U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–481PS 2006

UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, MATH, AND

ENGINEERING EDUCATION: WHAT’S WORKING?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–40

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

KARA HAAS Professional Staff Member

AVITAL ‘‘TALI’’ BAR-SHALOM Professional Staff Member

RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 15, 2006

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member, Subcommittee on

Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ................... 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 12

Witnesses:

Dr. Elaine Seymour, Author, ‘‘Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates

Leave the Sciences;’’ Former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at Boulder

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Biography .......................................................................................................... 45

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 46

Dr. Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of Colorado

at Boulder

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48

Biography .......................................................................................................... 50

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 51

Dr. John E. Burris, President, Beloit College

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53

Biography .......................................................................................................... 71

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 74

Dr. Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 75

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 77

Biography .......................................................................................................... 88

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 89

Ms. Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business, and

Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community College

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 90

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 92

Biography .......................................................................................................... 98

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 101

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 102

Page

IV

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Elaine Seymour, Author, ‘‘Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates

Leave the Sciences;’’ Former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at Boulder ......................................................... 114

Dr. Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of Colorado

at Boulder ............................................................................................................. 117

Dr. John E. Burris, President, Beloit College ....................................................... 118

Dr. Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College .................................................................................. 119

Ms. Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business, and

Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community College .......................... 120

(1)

UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, MATH, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION: WHAT’S WORKING?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Undergraduate Science, Math and

Engineering Education: What’s Working?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of the Committee on

Science will hold a hearing to examine how colleges and universities are improving

their undergraduate science, math, and engineering programs and how the Federal

Government might help encourage and guide the reform of undergraduate science,

math, and engineering education to improve learning and to attract more students

to courses in those fields.

2. Witnesses

Dr. Elaine Seymour is the author of Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates

Leave the Sciences and the former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research

at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Dr. Daniel L. Goroff is Vice President and Dean of Faculty at Harvey Mudd College. Prior to joining Harvey Mudd, Dr. Goroff was a professor of the practice of

mathematics and the Assistant Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and

Learning at Harvard University. Dr. Goroff co-directs the Sloan Foundation Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project based at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dr. John Burris is the President of Beloit College in Wisconsin. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Burris served for eight years as Director of the Marine Biological

Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and he served for nine years as

a Professor of biology at the Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Carl Wieman is a distinguished Professor of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics. Using his

Nobel award money, Dr. Wieman has launched an effort to reform introductory

physics. Dr. Wieman currently chairs the National Academy of Sciences Board on

Science Education.

Ms. Margaret Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science, Business and Computer

Technology at Moraine Valley Community College in the southwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.

3. Overarching Questions

• What are the obstacles to recruiting and retaining science, math, and engineering majors and what actions are being taken to overcome them?

• What are the obstacles to implementing reforms in undergraduate science,

math, and engineering education?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation

(NSF), played in improving undergraduate science, math, and engineering

education? What more should federal agencies be doing in this area?

4. Background

Undergraduate education is the first step toward a career in science, engineering,

or mathematics; it is the primary source of education and training for technical

workers; and, it is often the last time non-majors will take a class in science and

mathematics. Yet the undergraduate level is also the point at which many students

4

1 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), University of California at Los Angeles, The

American Freshman: National Norms, 2001.

who begin college interested in science, math, and engineering decide to move out

of these fields.

U.S. Competitiveness

Over the past several years, a number of industry and policy organizations have

released reports calling for increased investment in science and engineering research and increased production of students with degrees in scientific and technical

fields, including the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences,

AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association), the Business Roundtable,

Electronic Industries Alliance, National Association of Manufacturers, TechNet, and

the Association of American Universities. While the companies and the industry sectors represented by these organizations varies widely, one general recommendation

was common to all of the reports: the Federal Government needs to strengthen and

re-energize investments in science and engineering education.

The National Academy of Sciences, in its report Rising Above The Gathering

Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, rec- ommended establishing 25,000 new four-year scholarships to attract more U.S. undergraduate students to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

fields, and it encouraged research universities to offer two-year part-time Master’s

degrees that focus on science and mathematics content and pedagogy. Similarly, the

Business Roundtable and other industry groups have recommended creating scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for students who pursue degrees in STEM

fields and emphasize the need to improve recruitment and retention of STEM majors at undergraduate institutions.

Challenges in Undergraduate Education

The U.S. contains a large and diverse group of institutions of higher education.

While American graduate education in STEM fields is generally considered to be the

best in the world, the quality of students’ undergraduate experiences can be hindered by insufficient pre-college preparation, poor college instruction, and high rates

of attrition among potential STEM majors.

College Readiness

Recent results of national assessments of high school science and mathematics

suggest that few students graduate with the mathematical or analytical skills necessary for college-level mathematics or science. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics, all of the Nation’s community colleges and most four-year institutions offer remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics. In addition,

Freshman Norms1 trend data also reveals that more than 20 percent of first year

college students intending to undertake a science or engineering major and 10 percent of those in the mathematics report that they believe that they will need remedial course work.

Federal education efforts undertaken in the context of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act are providing greater focus on math and science, with annual assessments

in mathematics occurring now and assessments in science starting in 2007. But

many education experts point out that, until the quality of STEM education at the

elementary and secondary levels improves, some students will continue to lack the

necessary preparation for undergraduate education in STEM fields.

Attrition

According to the 2005 Survey of the American Freshman, the longest running survey of student attitudes and plans for college, approximately one-third of all incoming freshmen have traditionally contemplated a major in a science and engineering

field, with most intending to major in a field of natural or social science and a

smaller percentage selecting mathematics, the computer sciences, or engineering.

Yet, half of all students who begin in the physical or biological sciences and 60 percent of those in mathematics will drop out of these fields by their senior year, compared with the 30 percent drop out rate in the humanities and social sciences. The

attrition rates are even higher for under-represented minorities.

In research for Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences,

the authors determined that the most common reasons offered for switching out of

a science major included a lack or loss of interest in science, belief that another

major was more interesting or offered a better education, poor science teaching, and

an overwhelming curriculum. This study reinforced earlier anecdotal evidence that

suggested that the sciences did a poor job of retaining young talent. In addition, and

contrary to conventional wisdom that suggested that the students who switched out

5

2Most qualified students were identified by high math SAT scores (at least 650) and their

high school preparation. 3 Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education, National Science Board,

1986.

of science majors were somehow less academically able, the researchers discovered

that those who left were among the most qualified students2 who had initially expressed the greatest interest in pursuing a STEM major.

Many researchers, including Stanford economist Paul Romer, believe that undergraduate education actively discourages more students from majoring in STEM

fields or taking additional science or mathematics courses. Many colleges and universities have institutionalized a process partially designed to ‘‘weed out’’ all but the

most committed students. While some amount of switching is appropriate, and few

would disagree about the selective nature of many science and engineering programs, this ‘‘science-for-the few’’ approach seems to reduce the number of STEM

majors unnecessarily and may be particularly alienating to women and under-represented minorities.

According to Talking About Leaving, most of the concerns of those who dropped

out of science majors were shared by those who continued in science, math, and engineering. The chief complaint, cited by 83 percent of all respondents, was poor

teaching. In the university setting, the traditional reward structure for faculty often

favors the conduct of research over teaching. This can create an environment where

faculty enthusiasm for and commitment to teaching is limited. As a result, undergraduates who take science and mathematics at many colleges and universities

often find themselves in large lecture halls, taught by junior faculty. Student interaction with prominent research scientists ranges may be limited, and many of the

junior faculty and teaching assistants may not be trained or motivated to teach well.

Some may even be discouraged from expressing an interest in teaching or mentoring

undergraduates.

In addition to these problems with courses for STEM majors, many introductory

courses for non-majors fail to foster scientific understanding among the non-science

majors. Without a broader context, many students never understand the process of

science or the content of the subject matter. According to research in the Journal

of College Science Teaching, this narrow approach to STEM courses alienates nonmajors who graduate with the perception that science is difficult, boring, and irrelevant to their everyday interests.

Undergraduate Reforms

Individual faculty, departments, professional societies, and institutions of higher

education are increasingly involved in reform efforts to enhance STEM curriculum

and improve undergraduate teaching. Many of these reforms include the reexamination and restructuring of introductory and lower level courses to benefit both those

who go on to careers as STEM professionals and teachers, as well as the vast majority who do not plan to become STEM majors.

The new goal of ‘‘science-for-all’’ seeks to provide opportunities for students of all

backgrounds and interests to study science as practiced by scientists. Some faculty

are trying to supplement lectures with discussion, small group work on a question

or problem, and other short activities that are designed to break up the session and

engage students in understanding and applying class materials. The new approaches attempt to present students with a coherent structure of general concepts

that are established by experiment and to lead students to use problem-solving approaches that are applicable to a wide variety of situations—something that is typically experienced only in upper level courses. In addition, some colleges and universities are reexamining their incentive structures to encourage faculty to teach or

mentor undergraduates and to ensure that introductory courses are taught by experienced faculty.

Federal Support for Undergraduate Education

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has historically been the primary federal

agency to provide support for undergraduate education in STEM fields. In 1987, the

National Science Board released a report on Undergraduate Science, Mathematics,

and Engineering Education, better known as the ‘‘Neal Report’’ 3 after its chairman,

Homer Neal of the University of Michigan. The Neal Report urged NSF to increase

its investment in undergraduate education, and particularly to offer programs to involve undergraduate faculty and students in research activities.

NSF Undergraduate Education

NSF primarily funds undergraduate STEM education programs through its Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). Funding for DUE programs at NSF has

6

declined each year since fiscal year 2004 (FY04). FY06 funding for DUE totaled

$211 million, and the FY07 budget request is $196 million.

Several NSF programs in undergraduate education were created or expanded by

the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. This Act established the

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program

(STEP) to increase the number of U.S. students majoring in STEM fields. Specifically, STEP provides funding and rewards to colleges and universities that develop

creative and effective recruitment and retention strategies that bring more students

into science, mathematics, and engineering programs. The FY06 appropriation for

STEP was $25.5 million; the request for FY07 is $26 million.

The Act also strengthened and expanded the Advanced Technological Education

(ATE) program, which aims to expand the pool of skilled technicians in the U.S. by

providing support to community colleges. Specifically, ATE supports curriculum development; professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; and efforts to align curricula to allow easy transition from high school to community colleges and community colleges to four year colleges and universities. The

FY06 appropriation for ATE was $45 million; the request for FY07 is $46 million.

A third major program in DUE is the Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement Program (CCLI). This program supports efforts to create new learning

materials and teaching strategies, develop faculty expertise, implement educational

innovations, assess learning and evaluate innovations, and conduct research on

STEM teaching and learning. Funding for this program has declined in the past two

years, falling from $94 million in FY05 to $88 million in FY06. The FY07 request

is $86 million.

Other Undergraduate Support at NSF

In addition to the DUE programs described above, the Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) at NSF supports programs to increase the participation

of under-represented students in science at all levels. Undergraduate programs in

HRD include the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program ($35

million in FY06, $40 million requested in FY07), the Historically Black Colleges and

Universities Undergraduate Program ($25 million in FY06, $30 million requested in

FY07), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program ($9 million in FY06, $12

million requested in FY07).

Through its Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, which is run

through NSF’s research directorates, NSF supports active participation by undergraduates in research funded by NSF. Under this program, undergraduate students

are associated with a specific research project, where they work closely with faculty

and other researchers, and are granted stipends and, in many cases, assistance with

housing and travel. (The research work can take place at a student’s home institution or elsewhere, usually during the summer.)

Support for Undergraduate STEM Education at Other Agencies

While the U.S. Department of Education (ED) supports programs to strengthen

undergraduate education, most are targeted to particular institutions and most are

not STEM specific. For instance, ED supports several programs to build the capacity

of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and other minority

serving institutions, but funds may be used for a variety of purposes so it is difficult

to determine what, if any, portion funds STEM reform. Outside NSF and ED, federal science agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, provide opportunity for undergraduates to

participate in research experiences at their facilities.

Legislation

While this hearing is not designed to focus on any specific legislation, it is worth

noting that several bills have been introduced to strengthen STEM education in response to the various reports and commissions on U.S. competitiveness. Most of

these bills seek to address the undergraduate recruitment challenge. Specifically, S.

2109 and H.R. 4654, the National Innovation Act, expand NSF’s STEM Talent Expansion Program from $35 million in FY07 to $150 million in FY11. S. 2198, Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) Act, awards scholarships to students majoring in STEM education who concurrently pursue their teacher certification, and

H.R. 4434, introduced by Congressman Bart Gordon, implements the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm report.

S. 2197, PACE–Energy, also includes undergraduate education provisions, such as

a scholarship program for students in STEM fields and the creation of a part-time,

three-year Master’s degree in math and science for teachers, but the programs are

administered by the Department of Energy—not NSF.

7

5. Questions for Witnesses

The panelists were asked to address the following questions in their testimony before the Committee:

Dr. Elaine Seymour:

• What has your research shown about why potential science majors drop out

of undergraduate science programs?

• What changes in undergraduate science education could prevent capable students from leaving science disciplines and perhaps also attract students initially not interested in science? What are the principle obstacles to implementing these changes?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate science education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

Dr. Daniel L. Goroff:

• What obstacles have you encountered at Harvey Mudd College and Harvard

University in recruiting and retaining STEM majors and what actions have

you taken to overcome them? How are you measuring the effectiveness of

those actions?

• What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other institutions of higher education?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation

(NSF), played in improving undergraduate STEM education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

Dr. John Burris:

• What obstacles have you encountered at Beloit College in recruiting and retaining STEM majors and what actions has Beloit College taken to overcome

them? How are you measuring the effectiveness of those actions?

• What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other institutions of higher education?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation

(NSF), played in improving undergraduate STEM education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

Dr. Carl Wieman:

• What obstacles have you encountered at the University of Colorado in recruiting and retaining physics majors and what actions have you taken to overcome them? How are you measuring the effectiveness of those actions?

• How would your experience apply to other institutions of higher education or

to other fields of science?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation

(NSF), played in improving undergraduate STEM education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

Ms. Margaret Collins:

• What obstacles have you encountered at Moraine Valley Community College

in recruiting and retaining STEM majors? What actions has Moraine Valley

Community College taken to overcome them? How are you measuring the effectiveness of those actions?

• What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other institutions of higher education?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate STEM education? What more should

federal agencies be doing in this area?

8

Chairman INGLIS. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to

order.

Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mr.

Ehlers and Mr. Udall, who are not Members of the Subcommittee,

be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. Without objection, so

ordered.

And I recognize myself for an opening statement.

And thank you to the panel for coming to share some thoughts

about STEM education. It is crucial for us, as a nation, to figure

out how to continue to lead in technology, and certainly the basis

of that is an effective educational system.

I had an opportunity to hear some challenging remarks from

David McCullough, the author of one of my favorite books, ‘‘John

Adams,’’ and I am listening now to 1776. David McCullough said

something very interesting to a group of House Members, and Mr.

Udall may have been there. He said, ‘‘We should eliminate the departments of education at colleges and universities.’’ He said that

we shouldn’t have people that have education degrees teaching.

‘‘We should have experts teaching in their fields.’’ His point of view

was that historians should teach history, not education majors. It

is a very interesting and provocative thought. He congratulated

some work being done at, I believe, the University of Oklahoma

that is headed in that direction, and it starts to sound promising,

because, you know, when you think of it, when I was in high

school, if I had been taught by somebody who loved math, passionate about math, and understood the interconnectivity of math

principles, perhaps I might have caught the math bug. If I had

been taught by somebody in science that really loved the subject

matter, perhaps I might have caught the bug. As it was, my most

memorable teachers were word teachers, English teachers who

loved English, and the result was I headed more toward words

than to formulas.

