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
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.
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
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

Director, Authentic Assessment

State Department of Education

Columbia, SC

Edward W. Bales

Director of Education, External Systems

Motorola Corporate Offices

Schaumberg, IL

Joan Barber

Director for Student Life

North Carolina School

of Science and Mathematics

Durham, NC

George Boggs

President

Palomar College

San Marcos, CA

Sadie Bragg

Acting Dean of Academic Affairs

City University of New York

Borough of Manhattan

Community College

New York, NY

Diane J. Briars

Mathematics Specialist

Office of Educational Design

and Assessment

Pittsburgh Public Schools

Pittsburgh, PA

Kerry Davidson

Deputy Commissioner

for Academic Affairs and Research

Louisiana Board of Regents

Baton Rouge, LA

Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.

Vice Chancellor

for Educational Development

Maricopa Community Colleges

Tempe, AZ

Denice D. Denton

Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Madison, WI

Charlotte K. Frank

Vice President

Research and Development

The McGraw-Hill Companies

New York, NY

Alan J. Friedman

Director

New York Hall of Science

Flushing Meadows Corona Park, NY

Melvin D. George

President Emeritus

St. Olaf College

Northfield, MN

Peter Gerber

MacArthur Foundation

Chicago, IL

N. Gerry House

Superintendent

Memphis Public Schools

Memphis, TN

Jane Butler Kahle

Condit Professor

of Science Education

Miami University

Oxford, OH

Charlotte Keith

Indian Trail High School

Olathe, KS

Mary M. Lindquist

School of Education

Columbus College

Columbus, GA

Stanley S. Litow

Director, Corporate Support Programs

IBM

Armonk, NY

Jack R. Lohmann

Associate Dean

College of Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

Charles Merideth

President

New York City Technical College

Brooklyn, NY

Robert E. Parilla

President

Montgomery College

Rockville, MD

Diana Garcia Prichard

Photoscience Research Division

Eastman Kodak Company

Rochester, NY

James M. Rosser

President

California State University

Los Angeles, CA

David A. Sanchez

Department of Mathematics

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

Maria Santos

Supervisor

Math and Science Department

San Francisco Unified School District

San Francisco, CA

Robert Schwartz

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Philadelphia, PA

Calvert H. Smith

Office of Systemic Reform

State of Ohio

Cincinnati, OH

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

Chancellor

St. Louis Community College System

St. Louis, MO

Uri Treisman

Department of Mathematics

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Leon Ukens

Department of Physics

Towson State University

Towson, MD

Donna L. York

Science Curriculum Coordinator

Anchorage School District

Anchorage, AK
Table of Contents

• i •

Table of Contents

The Charge to Revitalize Undergraduate Education in Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology vi

Introduction to the Second Volume 1

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

of Shaping the Future 3

Introduction 5

Shaping the Future NextSteps 5

External Assignment of Dr. Robert Watson 6

Regional Workshops for “Shaping the Future“ 7

Strengthening Participation by Corporations and Foundations 8

Working Through Scientific Societies and Professional Associations 9

Chronological List of Conferences Sponsoring Workshops & Presentations in

Support of Shaping the Future NextSteps 10

Bibliography of New Publications in Support of Shaping the Future of

Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and

Technology 16

II. Program History of Undergraduate Activities at NSF Since the Neal

Report (NSB 86-100) 21

Leadership 23

Leveraged Program Support 25

III. Written Remarks Contributed as Part of the EHR Advisory

Committee Public Hearings on Undergraduate SME&T Education 27

Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Disciplinary Perspectives 29

Invited Speakers 30

MRC Greenwood, Dean, Graduate Studies & Vice Provost, Academic

Outreach University of California at Davis 31

Rita R. Colwell, President, American Association for the Advancement

of Science (AAAS) & President, University of Maryland Biotechnology

Institute 37

Alan Tucker, Distinguished Teaching Professor, State University of

New York-Stony Brook & Chair, Education Coordinating Council of the

Mathematical Association of America 43

Eleanor Baum, Dean of Engineering, Cooper Union for the

Advancement of Science and Art (NY)

Winfred Phillips, Dean of Engineering, University of Florida 49
Table of Contents

• ii •

Peter J. Denning, Associate Dean for Computing, George Mason

University (VA) 53

Don K. Gentry, Dean of Engineering, School of Technology, Purdue

University (IN) 59

Durward R. Huffman, President, Northern Maine Technical College &

Academic Officer, Maine Technical College System 65

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

Chapel Hill 69

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

Berkeley 71

Robert C. Hilborn, Professor of Physics, Amherst College & PresidentElect, American Association of Physics Teachers 75

Eric Mazur, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, Division of

Applied Sciences & Professor of Physics, Harvard University 81

Tanya Atwater, Professor of Geological Sciences, University of

California, Santa Barbara 83

Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Institutional Perspectives 87

Invited Speakers 88

Pamela A. Ferguson, President, Grinnell College (IA) 89

Thomas Morris, President, Emory and Henry College (VA) 93

Bruce Leslie, President, Onondaga Community College (NY) 97

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson, Chancellor, St. Louis Community College 103

David R. Pierce, President, American Association of Community

Colleges (DC)

107

Frederick S. Humphries, President, Florida A&M University 109

William E. Kirwan, President, University of Maryland, College Park 115

Paula P. Brownlee, President, American Association of Colleges and

Universities (DC) 119

Saul K. Fenster, President, New Jersey Institute of Technology 123

Judith A. Ramaley, President, Portland State University (OR) 131

David Ward, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - Madison 141

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

Ann Arbor 145

Remarks Contributed to the Hearing on Employers’ Views 151

Invited Speakers 152

Walter G. Amprey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Baltimore City

Public Schools (MD) 153
Table of Contents

• iii •

Eugene Galanter, Professor of Psychology, Columbia University 157

Peggy Ruth Cole, Director of Program Planning and Development,

New York Hall of Science 163

Israel J. Galvan, President, GHG Corporation 167

Albert L. Moyé, University Relationships Manager, Hewlett Packard

Company

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

Company 171

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 177

Roberts Jones, Executive Vice President, National Alliance of Business 187

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

Exploration and Production Company 189

Patrick White, Vice President, Strategy, Bell Atlantic Corporation 195

Remarks Contributed to the Social Sciences Workshop 197

Participants in the Social Sciences Workshop 198

Overview 199

Andrew Abbott, Professor in Sociology and Master, Social Sciences

Collegiate Division, University of Chicago 205

John F. Dovidio, Department of Psychology, Colgate University 209

Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Vice President for Academic Programs,

Palnning, and Budgeting, Cornell University 213

Kenneth E. Foote, Associate Vice President for Research, The

University of Texas at Austin 217

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

Angeles 221

Maureen Hallinan, White Professor of Sociology, University of Notre

Dame 223

Jill H. Larkin, Department of Psychology and Center for Innovation in

Learning, Carnegie Mellon University 225

Frederick Reif, Department of Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University 231

Nora S. Newcombe, Department of Psychology, Temple University 235

Neil Stillings, Cognitive Science Program, Hampshire College 239

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

Undergraduate Education 243

Introduction 245

Summary of Employer Focus Groups 249

Summary of Teacher Preparation Focus Groups 255
Table of Contents

• iv •

Summary of Student Focus Groups 261

Summary of Recent Graduate Focus Groups 267

Summary of Parent Focus Groups 273

V. Background Data and Information Influencing the Conclusions and

Recommendations of Shaping the Future by Staff of the Division of

Undergraduate Education

275

Overview 277

Education Concerns: precollege 277

Education Concerns: undergraduate 277

Post-Secondary Education Issues

Public subsidies and faculty priorities 287

Rising costs 291

Pressures on public revenues 294

Where are the undergraduate students?

By type of institution 295

By discipline and type of institution 297

Distribution of Federal Funds for Science and Engineering, by type of institution 299

Faculty Teaching Methods and Class Size, by type of institution and discipline 302

Employers’ Perspectives on Features of a Well-Educated Undergraduate 307

Electronic Technology and Systemic Reform 310

VI. Contributors to the EHR Advisory Committee Review of U.S.

Undergraduate Education in SME&T 313

Acknowledgment of Participants by Melvin D. George 315

The Request for Comment from Luther Williams, NSF Assistant Director for

Education and Human Resources 316

Respondents to the Letter from Luther Williams, NSF Assistant Director for

Education and Human Resources 319

Undergraduate Convocation Program Steering Committee for From Analysis to

Action 327

Participants in From Analysis to Action, April 9-11, 1995 329

The EHR Advisory Committee 346

EHR Committee for the Report Shaping the Future: New Expectations for

Undergraduate Education Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology 347

NRC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education Committee

on Undergraduate Education 348

NRC “Year of Dialogue” Steering Committee 349

Participants in the EHR Advisory Committee Public Hearings on

Undergraduate Education in SME&T 350

Participants in the Shaping the Future Conference, July 11-13, 1996 351

VII. Bibliography for the Review of Undergraduate Education in Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

381
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
•vi •

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
•1•

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 theShaping 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 al—l 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
•2•
•3 •

Section I:

Activities in the Reform of Undergraduate Education

Since Volume I of Shaping the Future
•

4•
•5 •

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:

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

• designing further improvements in courses and learning experiences to improve learning by all

students;

• supporting interdisciplinary course and curricula development work by faculty from different

SME&T disciplines working collaboratively;

• strengthening internal connections across departments (within all types of academic

institutions) in support of improved undergraduate education for future teachers, and students
•6 •

majoring in non-SME&T disciplines, and students preparing to enter technical fields and the

professions; and

• 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:

• 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.

• Leveraging professional staff attendance at scientific and professional society meetings as

occasions to disseminate findings and recommendations in Shaping the Future.

• Inviting academic institutions to host regional or local workshops in order todiscuss and

actively encourage faculty to participate in reform of undergraduate education in SME&T,

with some logistical and financial support from NSF.

• Encouraging scientific and professional societies to continue to address the issues raised in

Shaping the Future.

• Suggesting that NSF grantees participate in these same types of outreach efforts on their own

or jointly with NSF program directors.

• 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.

• Forming an alliance with major corporations and foundations through a Memorandum of

Understanding, with the purpose of seeking their advice, counsel, and support.

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

• 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.
•7 •

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:

• facilitate specific regional and institutional plans to achieve widespread improvements in

undergraduate education; and
•8 •

• 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:

• participation of institutional teams, representing faculty, administration, students, and business

partners;

• significant involvement of employers of undergraduates;

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

• development of institutional plans for reform of undergraduate education;

• exhibits of innovations in undergraduate education; and

• 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.
•9 •

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

AirTouch Communications

Bayer Corporation

Bellcore

Boeing

Business-Higher Education Forum

The Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.

DuPont

Exxon Education Foundation

General Electric Fund

Global Wireless Education Consortium

Hewlett-Packard Company

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

International Business Machines

Lockheed Martin

Lucent Technologies

Microsoft Corporation

Motorola

Pew Science Program

Shodor Education Foundation

Society of Manufacturing Engineers Education

Foundation

Stratagene Cloning Systems

Technology Assessment and Transfer, Inc.

Texas Instruments

Toyota

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 ofShaping 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)
•10 •

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 ofShaping the Future

were being discussed in draft form, in advance of the report’s official release in July 1996.

March, 1996

• 1-3: Meeting of the Education Committee of the Geological Society of America (GSA),

Boulder, CO

• 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

• 24-26: 211th annual meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), New Orleans, LA

April, 1996

• 13-15: Annual meeting American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), Atlanta, GA

• 16-18: Meeting of the Government-University-Industry Roundtable, Seattle, WA

• 26: Special meeting (invited address) with a number of private firms, Phoenix, AZ

May, 1996

• 2-5: Annual Washington, DC joint meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) and the

American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)

• 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

• 20-22: Spring meeting of the Geological Society of American (GSA), Baltimore, MD

June, 1996

• 1-6: Annual meeting of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

(ASBMB), New Orleans, LA
•11 •

• 13: Introductory Physics Reform Conference: An Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE)

Project, Joliet, IL

• 16-18: Conference on publishing strategies sponsored by DUE, Hampshire College, and

Saunders Publishing Co., Amherst, MA

• 27-28: The 6th biennial national conference of the Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR),

North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC

• 30-July 5: Gordon Research Conference - Innovations in College Chemistry Teaching,

Plymouth State College, NH

July, 1996

• 11-13: National conference, Shaping the Future: Strategies for Revitalizing Undergraduate

Education, Washington, DC

• 13-15: EHR annual Partnership Conference, Washington, DC

• 27-30: Annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP) and site visit to

Trinity College, San Antonio, TX

• 31- August 3: International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (ICUPE),

College Park, MD

August, 1996

• 4-7: 14th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Clemson University, SC

• 4-8: 47th Annual meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), Seattle, WA

• 5-10: Summer meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), College

Park, MD

September, 1996

• 25: Meeting of the Texas Association of Schools of Engineering Technology (TASET), Austin,

TX

• 28-29: Meeting of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Human

Resources Committee), Washington, DC

October, 1996

• 4: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) regional meeting, Fargo, ND

• 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

• 11-12: Annual meeting of Mathematical Sciences Department Chairs, Rosslyn, VA

• 16-19: National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), Charlotte, NC

• 25-27: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) Workshop on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Teaching

Science and Mathematics, Colby College, Waterville, ME

• 30: American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Task Force on Academic and

Student Affairs, Arlington, VA

• 31-November 1: Annual meeting of the Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology, Inc.

(ABET), San Diego, CA

November, 1996

• 2: Mathematical Association of America (MAA), DelMarVa section, Frederick, MD

• 3-5: Regional meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Fargo, ND

• 5-8: Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE) meeting, Denver, CO
•12 •

• 6-9: 26th Annual meeting of “Frontiers in Education,” Salt Lake City, UT

• 7: Annual joint meeting of the Alabama College Chemistry Teachers Association, Columbia,

AL

• 7-10: Mathematicians and Education Reform (MER) workshop on "Teacher Education and

Mathematics Departments," University of Illinois at Chicago, IL

• 8: Regional meeting, Issues in Gateway Chemistry Courses, University of Maryland,

Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD

• 8-10: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) workshop, “Revitalizing Undergraduate Biology,”

Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA

• 12: NSF Forum on Distance Learning, Washington, DC

• 12-17: Meeting of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges

(AMATYC), Long Beach, CA

• 13: Industry-University-Government Roundtable, Bethesda, MD

• 14: American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

• 14: Annual meeting of the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences (CCAS) - Deans,

Philadelphia, PA

• 14-17: NSF sponsored Task Force on "Educating the Next Generation of Information

Specialists," Omaha, NE

• 15-17: "Spheres of Influence: Shaping the Future of Earth Systems Sciences Education"

Meeting, American Geophysical Union (AGU) headquarters, Washington, DC

• 21-22: Meeting of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society

Education Board, Pittsburgh, PA

• 22-23: Workshop on the programs of DUE and key aspects of proposal preparation, InterAmerican University, San Juan, PR

December, 1996

• 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)

• 15: Meeting with American Council on Education (ACE), Washington, DC

• 28-30: Annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology

• American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Presidents' workshop, Washington,

DC

• Annual meeting of the American Society of Cell Biology (ASCB), San Francisco, CA

• National Council for Resource Development national conference, Washington, DC

January, 1997

• 4-10: Annual meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), Phoenix, AZ

• 7: SUMMA (Strengthening Undergraduate Minority Mathematics Achievement) meeting, San

Diego, CA

• 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

• 15-19: NextSteps presentation at the meetings of the American Association for Higher

Education (AAHE), San Diego, CA

• 28: Regional Shaping the Future workshop sponsored by the University of Washington and

Bellevue Community College, Seattle, WA
•13 •

• 30-February 2: Louisiana Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Education regional

workshop on Shaping the Future, Baton Rouge, LA

• 31-February 1: Oakton Community College workshop on Shaping the Future, Oakton, CA

• Joint annual meeting of Mathematics Societies, San Diego, CA

February, 1997

• 1-3: SEMATECH annual conference, Austin, TX

• 9-15: American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO), Santa Fe, NM

• 25: Annual meeting of the American Council on Education (ACE), Washington, DC

• 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

• 28: Meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), Washington, DC

• 27-28: Annual meeting of the ACM Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education

(SIGCSE) and the ACM 50th Anniversary, San Jose, CA

• 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

• 4: Meeting of the Federal Interagency Chemistry Representatives (FICR), Washington, DC

• 6: National meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Alexandria, VA

• 6-8: Annual conference of Sigma Xi, New Orleans, LA

• 10-11: North Louisiana Research Conference, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA

• 13-19: Symposium, New Developments in Education in Analytical Chemistry, held at the

‘Pittsburgh Conference’ on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Atlanta, GA

• 14: Workshop II of Curriculum Development in Analytical Sciences, Atlanta, GA

• 14-16: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, hosted by California State University at

Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

• 14-16: Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP) - Teacher Preparation meeting, Puerto Rico

• 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

• 16-19: The Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy,

Atlanta, GA

• 23: Meeting with the Consortium for Social Science Associations (COSSA), Washington, DC

• 27: Meeting with the Delaware Community College System, Dover, DE

• 27-30: National Society of Black Engineers national conference, Washington, DC

April, 1997

• 7: Shaping the Future presentation at Washington & Lee University, Lexington, VA

• 10: Shaping the Future presentation at University of California, Davis, CA

• 11-12: The Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) April Dialogue meeting: The

Teaching-Research Connection, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

• 11-12: The Modular CHEM and ChemLinks consortia pedagogy meeting, Berkeley, CA

• 13-17: 213th National meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), San Francisco, CA
•14 •

• 17-18: Meeting of principal investigators and evaluators, Systemic Change in Chemistry

Curriculum project, Menlo Park, CA

• 18-19: Shaping the Future regional workshop, co-hosted by University of Missouri, Columbia,

and St. Louis Community College, St. Louis, MO

• 18-19: Spring meeting of the MD/DC/VA Section of the Mathematical Association of America

(MAA), College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

• 18-21: Joint annual meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) and the American

Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), Washington, DC

• 20: Arizona State University faculty retreat, Tempe, AZ

• 24-26: National Council for Resource Development (NCRD) Regional IV Conference,

Savannah, GA

• 24-27: Phi Theta Kappa International convention, Dallas, TX

May, 1997

• 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

• 8-9: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, "Revitalizing Undergraduate Mathematics and

Science Education: A National Dialogue," Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

• 8-9: Edu.Tech@Work97 Conference and Expo, Bellevue, WA

• Meeting of the education board of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), Atlanta,

GA

• 10-11: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, "Revitalizing Undergraduate Mathematics

and Science Education: A National Dialogue," The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

• 16: Presentation to the North Carolina Community College System, "Leading the Nation:

Opportunities for Two-Year Colleges," Smithfield, NC

• 16-17: National Institute for Science Education (NISE) Workshop on Collaborative Learning,

Madison, WI

• 19-23: 96th Annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), New Orleans,

LA

• 24-25: 11th International C. Elegans research conference, Madison, WI

June, 1997

• 5-7: Program workshop, NSF Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP)

program, attended by 10 Collaboratives, California State University, Dominguez Hills, CA

• 11-13: Meeting of Mathematics Across the Curriculum (MATC), Villanova University,

Philadelphia, PA

• 15-17: Annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE),

Milwaukee, WI

• 18: Regional workshop on Shaping the Future, Central Washington University, Ellensburg,

WA

• 20-21: 6th Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, Milwaukee, WI

• 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

• 30-July 2: McNU 97, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
•15 •

July, 1997

• 10-12: 1997 Reunion of Research Opportunity Award (ROA) participants

• 14-17: Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM),

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA

• 19-20: Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) workshop, Research-Rich Environments for

Undergraduate Education, Washington, DC

• Annual meeting of the American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington, DC

• 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

• 24-26: 2nd Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) International Conference on Digital

Libraries, Philadelphia, PA

• 29: Shaping the Future Workshop at Chautauqua Institute, Chautauqua, NY

August, 1997

• 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

• 16: Symposium on "Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Education and The Role of

University, Industry and Government in the Development of Human Resources," The InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico - Metropolitan Campus (IAU-M).

October, 1997

• 4-5: Project Kaleidoscope's annual workshop, "Reforming Earth and Planetary Science

Curricula: What Works," Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA.

• 8-11: The 1997 Convention of the NABT (National Association of Biology Teachers)

overview of Shaping the Future, Minneapolis, MN.

• 17: Workshop on "Shaping the Future: The Role of Two-Year Colleges" at the ACCT

(Association of Community College Trustees) annual conference, Washington, DC.

• 24 - 25: Regional Shaping the Future workshop hosted by Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

• 25-27: Geological Society of America, GSA’s Shaping the Future, Salt Lake City, UT.

November, 1997

• October 31-Nov 2: Project Kaleidoscope Workshop on "Enhancing Learning-Centered

Environments: The Biology of the Future," University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

• 14: State of Maine Regional Follow-Up to Shaping the Future, Bates College, Lewiston, ME.

December, 1997

• 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

• 4-8: Gordon Research Conference on Innovations in College Chemistry Teaching, Ventura,

CA.
•16 •

• 6-10: The annual joint meetings of the American Mathematical Society (AMS) &

Mathematical Association of America (MAA), Baltimore, MD.

• 16 - 17: Workshop on the New Traditions Chemistry Initiative, Madison, WI

• 22: Maryland Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Workshop on "Shaping the

Future of Mathematics and Science in Maryland," College Park, MD.

February, 1998

• 14-15: Shaping the Future Follow-Up Conference, hosted by Birmingham Southern College,

Birmingham, AL.

• 19-20: South Carolina Shaping the Future Conference, hosted by the University of South

Carolina, Columbia, SC.

March, 1998

• 20: A Regional Conference on "Transforming Undergraduate Education in SME&T," hosted

by New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.

April, 1998

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

May, 1998

• 1: Meeting of the Governing Board of the Hispanic Asssociation of Colleges and Universities,

Washington, DC.

• 1-2: A Regional Conference "Shaping the Future with Core Curriculum Reform: Guiding

Undergraduate Education in SME&T,” Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

• 6: Meeting of the Education and Human Resources Committee of the Semiconductor Industry

Association (SIA), Washington, DC.

• 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.

• 8 - 9: Regional New York Shaping the Future Conference, New York City, NY.

• 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 ofShaping

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.
•17 •

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."
•18 •

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 of 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).
•19 •

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 MetaAnalysis (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).
•20

•
•21 •

Section II:

Program History of Undergraduate Activities at NSF

Since the Neal Report (86-100)
•22

•
•23 •

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."
•24 •

Beginning in 1980 with the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and

culminating with the establishment of theRural 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 wordsall

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
•25 •

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 precollege 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 LongRange 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.
•26 

•
•27 •

Section III:

Written Remarks Contributed as Part of the

EHR Advisory Committee Public Hearings

on Undergraduate SME&T Education
•28

•
•29 •

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
•30 •

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

in SME&T

MRC Greenwood

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 &

Engineering

Peter J. Denning

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
•31 •

Undergraduate Education in

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

MRC Greenwood

Dean, Graduate Studies & Vice Provost, Academic Outreach

University of California at Davis

Davis, California

Introduction

As some of you will know, I had the great pleasure of serving in President Clinton’s Administration from

1993 until May of this year. One of the greatest pleasures I have experienced was working with the

Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Neal Lane; the Director of the National Institutes of

Health, Dr. Harold Varmus, co-Chairs of the President's National Science and Technology Council

committee on Fundamental Science, and the other distinguished members of the committee. This

committee played a lead role in the extensive bipartisan consultation with many interested scientists and

other individuals who are concerned about our nation's readiness to face the challenges of the fast paced,

technologically dependent global workplace of the 21st century.

To help all Americans understand what was at stake and to articulate to the American public the

importance of investing in science, technology, and education, President Clinton and Vice President Gore

released, in August 1994, a statement entitled Science in the National Interest. Science in the National

Interest provides an important articulation to the American people why it is that the government must

continue to invest in scientific discovery, scientific leaders, science education, and the development of a

scientifically literate public.

Many statements from a variety of organizations and from previous administrations have stressed the

importance to the Nation of investing in research. Other statements have stressed the importance of

education to our future but few, if any have clearly connected the importance of science education,

science literacy, research, and our economic security.

If you read Science in the National Interest, you will note that this is not an esoteric document. Rather, it

is about people, investing in people, and investing in their ideas and in their education in order to create

our collective future.

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

• Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

• Enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals.

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

are primarily directed to creating the knowledge base and the new tools that will shape the 21st century

economy. The last two:

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

• Raise the scientific and technological literacy of all Americans.
•32 •

are the main reasons we are here today. In fact, the last two goals, although the more challenging, are by

far the most critical in the long run.

Our failure to accomplish these two goals will undermine our ability to accomplish the first three and they

will ultimately undermine the wealth creation of this nation and its tax base. I firmly believe it will

undermine the quality of life we have come to expect.

Today, as a research scientist, a dean, and a recent policymaker, I would like to argue that scientists must

become increasingly involved in the national educational initiative that must commence and be sustained

to ensure a quality future for ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

We must build partnerships that allow us to build on our successes, to understand our failures, and to

identify new ways of doing business across sectors with new optimism. The National Science Foundation

has been a leader in innovative programs to encourage high quality undergraduate teaching and to

improve teacher training to affect improved quality in undergraduate teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

By the end of the decade:

• 44 percent of U.S. workers will be in the business of collecting, analyzing, synthesizing,

storing or retrieving data

• In a 1989 survey of U.S. CEOs, two-thirds of them responded that they had difficulty in

hiring because of lack of basic skills.

• People age 18-23 with difficulty in academic skills are five times more likely to receive

public assistance and have a poverty level income.

Let me take a few moments to review some other compelling points that all of us need to be concerned

about. Much of this information can be found in the very useful National Science Board document

Science and Engineering Indicators for 1993, the latest edition.

While the recently released critical technologies report notes that the U.S. is still the leader in most

technologies, the margin by which we excel is increasingly smaller. Some of this shrinkage is due to the

understanding of nations with whom we trade and compete that scientific education and literacy are

important to their future.

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

• In 1990, six Asian countries produced more than one-half million Natural Science and

Engineering (NS&E) baccalaureates, slightly more than the U.S. and Europe.

• Although the U.S. has twice as many scientists and engineers in R&D, Japan and the U.S.

have equal proportions in the workforce.
•33 •

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

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

• Although the U.S. and Canada outstrip most nations in overall baccalaureate degree

production, the percent of degrees that go to individuals with S&E majors is proportionately

less than in Japan.

• More interestingly for the future, even in countries with limited overall participation in

advanced education (such as Mexico and China) those who do get degrees in NS&E are a

much higher proportion of the total baccalaureate production (e.g., 25 percent in Mexico and

almost 50 percent in China).

Thus, one can conclude that, although our overall access to higher education is comparatively good, our

proportional share of those skilled in S&E is dropping just when we project an increasingly competitive

international market and a need for more science background.

Since economists who frequently disagree on many issues nearly unanimously agree that a nation's

economy is a derivative of its workforce and its investment in science and R&D, this is an ominous trend

that cannot wait for a more fortunate fiscal moment to fix. Indeed, one could argue that the present deficit

that everyone is rushing to cut is only a symptom of a much more serious educational deficit that no

amount of cutting can fix for the long term.

So, in short, scientists and science agencies, both public and private, need to become involved and become

partners in solutions. The reasons in the final analysis are simple:

• The economy depends upon it;

• Science education and literacy is the business of scientists;

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

• There is the self-interested reason. If there is no national interest in science and no public

competence and literacy in science, there will be no support for science in the national

interest.

What can be done?

Form partnerships with other segments of higher education. The science and engineering (S&E)

workforce, the knowledge creators of the future and those who can utilize this knowledge, is embedded in

a complex system. Our higher education system has as its greatest strength its depth and its multiple

routes of access for our citizens. Its greatest weakness is its formation of sectoral factions.

Our nation has a system in which:

• fourteen million students are enrolled in 3600 institutions;

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

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

This is the system that produces our teachers, our researchers, our policymakers and our legislators. The

components of the system have to learn to work together to maximize their collective strengths and to

focus their selective strengths.
•34 •

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.
•35 •

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 twoyear 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.
•36

•
•37 •

Disciplinary Perspectives of

National Leaders and Undergraduate Education

Rita R. Colwell

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

President, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute

Professor of Microbiology, University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland

Introduction

Since 1988, AAAS has conducted two studies, one implementation project, and one planning project

related to undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T).

