington, VA  22230                    Arlington, VA  22230

Christine M. Maziar                     Eric Mazur
Vice Provost                            Division of Applied Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin       Department of Physics
Off. of the Exec. V.P. &                Harvard University
Provost MAI 201                         Cambridge, MA  02138-2901
Austin, TX  78712-1111

Katherine McClelland                    Nancy A. McDowell
Director, Mathematics Laboratory        Vice President for Academic Affairs
Grinnell College                        Beloit College
P.O. Box 805                            700 College Street
Grinnell, IA  50112                     Beloit, WI  53511

Michael McGinnis                        Estelle J. McGroarty
Assistant Professor of Biology          Assoc. Dean, Student & Academic Affairs
Spelman College                         College of Natural Science
Box 213                                 Michigan State University
Atlanta, GA  30314                      103 Natural Science Bldg.
                                        East Lansing, MI  48824

Ian McIntosh                            Robert C. McMath
Program Coordinator                     Professor and Chair
Freshman Learning Community Program     School of History, Technology & Society
University of Wisconsin-Madison         Georgia Institute of Technology
1450 Engineering Dr., Rm. 101           Atlanta, GA  30332-0345
Madison, WI  53706

Carolyn Merkel                          Carolyn Meyers
Director, Summer Undergraduate          Dean, College of Engineering
Research Fellowships                    North Carolina A&T State U
California Institute of Technology      Room 651, McNair Hall
Pasadena, CA  91125                     Greensboro, NC  27411

Terrence S. Millar                      Arnold Miller
Associate Dean, Graduate School         President, Technology Strategy Group
University of Wisconsin, Madison        California State University
500 Lincoln Drive, Room 321             800 N. State College
Bascom Hall                             Fullerton, CA  92634
Madison, WI  53706

Mary L. Mittler                         David W. Mogk
Vice President for Academic Affairs     Program Director, EHR/DUE
Oakton Community College                The National Science Foundation
1600 E. Golf Road                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Des Plaines, IL  60016                  Arlington, VA  22230

Mark Moline                             Mary Beth Monroe
WEB Engineer                            Physics Instructor
Addison Wesley Interactive              Southwest Texas Junior College
One Jacob Way                           2401 Garner Field Road
Reading, MA  01867                      Uvalde, TX  78801

C. Bradley Moore                        Calvin Moore
Professor, Department of Chemistry      Professor, Department of Mathematics
Univ. of California at Berkeley         Univ. of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA  94720-1460                201 Campbell Hall
                                        Berkeley, CA  94720-2920

Randall C. Morgan                       Lisa Morigeau
Trustee                                 Student, Department of Biology
Grinnell College                        Montana State University
4904 Lakeridge Court                    402 Royal Road
Valparaiso, IN  46383                   Belgrade, MT  59714

Lueny Morrell-de-Ramirez                David Morris
Professor of Chemical Engineering       Associate Dean for Academic Programs
University of Puerto Rico at            School of Engineering & Applied Science
Mayaguez                                University of Virginia
Box 5000 College Station                A126 Thornton Hall
Mayaguez, PR  00681                     Charlottesville, VA  22903-2442

Karen Morse                             Yolanda T. Moses
President                               President
Western Washington University           The City College of CUNY
516 High Street                         Convent Avenue at 138th Street
Bellingham, WA  98225-9033              New York, NY  10031

Alfred Moye                             Michael C. Mulder
Director, University Affairs            Program Director, EHR/DUE
Hewlett-Packard Company                 National Science Foundation
1501 Page Mill Road, MS 3L-7            4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Palo Alto, CA  94304                    Arlington, VA  22230

V. K. Narayanan                         Jeanne Narum
Professor of Business                   Director, Project Kaleidoscope
University of Kansas                    Independent Colleges Office
218 Summerfield Hall                    1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.,
Lawrence, KS  66045                     Suite 803
                                        Washington, DC  20036

Ram Nayar                               James R. Nazzaro
Associate Professor                     Vice President for Academic Affairs
Daytona Beach Community College         The Richard Stockton College
1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.    of New Jersey
Daytona Beach, FL  32114                Jim Leeds Road
                                        Pomona, NJ  08240

Asha Nelson                             Andrew W. Nichols
Student, Northwest Center for           Professor and Director,
Emerging                                Rural Health Office
Technologies, # A202                    Family and Community Medicine
3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.            2501 E. Elm, AHSC
Bellevue, WA  98007-6484                Tucson, AZ  85716

Jesse M. Nicholson                      Raquel Nieves
Department of Chemistry                 Student, Puerto Rico-AMP
Howard University                       University of Puerto Rico
525 College Street, N.W.                Amapola D-13 Enramada
Washington, DC  20059                   Bayamon, PR  00961

Christine M. Nixon                      John Norman
Student, Math Skills Center             Associate Professor
The Richard Stockton College of         College of Education
New Jersey                              Wayne State University
Jim Leeds Road                          Detroit, MI  48202
Pomona, NJ  08240

Richard J. Orr                          Brad Osgood
Professor of Mathematics                Professor, Department of Mathematics
Dept. of Math & Statistics              Stanford University
Rochester Institute of Technology       50 Peter Coutts Circle
Rochester, NY  14623                    Stanford, CA  94305

Charlotte Otto                          Saundra Oyewole
Chair, Dept. of Natural Sciences        Program Director, EHR/DUE
University of Michigan, Dearborn        National Science Foundation
4901 Evergreen Road                     4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Dearborn, MI  48128-1491                Arlington, VA  22230

Lynette P. Padmore                      Robert Panoff
Director, Florida-Georgia Alliance      President and Executive Director
Program                                 The Shodor Education Foundation
Florida A&M University                  923 Broad Street, Ste. 100
104 Gamble Street                       Durham, NC  27705
Student Retention Center
Tallahassee, FL  32307-5500

Coleen Pantalone                        Robert E. Parilla
Interim Vice Provost for                President
Undergraduate Education                 Montgomery College
Northeastern University                 900 Hungerford Drive
112 Hayden Hall                         Rockville, MD  20850
Boston, MA  02115

Cass Parker                             David Pastran
Associate Professor                     Student, Biology Department
Department of Chemistry                 University of Northern Colorado
Clark Atlanta University                Greeley, CO  80639
James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW
Atlanta, GA  30314

Cecil W. Payton                         Chery Pellerin
Executive Assistant to the President    National Science Foundation
Morgan State University                 4201 Wilson Boulevard
Truth House, Room 410                   Arlington, VA  22230
1700 E. Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD  21239

Shannon Pennington                      Pamela M. Peters
Student, Panola College                 Manager, Science Education
1109 W. Panola                          Access Excellence/Genentech, Inc.
Carthage, TX  75633                     460 Point San Bruno Boulevard
South San Francisco, CA  94080

Simone Peterson                         Richard Petti
Assistant Professor                     Macsyma, Inc.
Department of Mechanical Engineering    20 Academy Street
Florida A&M University                  Arlington, MA  02174-6436
2525 Potsdamer Street
Tallahassee, FL  32310

David Pierce                            Rodney Piercey
President, American Association of      Head, Department of Physics
Community Colleges                      Mississippi State University
One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 410      P.O. Drawer 5167
Washington, DC  20036-1176              Mississippi State, MS  39762

Stanley Pine                            R. Byron Pipes
Chair, ACS Education Committee          President
Department of Chemistry                 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
California State University             Pittsburgh Building
5151 State University Drive             Troy, NY  12180-3590
Los Angeles, CA  90032

Karl S. Pister                          Harold Pratt
Chancellor                              Director, Division on K-12 Policy &
University of California at Santa Cruz  Practice
Room 296, McHenry Library               National Research Council
Santa Cruz, CA  95064                   Center for Science, Mathematics &
                                        Engineering Education
                                        2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
                                        Washington, DC  20418

Carol W. Prevost                        Chip Price
Science & Technology Council Director   Vice President & Director
Princeton University                    Addison-Wesley Interactive
123 Lewis Thomas Lab                    One Jacob Way
Princeton, NJ  08544                    Reading, MA  01867

Glenda Price                            P. Buford Price
Provost                                 Divisional Dean of Physics
Spelman College                         Department of Physics
Box 1209                                University of California
Atlanta, GA  30314                      at Berkeley
                                        201 Campbell Hall
                                        Berkeley, CA  94720

Paul E. Prindle                         Patricia J. Pukkila
Vice Chair                              Associate Professor, Department
Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc.       of Biology
40 Tall Pine Road                       University of North Carolina
Sudbury, MA  01776                      at Chapel Hill
                                        CB 3280
                                        Chapel Hill, NC  27599