Now that has to be balanced. David McCullough’s view has to be

balanced with another observation. And this I have heard from visiting with research facilities at USC, University of South Carolina

and Clemson University, for example, where the feedback that I

have heard from some students is the teacher, the professor is just

boring, as dull as a doornail, cannot teach, cannot inspire, cannot

hold anybody’s interest, and in some cases, a very difficult question

has been raised, ‘‘I can’t understand what he or she is saying.’’ Now

English is a second language for them, and they say ‘‘I literally

cannot understand what they are saying in class.’’

Now that being the case, it seems that there is need for balance

somewhere between David McCullough’s point of view, which is

only scientists should teach science, and the observation that if you

don’t understand education methods, maybe you can’t really teach.

And so, as always in life, there is a need for balance.

I hope that that is part of what we get at here at this hearing

today. And it seems to me, it goes to one of the challenges we have

got, which is how do you keep students involved in math and

science? How do you capture their imagination? I am a lawyer, and

one of the things that I have observed about legal education is that

it is pretty interesting because most law is based on cases, and instruction of the law is based on cases. Well, cases are really stories,

9

a story of how Mrs. Pfaltzgraff was standing by the railroad track

and something happened and the clock hit her in the noggin, and

she sued the railroad company, as I recall. I hope my professor

from law school isn’t here and remembering that I—realizing that

I don’t remember all of the facts of that case, but it is something

like that. There is a story.

It seems to me, one of the challenges of science education, math

education, engineering is making it that interesting. Recently, we

on the Science Committee, had an opportunity to go to Antarctica.

Yesterday, I was writing a thank-you note to one of the presenters

down there. Truly a master teacher. The fellow held our interest

for at least an hour, and really we would have begged him to go

on, because he truly was a master teacher. He would ask—he

would answer questions, but quickly get back to the subject that

he wanted to talk about. He just did a masterful job. If I had had

such a teacher in math and science, perhaps I would have continued on and not fallen into the dark side of the law.

But those are—I hope we get into that. I hope we figure—we

hear some thoughts today about how we captivate the imagination

and stimulate the interest of our students. And I thank the panel

for joining us today.

Mr. Udall is voting in a committee. This is going to be a challenge today. We need a scientific breakthrough on having people in

two places at once, and hopefully that is going to happen, because

just as Mr. Udall is out now voting, I have a markup in the Judiciary Committee downstairs, so occasionally, I am going to be running from this room, literally, downstairs three floors to vote in

that committee and then coming back.

So—but we do have Mr. Rohrabacher here, and I would be happy

to yield to the gentleman from California for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BOB INGLIS

Good morning. Today’s hearing on ‘‘Undergraduate Science, Math, and Engineering Education: What’s Working’’ may be one of the most important hearings this

subcommittee has this year and one in which I take a particular interest. I firmly

believe that if we are to remain the world’s leader in innovation and technology, we

must provide our children—at all ages—with the education and tools necessary to

excel in math and science, and we must make sure that those entrusted with teaching them possess not just the knowledge but the enthusiasm to inspire and stimulate them to excel in math and science. This is imperative if we are to sustain a

strong and competitive science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) workforce

capable of solving the known challenges of today and carrying us beyond the unknown challenges of tomorrow.

Recently, I had the privilege of accompanying National Science Foundation (NSF)

Director Arden Bement to Mauldin Elementary School in my district. We witnessed

a wonderful class project called ‘‘A World in Motion,’’ which was originally funded

by the NSF through a grant to the Society of Automotive Engineers. We watched

fifth graders race small cars propelled by balloons that they had designed, built and

studied. We heard their stories of the trials and tribulations they experienced while

trying to build the car that would travel the fastest and the straightest. This was

not just a project to see whose car looked the coolest. No, they had to learn how

to measure speed and distance and figure out what aerodynamics would be best.

Needless to say, watching these children with their science project made me ponder

the question, ‘‘How do we as a nation continue to capture the science and math

imagination and enthusiasm of these students as they continue their education?’’

For those who seemed really fired up and excited about what they were learning. . .and you could see it in their eyes. . .how do we keep that passion and motiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
10

vation going to produce our next generation of scientists, mathematicians and engineers?

Granted, there are several hearings we could hold to examine the pros and cons

of what we’re doing along the K–12 path. The purpose of today’s hearing, however,

is to explore what is happening at the undergraduate level for those students who

enter college enthusiastic about pursing a STEM degree and for those non-majors

who would still benefit tremendously from a better background in math and science

education. As we hear from our witnesses on how our colleges and universities are

improving undergraduate STEM programs, we will hopefully be able to determine

how the Federal Government might help further encourage and guide the reform

of undergraduate STEM education to improve learning and to attract more students

to courses and careers in the STEM fields.

While exact numbers tend to differ, all of the recent studies and reports that have

recently been released suggest that the U.S. is being outpaced by China and India

in terms of degrees granted in science and engineering. If we are to remain competitive, we must reverse this trend. To do so, we need to tackle several impediments

that are affecting our ability to attract and retain students in STEM fields, primarily insufficient pre-college preparation, poor college instruction, and high rates

of attrition.

Certainly, NSF, the primary federal agency tasked with providing support for undergraduate STEM education—and STEM education in general for that matter—is

working hard to overcome these challenges. Other agencies, including the Departments of Education and Energy as well as NASA also have important roles to play.

We need to make sure that they are coordinating their education efforts to ensure

that this nation is poised for a new generation of innovative progress and prosperity, but that is a topic for another day and another hearing to be held later this

month.

Not long ago, I read an intriguing article by a former chemical engineering major

who left his course of study ‘‘in shame and disgust to pursue the softer pleasures

of a liberal arts education.’’ I’ll submit the entire Tech Central Station article, ‘‘Confessions of an Engineering Washout,’’ by Douglas Kern for the record, but want to

kick-off the hearing with his telling admonition:

If you want more engineers in the United States, you must find a way for America’s engineering programs to retain students like, well, me: people smart

enough to do the math and motivated enough to at least take a bite at the engineering apple, but turned off by the overwhelming course work, low grades, and

abysmal teaching. Find a way to teach engineering to verbally oriented students

who can’t learn math by sense of smell. Demand from (and give to) students

an actual mastery of the material, rather than relying on bogus on-the-curve

pseudo-grades that hinge upon the amount of partial credit that bored T.A.s

choose to dole out. Write textbooks that are more than just glorified problem

set manuals.

I think he makes some valid points.

With that, I’d like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. I look forward to hearing from them on the strides they are making to improve undergraduate STEM education in the U.S., and I turn to the senior Democratic Member, Mr. Udall, for any

opening statement he may wish to make.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And let me just note that I, too, am going to be running off, because I have a markup in my committee, in my International Relations Committee, where I am Senior Member, in which we are

marking up a bill dealing with one of the greatest challenges we

have for our country today, and that is a relationship with Iran.

However, I am leaving a hearing that I believe is focusing on what

America’s greatest challenge to our future is, our total future, and

that is making sure that we are equipped to compete in the world

of the—of tomorrow by making sure that our children are properly

educated in math and science and engineering.

I would just like to make a couple thoughts for the record. And

we had a discussion on this subject somewhat about a month ago.

And I mentioned that we need to pay young people and other employees who are—have an expertise in math and science and engineering need to pay them better, and that is a way, perhaps, to atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

tract more young people into the professions. And I got a lot of

flack for that, Mr. Chairman. I mean, to me, it is a no-brainer, but

I just got a lot of flack for saying that. But the kids who look and

see that the lawyers all have the good—nice-looking cars and the

big houses and maybe a very smart young person then decides to

go into law rather than into engineering. I can understand that.

Well, let me just note that I see cost and compensation as being

major factors in this discussion. And cost is what we need to bring

down the cost for young people who want to get degrees in math,

science, and engineering so when they leave their school they don’t

end up with a mountain of debt which they are not then hired by

some law firm to take care of that debt, because now it is—they

are on their own where math and engineering students from overseas, who are here taking advantage of our graduate programs especially, are sponsored by their own government, and they end up

in no debt at all where our students end up entirely in debt, and

they are almost indentured servants for five or 10 years of their

life. That needs to be addressed. And my—I have some legislation

aimed at—well, at least providing full scholarships provided by

every department of government that uses an engineer or a scientist or a mathematician to provide scholarships designed to—

then they—the student could pay it back by working for that government agency, which is a thought that I would like to discuss

with the panel.

Second, we do not compensate our teachers in mathematics,

science, and engineering at a different scale than we compensate

the people who teach basket weaving and self-fulfillment and perhaps things of—and I will tell you, no wonder somebody who is a

scientist or someone who is an engineer is not going to be attracted

to teaching if, indeed, his compensation—his or her compensation

level is no more than somebody who basically has the skills that

I was talking about. I am not degrading basket weaving or home

economics or anything like that, but perhaps we need the engineers

and more skilled people in our schools, and we need to compensate

them for it.

Finally, let me note this. When we talk about compensation, we

have—I have had many a panel here talking about this problem,

and I have seen this over the last—I have been a Member of the

Science Committee now for 18 years. But you have these same

businessmen who come here talking about the need of, you know,

attracting our young people into these fields, and they are the

same companies that come here lobbying us for massive numbers

of H–1B Visas so that we can bring in people from overseas with

these skills. And let me tell you what happens when you bring

hundreds of thousands—we are talking about hundreds of thousands of engineers and mathematicians enter into this country over

and above what our regular quota is for immigration. What it does

is bid down wages. What it does, Mr. Chairman, is mean that the

compensation of these young people, American young people, can

expect is now lower because companies now can hire some fine

young person from India or Pakistan or wherever to do that job at

half the wage that they would have to pay an American to do it.

All of these things are impacting on these—on us and trying to

solve this problem. And I would suggest again that the way to

12

make sure that we have more young people who are intelligent

young people, because, after all, there is a certain level of intelligence that you go into various fields, but we would like young

people to go into engineering and math and science, and the best

way to do that, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure you pay them more

money. And we shouldn’t be ashamed of that. We live in a capitalist society, and—but we have to do it based on all of these factors, making sure they are not in debt when they get through

school and making sure we don’t bid down their wages by bringing

in hundreds of thousands of people from overseas in order to make

sure that there is less money in their income.

With that, I appreciate my—you letting me have my say, and I

will stay as long as I can, but I do have to handle this Iranian crisis, which is on us today, which I might add was created by engineers who are building nuclear power plants for a moolah-driven

regime in Iran.

So with that said, that is it.

Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

I—you will be hearing from the Basket Weaver Association later.

It is like the time I was on the Floor and said something about

used car salesmen and then got calls from around the country.

Mr. Udall will be back momentarily, and when he comes back,

we will recognize him for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.

Education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, also called STEM,

has long been a passion of mine.

As former Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee, I know the importance of STEM education and the prosperity and job security it can bring to our

communities.

My home State of Texas is investing heavily in nanotechnology industry development and in other high-tech ventures. We need domestic talent to fill future jobs

in these areas.

I would like to make the case of the critical importance of attracting ethnic minorities to STEM careers. My district is a ‘‘majority-minority’’ area, meaning we

have more minorities than any other ethnic group.

I am interested what today’s witnesses will tell us about how to captivate students’ attention for STEM from a young age and hold their attention throughout

middle school, high school, college and graduate school.

STEM careers often require advanced education, hard work and personal sacrifice.

How can we persuade kids to make a lifelong commitment to a STEM career

when they are mired with student loans, academic positions are scarce and those

that are open are quickly filled by individuals coming from outside the U.S.?

Major policy changes at every level will be needed. It is my hope that today’s

hearing can help legislators uncover the greatest leverage points to encourage participation in STEM careers and thus drive our economy forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to today’s hearing

on exploring ways to improve undergraduate science, technology, engineering and

math education—or STEM education, for short.

I would like to specifically welcome Dr. Weiman and Dr. Seymour that both have

ties within my district at the University of Colorado. As many here know, Dr.

Weiman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001. However, what is most relevant

13

to this hearing is how Dr. Weiman has leveraged this Prize to focus on improving

undergraduate physics education. I hope Dr. Weiman will share with the Committee

some of what he is doing in this area.

Dr. Seymour, the former Director of the Ethnography and Evaluation Research

at the University of Colorado, is also joining us today. She is the author of Talking

About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. This book evaluates why

students are attracted to STEM fields and what causes them to switch fields of

study. It also highlights the interaction of students with faculty.

I would like to again welcome both of you, and all of our witnesses for coming

to discuss this important topic.

I see this hearing as addressing two important issues: how do we attract and retain students in associate and baccalaureate degree programs in STEM fields, and

how do we ensure that all undergraduate students receive a quality educational experience in their STEM courses, regardless of the career path they choose.

Policy discussions of undergraduate STEM education tend to focus on numbers—

are we producing too few scientists and engineers; are other countries out-producing

us; can we stay competitive unless we greatly increase production?

Well, I certainly agree we must be sure that we are meeting the needs of the private sector and government for STEM graduates, and there is considerable evidence

that we are doing so at present.

I believe the key issue is not only numbers but also the quality of STEM graduates and the capabilities they develop during their post-secondary education.

Project Kaleidoscope, which has been working for 10 years or more to improve undergraduate STEM education, recently released a report, ‘‘Recommendations for Urgent Action,’’ that lays out the questions we should ask in assessing whether STEM

education is meeting the competitiveness challenge:

What are the characteristics of a successful innovator? What are the characteristics of a life-long learner? What are the characteristics of a contributing and

productive participant in the 21st century workforce?

The answers to these questions should inform STEM educational goals, the kinds

of STEM courses offered, and the teaching styles and approaches used in undergraduate education.

Ultimately, the United States cannot out-produce the world in the number of new

science and engineering graduates. Rather, we must ensure that our educational

system produces graduates with capabilities that set them apart, so that they become successful innovators, life-long learners, and productive members of the Nation’s workforce.

Today, we will hear from those who are engaged in undergraduate education in

a range of educational settings—two-year colleges, primarily undergraduate colleges,

and research universities.

I am interested in the witnesses’ assessment of the current state of undergraduate

science education and in their experiences regarding efforts to make improvements.

The basic questions today are what works, and what are the conditions necessary

for success? I hope to hear what barriers and impediments exist in improving undergraduate STEM education, and in particular, what kinds of federal programs have

proven to be helpful—or not helpful—in bringing about reform.

Naturally, the Subcommittee would be interested in your comments on the value

of NSF-sponsored programs, and on any recommendations you may have for ways

to improve the recruitment and retention of students in the science degree track.

I believe a major goal of efforts to improve undergraduate STEM education must

be to institute policies and programs that will tap the human resource potential of

individuals from groups under-represented in science and technology.

Simple demographic trends make clear the importance of increasing participation

rates of women and minorities in meeting workforce needs of the future.

This is particularly true for attracting individuals to careers in the physical

science and engineering. I know some of our witnesses have been engaged in programs that address this issue, and I look forward to learning more about them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening this hearing on this important

subject. I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today and I look forward to

our discussion.

Chairman INGLIS. In the meantime, let me go ahead and introduce our panel. Mr. Udall may, in the course of his remarks, want

to introduce two folks from Colorado, but first, we have Dr. Elaine

Seymour, the author of ‘‘Talking About Leaving: Why UndergraduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
14

ates Leave the Sciences.’’ She is a former Director of Ethnography

and Evaluation Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Dr. Carl Wieman is a Distinguished Professor of Physics at the

University of Colorado at Boulder and recipient of the 2001 Nobel

Prize in Physics. Using his Nobel award, Dr. Wieman has launched

an effort to reform introductory physics. He currently chairs the

National Academy of Sciences Board on Science Education.