These include:

(a) The AAAS Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences (1988-1990), funded by Carnegie

Corporation of New York: a study of the role of the natural sciences in the liberal arts curriculum

for all undergraduate students.

(b) Investing in Human Potential (IHP): Science and Engineering at the Crossroads (1989-

1991), funded by NSF: a study of efforts by U.S. higher education institutions to increase the

participation of women, non-Asian minorities, and people with physical disabilities in SME&T.

(c) Access to Engineering: Recruitment and Retention of Students and Faculty with Disabilities

in Schools of Engineering (Five year project ending in January 1996), funded by NSF: effort to

expand the concept of diversity within engineering education by promoting full inclusion of

individuals with disabilities.

(d) The Science Dean's Colloquium (September 1994) funded by NSF: colloquium of 52 Deans

of Science and other university administrators from the nation's major research universities.

Each of these projects included substantial input from collaborating individuals and organizations. The

AAAS Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences was guided by members of AAAS Coalition for

Education in the Science, a consortium of scientific and educational associations, a six-member advisory

board, and 15 member study group. The IHP study included survey responses from 276

presidents/chancellors of colleges and universities, directors of nearly 400 recruitment/retention

programs, and nearly 100 disabled student services offices, as well as intensive case studies of 13 colleges

and universities. The Access to Engineering Project included intense work with five schools of

engineering, a meeting of 60 deans and other administrators from schools of engineering, a survey of

schools of engineering that included demographics on disabled students and faculty, and guidance by a

16-member advisory panel, including a number of engineers with disabilities.

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

• model SME&T undergraduate programs and courses;

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

• academic and administrative challenges to bring about change in undergraduate SME&T

education.
•38 •

Overall Finding From AAAS SME&T Undergraduate Studies and Projects

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

• Efforts to Reform Calculus. These efforts have included structural changes in calculus that have been

spearheaded by the mathematics community (MSEB, MAA, and NCTM). These programs create a

community for SME&T freshman and sophomore students and provide supplemental workshops to

regular classroom work.

• Expansion of undergraduate research programs. Although undergraduate research programs have

not been fully studied, it does appear that these programs motivate undergraduate students to stay in

SME&T majors. These programs exist in the form of cooperative education programs: NSF Center

for Research, National Institutes of Health Summer Program, Minority Access to Research Careers

(MARC), Minority Biomedical Research Science (MBRS) Program, and other such efforts. NASA

and the Department of Defense fund small summer programs for undergraduates with disabilities.

• The notion of SME&T consortia and collaboratives. In general, consortia and collaboration of

college, and universities and/or national laboratories and corporations have been effective in

strengthening undergraduate SME&T education. Activities include developing dual-degree and cross

registration programs; centralizing science and engineering resources into centers; faculty developing;

reforming undergraduate curriculum; and creating research opportunities at non-doctorate granting

colleges and universities.

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

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

• orienting faculty, particularly faculty in lower division SME&T classes, to innovative

instructional and assessment strategies; and

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

Both the AAAS Investing in Human Potential (IHP): Science and Engineering at the Crossroads and

The Liberal Arts of Science: Agenda for Action identified a host of model undergraduate education

programs. Pages 143-145 of the IHP Report presents a model for evolution of intervention programs for

minorities, females, and disabled students at colleges and universities. This model includes five levels of

programs.

1. Isolated projects were numerous, and involved the commitment of individuals to address particular

barriers to participation. These projects were often not connected to any other efforts and relied on soft

money or volunteer activity for their continuation.

2. In other instances, individual schools or departments undertook activities to address their own

particular problems, such as high failure rates in calculus. These activities had little or no connection to

other efforts in the institution, and addressed only a small part of the overall system of problems which

minorities, women, and students with disabilities face.

3. At the next level were formalized, coordinated program activities in one part of the institution, such

as a college of engineering, where recruitment and retention of female and minority students were

coordinated through the office of the dean. Funding for these programs included external grants but relied

increasingly on hard dollars from the institution. Most frequently missing from these programs were ties

necessary to modify required introductory courses in the sciences and mathematics. There was often
•39 •

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 coexisted 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 inThe Liberal Arts of Science: Agenda for Action report. This

section outlines what undergraduate students should take from their college education including

understanding, knowledge, skills and attitudes concerning aspects of science. These include

understanding:

• scientific values and ways of knowing;

• collection, organization, and classification of information;

• scientific laws, devising models and developing theories;
•40 •

• the limits of scientific knowledge;

• the vocabulary and terminology of science; and

• the role of mathematical concepts in science.

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

• scale and proportion;

• change and evolution;

• causality and consequences; and

• dynamic equilibrium.

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

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

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

These high goals for scientific understanding require new instructional strategies at the undergraduate

level, including:

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

scientists;

• hands-on experimental and laboratory activities;

• activities promoting independent learning and analysis including finding, reading, and

analyzing information from a variety of sources;

• group discussion and projects;

• opportunities for writing and communicating science;

• demonstrations of cross-disciplinary content including interconnections among the sciences

themselves and connections to liberal arts, humanities, the fine practical arts, and the social

sciences;

• integration of mathematics with the study of those scientific topics whose explanations are

based on mathematical concepts; and

• assessment of students’ abilities to analyze scientific problems, to generate reasonable

hypotheses, to evaluate evidence, and to raise questions about science and technology in their

own lives and the society in which they live.

Scientific understanding cannot be measured adequately by true-false, multiple-choice, or other similar

tests. Papers, projects, essay tests, oral presentations, and other forms of assessment must also be used.

As indicated, one of the biggest challenges for restructuring SME&T undergraduate education will be

encouraging, preparing, and orienting college and university faculty to utilize innovative teaching and

assessment strategies. Unlike K-12 teachers, college and university faculties are not required to take

teaching courses.

Pages 3 to 6 of The Liberal Arts of Science: Action Agenda also address academic and administrative

changes needed at the undergraduate level to implement this new SME&T initiative, including:
•41 •

• increasing the time commitment for science to the equivalent of 15 to 16 semester hours of

instruction for all students and decreasing class sizes to one faculty for every 20 to 30

students;

• re-conceptualizing the current structure of the curriculum and doing away with survey

courses. Rather, it is critical that education in the sciences become a well-integrated part of

the broader liberal education program;

• fostering collaboration of science with other liberal art faculties;

• identifying a mechanism to review current curricula, design programs, encouraging the

developing of courses, and providing on-going monitoring and assessment;

• recognizing the need for institutional curricular reform including financial support, promotion

and tenure, reduced teaching loads, and awards and prizes; and

• external support from scientific, professional, and educational societies, accrediting agencies,

state and federal government, and private and corporate foundations.

As colleges and universities move to restructure SME&T at the undergraduate level, a leadership forum

will be needed to exchange information, define benchmarks and collect data. However, as made clear by

the AAAS Science Dean’s Colloquium, unlike engineering deans, science deans lack a common forum to

discuss concerns about SME&T undergraduate education. As part of the AAAS Colloquium, science

deans outlined topics they would like to address. Topics include:

Administrative Concerns

• NSF funding procedures;

• Improving the image of the research university;

• Responding to budget cuts and reorganization;

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

• Dialogue between research universities and “official” Washington;

• Strategies for dealing with declining federal funding; and

• Need for development activities in a new fiscal climate.

Curriculum and Teaching Issues

• Launching interdisciplinary degree programs, such as the science-oriented MBA and

environmental studies, and science and public policy options;

• Offering degrees in the sciences that are intended to lead to professional careers in

journalism, business, etc.;

• Organizational structure of undergraduate biology education;

• Encouraging better teaching;

• Curricular revisions as a mechanism for fostering interdisciplinary research and reaching less

traditional science students;

• Exchange of benchmark data; and

• Tensions between major and non-major courses.
•42 •

Faculty Development

• Mentoring of female and probationary faculty and graduate students;

• Improving faculty diversity;

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

review;

• Faculty resistance to programs for female and minority students;

• Evaluation and rewards of faculty for undergraduate teaching; and

• Improving faculty teaching.

4. Outreach Efforts

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

• Relationship between college of science and college of education.

5. Student Issues

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

• Programs to promote undergraduate student research; and

• Changing employment opportunities for students.

In addition, the deans are interested in how interdisciplinary centers (science, mathematics, and

technology) are formed and operate. Specifically, they were interested in a center's role with regard to K12 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.
•43 •

Comments on Undergraduate Education Review of the

 NSF Directorate of Education and Human Resources

Alan C. Tucker

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

Chair, Education Coordinating Council of the Mathematical Association of America

Stony Brook, New York

I would like to organize my remarks along the lines of the input on the [EHR Advisory Committee] review

solicited by Dr. Robert Watson from academic and business leaders last summer. My suggestions draw, in

part, on the thoughtful comments of fifteen such letters written by mathematical scientists.

What are the most significant improvements in undergraduate SME&T education

you have observed in our nation during the past ten years?

Leaders of the mathematical sciences community are in general agreement about the three major

improvements in undergraduate SME&T education in the past ten years. They are:

• increased use of technology;

• increased attention to teaching and learning; and

• the calculus reform movement.

Some have also specifically cited efforts related to the latter two items, such as the involvement of

professional societies in instructional reform and the creation of good materials to support innovative

instruction.

Increased Use of Technology

Technology has had two types of impact:

1) In the way that mechanical devices have augmented the physical capabilities of humans, computing

devices have augmented the mental capabilities of humans. In the learning process, technology provides

enhanced computational and visual experiences as well as numerical assistance for students, giving

students more insight into physical and mathematical processes. Students can study more realistic

problems, which previously were intractable with pencil-and-paper approaches. With simulation and

computer graphics software, students can explore and discover mathematical phenomena, thus making

mathematics more like a hands-on, experimental science. This technology promotes active learning and

facilitates undergraduate research in mathematics.

The advent of modestly priced graphing calculators and widely affordable personal computers has made

these technological possibilities a working reality for millions of undergraduates. Faculty interest in

utilizing technology is exploding. Attendance at an annual conference on educational technology in

mathematics has grown in six years from a few hundred to two thousand.

NSF Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program has made a substantial contribution to

the availability of technology in mathematics departments. The highly leveraged format of the ILI

program, which requires technology-based curricular development (plus extensive cost-sharing), has

prodded faculty to think creatively about how to use new technology effectively. NSF Faculty

Development grants have supported scores of workshops to train mathematical science faculty in the use

of educational technology.
•44 •

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
•45 •

computer software like DERIVE called into question the traditional drill in graphing functions and symbolic

differentiation and integration. At the same time they permitted realistic problems involving integrals which

could only be evaluated numerically and permitted visual and numerical exploration of the behavior of whole

families of functions. Pedagogical innovation became a natural solution for faculties who were trying to break

students free of deeply ingrained habits of mindless 'plug and chug' exercises. To make students think

carefully about model building and the analysis of calculus-based models, instructors turned to cooperative

learning, open-ended projects, and writing assignments. Interest in instructional innovation sparked by

calculus reform is stimulating faculty to rethink how they teach differential equations, linear algebra, and

other mathematical sciences courses.

The accompanying map shows the broad distribution of NSF calculus reform awards by state. Subcontracts

associated with major awards, along with the scores of calculus reform workshops, have extended the impact

even further. The true success of the calculus reform movement is found in the 1000+ institutions that have

implemented calculus reform without a grant.

As an aside, I would like to give a special salute to program officers at NSF who displayed laudable

cooperation and enterprise to steer additional funds to the calculus reform initiative as they started to

recognize the magnitude of the impact that was possible. The $18,000,000 finally spent on awards in the

Calculus Reform Initiative from 1988 to 1993 was several times what was directly allocated. The primary

support for NSF calculus reform initiative was through the Course and Curriculum Development Program in

the Division of Undergraduate Education in cooperation with the Division of Mathematical Sciences. DUE

Programs in Faculty Enhancement, in Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement, and in Teacher

Preparation, as well as programs in the Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication (REC) and the

Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE), contributed additional funds.

What are the three most important problems you and collaborating individuals and

organizations encounter in your efforts to assure that the best possible education is

delivered to undergraduates in the areas of SME&T?

While there was near unanimity about the improvements in the past decade, leaders in the mathematical

sciences community showed great diversity of opinion when it came to future problems. The following three

topics were each cited by about half the respondents:

• changing faculty values and attitudes;

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

• equipment needs

Other problems cited by several respondents were

• inadequate coordination across disciplines; and

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

Other challenges mentioned were: the lack of diversity in SME&T faculty and graduate students; faculty

development programs; challenges of instruction delivered by a growing number of part-time faculty; and

more research about effective methods of student assessment. In the following discussion, I will focus on

possible contributions by NSF, but these contributions are assumed to be occurring in cooperation with

professional societies and individual institutions. A key to the success of the calculus reform movement was

the close working relations that existed from the outset between NSF Principal Investigators and professional

societies.
•46 •

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.
•47 •

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 preservice 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
•48 •

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.
•49 •

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:
•50 •

• Relevant to the lives and future careers of students;

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

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

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

colleges, industry and government.

Rather than suggesting that all engineering schools change in the same way, we called for each school to

establish its own mission, based on whom it served and its comparative advantages. Some schools might

focus on educating students for professional engineering practice through the master's level; others might

offer a combination of traditional technology-based engineering with a strong emphasis on broader

management and decision-making skills; while others would focus on preparing students for research and

teaching careers.

This type of significant experimentation in the undergraduate curriculum would be fostered through

proposed changes in the criteria for engineering programs of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology (ABET). The proposed changes, which are now being reviewed by the engineering

professional societies that comprise the organization, would provide greater flexibility. In concert with

ASEE, industry and the EDC, ABET has proposed that each engineering school adopt a mission

statement. Further, it should develop goals consistent with the mission and implement outcomes

assessment.

Several state governments, along with parents and students themselves, are demanding methods for

assessing the quality of engineering education programs. Given the diversity of engineering programs

throughout the nation, however, we believe that no one test or prescriptive set of criteria would be

inappropriate for all engineering colleges. ASEE is serving as the secretariat for a group of engineering

professional societies that are seeking to identify successful assessment strategies and principles. The aim

is to develop a broadly supported array of assessment tools that engineering colleges could use, based on

their own needs and programs. The Joint Task Force 011 Engineering Education Assessment, consisting

of ASEE, the Engineering Deans Council, the National Society of Professional Engineers, ABET and the

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, expects to have an outline of

recommendations by early next year.

A potential breakthrough for making technical subjects exciting and accessible to all students is the use of

the Internet. Electronic courseware that uses interactive media and provides access to a world of

information will make learning more interesting and enable students to better understand technical

material. But how will faculty and students know what’s best among the many offerings? ASEE is

working to develop a system for peer reviewing multi-media courseware in engineering education over the

Internet.

We would like to commend the National Science Foundation for its various programs that are promoting

the type of experimentation and risk-taking that will lead to real improvements in engineering and other

technical education. The largest and potentially most influential program in engineering education is the

Engineering Education Coalitions, consortia of engineering colleges whose purpose is to promote

comprehensive change. This program has promoted discussion about teaching, learning and curriculum

among faculty on many campuses and has begun a process of sharing resources.
•51 •

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
•52 •

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.
•53 •

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 crossdisciplinary 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
•54 •

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.
•55 •

New Trouble Spots

I would like to turn now to some areas in which we are not paying much attention, areas that will surely

become trouble spots unless we do pay attention to them. These may offer even bigger challenges than the

ones we are now dealing with. In discussing these aspects, I do not want anyone to think I am suggesting

that "something is broken, throw it out and start over." I do suggest that we pay serious attention to these

areas before they turn into real problems. There are two:

• The demise of the university

• Effective teaching in the age of the Internet

Demise of The University

Four assumptions lay behind our historical conception of a university: 1) the library; 2) a community of

scholars (formed around library) drawing on each other's knowledge in different disciplines; 3) teachers

working with small groups of students; and 4) offering a period of schooling; helping one to transform

from adolescent to adult, and granting a credential for entering work.

Information technology is undermining these assumptions. Consider each in order: 1) Digital libraries will

soon become a reality and will make the content and services of libraries available at every desktop. The

unique role of a university library will disappear. 2) As the quantity of scientific records has increased,

more scientists have become specialists of increasing depth in narrower fields. The university has

fractionated into specialties in departments and sub-departments. The local community of scholars has

been replaced with a professional community of specialists around the nation and the world, held together

by telephone, fax, Internet, and conferences. The individual has become the representative of the specialist

community on campus. Most educational technologies developed to date are tools to help the "solo

individual" navigate in a complex world of specialties; few of these technologies promote the kinds of

local community that used to characterize the university. 3) Mass education has largely done away with

the small undergraduate class. A typical class costs close to $40K to produce and often requires 40

students just to break even. Commercial firms are beginning to make education offerings at prices lower

than universities, and with stronger promises of certifiable competence (e.g., Novell network engineer). A

few examples already exist of a master teacher leveraging himself effectively for thousands to tens of

thousands of students, and more of this can be expected as entertainment moguls meld their skills with

those of flamboyant professors. 4) Specialties change so rapidly that most people can expect to change

careers every 5-10 years during their working lives. It is no longer true that four years of university

prepares one for life. This is producing a massive growth of interest in professional education that

universities are unable or willing to accommodate.

Our immediate response to these threats has been to invest more heavily in information technology at

universities. This provides temporary help but does not change the underlying phenomenon, which is that

information technology is rendering the university obsolete.

What roles can universities fulfill that people would find valuable? How do we begin to position ourselves

for these new roles? I think these are important questions that few of us are examining. Every one of us

must think deeply about these questions. I suspect that we are underestimating the speed at which the

traditional university is approaching its disintegration. I see at least two new roles for the university:

Professional education: The university can extend its educational offers for the 45 years of professional

life people will have, and not focus primarily on the four years immediately preceding professional life. It

can offer smaller programs, say one year in length, leading to certificates of competence. People will
•56 •

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.
•57 •

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.
•58 •

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.
•59 •

Engineering Technology Education

(Bachelor of Science or Four-Year Degree Component)

Don K. Gentry

Dean of Engineering, School of Technology, Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

Engineering Technology programs are relatively young in the overall developmental history of higher

education in the United States. Their growth and development resulted from an evolution of social,

economic, and technological events, including defined needs of industry. Engineering education in the

U.S. was generally patterned after the École Polytechnique of Paris, France, founded in 1794, the first

school to prepare professional engineers. The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1824,

becoming the first institute of its kind in the United States.

The industrial revolution in the 19th Century greatly expanded the need and scope of engineering

education in the U.S. and continued the movement leading to the creation of engineering technology

programs. The “Land-Grant College Act” or the “Morrill Act” of 1862 greatly expanded the number of

institutions offering engineering programs and made engineering education a major part of public higher

education. The mechanical engineering programs that developed under this movement were the genesis of

many engineering technology programs operated at major institutions today such as Penn State, Purdue,

and Texas A&M.

Many technical institutions were developed in cities across the U.S. under the federal war training

programs developed during and following World War II. This movement created training programs for

the defense industry needs. These programs remained in many cities at the end of the Act to form the

nucleus for education programs that contributed to the development of engineering technology programs.

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, which provided for 48 months of education and training for

all World War II veterans, also played a major role in the evolving education program not yet named

engineering technology.

Another development that had a dynamic impact on the growth and development of the current programs

called ‘engineering technology’ was the creation of community colleges in this country. Many two year

programs in engineering technology today are operated through this educational delivery system. These

programs had the advantage of responding quickly to the needs of industry and reaching regionally bound

students.

Many engineering technology educators point to the Grinter Report issued in 1955 and the launching of

Sputnik as the basis and emphasis for the development of four-year engineering technology programs.

Dr. L. E. Grinter, former Dean of Engineering at the University of Florida and Chairman of the

Engineering Education Evaluation Committee, which proposed a bifurcation of the engineering

curriculum in the preliminary report but excluded such language from the final report, later summarized

the situation clearly in an article written for the Journal of Engineering Technology:

“Engineering faculties ... were unable to agree with the concept of bifurcation of

engineering curricula. The committee’s objective was to provide a dual choice [within

engineering schools] for each student of either a scientific or a more pragmatic orientation
•60 •

of his program in engineering. Nevertheless, the natural forces of student desire and

employer need; have brought about a nearly complete solution through the development of

four-year [engineering technology] curricula. Finally, we can see so much future

development of computer-aided research ... that the extraordinary growth of enrollment in

engineering and [engineering technology] curricula may seem a wise preparation for

expanding future industry.” (L. E. Grinter, Engineering and Engineering Technology

Education, Journal of Engineering Technology, March 1984, 1 (1): 6-8).

From these early events in the evolution of engineering technology comes a set of basic beliefs or

principles from which the programs have developed.

Founding Principles that have made Engineering Technology Successful

I presented a paper at the 1994 ASEE Annual Conference on the principles that have made Engineering

Technology successful from its beginning. Those comments were condensed in a Last Word article for

the February 1995; ASEE Prism entitled “Stay the Course.”

“The engineering technology programs:

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

• prepare graduates to be immediately productive in society;

• integrate general education and technical courses within the curriculum;

• provide application-oriented instruction and are laboratory based;

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

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

• focus primarily on analyzing, applying, integrating, implementing, and improving existing

technology and the practice of these skills;

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

• are taught by faculty with industry experience as well as with appropriate academic

preparation for the field; and

• are responsive to changing market demands.

These principles for engineering technology education are as reliable today as they were 35 years ago. In

fact, business and industry may even recognize the importance of these traits and skills in our graduates

or products more today than ever before.”

The Spectrum of Engineering Education

As the field evolved, much time and effort has been spent defining the field. Few fields of education have

been more studied or had more reports issued on their development. One such report, “The Engineering

Technology Education Study – Final Report” issued in 1972 defined engineering technology as:

“Engineering technology is that part of the technological field that requires the

application of scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined with technical

skills in support of engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum between the

craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the engineer.”
•61 •

The field continued to evolve and grow and in 1992 the Engineering Technology Council (ETC) of the

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) adopted the following definition that is used in

practice today by the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of the Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology (ABET) to define engineering technology programs:

“Engineering technology is the profession in which a knowledge of mathematics and natural

sciences gained in higher education experience and practice is devoted primarily to the

implementation and extension of existing technology for the benefit of humanity. Engineering

technology education focuses on the applications aspects of science and engineering aimed at

preparing graduates for practice in that portion of the technological spectrum closest to the

product improvement, manufacturing, and engineering operational functions.”

The place of engineering technology in the spectrum of job functions in industry was best defined by

Robert L. Mott, Associate Dean for Engineering Technology Programs, University of Dayton, in an

article in the Fall of 1992 issue of the Journal of Engineering Technology.

Figure III.1

Design using

Integration, Test established methods

and Evaluation

Manufacturing, Quality

 Development Assurance, Operations Management

Computer Design Production, Environmental,

 Facilities Management

 Technical service,

 Applications Liaison

Complex Analysis

 Distribution

 and Sales

Research

 More Mathematical Less Mathematical

Spectrum of Engineering Technology and Engineering Job Functions in Industry.

Graduates of bachelor of science degree engineering technology programs are employed across the

technological spectrum, but more prominently in applications, implementation, and production-oriented

positions, as well as in technical sales and customer service.

The word “engineering” is used as a noun when describing engineering programs in academic institutions

or by association boards, and as an adjective when describing technology programs. The word “engineer”

is used in industry to generally denote the function of the position or the job, such as design engineer,

process engineer, manufacturing engineer, production engineer, sales engineer, or service engineer.
•62 •

Therefore, the spectrum of engineering is very relevant to the understanding of the field and how the

graduates are utilized in industry.

Continuing Challenges for Engineering and the Role of the National Science

Foundation

Many of the issues identified in the 1986 National Science Board report, Undergraduate Science,

Mathematics, and Engineering Education (NSB 86-100), continue as issues today. Although much

progress has been made through National Science Foundation and other federal programs, the following

issues are identified for continued focus:

Students

• Preparedness of entering students, specifically in the areas of mathematics and science continues

to be a concern identified by engineering technology educators; and

• The need to provide applications-oriented educational programs beyond the baccalaureate degree

for bachelor of science degree engineering technology graduates.

Faculty

• Acquiring faculty with appropriate academic preparation and industrial experience;

• The need to develop incentives and rewards for faculty who teach comparable to those who do

research;

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

Instructional Delivery

• The continued growth of the global economy and the rapid expansion of technology will continue

to impact curriculum development, and points to the need for the development of an adaptive

workforce with the capability to learn throughout their careers;

• The Advanced Technological Education program – the need to recognize the important role that

can be played by four-year institutions in the overall improvement of engineering technology

programs in relationship to two-year institutions. Some of these roles are:

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

development;

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

• faculty professional development centers; and

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

• Partnerships and outreach programs to business and industry will continue to be a major key to

the future growth and success of the undergraduate programs. More replication of successful

models needs to be supported.

• Sustaining the high quality laboratory base of programs while facing the combined forces of cost

escalation and rapidly changing technology is a major concern of all engineering technology

institutions. The National Science Foundation’s Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement

program needs to develop a much larger role in supporting this effort.
•63 •

None of these challenges is insurmountable. The engineering technology community is prepared to work

with the National Science Foundation and others to find the most appropriate solution to these and other

continuing concerns. The greatest impact will be felt when we all target mutually agreed upon solutions.

Engineering technology educators greatly appreciate the recognition of our programs by being included in

your deliberations.

Don K. Gentry has been a faculty member and administrator in the Purdue University School of Technology for

14 years; has served as Dean since 1987, is an active member of ASEE, campus representative for the

Engineering Technology Council (ETC); and a board member of the Engineering Technology Leadership

Council (ETLC). He holds a B.S. and M.S. from Purdue University and a Doctorate of Education Administration

from Indiana University. lie has had over 30 years of experience in education.

Appendix

Scope of the engineering technology programs today:

• As of October 1994, 173 institutions operated 450 TAC-ABET accredited associate degree programs

and 113 institutions operated 320 bachelor of science (B.S.) degree TAC-ABET accredited programs

Two-birds of the B.S. degree programs were in the electrical/electronic, mechanical, and

manufacturing disciplines.

• Over 6,500 Engineering Technology B.S. degrees were graduated from TAC-ABET accredited

institutions in 1992-93, while the total enrollment in B.S. level engineering technology programs was

36,871.

• The largest public institution producers of B.S. degree graduates are: Purdue University in West

Lafayette, Indiana, and Southam College of Technology in Marietta, Georgia. The largest private

institutions are the DeVry Technical Institute System, operating in seven states, the Wentworth

Institute of Technology in Boston, Massachusetts, and Rochester Institute of Technology in

Rochester, New York.
•64

•
•65 •

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 development1. He began his address by stating that, “The success of a

company/country is a function of the sum of the competencies of the employees/populations.” He also

provided information about his recent visit to a Marconi plant in Italy and noted the following interesting

facts:

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

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

• Production time has been cut drastically. A couple of years previously, where it had taken 40

minutes to assemble a mobile phone unit; it now took 12 minutes;

• Employees operating the microelectronics production line are required to have university

degrees;

• Knowledge is doubling every 10 years;

 

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.
•66 •

• There is an increasingly higher level of competition; and

• There is a shift to a lifetime of learning

Such rapid change requires graduates capable of learning new material independently and quickly.

Students in their college work must develop these skills. Hence, pedagogical methods involving various

media sources, including the Internet, must continue to be integrated into the learning process. Therefore,

it is important for initiatives to encourage institutions and faculty to continue to develop and disseminate

new methods to foster independent experiential learning. Advisory committees continue to communicate a

need for additional knowledge and skills in the various areas external to the major discipline and within

the discipline as a result of new technology and/or methods in the workplace. In the book Future Tense2it

is noted that the following traits in an individual's skill portfolio will help that individual succeed in the

organization of the future.

• Reasoning. Can these young people think straight? Can they tell stories that make sense? Can

they develop logical arguments?

• Communication. Can they read, write, talk, present, listen, respond, and sell an idea? Three

of these are good, five, great, and seven exceptional.

• Cross-cultural skills. Can they deal with diversity (race, gender, religion, ethnicity, culture,

physical attributes, functional areas, training, and background)?

• Global experience. Have they been outside the United States? Can they speak a second

language? Are they keen to try?