Mark Pushman                            Thomas S. Quarles
Computer Sciences Corporation           Deputy Division Director
100 Decadon Drive                       National Science Foundation
Pleasantville, NJ  08232                4201 Wilson Boulevard
                                        Arlington, VA  22230

John M. Quinn                           Samuel M. Rankin
Coordinator, Math Center Skills Center  Assoc. Executive Director
The Richard Stockton College            American Mathematical Society
of New Jersey                           1527 18th Street, N.W.
Pomona, NJ  08240                       Washington, DC  20036

Mulchand Rathod                         William H. Rauckhorst
Professor & Chair                       Associate Provost for Scholarship
Div. of Engineering Technology           & Teaching
Wayne State University                  Miami University
5050 Cass                               107 Roudebush Hall
Detroit, MI  48202-3900                 Oxford, OH  45056

Melvin C. Ray                           Robert Reinsvold
Associate Vice President for Research   Assistant Professor, Dept. of
Mississippi State University            Biological Sciences
P.O. Box 6343                           University of Northern Colorado
Mississippi State, MS  39762            Greeley, CO  80639

Suzanne W. Reuss                        Vincent Revels
Arizona State University                Vice President, Department
Box 873403                              of Curriculum Education
Tempe, AZ  85287                        Services
                                        Wake Technical Community College
                                        9101 Fayetteville Road
                                        Raleigh, NC  27603

Celena M. Richardson                    Earl S. Richardson
Student, Department of Biology          President, Department of Biology
Morgan State University                 Morgan State University
1020 N. Central Avenue                  1700 E. Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD  20202                    Baltimore, MD  21239

Hal Richtol                             Stephen Riter
Program Director, EHR/DUE               Provost & V.P. for Academic Affairs
National Science Foundation             University of Texas at El Paso
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Admin. Bldg., Room 310
Arlington, VA  22230                    500 W. University Drive
                                        El Paso, TX  79968

Jean Robinson                           T. Joan Robinson
Associate Professor                     Professor of Biology
Department of Political Science         Morgan State University
Indiana University - Bloomington        Cold Spring Lane and Hillen Road
Woodburn Hall 403                       Baltimore, MD  21239
Bloomington, IN  74705

Paul H. Rodriguez                       Doris Roman
Program Director, BIO                   Program Consultant
National Science Foundation             The GEM Consortium
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855.15      P.O. Box 537
Arlington, VA  22230                    Notre Dame, IN  46556

Nina Roscher                            Nedah M. Rose
Division of Undergraduate Education     John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
National Science Foundation             605 Third Avenue
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         New York, NY  10158-0012
Arlington, VA  22230

James M. Rosser                         John E. Rudzki
President                               Division of Undergraduate Education
California State University at          National Science Foundation
Los Angeles                             4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
5151 State University Drive             Arlington, VA  22230
Los Angeles, CA  90032-8500

Alejandro Ruiz-Acevedo                  Janet Rutledge
V.P. for Academic Affairs & Planning    Program Director, EHR/DUE
Inter American University of            National Science Foundation
Puerto Rico                             4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
P.O. Box 383255                         Arlington, VA  22230
San Juan, PR  00936-3255

Peter C. Ryan                           Gerhard Salinger
Instructor, Environmental Science       Program Director, EHR/ESIE
Salish Kootenai College                 National Science Foundation
P.O. Box 117                            4201 Wilson Boulevard
Pablo, MT  59855                        Arlington, VA  22230

John Saurer                             Denise T. Schanck
General Manager and Vice President      Publisher, Science, Mathematics,
Kodak Colorado Division                 Engineering, Computer Science
Eastman Kodak Company                   The McGraw-Hill Companies
9952 Eastman Park Drive                 1221 Ave. of the Americas
Windsor, CO  80551-1334                 New York, NY  10020

Gil Schmidt                             James C. Schmidt
Vice Provost, Department of             Associate Professor
Academic Affairs                        Ashland Community College
University of N. Colorado, Carter Hall  1400 College Drive
Greeley, CO  80639                      Ashland, KY  41101

Lawrence E. Schulz                      Albert J. Schwabenbauer
Dean & VP for Academic Affairs          Vice President,  Worldwide Customer
St. Andrews Presbyterian College        Service
1700 Dogwood Mile                       Sikorsky Aircraft
Laurinburg, NC  28352                   United Technologies Corporation
                                        6900 Main Street, MS:S419A
                                        Stratford, CT  06497

Sue H. Schwabenbauer                    Chalmers Sechrist
Assistant Dean - Liberal Arts           Division of Undergraduate Education
Quinnipiac College                      National Science Foundation
Hamden, CT  06518                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
                                        Arlington, VA  22230

Gerry A. Selter                         Steven O. Senger
Dean, College of Science                Professor, Dept. of Computer Science
San Jose State University               Univ. of Wisconsin-La Crosse
One Washington Square                   124 Morris Hall, 1725 State St.
San Jose, CA  95192-0099                La Crosse, WI  54601-3742

Frank A. Settle                         Henry D. Shannon
Program Director, EHR/DUE               President
National Science Foundation             St. Louis Community College
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         at Forest Park
Arlington, VA  23330                    5600 Oakland Avenue
                                        St. Louis, MO  63110

Bonney Sheahan                          Anding Shen
Program Manager, SBE                    3311 Powelton Avenue, Apt. 2F
National Science Foundation             Philadelphia, PA  19104
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA  22230

Jeffrey H. Sherman                      Harry L. Shipman
President                               Professor, Dept. of Physics
Technology Review, Inc.                 and Astronomy
8787 Woodway, Suite 1201                University of Delaware
Houston, TX  77083                      Sharp Laboratory
                                        Newark, DE  19716

Lewis Shumaker                          Jim Shuman
Manager, University Relations &         Project Director
Recruitment                             Northwest Center for Emerging
DuPont                                  Technologies  #A202
1007 Market Street                      3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.
Wilmington, DE  19898                   Bellevue, WA  98007-6484

Shari Silverman                         Robert L. Simpson
Graduate Student                        Provost
Middlesex County College                University of Michigan-Dearborn
155 Mill Road                           4901 Evergreen Road
Edison, NJ  08818                       Dearborn, MI  48128

Gary Simundza                           Surya C. Singh
Dept. of Applied Math/Science           Student, The University of
Wentworth Institute of Technology       Texas at Austin
550 Huntington Avenue                   807 W. 25th Street, #209
Boston, MA  01155                       Austin, TX  78705

Ted Sjoerdsma                           Jeanne E. Sjovall
Program Consultant, DUE/ORISE           Assistant Dean, Instructional
National Science Foundation             Development
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   New England Institute of Technology
Arlington, VA  22230                    2500 Post Road
                                        Warwick, RI  02886

John H. Skillings                       Howard Skinner
Associate Dean, College of Arts &       Interim President
Science                                 University of Northern Colorado
Miami University                        Provost's Office
143 Upham Hall                          Greeley, CO  80639
Oxford, OH  45056

Elizabeth Skomp                         Kim Skyelander
Indiana University Student Association  Instructor, Environmental Science
Indiana University - Bloomington        Salish Kootenai College
IMU 32                                  P.O. Box 117
Bloomington, IN  47405                  Pablo, MT  59855

Mary Sladek                             Judy Smalling
Assistant Program Director, EHR/REC     National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation             4201 Wilson Boulevard
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Arlington, VA  22230
Arlington, VA  22230

Calvert H. Smith                        David A. Smith
On-Site Coordinator, The Board of       Associate Professor, Department of
Education                               Mathematics
Cincinnati City School District         Duke University
P.O. Box 5381                           Box 90320
Cincinnati, OH  45201-5381              Durham, NC  27708

Kent Smith                              Myra O. Smith
Instructor                              Program Director, EHR/DUE
Texas State Technical College           National Science Foundation
300 College Drive                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Sweetwater, TX  79556                   Arlington, VA  22230

Nolan Sommer                            Janet Weiss Sorrels
Chairman of the Board                   Assistant Dean, College of Mathematical
Stoney-Mueller                          & Physical Sciences
750 Oneida Trail                        The Ohio State University
Franklin Lakes, NJ  07417               154 Denney Hall
                                        164 W. 17th Avenue
                                        Columbus, OH  43210-1316

Francis Spano                           Brock Spencer
Dean, Division of Engineering           Professor
Technologies & Science                  Beloit College
Middlesex County College                700 College Street
155 Mill Road                           Beloit, WI  53511
Edison, NJ  08818