Dr. John Burris is the President of Beloit College in Wisconsin.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Burris served for eight years as Director of Marine Biology—let me try that again, Director of Marine

Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and he served

for nine years as professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Daniel Goroff is the Vice President and Dean of Faculty at

Harvey Mudd College. Prior to joining Harvey Mudd, Dr. Goroff

was a professor of the practice of mathematics and the Assistant

Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at

Harvard University. He co-directs the Sloan Foundation Scientific

and Engineering Workforce Project based at the National Bureau

of Economic Research.

Ms. Margaret Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science, Business,

and Computer Technology at Moraine Valley Community College in

the southwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.

And when my colleague, Dan Lipinski, gets here—he is testifying

at an Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee meeting,

when he gets here, we will get a more full introduction of Ms. Collins by Mr. Lipinski.

So we generally recognize witnesses for five minutes, and then

we will look forward to the time of questions and further comments

from you and answers as we move beyond the testimony.

So, Dr. Seymour, if you would like to begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELAINE SEYMOUR, AUTHOR, ‘‘TALKING

ABOUT LEAVING: WHY UNDERGRADUATES LEAVE THE

SCIENCES;’’ FORMER DIRECTOR OF ETHNOGRAPHY AND

EVALUATION RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT

BOULDER

Dr. SEYMOUR. Thank you very much for inviting me, Chairman

Inglis. I appreciate this. It is a great honor.

In my written testimony, I structured my response in the following way.

First of all, I said something about factors, which, in my view,

are shaping the problem that we have, and then the consequences

for current and future STEM undergraduates, and then something

about strategies, which I think will make a difference, some of

these are underway, some of these are needed, and then some caveats.

What I think is underlying the problem we face is a historic decline in the perceived value of teaching. It has general relevance

in the population, but it is particularly salient as part of the professional role of STEM faculty, where it has suffered over the last

half-century with respect to the dominance of research. We noted

it, in particular, in our book, ‘‘Talking About Leaving,’’ in the decline in the number of seniors who were interested in entering K–

15

12 science and math teaching which dropped from 20 percent to

less than seven percent by senior year over the course of our study.

And most interesting, they—the seniors described their faculty as

discouraging students from entering K–12 math and science teaching. And the students who decided to go on did not disclose their

intention, normally, to faculty, because they feared that faculty

would take them less seriously.

Now this problem creates, I think, an imbalance in our science

structures. First of all, we have a salary structure in STEM faculty

which is disproportionate to teaching effort. We have a reward

structure for tenure and promotion such that research achievements are more stringently defined than teaching or service work,

and teaching and the scholarship of teaching are barely developed

or acknowledged.

The consequences are certainly seen in our work that the most

serious problem spoken about both by people who field-switched

out of the sciences and those who persisted amongst well-qualified

students, whom we interviewed on seven different campuses, was

that poor learning experiences were their most common problem.

So for both groups, this was the main issue. Of the 23 issues that

they raised, this was the most common issue.

This problem has not gone on unnoted amongst the many, many

reports that we have seen over the last few years—that the quality

of undergraduate STEM education has declined and is declining.

The second consequence, I think, shows in the inadequate preparation of teaching assistants who become young faculty, which then

contributes significantly to poor quality undergraduate learning experiences, both now and when they become faculty. And we have

a terrible shortage of good programs for training TAs, and they

tend to be short orientations not specific to the discipline or the

course. They do not significantly ground TAs in learning research

and the knowledge and the practices that derive from this. And unfortunately, the STEM TAs seem the least likely to receive appropriate preparation. I have reviewed all of this evidence in our latest

book ‘‘Partners in Innovation,’’ which is about TAs.

Thirdly, we have serious limitations in the K–12 math and

science teaching force. It takes the form both of a serious and growing shortfall of disciplined, qualified math and science teachers in

our middle and high schools, and in the quality of those teachers.

I have offered you, in the testimony, some of this evidence. We

have vacancies in science and mathematics that we simply cannot

fill. And in the latest report of the National Academy of Sciences’

‘‘Gathering Storm,’’ 59 percent of middle school students have math

teachers who lack even a math education major. We saw this in

our own book that just about the same numbers of switchers and

persisters in the STEM majors struggled with under-preparation

from the deficiencies of their math and science education in

schools. The TAs, as I mentioned earlier, also endorsed this situation, over two-thirds of the TAs in our 2005 study, and those in another study done at the University of Nebraska (i.e., the same proportion) reported that students arrived under-prepared in the fundamental knowledge and skills needed to perform adequately.

The strategies that I have outlined in my testimony focus largely

on professional development based on methods grounded in reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
16

search about how students learn. And the groups who are, in my

view, in need of professional development are current and future

K–12 science and math teachers, they are TAs in STEM undergraduate courses, and they are current STEM faculty.

And matching the faculty incentives and reward system to the

objectives of an improved education in science for all is critical if

we are going to succeed in any of these strategies.

I will conclude my remarks at this point.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Seymour follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELAINE SEYMOUR

The Research Subcommittee has asked me to address the following questions:

• What has your research shown about why potential science majors drop out

of undergraduate science programs?

• What changes in undergraduate science education could prevent capable students from leaving science disciplines and perhaps also attract students initially not interested in science? What are the principle obstacles to implementing these changes?

• What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate science education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

On the basis of my work as a science education researcher and as an evaluator

of both campus-based and large national initiatives focused on improving quality

and access in undergraduate science education, I offer some answers to these questions under the following headings:

1. Factors that shape the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education

2. Their consequences for current and future STEM undergraduates

3. Strategies (both underway and needed) that address current difficulties

4. Some caveats: why are some changes difficult to secure

1. Factors that shape the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education

Two inter-related factors—one cultural, the other structural—underlie the problems with undergraduate science education that have been identified over the last

two decades. These factors also explain some of the difficulties encountered by those

who seek to improve STEM education, both at the undergraduate and K–12 levels.

The first may be described as a history of decline in the perceived value of

teaching. Among STEM faculty, teaching has come to be seen as a far less important part of their professional role than research, and STEM faculty overall do not

encourage K–12 mathematics and science teaching as a career for their STEM graduates.

In our study of why undergraduates leave the sciences (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997),

we noted that, although almost 20 percent of our student sample had seriously considered science or mathematics teaching, this dropped to under seven percent in

senior year among those who persisted in their STEM majors. A major factor in this

decline was students’ awareness that their professors—whose approval and support

they sought in developing a career path—defined teaching ambitions as ‘‘deviant.’’

Faculty were commonly believed to withdraw from students who openly expressed

an interest in K–12 teaching and those who still intended to teach become covert

about their intentions:

I think that’s ultimately the problem with math and science in this country—

we don’t value teachers enough. Professors are valued but the high school teachers are not. If you wanna teach science in high school, that’s taboo: you’re treated as an outcast by the faculty here. (male white switcher)

I’ve never discussed it with any of my chemistry professors. For the most part,

I’ve got a feeling of disdain for teaching from them. This is something that they

have to do, but they don’t really support anyone who wants to do it. Fortunately, I had an incredible chemistry teacher in high school, and I go back and

chat with him still. He tells me, You’re going to be a good teacher.’’ I get more

17

1The ChemLinks Coalition (‘‘Modular Chemistry: Learning chemistry by doing what chemist

do’’) and the Modular Chemistry Consortium, now combined as ‘‘ChemConnections.’’

encouragement from him than from anyone on campus. (male white science persister)

Students who wanted to teach also described discouragement from family members and peers who perceived teaching as a career with low status, pay, and prospects. Students of color were the only STEM seniors who reported encouragement

from faculty and advisors to become K–12 teachers.

With respect to faculty’s own work, the balance of status and rewards has, over

time, tipped heavily towards research and away from teaching. Although lecturing

has historically been the dominant mode of instruction, it was traditionally supported by various forms of interactive small group teaching such as tutorials and

seminars, and by advising and mentoring of students on an individual basis. The

pressure to spend more time on research has led to the dwindling of these interactive teaching functions among faculty, and their placement in the hands of (largely untrained) teaching assistants (TAs). Thus ‘‘straight lecturing’’ (often in classes

of several hundred students) has increasingly become faculty’s main or sole mode

of teaching.

This trend has its roots in the 1950’s and ’60’s with a progressive shift from private to public funding for university research. The Federal Government offered increasing funds to carry out large-scale basic research and projects with both military

and industrial/commercial relevance (Kevles, 1979; Fusfield, 1986). Professional success in academe is now clearly defined in terms of research grant writing and publication. This imbalance is reflected in the departmental and institutional rewards systems for tenure and promotion in which research achievements both

outweigh and are more stringently defined than teaching or service work. While the

scholarship of teaching is a lively and growing area of intellectual dialogue on campuses nationwide, its application to criteria for faculty rewards is barely developed

and under-acknowledged (Boyer, 1990). The main mechanism by which teaching effectiveness is judged, namely student course evaluation surveys administered by institutions, are widely acknowledged to be poor measures of teaching performance

and even poorer measures of student learning gains (Kulik, 2001).

The consequences of this situation have not gone unnoticed. Concerns about the

quality of STEM undergraduate education have been raised in a number of reports,

notably, those of the National Science Foundation (Shaping the Future, 1996), the

National Research Council/the National Academy of Sciences: Transforming Undergraduate Education (1999), Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (2003), and, most recently, Rising above the

Gathering Storm (2005). There has also been a rising demand for course assessment

tools that more accurately reflect student learning (Hunt & Peligrino, 2002) by accreditation boards (and others) who no longer view grades given by faculty as acceptable evidence of student learning. State legislatures have also expressed concerns about the quality of undergraduate education (e.g., Colorado Governor, Bill

Owens’ State of the State address, January 2006) and departments are increasingly

called upon to define objectives for student learning and demonstrate their attainment (Wergin, 2005; Peterson and Einarson, 2001).

Although many STEM faculty are currently seeking to improve the effectiveness

of their teaching and to develop more accurate ways to assess their students’ learning, they do so in the face of deterrents in the faculty rewards structure. In our

interview studies, pre-tenured faculty commonly report that they are strongly counseled by their mentors to defer an interest in teaching until after they gain tenure—

often seven or so years into their careers. In our evaluation work for two of the five

major chemistry initiatives sponsored by the National Science Foundation1 that

have developed and tested modular materials and methods for the teaching of undergraduate chemistry, three active young faculty contributors to that initiative

were denied tenure on the grounds of their ‘‘over-focus’’ on educational scholarship

(Seymour, 2001). Panelists and participants at the 1998 National Institute of

Science Education (NISE) Forum on the future of STEM education concluded, with

regret, that younger faculty should be advised to defer their interest in improving

their teaching and assessment methods and avoid the introduction of education

scholarship into their tenure portfolios (NISE, 1998).

2. Consequences for current and future STEM undergraduates

The lower value placed on teaching compared with research both in STEM faculty

attitudes and in academic salary and rewards structures has consequences for the

quality of both undergraduate and K–12 education in science and mathematics.

18

A. STEM undergraduates’ problems with their learning experiences

In Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (1997), Nancy

Hewitt and I discussed our findings from a study of field-switching and persistence

among well-qualified students (i.e., those with SAT mathematics scores of 650 or

above) who entered science, mathematics and engineering majors in seven institutions of different types. Across all seven campuses, we found that reports of poor

learning experiences were by far the most common complaint both of those who

switched out of science, mathematics, and engineering majors (90 percent) and of

graduating seniors in those majors (74 percent).

Undergraduates’ problems with what they referred to as ‘‘poor teaching’’ ranked

first among 23 types of problems with their majors identified by graduating seniors

in six of the seven institutions. Unsatisfactory learning experiences in their science

and mathematics courses were the primary cause of switchers losing their incoming

interest in the sciences, and moving into disciplines where they had better educational experiences. The students’ concerns about how their courses were taught

focused on the following issues:

• Courses (and the curriculum overall) were over-stuffed with material and delivered at too fast a pace for comprehension, reflection, application, or retention;

• Faculty paid insufficient attention to preparing their courses, selecting course

content and materials at an appropriate level and depth, or presenting them

in a logical sequence;

• Objectives and content of class and lab did not ‘‘fit’’ together; students did not

perceive the conceptual connections between them; (for example, students

commonly reported that they did not know why they were conducting particular lab experiments); and saw lack of coherence between course content

and tests, the text, and/or homework;

• Conceptual material was little applied, illustrated, or discussed;

• Curved grading systems disengaged grades from learning and from students’

perceptions of mastery; created artificial and demoralizing forms of competition; and made collaborative peer learning difficult;

• Faculty showed or expressed dislike or disinterest in teaching;

• Faculty appeared to distance themselves from first-and second-year students,

and seemed insufficiently available for help and advice;

• Faculty modes of teaching suggested that they took little responsibility for

student learning, such as checking to see if students were understanding

class material;

• Faculty did not clarify their learning objectives for students and showed little

knowledge of pedagogy other than lecturing;

• Able students became bored by their introductory science courses despite

their strong incoming interest in science;

• Many students developed instrumental attitudes towards their STEM education: they focused on grades rather than mastery, cheated to beat the curve,

and did not retain content knowledge that they memorized mainly for tests.

The aspects of introductory classes that discouraged young women were different

from those that deterred young men from continuing in STEM majors (Seymour,

1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Broadly, features of faculty teaching that reflected

the weed-out system (such as fast pace, work and content overload, harsh competition created by curve grading) were far more effective in prompting male students

to switch. Young women suffered from different aspects of STEM faculty’s approach

to teaching undergraduates: they experienced rapid loss of their incoming confidence

because they were unable to establish with their professors the kind of interactive

learning and support they had enjoyed with high school teachers. Faculty’s failure

to encourage them was taken as active discouragement. This was compounded in

departments where hostile treatment from male peers was a daily experience. Able

women quickly came to doubt whether they belonged in the major, and doubts

shared with their families provoked more encouragement to switch out of the

sciences than was experienced by similarly placed male peers. The result in our own

university was that women were switching out of STEM majors with higher Predicted Grade Point Averages (PGPA) than the men who persisted in them.

We concluded that problems with the quality of undergraduate education especially in the first and second years were a major determinant of the consistently

high field-switching rates (40 percent to 60 percent) reported for STEM majors in

the American Freshman studies of the Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

19

(HERI, 1992). The students’ descriptions of their experiences and their responses to

them were also consistent with the view (directly articulated by some students) that

many faculty disliked teaching, did not value it as a professional activity, and

lacked incentives to learn how to teach effectively:

About the end of the semester he said, ‘‘I guess by now you’ve all realized that

the university is not for teaching students.’’ He put it plain, right out in the

open. . ..In effect, he was telling us, ‘‘If you want to succeed here, you’re going

to have to do it by yourself.’’ (male, white, science senior)

The students also reported experiences with science faculty who seemed to enjoy

their teaching, took pains to be well organized and clear, and who took an active

interest in their students. Seniors were, however, aware of the research pressures

on their professors that limited the time and energy they could give to teaching.

They were less aware of the tenure and rewards system that made it difficult for

faculty interested in education to improve their pedagogy or that made it a highly

risky form of activity for pre-tenured faculty.

Some caveats: Students can only describe their classroom problems in light of

what they know about teaching and learning from current and prior experience. For

less well-prepared students, their undergraduate STEM course experiences often

mirror in an extreme form the limitations of their high school science learning experiences. These are characterized by passive reception of information (rather than active engagement with ideas), minimalist attitudes to reading and writing, formulaic

approaches to learning focused on memorization rather than conceptual grasp, and

carrying out tasks rather than thinking. Students also lack a conceptual framework

based in cognitive science research to explain why the pedagogy they have experienced does not enable their learning. Most students in the study simply did not

know what other modes of teaching and learning might be available and regarded

the lecture format and curved grading systems as inevitable parts of undergraduate

life. Lack of knowledge of what alternative pedagogical methods would entail helps

to explain a certain amount of student resistance to the introduction of new pedagogies. When faculty begin to address the problems students identify by teaching

in ways that require more active student engagement and responsibility, students

often resist these unfamiliar, more demanding pedagogies—at least initially. Better

the devil you know. . ..