• Team orientation. Have they performed in a musical or theater group? Did they play team

sports? Can they play on teams? What role do they like on teams?

• Technological literacy. Do they have a core of technologies they can use or learn,

particularly computer and communications technologies: PCs, local area networks, e-mail,

work processing, and spreadsheets? Are they interested in new technologies as tools?

• Track record of achievement. Have they had successes in any field? What are the interests

that motivate them? How do they feel about success?

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

A comprehensive task force within the Maine Technical College System, identified in its report, Skills For

The 2Ist Century3 has reached similar conclusions.

Engineering technology programs accredited by the Technology Accreditation Commission of the

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (TAC of ABET) generally have program criteria

developed by the responsible professional society. These criteria along with the general criteria for

accreditation by the TAC of ABET establish a minimum standard for these programs. Over the years,

the credit hour content of many of these programs has continued to creep upward. Recognizing the heavy

student workload, some programs have reduced the required number of credit hours to make the program

more attractive to students while incorporating advances in technology. Others have addressed these

concerns be expanding some two-year engineering technology programs to the baccalaureate level. A

third alternative under consideration by others is to offer an advanced post-associate certificate for

technical workers to provide the expanded knowledge and skills needed by their employers.

 

2

 Morrison, Ian and Schmid, Greg, Future Tense: the business realities of the next ten years. William Morrow

and Company, Inc. New York, NY, 1994.
•67 •

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 Colleges4.

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

 

4

 Burton, Lawrence and Carin A. Celebuski, Technical Education in 2-Year Colleges, HES Survey Number 17,

NSF, Division of Science Resources Studies, 1995.
•68 •

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.
•69 •

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 generalinorganic-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.
•70 •

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 coauthor 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.
•71 •

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.
•72 •

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.
•73 •

And sadly, some still believe that the women and minorities who have been permitted to enter the

profession are there only because they belong to underrepresented groups.

Recommendations

I strongly believe that systemic curriculum efforts are key if we are to reform chemistry education

specifically and science education generally. In this regard, the National Science Foundation deserves to

be applauded for its efforts and should continue these efforts. Although there have been many notable

small programs in recent years, these programs do not have wide impact, and are not easy to disseminate

effectively. One reason is that there is no widespread discussion and buy-in that comes with participating

in the project. The systemic curriculum reform efforts that are underway have engaged many in a major

rethinking. This is having a huge impact because of the publicity, and the acknowledgments that come

with having received a major grant. I believe that it is fair to say that the National Science Foundation has

nearly single-handedly raised the status of scholarship in chemistry education.

There has been less success regarding diversity. Large segments of the population continue to be

excluded. Curricular changes may help to increase diversity when course materials are more suitable for

students from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. But if the most significant changes are to occur,

the culture in our institutions must change. Those presently on the inside need to reevaluate their

behavior, their prejudices, and their perceptions, and find effective ways to welcome excluded groups.

In Conclusion

Reform efforts will be successful if the value system and reward structure at our institutions are changed.

Definitions of scholarship that emphasize the central importance of teaching must be embraced. Diversity

must become more than a slogan. Promoting issues of diversity and the scholarship of teaching will

require a rapid evolution of institutional and cultural changes championed by enlightened leadership. The

National Science Foundation's leadership in these efforts is essential if cultural change is to become a

reality at our nation's institutions.

Angelica M. Stacy joined the Department of Chemistry at Berkeley as an Assistant Professor in 1983 and has

been a Professor since 1994. Her educational interests include the development of environmental and

biologically-relevant chemistry laboratory experiments for freshman chemistry; development of curriculum

materials using a modular approach to lecture and laboratory, where each module is motivated by an

overarching question of interest to the students; this serves as a springboard to teach chemical concepts; and

implementation of teaching methods which emphasize active learning and metacognition and incorporate

mutimedia tools. Additionally, Dr. Stacy’s research interests include the synthesis and characterization of new

solid state materials with novel electronic and magnetic properties; development of new synthetic methods,

including the use of molten salts for the synthesis of oxide materials; discovery of new layered niobium oxide

superconductors; synthesis of polymeric transition metal chalcogenides; and studies of cooperative phenomena

in rare earth transition metal phosphides.
•74

•
•75 •

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
•76 •

Washington, just seem to widen the gap between what we want to achieve and what the outcome actually

is to exacerbate the problem. Introductory physics instructors suffer a kind of pedagogical schizophrenia;

they want to provide students with a solid and broad grounding in fundamental principles and techniques,

but they also want to let students know about contemporary issues and excitement in physics. No one

claims to know how to do both in the standard two-semester introductory course.

Research in Physics Education

Within the last ten years the science teaching community has developed a remarkable consensus of “what

works,” the theme song of Project Kaleidoscope. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that engaging

undergraduate students in active learning and active research, in close contact with faculty and other

students encourages students of all kinds to continue toward a career in science. This engagement takes

several forms:

• Instruction that keeps students active in the classroom working on problems and questions

and laboratory exercises with each other aids conceptual understanding, problem solving

abilities, and students’ attitudes towards science.

• Early participation in scientific research in close association with faculty members and other

students is a strong motivator for those who stay on in a scientific career. NSF has clearly

played a major role in this area with its support of URE and RUI programs, but the Pew

Charitable Trusts, Research Corporation, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have

been important players as well.

• The appropriate use of technology can enhance active learning even in large “lecture”

classes. Interconnected small computers provide a focus for small group discussions with

immediate feedback to the students and to the instructor about the range of answers. The use

of spreadsheets has provided a means for numerical computation with almost no

programming and permits even introductory students to produce sophisticated graphs and

curve-fitting. Digital video-processing provides means to study realistic applications of

Newtonian mechanics. We also know that some kinds of technology are not very effective:

computer simulations of experiments easily done in the lab are the work of the devil. Science

is about understanding the natural world, not a computer simulation of the world. Computeraided 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.
•77 •

A related diversity issue is the future impact of the National ScienceStandards 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 listof

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.
•78 •

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 wellinformed 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 - andare 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.
•79 •

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.
•80

•
•81 •

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.
•82 •

Recommendations

• Teacher enhancement: To restore public opinion of and support for science I suggest

making an all-out and systematic effort to place the nation's best, most innovative, and most

dedicated instructors at all levels of education. This will require a new reward structure –

currently successful research is rewarded much more highly than successful teaching. A new

role model – that of the “teacher-scholar” – must replace the current role model of the hardcore researcher in a white coat who prefers not to deal with students.

• Innovating Pedagogy: The science education literature abounds with innovative ideas, but

unlike innovations in science and technology, few of these ideas are adopted by anyone

besides the innovator. Even techniques that have been demonstrated to work have not found

widespread acceptance. Overcoming this inertia is becoming an urgent problem. I therefore

recommend rewarding not just the developers of successful innovations, but also those who

adopt these innovations.

• Using Technology: New advances in information technology must be used to increase and

accelerate dissemination of new ideas and materials in education. Widespread availability of

materials will lower the threshold for adopting innovative ideas in science education.

I firmly believe science has done more for society than it is generally credited for— a view that

unfortunately is not widely held outside the science community. It is therefore more important than ever

that we direct some of our energy at educating the public about science— energy that has been directed

almost exclusively at research and at educating and training future scientists. It is time for science

educators and researchers to become more pragmatic, to step down from their ivory towers, and to reach

out to society not only through scientific accomplishments, but also through better education and

information.

Eric Mazur is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics and Professor of Physics at Harvard University. He

obtained his doctorate in experimental physics at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in 1981. In 1982

he came to Harvard and in 1984 he joined the faculty. He currently divides his time between research in laser

physics and teaching, and is interested in educational innovations and applications of instructional technology.

In 1988 he was awarded a Presidential Young Investigator Award. He is a Fellow of the American Physical

Society and a member of the Society's Committee on Education and of the Physics Programs Policy Committee

of the American Institute of Physics.
•83 •

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 preservice 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 userfriendly educational pathways through the Web should be particularly encouraged.
•84 •

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 wouldbe 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.
•85 •

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.
•86

•
• 87 •

Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee

Public Hearing on Institutional Perspectives

Convened October 25, 1995

At the National Science Foundation

Arlington, VA
• 88 •

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

Grinnell, Iowa

Pamela A. Ferguson

President

Emory & Henry College

Emory, Virginia

Thomas Morris

President

Onondaga Community College

Syracuse, New York

Bruce H. Leslie

President

St. Louis Community College

St. Louis, Missouri

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

Chancellor

American Association of Community Colleges

Washington, District of Columbia

David R. Pierce

President

Florida A&M University

Tallahassee, Florida

Frederick S. Humphries

President

University of Maryland, College Park

College Park, Maryland

William E. Kirwan

President

American Association of Colleges & Universities

Washington, District of Columbia

Paula P. Brownlee

President

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Edison, New Jersey

Saul K. Fenster

President

Portland State University

Portland, Oregon

Judith A. Ramaley

President

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Madison, Wisconsin

David Ward

Chancellor

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Homer Neal

Vice President for Research
• 89 •

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
• 90 •

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 colleaguesat 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 zerodollars 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 isthat 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.
• 91 •

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 fouryear 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.
• 92 •

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 programto 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.
• 93 •

Testimony on the Views of Institutions Toward Undergraduate

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology1

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.

 

1

 This text is an edited version of Dr. Morris’ verbal testimony to the EHR Advisory Committee on

October 25, 1995.
• 94 •

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-todo 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
• 95 •

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.
• 96 •

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.
• 97 •

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 toSputnik, which

created “accelerated” federal initiatives in our math and science education programs to correct

newly perceived deficiencies. Perhaps a similar response is called for today, despite the

differences in the environment of the late 1990s vis-à-vis the late 1950s. Just as opportunities

presented themselves 30 years ago, today's opportunities should be capitalized upon to positively

affect our national competitive and social objectives. In one sense, NSF has already initiated such

a response by greatly expanding its interest in, and support of, the nation's community colleges.

The other half of our undergraduate students now have the opportunity to be impacted. My

colleagues and I are most grateful.

Rather than summarize perceived problems, for they are explored more effectively in numerous

other venues, and are inferred in my comments, my intent here is to suggest the possibilities

inherent in today's environment. Such opportunities exhibit themselves in the following themes:

1. The growing national agenda to address the needs of youngsters so they are adequately

prepared for success in school. Programs such as Head Start, Eisenhower grants and

Success by Six exemplify this trend.

2. Recognition that youthful excitement and discovery, brought naturally into the world,

but often suppressed early in childhood, must be enhanced and nurtured, especially in

a world where “life-long learning is the only job.”

3. Capitalizing upon the Nation at Risk movement that has been, for the past decade,

gradually changing our thinking about how best to foster learning.

4. The infusion of technology, especially computers, into our schools, homes and day-today 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
• 98 •

of using, and thus interested in buying, the increasingly complex products being

developed. Our very economy, and the success of business, depends upon an educated

citizenry. As the world becomes better educated, this will become a greater

competitive challenge and opportunity for business.

6. The internationalization of the economy, a growing worldwide competitive

environment, and increasingly sophisticated defense requirements created by a

changing world, suggest that the nation's continued strength is dependent upon

maintaining a technological edge across all sectors of public and private systems.

These opportunities describe an agenda for improvements in the SME&T aspects of our

educational system. Three specific recommendations should drive NSF's considerations:

1. We know what works. NSF should help the nation's educators implement the proven

principles. Although continued exploration to improve learning is important, fewer

resources require us to widely apply what we already know.

2. SME&T must be infused with broader skills, which today are required in the

workplace: customer orientation, quality, teamwork, problem solving and leadership.

3. Colleges must apply affective domain strategies, especially for second and third

quartile students who can and must succeed. The traditional emphasis on the

discipline itself excludes the larger proportion of our citizens.

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

1. Improvements must begin with the faculty. Each of us has personally experienced or

observed the positive affect a teacher can have on a student by inviting her/him into a

course or discipline. Conversely, teachers too often discourage a student from

pursuing a field or career, especially in math or science, by ignoring or redirecting

them to "easier" studies. Faculty who must democratize the process will recruit the

future generation of scientists and technicians. To achieve this, faculty must:

• Receive better preparation in graduate school to become recruiters and nurturers

of the next generation of scientists by learning how to excite students into

entering these fields. Faculty should become skilled at positive reinforcement and

the means by which students can be encouraged to pursue SME&T. Students of

color and women must receive strong encouragement to enter these fields. So

called "average" students must be nurtured since almost every future employee

must be sophisticated in math and technology. Such programs as the NAACP's

Act-So, science fairs, and kids colleges create enthusiasm that attract potential

scientists of any age.

• Diminish the "elitism" of SME&T so that fewer individuals will be intimidated

by study in these fields and more will choose to enter the professions, especially

at the technician level where job data suggests strong future growth. Faculty is
• 99 •

especially important in the decisions many students make to pursue or not to

pursue such studies.

• Be skilled as learning facilitators, not lecturers, and curriculum designers, not

just subject matter experts, with an emphasis on application, learning outcomes,

measurements, and subject integration among relevant disciplines. All current

faculty must be similarly retrained.

• Be student centered rather than faculty centered. Learn how to nurture and/or

reinvigorate students' excitement and positive self -concept about learning

SME&T.

• Be steeped in the use of such techniques as classroom research, learner-centered

instruction and team study.

• Infuse curricula design and instructional tools with the interests of the secondary

schools and employers. The transition from school to work should be

“seamless.”

• Become sophisticated in organizational operations, to better structure disciplines

within the college or university in ways, which facilitate realization of

educational ends. The barriers between subjects and disciplines must be removed

so that the integration of knowledge is modeled for students.

• Be competent in the use of computers, not only in the demands of the discipline,

but in their use as instructional and class management tools as well.

• Commit to life long learning in order to remain current in the disciplineand in

the classroom.

• Be open to business sector professionals who often have more knowledge of

learning theory and curricular design than academics. ASTD and other

professional associations produce and distribute the most current research

materials in learning theory. Such companies as Motorola and Nvnex are

demanding outcome accountabilities from their educational venders and are

teaching college faculty how to adopt new learning theories. Educators must

become open to such expertise, rather than reject it because it's from outside the

academy.

• Become knowledgeable about the national skills standards program and, with

employer’s active involvement, integrate results into the curricula.

• Make mathematics a more accessible and less threatening language to American

students. It should become more applicable and less theoretical so that students

understand its use and importance.
• 100 •

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

• Invest in faculty development as described above.

• Ensure faculty have the technology available and working, and the means to use

it.

• Structure the college, organizationally and within facilities, so that curricula and

disciplines are integrated. The academic department, both structurally and

geographically within the college, reinforces isolation of disciplines and faculty.

New structures must be explored which create an academic version of a business

environment where information flow, organizational learning and technology

interface. This is the developing model of the post industrial information age.

Education should adjust itself, as it did in the beginnings of this century, to

reinforce demands on both its management and "production."

• Provide the means to define, measure, and continuously improve learning ends.

This will distinguish the college as accountable at both the management and

academic levels, and build trust with employers, sponsors and, most importantly,

students and their sponsors.

• Initiate tech-prep, school to work, co-op, apprenticeship and other such models

to create the relationship between college, business and student, that provide the

practical work skills necessary.

• Ensure the curriculum emphasizes SME&T within a framework of the

humanities.

• Partner with business to explore and, where appropriate, implement the results of

the national skills standards program.

• Reward faculty for applied teaching rather than research, for being risk takers,

for being change agents rather than the defenders of the proud traditions of

academia, for forming alliances with business and community.

3. Because of the multiple level of employers’ interests in a technologically sophisticated

society they should:

• Become invested in the development of our nation's students. The German

approach is not the only possible model, but its integration of business into the

nation's educational system provides many benefits to both. An "apprenticeship"

emphasizing science, math, engineering and technology already exists through

co-op programs and is being expanded through tech-prep initiatives. Business

should greatly expand opportunities by utilizing such models as the Ford Asset

program, which prepares automotive technicians through community colleges

and co-ops with the sponsoring dealers. The faculty receives annual training and
• 101 •

the college new technologies. But must important, the students are employed by

the dealer upon graduation, and ready for a successful technological future.

• Assist secondary and post-secondary institutions by contracting with faculty.

Such arrangements increase their knowledge and enhance the preparation of

students. Many of the skills today's employers require, including in SME&T,

such as teamwork, problem solving, leadership, quality, customer orientation,

and organizational understanding (see Tony Carnavale, Workplace Basics: Skills

Employers Want, The American Society for Training and Development, 1990),

are most effectively taught through work place application.

• Partner with education to ensure the technology is adequate and remains current.

The company benefits by ensuring new employees are adequately prepared and

existing employees are continuously retrained without down time at the business.

Ford ensures this through its Asset program; but smaller, local businesses reap

similar benefits through modest investments. Education's ability to remain

current in technology will depend to a large extent on business investment in

such alliances.

• Partner with education to implement the results of the national skills standards

program. Together, this effort, which is similarly occurring in many other

nations, may provide important benefits to both business competitiveness and

development. Jamie Houghton, president of Corning, is the chair of the board,

indicating the level of business interest in the 22 projects underway.

4. The National Science Foundation and other federal programs can support the

necessary changes by:

• Establishing a national agenda, which integrates employers, educators, and

students into a “seamless” system of learning from elementary through college

and life-long education.

• Nurturing the public's awareness of, and interest in, SME&T by clearly

describing the need and defining understandable national objectives. Then

funding programs which, on a long-term basis, will reinforce the objectives and

attain desired ends.

• Creating long range programs rather than short-term projects. This will also

benefit educational efforts by reducing uncertainty of funding, allowing projects

adequate time and resources to achieve high levels of impact.

• Replicating the already excellent work achieved at less cost than developing

anew. Initiate a mechanism to make the best programs available for transfer and

to encourage their implementation.
• 102 •

• Assisting smaller institutions which make up the largest number of individual

organizations, but lack the resources for professional grant writing and are, thus,

absent from the benefits of grant funds, to develop the means to be included.

• Emphasizing development of faculty, including counselors and advisors, to

reinforce the skills required by future and current educators, to prepare a

citizenry sophisticated in SME&T. Change often happens only when money is

made available, where there is a means to pursue new directions.

• Support organizational model development and implementation, which will foster

the integration of knowledge and learning.

• Broaden the emphasis of science and technology education away from only those

whose goal is a career in science and math, to all students. Eliminate the

perception of elitism by opening SME&T to all students.

In summary, an environment exists, which if effectively mustered, holds the prospect of much

opportunity for SME&T development and enhancement. The short-term prospect may appear to

be negatively affected by current budget balancing. On the other hand, many forces favor a

national agenda by which government, business and education collectively strengthen the means

by which teaching and learning, curricula innovations, technology, organization and supplemental

academic programs integrate to prepare a more scientifically sophisticated citizenry.

Today and forever, we must teach a “different” science than in the past. Knowledge is expanding

exponentially and the classroom by itself can no longer remain the single place for learning.

Technology, including multimedia, the Internet, and simulations hold much promise to augment

the basics covered in class. But new approaches such as learner centered and team based

programs, co-ops and internships all must be used collectively to provide students adequate skills

to contribute to their society and employers.

By focusing on faculty development, the creation of teachers as nurturers and facilitators; the

integration of learning ends into the instructional process; implementation of organizational

models which enhance the achievement of academic outcomes; partnerships between business,

students, faculty and colleges which fulfill the academic vision; and, with NSF and other federal

programs providing national leadership, long range direction and funding and a broader base of

SME&T education. This nation can maintain its competitive edge while providing a better

standard of living and society for its citizens.

Bruce Leslie has been a Director of the American Association of Community Colleges, chairing the

Association’s Public Relations Commission. He is currently Chancellor of the Community-Technical

Colleges of Connecticut. He is also a Director and treasurer of the American Society of Training and

Development, having chaired its Technical and Skills Training Committee, served on its National Issues

Committee, and served as a member of the Editorial Board of ASTD’s Technical Skills Training

Journal. Dr. Leslie has served on the boards of the Urban League, Salvation Army, Private Industry

Council and similar organizations in Syracuse, Chicago and Seattle. He has received the Harriet

Tubman award from the Urban League, CEO Recognition Award from the American Association of

Community College Trustees, Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Texas, The Paul

Dunbar Community Service Award, and Outstanding Community Service Award for Excellence in

Education from Phi Beta Sigma.
• 103 •

National Science Foundation Review of Undergraduate Education

Institutional Perspectives of College and University Leaders

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

Chancellor, St. Louis Community College

St. Louis, Missouri

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the National Science Foundation’s [EHR

Advisory Committee for the Undergraduate Review]. I am sharing my concerns and

recommendations with you today as chancellor of St. Louis Community College, as a former

teacher, and as a member of a very strong national network of community college leaders. My

remarks are concerned primarily with instructional programs – the fundamental exchange of

information between teacher and student that is at the heart of both personal developments for the

student and economic development for our nation.

Community colleges pride themselves on the quality of their teaching and instructional delivery

systems. As open door institutions, we must accommodate a diversity of learning styles and

many levels of ability. Community colleges occupy a unique place in higher education. We are

midway in the public education continuum that extends from pre-school to post-graduate

programs and lifelong learning opportunities. We are in a position to understand the problems

and potential of education at all levels and cooperate in programs to improve the performance of

students of all ages.

Our position is pivotal as we consider:

• how to improve literacy in science and technology of students majoring in other

disciplines;

• how to strengthen the knowledge base of those earning associate's and baccalaureate

degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and technology; and

• how to change our institutional policies and practices to aid undergraduate education

in science, mathematics, engineering and technology.

Certainly, we must continually support two overall goals: improving student achievement, and

improving instruction through the development of curricula materials, faculty preparation, and

instructional activities.

About one-half of all the nation's first-time freshmen are enrolled in community colleges, and

community college students make up the largest sector of higher education in the U.S. − 37

percent. About 47 percent of all minorities in college attend community colleges, as well as more

than half of higher education students with disabilities.

Many of these students come to us with academic deficiencies in mathematics, and community

colleges offer extensive programs in developmental studies. In many States including Missouri,

legislators and educational agencies have mandated that baccalaureate institutions scale down or
• 104 •

eliminate their remedial and developmental programs, thus leaving this complex task almost

totally to community colleges. I have come across a significant number of legislators who resent

what they consider double payments to prepare students for college-level work in mathematics.

They feel that their support of secondary-level programs should be sufficient.

We know better. In St. Louis (and we are not much different from most large urban districts)

nearly 25 percent of our students who enroll for college credit – or more than 6,800 – are taking

at least one developmental course. This is up from 19 percent five years ago. These numbers

include those students who also exhibit deficiencies in language and the ability to read, think

critically, problem-solve, observe and respond Our faculty would argue that language deficiencies

contribute significantly to mathematics and science deficiencies. We also are seeing a widening

gap between the upper one-third and the lower one-third of high school classes.

The problem of under-prepared students clouds our vision of full participation in the global

economy and of competitive economic development at home. In addition, our academically able

students must master increasingly complex concepts and applications as the SME&T curricula

evolve to match technological advancements. We are deeply concerned about the widening gap

between the expectations of business and industry and the inability of significant segments of the

work force to meet these expectations or even to function as informed consumers of technology.

But under-prepared students – as well as the sheer numbers of able students who attend

community colleges – also provide educators the challenging opportunity to experiment, to take

risks, to find innovative ways to teach mathematics, science, engineering and technology. If we

can be successful with our students, we can influence and improve teaching methods at the

elementary-secondary level, at the undergraduate level, and in industrial training.

I would like to briefly share with you a few examples of programs at St. Louis Community

College, which are moving us forward in this critical area. Many community colleges across the

country currently offer similar programs.

• Our Minority Engineering Scholarship program is sponsored in conjunction with

Emerson Electric Company and the University of Missouri-Rolla. Recipients take the

first two years of their engineering studies at the college, then transfer to UM-Rolla to

complete the remaining two years. Since the program started in 1988 80 students have

enrolled, seven have graduated from the university and 22 are currently in the program's

pipeline. The completion rate compares favorably with a national retention rate of 35

percent. Ninety percent of our regular engineering transfers graduate from UM-Rolla,

and we find they do as well or better academically than those students who start as

freshmen at the university. The program has been so successful that we are exploring a

similar tripartite relationship with the St. Louis College of Pharmacy and Monsanto

Company.

• We are entering our fourth year of leading development of the St. Louis Area Tech Prep

Consortium. Sixteen local school districts are members of this initiative, representing

more than two-thirds of the public high school-age population in the area. Our faculty

members work with teachers at the junior and senior levels in local high schools to blend

the curricula and ensure smooth articulation.
• 105 •

• The college has participated in a NSF-funded program directed at middle-school

students. Partners in the project included the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Harris

Stowe State College. In addition, our mathematics faculty members have been called

upon to teach at all levels because of their skills and the measurable results that they

have achieved.

I am sure you have noticed a strong, common thread running through these sample programs –

and that thread is partnerships and collaborative efforts. I am convinced that the only way our

educational systems and our nation can advance in SME&T education is to do so in tandem with

other educational institutions and with business and industry. The material is too complex, the

required delivery systems too costly, the technological advancements too rapid, and the economic

imperatives too critical for educational systems to meet the challenges independently. Such

laudable programs as Tech Prep and School to Work are only the beginning of collaborative

efforts we must create to prepare our students for the demands of the next century.

When the National Science Foundation is asked to support programs in curricula development,

science-mathematics literacy, faculty development, work force preparation, and laboratory

instrumentation, it should do so within the context of institutional collaboration. As we all know,

funding is a powerful motivation for change, and NSF should insist that institutions demonstrate

their concern for articulation, cooperation, logical course sequencing, and resource sharing in

their proposals for support. The concept of teamwork in problem solving, so critical in the work

force, should be reinforced at every level in the educational process.

Community colleges are most grateful that the National Science Foundation has increased its

support over the last five years from about $1 million to more than $30 million. The renewed

NSF emphasis on teaching − rather than just research – and work force education has been

received with much enthusiasm by community colleges who are on the front line in the battle for

mathematical and scientific literacy and career preparation. The Instrumentation and Laboratory

Improvement program has helped update science labs in ways that would not have been possible

before the program; and other funding has helped update our curricula through acquisition of new

computers, CD-ROM, and video disks.

Future NSF support should focus on the following areas:

• Increased availability of sophisticated instrumentation in laboratory work. There is a

world of difference for students between, for example, learning how to interpret an NMR in a

textbook and actually taking an unknown sample, running the actual NMR spectrum and

interpreting the information to arrive at the identity of the compound. Students become very

enthusiastic when they are involved in hands-on experiments that mirror what a scientist

might do. Similarly, the increased use of CD-ROM and videodisks helps students visualize

the concepts being studied. Science is observational, and the use of more video techniques

helps students – particularly in the field of chemistry – see what cannot be seen. Computer

use should be interactive and kinetic, not limited to static data acquisition and display.

• Enhanced faculty development. Such programs as national exchanges among colleges and

business and industry would reinforce workforce expectations. Workshops on technological
• 106 •

advancements and curricula development would encourage faculty to adapt to change and

incorporate more innovative teaching methodologies.

• Continuous integration of SME&T instruction among elementary-secondary, community

colleges, and university systems. In every community, these three levels should be linked to

produce a logical sequence of instruction and an appropriate knowledge base for all students,

no matter what their major course of study or career plans. Particularly in the public sector,

our state legislators, educational agencies, and taxpayers are beginning to demand no less.

• Expansion of curriculum reform. The calculus reform movement and the development of

standards, such as NCTM, are excellent steps in this continuous process. More emphasis

(and funding) should be focused on interdisciplinary curricula, improved textbooks, and

assessment methods.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to outline concerns and recommendations today.

Community Colleges look forward to a continued productive and mutually beneficial relationship

with the National Science Foundation.

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson was appointed chancellor of St. Louis Community College in February

1992. She leads an institution that includes three campuses – Florissant Valley, Forest Park, and

Meramec – and four education canters; serves more than 120,000 credit and non-credit students

annually; employs more than 3,400 faculty and staff; and is supported by a budget of more than $100

million. From 1988 until her appointment as chancellor, Dr. Stephenson served as president of

College’s Meramec campus. She joined the College in 1980 as dean of student services at the Forest

Park campus. She served as the College's vice chancellor for planning and academic affairs from 1982

to 1986, and as vice chancellor for educational development from 1986 to 1988. Before joining St.