Cedric T. Stallworth                    Michael Starbird
Process Integration Partner             Associate Dean for Undergraduate
Office of Minority Educational          Education
Development                             Dept. of Natural Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology         The University of Texas at Austin
681 Cherry Street                       WCH 3.104, Office of the Dean
Atlanta, GA  30332-0600                 Austin, TX  78712-1199

Richard E. Stephens                     John G. Stevens
Consultant                              National Executive Officer
Oak Ridge Associated Universities       Council on Undergraduate Research
8304 Brewster Drive                     Univ. of North Carolina at Asheville
Alexandria, VA  22308-2106              Asheville, NC  28804

Catherine B. Stevenson                  Fred Stollnitz
Dean of Faculty                         Program Director, Cross-Directorate
University of Hartford                  Activities
200 Bloomfield Avenue                   National Science Foundation
West Hartford, CT  06117                4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 685
                                        Arlington, VA  22203

Donald B. Stratton                      Denis J. Sullivan
Professor of Biology                    Director of ACE Implementation
Drake University                        Northeastern University
2507 University Avenue                  112 Hayden Hall
Des Moines, IA  50311-4505              Boston, MA  02115

Edward C. Sullivan                      Larry Suter
New York State Assembly                 Deputy Division Director, REC
717 Legislative Office Building         National Science Foundation
Albany, NY  12248                       4201 Wilson Boulevard
                                        Arlington, VA  22230

James E. Swartz                         Dell L. Swearingen
Professor of Chemistry                  Director, Math/Science/Electronics
Grinnell College                        Chemeketa Community College
P.O. Box 805                            P.O. Box 14007
Grinnell, IA  50112                     4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.
                                        Salem, OR  97309-7070

Anna Tan-Wilson                         Robert J. Tatz
Professor, Dept. of Biological          Instructional Laboratory Supervisor
Sciences                                Department of Chemistry
SUNY at Binghamton                      The Ohio State University
P.O. Box 6000                           100 W. 18th Street
Binghamton, NY  13902-6000              Columbus, OH  43210

Laura L. Tedder                         Elizabeth Teles
Associate Director, Education           Program Director, EHR/DUE
University of Colorado - Boulder        National Science Foundation
Campus Box 525                          4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Boulder, CO  80309-0525                 Arlington, VA  22230

Ronald Temple                           Mary Kay Tetreault
Chancellor                              Vice President, Academic Affairs
City College of Chicago                 California State Univ.-Fullerton
226 W. Jackson Boulevard                800 N. State College Blvd.
Chicago, IL  60601                      Fullerton, CA  92634

Michael E. Thomas                       David Todt
Provost & Vice President for            Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Academic Affairs                        Shawnee State University
Georgia Institute of Technology         940 Second Street
Atlanta, GA  30332-0325                 Portsmouth, OH  45662

Lillian Tong                            Reginald Traylor
Undergraduate Education Coordinator     Dean, School of Graduate Studies
Center for Biology Education            University of the Incarnate Word
University of Wisconsin - Madison       4301 Broadway, Box T-2
425 N. Henry Mall                       San Antonio, TX  78209
Madison, WI

Albert Tricomi                          Romona A. Truesdale
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies  Computer Specialist, EHR/DUE
Office of the Provost                   The National Science Foundation
SUNY at Binghamton                      4201 Wilson Boulevard
P.O. Box 6000                           Arlington, VA  22230
Binghamton, NY  13901-6000

Kuei-Wu Tsai                            Alan Tucker
Associate Dean of Engineering           Professor of Mathematics
College of Engineering                  Dept. of Applied Mathematics &
San Jose State University               Statistics
San Jose, CA  95192-0080                SUNY at Stony Brook
                                        36 Woodfield Road
                                        Stony Brook, NY  11790

Elizabeth Tucker                        Nzinga Tull
Associate Professor                     Student,
SUNY Binghamton                         Dual Degree Engineering Program
Dickinson Community                     Spelman College
Binghamton, NY  13902-6000              2805 33rd Street, S.E.
                                        Washington, DC  20020

George Tuthill                          Tim Uy
Professor, Department of Physics        Office of the President
Montana State University                California Institute of Technology
AJM Johnson 214B                        Pasadena, CA  91125
Bozeman, MT  59717-0350

Myra Van Vactor                         Demetrius D. Venable
Director, Library Media Center          Professor & Chairman
Bellevue Community College  # D256      Department of Physics & Astronomy
3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.            Howard University
Bellevue, WA  98007-6484                2355 Sixth Street, N.W.
                                        Washington, DC  20059

Gerard Voland                           Ruth C. Von Blum
Associate Professor                     Research/Consultant
Dept. of Mechanical, Industrial         Inverness Research
& Manufacturing Engineering             3605 Ashwood Avenue
Northeastern University                 Los Angeles, CA  90066
367 Snell Engineering Center
Boston, MA  02115

Jack Waintraub                          Virginia Walbot
Chairperson, Department of Physics      Professor, Department of Biological
& Electrical Eng.                       Sciences
Middlesex County College                Stanford University
155 Mill Road  P.O. Box 3050            Stanford, CA  94305-5020
Edison, NJ  08818

Dorothy Walker-Jones                    Mark Walter
Associate Dean, Office of Natural       Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Sciences                                Department of Chemistry
Howard University                       Oakton Community College
2441 Sixth Street, N.W.                 1600 E. Golf Road
Washington, DC  20059                   Des Plaines, IL  60016

Dan Walz                                Elizabeth Ward
Metropolitan Detroit Alliance for       NASA Langley Space Grant Fellow
Minority Participation - WSU            NASA Langley Research Center
656 W. Kirby, Room 4047 FAB             National Aeronautics and
Detroit, MI  48202                      Space Administration
                                        Mail Stop 221
                                        Hampton, VA  23608

Mignon Waterman                         George H. Watson
Co-Chair, Government and Public         Associate Professor
Relations Committee                     Department of Physics & Astronomy
SIMMS                                   University of Delaware
530 Hazelgreen                          232 Sharp Lab
Helena, MT  59601                       Newark, DE  19716

Robert F. Watson                        Melvin Webb
Division Director, DUE                  Professor, Department of
National Science Foundation             Biological Sciences
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         Clark Atlanta University
Arlington, VA  22230                    James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW
                                        Atlanta, GA  30314

Peggie Weeks                            Maurice Weitlauf
Program Director, EHR/DUE               Professor of Chemistry
National Science Foundation             Oakton Community College
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835         1600 E. Golf Road
Arlington, VA  22230                    Des Plaines, IL  60016

Karen Wells                             Wayne Wells
Vice President for Instruction          Assistant Professor, Director's Office
Sinclair Community College              University of Texas-Pan American
444 West Third Street                   1201 West University Drive
Dayton, OH  45402                       Edinburg, TX  78539-2909

Barry L. Werner                         Peter West
Dean, Mathematics, Science and          Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
Technology                              National Science Foundation
Middlesex Community College             4201 Wilson Boulevard
Springs Road                            Arlington, VA  22230
Bedford, MA  01730

Ben White                               Richard A. White
Dean, Engineering Technology            Dean and Vice Provost,
Wake Technical Community College        Undergraduate Education
9101 Fayetteville Road                  Duke University, Box 90042
Raleigh, NC  27603                      104 Allen Building
                                        Durham, NC  27708-0042

Elizabeth Widdicombe                    Larry F. Wieserman
President                               Alcoa Laboratories
W.H. Freeman and Company                City College of New York
41 Madison Avenue                       100 Technical Drive
New York, NY  10010                     Alcoa Center, PA  15069-0001

Terry M. Wildman                        Peter E. Wilkness
Professor and Director                  Senior Science Associate, GEO
Center for Excellence in                National Science Foundation
Undergraduate Teaching                  4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1070
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and      Arlington, VA  22230
State University
118 Hillcrest Hall
Blacksburg, VA  24061-0453

Arthur L. Williams                      Luther S. Williams
Professor/Chairman, Biology Department  Assistant Director, EHR
Howard University                       National Science Foundation
2400 Sixth Street, N.W.                 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 805
Washington, DC  20059                   Arlington, VA  22230

Ronald A. Williams                      Gary Wilson
Vice President for Academic Affairs     Dean & Professor of Biology
Community College of Philadelphia       College of Arts & Sciences
1700 Spring Garden Street               Box 57, McMurray University
Philadelphia, PA  19130                 Abilene, TX  79697