How some STEM faculty have responded to their students’ learning problems that

they also have recognized is discussed in the next section.

B. The lower level of importance that faculty assign to their teaching role (whether

by choice or career necessity) is also reflected in inadequate educational preparation of graduate students for their roles, either as teaching assistants

(TAs), or as young faculty despite faculty’s increased dependence on TAs to provide interactive learning support to students. As I have recently outlined (Seymour,

2005) the need to prepare TAs was first mooted in the 1930s and it continued to

be proposed throughout the following decades. However, in a historical review,

Nyquist, Abbott and Wulff (1989) comment on the slow progress of universities to

provide formal professional development for teaching assistants. After the first national conference on TA issues in 1989, more universities began to offer TA preparation in an effort to improve undergraduate education. However, the available research (summarized in Seymour, 2005, Chapter 10) indicates that most institutions

and disciplines either do not offer formal educational preparation for their TAs or

offer programs that are informal or limited in scope—most commonly, short orientation sessions that are not discipline- or course-specific. Furthermore, most existing

programs do not ground TAs’ work in learning research and the teaching practices

that derive from this body of knowledge. Most TA training (sic) programs give advice on management of their lab and recitation sections that are relevant only to

the lecture mode. Although the STEM disciplines are major employers of TAs in

their large introductory classes, Shannon, Twale, and Moore (1998) found that TAs

in science, mathematics, and engineering classes were the least likely to receive appropriate educational preparation for their teaching support work. This ongoing situation significantly contributes to poor-quality undergraduate learning experiences.

It is of particularly concern because STEM undergraduates attest the importance

of good TAs to their learning and academic survival (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).

A large body of cognitive research and classroom practice exists upon which

STEM faculty can draw in rethinking their own teaching and in developing appropriate educational preparation for their TAs. Broadly, research on learning (cf.,

Brandsford, et al., 1999; 2000) proposes that students progressively build a personal

knowledge framework based on what they already understand, and, that conceptual

20

mastery and resolution of misconceptions is best accomplished in active engagement

with ideas and problems, including interactive exchanges with teachers, TAs, and

peers. Strategies that reflect the findings of cognitive science include a shift in approach from teaching to enabling learning, a focus on problem-based and contextual

learning, inquiry and hands-on discovery, and reduction in the breadth of ‘‘coverage’’

in favor of strategies that encourage deeper understanding. Students are also encouraged to connect and apply their knowledge and to take more responsibility for

their own learning. Teachers are encouraged to articulate their learning objectives,

match their selection of materials, content emphases, and learning assessments to

these, make their learning objectives and expectations clear to students, and ‘‘signpost’’ for students the intellectual path they are taking through the content (Seymour, 2001). Teaching methods derived from this body of theoretical and applied

knowledge are increasingly referred to as ‘‘scientific teaching’’ (Handelsman et al.,

2004). The available literature is too large to summarize here, but, in addition to

theoretical and research publications, it includes descriptions and evaluation results

from STEM faculty’s endeavors to implement these principles in their approaches

to the teaching and development of class and lab materials and methods—a body

of work that constitutes a growing scholarship of education among an active minority of STEM faculty.

The research, its applications, and outcomes have, in recent years, been offered

in forms that are very accessible to faculty who are interested in understanding

more about how students learn and how best to enable learning in their own teaching work (reviewed by DeHaan, 2005). Strategies for teaching student to be active,

interactive, and independent learners, and for designing problem-based, inquiry-focused class and lab work are offered on a number of web sites, for example: http:/

/thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu, www.udel.edu/pbl/, www.bioquest.org,

www.provost.harvard.edu/it¥fund/moreinfo¥grants.php?id=79. Information about

workshops that give faculty hands-on experience in using active learning methods

(including working with chemistry modules) is available at

www.cchem.berkeley.edu/∼midp. Some web sites focus on particular disciplines: In

chemistry: http://chemconnections.llnl.gov, PLTL: www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/-

chemwkssp/nde.html, CPR: www.molsci.ucla.edu/default.htm, OGIL:

www.pogil.org/. In physics: TEAL: http://evangelion.mit.edu.edu/802TEAL3D,

SCALE-UP: www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup.html. In biology: BioSciEdNet(BEN):

www.biosciencenet.org, Bioquest: www.bioquest.org/BQLibrary/bqvolvi.html, undergraduate bioinformatics: www.cellbioed.org/article.cfm?ArticleID+157. Others sites

(such as those offered by the University of Wisconsin) offer assistance to faculty in

designing learning assessments (tests, projects, etc.) that reflect course learning objectives (using the Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide); and in obtaining feedback on the degree to which students assess their learning gains in particular aspects of their courses (the on-line ‘‘Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains’’ instrument). Both sites can be found at www.flaguide.org. I have been closely involved

in the development of both sites and attest to their widespread use by STEM faculty. The University of Wisconsin Center for Education Research also houses web

sites offering practical advice to faculty in collaborative learning methods and in the

use of technology in their classrooms.

Notwithstanding its growing availability, this knowledge is still unknown to and

unused by most, STEM faculty, and the knowledge and expertise of education faculty at their own institutions is often ignored or discounted. A survey of 123 research-intensive universities nationwide by the Reinvention Center at Stony Brooke

(2001) found evidence of scientific teaching among only small numbers STEM faculty at approximately 20 percent of these institutions. Failure to convey this knowledge to TAs perpetuates in the next generation of faculty the limited knowledge of

research-grounded teaching practices and limited priorities that characterize current

faculty teaching. Both our TA study, and that done by French and Russell (2002),

note how quickly graduate students can develop misconceptions about how learning

takes place, and assume unfortunate attitudes towards teaching that they observe

in their professors. Once established, these prove hard to dislodge. Hammrich (1996)

found that TAs commonly believe student understanding to be a matter of ‘‘automatic transmission or absorption’’ rather than an ‘‘active process of interpreting information and constructing understanding’’ (p.8). In the innovative science courses

included in our study, one (happily minority) source of TA resistance was the requirement that all TAs use the same active, interactive, inquiry-based methods that

they were being taught to use in their lab and recitation sections. This affronted

some TAs’ presumption that, like faculty, they had the right to teach however they

saw fit. Creating change among the existing STEM faculty, though not (as I shall

later argue) impossible, is a more difficult endeavor than choosing to give graduate

21

students an adequate preparation for their present and future teaching roles that

is grounded in a researched-based understanding of how students learn.

C. STEM undergraduate under-preparation and limitations of the K–12

teaching force

Lack of faculty support for science and mathematics teaching careers among their

STEM majors, coupled with a historic decline in the number of high-ability women

entering mathematics teaching (noted by Schlechty and Vance as early as 1983),

and perceptions of lower status and pay for K–12 teachers in the general American

population, have combined to create a serious shortfall of discipline-qualified mathematics and science teachers in middle and high schools. The situation has been welldocumented over the last decade (e.g., Gafney and Weiner, 1995; Schugart &

Hounsell, 1995; Clewell & Villegas, 2001), and was most recently cited in the National Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2005).

Problems of shortage are compounded by concerns about quality. The 1990–91

Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS) warned that 72 percent of public secondary

school mathematics teachers and 38 percent of science teachers had not earned a

Bachelor’s degree in their disciplines and that those with a disciplinary qualifications were an aging group that was not being replaced by entrants to the profession.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 39 percent of school districts had vacancies for mathematics and science teachers, of which 19 percent went

unfulfilled. In that year also, President Clinton, in his State of the Union address,

urged that, ‘‘We should challenge more of our finest young people to consider a career in teaching.’’ Whether in response to this appeal or to a down-turn in the job

market, in the late 1990s, the numbers of non-STEM baccalaureate entrants to the

teaching profession began to rise. However, this was not the case for science and

mathematics teachers where the shortfall continued to worsen. In 2000, National

Science Teachers’ Association nationwide survey showed that 61 percent of high

schools and 48 percent of middle schools were experiencing difficulty in locating

qualified science teachers to fill vacancies and that many schools were obliged to

fill vacancies with less qualified or temporary teachers. In 2004, Bruillard reported

that districts were importing international K–12 teachers to fill their mathematics

and science vacancies. The situation has been most acute in schools with more than

20 percent minority enrollment (Clewell & Villegas, 2001). States such as Texas,

Florida, and New Jersey with high mathematics and science teacher vacancies have

turned to alternative or emergency certification of people with some STEM background, such as retired military personnel. Most recently, the National Academy of

Sciences (2005) report warned that only 41 percent of U.S. middle school students

had a mathematics teacher who had majored in mathematics education (let alone

an undergraduate mathematics major), while, internationally, the average is 71 percent and in many countries is greater than 90 percent.

The consequences of the shortage of qualified mathematics and science teachers

in middle and high schools were evident in our Talking About Leaving study findings. The discovery of a gap between the levels of knowledge with which students

had graduated from their high schools and those demanded of them in introductory

college mathematics and science courses was a common experience. However, it was

evident that, in 39 percent of all student statements about problems with their educational experiences, the gap reflected serious under-preparation. There was no difference between the switchers (40 percent) and the persisters (38 percent) in this

regard. However failure to find remedial help from a tutor, study group, or other

means in order to make up the gap was mentioned as a factor in switching.

Many switchers and persisters who had taken Advanced Placement mathematics

and science courses were shocked to find that these courses had been offered at too

low a level to adequately prepare them for their first college courses. Their experience is echoed in findings of significant variations in the quality of AP courses first

reported by Juillerat et al. (1997). There were also regional and race/ethnicity patterns in our findings on under-preparation problems. Students at the east coast

state university in our sample experienced the greatest variability in the reliability

of their high school science and mathematics grades as an indicator of their collegelevel work. They expressed frustration that neither they nor their parents could

have known the extent of their under-preparation from their grades or their teachers’ evaluations of their work. Students of color from high schools predominantly attended by students of the same race/ethnicity were at particular risk of a phenomenon that we labeled, ‘‘over-confident and under-prepared.’’ Teachers, parents,

and community members had sent students to college with a strong sense that they

could succeed in STEM majors, only to find that their science and mathematics

preparation seriously undermined their chances. This group gave some of the most

heart-rending accounts that we heard in this study of their failed efforts to close

22

the preparation gap. Rather than identifying inadequacies in educational provision

as the cause of their problems, most of these students blamed themselves. These

students were at high risk, not only of switching, but of dropping out of college altogether. Faculty attitudes towards under-prepared students also played a role in the

loss of able students. Questioning the adequacy of their high school preparation was

highly evident at institutions where we found the weed-out tradition to be strongest:

loss of confidence and discouragement engendered by low grades were highly ranked

as a cause of switching in the two western state universities where weed-out assessment practices were strong, particularly in the colleges of engineering.

Teaching assistants in our 2005 study also struggled with high variability in the

high school preparation of the undergraduates with whom they worked in recitation

and lab sections. The 42 chemistry TAs at the University of California, Berkeley

who were helping to prepare students to enter chemistry majors, expected undergraduates to enter the course with sufficient knowledge and skills in chemistry and

mathematics to undertake the class work. They assumed that students would be

able to solve problems, operate in the lab, write lab reports, and tackle unfamiliar

problems by using what they already knew. In all of these expectations, they were

disappointed. More than two-thirds of the Berkeley TA sample reported that students arrived under-prepared in the fundamental knowledge and skills needed to

perform at least adequately. Their direct experience with students in their lab and

recitation sections led them to conclude that many did not posses an understanding

of the methods and principles of science and some could not do elementary algebra.

TAs also noted that the writing and study skills of some students were poor. Overall, fewer than one-third of the TAs working in this large introductory chemistry

class felt that most of their students entered the course with the requisite knowledge and skills to undertake it:

A lot of these students have problems, not just with the math, but with basic

algebra and with manipulating equations to get things in the right form and

so on. And the class assumes that they know how to do that kind of thing.

Concern that their first- and second-year students entered their classes under-prepared for their course work was also documented in a survey of 314 TAs in fortyfive courses at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (Luo, Bellows, & Grady, 2000)

in which (as at Berkeley) two-thirds of the TAs assessed their students as underprepared. By contrast, the Berkeley TAs noted that some students were over-prepared for this introductory course. Indeed, the TAs’ largest single teaching difficulty

was the wide variation in the levels of preparation in mathematics, science, writing,

and study skills that their students had received from their pre-college education.

Their testimony underscores the problems both of widespread under-preparation in

middle and high school mathematics and science, and of significant regional and

local disparities in the quality of mathematics and science education offered.

The 110 TAs included in our study were generally not disposed to blame the students for inadequate preparation and we document their efforts to help their students make up for lost ground. However, we also note the irony of STEM faculty

treating under-preparation as an indication of students’ lesser worth given the contribution of STEM faculty as a whole to the continuing shortage of adequately qualified K–12 science and mathematics teachers. In light of the problems this shortage

creates for access, quality, and persistence in undergraduate STEM education, I propose that rethinking the roles and professional development of teaching assistants

offers an opportunity to break part of the cycle that has simultaneously perpetuated

the decline in the perceived value of teaching, diluted the quality of undergraduate

STEM education, and constrained the building of a discipline-educated teaching

force in science and mathematics that is adequate to national needs.

3. Strategies (both underway and needed) that address current difficulties

Given my diagnosis of factors contributing to problems in the quality of undergraduate STEM education, I focus on three main areas of activity that seem to offer

the best promise of improvement. All three involve active efforts in the professional

development of teachers—current and future K–12 science and mathematics teachers, teaching assistants in STEM undergraduate courses, and STEM faculty—based

on methods grounded in research on how students learn.

First some caveats: Faculty will always be at varying stages of readiness to

change their thinking and attitudes about teaching and learning or consider new

practices. Some are already active; others interested, curious, or skeptical; and some

will remain firmly committed to current teaching methods regardless of the evidence

as to the greater benefits of alternative approaches or evidence of failures in what

they are doing now. Providing clear and convincing evidence that innovative forms

23

of teaching are as effective or better than more traditional approaches is always a

necessary but not a sufficient condition for change. The idea that good ideas, supported by convincing evidence of their effectiveness, will spread ‘naturally’ as their

success becomes known, is unfounded. As Kuhn (1970) noted, shifts in scientific theory do not occur as an automatic response to accumulations of data. When the shift

that is called for is one of values, attitudes, and social behavior, the response is,

as Tobias (1992) observed, often unaffected by available evidence. Indeed, there is

research evidence that the personal endorsement of classroom innovations by colleagues who are esteemed for their research standing is more effective than evidence

presented in scientific articles or direct demonstrations of the superior outcomes of

particular methods (Foertsch et al., 1997). Thus, change of whole departments or

institutions in the same time frame is apt to be difficult, and may prove impossible.

Although I am aware of some STEM departments where every member is actively

implementing new forms of teaching and learning, these are a small minority. In

most departments, innovation-minded faculty will be a minority. Whether changes

are mooted by more radical colleagues, by institutional or state leaders, or by outside agencies, departments in which the majority of faculty are committed to the

status quo can effectively resist change. (The exception seems to be accreditation

boards which can and do exercise effective leverage.) Departments have the power

to resist change, partly because of the established tradition of faculty post-tenure

autonomy in matters of academic and professional judgment, and partly because reference to disciplinary standards and practices can be argued by department members to supersede other authorities. While this system has merit for many other reasons, it has proved a serious barrier to widespread faculty use of the many pedagogical alternatives that are freely available to them.

These difficulties suggest two lines of action:

a). Following the argument already laid out, I urge the design and implementation of department-based, discipline- and course-specific, programs for the

professional development and support of teaching assistants (STEM and otherwise). This preparation should expose them to cognitive science research on student learning, the range of teaching approaches and specific methods that this research reports, and offer guided practice in working interactively with students to

enable their learning. In the view of the TAs in our 2005 study, preparation and

support programs were best when attached to the faculty and course that each TA

served rather than broader preparation in departmental or campus-wide programs

that are unrelated to their working experience. As argued earlier, this strategy

holds the promise of preparing the next generation of faculty more appropriately

and adequately for their teaching role than their predecessors and will make the

diffusion of effective educational methods progressively easier with each generation

of STEM graduates.