Louis Community College, Stephenson was employed by Washington University in St. Louis for seven

years. She also has worked for Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, the Missouri Department of

Education, and St. Louis Public Schools. Dr. Stephenson earned a doctorate in education with a minor

in research methodology in 1975 from St. Louis University and a management certificate in 1987 from

Harvard University. She received a master’s degree in counselor education in 1968 from St. Louis

University and a bachelor’s degree in education in 1965 from Harris Teachers College. She is a

licensed psychologist in Missouri. Dr. Stephenson serves on numerous state, regional and national

educational advisory groups and on the boards of directors of local organizations including St. Louis

Science Center, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis College of Pharmacy, and the Urban League of

Metropolitan St. Louis. She also serves on the board of directors of the American Council on Education

and the Advisory Committee for the National Science Foundation's Division of Undergraduate

Education.
• 107 •

Testimony on the Views of Institutions on Undergraduate

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology2

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.

 

2

 This text is an edited version of Dr. Pierce’s verbal testimony to the EHR Advisory Committee on

October 25, 1995.
• 108 •

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.
• 109 •

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
• 110 •

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
• 111 •

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
• 112 •

mathematics can be afforded the privilege to belong to the academy in an educational capacity

and not in a research capacity.

There are teachers who develop good scientists, mathematicians, and engineers; teachers who are

inventive in finding ways of captivating the interest of young people to go into those fields; and

master teachers who can solidify that interest by inspiring a student to become a Nobel Laureate.

Build a mechanism, which reinforces the notion that it is worthwhile to pay attention to these

very important activities in our society.

Programs developed in the Education and Human Resources Directorate of the National Science

Foundation are tremendous and excellent starts, but they are not the end in terms of what is

needed to be done to continue this role of increasing the numbers, particularly of minorities, and

increasing the numbers generally of our society in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Given the political climate of the past several years, it is evident that the academic arena cannot

accomplish this mission on its own. We must have the full commitment of partners who believe

in a system of fair and equal opportunity for all. One of my major concerns is the fact that

support for public colleges is becoming more dependent on revenues from tuition and fees owing

to the decrease in funding from State and Federal sources. This situation has even greater impact

on the number of minorities progressing through the system and receiving baccalaureate degrees

in four to six years. Increasingly, minorities enrolled in college are required to carry reduced

course loads or even delay college owing to the combination of limited financial aid, rising tuition

and the limitation of course availability. Budget compression is forcing institutions to increase

class size in order to maintain existing levels of enrollment.

If America is serious in its desire to maintain its lead in the world in science and technology, then

America must be committed to providing the necessary resources to see that adequate SME&T

training is available to all students in secondary and post-secondary education.

Listed below are my recommendations of a realistic approach to a comprehensive action-oriented

revolution of our educational system:

• Promote the development of new curricula emphasizing virtual reality and simulation

training in the teaching of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology subject

areas at the undergraduate levels.

• Promote the development of State/Federal partnerships to fund the replacement of

aging facilities and equipment utilized in teaching science, mathematics, engineering

and technology subject areas.

• Increase the level of science, mathematics, engineering and technology funding

designed to attract students from the inner city and rural areas.

• Promote collaborative efforts among faculty that will facilitate a multidisciplinary

approach to the education of all students regardless of major.

• Promote the dissemination and utilization of science, mathematics, engineering and

technology curricula that have proven successful.
• 113 •

• Establish an organization to focus on the professional development of scientists,

engineers, and mathematicians.

• Encourage the National Academy of Science and Engineering to expand membership

requirements to include science and mathematics in an educational capacity.

• Fund and promote the utilization of distance learning facilities to infuse science,

mathematics, engineering and technology instruction into secondary and postsecondary curricula.

• Fund and promote partnerships between higher education and industry that will

ensure relevant laboratory experiences for the next generation of the science,

mathematics, engineering and technology workforce.

• Ensure the education of a sufficiently diverse science, mathematics, engineering, and

technology workforce so as to afford each citizen an opportunity to contribute to the

country's well being.

• Forge at both the state and national levels, communities of stakeholders – students,

parents, faculty, administrators, scientific sources, accessible bodies, employers and

local, state and national leaders – who demonstrate their support for education.

• Create an environment where faculty can effectively integrate their research and

teaching at the undergraduate level.

• Provide a level of support, which will enable the K-12 system to effectively

administer programs, which demonstrate and enhance comprehension of scientific

and technological subjects.

• Introduce prospective teachers to the classroom setting early in their preparation and

continue this exposure while developing their proficiency in science, mathematics,

engineering, and technology.

• Promote the development of University-Community College articulation agreements

that provide services to promote scientific interest and scientific literacy before

students complete their associate degree programs.

Recently there has been a high level of concern about the quality of the products of our

undergraduate institutions and questions regarding their preparation for diverse postmatriculation endeavors. The enhancement programs, which are emerging with Federal and State

support, have demonstrated that a comprehensive and holistic approach to learning will produce

students who are up to the challenges of post-graduate education.

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

• Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement;

• Course and Curriculum Development;

• Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement;

• National Science Foundation Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation;

• the Alliance for Minority Participation in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics;
• 114 •

• the Systemic Statewide Initiatives Programs; and

• the Advanced Technological Education program.

Furthermore, I strongly support the continuation of undergraduate programs sponsored by the

National Institutes of Health, Minority Access to Undergraduate Careers Research Program,

Minority Biomedical Research Support Program – and the office of Naval Research such as

BIONR. All these programs have played a vital role in increasing the pool of minority scientists

and engineers in our country.

I urge you to make the tough decisions and redirect funding so that all undergraduate students

would have access to state-of-the-art equipment, modern facilities and innovative curricula

anchored by inspiring and well prepared professors. We must rise to the challenge if we are to

meet the technological demands of leadership in the 21st century.

When Frederick S. Humphries was appointed President of Florida A&M University in 1985, he

brought new tools and ideas designed to dramatically impact the national perception of Historically

Black Colleges and Universities. He set as a major goal early in his administration to challenge

Harvard University in the race for National Achievement Scholars, the most academically talented

black students in the country. He accomplished his goal in 1992-93 and again in 1994-95 when FAMU

led the nation in the recruitment of National Achievement Scholars. He serves on numerous boards and

committees including the White House Advisory Committee on Historically Black Colleges and

Universities, and as a member of the Board of Directors for the Wal-Mart Corporation. His honors

include the University of Pittsburgh’s Bicentennial Medal of Distinction and the 1990 Thurgood

Marshall Educational Achievement Award. He received his bachelor’s degree in chemistry from

Florida A&M University and the Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from the University of Pittsburgh.
• 115 •

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-
• 116 •

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.”

1

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.

 

1

 David Orr Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. (Washington, D.C.

and Covelo California, 1994) p. 2
• 117 •

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.
• 118 •
• 119 •

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 generalpractice" 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
• 120 •

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 theirown 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
• 121 •

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.
• 122 •
• 123 •

Testimony to the National Science Foundation

Hearings on Undergraduate Education

Saul K. Fenster

President, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Edison, New Jersey

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the subject of undergraduate education in the fields of

science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T). This subject lies at the heart of

what we do at New Jersey Institute of Technology. The leadership of the National Science

Foundation is exceedingly important to us, and I am delighted to participate in this dialogue.

In 1986, a National Science Board task committee under the leadership of Homer Neal, issued a

report that has contributed to significant change in undergraduate education in science,

mathematics, engineering, and technology.

That report – an analysis of the weaknesses and findings of traditional attitudes and approaches

to SME&T instruction, followed by specific recommendations for reform – set the tone for a

decade of rethinking and retooling. Although much remains to be done, I think it is fair to say

that the stimulus provided by the National Science Board, and the advice and support

subsequently provided by the National Science Foundation, have helped transform the way

faculty approach the mission of undergraduate instruction in SME&T fields.

Today I would like to share with you my assessment of the impact those efforts have had at one

institution, New Jersey Institute of Technology. I will describe our philosophy of undergraduate

education. Cite some of the specific steps we have taken, and offer some comments on what is

working best.

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

Let me begin, therefore, with a bit of context for my remarks. The central purpose of

undergraduate education at NJIT is to prepare students for careers as "complete professionals"

with the potential for leadership in their chosen fields of endeavor. Let us review for a moment

the specific characteristics of such a person. It goes without saying that "professional" conduct

implies honesty and integrity. In addition, a “complete professional":

• embraces responsibility

• is technologically proficient

• communicates effectively

• comprehends the interdisciplinary nature of innovative thinking

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

• understands the competitive nature of the marketplace

• is entrepreneurial

• respects the environment
• 124 •

• adapts to change with flexibility

• is a productive and cooperative team member

• appreciates and respects diversity; and

• continues to learn throughout life.

I believe that our success as a nation will depend upon such people. People who can lead in a

global economy, keep our corporations at the cutting edge, design and produce goods, employ

natural resources in an environmentally benign way and do all these things with respect and

appreciation for diversity.

The key, of course, is to provide a comprehensive, well-rounded education that maximizes all of

the values listed above. The package is incomplete if scientific and technical excellence is

sacrificed; but it is also inadequate if the pursuit of scientific and technical expertise precludes

attention to the external context within which the science and technology enterprise functions.

The old saw about the value of a broadening general education at the undergraduate level holds

true today, perhaps more than ever.

How is all this to be accomplished?

There is no simple formula for success. But it is certainly possible to point out a number of

contributing factors that have demonstrated effectiveness. Reforms of curricular design and

course content, the introduction of improved pedagogical methods and new technologies, the

integration of research into undergraduate teaching, and institutional recognition of faculty

efforts in undergraduate education are among them.

In each case, NSF has served as a powerful catalyst for change. NJIT and many other

institutions have benefited from its guidance and support.

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

We know that one objective of SME&T education must be to captivate students: we must

literally capture their imagination, and then we must hold their interest. The key, I believe is to

teach in context and to give students a realistic preview of the roles played by the engineer, the

architect, the scientist, and the manager. With NSF support through the Gateway Coalition and

two major grants under the Technology Reinvestment program, we are reconfiguring the shape

and content of the undergraduate curriculum at NJIT.

There are a few specific features of the new curriculum

• A new required full-year course, Fundamentals of Engineering Design, involves all

freshmen in complex, open-ended design problems from the very beginning of the

curriculum.

• Traditional freshman humanities and social science courses are coupled to the

Fundamentals of Engineering course to create a cohesive sequence that emphasizes

connections among the fields of human knowledge.
• 125 •

• Multi-lifecycle and pollution prevention concepts will be introduced throughout the

curriculum to show students that economic viability and environmental responsibility

are essential considerations in developing design solutions.

• We are developing computer-assisted decision-making tools that introduce

environmental concern in the form of “clean" manufacturing considerations at every

stage of the design process for use in freshman chemistry classes as well as for

direct use by industry.

• Our factory floor, summer internships, and cooperative education programs offer

immediate hands-on experience.

• A required seminar series will bring to the campus speakers from industry to discuss

manufacturing topics from the perspective of their direct experience.

• In chemical engineering, required courses link communication and critical thinking

to the analysis of chemical processes, unit operations, and plant design.

• Required courses in economics and management have been combined into a single,

year-long course that leads students through the critical financial considerations that

must be taken into account in producing goods and services.

• A course for seniors gives them the opportunity to carry out projects from product

conceptualization through commercialization as a capstone experience.

Thus, throughout the curriculum, we will provide integrating learning experiences that provide a

foretaste of the complexities of the workplace. Students will realize before they graduate that

professional success depends upon the ability to organize a variety of human resources as well as

apply science and mathematics. This is truly science, mathematics, and technology in context.

Other new modes of undergraduate education supplement these curricular developments. For

example, we now offer undergraduate students the opportunity to work directly with a faculty

mentor, thereby experiencing the kind of thinking and experimental activity that goes on in the

world of basic or applied research.

The use of computer technology in delivering the undergraduate curriculum also takes the form

of distance learning. With the support of the Sloan Foundation, NJIT now offers an entire

undergraduate degree program (the Bachelor of Arts in Information Systems) through computermediated 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.
• 126 •

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.
• 127 •

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.
• 128 •

To assure greater continuity for students who begin their college careers at community colleges,

a consortium of New Jersey colleges and universities that includes NJIT, together with local

industries, high schools, and professional societies, has been awarded another NSF grant to

create a national center of excellence in engineering technology education. The center will

develop a model associate degree program in Mecomtronics Technology* 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 twentyfirst 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.

 

*

 “Mecomtronics” is the engineering technology discipline that combines the areas of mechanical and

electronics technology, and computer hardware and software systems linked through

telecommunications.
• 129 •

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.
• 130 •
• 131 •

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 interinstitutional 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
• 132 •

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:
• 133 •

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
• 134 •

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
• 135 •

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. InCampus 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.
• 136 •

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
• 137 •

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
• 138 •

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 crossdisciplinary 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
• 139 •

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.
• 140 •
• 141 •

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
• 142 •

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 theNational 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,
• 143 •

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 email 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.
• 144 •

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.
• 145 •

Presentation Before the National Science

Foundation Undergraduate Review Subcommittee

Homer A. Neal

Vice President for Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate in today's hearings on undergraduate

education in engineering, science and mathematics. I have chosen to depart somewhat from the

suggested format of comments in order to provide the subcommittee with a brief overview of the

work of the task force I chaired in 1985 which resulted in the issuance of NSB Report 100-86,

which has served to guide NSF development in undergraduate science, engineering and

mathematics education over the past decade. I will also share with you a current initiative in

which I am involved, that bears on undergraduate science education at our nation's research

universities, as well as some of my own thoughts about the important changes that we must

consider with respect to undergraduate education in the future.

Charge to the NSB-100 Task Committee

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

. . . to consider the role of the National Science Foundation in

“undergraduate science and engineering education . . .to determine what is an appropriate

NSF role in undergraduate science and engineering education . . . and to examine what

are possible mechanisms for carrying out that role. Should NSF move to establish

undergraduate science, engineering and mathematics programs, apart for support for

undergraduates provided in some research grants? Should NSF have a role in shaping

undergraduate curricula?...”

We set about the task of collecting data in just about every imaginable way. We reviewed

extensive literature on the subject, consulted with higher education organizations and held several

hearings in Washington at which faculty, university administrators, federal agency officials, and

industrial leaders testified, in much the same way as the current hearings are planned.

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

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

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

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

skills

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

science

• declining student interest in careers in science, engineering, or mathematics, or in

education in these disciplines
• 146 •

In looking back over the years since our report was completed one can sense that real progress

has been made at NSF in undergraduate science and engineering education:

• A new Office of Undergraduate Science, Engineering and Mathematics Education

has been established and now administers or monitors over $100 million dollars for

undergraduate programs.

• A new program to provide research experiences for undergraduates has been

established, the REU program. Indeed, Director Bloch initiated the REU program

while our committee was still in the midst of its hearings, being immediately

convinced that this was an activity much needed and very much in keeping with the

mission of NSF.

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

• A new curriculum development program has been established.

• A special undergraduate curriculum development program in calculus has been

developed and, from all indications, the results are very positive.

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

There can be no doubt that NSF has taken the recommendations of our committee very seriously,

and that the leadership actions of NSF have had an impact on other agencies and foundations.

For example, the Howard Hughes Foundation initiated its own program for support of

undergraduate education shortly after our report was completed and has already committed many

millions of dollars in this area. Leadership was, and still is, an extremely important element of

NSF actions.

Changes Over the Decade

Indeed, the leadership that NSF shows in the years ahead will be critical. Since the issuance of

NSB Report 100-86, there have been an enormous number of developments that will potentially

influence the nation's commitment to undergraduate science education and which must certainly

be taken into account as plans are made for advancing undergraduate education. As unlikely as it

may have seemed in 1986, we have seen the end of the Cold War. This single event raised the

hope that, by unleashing resources that might be more productively directed toward the overall

improvement of life for our citizens, education needs could be more adequately addressed. But it

also raised the question as to what extent a large technically educated workforce would be

needed, given the apparent diminished national security requirements. Coincident with the change

in the balance of world power has been the realization that the U.S. federal budget deficit must be

reduced and that federal outlay will be made with a heightened degree of scrutiny. Though many

voices caution against neglecting investments with long term benefits, there will be an increased

tendency to focus federal and state resources on major issues of immediate urgency – a recipe

that often neglects the needs of higher education.

There are further developments that serve to shape the environment within which policies and

practices in undergraduate science and engineering education must exist. As a result of a few

highly publicized incidents in recent years, there has been some erosion in the public's confidence

in its higher education system. Compounding the effects of these events are the ever-present
• 147 •

debates about indirect costs, high tuition, and stories of the difficulty some students claim in

gaining access to faculty, who are characterized as only being interested in their research.

While we note the growth in the total number of baccalaureate degrees over the past decade −

rising by almost 20 percent − it is also of interest to note that the number of degrees in the natural

sciences and engineering has fallen by almost 20 percent. We note that undergraduate

enrollments in laboratory courses continue to fall. Furthermore, though there has been significant

growth in NSF budget for education and human resource activities, we note that most of this

growth has been primarily in the K-12 programs.

These are issues that it will be critical for NSF to address in the years ahead, as we try to craft

undergraduate education in science, engineering, and mathematics for a rapidly changing world. I

also believe that, while NSF has a key leadership role to play, it is also incumbent upon

universities themselves to think more creatively than ever in trying to deal with these same issues.

In Search of a New Compact

Over the past year, several research vice presidents at Midwestern universities have been engaged

in a cooperative effort to construct what might be the principles that would guide the partnership

between research universities and the federal government in the decades ahead. I might note that,

given the end of the Cold War, many of the original guideposts in the Vanovar Bush era are no

longer viewed as being sufficient to fully determine what the relationship should be between

universities and the federal government.

In the quest for developing these principles, we have had numerous discussions with officials in

the Executive Branch, with several leaders in Congress, and with industrial leaders. It is our hope

and expectation that these consultations will continue in the months ahead and will culminate in

one or more symposia where these items will be discussed in more detail.

What I can report to you today, however, is strong support for universities participating with the

government to ensure a strong program of research and education in the sciences, engineering and

mathematics.

In the set of draft principles we have developed to date is the following reference in the section on

education for the next century:

• Education for productive life in an age that is information intensive, technologically

demanding, culturally complex, and globally competitive.

• Education that will continue to assist our citizens in adjusting to the rapid changes in

the modern world.

• Public understanding of the key technological, economic, cultural and social issues

that we face."

Our draft report continues:

". . . education of the nation's citizens for productive life and work is one of the primary

function of the research universities, and a function to which they can bring unique

assets. One of the greatest strengths of the research university has traditionally been
• 148 •

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
• 149 •

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.
• 150 •

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.
·151 ·

Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee

Public Hearing on Employers’ Views

Convened November 1, 1995

At the National Science Foundation

Arlington, VA
·152 ·

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

Baltimore, Maryland

Walter G. Amprey

Superintendent

Columbia University

New York, New York

Eugene Galanter

Professor of Psychology

New York Hall of Science

New York, New York

Peggy Ruth Cole

Director of Program Planning and

Development

GHG Corporation

Houston, Texas

Israel J. Galvan

President

Hewlett Packard Company

Palo Alto, California

Alfred Moyé

Manager, University Relations

Robert W. Ritchie*

Director, University Affairs

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Seattle, Washington

John H. McMasters

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

Washington, District of Columbia

Robert Jones

Executive Vice President

Shell Oil Company

Houston, Texas

John J. Sisler

Manager of Exploration & Production Training

Bell Atlantic Corporation

Arlington, Virginia

Patrick E. White

Vice President, Strategy

* Additional author of contributed remarks.
·153 ·

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
·154 ·

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 stateof-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&Tliterate 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
·155 ·

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 coursesis 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.
·156 ·

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.
·157 ·

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.
·158 ·

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 undergraduate SME&T in

the large. To summarize the discussion to follow, I suggest that the paths to continuing progress in

SME&T are:

• increasing relevance

• restructuring content

• modularization

• 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 haverelevance. 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 psychology1. 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

materials2 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

 

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.
·159 ·

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

Intelligence

Goal Orientation Confidence in

Present Ability

Behavior Pattern

Entity Theory

(IQ is fixed)

Performance Goal

gain positive judgments

avoid negative

judgments

if High

if Low

Mastery Oriented

seeks challenge, high

persistence

Helplessness

avoid challenge, low

persistence

Incremental

Theory

(IQ is malleable)

Learning Goal

increase competence

High or Low Mastery Oriented

seek challenge, high

persistence

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
·160 ·

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 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 (fouralternative) 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.

 

3

 Construction vs. Choice in Cognitive Measurement, ed. by R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward. LEA,

Hillsdale, NJ, 1993.
·161 ·

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 blacks4 (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 one5.

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?

 

4

 Adapted from National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, Tenth Ed., 1991.

5

 Carol Dweck, Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist. October 1986.
·162 ·

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.
·163 ·

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 interactiveexhibits, 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
·164 ·

exams, but rich with science phenomena. As a result, many discover both an interest in science

and pleasure in sharing it with others. Consequently, themajority 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
·165 ·

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 workstudy 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 fewmodel 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.
·166 ·

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 NorfoL4 , 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.
·167 ·

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.
·168 ·

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:

• provided virtually all of the net new jobs from 1987 to 1992;

• were 99.7 percent of all employers in 1992;

• employed 53 percent of the private work force in 1992; and

• 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.
·169 ·

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 cliché that

scientists and engineers can not write. This paper is probably a good example.
·170 ·

In summary, the most glaring deficiencies in Math, Science, and Technology Undergraduate

Education that I have observed are:

• Lack of team skills in recent recruits;

• Lack of communication skills, both oral and written;

• Lack of a dynamic and current curriculum and continuing education program; and

• 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:

• 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.

• Encourage the continuous improvement and relevancy of the curricula.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.
·171 ·

Employers Views on Desired Capabilities of

Undergraduates Entering the Workforce

Alfred L. Moyé

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.
·172 ·

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.
·173 ·

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:

• Anytime, anyplace access

• Collaborative learning and problem solving

• Support for life-long learning

• Significantly improved learning outcomes

• Equity, access and success across all populations; and

• 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
·174 ·

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.
·175 ·

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. Moyé 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.

Moyé 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 HewlettPackard. Prior to joining HP in April 1984, Dr. Moyé 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. Moyé 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.
·176

·
·177 ·

Enhancing Engineering and Manufacturing Education:

Industry Needs, Industry Roles 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 industryuniversity 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

 

6

 Presented at the 1995 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition,

Anaheim, CA June 25-28, 1995
·178 ·

“A scientist discovers that which exists. An engineer creates that which never was."

Theodore von Kármán

"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. Chaplin1

“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. Hutchins2

(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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• From an aerospace industry vantage, as potential employers of the universities' graduates, we

see vast opportunities for improvement. We are increasingly “dissatisfied customers."

• 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).
·179 ·

• 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.

• 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.

• Industry continues to be limited, and sometimes-underutilized partner in the engineering

education process. Merely throwing money into the system is inadequate.

• 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.

• 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, longterm 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.

• 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 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
·180 ·

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 industryl4 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Recognition that our future prosperity depends on industry/university teamwork and

cooperation at all levels, including student course work and in university faculty interactions.

• 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.
·181 ·

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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:

• 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.”
·182 ·

• 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.

• 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.

• Changes in the degree structure to establish engineering as a true professional program and

which are consistent with future industrial technical workforce needs.

• 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.

• 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 dramaticallyl4 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.
·183 ·

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.
·184 ·

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.
·185 ·

Appendix: DESIRED ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENGINEERING GRADUATE

• A good grasp of engineering science fundamentals.

• Mathematics (including statistics)

• Physical and life sciences

• Information technology

• A good understanding of the design and manufacturing process (i.e., understand

engineering).

• A basic understanding of the context in which engineering is practiced.

• Economics

• History

• The environment

• Customer and societal needs

• Possesses a multi-disciplinary, system perspective.

• Good communication skills.

• Written

• Verbal

• Graphic

• Listening

• High ethical standards.

• An ability to think both critically and creatively - independently and cooperatively.

• Flexibility - an ability and the self-confidence to adapt to rapid/major change.

• Curiosity and a desire to learn - for life.

• 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.
·186

·
·187 ·

Testimony on the Views of Employers on Undergraduate Education in

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology7

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

 

7

 This text is an edited version of Mr. Jones’ verbal testimony to the EHR Advisory Committee on

November 1, 1995.
·188 ·

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.
·189 ·

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.
·190 ·

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 businessrelevant 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
·191 ·

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.
·192 ·

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.
·193 ·

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.
·194

·
·195 ·

Testimony on the Views of Employers on Undergraduate Education

in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology8

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.

 

8

 This text is an edited version of Dr. White’s verbal testimony to the EHR Advisory Committee on

November 1, 1995.
·196 ·

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.
• 197 •

Written Contributions to the EHR Advisory Committee

Social Sciences Workshop

Convened February 22, 1996

at the National Science Foundation

Arlington, VA
• 198 •

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

Master, Social Sciences Collegiate Division

The University of Chicago

Harper Box 76

1116 East 59th Street

Chicago, OL 60637

Maureen Hallinan

Department of Sociology

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, IN 46556-5644

John Dovidio

Department of Psychology

Colgate University

Hamilton, NY 13346

Jill Larkin

Department of Psychology

Carnegie Mellon University

Baker Hall

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Jacquelynne E. Eccles

Institute for Social Research

P.O. Box 1248

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI

Nora Newcombe

Department of Psychology

Temple University

Weiss Hall, 6th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Ronald G. Ehrenberg

Vice President for Academic Programs,

Planning, and Budgeting

433 Day Hall

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

Neil Stillings

School of Communication and Cognitive Science

Hampshire College

Amherst, MA 01002

Rochel Gelman

Department of Psychology

New York University

6 Washington Place, Room 307

New York, NY 10003
• 199 •

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:

• What has social and behavioral science research contributed to our understanding of how

students learn?

• What are the obstacles to implementing change in curriculum and instruction in undergraduate

education? How do we overcome them?

• What are the unanswered questions about student learning that research needs to address?

• 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
• 200 •

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
• 201 •

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.
• 202 •

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
• 203 •

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.
• 204 •
• 205 •

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
• 206 •

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 preprepared. 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
• 207 •

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

• 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.
• 208 •

3. A survey of all alumni who have been out 2,5,7,10,15,and 20 years 1400/3600 responded (still

coming in)

• 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

• ten students have kept detailed diaries of their educational experience across three years.

5. A retrospective course examination

• 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.
• 209 •

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
• 210 •

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
• 211 •

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:

• Social science courses are currently attractive to students

• the topics and issues are of immediate relevance to students

• these courses may be accessible to a wide range of students because they normally do not rely

on pre-requisite high school preparation

• Social science courses may provide a cost-effective alternative

• these courses normally have lower start-up equipment expenses and reclaiming costs for

supplies

• 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

• 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.

• The social and behavioral sciences may offer curricular and pedagogical flexibility

• this flexibility may allow the adaptations needed to meet the needs of non-science students

• 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

• the topics of study may offer more obvious and direct connections to the use and misuse of

scientific information and technology

• 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.
• 212 •

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.
• 213 •

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.
• 214 •

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.
• 215 •

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.
• 216 •
• 217 •

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.
• 218 •

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.
• 219 •

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.
• 220 •
• 221 •

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.
• 222 •
• 223 •

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.
• 224 •

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.
• 225 •

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 paralleldistributed 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
• 226 •

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.
• 227 •

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.
• 228 •

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

• Textbooks (at least in psychology) usually have a historical organization, and do not

integrate material so as to make it easier to learn.

• 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.
• 229 •

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.
• 230 •

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.
• 231 •

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.
• 232 •

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 tests11 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

 

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.
• 233 •

year is more effective than another one used previously – or more effective than another method

used by others willing to use the same measurement methods2.

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.

 

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.
• 234 •
• 235 •

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
• 236 •

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
• 237 •

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).
• 238 •

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.
• 239 •

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.
• 240 •

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.
• 241 •

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 nonscience 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.
• 242 •

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.
•243 •

Section IV:

Findings from the Focus Groups Conducted During the

Review of Undergraduate SME&T Education
•244 •
•245 •

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:

• General employers (SME&T and non-SME&T)

• Teacher employers

• Teacher graduates (SME&T and non-SME&T)

• Current students (SME&T and non-SME&T)

• Recent graduates (SME&T and non-SME&T)

• 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.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.