Jack M. Wilson                          Dennis Winterrowd
Dean,                                   Management Consultant, Ethicon
Undergraduate & Continuing Education    6017 Warwick
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        San Angelo, TX  76901
Pittsburgh Building, Room 212
Troy, NY  12180-3590

Lawrence J. Wolf                        P. K. Wong
President                               Associate Dean, College of
Oregon Institute of Technology          Natural Science
3201 Campus Drive                       Michigan State University
Klamath Falls, OR  97601-8801           103 Natural Science Building
                                        East Lansing, MI  48824-1226

Susan S. Wood                           Terry S. Woodin
Mid-Atlantic Vice President             Program Director, EHR/DUE
American Mathematical Association       National Science Foundation
of Two-Year Colleges                    4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
c/o Reynolds Community College          Arlington, VA  22230
Box 85622
Richmond, VA  23285-5622

James P. Wright                         Bostwick F. Wyman
Program Director                        Vice-Chair, Mathematics
Division of Astronomical Sciences       The Ohio State University
National Science Foundation             231 West 18th Avenue
4201 Wilson Boulevard                   Columbus, OH  43210
Arlington, VA  22230

Roger E. Wyse                           Peter E. Yankwich
Dean and Director                       Senior Staff Associate, EHR/DUE
University of Wisconsin-Madison         Division of Undergraduate Education
140 Agricultural Hall                   National Science Foundation
1450 Linden Drive                       4201 Wilson Boulevard
Madison, WI  53706                      Arlington, VA  22230

Ken Yasukawa                            Edmonia T. Yates
Professor                               Morgan State University
Beloit College                          1700 E. Cold Spring Lane
700 College Street                      Baltimore, MD  21239-4093
Beloit, WI  53511

Doug Young                              Lee Zia
Coordinator, Southwest Center           Program Director, EHR/DUE
for Advanced Technological Education    National Science Foundation
300 College Drive                       4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835
Sweetwater, TX  79556                   Arlington, VA  22230

Lluvia Zuniga
Student, Physics Department
Univ. of California, Berkeley #7300
Berkeley, CA  94720-7300


_______________________________________________________________________________



                                  Section VII:

           Bibliography for the Review of Undergraduate Education
            in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
________________________________________________________________________________

Clifford Adelman, The Way We Are: The Community College as American Thermometer
      (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
      Research and Improvement, February, 1992, OR92-511).

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

Jeffrey C. Alexander, "The Irrational Disciplinarity of Undergraduate
      Education," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 40 (December 1, 1993)
      p. B3.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Science for
      All Americans (James Rutherford and Andrew Ahlgren, principal authors)
      (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989).

________________________________________________________,  Update (Washington,
      DC: AAAS, Inc., 1992).

________________________________________________________, Benchmarks for Science
      Literacy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993).

American Association for Higher Education, Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards,
      and Teaching Effectiveness, --- AAHE publications addressing the Forum's
      concerns include:
      E. Anderson, Campus Use of the Teaching Portfolio: Twenty-Five Profiles
      (1993);
      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);
      Robert Diamond and Bronwyn Adam (editors), The Disciplines Speak:
      Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, and Creative Work of Faculty
      (1995); and
      P. Hutchings, Peer Review of Teaching: A Project Workbook (1995).
      (Washington, DC: AAHE, One Dupont Circle).

American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Formula for Reform:
      The Role of the Comprehensive University in Undergraduate Science and
      Engineering Education (Washington, DC: November, 1989).

American Council on Education, Educating One-Third of a Nation: The Conference
      Report (Washington DC: ACE, 1988).

__________________________, Status Report on Minorities in Higher Education
      (Washington D.C., ACE, annual volumes).

American Geophysical Union, Chapman Conference, Scrutiny of Undergraduate
      Geoscience Education: Is the Viability of the Geosciences in Jeopardy?
      Conference Proceedings (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union Chapman
      Conference, 1995)

American Institute of Biological Sciences, Report of the Workshop on
      Undergraduate Environmental Science Education: Held in conjunction with
      the 42nd AIBS Annual Meeting of Scientific Societies, San Antonio, Texas,
      August 7-8, 1991 (Washington, DC:  American Institute of Biological
      Sciences, 1991).

American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, Standards for Curriculum
      and Pedagogical Reform in Two-Year College and Lower Division Mathematics
      (Cobleskill, New York: AMATYC, 1993).

______________________________________________, Standards for Introductory
      College Mathematics Before Calculus, Revised Final Draft (February, 1995).

American Psychological Association, Handbook for Enhancing Undergraduate
      Education in Psychology, Results of a National Conference held during
      June, 1991 at St Mary's City, MD,  (Washington, DC: American Psychological
      Association, 1993).

T.A. Angelo and K.P. Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for
      College Teachers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).

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).

_______________, What Matters in College? (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
      1993).

J.C. Bailar, "First-Year College Chemistry Textbooks," Journal of Chemical
      Education, Vol. 70 (1993), pp. 695-698.

Steven R. Barley, "The New Crafts: On the Technization of the Workforce and the
      Occupationalization of Firms," Working Paper, National Center for the
      Education of the Workforce (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania,
      1991).

Robert Barr and John Tagg, "From Teaching to Learning - a New Paradigm for
      Undergraduate Education," Change, Vol. 27 (November/December, 1995) pp.
      12-25.

P.A. Basili and P.J. Sanford, "Conceptual Change Strategies and Cooperative
      Group Work in Chemistry," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol.
      28, No. 4 (1991), pp. 293-304.

D.L. Benson, M.C. Wittrock, and M.E. Bauer, "Students Preconceptions on the
      Nature of Gases," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 30,
      (1993), pp. 587-597.

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

J.P. Birk and J. Foster, "The Importance of Lecture in General Chemistry Course
      Performance," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 70 (1993), pp. 180-182.

John Bishop, "Incentives and Disincentives for Studying in High School,"
      American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings (May 1995), paper
      presented at the American Economic Association national meetings, January
      6, 1995.

Debra E. Blum, "Colleges Urged to Make Radical Changes to Deal with National
      Crisis in Mathematics Education (Moving beyond Myths: Revitalizing
      Undergraduate Mathematics; Report by the National Research Council)," The
      Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 37 (April 17, 1991) pp. A15-16.

Paul Von Blum, Stillborn Education, A Critique of the American Research
      University (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986).

J.V. Boettcher (editor), 101 Success Stories of Information Technology in Higher
      Education (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1993).

C.C. Bonwell and J.A. Eison, Active Learning:  Creating Excitement in the
      Classroom, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1 (Washington, DC: George
      Washington University, 1991).

George Boggs, "The Learning Paradigm," Community College Journal (December/
      January, 1995/1996), pages 24-27.

Derek Bok, Higher Learning, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).

_________, Universities and the Future of America (Durham, NC: Duke University
      Press, 1990).

_________, "What's Wrong with Our Universities?:  Are they flunking out?  or are
      the graders asking the wrong questions?" Harvard Magazine (Cambridge, MA:
      May-June, 1990) pp. 44-59.

H.R. Bowen, The Costs of Higher Education:  How Much Do Colleges and
      Universities Spend per Student and How Much Should They Spend? (San
      Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1980).

Ernest L. Boyer, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America (New York:
      Harper and Row, 1987)

_____________, The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends
      (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Lawrenceville, NJ, 1989).

_____________, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate
      (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Carnegie Foundation for the
      Advancement of Teaching, 1990).

L. Braskamp and J. Ory, Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and
      Institutional Performance (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994).

A. Brown,  Science Education in Private Colleges of Central Appalachia
      (Lexington, KY: Faulty Scholars Program, University of Kentucky, October
      22-24, 1989).

S. Brush,  The History of Modern Science: A Guide to the Second Scientific
      Revolution, 1880-1950 (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1988).

Lawrence Burton and Carin Celebuski, Technical Education in 2-Year Colleges; HES
      17 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, US Dept of Education,
      National Endowment for the Humanities, March 1995).

Ann Bykerk-Kauffman, "Using Cooperative Learning in College Geology Classes,
      Journal of Geology Education, Vol. 43 (1995), pp. 308-316.

A.F. Cabrera, M.B. Castaneda, & D.S. Hengstler, "The Convergence Between Two
      Theories of College Persistence," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 63,
      No. 2 (1992) pp. 144-164.

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).