A set of suggestions for what such a course might contain for TAs who are working with faculty who are implementing innovative courses was offered by TAs in my

2005 study. Grounded in their experience, they sought a course that would:

• introduce them to the scholarship of learning and the educational practices

that support student learning

• give clear guidance as to the principles and methods of the course they are

to work in, its learning objectives, and the methods and materials to be used

in working with students

• model for them pedagogical skills and techniques for working interactively

with students

• guide them in dealing with common problems—handling questions to which

they do not know the answers, disruptive or non-participative group members, and disciplinary problems

• prepare them working alongside faculty for new activities, such as inquirybased labs and teaching students to work with authentic data

• offer practice and feedback on their work

• enable resolution of issues encountered in implementing course activities

through regular (weekly) collegial discussions with each other and their

course faculty

• engage them collegially in the development and refinement of new courses,

including learning assessment, and their faculty’s educational research based

on their courses.

The TAs felt that they learned most when their education was firmly related to

the work they were doing and where they had opportunities to contribute in a collegial manner to course development.

24

b) Secondly, I urge concentration on the professional development and recognition

of STEM faculty who recognize problems in the quality of STEM education, who are

curious about or interested in alternative approaches to teaching and learning, are

open to change, and those who have already begun to work with new material and

methods. Connect these faculty with similarly-interested colleagues in other STEM

departments at the same and other local institutions, and with national disciplinary

networks of innovative STEM faculty, to form mutually-supportive communities of

learner-practitioners. This strategy is discussed in terms of professional development workshops for faculty.

While the Talking About Leaving study was underway, faculty around the country

who had also recognized many of the problems identified by students had begun to

explore and share at conferences and on web sites a body of research-based knowledge about how learning happens and strategies that would better enable it. By the

time the book went to press, the first workshops for faculty wishing to learn how

to teach more actively and interactively were already being held. These were largely

offered by Project Kaleidoscope, organized by Jeanne Narum at the Independent

Colleges Office. Project Kaleidoscope has also taken a leading role in the dissemination of materials that promote and describe scientific teaching and learning methods.

In 2000, the National Science Foundation funded the Multi-Initiative Dissemination (MID) Project workshops which were organized and offered by faculty who were

active in the undergraduate chemistry initiatives also funded by the NSF. These

workshops continued to be held in regional centers until recently when government

funding for the NSF’s STEM education work was reduced. Faculty-led workshops

have proved a highly effective and relatively inexpensive way to:

• make other faculty aware of the range of teaching methods and materials

grounded in cognitive science research available to them

• see these methods modeled

• try them out in a supportive group context, and

• begin to develop their own course material and methods with help from workshop organizers and other participants. This activity continues to be supported beyond the workshop.

The faculty who organize and run the workshops are drawn from a growing pool

of experienced users of scientific teaching materials and methods. They are paid

only a modest stipend and their travel expenses. Workshop evaluators (Lewis &

Lewis, 2006; and Burke, Greenbowe, & Gelder, 2004) point to the power of the

workshop method to change the participants’ conceptions of teaching and learning:

They leave the workshop sessions thinking in a different way about how effectively their students are currently learning and what modifications they might

make to change that. (Burke, Greenbowe, & Gelder, 2004, p. 901)

Teaching practices are well known to be guided by faculty beliefs and conceptions

of teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b); thus genuine improvement in teaching must begin with a change in faculty thinking about teaching and learning (Ho,

2000). Lewis and Lewis (2006) found that in the ChemConnections workshops sessions, 43 percent of respondents were using modules by the following spring and another 13 percent were planning to use them in a future course. A larger proportion

(57 percent) reported a variety of other changes in their teaching practice and 72

percent described a variety of gains from their experience. Lewis & Lewis also found

that uptake of new teaching ideas was greater in workshops lasting two or more

days than in shorter workshops. Among respondents to their follow-up surveys, the

New Traditions workshop evaluators found an even higher rate of uptake (78 percent) of the teaching and learning strategies that they had experienced (Penberthy

& Connolly, 2000). Workshops were found to stimulate faculty new to active learning to try out these strategies. The workshops also helped repeat attenders (i.e.,

those already experimenting to improve their use of these strategies) to deepen their

knowledge and encouraged them to add other methods.

Workshops were also offered as part of the NSF’s Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program; their evaluators (Marder et al., 2001; Sell, 1998) estimated that 81 percent of the 14,400 participants in the UFE workshop program

made moderate or major changes to their courses, affecting an estimated 2.8 million

undergraduates. When the workshops directly addressed teaching methods and provided time for participants to work on their own teaching materials, this was associated with later revision of a course.

As an evaluator for ChemConnections, I observed that the experience of teaching

workshops helps active participants to build and sustain their networks of engaged

25

STEM faculty and expands the pool of faculty with knowledge and expertise to

share. (This is also evident in the Project Kaleidoscope workshops which solicit the

engagement of senior colleagues by requiring faculty to participate in teams that include two senior members of their department or institution.) The capacity of workshops to engage as well as to educate, and to continually extend the networks of

faculty convinced of the value of scientific teaching and learning methods, and ready

to share their work with colleagues, makes them a powerful force for sustained

change. Regional workshops bring together faculty from different institutions and

connect them to like-minded colleagues locally and nationally. These connections are

especially important in supporting faculty who lack departmental colleagues with

similar educational interests. Connections are sustained by correspondence and reinforced by live encounters at conferences and other meetings. (It is notable that

disciplinary conferences have developed education sections to service a growing interest in science education scholarship.) New collaborations form spontaneously,

sustained by the intrinsic pleasures of working with like-minded colleagues to build

web-sites, develop new projects, produce new teaching materials, undertake research, and co-author articles and grant proposals. In short, faculty development

workshops have emerged as a highly productive, cost-effective way to build a nationwide network of STEM faculty who are actively engaged in implementing the principles of scientific teaching and learning in their own courses and ready and able

to share their knowledge and expertise with others.

A third set of strategies suggested by the evidence and arguments that I have offered in this paper is to develop national programs:

• to promote mathematics and science teaching as a rewarding and well-rewarded profession using the resources of the media to reach both students

and their families; to pro-actively recruit existing STEM undergraduates with

an interest in teaching. Incentives might include scholarships or loan waivers,

and removal of additional costs to students of additional years in education

certification preparation.

• to develop and support baccalaureate programs combining STEM disciplinary

degrees with concurrent educational preparation for teaching in the K–12 system. Students would need to be financially supported and mentored through

to their early years as teachers (given the high loss rates in early teaching

careers). My thoughts in this matter reflect those of the 2005 National Academy Report.

The NSF has sought through a number of ongoing programs—Collaboratives for

Excellence in Teacher Preparation, Math and Science Partnerships, the State and

Rural Systemic Initiatives, and a variety of outreach programs that engage STEM

college faculty and their graduate students to work with K–12 mathematics and

science teachers and students—to strengthen the disciplinary preparation of students entering programs of teacher preparation in colleges of education. These will

continue to be needed as infusion of the teaching force with new teachers graduating with degrees in STEM disciplines will take time to build.

As a member of the National Visiting Committees of both the Texas CETP and

the Puerto Rico Math and Science Partnership, I have observed in action the value

of drawing university and college STEM faculty into partnerships with K–12 teachers and the two-way learning and respect that can develop from this. In our own

evaluation of outreach programs using volunteer STEM graduate students, we found

that the positive effects on graduate students working in K–12 classes in increasing

their own interest in teaching and understanding of its challenges were at least as

great as the impact that their classroom work had on the levels of interest in and

understanding of science among their students (Laursen et al., 2004, 2005).

However, as I am not a specialist in K–12 education, beyond these broad suggestions, I would defer to others better qualified to determine the details of a strategic

national plan to address our urgent need for a profound improvement in the quality

of our mathematics and science teaching force.

A Major Caveat

For each of these strategies to make a discernible difference to the quality of both

undergraduate and K–12 STEM education, ways must now be found to address the

fundamental problems with which I began this paper. The beliefs and practices that

determine faculty rewards, incentives, and tenure have to be rebalanced so as to encourage and support scientific modes of teaching and educational scholarship. We

understand what needs to be done. The principles were clearly laid out by the late

Ernest Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate (1990), and,

in 2003, the National Research Council translated these principles into action items.

26

Their recommendations include the following: ‘‘That presidents, deans and department chairs:

• Should use their visible positions to exhort faculty and administrators to

unite in the reform of undergraduate education and dispel the notion that excellence in teaching in incompatible with first-rate research.

• Match the faculty incentive system with the need for reform. Tenure policies,

sabbaticals, awards, adjustments in teaching responsibilities, and administrative support should be used to reinforce those who seek time to improve their

teaching. . .Rewards should go to those who are teaching with research-tested and successful strategies, learning new methods, or introducing and analyzing new assessments in their classrooms. . .

• Consider efforts by faculty who engage students in learning-centered courses

as important activities in matters of tenure, promotions and salary decisions,

and modify promotion and tenure policies in ways that motivate faculty to

spend time and effort on developing new teaching methods or redesigning

courses to be more learning-centered.

• Consider faculty time spent on redesign of introductory courses or in research

focused on teaching and learning a discipline as evidence of productivity as

a teacher-scholar.

• Create more vehicles for educating faculty, graduate students, post-doctoral

fellows, and staff in tested effected pedagogy. Incorporate education about

teaching and learning into graduate training and faculty development programs and fully integrate these into the educational environment and degree

requirements.

• In hiring new faculty and post-doctoral fellows, place greater emphasis on

awareness of new teaching methods, perhaps ear-marking a portion of support packages to fund their attendance at teaching workshops.

As I have argued, we now have a solid, well-disseminated body of theoretical

knowledge and practical know-how upon which to build the capacity of STEM faculty and their TAs as enablers of student learning. What we have lacked is the

moral and political will to create a climate in STEM departments that will support

and reward faculty who use this knowledge to improve student and TA learning.

To do this will take strong leadership from university and college presidents and

senior administrators, acting both individually and collectively. It will also take financial and other forms of leverage from organizations that provide higher education funding—whether to institutions, or more directly to departments and their

members. Such organizations include federal and State legislatures, public and private funding agencies, accreditation boards, university business partners and benefactors. Obviously, it is preferable for all of these efforts to proceed by consultative

rather than adversarial processes. It will also be optimal for the disciplinary and

professional associations that represent faculty interests to work as partners in a

collective endeavor to rethink the rewards, incentive, and tenure structures that

shape the choices and practices of their members.

We have side-stepped this difficult issue throughout the two decades that we have

been aware of its relevance for the problems of quality and access in STEM and K–

12 education. Perhaps we hoped that we could improve the situation without directly addressing it. However, it has now become the elephant in the room that we

can neither ignore nor circumvent. We must now squarely face the issues raised by

the faculty rewards system and find collaborative ways to make it the norm rather

than the exception for faculty in STEM departments to use scientific teaching and

learning methods, to ensure the appropriate professional development of the future

professorate (the graduate students), and to make K–12 teaching by STEM undergraduates once more an honored and encouraged career choice.

In conclusion, I would like to offer praise to the National Science Foundation

and to the many private foundations who have moved us all forward in our understanding of the dimensions of undergraduate STEM education issues, through their

support of STEM education research and program evaluation; who have led the way

in soliciting and funding initiatives with enough scope to promote innovation among

large numbers of STEM faculty; who have encouraged, supported and disseminated

model programs; and who have been ready to grapple with difficult issues such as

under-representation in STEM disciplines of women and people of color. I also commend the NSF for its experimental approach to fostering change. It intentionally

funds innovative, sometime high-risk, programs (such as those that address underrepresentation) and anticipates that not all funded initiatives will work well. In

sum, it is impossible to imagine how limited would be our understanding of the

issues that STEM education faces, what strategies are valuable in addressing them,

27

where barriers lie, and how to move forward, without the work of the NSF and the

foundations.

This said, I nonetheless urge the NSF to more fully complete the experimental

cycle, and invest even more heavily in evaluation and, in particular, long-term evaluation. We do not understand the longer-term positive outcomes—both intended and

unanticipated—of the larger programs. The normal project funding span of five

years is rarely enough time to develop projects to maturity and track their impacts:

it is thus important to fund longitudinal or follow-up studies that can determine the

dimensions of change that these larger initiatives continue to promote.

In November, 2005, I was privileged to represent the U.S. science education research and practitioner community at a multi-national Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting Amsterdam on issues in STEM education. It was clear that the European universities and school systems were struggling with many of the same issues as the United States in attracting, retaining,

and educating effectively their STEM undergraduates. I was struck how much further ahead the U.S. researchers were in their knowledge and experience of how to

harness cognitive science research in the service of improved classroom experiences

for students. The proportion of faculty actively engaged in raising the quality of U.S.

STEM education, though constantly growing, is still a minority. However, it far exceeds the progress made by European colleagues to date in developing, testing, and

disseminating research-grounded materials and methods. Since my return, I have

responded to many requests from conference participants to supply details of available research publications and STEM web-site locations. Despite our (valid) concerns about the poorer performance of U.S. students in international comparisons

of K–12 mathematics and science learning, this is good news.

What is now vital is that, for want of adequate funding, and the will to rebalance

the academic rewards and tenure systems to support scientific teaching and educational scholarship, we do not loose the ground we have gained. We owe our

progress to date to the investments we have made in educational innovation and

program development, in research, evaluation, and testing, and, above all, capacitybuilding among faculty. Our success to date is especially due to the growing networks of STEM faculty who have shown the insight and the will to take change into

their classrooms and labs, and who continue to draw their colleagues into a shared

endeavor to rebuild quality in STEM undergraduate education. I cannot, therefore,

overstate the importance of developing rewards and tenure systems that will support their excellent work and the effective preparation of our future STEM faculty.

References Cited

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brandsford, J.D. & Pellegrino, J.W. (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. National Research Council, Committee on Developments in

the Science of Learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Brandsford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn:

Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. National Research

Council, Committee on Learning Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bruillard, K. (2004, March 8). New Visa Ceiling Called Threat to Teacher Recruitment. The Washington Post, p. A03.

Burke, K.A., Greenbowe, T.J., & Gelder, J. (2004). The Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends and How Effective Are They? Journal of

Chemical Education, 81(6):897–902.

Clewell, B.C., & Villegas, A.M. (2001). Absence Unexcused: Ending Teacher Shortages in High Need Areas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved 3/08/06

from www.urgan.org/url.cfm?ID=310379.

DeHaan, R.L. (2005). The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education, Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2):253–269.

Foertsch, J.M., Millar, S.B., Squire, L., & Gunter, R. (1997). Persuading Professors:

A Study in the Dissemination of Educational Reform in Research Institutions.

Report to the NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Washington DC. Madison: University

of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center.

French, D., & Russell, C. (2002). Do Graduate Teaching Assistants Benefit From

Teaching Inquiry-based Laboratories? Bioscience, 52:1036–41.

Fusfield, H.I. (1986). The Technical Enterprise: Present and Future Patterns. New

York: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Gafney, L., & Weiner, M. (1995). Finding Future Teachers From Among Undergraduate Science and Mathematics Majors. Phi Delta Kappan 76:633–641.

28

Hammrich. P. (1996) Biology Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Conceptions About the

Nature of Teaching. ERIC Database document ED401155, www.eric.ed.gov.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beicher, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., & Wood, W.B. (2004). Scientific

Teaching. Science 304:521–522.