 

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.
•246 •

Strong Aspects of SME&T Preparation

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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
•247 •

typical of introductory SME&T courses. Early negative experience with SME&T courses is a

major barrier to pursuing further studies.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Technology – Access to technology varies greatly across campuses. The fact that, in general, nonresearch 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.
•248 •
•249 •

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:

• Interpersonal skills and teaming

• Proactive approach to work

• Technical competence

• Experience in the workplace

• 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 thefinal 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
•250 •

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:

• Emulate the MBA model of team assignments.

• Designate that project work be done in teams.

• Use cooperative learning techniques in instruction.

• 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.
•251 •

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 problemsolving skills.

Initiative. Taking initiativeseems 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
•252 •

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
•253 •

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 twoyear 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
•254 •

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 highereducation/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:

• keeping the university in touch with industry and in touch with the workforce;

• keeping universities technology focused;

• providing more opportunities for students in terms of donated state-of-the-art instruments and

computers; and

• 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.
•255 •

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.
•256 •

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:

• Ability to relate to students

• innovative teaching

• classroom management skills

• technology skills

• willingness to learn

• ability to apply knowledge/skills in the classroom

• communication skills.
•257 •

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.
•258 •

Communication skills. K-12 teacher employers agreed with SME&T and non-SME&T employers that

communication skillswere critical for the teaching profession. Administrators and principals frequently

use teacher applicants’ résumés 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
•259 •

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.
•260 •

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.
•261 •

Summary of Student Focus Groups

Nine student focus groups were conducted at seven different institutions across the country. 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 mean... there’s

such a mixture of types... from 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.”

 

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.
•262 •

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:

• Tailoring instruction to the learner

• Making connections to the real world and other disciplines

• 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
•263 •

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.”
•264 •

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:
•265 •

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.
•266 •
•267 •

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
•268 •

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.”
•269 •

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:
•270 •

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-ayear level and you’ll stay there.”

Christina, regarding a research university: “When you look at the starting salary for engineers

compared to other folks... it’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
•271 •

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.
•272 •
•273 •

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
•274 •

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.
•275•

Section V:

Background Data and Information Influencing the Conclusions

and Recommendations of Shaping the Future

by Staff of the Division of Undergraduate Education
•276•
•277•

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.
•278•

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.
•279•

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
•280•

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.
•281•

 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 these

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
•282•

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.

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

100 %

1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 2 3 2 4

1980 1985 1990 1993

P e rcentage Enrolled in S c hool* in October

Ages 17 to 24 In Indicated Y ears

* "School" mean s Secondary school s and 2 and 4 year colleges, but not vocational in stitutes.

Age --->

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 inTime 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 ofsystemic 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
•283•

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; no math education 2.5+ to 3.0

Math at calculus level or lower and math education Above 3.0

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 (low frequency) 2.5 or lower

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:

• There is no pattern based on teachers’ highest academic degrees.

• Mathematics scores are higher if teachers majored in mathematics.

• Science scores are higher if teachers majored or minored in science, and somewhat higher yet if

teachers majored in science as graduate students.

• Training in pedagogy helped only if the teacher had training in subject area too.
•284•

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:

• coldness versus warmth,

• elitism versus democracy,

• aloofness versus openness, and

• 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.
•285•

The focus of student criticisms were the following:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 inTalking 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).
•286•

In the more frequently used subtotal of NS&E, degree awards have declined from 215,000 in 1986

(21 percent of total 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.

0

25

50

75

100

Thousands

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Engineering Life Sci Computer Sci

Physical & Geo Sci Mathematics Technology*

Bachelors Degrees Awarded in Science, Engineering, & Technology Fields

Number of Bachelors

* Technology includes science, health, and engineering technology

Only the life sciences have gained considerably

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Percent of All Bachelors

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.
•287•

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Thousands

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Associate of Arts Degrees Awarded in SME&T Fields

Number of Associate Degrees

Increase due to 75% increase

in health technologies 1990-95

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Percent of Total Associate Degrees

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)
•288•

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 the1993 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.

(79.3%) Undergrad

(6.6%) Both

(14.1%) Grad

Primary Teaching Level of Sci & Engineering Faculty

All Institutions
•289•

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.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Research Doctoral Masters Bachelors Public 2-Yr

Undergrad Graduate Both

S&E Faculty Teaching: Primary Level of Students

by Type of Institution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Research Doctoral Masters Bachelors Public 2-yr

Funded as PI or Co-PI On Funded Project Doing Unfunded Res

Percentage of S&E Faculty Teaching Primarily Undergrads

by Type of Institution & Extent of Involvement in Research
•290•

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) andmore 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 research over successful teaching.

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Research Doctoral Masters Bachelors Public 2-yr

Less for Res

More for Tchg

More for Advising

Less for Tchg

More for Res

S&E Faculty: Percent Who Want More or Less Time

for Advising, Teaching, or Research

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)
•291•

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.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Not HS Grad

HS Grad

Some Col

Col Grad

Distribution of Employment & Job Losses by Level of Education

for the periods 1981-83 and 1991-91

Pct Employed: 1981-83

Pct Employed: 1991-93

Pct of Jobs Lost: 1981-83

Pct of Jobs Lost:

 1991-93

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
•292•

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.”

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Thousands of 1993 Dollars 

80 83 86 89 92

Priv Res U's

Priv Bachs I

Pub Res U's

Priv Masts I & Doc U's

Pub Masters I

Pub 2-Yr Cols

Current Expenditures Less Internal Scholarship Aid per FTE Student

Exp's in '93 Dollars Net of Pell Grants, Sponsored Research, & Pub Service

FTEs Measured in Undergraduate Equivalents:

1 Grad Student Counted as 3 Undergraduates

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).
•293•

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.

4

6

8

10

12

14

Thousands of 1993 Dollars 

80 83 86 89 92

Pub Res Univs

Priv Masters I & Doc

All Bach, Mast & Doc

Pub Masters I

Pub 2-Yr Cols

Current Expenditures Less Internal Scholarship Aid per FTE Student

Exps in '93 Dollars Net of Pell Grants, Sponsored Research & Pub Service

FTEs = Simple Sum of All Students

 at All Levels

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
•294•

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 inNSF’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.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

School Year Ending [1975 = 1974-75]

Constant 1994 Dollars

Public Education Expenditures Per Student

K-12 and Higher Education [Constant 1994 Dollars]

Higher Ed

K-12 Sector

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-
•295•

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.)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

School Year Ending [1975 = 1974-75]

Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Public Education Revenue as a Pct of GDP

K-12 and Higher Education

Higher Ed

K-12 Sector

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education 1994, NCES 94-149 pp. 148, 149, 325-328.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Research Univs Doctoral Univs Lge Masters Instns Small MA & BA Cols

Undergraduate Enrollment in 4-Year Instns: Fall 1992

Distribution by Type of Instn and Enrollment Status

Part-Time

Full-Time

Priv Public

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Enrollment in Higher Education:
•296•

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

0

1

2

3

Millions

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

Northeast

0

1

2

3

4

Millions

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

South

Includes MD, DE, DC; TX, OK

Public Research & Doctoral

Large Public Masters

Small Pub Masters

& Bachelors

Public 2-Year Colleges

Private 2-Year Colleges

Small Priv Masters

& Bachelors

Large Priv ate Masters

Priv ate Research & Doctoral

0

1

2

3

4

Millions

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

Midwest

0

1

2

3

4

Millions

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

West

Excludes TX, OK

Priv ate 2-Year Colleges

Public 2-Year Colleges

Small Priv Masters

& Bachelors

Small Pub Masters

& Bachelors

Large Priv ate Masters

Large Public Masters

Priv ate Research & Doctoral

Public Research & Doctoral
•297•

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 fulltime 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, about 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.
•298•

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

4-Yr Institutions 2-Yr Colleges

All Students, FT & PT

SME&T Courses

Student-Hrs in SME&T Courses

Pct Distribution: Students & SME&T Courses

4-Year Vs. 2-Year Institutions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Research

Doctoral

Lge Masters

Sm Masters & Bachs

Pct Distribution of All Undergrad Students & SME&T Courses

by Type of 4-Year Institution

enrolled for credit in the lower-division courses. Mathematics is the discipline most oriented

towards lower-division courses and students, followed by the physical sciences and the biological

0

20

40

60

Thousands

Math Sciences

Computer Sci

Bio Science

Psychology

Engineering

Agriculture

Physical Sci

Social Sciences

2-Year Colleges 4-Yr Instns, Low er Div 4-Yr Instns, Upper Div

SME&T Course Count: 4-Year and 2-Year Institutions
•299•

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 twoyear colleges are included whenever possible in efforts to improve student learning in SME&T.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Thousands

Math Sciences

Computer Sci

Bio Science

Psychology

Engineering

Agriculture

Physical Sci

Social Sciences

2-Year Colleges 4-Yr Instns, Lower Div 4-Yr Instns, Upper Div

Estimated Enrollment in SME&T Courses

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 highlyconcentrated across classes of institutions. The

following chart shows the distribution of S&E funds among all 125 Research universities. (The

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Institution Ranking (Groups of 10)

Millions

0-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

101-110

Federal Obligations for Science & Engineering: FY 1992

Research Universities Ranked in Descending Order

Source: 'Fed'l Sci & Eng Support to Universities, Colleges, & Nonprofit Instns: FY 92 (NSF)

 Research Universities Received

88.5% of Total Awarded to Academe
•300•

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 12Doctorals 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.
•301•

$1

$10

$100

$1,000

$10,000

$100,000

700

309

212

Year

 (1993 Dollars)

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Priv Res U's

Pub Res U's

Pub Doc'l U's

Priv Doc'l+Mas I

Priv Bach I

Pub Mas I

Pub Bach II+Mas II

Priv Bach II+Mas II

Pub 2- yr Cols

Ratio of Sponsored Research to FTE Undergraduates

[Show n on a Log Scale]

13,427

5,693

1,350

153

40

7

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.
•302•

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 lowerdivision 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.
•303•

0 20 40 60 80 100

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Average Class Size

% of Classes/ Students Taught Mostly by Lecture

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

2-Yr Colleges

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

Ave Class Size & Lecture Frequency by Instn Type

Lower Division & Upper Division Courses

Ave Class Size

% Classes

by Lecture

Lower Division

Upper Division

% Students

in Lecture

Av e Class Size

0

20

40

60

80

Bio Science

Physical Sci

Psychology

Social Sciences

Agriculture

Computer Sci

Engineering

Math Sciences

Frosh & Soph Junior & Senior

Ave Class Size in 4-Yr Instns, by Field and Level of Course

Enrollments in the Fall, 1992

0

20

40

Bio Science

Physical Sci

Psychology

Social Sciences

Agriculture

Computer Sci

Engineering

Math Sciences

Ave Class Size in 2-Yr Instns, by Field
•304•

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 president of a

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Bio Science

Engineering

Physical Sci

Computer Sci

Psychology

Math Sciences

Social Sciences

Lab/Problem Solving

Study/Class Teams

Seminar

Apprenticeship

Non Lecture Courses: Freshman & Soph Level

Percent of Courses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Bio Science

Engineering

Physical Sci

Computer Sci

Psychology

Math Sciences

Social Sciences

Non Lecture Courses: Junior & Senior Level

Percent of Courses
•305•

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Institution Type

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

Two--Year

All Some All Some

SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use: Feedback Mechanisms

["All","Some" mean used in all/some courses.]

Multiple Drafts of Written Work

Peer Evaluation of Work

Lower Division Courses
•306•

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Institution Type

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

Two--Year

All Some All Some

SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use of New Technology

["All","Some" mean used in all/some courses.]

Computational Tools & Softw are

Computer-aided Instruction

Lower Division Courses

lower-division courses are illustrated 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 didnot employ these methods.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Institution Type

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

Two--Year

All Some All Some

SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use of Student Presentations

["All","Some" mean used in all/some courses.]

Lower Division

Upper Division
•307•

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.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Institution Type

Research

Doctoral

Large Masters

Mid Size Masters

Bachelors

Small Masters

Two--Year

None Some None Some

SME&T Instructors Frequency of Use: Grading on a Curve

["None","Some" mean used in none/some courses.]

Low er Division Upper Division

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) skillsand 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.
•308•

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).
•309•

Another reason is that competence in mathematics, science, 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 LynneCheney

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 fromBikson (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
•310•

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,
•311•

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).
•312•
•312 •

Section VI:

Contributors to the EHR Advisory Committee

Review of U.S. Undergraduate Education in SME&T
•313 

•
•314 •

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
•315 

•
•316 •

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
•317 •

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:

• citizens who are empowered to be full participants in a scientific and technological society;

• a technically well-prepared workforce that can both participate and lead in a high

performance workplace employing advanced technologies;

• teachers who are solidly grounded in both science and pedagogy, and scientists and

engineers who are well-prepared for their occupations; and

• young people with diverse backgrounds, reflecting the changing face of America,

successfully involved in SME&T.
•318 •

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):

• 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.]

• What are the unmet educational needs of those who are receiving and have received undergraduate

SME&T instruction?

• 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.
•319 •

Respondents to the Letter from Luther Williams,

NSF Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources

Jane Armstrong

Director of Policy Studies

Education Commission of the States

Denver, CO

Alexander W. Astin

Allan M. Carter Professor and Director

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Hyman Bass

Department of Mathematics

Columbia University

New York, NY

Osa Brand

Educational Affairs Director

Association of American Geographers

Washington, DC

George R. Boggs

Superintendent/President

Palomar College

San Marcos, CA

Laurence J. Boucher

Dean, College of Natural and Mathematical

Sciences

Towson State University

Towson, MD

Ernest L. Boyer

President

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching

Princeton, NJ

Jim Burke

Colloquium Committee, Department of Mathematics

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

William L. Briggs

Mathematics Department

University of Colorado at Denver

Denver, CO

Alice Brown (et al.)

Director

Appalachian College Association, Inc.

Berea, KY

Lillian N. Cassel

Department of Computing Sciences

Villanova University

Villanova, PA

Thomas R. Cech

Teacher

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research

Laboratories

University of Colorado at Boulder

Boulder, CO

Kenneth Chapman

Education Division

American Chemical Society

Washington, DC

Orville L. Chapman

Professor of Chemistry &

Associate Dean for Educational Innovation

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Robert Christman

NAGT Executive Director

National Association of Geology Teachers

Bellingham, WA

John Clevenger

Professor of Chemistry

Truckee Meadows Community College

Reno, NV

William S. Cohen

Department of Biology

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

Johnetta B. Cole

President

Spelman College

Atlanta, GA
•320 •

Rita R. Colwell

President,

American Association for the Advancement of

Science

Washington, DC

K. Jane Coulter

Deputy Administrator

Science and Education Resources Development

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

G. A. Crosby

Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science

Washington State University

Pullman, WA

Patricia A. Cunniff

Director, Science and Technology Resource Center

Prince Georges Community College

Largo, MD

Jaleh Daie

Science Advisor, UW System

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

E. Julius Dasch

National Space Grant College and Fellowship

Program

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC

G. Doyle Daves, Jr.

Dean, School of Science

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Troy, NY

Kerry Davidson

Deputy Commission of Higher Education

State of Louisiana Board of Regents

Baton Rouge, LA

Eugene M. DeLoatch

Dean

Morgan State University

Baltimore, MD

Denice D. Denton

Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Madison - Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Paul R. Dickenson

Executive Director

Partnership for Environmental Technology

Education

Pleasanton, CA

Catherine J. Didion

Executive Director

Association for Women in Science

Washington, DC

Richard P. D’Onofrio

President

Franklin Institute of Boston

Boston, MA

John A. Dossey

Distinguished University Professor of Mathematics

& Past-President, NCTM

Illinois State University

Normal, IL

Ronald G. Douglas

Vice Provost & Professor of Mathematics

State University of New York at Stony Brook

Stony Brook, NY

Marvin Druger

Chairperson, Department of Science Teaching

& Professor, Biology and Science Education

Syracuse University

Syracuse, NY

Patricia A. Dyer

Vice President Academic Affairs

Palm Beach Community College

Palm Beach, FL

Robert H. Edwards

President

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME
•321 •

Arthur B. Ellis

Meloche-Bascom Professor

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Madison, WI

Royce C. Engstrom

Professor of Chemistry

University of South Dakota

Vermillion, SD

E. W. Ernst

Allied Signal Professor of Engineering

University of South Carolina

Columbia, SC

Dale Ewen

Vice President, Academic and Student Services

Parkland College

Champaign, IL

Etta Falconer

Associate Provost for Science Programs & Policy

Spelman College

Atlanta, GA

Lyle D. Feisel

Dean, School of Engineering and Applied Science

Binghamton University

Binghamton, NY

Evan R. Ferguson

Deputy Executive Director

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

Research Triangle Park, NC

Pamela A. Ferguson

President

Grinnell College

Grinnell, IA

Samuel C. Florman

Kreisler, Borg, Florman Construction Company

Scarsdale, NY

Kenneth E. Foote

Associate Professor of Geography

The University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Norman L. Fortenberry

Executive Director

National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for

Minorities

in Engineering and Science, Inc. (GEM)

Notre Dame, IN

Shelley Fisher

President

National Science Teachers Association

Sand Springs, OK

Marye Anne Fox

Vice President for Research

The University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Carver C. Gayton

Corporate Director, College and University

Relations

The Boeing Company

Seattle, WA

Edward E. Geary

Coordinator for Educational Programs

The Geological Society of America

Boulder, CO

Joan S. Girgus

Director,

Pew Science Program in Undergraduate Education

Princeton, NJ

Elma Gonzalez

Professor of Biology

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

John I. Goodlad

Professor and Director, Center for Educational

Renewal

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

William H. Graves

Professor of Mathematics,

Associate Provost for Information Technology

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, NC
•322 •

Lawrence P. Grayson

Executive Director

National Academy for Science, Space and

Technology Scholarship Program

United States Department of Education

Washington, DC

Norman Hackerman

President Emeritus

Rice University

Houston, TX

Jerrier A. Haddad

President,

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology

Baltimore, MD

Gene E. Hall

Professor, College of Education

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, CO

William C. Harris

Assistant Director, Mathematical and Physical

Sciences

National Science Foundation

Arlington, VA

David M. Hata

Chair, Microelectronics Technology

Portland Community College

Portland, OR

Robert M. Hazen

Carnegie Institution of Washington

Geophysical Laboratory

Washington, DC

James G. Heideman

Department of Technology

California State University, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Curtis J. Hieggelke

Professor of Physics

Joliet Junior College

Joliet, IL

Alice S. Huang

Dean for Science and Professor

New York University

New York, NY

Frank L. Huband

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Washington, DC

Durward R. Huffman

President

Northern Maine Technical College

Presque Isle, ME

Frederick S. Humphries

President

Florida A&M University

Tallahassee, FL

Jerry Johnson

Chair, Department of Mathematics

University of Nevada Reno

Reno, NV

Karen L. Johnson

President

American Association of Physics Teachers

College Park MD

John R. Jungck

Professor, Department of Biology

Beloit College

Beloit, WI

Jane Butler Kahle

Condit Professor of Science Education

The Ohio Mathematics/Science Project

Oxford, OH

David Kaufman

Associate Dean, College of Engineering

The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

Penelope Kegel-Flom

President

Association for Women in Science

Washington, DC
•323 •

Donald E. Kirk

Dean of Engineering

San José State University

San José, CA

William E. Kirwan

President

University of Maryland at College Park

College Park, MD

George D. Klein

President

New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium

Fort Hancock, NJ

Priscilla W. Laws

Professor of Physics

Dickinson College

Carlisle, PA

Joan R. Leitzel

Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

University of Nebraska Lincoln

Lincoln, NE

Stephen R. Lewis, Jr.

President

Carleton College

Northfield, MN

Ivo E. Lindauer

Professor of Botany

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley CO

Mary Lindquist

Past President

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Columbus, GA

Jean MacGregor

Interim Director

Washington Center for Improving the

Quality of Undergraduate Education

Olympia, WA

C. Peter Magrath

President

National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges

Washington, DC

Ted Marchese

Vice President

American Association of Higher Education

Washington, DC

Marilyn Mays

President

American Mathematical Association of Two-Year

Colleges

Memphis, TN

Eve L. Menger

Painted Post, NY

Stanley A. Mertzman

Associate Dean of the College, Dean of Research

Franklin and Marshall College

Lancaster, PA

Mary Beth Monroe

Department of Physics

Southwest Texas Junior College

Uvalde, TX

C. Bradley Moore

Professor of Chemistry

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Calvin C. Moore

Department of Mathematics

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Manual T. Pacheco

President

The University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Robert E. Parilla

President

Montgomery College

Rockville, MD

Edward A. Parrish

Centennial Professor and Dean

Vanderbuilt University

Nashville, TN
•324 •

C. Kumar N. Patel

President

The American Physical Society

College Park, MD

Ernest J. Peck

Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs

University of Nebraska at Omaha

Omaha, NE

Joseph G. Perpech

Vice President, Grants and Special Programs

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Chevy Chase, MD

Frederic K. Pfaender

Chairman, Board of Education and Training

American Society for Microbiology

Washington, DC

Winfred M. Phillips

Dean, College of Engineering

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

George D. Peterson

Executive Director

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology, Inc.

Baltimore, MD

David R. Pierce

President

American Association of Community Colleges

Washington, DC

Jerry Pine

Professor of Biophysics

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

Karl S. Pister

Chancellor

University of California, Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz, CA

Jack Price

President

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Reston, VA

William A. Prothero, Jr.

Department of Geological Sciences

University of California, Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA

Judith A. Ramaley

President

Portland State University

Portland, OR

William H. Rauckhorst

University Director for Scholarship and Teaching

Miami University

Oxford, OH

Stephen Rodi

Kenneth A. Ross

President

Mathematical Association of America

Eugene, OR

James M. Rosser

President

California State University, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Brian M. Rushton

President

American Chemical Society

Washington, DC

David A. Sanchez

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

A. Mickey Sarquis

Director, Center for Chemical Education

Miami University

Middletown, OH

Robert B. Schwartz

Director, Education Program

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Philadelphia, PA
•325 •

Joyce A. Scott

Vice President for Academic and International

Programs

American Association of State Colleges and

Universities

Washington, DC

Mary Shaw

School of Computer Science

Carnegie Melon University

Pittsburgh, PA

Calvet H. Smith

Office of Systemic Reform

State of Ohio

Cincinnati, OH

Edward A. Prather

Assistant Dean

College of Engineering

University of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH

William F. Snyder

President

Wytheville Community College

Wytheville, VA

Dorothy L. Stout

Past President, National Association of Geology

Teachers

Cypress College

Cypress, CA

Bob Swenson

Vice President for Research and Creative Activities

Montana State University

Bozeman, MT

Judith Tavel

Department of Mathematics, Physical and Computer

Sciences

Dutchess Community College

Poughkeepsie, NY

John G. Truxal

Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus

State University of New York at Stony Brook

Stony Brook, NY

Alan Tucker

Chair, Coordinating Council for Education

The Mathematical Association of America

Stony Brook, NY

Stephen B. Tucker

Program Manager, Higher Education Programs

General Electric Fund

Fairfield, CT

Gordon E. Uno

President, National Association of Biology Teachers

The University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK

Christopher J. Van Wyk

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

Drew University

Madison, NJ

Kenneth L. Verosub

Professor of Geology

University of California, Davis

Davis, CA

Nathaniel T. Wheelwright

Associate Professor of Biology

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME

Laurel L. Wilkening

Chancellor

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, CA

Paul H. Williams

Department of Biology

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Madison, WI

Karen Worth

Senior Associate

Education Development Center, Inc.

Newton, MA

Wm. A. Wulf

AT&T Professor of Engineering

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA
•326 •

Richard N. Zare

Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor of Chemistry

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Maria E. Zavala

California State University Northridge

Northridge, CA
• 327 •

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
•328 

•
• 329 •

Participants in From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

The NRC/NSF Convocation

April 9-11, 1995

Abraham, Neal

Professor of Physics

Bryn Mawr College

101 North Merion Avenue

Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

Apple, Martin A.

Executive Director

Council of Scientific Society Presidents

1155 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Agogino, Alice

Professor

University of California

Department of Mechanical Engineering

5136 Etcheverry Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

Agrawal, Askok

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Ahnert, Edward

President

Exxon Education Foundation

225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway

Irving, TX 75062

Alberts, Bruce

Chairman

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Atkiss, Anthony

Chairman

Exxon Education Foundation

225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway

Irving, TX 75602

Baker, Gregory

Professor

Ohio State University

Department of Mathematics

231 W. 18th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210

Bass, Hyman

Professor of Mathematics

Columbia University

Department of Mathematics

New York, NY 10027

Berriozabal, Manuel

Professor of Mathematics/Coordinator

University of Texas at San Antonio

Division of Math, Computer Science and

Statistics

San Antonio, TX 78249-0661

Beltz, Barbara

Professor

Wellesley College

Wellesley, MA 02181

Boggs, George

President

Palomar College

11140 West Mission Road

San Marcos, CA 92069-1487

Bordogna, Joseph

Assistant Director for Engineering

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 505

Arlington, VA 22230

Borland, Robert

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Department of Mathematics & Statistics

Box 8800323

Lincoln, NE 68588-0323
• 330 •

Boutte, Kenneth

Xavier University

P.O. Box 120C

New Orleans, LA 70125

Boylan, Myles

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Bozeman, Sylvia

Professor and Chairman, Department of

Mathematics

Spelman College

350 Spelman Lane, Box 270

Atlanta, GA 30314-4399

Bragg, Sadie

Acting Dean of Academic Affairs and

Professor of Mathematics

Borough of Manhattan Community College

199 Chambers Street

New York, NY 10007

Brown, Malcolm

Director of Academic Computing

Dartmouth College

Kiewit Computing Center 6028

Hanover, NH 03755

Brownstein, Barbara

Professor

Temple University

Department of Biology

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Brunkhorst, Bonnie

Professor of Geology and Science Education

California State University

Institute for Science Education

5500 University Parkway

San Bernardino, CA 92407

Bruns, Peter

Director, Division of Biological Sciences

Comell University

169 Biotechnology Building

Ithaca, NY 14853

Bunce, Diane

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Burrill, Gail

President-Elect, NCTM

University of Wisconsin NCRMSE

12155 West Luther Avenue

Madison, WI 53706

Bybee, Rodger

Associate Director

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study

5415 Mark Dabling Boulevard

Colorado Springs, CO 80918-3842

Campbell, George

President

National Action Council for Minorities in

Engineering

3 West 35th Street

New York, NY 10001

Cannon, Peter

Managing Partner VRE

4848 Colt Street, Suite 1

Ventura, CA 93004

Capco, David

Professor, Arizona State University and

Program Director National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 605

Arlington, VA 22230

Cappellari, Ann

Beloit College

Beloit, WI 53511

Carlson, William

Professor and Chairman

University of Texas at Austin

Department of Geological Sciences

Austin, TX 78712

Carpenter, John

Director

University of South Carolina Center for Science

Education

Columbia, SC 29208

Carr, Stephen

Associate Dean, Engineering

Northwestern University

Robert R. McCormick School of

Engineering and Applied Science

Evanston, IL 60208
• 331 •

Celeste, Richard

Celeste & Sabety, Ltd.