Center for Instructional Study, Syracuse University, A National Study of
      Research Universities on the Balance Between Research and Undergraduate
      Teaching, Supported by a grant from the Lilly Endowment (Syracuse, NY:
      Center for Instructional Development, Office of Evaluation and Research,
      Syracuse University, 1992)

C.S. Claxton and P.H. Murrell, Learning Styles: Implications for Improving
      Educational Practices, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4
      (Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1987).

J. Clement, D.E. Brown, and A Zietsman, "Not All Preconceptions are
      Misconceptions: Finding "Anchoring Conceptions" for Grounding Instruction
      on Students' Intuitions," International Journal of Science Education, Vol.
      11 (1989), pp. 554-565.

Council of Chief State School Officers, State Indicators of Science and
      Mathematics Education 1993, State and National Trends: New Indicators form
      the 1991-92 School Year (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
      Officers, 1993).

Mary Crystal Cage, "A Struggle for Reform," (University of Minnesota's Plan
      Focuses on Undergraduate Education) The Chronicle of Higher Education,
      Vol. 40 (March 23, 1994) p. A41

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a
      Profession, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York,
      1986).

Audrey B. Champagne (editor), Science Teaching: Making the System Work
      (Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science,
      1988).

Bradford Chaney, Student Outcomes and the Professional Preparation of Eighth-
      grade Teachers in Science and Mathematics, NSF/NELS:88 Teacher Transcript
      Analysis Prepared for the NSF (Washington, DC: Westat, Inc., May, 1995).

Change Magazine, "Where's the Beef? College Seniors Evaluate Their Undergraduate
      Experience," Change, Vol. 26 (September/October, 1994) pp. 29-32.

Lynne Cheney, 50 Hours: A Core Curriculum for College Students (Washington, DC:
      National Endowment for the Humanities, 1989).

A. W. Chickering and Z. F.Gamson (editors), "Applying the Seven Principles for
      Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (A Symposium), New Directions for
      Teaching and Learning (Fall, 1991) pp. 1-100.  [Available at GWU and CU]

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

Charles Clotfelter, Demand for Undergraduate Education, Part I in Economic
      Challenges in Higher Education, A National Bureau of Economic Research
      Monograph (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1991)  pp.
      19-139.

I.B. Cohen, Birth of a New Physics (Norton, New York, 1985).

M. M. Cooper, "Cooperative Learning: An Approach for Large Enrollment Courses,"
      Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 72 (1995), pp. 162-64.

Patricia Cuniff (Chair), Curtis Heiggelkke (co-Chair), and Barbara Leigh Smith
      (co-Chair), Putting the Pieces Together, A Guide Book for Leaders of
      Coalitions of Two- and Four-Year Colleges and Universities (Largo, MD:
      The Science & Technology Resource Center, Prince George's Community
      College, 301 Largo Rd., October 14-15, 1993).

Brian H. Denton, and Roger Bowers, "An innovation in Undergraduate Mathematics
      Courses," Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1993) pp.
      227-9.

Mary E. Diez, Setting Standards and Educating Teachers: a National Conversation:
      A Report from the Wingspread Conference, November 1-4, 1993 (Washington,
      DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1994).

James J. Duderstadt, A Vision for the 21st Century: Beyond "The Leaders and
      Best."  President's Weekend Address (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
      Michigan, September 29, 1995).

R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (editors), Research in Physics Learning:
      Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (San Diego, CA: San Diego State
      University, 1991).  In particular see: D. Brown and J. Clement, Classroom
      Teaching Experiments in Mechanics.

Richard Duschl, Restructuring Science Education; The Importance of Theories and
      Their Development (New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College
      Press, 1990).

Gordon P. Eaton, "Post Industrial Geological Education: What Curriculum Changes
      Might We Need at the Undergraduate and Graduate Level?", Abstracts with
      Programs, Geological Society of America, Vol. 26, No. 7 (1994), p. 154.

Kenneth Eugene Eble, "The Degradation of Undergraduate Education," New
      Directions for Teaching and Learning (Winter, 1990) pp. 11-19.

The Journal of Economic Education, "Undergraduate Economic Education (a
      Symposium)," The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 22 (Summer, 1991) pp.
      195-300.

Russell Edgerton, P. Hutchings, and K. Quinlan, The Teaching Portfolio:
      Capturing the Scholarship in Teaching (Washington, DC: American
      Association of Higher Education, 1991).

S.C. Ehrmann, "Asking the Right Question: What Does Research Tell Us About
      Technology and Higher Learning?" Change Magazine (March, 1995).

The Engineering Foundation, Innovation in Undergraduate Engineering Education
      (New York, NY: United Engineering Trustees, August 6-11, 1989).

B. L. Erickson and D.W. Strommer, Teaching College Freshmen (San Francisco, CA:
      Jossey-Bass, 1991).

Edward W. Ernst, "Revitalizing Undergraduate Programs: Curriculum Development,"
      Engineering Education, Vol. 79 (January/February, 1989) pp. 20-4.

Engineering Foundation, Innovation in Undergraduate Engineering Education,
      Proceedings of a Conference held at Potosi, Missouri, August 5-10, 1990
      (New York, NY: Engineering Foundation, 1991).

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

Federal Coordinating Council for Science Engineering and Technology (FCCSET),
      Pathways to Excellence:  A Federal Strategy for Science, Mathematics,
      Engineering, and Technology Education [A strategic plan for the years
      FYl994 - FY1998.] (Washington, DC: Committee on Education and Human
      Resources, FCCSET, 1992).

The Five Colleges, Conference on Cooperation in Undergraduate Science Education,
      November 13-15, 1986 (Northampton, MA: The Five Colleges, Inc., 1986).

Maura C. Flannery, "Problems in Beloit (BioQuest, a project for the improvement
      of undergraduate biology education)," The American Biology Teacher, Vol.
      53 (November/December, 1991) pp. 500-3.

Deborah C. Fort, "Top Federal Agencies Join Other Reformers to Focus on the
      Vital Undergraduate Years,"  Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 25
      (September/October, 1995) pp. 26-31.

D.L. Gabel and D.M. Bunce, "Research on Problem Solving: Chemistry," in D.L.
      Gabel (editor), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (New
      York, NY: Macmillan, 1994).

Zelda F. Gamson, "A brief History of the Seven Principles for Good Practice in
      Undergraduate Education," New Directions for Teaching and Learning (Fall,
      1991) pp. 5-12.

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.

R. Giere, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach (Chicago, IL: University of
      Chicago Press, 1988).

John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York, NY:
      McGraw-Hill, 1984).

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

A.S. Goodsell, M.R. Maher, V. Tinto, B.L. Smith, and J. MacGregor, Collaborative
      Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education (University Park, PA: National
      Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, 1992).

David Goodstein, "Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiterates," Sigma Xi,
      Proceedings of a Forum on Ethics, Values, and the Promise of Science (New
      Haven, CT: Sigma XI, February 25-26, 1993).

Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable National Academy of Sciences,
      National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Stresses on
      Research and Education at Colleges and Universities:  Institutional and
      Sponsoring Agency Responses (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
      1994).

M.F. Green (editor), Minorities on Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing Diversity,
      (Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1989).

Thomas J. Greenbowe, "An Interactive Multimedia Software Program for Exploring
      Electrochemical Cells," (Project supported by the NSF Division of
      Undergraduate Education), Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (July,
      1994) pp. 555-7.

Michael Henchman, "Developing a Science Course for Nonscientists on the
      Chemistry of Art," (Project supported by the NSF Division of Undergraduate
      Education) Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (August, 1994) p. 670.

Susan T. Hill, Blacks in Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education,
      National Science Foundation Special Report (Washington DC: National
      Science Foundation, 1992, NSF92-305).

Thomas L. Hilton and Valerie E. Lee, "Student Interest and Persistence in
      Science: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Decade," Journal
      of Higher Education, Vol. 59 (1988) pp. 510-526.

Susan H. Hixson and Curtis T. Sears, "Instrumentation and laboratory improvement
      grants in Chemistry," (Projects supported by the NSF Division of
      Undergraduate Education), Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (October,
      1994) pp. A244-5.

Peter M. Hogan, "Vocational Preparation Within a Liberal Arts Framework:
      Suggested directions for undergraduate psychology programs," Teaching of
      Psychology, Vol. 18 (October, 1991) pp. 148-53.

The Holmes Group, Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group (East
      Lansing MI, The Holmes Group, 1986).

Gerald Holton, "A Nation at Risk, Revisited," The Advancement of Science and its
      Burdens (Cambridge, England: The Press Syndicate of the University of
      Cambridge, 1986).

___________,  Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
      1993).

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Enriching the Undergraduate Laboratory
      Experience: 1992 Undergraduate Program Directors Meeting (Bethesda, MD:
      HHMI, 1993).