Higher Education Research Institute (1992). The American College Student, 1991:

National Norms for the 1987 and 1989 Freshmen Classes. Los Anglese, CA:

Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Ho, A. (2001). A Conceptual Change Approach to Improving Staff Development: A

Model for Programme Design. The International Journal for Academic Development 5:30–4.

Hunt, E., & Pelligrino, J. (2002). Issues, Examples, and Challenges in Formative Assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 89:73–85.

Juillerat, F., Dubowsky, N., Ridenour, N.V., McIntosh, W.J., & Caprio, M.W. (1997).

Advanced Placement Science Courses: High School-College Articulation Issues.

Journal of College Science Teaching 27:48–52.

Kevles, D.J. (1979) The History of the Scientific Community in Modern America.

New York: Vintage Books.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Kulik, J.A. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research 109:9–25.

Laursen, S., Thiry, H., & Liston, C. (2005). Evaluation of the Science Squad Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder: Career Outcomes of Participation for the Science Squad Members. Boulder,

CO: Report prepared for the Biological Science Initiative and the Howard

Hughes Medical Institute by members of & Evaluation Research, University of

Colorado at Boulder.

Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., Sheff, E., and Coates, C. (2004). Evaluation of the

Science Squad program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University

of Colorado at Boulder: 1. Benefits, Costs, and Trade-offs. Boulder, CO: Report

prepared for the Biological Science Initiative and the Howard Hughes Medical

Institute by members of & Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Lewis, S.E., & Lewis, J.E. (2006). Effectiveness of a Workshop to Encourage Action:

Evaluation From a Post-workshop Survey. Journal of Chemical Education

83(2):299–304.

Liston, C., Laursen, S., Coates, C., &.Thiry, H. (2005). Evaluation of the Teacher

Professor Development Workshops for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the

University of Colorado at Boulder. Report to BSI and HHMI. Ethnography &

Evaluation Research: University of Colorado, Boulder.

Luo, J., Bellows,L., & Grady, M. (2000). Classroom Management Issues for Teaching

Assistants. Research in Higher Education 41:353–83.

Marder, C., McCullough, J., Perakis, S., & Buccino, A. (2001). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) Program. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Directorate of Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, by SRI International, Higher Education Policy and Evaluation Program. See also references therein. Retrieved 4/9/04 from http://www.nsf.gov/

pubs/2001/nsf01123/

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing

America for a Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Prospering in the Global

Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology.

NAS: Washington, DC. Available at www.nap.edu

National Institute for Science Education (1998). Indicators of Success in Post-secondary SMET Education: Shapes of the Future. Synthesis and proceedings of

the Third Annual NISE Forum. Editor, S.B. Millar. University of Wisconsin,

Madison.

National Research Council (2003). Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Editor, DeHaan, R.L. Washington,

DC. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education.

National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology.

Report on its review of undergraduate education by the advisory committee to

the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Chairman M.D. George.

NSF: Arlington, VA.

29

National Science Teachers’ Association (2000). NSTA Releases Nationwide Survey

of Science Teacher Credentials, Assignments, and Job Satisfaction. Arlington,

VA: NSTA. Retrieved 3/08/06 from http.//www.nsta.org/survey3/.

National Research Council (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education in

Science, Mathematics, and Engineering. Committee on Undergraduate Science

Education, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

Nyquist, J., Abbott, R., & Wulff, D. (1998). Thinking Developmentally About TA

Training in the 1990s. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. (Teaching Assistant Training in the 1990s) 39:7–14.

Penberthy, D., & Connolly, M. (2000). Final Report on Evaluation of New Traditions

Workshops for Chemistry Faculty: Focus on Follow-up Surveys Documenting

Outcomes for Workshop Participants. Report prepared for New Traditions

Project by the LEAD Center. Retrieved 4/2/04 from http://www.cae.wisc.edu/

?lead/pages/internal.html.

Reinvention Center at Stony Brook (2001). Reinventing Undergraduate Education:

Three Years After the Boyer Report. Retrieved, 7/15/03 from www.sunysb.edu/

reinventioncenter/boyerfollowup.pdf.

Schugart, S., & Hounsell, P. (1995) Subject Matter Competence and the Recruitment

Retention of Secondary Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32:63–70.

Schlechty, P.C. & Vance, V.S. (1983). Recruitment, Selection, Retention: The Shape

of the Teaching Office. Elementary School Journal 83:469–487.

Sell, G.R. (1998). A Review of Research-based Literature Pertinent to an Evaluation

of Workshop Programs and Related Professional Development Activities for Undergraduate Faculty in the Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering. Report

commissioned by SRI International as part of an evaluation for the Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program for the National Science Foundation. Available from the author.

Seymour, E. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Science

Teaching. With Melton, G., Wiese, D.J., and Pedersen-Gallegos, L. Boulder, CO:

Rowman and Littlefeld.

Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the Processes of Change in U.S. Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Science Education 86:79–105.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates

Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Seymour, E. (1995). Explaining the Loss of Women From Science, Mathematics, and

Engineering Undergraduate Majors: An Explanatory Account. Science Education 79(4):437–473.

Shannon, D., Twale, D. & Moore, M. (1998). TA Teaching Effectiveness: The Impact

of Training and Teaching Experience. Journal of Higher Education 69:440–466.

Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and

Most Don’t. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser. M. (1996a). Congruence Between Intention and Strategy in

University Science Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching. Higher Education 32:77–

87.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Changing Approaches to Teaching: A Relational

Perspective. Studies in Higher Education 21(3):275–284.

U.S. Department of Education (1997). America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession,

1993–94. NCES 9–460. Washington, DC: National Center for Education statistics.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

BIOGRAPHY FOR ELAINE SEYMOUR

Elaine Seymour was for sixteen years Director of Ethnography & Evaluation Research (E&ER), located in the Center to Advance Teaching Research and Teaching

in the Social Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The group includes

both social and physical scientists whose research focuses on issues of change in

STEM education and careers, including evaluation of initiatives seeking to improve

quality and access in these fields. The issues of women in these disciplines have

been a special focus and, in recognition of this work WEPAN awarded Elaine its

2002 Betty Vetter Award for Research.

Elaine’s best-known published work may be Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, (1997) co-authored with Nancy M. Hewitt. She and

E&ER members recently published ‘‘Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in

College Science Courses,’’ which draws on findings from three science education initiatives. She and her group have been evaluators for several national and institution-based innovations including two NSF-funded chemistry consortia and (currently) an NSF ADVANCE grant intended to accelerate the career progress of

STEM faculty women.

Notwithstanding her semi-retirement, she is currently working with E&ER members on a comparative, longitudinal study that explores the benefits and costs of undergraduate research experiences (and the processes whereby benefits are generated) as perceived by students and faculty at liberal arts colleges. She is also

working on a study of the nature and sources of resistance to innovation that draws

on data from several science education initiatives. Elaine has served as an evaluator

and as a member of national visiting committees and advisory boards for many

STEM education change projects. In 2005, she was invited to represent the U.S. experience in working to improve undergraduate science education at a multi-nation

OECD conference in Amsterdam. She is a sociologist and a British-American whose

education (Keele, Glasgow, and Colorado) and career have been conducted on both

sides of the Atlantic.

46

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Seymour.

Dr. Wieman, I should underscore just how much—how impressed

we, on the Committee, are with your use of your Nobel award in

the furtherance of changing the education method. And that really

is very impressive.

So maybe you want to talk about that a little bit in the course

of your testimony, if you will.

Dr. Wieman.

STATEMENT OF DR. CARL WIEMAN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER

Dr. WIEMAN. Thank you.

My main points are simple: one, undergraduate science education

is based on an obsolete model and is doing a poor job at providing

the education that is needed today; and two, we now know how to

47

fix it; and three, until you fix it, you can’t fix K–12 science education.

So the basis of these claims are that there is a relatively recent

phenomenon, but a number of people, like myself, are doing education research within the science disciplines, like physics, particularly at the college level. And this scientific approach to science

education provides a growing body of evidence showing that the

great majority of college students, both science majors and nonscience majors, are not gaining worthwhile understanding from

their science classes. Most students are learning that science is

boring and little more than useless memorization of facts that are

forgotten after the exam.

Our methods are different from those of Elaine Seymour, but our

research indicates a similar conclusion. Namely, science majors are

not being created in college. Rather, they are primarily the few students that, because of some unusual predisposition rather than

ability, manage to survive their undergraduate science instruction.

However, this same science education research that shows the

dismal results produced by the traditional science instruction is

also showing us how to improve this situation. Experimental teaching methods have been developed that achieve much better learning and attitudes about science for most students. Widely adopted,

these methods would increase the pipeline of scientists, produce a

more technically-literate and skilled general public, and provide

better trained K–12 teachers.

I emphasize this latter point, because our studies show that the

future K–12 teachers are among the worst in their learning of

science and math in college. That is my claim that unless you improve science education at the college level, you are wasting time

and money on trying to make major improvements in K–12.

So why haven’t universities changed undergraduate science education so that their students do learn math and science much better?

They haven’t done it, because, first, while there has never been

a shortage of opinions, only recently has there been real data showing how badly they were doing and how could—it could be improved. Second, the computer technology required for economicallypractical widespread implementation of these new approaches also

didn’t exist until recently. And finally, and most important, there

are no real incentives to make changes, other than altruism.

I have spent a lot of time visiting and evaluating universities,

and I can assure you that their financial support, prestige, and the

tuition they can change is quite—charge is quite unrelated to what

their students are actually learning in science. To make these

changes I talked about will require a significant investment of

money and effort. And while these costs are small compared to the

total spent on either K–12 or higher education, resources are tight,

particularly at public universities.

So how best to bring about this desired change?

I would argue that the first priority needs to be incentives, which

can either be positive or negative, to change education at the department level of the large research universities. For better or

worse, these research universities set the standards for undergraduate science education in the United States and train nearly

48

all of the college science teachers. The department is the unit for

science education, and to have sustained change, departments, as

a whole, must change how they approach science education. Virtually none of the federal support for improving college science education addresses the issue at this crucial level. The limited support

available is typically spent on short-term projects that involve one

or two people per department spread across as many institutions

and departments as possible. These programs have had some excellent results, but they are doomed to largely remain localized and

short-term, because they ignore organizational realities. It is like

trying to change the direction of stream flows by scooping out a few

buckets of water and pouring it in a different direction.

So in summary, enough is known about how college students

learn science and how to measure and achieve that learning so that

undergraduate science education can be dramatically improved for

all students. However, it is not going to happen until colleges, particularly the large research universities, have incentives to make

the investment required to bring about this change.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wieman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL WIEMAN

My main points are simple.

1) Undergraduate science education is based on an obsolete model and is doing

a poor job at providing the education that is needed today.

2) We now know how to fix it.

3) Until it is fixed, you can’t fix K–12 science education.

Let me explain the basis of these claims.

There is a relatively recent phenomenon that a number of people like myself are

doing education research within the science disciplines like physics, particularly at

the college level. This scientific approach to science education provides a growing

body of evidence showing that the great majority of college students (both science

majors and non-science majors) are not gaining worthwhile understanding from

their science classes. This research utilizes the improved understanding of how people think and learn coming out of cognitive science and educational psychology, and

applies this understanding to the specific situations of individual college science

courses. By studying the mental characteristics of expert scientists and those of novice students we are able to better delineate the desired outcome of science education

and then measure how well different instructional practices affect students’ thinking

and understanding to achieve this outcome. The data show that most students are

learning that science is boring and is little more than useless memorization of facts

that are quickly forgotten after the exam. Our methods are different than those of

Elaine Seymour, but some of our research indicates a similar conclusion to hers.

Namely, science majors are not being created in college through educating students

as to the utility and intellectual challenges and rewards of science. Instead, successful science majors are primarily those few students that, because of some unusual

predisposition rather than special ability to do science, manage to survive their undergraduate science instruction.

Modern society has very different needs for undergraduate science education than

in the distant past when our current instructional approaches were developed. Then

the goal of college science education was primarily to train only the tiny fraction

of the population that was preselected to become the next generation of scientists.

Now we need to educate a far larger and more diverse student population to become

scientifically literate citizens and the technically skilled work force required for a

modern economy to thrive. This new, broader educational need does not eliminate

the need to educate future generations of scientists. However, all the data suggests

that improving science education for all students is likely to produce more and better-educated scientists and engineers as well.

The same science education research that shows the dismal results produced by

the standard traditional college science classes are also showing us how to improve

this situation. Experimental teaching methods have been developed that achieve

49

much better learning and attitudes about science for most students. These methods

recognize that it is not sufficient to follow the traditional practice of simply presenting the material as it is understood and appreciated by expert scientists. This

just overloads the students’ cognitive processing capabilities and is perceived in a

very different way than is intended. Research shows that effective science instruction recognizes the gap between the initial thinking of the student and that of the

expert and provides structure and feedback to guide the student to actively construct their own ‘‘expert-like’’ understanding. This understanding must be based on

the foundation of their prior thinking, which may be wrong, and hence must be explicitly examined and adequately addressed. Desirable features of instruction include presentation of ideas, homework, and exam problems in a form that has some

obvious real-world connection and utility rather than as mere abstractions, and

making reasoning, sense-making, and reflection explicit parts of all aspects of the

course. Inherent in this more effective research-based instruction is the need to assess the individual student’s background and thinking and provide effective feedback and guidance. This would not have been practical to do on a widespread basis

in the past, but computer technology now makes this economically feasible. More

research and development of this technology, particularly software, is still needed

to fully utilize this potential, however.

Widely adopted, these instructional methods and technology would increase the

pipeline of scientists, produce a more technically literate and skilled general public,

and provide better trained K–12 teachers. I emphasize this latter point because our

studies show that the future K–12 teachers are among the worst in their learning

of science and math in college. Elementary education majors have by far the least

expert beliefs about science of all the different populations of college students that

my group has measured. We also found that in a typical class of graduating elementary education majors who had completed all their math and science requirements,

30 percent of the students thought that the continents float on the oceans, and virtually none of them were able to answer the question, ‘‘if it takes you two minutes

to drive a mile, how fast are you going?’’ These future teachers have to learn math

and science better than this in college if they are to teach it decently! That is why

I claim that unless you improve science education at the college level first, you are

wasting your time and money on trying to make major improvements in K–12.

So why haven’t colleges changed undergraduate education so that their students

learn science much better? They haven’t done it because, first, while there has never

been a shortage of strongly held opinions, only recently has there been real data

showing how badly the traditional science education was failing for most students

and how it could be improved. Also, while enough research has been done to clearly

establish the general problem and the characteristics of more effective approaches,

this work does not cover all subjects and grade levels, and the results are not yet

widely known throughout the science community. Ultimately, what is needed is research and development to establish the specifics of how to measure and achieve

effective learning across the full range of college science courses for the full range

of college student populations. That does not yet exist, although it is clear how to

do it. The second reason colleges have not yet changed is that the computer technology required for widespread implementation of these new teaching methods also

did not exist until recently. Finally, and most important, there are no incentives to

make such changes other than altruism. I spend a lot of time visiting and evaluating colleges and universities, and I can assure you that their financial support,

prestige, and the tuition they can charge is quite unrelated to what their students

are actually learning in science. Making the necessary educational changes, while

inexpensive compared to the total spent on either K–12 or higher education, will require significant investments of money and effort. With budgets so tight, particularly at public Universities, no one should be surprised that science faculty and departments primarily invest their time and resources in trying to excel in areas for

which success is recognized and rewarded.

So how can one bring about this desired and attainable improvement in undergraduate science education?

I would argue that the first priority needs to be incentives to change education

at the departmental level of the large research universities. These research universities set the standards for undergraduate science education in the U.S. and train

nearly all the college science teachers. The department is the unit for science education and to have sustained change, departments as a whole must change how they

approach science education.