240 North 5th Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Chamot, Dennis

Assistant Executive Director

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA280

Washington, DC 20418

Chang, Amy

Director, Education and Training

American Society for Microbiology

Office of Education and Training

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20020

Chapman, Orville

Professor

University of California

Department of Chemistry and

Biochemistry

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1569

Chapman, Sally

Professor of Chemistry

Barnard College

3009 Broadway

New York, NY 10027-6598

Clark, Robert

Professor of Physics and

Associate Dean of College of Science

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-4242

Conroy, Brian

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Crosby, Glenn

Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science

Washington State University

Pullman, WA 99164-4630

Crowley, Kevin

Senior Program Officer

National Research Council Board on Earth Sciences

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 372

Washington, DC 20418

Daie, Jaleh

Senior Science Advisor and Professor

Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic

Affairs

University of Wisconsin

329 Birge Hall

Madison, WI 53706-1559

Dalrymple, Brent

Dean and Professor

Oregon State University

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

Oceanography Administration Building 104

Corvalis, OR 97331 -5503

Deloatch, Eugene

Dean, School of Engineering

Morgan State University

Baltimore, MD 21239

Denton, Denice

Associate Professor

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Madison, WI 53706-1691

Dickison, Alexander

Professor of Physics and Chair

Seminole Community College

100 Weldon Boulevard

Sanford, FL 32773-6199

Donaldson, James

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Howard University

2441 6th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20071

Douglas, Ronald

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and

Professor of Mathematics

State University of New York at Stony Brook

E3350 Main Library

Stony Brook, NY 11794

Dowell, David

Princeton University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544
• 332 •

Downing, Shenyata

Xavier University

P.O. Box 120C

New Orleans, LA 70125

Doyle, Michael

Dr. D.R. Semmes Distinguished

Professor of Chemistry

Trinity University

San Antonio, TX 78212

Duffey, Mary

OWeefe Duffy

350 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10118

Duvall, Betty

Community College Liaison

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Eckstrand, Irene

Acting Director

National Institutes of Health

Office of Science Education

6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5H01

Rockville, MD 20892

Edgerton, Russell

President

American Association for Higher Education

One DuPont Circle, Suite 360

Washington, DC 20036

Edgington, Samantha

Princeton University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544

Erdman, Carl

Director of Academic Development and Foundation

Coalition

Texas A&M University

Division of Educational Programs Research

2037 WERC College Statio4 TX 77843-3126

Ernst, Edward

Allied Signal Professor of Engineering

University of South Carolina

College of Engineering

Swearingen Engineering Center

Columbia, SC 29208

Falconer, Etta

Associate Provost for Science Programs and Policy

Spelman College Box 1005

350 Spelman Lane Atlanta, GA 30314

Feldberg, Melissa

Wesleyan University

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences

265 Church Street

Middleton CT 06459

Ferguson, Pamela

President

Grinnell College

P.O. Box 805

Grinnell, IA 50112

Ferguson, Veronique

Bronx Community College

University Avenue/West 181st Street

231 Colston Hall

Bronx, NY 10453

Florman, Samuel

Vice President

Kreisler Borg Florman Construction Company

97 Montgomery Street

Scarsdale, NY 10583

Forman, Susan

Director of College & University Programs

Mathematical Sciences Education Board

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 476

Washington, DC 20418

Fortenberry, Norman

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Foster, Anthony

Bronx Community College

University Avenue/West 181stStreet

231 Colston Hall

Bronx, NY 10453

Friedel, Janice Nahra

President

Lexington Community College

209 Oswald Building, Cooper Drive

Lexington, KY 40506-0235
• 333 •

Fromm, Eli

Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies

32nd and Chesnut Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Froyd, Jeffrey

Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

5500 Wabash Avenue

Terre Haute, IN 47803

Fuchs, Bruce

National Institutes of Health

Office of Education

6121 Executive Boulevard, Suite 450

Rockville. MD 20854

Gabriel, Clifford

Executive Director

American Institute of Biological Sciences

730 11th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001-4521

Gangolli, Ramesh

Professor of Mathematics

University of Washington

Department of Mathematics GN-50

Seattle, WA 98195

Geary, Edward

Coordinator for Education Programs

Geological Society of America

3300 Penrose Place

Boulder, CO 80301-9140

Gentile, James

Dean for the Natural Sciences

Hope College

Holland, MI 49423

George, Melvin

Vice President for Institutional Relations

University of Minnesota

432 Morrill Hall, 100 Church Street

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Gerardi, Donna

Director

National Research Council

Coordinating Council for Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450

Washington, DC 20418

Girgus, Joan

Director, Pew Charitable Trusts

Pew Science Program in Undergraduate Education

Princeton University, Green Hall

Princeton, NJ 08544

Glass, Sandra

Program Vice President

W.M. Keck Foundation

555 South Flower Street, Suite 3230

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Goldberg, David

Professor

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Department of General Engineering

104 South Matthews Avenue

Urbana, IL 61801

Gonzalez, Mario

Associate Vice Chancellor

University of Texas System

601 Colorado Street

Austin, TX 78701-2982

Goroff, Daniel

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Harvard University

Carnbridge, MA 02138-2901

Greenhouse, Cheryl

Media Relations Associate

National Research Council

Office of News and Public Information

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Greenwood, MRC

Associate Director for Science

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office of the President

17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Groat, Charles

Executive Director

Louisiana State University

Center for Coastal, Energy, and Environmental

Resources

Baton Rouge, LA 70803
• 334 •

Hackerman, Norrnan

Chairrnan, Scientific Advisory Board

The Welch Foundation

4605 Post Oak Place, Suite 200

Houston, TX 77027

Haddad, Jerrier

President

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology

162 Macy Road

Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

Harrison, David

Director, Advanced Integrated Manufacturing

Center

Sinclair Community College

444 West Third Street

Dayton, OH 45402-1460

Hata, David

Department Head

Portland Community College/Intel Corporation

Micoelectronics Technology

1705 SE 29th Avenue

Portland, OR 97214

Hatcher, Robert

Distinguished Scientist and Professor

University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge

National Laboratory

Department of Geological

301 G and G Building

Knoxville, TN 37996-1410

Hawkins, William

Director, SUMMA

Mathematical Association of America

1529 18th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Haynes, John

Professor of Biology

Morehouse College

Department of Biology

830 Westview Drive, SE

Atlanta, GA30314

Hazen, Robert

Professor

George Mason University

5251 Broad Branch Road, NW

Washington, DC 20015

Herschbach, Dudley

Baird Professor of Science

Harvard University Department of Chemistry

12 Oxford Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

Hill, Constance

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Highway Administration Environmental

Quality Branch

400 7th Street, SW

HEP-42 Room 3240

Washington, DC 20590

Hill, Wendell

University of Maryland

Institute for Physical Science & Technology

College Park, MD 20742

Hixson, Susan H.

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Hodge, Daniel

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Holton, Gerald

Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and History of

Science

Harvard University, Department of Physics

358 Jefferson Physical Laboratory

Cambridge, MA 02138

Hoopes, Laura

Vice President and Dean of the College

Pomona College

Claremont, CA 91711

Horn, Christine

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Houston, Johnny

Professor, Math and Computer Science

Elizabeth City State University

Elizabeth City, NC 27909
• 335 •

Howell, Kathleen

Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

Huang, Alice

Dean for Science

New York University

6 Washington Square North

New York, NY 10003

Hughes Hallett, Deborah

Professor of Mathematics

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138

Hunt, William

Professor of Electrical Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Atlanta, GA 30332-0250

Hutchings, Patricia

Director, Teaching Initiative

American Association of Higher Education

One DuPont Circle, Suite 360

Washington, DC 20036

Jaco, William

Executive Director

American Mathematical Society

P.O. Box 6248

Providence, RI 02904-2213

Jarmul, David

Director of Communications

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

4000 Jones Bridge Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Johann, Eileen Delgado

Miami-Dade Community

College at Kendall

11011 SW 104th Street

Miami. FL 33176

Johnson, Raymond

Professor and Chair, Department of Mathematics

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742-0001

Jones, Therese

Chairman, Division of Sciences and Engineering

Amarillo College

P.O. Box 447

Amarillo, TX 79178-0001

Joyner, Jacquelyn Scotton

Mathematics Instructional Specialist

Richmond Public Schools

Department of Instruction

301 North 9th Street, 12th Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

Jungck, John

Professor, Department of Biology

Beloit College

700 College Street

Beloit, WI S3511

Justus, Joyce

Office of Science Technology Policy

Room 432, Old Executive Office Building

17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Kahle, Jane

Condit Professor of Science Education

Miami University

418 McGuffey Hall

Oxford, OH 45056

Kennedy, Donald

Bing Professor of Environmental Studies

Stanford University

Encina Hall 200

Stanford, CA 94305-6055

Kennedy, Ian

Professor and Vice Chairman

University of California

Department of Mechanical and

Aeronautical Engineering

Davis, CA 95616

Keynes, Harvey

Professor of Mathematics

University of Minnesota

127 Vincent Hall

Minneapolis, MN 55455
• 336 •

Khoury, Bernard

Executive Director

American Association of Physics Teachers

One Physics Ellipse

College Park, MD 20740

Kincaid, W. Brad

Mesa Community College

Department of Life Science

1833 West Southern Avenue

Mesa, AZ 85202

Klausner, Richard

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development

Building 18T, Room 101

Bethesda, MD 20892

Korshin, Caryn

Program Officer

Exxon Education Foundation

225 East John W. Carpenter Freeway

Irving, TX 75062-2298

Kowalski, Frank

Professor of Physics

Colorado School of Mines

Golden, CO 80401

Kraus, Pamela

University of Washington

Department of Physics

Physics FM-15

Seattle, WA 9819

Krylova, Irina

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washinato4 DC 20064

Kulacki, Francis

Dean, Institute of Technology

University of Minnesota

105 Walter Library

117 Pleasant Street, SE

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Labov, Jay

Study Director, Committee on Undergraduate

Science Education

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20418

Lacampagne, Carole

Senior Research Associate in Mathematics

U.S. Department of Education

Institute for Student Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20208-5649

Lane, Neal

Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington VA 22230

Lappan, Glenda

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Michigan State University

101 Wills House

East Lansing, MI 48824

Laws, Priscilla

Professor of Physics

Dickinson College

P.O. Box 1773

Carlisle, PA 17013

Lee, Peter

Dean, College of Engineering

California Polytechnic State University

Grand Avenue

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Leitzel, James

Associate Professor of Mathematics

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Department of Mathematics & Statistics

Box 8800323

Lincoln, NE 68588-0323

Leitzel, Joan

Senior Vice Chancellor

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Academic Affairs

202 Canfield Administration Building

Lincoln, NE 68588-0420

Lester, William

Senior Fellow for Science & Engineering

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230
• 337 •

Levitan, Herbert

Section Head, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Lawrence, Bettye

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Lewis, Donald

Professor of Mathematics

University of Michigan

Angell Hall

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003

Lewis, Margaret

Director of Applied Technology and Vocational

Education

School Board of Brevard County

Department of Curriculum Services

2700 Street Johns Street

Viera, FL 32940

Lichter, Robert

Executive Director

The Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.

555 Madison Avenue, Suite 1305

New York, NY 10022-3301

Lightbourne, James

Program Director

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Lindquist, Mary

Callaway Professor of Mathematics Education

Columbus College

Curriculum Instruction

Columbus, GA 31901

Lisensky, George C.

Professor of Chemistry

Beloit College

Beloit,WI53511

Lohmann, Jack

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Georgia Institute of Technology

College of Engineering

Room 302 Administration Building

Atlanta, GA 30332-0360

Long, Sharon

Professor of Biology

Stanford University

216 Gilbert Laboratories

Stanford, CA 94305-5020

Madison, Bernard

Dean, Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences

Fullbright College, Main 525

Fayetteville, AR 72701-3025

Mahlab, Minna

Research Assistant

National Research Council Committee on

Undergraduate

Science Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Mahood, Gail

Professor of Geological and Environmental Sciences

Stanford University, MC 2115

Stanford, CA 94305-2115

Malcom, Shirley

Head, American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Directorate for Education and Human Resources

1333 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Marshall, Diane

Associate Professor of Biology

University of New Mexico

Department of Biology

Albuquerque, NM 87131

Mateja, John

Deputy Program Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Science Education Programs

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585
• 338 •

Matthews, Pamela

Associate Dean of Mathematics

Mt. Hood Community College

26000 SE Stark Street

Gresham, OR 97030

Mays, Marilyn

President, AMATYC and Professor of

Mathematics and Computer Science

North Lake College

5001 MacArthur Boulevard

Irving, TX 75038-3899

Mazur, Eric

Professor of Physics

Harvard University

Department of Applied Sciences

29 Oxford Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

McBride, Duncan

Section Head, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

McDermott, Lillian

Professor of Physics

University of Washington, Physics FM- 15

Seattle, WA 98195

McKenney, James

Director, Economic Development

American Association of Community Colleges

One DuPont Circle, Suite 410

Washington, DC 20036

McWethy, Patricia

Executive Director

National Science Education Leadership Association

P.O. Box 5556

Arlington, VA 22205

Merritts, Dorothy

Associate Professor, Department of Geosciences

Franklin and Marshall College

Lancaster, PA 17604-3003

Mertzman, Stanley

Professor of Geosciences

Franklin and Marshall College

P.O. Box 3003

Lancaster, PA 17604-3003

Metzger, Norman

Executive Director

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and

Applications

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Miller, Catherine

32nd and Chestnut Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Minster, Jean-Bernard

Professor of Geophysics and

Director, System-wide Institute of

Geophysics and Planetary Physics

University of California at San Diego

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

La Jolla, CA 92093-0225

Mohrig, Jerry

Professor of Chemistry

Carleton College

Department of Chemistry

Northfield, MN 55057

Molter, Lynne

Associate Professor of Engineering

Swarthmore College

Department of Engineering

500 College Avenue

Swarthmore, PA 19081

Monroe, Mary Beth

Physics Instructor

Southwest Texas Junior College

2401 Garner Field Road

Uvalde, TX 78801-6297

Moore, C. Bradley

Professor of Chemistry

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94720-1460

Moore, John A.

Professor Emeritus of Biology

University of California

Department of Biology

900 University Avenue

Riverside, CA 92521
• 339 •

Moore, Lawrence

Duke University

Department of Mathematics

P.O. Box 90320

Durham, NC 27708-0251

Moore, Penny

Piedmont High School

800 Magnolia

Piedmont, CA 94611

Morawetz, Cathleen

Professor Emeritus

CIMS--New York University

251 Mercer Street

New York, NY 10012-110

Moyé, Alfred

University Relations Manager

Hewlett-Packard Company

1501 Page Mill Road, MS 3L7

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Nally, Terry

American Chemical Society

Educational Division

1155 - 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20020

Neale, Bridget

Harvard University

Department of Mathematics

Cambridge, MA 02138

Narum, Jeanne

Director, Independent Colleges Office

Project Kaleidoscope

1730 Rhode Island Avenue, Suite 1205

Washington, DC 20036

Nocera, Daniel

Professor of Chemistry

Michigan State University

Department of Chemistry

East Lansing, MI 48824

O’Brien, Ruth

Staff Associate

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and

Applications

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

O'Connell, Suzanne

Assistant Professor

Wesleyan University

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences

265 Church Street

Middleton, CT 06459

Offenbacher, Jeanette

Senior Project Assistant

National Research Council

Coordinating Council for Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450

Washington, DC 20418

O’Keefe, John

OKeefe Duffy

350 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10118

Oliver, Michael

Inverness Research Associates

5545 Trinhardt Drive

Fairway, KS 66205

Olson, Steve

7608 Sebago Road

Bethesda, MD 20817

Osheroff, Douglas

Chairman and Professor of Physics

Stanford University

Varian Physics, Room 108

Stanford, CA 94305-4060

Oyewole, Saundra Herndon

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Parilla, Robert

President

Montgomery College

900 Hungerford Drive

Rockville, MD 20850

Patmore, Stacey

Senior Project Assistant

National Research Council

Committee on Undergraduate Science Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418
• 340 •

Perpich, Joseph

Vice President, Grants and Special Programs

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

4000 Jones Bridge Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Perry, Robert

Associate Professor of Physics

Ohio State University

174 West 18th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210

Phillips, Monte

Professor of Civil Engineering

University of North Dakota

Box 8115

Grand Forks, ND 58202-8115

Pierce, David

President

American Association of Community Colleges

One DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 410

Washington, DC 20036

Pine, Stanley

Professor of Chemistry

California State University

Los Angeles, CA 90032

Pings, Cornelius

President

Association of American Universities

One DuPont Circle, Suite 730

Washington, DC 20036

Pister, Karl

Chancellor

University of California at Santa Cruz

296 McHenry Library

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Pollack, Kerstin

Acting Director

National Research Council

Board on Engineering Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Pollard, Beth

National Research Council

Coordinating Council for Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450

Washington, DC 20418

Poodry, Clifton

Director, National Institutes of Health

Minority Opportunities Research Division

45 Center Drive, Suite 2AS.37

Bethesda, MD 20892-6200

Prados, John

Senior Education Associate

National Science Foundation

Engineering Education and Centers Division

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 585

Arlington, VA 22230

Prakash, Ravi

Embassy of India

Science Counselor

2536 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20008

Prelas, Mark

Professor of Nuclear Engineering

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211

Quinn, Helen

Senior Staff Specialist

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Theoretical Physics, Education and

Public Outreach

P.O. Box 4349

Stanford, CA 94309

Ramirez, Martin

Greenfield Academic Director

UDM Engineering and Science

4001 W. McNichols Road

P.O. Box 19900

Detroit, MI 48219

Rasaq, Ramon

Bronx Community College

University Avenue/West 181st Street

231 Colston Hall

Bronx, NY 10453

Ray, Janet

Seattle Central Community College

Mathematics Department, BE 5104

1701 Broadway

Seattle, WA 98122
• 341 •

Razzaghi, Amir

Princeton University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544

Reynolds, Ann

Chancellor

City University of New York

535 East 80th Street, Room M700

New York, NY 10021

Rhoades, Sandra

Smith College

Department of Mathematics

Northampton,, MA 01063-001

Richtol, Herbert M.

Program Director

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Ridgway, Kenneth

Purdue University

Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

1397 CIVIL Building

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1397

Ridky, Robert

Professor of Geology

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

Rigden, John

Director of Physics Programs

American Institute of Physics

One Physics Ellipse

College Park, MD 20740

Roden, Christie

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Department of Plant Pathology

1630 Linden Drive

Madison. WI 53706

Rodi, Stephen

Division Chair

Austin Community College, Rio Grande

Mathematics and Physical Sciences

1212 Rio Grande Street

Austin, TX 78701-1785

Romig, Phillip

Professor and Head of Department

Colorado School of Mines

Department of Geophysics

Golden, CO 80401

Roohk, Bonita

Golden West College

Department of Biological Sciences

15744 Golden West Road

Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Rosa, Victoria

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Rosamilia, Armand

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Rosser, James

President

California State University at Los Angeles

5151 State University Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90032

Roy, Swati Dutta

Princeton University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton NJ 08544

Sampson, Kirsten A.

Program Officer

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 450

Washington, DC 20418

Sarquis, Arlyne

Director, Center for Chemical Education

Miami University

4200 East University Boulevard

Middletown, OH 45042

Sawrey, Barbara

Vice Chair

University of California at San Diego

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

9500 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, CA 92093-0303
• 342 •

Schneiderman, Jill

U.S. Senate Office of Senator Tom Daschle

Hart Senate Office Building, Room 509

Washington, DC 20510

Schneider, Carol

Executive Vice President

Association of American Colleges and Universities

1818 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Schowengerdt, Frank

Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of

Faculty

Colorado School of Mines

Golden, CO 80401

Schuster, Gary

Dean, College of Science

Georgia Tech

Atlanta, GA 30332-0400

Sechrist, Chalmers F.

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Shearer, Clement

Dean for Budget and Planning and Professor of

Geology

Carleton College

One North College Street

Northfield, MN 55057

Shiflett, Ray C.

Executive Director

California Polytechnic University at Pomona

Office of External Relations

3801 West Temple

Pomona, CA 91768

Simpson, Patricia

Associate Professor, Science Education and Biology

St. Cloud State University

720 4th Avenue South

St. Cloud, MN 56301

Sjoerdsma, Ted

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Snow, John

Dean, College of Geosciences

University of Oklahoma

Sarkeys Energy Center

100 East Boyd, Suite 710

Norman, OK 73019-0628

Spencer, James

Atlantic Philanthropic Service Company

120 East Buffalo Street

Ithaca, NY 14850

Squitieri, Louise

Professor of Biology

Bronx Community College

University Avenue/West 181st Street

231 Colston Hall

Bronx, NY 10453

Stacy, Angelica

Professor, College of Chemistry

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94720

Stakgold, Ivar

Director, American Mathematical Society

Washington Office

1527 Eighteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Steen, Lynn

Executive Director

Mathematical Sciences Education Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 476

Washington, DC 20418

Stellar, Diana

Hartnell College

798 Pine Street, #2

Monterey, CA 93940

Stewart, Barbara

Associate Professor of Biology

Swarthmore College

Department of Biology

Swarthmore, PA 19081

Stewart, Joanne

Associate Professor of Chemistry

Hope College

65 Eustis Street, # 1

Cambridge, MA 02140
• 343 •

Stith, James

Professor of Physics

Ohio State University

Department of Physics

174 West 18th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210- 1106

Stoddart, Trish

Associate Professor

University of California at Santa Cruz

Department of Education

211 Crown College

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Stone, David

Professor, Department of Mathematics and

Computer Science

Georgia Southern University

Landrum Box 8093

Statesboro, GA 30460-8093

Stout, Dorothy

Professor of Geosciences

Cypress College

Physical Sciences Department

9200 Valley View Street

Cypress, CA 90630

Straley, Tina

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Straumanis, Joan

Program Officer

U.S. Department of Education

Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary

Education

7th & D Streets, SW, ROB-3, Room 3100

Washington, DC 20202-5175

Strobel, Kevin

University of Minnesota at Minneapolis

Mathematics Department

206 Church Street, SE

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Suiter, Marilyn

Director, Education and Human Resources

American Geological Institute

4220 King Street

Alexandria, VA 22302-1507

Suplee, Curt

The Washington Post

1150 15th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20071

Swann, Marie Johnson

Bronx Community College

University Avenue/West 181st Street

231 Colston Hall

Bronx, NY 10453

Sward, Marcia

Executive Director

Mathematical Association of America

1529 Eighteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-1385

Taylor, Jean

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Rutgers University

Hill Center, Busch Campus

Piscataway, NJ 08855

Teague, Daniel

Instructor of Mathematics

North Carolina School of Science and

Mathematics

1219 Broad Street

Durham, NC 27705

Teles, Elizabeth

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Thompson, Joe

Director, NSF Engineering Research Center for

Computational Field Simulation

Mississippi State University

P.O. Drawer 6176

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Thompson, Jr., Albert

Chair and Professor of Chemistry

Spelman College

Box 281

Atlanta, GA 303144399

Tobias, Sheila

Research Corporation

724 North Campbell Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85719
• 344 •

Trefil, James

Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Physics

George Mason University

Department of Physics

207 East Building

Fairfax, VA 22030

Tucker, Alan

Distinguished Teaching Professor

State University of New York

Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics

Stony Brook, NY 11794-3600

Turro, Nicholas

Professor of Chemistry

Columbia University

Box 610, Havemeyer Hall

New York, NY 10027

Udomprasert, Patricia

Princeton University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544

Verosub, Kenneth

Professor, Department of Geology

University of California at Davis

Davis, CA 95616

Waintraub, Jack

Department Chair and Professor

Middlesex County College

Department of Physics/Electrical Engineering

Technology

Edison, NJ 08818-3050

Walker, Graham

Professor of Biology

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Department of Biology, 68-633

Cambridge, MA 02139

Ward, Samuel

University of Arizona Department of Life Sciences

MCB South 444, Park & Lowell

Tuscon, AZ 85721

Warner, Frank

Associate Dean and Professor of Mathematics

University of Pennsylvania

Schools of Arts and Sciences

116 College Hall

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6377

Watson, Robert

Director, National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

West, Russell

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Wettack, F. Sheldon

Vice President and Dean of the Faculty

Harvey Mudd College

301 East 12th Street

Claremont, CA 91711

Wigdor, Alexandra K.

Director, Commission on Behavioral and Social

Sciences and Education

Division on Education, Labor and Human

Performance

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, HA 178

Washington, DC 20418

Wilkinson, David

Professor of Physics

Princeton University

P.O. Box 708, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544

Williams, Antoine

The Catholic University of America

Chemistry Department

Washington, DC 20064

Williams, Luther

Assistant Director, National Science Foundation

Directorate for Education and Human Resources

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 805

Arlington, VA 22230

Williams, Paul

Professor, Department of Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin at Madison

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706

Williams, Richard

Dean, College of Engineering

California State University at Long Beach

1250 Bellflower Boulevard

Long Beach, CA 90840
• 345 •

Williams, Theodore

Professor, Department of Chemistry

College of Wooster

943 College Avenue

Wooster, OH 44691

Wilson, Jack

Dean, Undergraduate and Continuing Education

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

C11 Room 4011

Troy, NY 12180

Witte, Robert

Senior Program Officer

Exxon Education Foundation

225 E. John W. Carpenter Freeway

Irving, TX 75062-2298

Wong, Tamae

Senior Program Officer

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and

Applications

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Woodin, Terry

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Wood, Sally

Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering

Santa Clara University

Santa Clara, CA 95053

Woolsey, Suzanne H.

Chief Operations Officer

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

NAS 206

Washington, DC 20418

Wubbels, Gene

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate Education

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Wyche, James

Associate Provost

Brown University

Campus Box 1963

Providence, RI 02912

Zare, Richard

Professor of Chemistry

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

Zdravkovich, Vera

Dean of Science, Mathematics and Health

Technology

Prince George's Community College

301 Largo Road

Largo, MD 20772
• 346 •

The EHR Advisory Committee

CHAIR: James M. Rosser

VICE-CHAIR: Kerry Davidson

Susan Agruso

Director, Authentic Assessment

State Department of Education

Columbia, SC

Edward W. Bales

Director of Education, External Systems

Motorola Corporate Offices

Schaumberg, IL

Joan Barber

Director for Student Life

North Carolina School

of Science and Mathematics

Durham, NC

George Boggs

President

Palomar College

San Marcos, CA

Sadie Bragg

Acting Dean of Academic Affairs

City University of New York

Borough of Manhattan

Community College

New York, NY

Diane J. Briars

Mathematics Specialist

Office of Educational Design

and Assessment,

Pittsburgh Public Schools

Pittsburgh, PA

Kerry Davidson

Deputy Commissioner,

Academic Affairs and Research

Louisiana Board of Regents

Baton Rouge, LA

Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.

Vice Chancellor

for Educational Development,

Maricopa Community Colleges

Tempe, AZ

Denice D. Denton

Professor,

Electrical and Computer Engineering,

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Madison, WI

Charlotte K. Frank

Vice President,

Research and Development

The McGraw-Hill Companies

New York, NY

Alan J. Friedman

Director

New York Hall of Science

Flushing Meadows Corona Park, NY

Melvin D. George

President Emeritus

St. Olaf College

Northfield, MN

Peter Gerber

MacArthur Foundation

Chicago, IL

N. Gerry House

Superintendent

Memphis Public Schools

Memphis, TN

Jane Butler Kahle

Condit Professor

of Science Education

Miami University

Oxford, OH

Charlotte Keith

Indian Trail High School

Olathe, KS

Mary M. Lindquist

School of Education

Columbus College

Columbus, GA

Stanley S. Litow

Director, Corporate Support Programs

International Business Machines

Corporation

Armonk, NY

Jack R. Lohmann

Associate Dean,

College of Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

Charles Merideth

President

New York City Technical College

Brooklyn, NY

Robert E. Parilla

President,

Montgomery College

Rockville, MD

Diana Garcia Prichard

Photoscience Research Division

Eastman Kodak Company

Rochester, NY

James M. Rosser

President

California State University

Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

David A. Sanchez

Department of Mathematics

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

Maria Santos

Supervisor,

Math and Science Department

San Francisco Unified School District

San Francisco, CA

Robert Schwartz

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Philadelphia, PA

Calvert H. Smith

Office of Systemic Reform

State of Ohio

Cincinnati, OH

Gwendolyn W. Stephenson

Chancellor

St. Louis Community College System

St. Louis, MO

Uri Treisman

Department of Mathematics

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Leon Ukens

Department of Physics

Towson State University

Towson, MD

Donna L. York

Science Curriculum Coordinator

Anchorage School District

Anchorage, AK
• 347 •

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

Acting Dean of Academic Affairs,

City University of New York

Borough of Manhattan Community College (NY)

Mary M. Lindquist

School of Education

Columbus College

Columbus, GA

Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr.