____________________________, Institutional Strategies for Enhancing
      Undergraduate Science Education: 1993 Undergraduate Program Directors
      Meeting (Bethesda, MD: HHMI, 1994).

____________________________, Expanding the Role of Science Departments: 1994
      Undergraduate Program Directors Meeting (Bethesda, MD: HHMI, 1995).

G.A. Hutchings, W. Hall, and P. Thorogood, "Experiences with Hypermedia in
      Undergraduate Education," Computers & Education, Vol. 22 (January/
      February, 1994) pp. 39-44.

Inverness Research Associates, Science Education for the 1990s: Strategies for
      Change: Reflections on a 1991 Wingspread Conference (held at Inverness, CA
      in 1991) sponsored by the Johnson Foundation (Inverness, CA: Inverness
      Research Associates, 1991).

D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, Active Learning: Cooperation in the
      College Chemistry Classroom (Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co., 1991).

Howard G. Johnson, "The National Geography Standards and Your Undergraduate
      Curriculum:  The Opportunity that Knocks More than Once," Journal of
      Geography, Vol. 94 (September/October, 1995) pp. 534-7.

William B. Johnson and Arnold Packer, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the
      21st Century (Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1987).

Joint Policy Board for Mathematics, Committee on Professional Recognition and
      Rewards, Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematics Sciences (Washington,
      DC: Joint Policy Board for Mathematics, 1994), [Copies available from the
      American Mathematical Society.]

Journal of Chemical Education, "Systemic Changes in the Undergraduate Chemistry
      Curriculum Program," (Project supported by the NSF Division of
      Undergraduate Education) Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (January,
      1994) pp. 43-6.

_________________________, "Projects supported by the NSF Division of
      Undergraduate Education," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (June,
      1994) pp. 506-8.

Project Kaleidoscope, What Works: Building Natural Science Communities, A Plan
      for Strengthening Undergraduate Science and Mathematics (Washington, D.C.:
      Project Kaleidoscope, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 1205-ICO, 20036,
      1991).

L. Keig and M.D. Waggoner, Collaborative Peer Review: The Role of Faculty in
      Improving College Teaching, ASHE-ERIC Report No. 2 (Washington, DC: George
      Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, 1994).

Donald Kennedy, "Another Century's End, Another Revolution for Higher
      Education," Change (May/June, 1995), pages 8-15.

_____________, A Research-Rich Environment (Washington, DC: Project
      Kaleidoscope, 1993).

_____________, Leadership: Challenges for the Future (Washington, DC: Project
      Kaleidoscope, 1994).

_____________, Structures for Science: A Handbook on Planning Facilities for
      Undergraduate Natural Science Communities (Washington DC: Project
      Kaleidoscope, 1995).

Leslie Koltai & Michael Welding, Co-Chairs, The Status of Science, Engineering,
      and Mathematics Education in Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges
      (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges,
      National Center for Higher Education, 1991).

L. M. Lambert and S. L. Tice, Preparing Graduate Students to Teach (Washington,
      DC: American Association for Higher Education, 1993).

Chen-Lin C. Kulik and J. A. Kulik, "Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instruction:
      An Updated Analysis," Computers in Human Behavior Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2
      (1991) pp. 75-94.

J. J. Lagowski, "The Condition of Undergraduate Science Education: the NSF
      Perspective," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 67 (January, 1990) p. 1.

Ram S. Lamba, "Laboratory-driven Instruction in Chemistry," (Project supported
      by the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education), Journal of Chemical
      Education, Vol. 71 (December, 1994) pp.1073-4.

Priscilla Laws, "Calculus Based Physics without Lectures," Physics Today
      (December 24-31, 1991).

Rosarius Roy Leonardi, Reflections: a Study of the Undergraduate Experience as
      it Relates to College Graduates in the Workplace (University of Vermont,
      Doctoral Thesis, 1995).

Nathan S. Lewis, "The Caltech Chemistry Animation Project," (Project Supported
      by the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education) Journal of Chemical
      Education, Vol. 70 (September, 1993) pp. 739-40.

G. Lisensky, L. Parmentier, and B. Spencer, "Introductory Chemistry at Beloit
      College," Leadership: Challenges for the Future, Occasional Paper II
      (Washington, DC: Project Kaleidoscope, 1994).

G. Loacker and M. Mentkowski, "Creating a Culture Where Assessment Improves
      Learning," in T. Banta (editor) Making a Difference: Outcomes of a Decade
      of Assessment in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).

Jack R. Lohmann & Angelica M. Stacy (co-Chairs), America's Academic Future: A
      Report of the Presidential Young Investigator Colloquium on U.S.
      Engineering, Mathematics, and Science Education for the Year 2010 and
      Beyond, Nov. 4-6, 1990, (Washington, DC: Division of Undergraduate
      Science, Engineering and Mathematics Education, National Science
      Foundation, 1992, NSF91-150).

J. Lowman, Mastering the Technique of Teaching, 2nd Edition (San Francisco, CA:
      Jossey-Bass, 1995).

Mathematical Sciences Education Board, Measuring Counts, A Policy Brief
      (Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1993).

_________________________________,  Measuring Up, Prototypes for Mathematics
      Assessment (Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy
      Press, 1993).

_________________________________, The Preparation of Teachers of Mathematics:
      Considerations and Challenges, A Letter Report (Washington, DC: National
      Research Council, National Academy Press, March 1996).

Marcia L. Matyas & Shirley M. Malcom (editors), Investing in Human Potential:
      Science and Engineering at the Crossroads (Washington, DC: American
      Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991).

R.A. Markwood and S.M. Johnstone (editors), New Pathways to a Degree: Technology
      Opens the College (Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher
      Education, 1994).

____________________________________, New Pathways to a Degree: Seven Technology
      Stories (Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
      1994).

William F. Massy and Robert Zemsky, Using Information to Enhance Academic
      Productivity, based on a meeting of an 18-member roundtable in June, 1995
      at Wingspread (Washington, DC: Educom, 1995).

Lewis B. Mayhew, Patrick Ford, and Dean Hubbard, The Quest for Quality: The
      Challenge for Undergraduate Education in the 1990s (San Francisco, CA:
      Jossey-Bass, 1990).

Lillian C. McDermott, "A Perspective on Teacher Preparation in Physics and Other
      Sciences: The Need for Special Science Courses for Teachers, The American
      Journal of Physics, Vol.58 (1990), pp. 734-742.

_________________, "What We Teach and What is Learned - Closing the Gap," The
      American Journal of Physics, Vol.59 (1991), pp. 701-315.

_________________, P. Shaffer, and M. Somers, "Research as a Guide for
      Curriculum Development: An Illustration in the Context of the Atwood's
      Machine," The American Journal of Physics, Vol.62 (1994), pp. 46-55.

Wilbert J. McKeachie (editor), Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory
      for College and University Teachers, 9th edition (Lexington, MA:  D.C.
      Heath, 1994).

Dean McManus, "Some overlooked matters in undergraduate geoscience education,"
      Journal of College Science Teaching Vol. 24 (March/April, 1995) pp.
      316-21.

Dennis G. McMinn, Kay L. Nakamaye, and Joanne A. Smieja, "Enhancing
      Undergraduate Education: Curriculum Modification and Instrumentation," (at
      Gonzaga University) Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (September,
      1994) pp. 755-8.

Ann P. Woodhull-McNeal, "Project Labs in Physiology," Advances in Physiology
      Education,  Vol. 8 (1992) pp. 29-32.

____________ and Michelle Murrain, "Drugs in the Nervous System: a Course in
      Learning to Learn Science,"  College Teaching Vol. 42 (1994) pp. 47-50.

C. Meyers and T.B. Jones, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College
      Classroom (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993).

J. A. Moore, "Science as a Way of Knowing: Evolutionary Biology," The American
      Zoologist, Vol. 24 (1984), pp. 421-435.

P. Morris, S.C. Ehrmann, R. Goldsmith, K. Howat, and V. Kumar, Valuable, Viable
      Software in Education: Cases and Analysis, (New York, NY: Primis Division
      of McGraw-Hill, 1994).

Robert T. Morrison, "The Lecture System in Teaching Science," Proceedings of the
      Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number 1, Undergraduate
      Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian Rice) (Chicago, IL:
      University of Chicago, The College Center for Curricular Thought, October
      18-19, 1995).

S.L. Mow & M.T. Nettles,  Minority Access to, and Persistence and Performance
      in, College: A Review of the Trends and Research Literature, in J.C. Smart
      (editor), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. VI (New
      York: Agathon Press, 1990).