Virtually none of the federal support for improving college science education addresses the issue at this crucial level. The limited support available is typically

spent on short-term projects that involve one or two people per department spread

out across as many institutions as possible. This is a politically attractive approach

50

and these programs have had some excellent results, but they are doomed to largely

remain localized and short-term, because they ignore organizational realities. They

are the equivalent of trying to change the direction that a stream flows by scooping

out a few buckets of water and pouring it in a different direction.

In summary, enough is known about how college students learn science and how

to measure and achieve that learning so that undergraduate science education can

be dramatically improved for all students. However that is not going to happen until

colleges, particularly the large research universities, have incentives to make the investment required to bring about this change.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CARL WIEMAN

Carl Wieman grew up in the forests of Oregon and received his B.S. from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973 and his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1977. He has been at the University of Colorado since 1984 where he holds

the titles of Distinguished Professor of Physics, Presidential Teaching Scholar, and

Fellow of JILA. He has carried out research in a variety of areas of atomic physics

and laser spectroscopy, including using laser light to cool atoms. His research has

been recognized with numerous awards including the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001

for the creation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a vapor. He has worked on a variety of research and innovations in teaching physics to a broad range of students,

including the Physics Education Technology Project, (http://www.colorado.edu/

physics/phet) that creates educational online interactive simulations. He is a 2001

recipient of the National Science Foundation’s Distinguished Teaching Scholar

Award and the Carnegie Foundation’s 2004 US University Professor of the Year

Award. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and chairs the Academy Board on Science Education.

51

52

Mr. EHLERS. [Presiding] Thank you very much for your testimony. And I appreciate all of the testimony that I have heard. I,

of course, have previous affiliation with the University of Colorado,

and so it is like old home week here.

Dr. Burris, and I have got a friend who taught at Beloit for a

while, I am pleased to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN E. BURRIS, PRESIDENT, BELOIT

COLLEGE

Dr. BURRIS. My name is John Burris, and I am the President of

Beloit College.

I speak today from the perspective of a President of a liberal arts

college with a long and distinguished record in science and math

education. My comments are also guided by my career as a research biologist and educator, most recently as the Director of the

Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, an institution dedicated to research and graduate education.

Although there are a number of challenges in science and engineering education, I will focus my comments today on STEM education at the college undergraduate level.

First, let me summarize my main recommendation for your consideration.

As NSF’s budget is doubled in the next 10 years, I recommend

that double dollars be targeted for building and sustaining a robust, learning environment for undergraduates in colleges and universities across the United States.

It is important to note that we already have a good idea of how

to improve undergraduate STEM education as many years of direct

observation and research have shown that students learn science

best in small classes with extensive hands-on experience using an

inquiry-based approach. Lectures and laboratories are often

merged, and there is ample opportunity for learning in groups and

group discussions, not just learning by individuals working alone.

At Beloit College, the success of these approaches is apparent.

For in contrast to national averages, we retain to graduation more

than 80 percent of the students who express an interest in a STEM

major. We also introduce non-science majors to STEM in a meaningful way, helping to ensure an educated public that will provide

the support and encouragement needed if the United States is

going to remain the world leader in science and technology.

In fact, the primary reason I came to Beloit College was my

interaction at the MBL with students from small, liberal arts colleges, such as Beloit. I was incredibly impressed with the preparation of these young men and women in our Semester in Environmental Sciences program. They had clearly been thought to think

independently and critically and were able to conduct graduatelevel research while in Woods Hole.

Successes at the liberal arts colleges have not translated to all

other colleges and universities. There are a number of reasons: our

small class sizes, use of research equipment, and heavy dependence

on tendered faculty to do teaching are expensive. We are committed

to that expense, a cost that is partially defrayed by our annual tuition, but also underwritten by alumni donations and grants. Federal Government, state legislatures, and other financial supporters

53

have to acknowledge and face squarely the fact that hands-on

science is expensive.

As I stated in my recommendation, we need the NSF budget doubled to help cover some of these costs. We cannot rely on science

being effectively taught in lecture rooms with 400 students and in

laboratories that use antiquated equipment and rely on teaching

assistants and cookbook lab manuals.

To excite and interest students in science, we need to have them

do science as it is actually done. Many of our nation’s colleges and

universities have opted for a cost-effective method of instruction

with little concern for the educational effectiveness of that approach. We need to eliminate overly large introductory courses,

often with instructors who see their role being to discourage, rather

than to encourage, majors.

But none of us can rest on our laurels any more than a research

scientist stops studying and investigating after a successful experiment. Instead, we need to continue to refine the way we teach. We

need to do research pedagogies, we need to disseminate what

works, and just as importantly, what doesn’t. We need to concern

ourselves with what we teach. Textbooks have gotten enormous.

We can’t jam all of the material down our students’ throats. My

friend, Bruce Albert’s, textbook, is endearingly nicknamed ‘‘Fat Albert’’ by the students. We have to sift and winnow, and we need

to constantly be reviewing and refining the curriculum. We need to

keep learning how people learn and let that inform our teaching.

The world is not waiting for us. We have to keep changing, improving, and educating.

What can the Federal Government do to help strengthen the

pipeline at the undergraduate level? The NSF needs to support the

development of new pedagogies and new curricula and then support the implementation and dissemination of the methodologies

that are successful. Funds must be provided for the equipment and

supplies that are needed to implement the most effective teaching.

At Beloit, we have discovered that students’ use of research-grade

equipment, even at the introductory course level, has been enormously successful in teaching all students how science is done. We

need to have support to build the new science and engineering

buildings that will enable us to apply the latest methodologies and

house the needed classroom laboratories for exciting and interesting science education. Finally, we need to support our faculty to

do research and remain scientifically current.

Science and engineering education is expensive. It does cost more

than other fields, and that fact needs to be acknowledged and the

funds need to be provided. The future is challenging, but there is

no reason that we can’t be successful in providing an exciting

STEM curriculum that includes all of our students.

Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Burris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BURRIS

Chairman Inglis and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,

My name is John Burris and I am the President of Beloit College. I appreciate

the opportunity to present testimony today and am honored to do so. I extend my

thanks to Chairman Inglis and the other Members of the Subcommittee for holding

54

1Project Kaleidoscope Report on Reports II: Recommendations for Urgent Action, Executive

Summary and Calls to Action

a hearing on ‘‘Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Education: What’s Working?’’ I present this testimony from the perspective of a

president of a liberal arts college with a long and distinguished record in science

and math education. My convictions have been influenced also by my eight years

as the director of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, an institution dedicated to research and graduate education.

In recent years there has been considerable apprehension and concern expressed

regarding the ability of the United States to compete in a world economy increasingly driven by science and technology. These concerns have been reflected in particular in the last several years when over twenty reports have been issued that

state concerns about the United States and its future leadership ability to address

critical needs of our society through the applications of science and technology.1

Although I share many of the concerns expressed in these reports and agree with

a number of solutions proposed, I am not going to tackle all the problems they identify. Instead I will address specifically the questions posed to the panel, focusing on

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at the undergraduate level. My remarks will conclude with a specific recommendation:

That as the overall budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) is doubled

in the next ten years, doubled dollars be intentionally targeted for programs

that strengthen and sustain the capacity of America’s undergraduate institutions to serve the national interest by preparing students to be the innovators,

the life-long learners and civic leaders, and the participants in the 21st century

workplace needed for our country to prosper in these challenging days.

This is a timely hearing. As our country seeks to respond to new challenges and

opportunities and shape the recently announced ‘America’s Competitive Initiative,’

I welcome the opportunity to make the case for undergraduate STEM as a critical

link in America’s scientific and technological infrastructure.

To have a well-trained workforce, we must educate undergraduates in STEM

fields, preparing them as K–12 math/science teachers, for graduate education that

leads to a professional career as an academic or research scientist, or for the increasing number of jobs that require scientific and technological expertise. To have

a functioning democracy, we must prepare all undergraduates to understand the nature of the scientific process, whether or not they choose to major in a STEM field.

An educated public is critical to providing the resources and encouragement the

United States will need to maintain its role as a world leader in science and technology.

Your first question was: What obstacles have we encountered in recruiting and retaining STEM majors. . .and how are we measuring the effectiveness of our actions?

Responding to this question is an opportunity to talk about successes at Beloit,

successes common to the larger liberal arts college community for which I speak

today, successes which have more than a twenty-year history. In the mid-1980’s it

was painfully apparent America was not doing a good job of educating undergraduates in STEM, a circumstance having a ripple-effect up and down the scientific pipeline. The famous ‘‘champagne glass’’ image of that time graphically illustrated that

the point of serious attrition in science enrollments was during the first two college

years. This reality triggered a careful review of science education by the National

Science Board, which became a catalyst for national reform efforts led by groups

such as Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), with leadership funding from the NSF.

Much of our knowledge of what does and does not work was summarized in reports such as What Works: Building Natural Science Communities (PKAL, 1991).

Over many years of direct observation it had become clear that students learn

science best in small classes with extensive hands-on experience in a so-called inquiry-based approach. They learn best in settings in which lectures and laboratory

experiences are merged, with ample opportunity for collaborative work in posing, exploring and solving problems, rather than everything being tackled on an individual

basis. It was clear that participation in research and open-ended problem solving

captured the attention and intellect of the students.

One of the primary reasons I came to Beloit College was my firsthand interactions

at the MBL with students from small liberal arts colleges, such as Beloit, and others

within the Associated Colleges of the Midwest and the Independent Colleges Office,

two consortia of which we are a part. At the MBL, we had established a ‘‘Semester

in Environmental Sciences’’ program where students from small liberal arts colleges

took courses and did independent research. I was incredibly impressed with the

preparation of those young men and women. They had clearly been taught to think

55

2 Report on Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Beloit College

independently and critically at these schools and were able to conduct graduate

level research while in Woods Hole.

Beloit College is a private, national liberal arts college enrolling 1250 students.

A recent national study by the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium

has identified Beloit College as one of the leading producers of doctoral degree recipients in the Nation, placing Beloit 20th out of roughly 2,000 U.S. baccalaureate

degree-granting institutions in the proportion of its graduates continuing on to receive a Ph.D. degree, and 11th among 165 national liberal arts colleges. Beloit is

a member of the Science 50 group of liberal arts colleges noted for its Ph.D. productivity in the sciences. One of our goals is to continue to be a significant source of

students who receive science Ph.D. degrees.2

Beloit College is remarkable as the home site for two major, NSF-funded national

efforts, the BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium and the ChemLinks Coalition. In addition to the BioQUEST Consortium and ChemLinks Coalition, Beloit has been a

major contributor to NSF-supported efforts to bring solid state chemistry and materials science into the undergraduate curriculum, with the development and class

testing of many of the labs and demonstrations published in Teaching General

Chemistry: A Materials Science Companion and a decade of subsequent articles in

the Journal of Chemical Education. As a founding member and the second host

campus for the Keck Geology Consortium of a dozen leading liberal arts colleges,

Beloit has contributed to and benefited from this collaborative student/faculty research network for 18 years with its summer field research projects, shared research

equipment, annual research symposium, and community of science scholars and

teachers. The UMAP Journal, published by the Consortium for Mathematics and its

Applications to focus on mathematical modeling and applications of mathematics at

the undergraduate level, has been housed at Beloit College since its inception in

1995. As part of the NSF-supported calculus reform effort, a Beloit faculty member

published Applications of Calculus in conjunction with other liberal arts college

mathematicians.

For our students at Beloit, we have developed and tested inquiry-based, collaborative, and research-rich experiences at the introductory and intermediate levels,

based on the emerging understanding of how students learn best through intensive

engagement, as recently summarized in the National Research Council’s How People

Learn.

We are currently in the process of building a new Center for the Sciences whose

design and technology reflects the experience we have developed over the past decade through our national leadership role in developing and disseminating new models and materials for undergraduate science education. Planning has followed the

Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) model of starting with goals for students, pedagogy,

and curriculum, and working outward to the design of the physical spaces needed

to accomplish them. But the present successes of Beloit, although repeated at many

institutions, are not universal. This leads me to respond to your next question.

What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other institutions

of higher education?

Here the answers are easy, from my perspective as a college president educated

as a research scientist: the rapid pace of change; the cost of responding to that pace

of change; and the lack of a long-range, comprehensive plan to do so.

I emphasized above the strength of Beloit’s undergraduate STEM programs. In

large part our excellence and the capacity of our faculty pioneers to design, develop,

and then disseminate their work and findings to the broader undergraduate community is due to informed support from the NSF. In responding twenty years ago to

the ‘‘champagne glass’’ signal about problems in the scientific pipeline, NSF supported undergraduate faculty pedagogical pioneers, those building and sustaining

undergraduate STEM learning environments in ways that reflected research on how

people learn, made the best use of emerging technologies, and emphasized ‘‘doing

science’’ in the process of ‘‘learning science.’’

So, a real obstacle today is the lack of a similar national effort, most visible in

the continued decline in support for precisely the kind of efforts like BioQuest and

ChemLinks, efforts that were ignited, piloted, sustained and disseminated because

of visible and persistent support from the National Science Foundation. This is a

costly effort, but the greatest cost will be the loss of talent in the service of our nation.

We may not be preparing the numbers of students in STEM fields the United

States needs to ensure a vital economy, although I must emphasize that the quality

56

3 NSB Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006: Volume 1

4 NSF FY07 Request (Selected Programs Re: Undergraduate STEM)

of students we produce may be a more important benchmark than purely numbers.

It is, however, important to think about numbers in thinking about obstacles to ensuring that all college graduates are scientifically literate. I have examined data and

information from the 2006 NSB Indicators about real increases in undergraduate

enrollments (expected to grow from 18.5 million in 2000 to 21.7 million in 2015).3

These numbers become even more daunting in the context of thinking about the

changing student demographics, as well as about the need for all 21st century students to become scientifically, quantitatively, and technologically literate as one outcome of their undergraduate learning experience.

Yet, it is of national concern that on many campuses, students still drop out of

these majors during their early college years. Why is this happening? When science

is not presented as science is done, when faculty see it as their responsibility to use

introductory course to eliminate students rather than to encourage them, when

classes are too large and laboratories are neither interesting nor challenging, students will demonstrate displeasure by changing majors. If this problem is not attacked with a national effort, the current legislation making its way through the

House and the Senate for providing increased numbers of scholarships for students

preparing to be a K–12 science or math teachers will be a bad investment. Just having a scholarship might not be enough to keep a student interested in persisting

in the study of mathematics and science.

We do have an idea of how to correct this problem, for at liberal arts colleges such

as Beloit, it is not unusual to have 80 percent of students entering as prospective

science/math majors graduate as majors in those fields. But even the Beloits of the

world cannot rest on our laurels, anymore then a research scientist stops studying

and investigating after a successful experiment. Instead we need to continue to refine the way our students learn, to continue to experiment with what works, to disseminate what works and to continue to examine what does not work for the 21st

century students coming on to our campuses. Students are changing, and science

is changing.

This brings me to a further point about the nature of change. Over ten years ago,

Albert Gore, then U.S. Senator, said:

‘‘We could seat children in rows and talk at them when we were going to expect

them to stand in rows in factories and mills. If they are to be prepared to be

the workers and thinkers of the 21st century, they must be experiencing the

world directly, guided by teachers who act as coaches in helping them to formulate and answer difficult questions. Now we must give our children the opportunity to use and strengthen every creative and inquiring instinct they possess.

We know that they must learn to work cooperatively, to write intelligently, to

speak persuasively, and to acquire a fundamental level of competence in math

and science.’’

If we examine these words from the perspective of preparing coming generations

of K–12 math/science teachers, it tells us what their undergraduate experience

should be; if we examine them from the perspective of preparing new entrants in

the workplace, it is equally clear that the character and quality of the undergraduate STEM learning environment is a critical factor.