Vice Chancellor for Educational Development

Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ)

James M. Rosser

President

California State University, Los Angeles

Denice D. Denton

Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Wisconsin - Madison

David A. Sanchez

Department of Mathematics

Texas A&M University

Peter Gerber

The MacArthur Foundation

Chicago, IL

Carolyn Meyers

Dean of Engineering,

North Carolina A&T State University

Consultant to the Committee
• 348 •

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

University of Chicago

Neal B. Abraham

Bryn Mawr College (PA)

George Boggs

Superintendent/President

Palomar College (CA)

Denice Denton

Professor of Engineering

University of Wisconsin -

Madison

Michael P. Doyle

Trinity University

Marye Anne Fox*

Vice President for Research

University of Texas - Austin

Dorothy Gabel

Indiana University

Ramesh Gangolli

University of Washington

Frederick T. Graybeal

ASARCO Incorporated

Norman Hackerman*

The Robert A. Welch

Foundation

John K. Haynes

Morehouse College (GA)

Eileen Delgado Johann

Miami-Dade Community

College

William E. Kirwan

President

University of Maryland

Paul J. Kuerbis

The Colorado College

Sharon Long*

Professor of Biology

Stanford University (CA)

Dorothy Merritts

Franklin and Marshall College

(PA)

John A. Moore*

University of California -

Riverside

Penny Moore

Piedmont High School

W. Ann Reynolds

City University of New York

James H. Serum

Hewlett-Packard, Inc.

David T. Wilkinson*

Princeton University (NJ)

* Member, National Academy of Sciences
•349 •

NRC “Year of Dialogue” Steering Committee

Norman Hackerman

The Robert A. Welch Foundation

Chair

Hyman Bass

Department of Mathematics

Columbia University (NY)

Glenda Lappan

Michigan State University

Denice Denton

Professor of Engineering

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Sharon Long

Professor of Biology

Stanford University

Ramesh Gangolli

University of Washington

C. Bradley Moore

Department of Chemistry

University of California at Berkeley

Melvin George

President Emeritus

St. Olaf College (MN)

Jeanne Narum

Project Kaleidoscope (DC)

Donald Kennedy

Professor of Biology

Stanford University (CA)

Karl S. Pister

Chancellor

University of California - Santa Cruz

Harvey Keynes

University of Minnesota
•350 •

 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 Moyé, 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)
•351 •

Participants in the Shaping the Future Conference

July 11-13, 1996

Clara I. Adams

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Morgan State University

Cold Spring Lane & Hillen Road

Baltimore, MD 21239

Reza Adhami

Associate Chair & Associate Professor

Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 35899

Andre Adler

Manager, Foundations of Scientific Inquiry

Department of Physics

New York University

2-4 Washington Place, Room 256

New York, NY 10013

Vijendra Agarwal

Professor and Chair

Dept. of Physics/Astronomy

Moorhead State University

Moorhead, MN 56563

Ashok K. Agrawal

Program Consultant

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Edward F. Ahnert

President

Exxon Education Foundation

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard

Irving, TX 75039-2298

Richard Alaniz

Student, California State Univ., Fullerton

800 N. State College Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92634

Bruce Alberts

Chairman

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Deborah Allen

Editor

W.H. Freeman and Company

825 LaBonne Parkway

St. Louis, MO 63021

Deborah E. Allen

Dept. of Biological Sciences

University of Delaware

209 McKinly Laboratory

Newark, DE 19716

Joseph D. Alviani

Executive Director

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

75 North Drive

Westborough, MA 01581-3340

James Ammons

Provost, Department of Academic Affairs

Florida A&M University

301 FHAC

Tallahassee, FL 32307

Walter G. Amprey

Superintendent

Baltimore City Public Schools

200 East North Avenue, Suite 405

Baltimore, MD 21202

Alan J. Anderson

Manager, DCAC Define Implementation

Airplane Integration

P.O. Box 3707, MS 74-89

Seattle, WA 98124

Martyn L. Apley

Chair, Department of Sciences

Western State College of Colorado

Hurst Hall 110

Gunnison, CO 81231

Josefina Arce

Director, Curriculum Assessment & Dev. Ctr.

University of Puerto Rico

P.O. Box 23334

University Station

San Juan, PR 00931-3334
•352 •

Rick Aycock

Customer Service Manager

Seal Right

P.O. Box 202

Garner, NC 27529-0202

Pamela J. Baker

Associate Professor of Biology & Chair

Div. of Natural Sciences

Bates College

Lewiston, ME 04268

Rebecca A. Baker

Deptartment of Physics & Astronomy

Southwest Missouri State University

Springfield, MO 65804

John Bakum

President

Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road P.O. Box 3050

Edison, NJ 08818-3050

E.G. Banucci

President

Advanced Technology Materials, Inc

7 Commerce Drive

Danbury, CT 06810

Pamela Barnhouse-Walters

Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Indiana University - Bloomington

Kirkwood Hall, Room 104

Bloomington, IN 47405

Celeste Bartscher

Student, Eastern Iowa Community College

27046 183rd Avenue

Eldridge, IA 52748

Wolfgang Bauer

Associate Professor

Department of Physics-Astronomy

Michigan State University, Room 207

Cyclotron Laboratory

East Lansing, MI 48824-1226

Joel Baulch

Student

Texas State Technical College

300 College Drive

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Michael Beals

Professor of Mathematics., Dean, Arts & Science,

Dept. of Mathematics

Rutgers University

Hill Center, Busch Campus

New Brunswick, NJ 08903

John Beatty

Associate Professor

Dept. of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior

University of Minnesota

St. Paul, MN 55108

William G. Becker

Director, Center for Science Education

Portland State University

P.O. Box 751

Portland, OR 97107

Glen Bedgood

Instructor

Texas State Technical College

300 College Drive

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Valerie J. Bergeron

Medical Assistant Coordinator

Delaware Technical & Community. College

19 Noble Court

Newark, DE 19713

Jaymee Bick

Student

Dept. of Environmental Science

Salish Kootenai College

P.O. Box 117

Pablo, MT 59855

Arlene G. Billock

Department of Biology

University of Southwestern Louisiana

300 E. St. Mary Avenue

P.O. Box 42451

Lafayette, LA 70504

Bruce B. Birkett

Physics Department

University of California Berkeley #7300

Berkeley, CA 94720-7300
•353 •

 Eve M. Bither

Executive Director

Department of Education

OERI Resources Board

80 F Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20208

Bettye Blakney-Lawrence

Program Consultant, EHR/DUE

Department of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

John Blong

Chancellor

Eastern Iowa Community College District

306 West River Drive

Davenport, IA 52801-1221

Duane D. Blumberg

Dean, College of Sciences

Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

P.O. Box 43290

104 University Circle

Lafayette, LA 70504-3290

Wendy M. Blume

Curriculum Supervisor

Culture, Science and Technology Curriculum

Community College of Philadelphia

1700 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Shelby J. Boardman

Associate Dean

Carleton College

One North College Street

Northfield, MN 55057

Howard A. Bohm

Assistant Professor of Chemistry

Keene State College

Keene, NH 03470

Richard Bonacci

Publisher, Computer Science Press

W.H. Freeman

41 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10010

 J. Jose Bonner

Associate Chairman and Professor

Department of Biology

Indiana University

Jordan Hall 127

Bloomington, IN 47405

John Bonte

Chemistry Instructor

Eastern Iowa Community College District

872 14th Avenue, N.W.

Clinton, IA 52732

Jean S. Bowen

External Funding Officer

College of Education

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602

Myles G. Boylan

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Tom Brady

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Sadie C. Bragg

Acting Dean, Academic Affairs

City University of New York

Borough of Manhattan Comm. College

199 Chambers Street

New York, NY 10007

John Brahms

Technical Associate

Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08818

Rolando M. Branly

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Natural Sciences

Broward Community College

Bldg. 14/128 - 3501 S.W. Davie Road

Davie, FL 33155
•354 •

Anita S. Broadus

Staff Assistant, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Paula Brownlee

President

American Association of Colleges and Universities

1818 R Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Jerry L. Bryant

Director, UNCF/Merck Science Initiative

The College Fund/UNCF

8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive

Fairfax, VA 22031-4511

Donald Buckley

Department of Biology

University of Hartford

200 Bloomfield Avenue

West Hartford, CT 06117

Ken Burgdorf

Senior Project Director

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

Anabelle Burghi

Student, Chemeketa Community College

4000 Lancaster Dr., N.E.

P.O. Box 14007

Salem, OR 97309-7070

Daniel D. Burke

Senior Staff Associate, EHR

The National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

William P. Butz

Division Director, SBER

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, #995N

Arlington, VA 22230

Rodger W. Bybee

Executive Director

Center for Science, Mathematics

 & Engineering Education

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Amber Campbell

Student, St. Andrews Presbyterian College

1700 Dogwood Mile

Laurinburg, NC 28352

Aldo Caporale

Consultant

Community College of Philadelphia

1700 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Vernon B. Cardwell

Professor of Agronomy

University of Minnesota

1991 Upper Buford Circle

St. Paul, MN 55108-6026

Robin Carr

Dept. of Math & Computer Science

Drexel University

32nd and Chestnut

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Doris Carver

Dept. of Computer Science

Louisiana State University

Coates Hall, Room 298

Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4020

Frank A. Cerreto

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

The Richard Stockton College

of New Jersey

Jim Leeds Road

Pomona, NJ 08240-0195

Alverna Champion

Program Officer, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885

Arlington, VA 22230
•355 •

Elaine M. Charlson

Associate Provost

University of Missouri-Columbia

114 Jesse Hall

Columbia, MO 65211

Elisabeth Charron

Co-Director, STEP Project

Montana State University

Linfield Hall

Bozeman, MT 59717

Russell Chianelli

Chair, Associate Professor, Chemistry

Chemistry Department

University of Texas at El Paso

500 W. University Drive

El Paso, TX 79968

Connie Churchill

Dean, Science/Allied Health Division

Oakton Community College

1600 E. Golf Road

Des Plaines, IL 60016

Julia Clark

Program Director, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885

Arlington, VA 22230

Allison S. Clements

Student, School of Natural Resources

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

1320 South University #32

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Mary E. Clutter

Assistant Director/Biological Sciences

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, #605

Arlington, VA 22181

Judy F. Coakley

Budget Program Analyst

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

James W. Colby

Staff Assistant

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855

Arlington, VA 22230

 Arthur Cole

Acting Director

U.S. Department of Education

School Improvement Program

Portals Building, Room 4500

600 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20202-6140

Thomas W. Cole

President

Clark Atlanta University

223 James P. Brawley Drive

at Fair Street, S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30314

Collie Coleman

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Shaw University

118 E. South Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

Suzanne R. Coll

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707, M/S 6H-PR

Seattle, WA 98124

James P. Collins

Professor, Department of Zoology

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-1501

Lillian Cook

Chairperson, Letters Department

Panola College

1109 W. Panola

Carthage, TX 75633

Donald H. Cooley

Head, Computer Science

Department of Computer Science

Utah State University

UMC 4205

Logan, UT 84322-4205

Claire D. Cornell

Director,

College of Liberal Arts Grants Office

The University of Iowa

463 Phillips Hall

Iowa City, IA 52242
•356 •

K. Jane Coulter

Deputy Administrator

Cooperative State Research, Education

 & Extension

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Room 338-A, Whitten Building

14th and Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20250

Geoff M. Cox

Vice Provost & Dean

Institutional Planning & Operations

Stanford University

Provost Office, Building 10

Stanford, CA 94305-2061

Susan E. Cozzens

Director, Office of Policy Support

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Jack Crocker

Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Florida Gulf Coast University

17595 S. Tamiami Trail, Suite 200

Ft. Myers, FL 33908-4500

Khela D. Cuccaro

Reporter, Education Daily

1101 King Street, #444

Alexandria, VA 22314

Patricia A. Cunniff

Director

Science & Technology Resource Center

Prince George's Community College

301 Largo Road, M-2011

Largo, MD 20774

Catherine E. Curtis

Department of Mathematics

Mount Hood Community College

26000 S.E. Stark

Gresham, OR 97030-0330

John Czaja

Professor, Department of Psychology

Miami University

107 Roudebush Hall

OAST

Oxford, OH 45056

Zeev Dagan

School of Engineering

City College of New York

Convent Avenue at 138th Street

New York, NY 10031

Joseph Dahm

Student, Department of Chemistry

Oakton Community College

1600 E. Golf Road

Des Plaines, IL 60016

Jaleh Daie

President

Association for Women in Science

AWIS Magazine

430 Lincoln Drive, Birge Hall

Madison, WI 53706-1381

Peter A. Dale

Vice Provost, Undergraduate Studies

University of California, Davis

Mark Hall, 5th Floor

Davis, CA 95616

William Dando

Chairperson and Professor

Dept. of Geography and Geology

Indiana State University

Terre Haute, IN 47809-0001

Joseph G. Danek

Senior Vice President

The Implementation Group

1420 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Jewel Daniel

Student, Department of Biology

City College of New York

30 Rogers Avenue, Apt. 3C

Brooklyn, NY 11216

Mamani Datta

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

c/o 49 Benito Street

East Meadow, NY 11559

Kerry Davidson

Project Director

Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program

150 3rd Street, Suite 129

Baton Rouge, LA 70801-1389
•357 •

Lois Davis

Education Policy Specialist

Higher Education Program/CSREES

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250-2251

Roland L. De Lorme

Provost and Vice President

Department for Academic Affairs

Western Washington University

516 High Street

Bellingham, WA 98225-9033

Alfredo G. de los Santos

Vice Chancellor, Student & Educational

Development

Maricopa Community Colleges

District Support Services Center

2411 West 14th Street

Tempe, AZ 85281-6941

Eugene M. DeLoatch

Dean, School of Engineering

Morgan State University

5200 Perring Parkway

Baltimore, MD 21239

Denise Descoteaux

Senior Producer

Addison Wesley Interactive

Jacob Way

Reading, MA 01867

Nancy L. Devino

Senior Program Officer

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Eric L. Dey

Assistant Professor, School of Education

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

2117D School of Education Bldg.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259

Alexander Dickison

Professor of Physics

Seminole Community College

100 Weldeon Boulevard

Sanford, FL 32773

Clayton Dillon

Founding Director

Communication Resources Assoc., Inc.

Northeastern University

176 Strasser Avenue

Westwood, MA 02090

Elvira Doman

Program Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 685

Arlington, VA 22230

Michael V. Doran

Associate Professor

School of CIS

Univ. of South Alabama, FCW-20

Mobile, AL 36688

John E. Drumheller

Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic

Affairs

Office of the Provost

Montana State University

212 Montana Hall

Bozeman, MT 59717

Kelly D. DuBose

Program Assistant

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Charles Duke

Vice President, Academic Affairs & Dean

Grinnell College

P.O. Box 805

Grinnell, IA 50112-0805

James F. Duke

Instructor, Department of Science

John C. Calhoun State

Community College

P.O. Box 2216

Decatur, AL 35609-2216

William W. Durgin

Associate Provost for Academic Affairs

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

100 Institute Road

Worcester, MA 01609
•358 •

Herby Duverne

Vice President, Academic Affairs,

Student Government Association

Northeastern University

332 Student Center

Boston, MA 02115

Dave Dysinger

Owner, Dysinger Tool and Die

2900 Dryden Road

Dayton, OH 45439

Janice Earle

Program Director, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Larry L. Earvin

Dean, School of Arts & Sciences

Clark Atlanta University

James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Marshall Hall Edgell

Kenan Professor of Microbiology

Dept. of Microbiology

University of North Carolina

CB# 7290, Rm. 741 FLOB

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

Russell Edgerton

President, American Association for

Higher Education

One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 360

Washington, DC 20036

William F. Edmonson

President

Panola College

1109 W. Panola

Carthage, TX 75633

John Edwards

Program Officer, BIO/IBN

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Ryan Edwards

Student, University of Michigan - Dearborn

c/o 6530 Woodmere Drive

Canton, MI 48187

 Betty J. Eidemiller

Undergraduate Education Coordinator

American Society for Microbiology

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Clarence M. Eidt

President

Exxon Research and Education Foundation

180 Park Avenue

Florham Park, NJ 07932

Jonathan A. Eisen

Graduate Student, Stanford University

Herrin Hall #356

Stanford, CA 94305-5020

Karolyn K. Eisenstein

Program Director, MPS/CHE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, #1055

Arlington, VA 22230

Cory Emal

Student, Department of Chemistry

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

228 Hamilton Hall

Lincoln, NE 68588-0304

David J. Ernst

Associate Dean

Vanderbilt University

311 Kirkland

Nashville, TN 37240

William Ethridge

President

Engineering, Science & Math, College Div.

Prentice Hall Publishers

One Lake Street

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Charlene Evans

Chairperson

Department of Computer & Engineering Tech.

Daytona Beach Community College

1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.

Daytona Beach, FL 32114
•359 •

 Neil Evans

Executive Director

Northwest Center for Emerging

Technologies

3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E. #A202

Bellevue, WA 98007-6484

Norma Sue Evers

Chairperson, Chemistry & Physics Department

Panola College

1109 W. Panola

Carthage, TX 75633

Etta Falconer

Associate Provost for Science Programs

Spelman College

Box 1005

Atlanta, GA 30314

Roya Farhoosh

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemistry

Saint Joseph College

1678 Asylum Avenue

West Hartford, CT 06117

Jeff Farmer

Assistant Professor, Mathematical Sciences

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, CO 80639

Saul K. Fenster

President

New Jersey Institute of Technology

University Heights

Newark, NJ 07102

Douglas E. Fenwick

Dean, Div. of Business, Science and Technology

Community College of Philadelphia

1700 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Victor Ferrall

Office of the President

Beloit College

700 College Street

Beloit, WI 53511

Joan Ferrini-Mundy

Director

Mathematical Sciences Education Board

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA 476

Washington, DC 20418

Isabella N. Finkelstein

Professor of Biology

Clark Atlanta University

Brawley and Fair Streets

Atlanta, GA 30314

P. David Fisher

Department of Electrical Engineering

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1226

Shawn E. Flanigan

Student, Grinnell College

1801 Windsor Court

Iowa City, IA 50112

Jean Floten

President

Bellevue Community College

3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.

Bellevue, WA 98007

Paul A. Flowers

Associate Professor of Chemistry

Department of Physical Science

Pembroke State University

College Street

Pembroke, NC 28372

Alexander H. Fluellen

Professor and Chair

Department of Mathematical Sciences

Clark Atlanta University

James P. Brawley Dr. & Fair St. NW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Susan G. Forman

Vice President for Undergraduate Education

Rutgers University

105 Geology Hall

New Brunswick, NJ 08540

Norman L. Fortenberry

Executive Director

GEM Consortium, Central Office

P.O. Box 537

Notre Dame, IN 46556

David Foss

Environmental Coordinator

Rock Island Arsenal

28024 230th Street

LeClaire, IA 52753
•360 •

 Brian L. Foster

Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

1223 Oldfather Hall

Lincoln, NE 68588-0312

Michael A. Fox

Ohio House of Representatives

77 South High Street

Columbus, OH 43266-0603

Faye Fulton

Student

Community College of Philadelphia

1700 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Gary A. Gabriele

Chair, Dept. of Eng. Science & Core Eng.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

110 8th Street

Troy, NY 12180

Susan L. Ganter

Area Research Fellow

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855

Arlington, VA 22230

J. D. Garcia

Program Director, DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Sharon Garner

Summer Intern, DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Charles A. Gaston

Director, NSF-ATE Project

Pennsylvania State University

1031 Edgecomb Avenue

York, PA 17403-3398

William Gearhart

Professor of Mathematics

California State Univ., Fullerton

800 N. State College Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92634

 Edward E. Geary

Coordinator for Education Programs

The Geological Society of America

P.O. Box 9140 3300 Penrose Place

Boulder, CO 80301

Melvin D. George

St. Olaf College (Ret.)

1509 West Rollins Road

Columbia, MO 65203

Peter Gerber

2305 North Atlantic Boulevard

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305

Moheb A. Ghali

Vice Provost for Research

Western Washington University

Old Main 430, 516 High Street

Bellingham, WA 98225-9038

Rose M. Gibson

Vice President & Director, Research & Development

Motorola GSTG

P.O. Box 1417, MD H3122

Scottsdale, AZ

Anita Gilkey

Technical Writer

Wren Industries

265 Lightner Road

Tipp City, OH 45371

Joan S. Girgus

Director, Pew Science Program

Department of Psychology

Princeton University

Green Hall

Princeton, NJ 08544-1010

Milton E. Glick

Sr. Vice President & Provost

Arizona State University

P.O. Box 872803

Tempe, AZ 85287-2803

Jim Glickert

Data & Communications Manager

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707, M/S 1F-05

Seattle, WA 98124
•361 •

 Judy Gobert

Director, All Nations AMP

Salish Kootenai College

P.O. Box 117

Pablo, MT 59855

Donald Goldberg

Associate Dean of Faculty

Office of the Dean

Occidental College

Johnson Hall, Room 111

Los Angeles, CA 90041-3384

Dennis Golden

Chair, Board of Trustees

Panola College

1109 W. Panola

Carthage, TX 75633

Manuel Gomez

Director, PR-AMP

Resource Center for Science and Engineering

University of Puerto Rico

PO Box 23334, Univ. Station

San Juan, PR 00931-3334

David L. Goodstein

Vice Provost

Dept. of Physics, Mathematics & Astronomy

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA 91125

Daniel L. Goroff

Postsecondary Division Director

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Greg Gothreaux

President and CEO

Lafayette Economic Development Authority

2014 W. Pinhook Road, Suite 100

Lafayette, LA 70508-3289

Andrew Gray

Intern, National Research Council

2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Sandra R. Gregerman

Program Director

Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

L110 West Quad

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1360

Joseph G. Griswold

Professor of Biology

City College of CUNY, J526

138th Street & Convent Avenue

New York, NY 10031

Craig Gunn

Professor

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Gregg Haan

Student, College of Engineering

University of Texas at El Paso

500 W. University Drive

El Paso, TX 79968

Jimmie Haines

Director, Technical Resource Management

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707, M/S 7A-13

Seattle, WA 98124-0346

Louise Hainline

Professor, Dean of Grad Studies & Res.

Brooklyn College

2900 Bedford Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11210

Timothy Halpin-Healy

Associate Professor of Physics

Barnard College/Columbia Univ.

3009 Broadway

New York, NY 10027-6598

Franklin D. Hamilton

Vice President for Research

Florida A&M University

400 Foote Hilyar Admin. Center

Tallahassee, FL 32307
•362 •

 Stephanie Hamilton

Director of Teacher Programs

Foundation for Advancements in

Science and Education

1223 D Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

Sarah Hammes

Student, University of Wisconsin-Madison

145 West Gilman, #202

Madison, WI 53703

Peirce Hammond

Acting Director, ESIE/OSR

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Vivian H. Hampton

Assoc. Professor, Coordinator, N.C. AMP

College of Engineering

North Carolina A&T State University

640 McNair Hall

Greensboro, NC 27411

Richard Haracz

Associate Provost

Drexel University

32nd & Chestnut

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Marieta W. Harris

Project Director

Memphis Urban Systemic Initiative

Memphis City Schools

2385 Central Avenue

Memphis, TN 38104

David T. Harrison

Director, AIM Center

Sinclair Community College

444 W. 3rd Street

Dayton, OH 45402-1460

Mako Haruta

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Dept. of Mathematics

University of Hartford

200 Bloomfield Avenue

West Hartford, CT 06117

 John R. Hayes

Professor of Psychology

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Ann Heath

Associate Professor of Mathematics

Immaculata College

1145 King Road

Immaculata, PA 19345

Jack G. Hehn

Associate Executive Officer

American Association of

Physics Teachers

One Physics Ellipse

College Park, MD 20740-3845

Robert Hilborn

President

American Assoc. of Physics Teachers

Amherst College, Dept. of Physics

Amherst, MA 01002-5000

William E. Hill

Director, MDAMP

Metropolitan Detroit Alliance for

Minority Participation - WSU

656 W. Kirby, Room 4107 FAB

Detroit, MI 48202

Gilberto M. Hinojosa

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

University of the Incarnate Word

4301 Broadway

San Antonio, TX 78209

Holly Peters Hirst

Appalachian State University

329 Walker Hall

Boone, NC 28608

Susan Hixson

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Star F. Hobson

Student, Wake Technical Community College

1919 Myron Drive

Raleigh, NC 27607
•363 •

 Holly Hodder

Senior Editor

W.H. Freeman and Company

41 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10010

Dan Hodge

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Tom Hogan

Dir., Organizational Development and Training

Mitsubishi Silicon America

1351 Tandem Avenue, N.E.

Salem, OR 97303

David Holger

Associate Dean of Engineering

Dept. of Aerospace Engineering

Iowa State University

104 Marston Hall

Ames, IA 50011

Robert Holkeboer

Director of Research Development

Eastern Michigan University

Office of Research Development

Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Jim Houdeshell

Principal Investigator

National Center of Excellence for

Advanced Manufacturing Education

444 West Third Street

Dayton, OH 45402-1460

Curtis Howard

Program Officer, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885

Arlington, VA 22230

Thomas H. Howell

Director, Bull Information Systems

Arizona State University

8201 E. Del Cadena Drive

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Deh-I Hsiung

Budget Officer, NSF/EHR

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22230

Sam Hsu

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science & Engin.

Florida Atlantic University

777 Glades Road

Boca Raton, FL 33431-6415

Durward Huffman

President

Northern Maine Technical College

33 Edgement Drive

Presque Isle, ME 04769

Gerunda Hughes

Associate Professor

Schoool of Education

Howard University

2400 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059

Kenneth D. Hughes

Assistant Professor

School of Chemistry & Biochemistry

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332

Deborah J. Hughes Hallett

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138

Frederick S. Humphries

President

Florida A&M University

400 Lee Hall

Tallahassee, FL 32307

Robert Hunter

Director of Research

Yellowstone Environmental Science

920 Technology Boulevard

Bozeman, MT 59715
•364 •

 Patricia Hurley

Director, Environmental Science

Dept of Environmental Science

Salish Kootenai Community College

P.O. Box 117

Pablo, MT 59885-0117

Barbara H. Iglewski

Vice Provost

University of Rochester

Elmwood Avenue

Rochester, NY 14456

Frank Ireton

Manager, Precollege Education Programs

American Geophysical Union

2000 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Magdy F. Iskander

Electrical Engineering Dept.

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Elizabeth Ivey

Provost, Department of Academic Affairs

University of Hartford

200 Bloomfield Avenue

West Hartford, CT 06117

Andrea Jackson

Student, Department of Zoology

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-1501

Ricardo B. Jacquez

Director, New Mexico AMP

P.O. Box 30001, Department 3AMP

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001

David James

Professor, Department of Mathematics

University of Michigan-Dearborn

4901 Evergreen Road

Dearborn, MI 48128

Ryan James

Student

University of Michigan-Dearborn

6530 Woodmere Drive

Canton, MI 48187

Kolf O. Jayaweera

Dean, School of Natural Science & Mathematics

California State Univ., Fullerton

800 N. State College Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92634

Norma Jeanne

Program Assistant, DUE/ORISE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

John E. Jelen

Vice President

Quantum Research Corporation

7315 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 400W

Bethesda, MD 20814

Michelle Jenkins

Summer Intern

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 685

Arlington, VA 22230

Daniel A. Jewel

City College of New York (CUNY)

30 Rogers Avenue, Apt. 3C

New York, NY 11216

Clay Johnson

President

Texas State Technical College

300 College Drive

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Elmima C. Johnson

Staff Associate

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Roosevelt Y. Johnson

Deputy Executive Director

The GEM Consortium

P.O. Box 537

Notre Dame, IN 46556

Donald E. Jones

Program Director, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 885

Arlington, VA 22230
•365 •

 Patricia L. Jones

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

P.O. Box 41010

Lafayette, LA 70512

Wayne E. Jones

Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry

State University of New York

at Binghamton

P.O. Box 6000

Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

Trace Jordan

Assistant Director, Foundations of

Scientific Inquiry Curriculum

New York University

151 Lexington Avenue, #3C

New York, NY 10016

Gary Judd

Dean of the Faculty

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Pittsburgh Building

110 8th Street

Troy, NY 12180

Ellen Kabat

Director, Advanced Technological

Environmental Education Center

Eastern Iowa Community

College District

500 Belmont Road

Bettendorf, IA 52722

Katherine Kalil

Professor, Department of Anatomy

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Room 255

Bardeen Medical Labs

Madison, WI 53706

John P. Keating

Provost

University of Alaska-Fairbanks

Third Floor, Signers' Hall

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7850

Linda S. Kelly

NCSR Director

Chemeketa Community College

4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.