Richard Murnane, John Willett, and Frank Levy, The Growing Importance of
      Cognitive Skills in Wage Determination (Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper
      No. 5076, March 1, 1995).

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
      Policy, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers
      (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995).

_________________________,  Reinventing Schools:  The Technology is Now!; A
      Model for Education; A policy statement accessible through the NAS/NAE/IOM
      Internet Home Page (HTTP://WWW.NAS.edu, go to
      http://www.nap.edu/nap/online/techgap/welcome.html and choose A Model for
      Education; based on a May 1993 Convocation at the NAS).

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.

National Center on Education and the Economy, America's Choice: High Skills or
      Low Wages, A Report of the Commission on the Skills of the American
      Workforce (Rochester, NY: 1990).

National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington,
      DC: US Government Printing Office, 1983).

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards
      for School Mathematics (Reston, Va: 1989).

_____________________________________, Professional Standards for Teaching
      Mathematics (Reston, VA: 1991).

_____________________________________, Assessment Standards for School
      Mathematics, Working Draft (October, 1993).

National Governors' Association, Time for Results (Washington, DC: National
      Governors' Association Publication Office, 1986).

_________________________,  Making America Work; Bringing Down the Barriers;
      Productive People  Productive Policies (Washington D.C., National
      Governors' Association Publication Office, 1987).

National Research Council,  Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the
      Future of Mathematics Education. A joint policy statement of the
      Mathematical Sciences Education Board, the Board on Mathematical Sciences,
      and the Committee on Sciences in the Year 2000 (Washington DC: National
      Academy Press, 1989).

_____________________, Committee on the Mathematical Sciences in the Year 2000,
      Moving Beyond Myths: Revitalizing Undergraduate Mathematics (Washington,
      DC: National Academy Press, 1991).

_____________________, Board on Engineering Education, Engineering Education:
      Designing an Adaptive System (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
      1995).

_____________________,  From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in
      Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Challenge Paper for the
      NRC/NSF Convocation, April 9-11, 1995 (Washington, DC: National Academy of
      Sciences, 1995).

_____________________, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Science
      Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
      Draft, 1995).

_____________________, National Committee on Science Education Standards and
      Assessments, National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC:
      National Academy Press, 1995).

_____________________, Center for Science Mathematics, and Engineering
      Education,  From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science,
      Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Report of a Convocation
      (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996).

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, NSB86-100).

National Science Foundation,  Changing America: The New Face of Science and
      Engineering, Interim Report of the Task Force on Women, Minorities, and
      the Handicapped in Science and Technology (Washington DC: National Science
      Foundation, 1988).

______________________, Report on the National Science Foundation Disciplinary
      Workshops on Undergraduate Education: Recommendations of the disciplinary
      task forces concerning issues in U.S. undergraduate education in the
      Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering (Washington, DC: Division of
      Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, National
      Science Foundation, 1989, NSF89-3).

______________________, Report on the National Science Foundation Workshop on
      Science, Engineering and Mathematics Education in Two-Year Colleges,
      Robert E. Parilla (Chair) October 31 - November 1, 1988 (Washington, DC:
      Division of Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education,
      National Science Foundation, 1989, NSF89-50).

______________________, Report on the National Science Foundation Undergraduate
      Curriculum Development Workshop in Materials, October 11-13, 1989
      (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1989, NSF90-60)

______________________, The State of Academic Science and Engineering
      (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research
      & Analysis, 1990).

______________________, Report of the National Science Foundation Workshop on
      the Dissemination and Transfer of Innovation in Science, Mathematics, and
      Engineering Education, Richard D. Breslin (Chair) May 1-3, 1990
      (Washington, DC: Division of Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and
      Mathematics Education, National Science Foundation, 1990, NSF91-21).

______________________, Report of the National Science Foundation Workshop on
      Undergraduate Laboratory Development Theodore Brown and Anton Lawson (co-
      Chairs) June 18-19, 1990 (Washington, DC: Division of Undergraduate
      Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, National Science
      Foundation, 1990, NSF91-26).

______________________, Matching Actions and Challenges: Report of a National
      Science Foundation Workshop on Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
      Education in Two-Year Colleges, David Mertes & Dale Ewen (co-Chairs) May
      13-14, 1991 (Washington, DC: Division of Undergraduate Science,
      Engineering and Mathematics Education, National Science Foundation, 1991,
      NSF91-111).

______________________, Gateway to Diversity in the Scientific and Technological
      Workforce (Washington, DC: Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
      National Science Foundation, l992, NSF 92-99).

______________________, Partners in Progress: Report of a National Science
      Foundation Workshop on the Role of Professional Societies in Science,
      Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in Two-Year Colleges,
      Susan Forman & James Stith (co-Chairs) October 29-30, 1992 (Washington,
      DC: Division of Undergraduate Science , Engineering and Mathematics
      Education, National Science Foundation, 1992, NSF93-64).

______________________, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination,
      Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education - 1992, First Edition
      (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1993, NSF93-95).

______________________, Proceedings of the National Science Foundation Workshop
      on The Role of Faculty from the Scientific Disciplines in the
      Undergraduate Education of Future Science and Mathematics Teachers
      (Washington DC: Division of Undergraduate Education, 1993, NSF93-108).

______________________, Gaining the Competitive Edge: Critical Issues in Science
      and Engineering Technician Education, Timothy Collins, Don Gentry, and
      Vernon Crawley (Co-Chairs), Workshop on Critical issues in Science and
      Engineering Technician Education (Washington, DC: National Science
      Foundation, 1993, NSF94-32).

______________________, Expert Panel for the Review of Federal Education
      Programs in SMET, The Federal Investment in Science, Mathematics,
      Engineering, and Technology Education:  Where Now? What Next? (Washington,
      DC: NSF, 1993).

_______________________, Innovation and Change in the Chemistry Curriculum,
      Seyhan Ege and Orville Chapman (Co-Chairs) (Washington, DC: Division of
      Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, 1993, NSF94-l9).

_______________________, Foundation for the Future (Arlington, VA: Directorate
      for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation, 1994,
      NSF94-65).

_______________________, Foundation for the Future: The Systemic Cornerstone
      (Arlington, VA: Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National
      Science Foundation, 1994, NSF94-121).

______________________, Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit
      Institutions: Fiscal Year 1992 (Surveys of Science Resources Studies,
      Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF94-324).

______________________, NSF in a Changing World, The National Science
      Foundation's Strategic Plan (full text: NSF 95-24, executive summary: NSF
      95-142).

_______________________, Foundation for the Future: Turning Points (Arlington,
      VA: Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science
      Foundation, 1995, NSF95-36).

______________________, Division of Undergraduate Education, Project Impact:
      Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Education, Abstracts of
      Projects: Things That Work (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,
      1995, NSF95-70).

______________________, Teacher Preparation and NSF Collaboratives for
      Excellence in Teacher Preparation, FY93 and 94 Awards (Washington, DC:
      National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, 1995,
      NSF95-73).

______________________, Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change,
      Report of an NSF Workshop on Engineering Education (Washington, DC:
      Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, 1995,
      NSF95-65).

_______________________, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for
      Education and Human Resources, Undergraduate Education in Science,
      Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; Program Announcement and
      Guidelines (NSF 96-10).

______________________, 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).

Katherine J. Nevins, "Understanding Students as Learners: Using Student
      Development Models," SPECTRUM Program at Bethel College, St. Paul, MN
      [SPECTRUM = Scholars Pursuing Educational Competencies to Reach
      Undergraduate Maturity], Liberal Education, Vol. 78 (January/February,
      1992) pp. 24-7.

William H. Newell, "Academic Disciplines and Undergraduate Interdisciplinary
      Education: Lessons from the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Miami
      University, Ohio," European Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No.3 (1992) pp.
      211-21.

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

J. D. Novak, and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn (New York, Cambridge
      University Press, 1984).

Lyman O'Neal and Jerry Skelton, "Teaching Undergraduate Ecology Through
      Adventure and Travel in the United States," Journal of College Science
      Teaching, Vol. 21 (December,1991 /January, 1992) pp. 154-8.

E. T. Pascarella, and P. T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students. Findings
      and Insights from Twenty Years of Research (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
      Bass, 1991).

_____________________________, "Living with Myths: Undergraduate Education in
      America," Change, Vol. 26 (January/February, 1994) pp. 28-32.

Physics Today, "Roundtable: Whither Now Our Research Universities?" Physics
      Today (March, 1995) pp. 42-51.

Baron Perlman and Lee McCann, "The Place of Mathematics and Science in
      Undergraduate Psychology Education," Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 20
      (December, 1993) pp. 205-8.

The Pew Higher Education Roundtable, "To Dance with Change," Policy Perspectives
      (A Publication of the Pew Higher Education Roundtable), Vol. 5, No. 3,
      Section A (April, 1994), pp. 1-12.

Karl S. Pister, Report to the University-wide Task Force on Faculty Rewards
      (Oakland, CA: Office of the President, University of California, 1991).

__________, "Renewing the Research University," University of California at
      Santa Cruz Review (Winter 1996).

H.B. Posner and J.A. Markstein, "Cooperative Learning in Introductory Cell and
      Molecular Biology," Journal of  College Science Teaching, Vol.23 (1994),
      pp. 231-233.

Anne Reynolds, "What is Competent Beginning Teaching? A Review of the
      Literature," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 62 (1992), pp. 1-36.

S.A. Rice, Report of the Symposium on Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and
      Physics (Chicago, IL: Chemistry Department, University of Chicago, April,
      1986).

R.C. Richardson & L.W. Bender, Fostering Minority Access and Achievement in
      Higher Education (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987).

Robert W. Ricci, Mauri A. Ditzler, and Ronald M. Jarret, "The Holy Cross
      Discovery Chemistry Program," (Project supported by the NSF Division of
      Undergraduate Education) Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 71 (May,
      1994) pp. 404-5.

V. Richardson, "Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice,"
      Educational Researcher, (October, 1990) pp. 10-17.

Iris C. Rotberg, "Resources and Reality: The Participation of Minorities in
      Science and Engineering," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, No. 9, (1990) pp.
      672-679.

Inez Rovegno, "Content-knowledge Acquisition During Undergraduate Teacher
      Education: Overcoming Cultural Templates and Learning Through Practice,"
      American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30 (Fall, 1993) pp. 611-42.
      [Available at GWU]

S.B. Sarason, K.S. Davidson, and B. Blatt, The Preparation of Teachers:  An
      Unstudied Problem in Education (Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, 1986).

School Science and Mathematics Association, National Science Foundation / School
      Science and Mathematics Association Wingspread Conference: A Network for
      Integrated Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Held at Racine,
      WI, 1991) (Bowling Green, OH: School Science and Mathematics Association,
      1994).

Arnold E. Seigel and Cynthia Davis, "Televising Undergraduate Engineering
      Courses: a Survey," Engineering Education, Vol. 81 (July/August, 1991) pp.
      482-3.

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).

Bonney H. Sheahan and John A. White, "Quo Vadis, Undergraduate Engineering
      Education?" Engineering Education, Vol. 80 (December, 1990) pp. 1017-22.

Sigma Xi, An Exploration of the Nature and Quality of Undergraduate Education in
      Science, Mathematics and Engineering, A Report of the National Advisory
      Group of Sigma XI, The Scientific Research Society, sponsored by the
      National Science Foundation and the Johnson Foundation, The Wingspread
      Meeting [Racine, WI: January 23-26, 1989] (New Haven, CT: Sigma XI, 1989)
      [Address: 345 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511].

________, Entry-level Undergraduate Courses in Science, Mathematics and
      Engineering: An Investment in Human Resources, An initiative of Sigma XI,
      The Scientific Research Society, Committee on Science, Mathematics and
      Engineering Education, supported by the National Science Foundation and
      The Johnson Foundation, June 21-24, 1990 (Research Triangle Park, NC:
      1990).

K.L. Smith, "Collaborative and Interactive Writing for Increasing Communication
      Skills," Hispania, Vol. 73, No. 1, (1990) pp. 77-87.

R. Slavin, "Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy,"
      Educational leadership : Journal of the Department of Supervision and
      Curriculum Development, National Education Association, Vol. 47 (1989),
      pp. 52-54.

Page Smith, Killing the Spirit, Higher Education in America, (New York, NY:
      Viking Penguin, 1990).

Timothy Stanton, "Liberal Arts, Experiential Learning and Public Service:
      Necessary Ingredients for Socially Responsible Undergraduate Education,"
      The Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 27 (Fall, 1991) pp. 55-72.

Lynn Arthur Steen, "Reaching for Science Literacy," Change (July/August, 1991),
      pages 11-19.

John Richard Tinker, Jr., "Undergraduate Education in Hydrogeology," Journal of
      Geological Education, Vol. 37 (January, 1989) pp. 20-3.

Shiela Tobias, They're Not Dumb, They're Different (Tucson, AZ: Research
      Corporation, 1990).

___________, Stalking the Second Tier (Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, 1990).

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

K. Tobin, D.J. Tippins, and A. Gallard, "Research on Instructional Strategies
      for Teaching Science," in D.L. Gabel (editor), Handbook of Research on
      Science Teaching and Learning (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1994).

J. Trefil and R.M. Hazen, The Sciences: An Integrated Approach (New York, NY:
      John Wiley and Sons, 1995).

Alan C. Tucker and James R. Leitzel, Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts, A Report
      to the Community (Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America,
      1995).

Harriet Tyson, Who Will Teach the Children? Progress and Resistance in Teacher
      Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee
      on Science, The Quality of Undergraduate Science Education:  Hearing, One
      Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, March 31, 1992 (Washington D.C.:
      U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, No. 105).

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, 1987 through 1995).

U.S. Department of Energy, Science and Engineering Research Semester for
      Undergraduate Students, Program Description and Application, (Washington,
      DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, 1993).

U.S. Department of Labor, What Work Requires of Schools (Washington, DC: U.S.
      Government Printing Office, 1991).

U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
      (SCANS), Learning A Living: A Blueprint for High Performance, A Scans
      Report for America 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
      April, l992).

William E. Vandament, "Those Who Would Reform Undergraduate Education Must
      Recognize the Realities of Academic Governance," The Chronicle of Higher
      Education, Vol. 35 (November 30, 1988) p. A52.

Anne-Lee Verville, "What Business Needs form Higher Education,"  Educational
      Record (Fall, 1995), pp. 46-50.

Charles Vest, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report of the President
      for the Academic Year 1994-1995 (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, Jan 6, 1996).

S.B. Watson and J.E. Marshall, "Effects of Cooperative Incentives and
      Heterogeneous Arrangement on Achievement and Interaction of Cooperative
      Learning Groups in a College Life Science Course," Journal of Research in
      Science Teaching, Vol. 32 (1995), pp. 291-299.

James C. Weisshaar, "Frontier Chemistry for Freshmen," (Project supported by the
      NSF Division of Undergraduate Education) Journal of Chemical Education,
      Vol. 71 (March, 1994) pp. 225-6.

Kenneth G. Wilson and Bennett Daviss, Redesigning Education, (New York, NY:
      Henry Holt, 1994, 254 pages; and also
      http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kgw/RE.html).

W.R. Wineke & P. Certain, Co-Chairs, The Freshman Year in Science and
      Engineering:  Old Problems, New Perspectives for Research Universities,
      April 6-7, 1990 (University Park, PA: The Alliance for Undergraduate
      Education, 1990).  [Address: 405 Old Main, University Park, PA 16802.]

Wingspread Conference on Teacher Preparation (at Racine, WI in 1984), An Urgent
      Imperative: Proceedings of the Wingspread Conference on Teacher
      Preparation (Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and
      Universities, 1986).

Wingspread Conference (at Colorado Springs, CO during June 8-12, 1987),
      Communication is Life: Essential College Sophomore Speaking and Listening
      Competencies (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1990).

The Wingspread Conference, National Life Science Education Summit - Report of
      the Wingspread Conference [February 1-3, 1991, South Carolina] sponsored
      by the Johnson Foundation and the American Society for Microbiology,
      (Racine, WI: 1991).

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

D.R. Woods, "Teaching and Learning: What Can Research Tell Us?" Journal of
      College Science Teaching, Vol. 25 (1995) pp. 229-232.

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

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

Shoshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine (New York, NY: Basic Books,
      1989).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress
in the United States by competitively awarding grants for research and education
in the sciences, mathematics and engineering.

     To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies
of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Web site
at:

                              http://www.nsf.gov


   Location                                              4201 Wilson Blvd.
                                                         Arlington, VA 22230


   For General Information (NSF Information Center):     (703) 306-1234


   TDD (for the hearing impaired):                       (703) 306-0090


   To Order Publications or Forms:

              Send an e-mail to:                         pubs@nsf.gov

              or telephone:                              (301) 306-1234

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      NSF 98-128