P.O. Box 14007

Salem, OR 97309-7070

 William H. Kelly

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Paul B. Kelter

Associate Professor

Department of Chemistry

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

228 Hamilton Hall

Lincoln, NE 68588-0304

Yvonne Kemp

Instructor, Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08818

John V. Kenkel

Dept. of Environmental Laboratory Technology

Southeast Community College

8800 O Street

Lincoln, NE 65520-1227

Donald Kennedy

Center for Science, Mathematics & Engineering

Education

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Jeff Kinder

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, #835

Arlington, VA 22230

Donald F. Kirwan

LaCEPT Science Advisor

Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

Louisiana Systemic Initiatives

Program (LaSIP)

202 Nicholson Hall

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Keith E. Klein

Science Education Analyst

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230
•366 •

 Stephen B. Klein

Professor, Dept. of Psychology

Mississippi State University

P.O. Box 6161

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Wayne Klohs

Associate Research Fellow

Dept. of Cancer Research

Warner Lambert/Parke Davis

Pharmeceutical

2800 Plymouth Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Kelly Knudson

Student

Beloit College

224 Elmwood Drive

Council Bluffs, IA 51503

Maria Koszalka

Program Analyst

Howard Hughes Medical institute

4000 Jones Bridge Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20895

Roger A. Kovar

Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

University of Northern Colorado

Michener L-54

Greeley, CO 80639

Stephen T. Kowel

Professor & Chair

Electrical & Computer Engineering

The University of Alabama

in Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 35899

Gary D. Krenz

Asst. to the Vice Pesident for Research

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

4080 Fleming

503 Thompson Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340

David Krinsky

Student

Harvard University

30 Crescent Street

Cambridge, MA 02138-1908

 Kenneth Kruempel

Associate Professor

Iowa State University

109 Coover Hall

Ames, IA 50011

H.O. Kunkel

Professor, Department of Animal Science

Texas A&M University

100 Kleberg Center

College Station, TX 77843-2471

Bill Kurtis

Columbia Broadcasting System

630 North McClurg Court

Chicago, IL 60611

Jay B. Labov

Associate Professor, Dept. of Biology

Colby College

5720 Mayflower Hill

Waterville, ME 04901

Jason Lairamore

Summer Intern, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Jean Lane

Professor

Union County College

15 Stone Run Road

Bedminster, NJ 07921

Neal F. Lane

Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1205

Arlington, VA 22230

James I. Lankford

Chair, Division of Mathematical, Natural & Health

Sciences

Saint Andrews Presbyterian College

1700 Dogwood Mile

Laurinburg, NC 28352-5521

Douglas Lapp

Executive Director

National Science Resources Center

Smithsonian Institution, MRC 403

Washington, DC 20560
•367 •

Anita J. LaSalle

Division of Undergraduate Education

The National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Mark Lender

Director, Advanced Study & Research

Kean College of New Jersey

Morris Avenue

Union, NJ 07083

Phyllis Leonard

Instructor of Mathematics

Chemeketa Community College

P.O. Box 14007

4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.

Salem, OR 97309-7070

Joshua A. Leslie

Chairman of Mathematics

Howard University

2400 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059

Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky

Assistant Professor

University of Nebraska, Lincoln

163 Behlen Lab

Lincoln, NE 68588-0111

Herbert Levitan

Section Head, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Suzanne Liberty

Director, Division of Research

Clarkson University

143 Clarkson Hall, P.O. Box 5625

Potsdam, NY 13699-5625

James Lichtenberg

Vice President, Higher Education Division

Association of American Publishers

71 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10003

James H. Lightbourne

Section Head, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Mary M. Lindquist

Callaway Chair, School of Education

Columbus College

14 Seventh Street

Columbus, GA 31901

Dianne Littwin

Publishing Development Manager

Wolfram Media, Inc.

115 E. 92nd Street

New York, NY 10120

Baird W. Lloyd

Research Associate

Center for Chemical Education

Miami University Middletown

4200 E. University Blvd.

Middletown, OH 45042

George Lobell

Mathematics Editor

Prentice Hall

One Lake Street

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Jack R. Lohmann

Associate Dean

College of Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

225 North Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30332-0360

Frank A. Lombardo

Senior Professor

Daytona Beach Community College

1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.

Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Reginald K. U. Luke

Chair, Math Department

Middlesex County College

Woodbridge & Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08818

Rodney C. Lusain

Student Intern

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230
•368 •

James J. Madden

Professor of Mathematics

Dept. of Mathematics

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

David G. Mader

Professor, Dept. of Computer Science

Marietta College

302 Mills Hall

Marietta, OH 45750

Wayne E. Magee

NES Professor of Bioscience

Dept. of Bioscience & Biotechnology

Drexel University

32nd & Chestnut Streets, 01-320

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Susan G. Magliaro

Associate Professor

Virginia Tech

313 War Memorial Hall

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0313

Minna Mahlab

Research Assistant

National Academy of Sciences

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA-476

Washington, DC 20418

Norman Maldonado

President

University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez

P.O. Box 364984

San Juan, PR 00936-4984

Judith F. Marks

Business Area Manager

Lockheed Martin

Owego, NY 13827

Gary Marotta

Vice President for Academic Affairs

University of Southwestern Louisiana

P.O. Box 41810

Lafayette, LA 70504-1810

Linsey C. Marr

Student

Division of Engineering & Applied Sciences

Harvard University

1024 Marine Street, #3

Boulder, CO 80302

Paxton Marshall

Associate Professor, Electrical Eng.

School of Engineering & Applied Science

University of Virginia

C210, Thornton Hall

Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442

Paul C. Martin

Dean, Div. of Engineering and Applied Science

Harvard University

217A Pierce Hall

Cambridge, MA 02138

Lakeisha N. Massey

Intern Student

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Michael A. Mayhew

Program Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 785

Arlington, VA 22230

Christine M. Maziar

Vice Provost

The University of Texas at Austin

Off. of the Exec. V.P. & Provost MAI 201

Austin, TX 78712-1111

Eric Mazur

Division of Applied Sciences

Department of Physics

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138-2901

Katherine McClelland

Director, Mathematics Laboratory

Grinnell College

P.O. Box 805

Grinnell, IA 50112

Nancy A. McDowell

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Beloit College

700 College Street

Beloit, WI 53511

Michael McGinnis

Assistant Professor of Biology

Spelman College

Box 213

Atlanta, GA 30314
•369 •

 Estelle J. McGroarty

Assoc. Dean, Student & Academic Affairs

College of Natural Science

Michigan State University

103 Natural Science Bldg.

East Lansing, MI 48824

Ian McIntosh

Program Coordinator

Freshman Learning Community Program

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1450 Engineering Dr., Rm. 101

Madison, WI 53706

Robert C. McMath

Professor and Chair

School of History, Technology & Society

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0345

Carolyn Merkel

Director, Summer Undergraduate Research

Fellowships

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA 91125

Carolyn Meyers

Dean, College of Engineering

North Carolina A&T State U

Room 651, McNair Hall

Greensboro, NC 27411

Terrence S. Millar

Associate Dean, Graduate School

University of Wisconsin, Madison

500 Lincoln Drive, Room 321

Bascom Hall

Madison, WI 53706

Arnold Miller

President, Technology Strategy Group

California State University

800 N. State College

Fullerton, CA 92634

Mary L. Mittler

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Oakton Community College

1600 E. Golf Road

Des Plaines, IL 60016

 David W. Mogk

Program Director, EHR/DUE

The National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Mark Moline

WEB Engineer

Addison Wesley Interactive

One Jacob Way

Reading, MA 01867

Mary Beth Monroe

Physics Instructor

Southwest Texas Junior College

2401 Garner Field Road

Uvalde, TX 78801

C. Bradley Moore

Professor, Department of Chemistry

Univ. of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94720-1460

Calvin Moore

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Univ. of California at Berkeley

201 Campbell Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720-2920

Randall C. Morgan

Trustee

Grinnell College

4904 Lakeridge Court

Valparaiso, IN 46383

Lisa Morigeau

Student, Department of Biology

Montana State University

402 Royal Road

Belgrade, MT 59714

Lueny Morrell-de-Ramirez

Professor of Chemical Engineering

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez

Box 5000 College Station

Mayaguez, PR 00681

David Morris

Associate Dean for Academic Programs

School of Engineering & Applied Science

University of Virginia

A126 Thornton Hall

Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442
•370 •

 Karen Morse

President

Western Washington University

516 High Street

Bellingham, WA 98225-9033

Yolanda T. Moses

President

The City College of CUNY

Convent Avenue at 138th Street

New York, NY 10031

Alfred Moyé

Director, University Affairs

Hewlett-Packard Company

1501 Page Mill Road, MS 3L-7

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Michael C. Mulder

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

V. K. Narayanan

Professor of Business

University of Kansas

218 Summerfield Hall

Lawrence, KS 66045

Jeanne Narum

Director, Project Kaleidoscope

Independent Colleges Office

1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Suite 803

Washington, DC 20036

Ram Nayar

Associate Professor

Daytona Beach Community College

1200 W. International Speedway Blvd.

Daytona Beach, FL 32114

James R. Nazzaro

Vice President for Academic Affairs

The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Jim Leeds Road

Pomona, NJ 08240

Asha Nelson

Student, Northwest Center for Emerging

Technologies, # A202

3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.

Bellevue, WA 98007-6484

 Andrew W. Nichols

Professor and Director, Rural Health Office

Family and Community Medicine

2501 E. Elm, AHSC

Tucson, AZ 85716

Jesse M. Nicholson

Department of Chemistry

Howard University

525 College Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059

Raquel Nieves

Student, Puerto Rico-AMP

University of Puerto Rico

Amapola D-13 Enramada

Bayamon, PR 00961

Christine M. Nixon

Student, Math Skills Center

The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Jim Leeds Road

Pomona, NJ 08240

John Norman

Associate Professor

College of Education

Wayne State University

Detroit, MI 48202

Richard J. Orr

Professor of Mathematics

Dept. of Math & Statistics

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester, NY 14623

Brad Osgood

Professor, Department of Mathematics

Stanford University

50 Peter Coutts Circle

Stanford, CA 94305

Charlotte Otto

Chair, Dept. of Natural Sciences

University of Michigan, Dearborn

4901 Evergreen Road

Dearborn, MI 48128-1491

Saundra Oyewole

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230
•371 •

 Lynette P. Padmore

Director, Florida-Georgia Alliance Program

Florida A&M University

104 Gamble Street

Student Retention Center

Tallahassee, FL 32307-5500

Robert Panoff

President and Executive Director

The Shodor Education Foundation

923 Broad Street, Ste. 100

Durham, NC 27705

Coleen Pantalone

Interim Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

Northeastern University

112 Hayden Hall

Boston, MA 02115

Robert E. Parilla

President

Montgomery College

900 Hungerford Drive

Rockville, MD 20850

Cass Parker

Associate Professor

Department of Chemistry

Clark Atlanta University

James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30314

David Pastran

Student, Biology Department

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, CO 80639

Cecil W. Payton

Executive Assistant to the President

Morgan State University

Truth House, Room 410

1700 E. Cold Spring Lane

Baltimore, MD 21239

Chery Pellerin

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Shannon Pennington

Student, Panola College

1109 W. Panola

Carthage, TX 75633

 Pamela M. Peters

Manager, Science Education

Access Excellence/Genentech, Inc.

460 Point San Bruno Boulevard

South San Francisco, CA 94080

Simone Peterson

Assistant Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Florida A&M University

2525 Potsdamer Street

Tallahassee, FL 32310

Richard Petti

Macsyma, Inc.

20 Academy Street

Arlington, MA 02174-6436

David Pierce

President, American Association of

Community Colleges

One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 410

Washington, DC 20036-1176

Rodney Piercey

Head, Department of Physics

Mississippi State University

P.O. Drawer 5167

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Stanley Pine

Chair, ACS Education Committee

Department of Chemistry

California State University

5151 State University Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90032

R. Byron Pipes

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Pittsburgh Building

Troy, NY 12180-3590

Karl S. Pister

Chancellor

University of California at Santa Cruz

Room 296, McHenry Library

Santa Cruz, CA 95064
•372 •

 Harold Pratt

Director, Division on K-12 Policy & Practice

National Research Council

Center for Science, Mathematics & Engineering

Education

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Carol W. Prevost

Science & Technology Council Director

Princeton University

123 Lewis Thomas Lab

Princeton, NJ 08544

Chip Price

Vice President & Director

Addison-Wesley Interactive

One Jacob Way

Reading, MA 01867

Glenda Price

Provost

Spelman College

Box 1209

Atlanta, GA 30314

P. Buford Price

Divisional Dean of Physics

Department of Physics

University of California

at Berkeley

201 Campbell Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

Paul E. Prindle

Vice Chair

Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

40 Tall Pine Road

Sudbury, MA 01776

Patricia J. Pukkila

Associate Professor, Department of Biology

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

CB 3280

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

Mark Pushman

Computer Sciences Corporation

100 Decadon Drive

Pleasantville, NJ 08232

 Thomas S. Quarles

Deputy Division Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

John M. Quinn

Coordinator, Math Center Skills Center

The Richard Stockton College

of New Jersey

Pomona, NJ 08240

Samuel M. Rankin

Assoc. Executive Director

American Mathematical Society

1527 18th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Mulchand Rathod

Professor & Chair

Div. of Engineering Technology

Wayne State University

5050 Cass

Detroit, MI 48202-3900

William H. Rauckhorst

Associate Provost for Scholarship & Teaching

Miami University

107 Roudebush Hall

Oxford, OH 45056

Melvin C. Ray

Associate Vice President for Research

Mississippi State University

P.O. Box 6343

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Robert Reinsvold

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biological Sciences

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, CO 80639

Suzanne W. Reuss

Arizona State University

Box 873403

Tempe, AZ 85287

Vincent Revels

Vice President, Department of Curriculum

Education Services

Wake Technical Community College

9101 Fayetteville Road

Raleigh, NC 27603
•373 •

Celena M. Richardson

Student, Department of Biology

Morgan State University

1020 N. Central Avenue

Baltimore, MD 20202

Earl S. Richardson

President, Department of Biology

Morgan State University

1700 E. Cold Spring Lane

Baltimore, MD 21239

Hal Richtol

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Stephen Riter

Provost & V.P. for Academic Affairs

University of Texas at El Paso

Admin. Bldg., Room 310

500 W. University Drive

El Paso, TX 79968

Jean Robinson

Associate Professor

Department of Political Science

Indiana University - Bloomington

Woodburn Hall 403

Bloomington, IN 74705

T. Joan Robinson

Professor of Biology

Morgan State University

Cold Spring Lane and Hillen Road

Baltimore, MD 21239

Paul H. Rodriguez

Program Director, BIO

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855.15

Arlington, VA 22230

Doris Roman

Program Consultant

The GEM Consortium

P.O. Box 537

Notre Dame, IN 46556

 Nina Roscher

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Nedah M. Rose

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

605 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10158-0012

James M. Rosser

President

California State University at Los Angeles

5151 State University Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90032-8500

John E. Rudzki

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Alejandro Ruiz-Acevedo

V.P. for Academic Affairs & Planning

Inter American University of Puerto Rico

P.O. Box 383255

San Juan, PR 00936-3255

Janet Rutledge

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Peter C. Ryan

Instructor, Environmental Science

Salish Kootenai College

P.O. Box 117

Pablo, MT 59855

Gerhard Salinger

Program Director, EHR/ESIE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

John Saurer

General Manager and Vice President

Kodak Colorado Division

Eastman Kodak Company

9952 Eastman Park Drive

Windsor, CO 80551-1334
•374 •

 Denise T. Schanck

Publisher, Science, Mathematics, Engineering,

Computer Science

The McGraw-Hill Companies

1221 Ave. of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Gil Schmidt

Vice Provost, Department of Academic Affairs

University of N. Colorado, Carter Hall

Greeley, CO 80639

James C. Schmidt

Associate Professor

Ashland Community College

1400 College Drive

Ashland, KY 41101

Lawrence E. Schulz

Dean & VP for Academic Affairs

St. Andrews Presbyterian College

1700 Dogwood Mile

Laurinburg, NC 28352

Albert J. Schwabenbauer

Vice President, Worldwide Customer Service

Sikorsky Aircraft

United Technologies Corporation

6900 Main Street, MS:S419A

Stratford, CT 06497

Sue H. Schwabenbauer

Assistant Dean - Liberal Arts

Quinnipiac College

Hamden, CT 06518

Chalmers Sechrist

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Gerry A. Selter

Dean, College of Science

San Jose State University

One Washington Square

San Jose, CA 95192-0099

Steven O. Senger

Professor, Dept. of Computer Science

Univ. of Wisconsin-La Crosse

124 Morris Hall, 1725 State St.

La Crosse, WI 54601-3742

 Frank A. Settle

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 23330

Henry D. Shannon

President

St. Louis Community College at Forest Park

5600 Oakland Avenue

St. Louis, MO 63110

Bonney Sheahan

Program Manager, SBE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Anding Shen

3311 Powelton Avenue, Apt. 2F

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Jeffrey H. Sherman

President

Technology Review, Inc.

8787 Woodway, Suite 1201

Houston, TX 77083

Harry L. Shipman

Professor, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy

University of Delaware

Sharp Laboratory

Newark, DE 19716

Lewis Shumaker

Manager, University Relations & Recruitment

DuPont

1007 Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19898

Jim Shuman

Project Director

Northwest Center for Emerging

Technologies #A202

3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.

Bellevue, WA 98007-6484

Shari Silverman

Graduate Student

Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08818
•375 •

 Robert L. Simpson

Provost

University of Michigan-Dearborn

4901 Evergreen Road

Dearborn, MI 48128

Gary Simundza

Dept. of Applied Math/Science

Wentworth Institute of Technology

550 Huntington Avenue

Boston, MA 01155

Surya C. Singh

Student, The University of Texas at Austin

807 W. 25th Street, #209

Austin, TX 78705

Ted Sjoerdsma

Program Consultant, DUE/ORISE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Jeanne E. Sjovall

Assistant Dean, Instructional Development

New England Institute of Technology

2500 Post Road

Warwick, RI 02886

John H. Skillings

Associate Dean, College of Arts & Science

Miami University

143 Upham Hall

Oxford, OH 45056

Howard Skinner

Interim President

University of Northern Colorado

Provost's Office

Greeley, CO 80639

Elizabeth Skomp

Indiana University Student Association.

Indiana University - Bloomington

IMU 32

Bloomington, IN 47405

Kim Skyelander

Instructor, Environmental Science

Salish Kootenai College

P.O. Box 117

Pablo, MT 59855

 Mary Sladek

Assistant Program Director, EHR/REC

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Judy Smalling

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Calvert H. Smith

On-Site Coordinator, The Board of Education

Cincinnati City School District

P.O. Box 5381

Cincinnati, OH 45201-5381

David A. Smith

Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics

Duke University

Box 90320

Durham, NC 27708

Kent Smith

Instructor

Texas State Technical College

300 College Drive

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Myra O. Smith

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Nolan Sommer

Chairman of the Board

Stoney-Mueller

750 Oneida Trail

Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417

Janet Weiss Sorrels

Assistant Dean, College of Mathematical & Physical

Sciences

The Ohio State University

154 Denney Hall

164 W. 17th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210-1316
•376 •

 Francis Spano

Dean, Division of Engineering Technologies &

Science

Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08818

Brock Spencer

Professor

Beloit College

700 College Street

Beloit, WI 53511

Cedric T. Stallworth

Process Integration Partner

Office of Minority Educational Development

Georgia Institute of Technology

681 Cherry Street

Atlanta, GA 30332-0600

Michael Starbird

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education

Dept. of Natural Sciences

The University of Texas at Austin

WCH 3.104, Office of the Dean

Austin, TX 78712-1199

Richard E. Stephens

Consultant

Oak Ridge Associated Universities

8304 Brewster Drive

Alexandria, VA 22308-2106

John G. Stevens

National Executive Officer

Council on Undergraduate Research

Univ. of North Carolina at Asheville

Asheville, NC 28804

Catherine B. Stevenson

Dean of Faculty

University of Hartford

200 Bloomfield Avenue

West Hartford, CT 06117

Fred Stollnitz

Program Director, Cross-Directorate Activities

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 685

Arlington, VA 22203

 Donald B. Stratton

Professor of Biology

Drake University

2507 University Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50311-4505

Denis J. Sullivan

Director of ACE Implementation

Northeastern University

112 Hayden Hall

Boston, MA 02115

Edward C. Sullivan

New York State Assembly

717 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12248

Larry Suter

Deputy Division Director, REC

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

James E. Swartz

Professor of Chemistry

Grinnell College

P.O. Box 805

Grinnell, IA 50112

Dell L. Swearingen

Director, Math/Science/Electronics

Chemeketa Community College

P.O. Box 14007

4000 Lancaster Drive, N.E.

Salem, OR 97309-7070

Anna Tan-Wilson

Professor, Dept. of Biological Sciences

SUNY at Binghamton

P.O. Box 6000

Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

Robert J. Tatz

Instructional Laboratory Supervisor

Department of Chemistry

The Ohio State University

100 W. 18th Street

Columbus, OH 43210
•377 •

 Laura L. Tedder

Associate Director, Education

University of Colorado - Boulder

Campus Box 525

Boulder, CO 80309-0525

Elizabeth Teles

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Ronald Temple

Chancellor

City College of Chicago

226 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60601

Mary Kay Tetreault

Vice President, Academic Affairs

California State Univ.-Fullerton

800 N. State College Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92634

Michael E. Thomas

Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0325

David Todt

Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Shawnee State University

940 Second Street

Portsmouth, OH 45662

Lillian Tong

Undergraduate Education Coordinator

Center for Biology Education

University of Wisconsin - Madison

425 N. Henry Mall

Madison, WI

Reginald Traylor

Dean, School of Graduate Studies

University of the Incarnate Word

4301 Broadway, Box T-2

San Antonio, TX 78209

Albert Tricomi

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies

Office of the Provost

SUNY at Binghamton

P.O. Box 6000

Binghamton, NY 13901-6000

Romona A. Truesdale

Computer Specialist, EHR/DUE

The National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Kuei-Wu Tsai

Associate Dean of Engineering

College of Engineering

San Jose State University

San Jose, CA 95192-0080

Alan Tucker

Professor of Mathematics

Dept. of Applied Mathematics & Statistics

SUNY at Stony Brook

36 Woodfield Road

Stony Brook, NY 11790

Elizabeth Tucker

Associate Professor

SUNY Binghamton

Dickinson Community

Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

Nzinga Tull

Student, Dual Degree Engineering Program

Spelman College

2805 33rd Street, S.E.

Washington, DC 20020

George Tuthill

Professor, Department of Physics

Montana State University

AJM Johnson 214B

Bozeman, MT 59717-0350

Tim Uy

Office of the President

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA 91125

Myra Van Vactor

Director, Library Media Center

Bellevue Community College # D256

3000 Landerholm Circle, S.E.

Bellevue, WA 98007-6484

Demetrius D. Venable

Professor & Chairman

Department of Physics & Astronomy

Howard University

2355 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059
•378 •

Gerard Voland

Associate Professor

Dept. of Mechanical, Industrial & Manufacturing

Engineering

Northeastern University

367 Snell Engineering Center

Boston, MA 02115

Ruth C. Von Blum

Research/Consultant

Inverness Research

3605 Ashwood Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90066

Jack Waintraub

Chairperson, Department of Physics & Electrical

Eng.

Middlesex County College

155 Mill Road P.O. Box 3050

Edison, NJ 08818

Virginia Walbot

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305-5020

Dorothy Walker-Jones

Associate Dean, Office of Natural Sciences

Howard University

2441 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059

Mark Walter

Assistant Professor of Chemistry

Department of Chemistry

Oakton Community College

1600 E. Golf Road

Des Plaines, IL 60016

Dan Walz

Metropolitan Detroit Alliance for

Minority Participation - WSU

656 W. Kirby, Room 4047 FAB

Detroit, MI 48202

Elizabeth Ward

NASA Langley Space Grant Fellow

NASA Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mail Stop 221

Hampton, VA 23608

Mignon Waterman

Co-Chair, Government and Public Relations

Committee

SIMMS

530 Hazelgreen

Helena, MT 59601

George H. Watson

Associate Professor

Department of Physics & Astronomy

University of Delaware

232 Sharp Lab

Newark, DE 19716

Robert F. Watson

Division Director, DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Melvin Webb

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences

Clark Atlanta University

James P. Brawley Dr. at Fair St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Peggie Weeks

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Maurice Weitlauf

Profesor of Chemistry

Oakton Community College

1600 E. Golf Road

Des Plaines, IL 60016

Karen Wells

Vice President for Instruction

Sinclair Community College

444 West Third Street

Dayton, OH 45402

Wayne Wells

Assistant Professor, Director's Office

University of Texas-Pan American

1201 West University Drive

Edinburg, TX 78539-2909
•379 •

 Barry L. Werner

Dean, Mathematics, Science and Technology

Middlesex Community College

Springs Road

Bedford, MA 01730

Peter West

Office of Legislative and Public Affairs

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Ben White

Dean, Engineering Technology

Wake Technical Community College

9101 Fayetteville Road

Raleigh, NC 27603

Richard A. White

Dean and Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education

Duke University, Box 90042

104 Allen Building

Durham, NC 27708-0042

Elizabeth Widdicombe

President

W.H. Freeman and Company

41 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10010

Larry F. Wieserman

Alcoa Laboratories

City College of New York

100 Technical Drive

Alcoa Center, PA 15069-0001

Terry M. Wildman

Professor and Director

Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

118 Hillcrest Hall

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0453

Peter E. Wilkness

Senior Science Associate, GEO

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1070

Arlington, VA 22230

 Arthur L. Williams

Professor/Chairman, Biology Department

Howard University

2400 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20059

Luther S. Williams

Assistant Director, EHR

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 805

Arlington, VA 22230

Ronald A. Williams

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Community College of Philadelphia

1700 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Gary Wilson

Dean & Professor of Biology

College of Arts & Sciences

Box 57, McMurray University

Abilene, TX 79697

Jack M. Wilson

Dean, Undergraduate & Continuing Education

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Pittsburgh Building, Room 212

Troy, NY 12180-3590

Dennis Winterrowd

Management Consultant, Ethicon

6017 Warwick

San Angelo, TX 76901

Lawrence J. Wolf

President

Oregon Institute of Technology

3201 Campus Drive

Klamath Falls, OR 97601-8801

P. K. Wong

Associate Dean, College of Natural Science

Michigan State University

103 Natural Science Building

East Lansing, MI 48824-1226
•380 •

 Susan S. Wood

Mid-Atlantic Vice President

American Mathematical Association

of Two-Year Colleges

c/o Reynolds Community College

Box 85622

Richmond, VA 23285-5622

Terry S. Woodin

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

James P. Wright

Program Director

Division of Astronomical Sciences

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Bostwick F. Wyman

Vice-Chair, Mathematics

The Ohio State University

231 West 18th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210

Roger E. Wyse

Dean and Director

University of Wisconsin-Madison

140 Agricultural Hall

1450 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706

Peter E. Yankwich

Senior Staff Associate, EHR/DUE

Division of Undergraduate Education

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Ken Yasukawa

Professor

Beloit College

700 College Street

Beloit, WI 53511

Edmonia T. Yates

Morgan State University

1700 E. Cold Spring Lane

Baltimore, MD 21239-4093

Doug Young

Coordinator, Southwest Center for Advanced

Technological Education

300 College Drive

Sweetwater, TX 79556

Lee Zia

Program Director, EHR/DUE

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 835

Arlington, VA 22230

Lluvia Zuniga

Student, Physics Department

Univ. of California, Berkeley #7300

Berkeley, CA 94720-7300
•381 •

Section VII:

Bibliography for the Review of Undergraduate Education

in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
•382

•
•383 •

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).
•384 •

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. 
•385 •

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). 
•386 •

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).
•387 •

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. 
•388 •

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).
•389 •

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). 
•390 •

____________________________, 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).
•391 •

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). 
•392 •

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.
•393 •

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
•394 •

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)
•395 •

______________________, 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). 
•396 •

_______________________, 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). 
•397 •

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. 
•398 •

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.
•399 •

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). 
•400 •

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). 
 N S F 9 8 - 1 2 8
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 the 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 and e-mail to: pubs@nsf.gov

 or telephone: (703) 306-1234

To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 306-1234