The changing nature of science is clearly reflected in the NSF Budget Request to

Congress from the research directorates. The current and new programs they outline are explicitly focused on the future. What they now fund and propose to fund

will be keeping my community of biologists at the cutting-edge of exploration, discovery, and application.4

As a biologist, I am compelled by this careful analysis of how biology is changing

and where biology is growing, and welcome the new NSF programs in the research

directorates that support the future of the field about which I am still passionate.

But as a biologist now wearing the hat of a college president, I am frustrated by

the lack of a similar vision of the future for the undergraduate learning environment and of NSF’s role in shaping that future.

Thus, I suggest at least three obstacles that we will have to address as a nation:

how to serve the increased numbers and increasing diversity of undergraduates;

how to keep the 21st century STEM learning community at the leading edge in integrating research and education; and incorporating insights from research on how

people learn in shaping the learning environment for all students.

Neither NSF’s current budget figures or program analyses reflect an awareness

(and here I speak as a biologist) that the systems are interconnected, interrelated,

and interdependent. The strength of Beloit’s programs are in direct relationship to

57

the opportunity to benefit from and leverage grants from NSF programs twenty

years ago that responded to the growing awareness that each link in the Nation’s

scientific and educational infrastructure has to be strong if the system is to function

effectively.

I conclude with my recommendation in responding to your final question: what

can the Federal Government do to help in identifying, assessing and disseminating

what works at the undergraduate level that serves to strengthen the entire system of

America’s scientific, technological and educational enterprise?

RECOMMENDATION: That as the overall budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) is doubled in the next ten years, doubled dollars be intentionally

targeted for programs that strengthen and sustain the capacity of America’s undergraduate institutions to serve the national interest by preparing students to

be the innovators, the life-long learners and civic leaders, and the participants

in the 21st century workplace needed for our country to prosper in these challenging days.

This recommendation has implications for all the stakeholders, not just for NSF.

My presidential colleagues (within the select liberal arts community and beyond) are

concerned about the continued shrinking of budgets for the kind of undergraduate

programs that stimulated a generation of pioneering pedagogies like BioQuest and

ChemLinks.

I mentioned earlier that this was a timely hearing. For the first time in twenty

years, our nation is wrestling with hard questions about our future and America’s

capacity to face an uncertain future with confidence. Congressional response to

these reports has been welcome, but merely increasing the number of scholarships

available to undergraduates exploring STEM careers is not enough. Our Beloit experience with ‘what works’ offers specific ideas for use of a doubled budget for undergraduate programs at NSF. We do know what works. There is a solid base from

which to expand and enhance NSF programs in the coming decade; it is not necessary to start from scratch.

Significant parts of what works are: i) attention to how students learn; ii) an institutional culture that has a common vision about the value of building researchrich learning environments; and iii) faculty who are eager to remain engaged within

their disciplinary community, and who have the resources of time and instrumentation to do so. The value of dissemination networks, collaborations and partnerships

has been highlighted in many recent reports, as well as signaled by the work of

PKAL and other NSF-funded dissemination networks.

To determine how best to program the doubling of NSF undergraduate funds over

the next ten years, I propose a NSB task force be established. Its charge would be

to outline NSF undergraduate priorities and budgets in ways that respond to recommendations in the many recent national calls for action.

We would like on the table for their consideration programs that support institution-wide initiatives and an expansion of programs that give faculty from predominantly undergraduate institutions opportunity to engage in cutting-edge research

appropriate for research teams that include undergraduates. Further, we ask for

continued and expanded programs for the kind of course, curriculum and laboratory

improvements that have enabled colleges like Beloit to be at the cutting-edge in

shaping 21st century learning environments for 21st century students. Much of this

is already happening at NSF, and we are glad for programs such as Research in

Undergraduate Institutions (RUI), the Research Opportunities Award (ROA) and

the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) and other programs within the research

directorates that provide critical opportunities for undergraduate faculty to be a contributing part of their scholarly disciplinary community. But most successes are isolated, piecemeal, and underfunded. They do not lead collectively to the kind of interdisciplinary, interdependent world in which most 21st century scientists and citizens will be working and living.

The 2003 Business Higher Education Forum report, Building a Nation of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning to Meet Global Challenges,

challenges us all.

‘‘We must immediately support activities that, by 2010, give two generations of

students the benefit of a higher education system that is more attuned to giving

students the analytical skills, the learning abilities, and the other life-long

learning skills and attributes needed to adapt to 21st century workplace realities.’’

58

1. EXHIBIT A: PROJECT KALEIDOSCOPE REPORT ON REPORTS II: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR URGENT ACTION, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND

CALLS TO ACTION

2. EXHIBIT B: REPORT ON NATURAL SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICS AT BELOIT COLLEGE

3. EXHIBIT C: NSB SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS, 2006: VOLUME 1

4. EXHIBIT D: NSF FY07 REQUEST (SELECTED PROGRAMS RE: UNDERGRADUATE STEM)

Representing the Associated Colleges of the Midwest and the Independent

Colleges Office: Allegheny College (PA); Augsburg College (MN); Augustana College (IL); Beloit College (WI); Birmingham-Southern College (AL); Bowdoin College

(ME); Bucknell University (PA); Calvin College (MI); Carleton College (MN); Claremont McKenna College (CA); Coe College (IA); Colby College (ME); Colgate University (NY); College of the Holy Cross (MA); College of Wooster (OH); Cornell College

(IA); Dickinson College (PA); Grinnell College (IA); Harvey Mudd College (CA); Hope

College (MI); Illinois Wesleyan University (IL); Kalamazoo College (MI); Knox College (IL); Lake Forest College (IL); Lawrence University (WI); Macalester College

(MN); Monmouth College (IL); Oberlin College (OH); Pomona College (CA); Reed

College (OR); Ripon College (WI); Skidmore College (NY); St. John’s University

(MN); St. Lawrence University (NY); St. Olaf College (MN); The Colorado College

(CO); Union College (NY); University of Redlands (CA); University of Richmond

(VA); Wheaton College (MA).

59

60

61

62

1 Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium, Baccalaureate Origins of Doctoral Recipients, January 1998. Data drawn from NSF CASPAR database (caspar.nsf.gov). 2 National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000. 3Priscilla W. Laws, New Approaches to Science and Mathematics Teaching at Liberal Arts

Colleges, Daedalus, J. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences, Vol. 128, No. 1, Winter, 1999, pp. 271–240. 4 Erik Stokstad, ‘‘Reintroducing the Intro Courses,’’ Science, Vol. 293, 31 August 2001, pp.

1608–1610. 5 Amanda Yarnell, ‘‘Focusing on Reform,’’ Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 80, Num. 43,

October 28, 2002, pp. 35–36. 6 Jo Handelsman et al., ‘‘Scientific Teaching,’’ Science, Vol. 304, 23 April 2004, pp. 521–522

and online supporting materials.

EXHIBIT B

REPORT ON NATURAL SCIENCES & MATHEMATICS

BELOIT COLLEGE

BELOIT, WI

Beloit College is a private, national liberal arts college in southern Wisconsin, enrolling 1250 students. A recent national study by the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium1 has identified Beloit College as one of the leading producers

of doctoral degree recipients in the Nation, placing Beloit 20th out of roughly 2,000

U.S. baccalaureate degree-granting institutions in the proportion of its graduates

continuing on to receive a Ph.D. degree, and 11th among 165 national liberal arts

colleges. Beloit is a member of the Science 50 group of liberal arts colleges noted

for its Ph.D. productivity in the sciences. One of our goals is to continue to be a

significant source of students who receive science Ph.D. degrees.

MISSION: At Beloit College science teaching and learning is of central importance.

The Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Beloit adopted a Mission

Statement that placed significant weight on educating all students to understand

the processes as well as the concepts of science in order to make informed decisions

in their lives. Our vision is that all students understand how to choose questions

to study scientifically and why those questions are important, as well as the practical applications and their social and ethical consequences of the answers to those

questions. They should gain that understanding through inquiry-based courses and

through laboratory and field experiences that model how science is done.

VISION: Additionally, our vision is that students majoring in one of the sciences at

Beloit College should be prepared for and encouraged to participate in research in

and out of formal courses, and should be able to begin to practice their craft and

to function as professionals in their chosen scientific field. This includes, but is not

limited to, asking appropriate questions, seeking solutions to their questions, communicating their results to specific and general audiences, and understanding their

responsibility to engage in each of these activities. All students majoring in the

sciences should be prepared to practice science in this way regardless of whether

they anticipate a career in science.

PROGRAM: For all students, we have developed and tested inquiry-based, collaborative, and research-rich experiences at the introductory and intermediate levels,

based on the emerging understanding of how students learn best through intensive

engagement, as recently summarized in the National Research Council’s How People

Learn.2 In this national science education reform effort, Beloit College has been in

the vanguard. As highlighted by Priscilla Laws in her 1999 Daedalus article,3 liberal arts colleges have been leaders in science education reform, and Beloit College

is remarkable in hosting two of those national efforts, the BioQUEST Curriculum

Consortium and the ChemLinks Coalition. Both of these projects were also highlighted in a 2001 Science feature ‘‘Getting More Out of the Classroom’’ in an article

‘‘Reintroducing the Intro Course.’’ 4 The ChemLinks project and its Beloit connections were also featured in the American Chemical Society’s Chemical and Engineering News in a 2002 feature ‘‘Focusing on Reform.’’ 5 Quite recently, a Policy Forum

in Science on ‘‘Scientific Teaching’’ 6 includes references to teaching materials from

BioQUEST, ChemLinks, and a Materials Science project that was partially authored

and class-tested at Beloit.

For more than a decade, the hallmark at Beloit has been the ‘‘workshop’’ or ‘‘studio’’ format courses that combine inquiry-based classroom and laboratory activities;

these have spread from introductory chemistry and biology courses into interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
63

7 A.B. Ellis et al., Teaching General Chemistry: A Materials Science Companion, American

Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1993. 8P.D. Straffin, editor, Applications of Calculus, Mathematical Association of America, 1996.

mediate courses in both of those departments, and more recently into physics, geology, and computer science courses. Some examples:

• ‘‘Concept Test’’ interactive response systems are now used in introductory

physics courses.

• Organic Chemistry uses a guided-inquiry approach in the classroom, instead

of traditional lectures, and inquiry-based labs using two new research-grade

capillary gas chromatographs as well as NMR and IR spectroscopy.

• The Genetics course uses BioQUEST materials with weekly poster presentations of student projects.

Three successive Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) grants have supported interdisciplinary curricular development, and successive National Science

Foundation Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (NSF CCLI) grants

have provided instruments and student/faculty research time to develop inquirybased experiments. We have seen burgeoning enrollments in these courses as we

have made them more inquiry-based and interactive, with careful attention to measuring student learning as we use these new approaches. NSF-funded ChemLinks assessment studies have shown that these new approaches provide significant increases in conceptual understanding and in scientific reasoning skills for students,

while also increasing their confidence in their ability to do chemistry successfully.

Throughout the sciences, almost all majors graduate having had at least one fulltime research experience, many two, and some three. In addition, many students

are actively involved in academic year research at Beloit with faculty research colleagues. Similar opportunities exist for students who seek clinical or public health

experience, and we are increasingly able to find overseas placements for students

with a particular international interest.

FACULTY: One of our goals has been to provide support and encouragement in faculty efforts to transform the undergraduate science experience at Beloit through collaborative work regionally and nationally, as well as within the Science Division at

Beloit. The early and highly successful establishment of the Pew Midstates Science

and Mathematics Consortium, and its continuation since the end of the Pew Charitable Trusts funding has provided a forum for curricular change across a dozen leading liberal arts colleges, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of

Chicago. The ongoing Pew Faculty Workshops and inter-campus visits, as well as

the annual Undergraduate Research Symposia, have stimulated curricular reform

and supported undergraduate research.

NATIONAL LEADERSHIP: In addition to the BioQUEST Consortium and

ChemLinks Coalition, Beloit has been:

• a major contributor to NSF-supported efforts to bring solid state chemistry

and materials science into the undergraduate curriculum, with the development and class testing of many of the labs and demonstrations published in

Teaching General Chemistry: A Materials Science Companion7 and a decade

of subsequent articles in the Journal of Chemical Education.

• a founding member and host campus for the Keck Geology Consortium of a

dozen leading liberal arts colleges, Beloit has contributed to and benefited

from this collaborative student/faculty research network for 18 years with its

summer field research projects, shared research equipment, annual research

symposium, and community of science scholars and teachers.

• a founding member of Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), continuing to contribute

to and benefit from that collaboration as well.

• home since 1995 to The UMAP Journal, published by the Consortium for

Mathematics and its Applications to focus on mathematical modeling and applications of mathematics at the undergraduate level.

• a part of the NSF-supported calculus reform effort; a Beloit faculty member

published Applications of Calculus8 in conjunction with other liberal arts college mathematicians.

INSTRUMENTATION: In 2001, Beloit replaced an aging scanning electron microscope (SEM) with a new research-grade JEOL SEM with an energy-dispersive spectrometer (EDS) for elemental analysis. This state-of-the-art system, obtained with

an NSF CCLI grant to a faculty member in Geology and matching funds from an

64

earlier Kresge Foundation challenge grant for a scientific equipment endowment,

has catalyzed a number of research and course-related imaging and elemental analysis projects ranging from Geology, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics to Archaeology

and Museum Studies. The ability to examine the surface of a solid sample in detail

and determine the elemental composition of individual regions provides an extremely powerful tool not only for answering important research questions, but also

for connecting students’ visual and structural understanding with chemistry on the

nanoscale. Naturally occurring minerals collected in the field, light emitting diodes

(LEDs), computer circuits, CDs, nanowires and quantum dots synthesized by students, and tool marks on archaeological samples become fascinating images that

draw the science major and the non-major equally into the process of asking questions and gathering and interpreting data to answer them. Our experience with this

instrument has strongly reinforced our emerging view that providing research-grade

instruments to students as soon as they can help them pose and answer interesting

questions makes sense educationally. Having such instruments that can be used in

a variety of disciplines not only is cost-effective, but it promotes the kind of interdisciplinary experience our students want and need.

FACILITIES: We are currently in the process of building a new Center for the

Sciences whose design and technology reflects the experience we have developed

over the past decade through our national leadership role in developing and disseminating new models and materials for undergraduate science education. Planning has followed the PKAL model of starting with goals for students, pedagogy,

and curriculum, and working outward to the design of the physical spaces needed

to accomplish them. The degree of spatial integration among the disciplines that we

plan is highly unusual. Another indication of our long-term planning for interdisciplinary integration has been the intention from the start to bring Psychology

into the sciences with the plan to build more programmatic and laboratory space

links among biology, biochemistry, and psychology to reflect the direction that

neurobiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology are taking.

Since its founding in 1846, Beloit College has offered one of the Nation’s most rigorous and inventive science curricula. As we maintain our position as a leading, national liberal arts college, Beloit’s new state-of-the-art science facility will house and

match our leading-edge science program in the new millennium, empowering the

education of all Beloit students.

65

EXHIBIT C

NSB SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2006

VOLUME 1

The need for greater attention at the national level to the quality and character

of America’s undergraduate STEM learning environment.

1. DEMOGRAPHICS & BACCALAUREATE DEGREES (Chapter 2)

• ‘‘The importance of higher education in science and engineering is increasingly recognized around the world for its impact on innovation and economic

development.’’

• ‘‘In recent years, demographic trends and world events have contributed to

changes in both the numbers and types of students participating in U.S. higher education.’’

• ‘‘. . .global competition in higher education is increasing. Although the

United States has historically been a world leader in providing broad access

to higher education. . ., many other countries are expanding their own higher

education systems, providing comparable educational access to their own population. . ..’’

• ‘‘After declining in the 1990’s, the U.S. college-age population is currently increasing and is projected to increase for the next decade.’’ ‘‘According to U.S.

Census Bureau projects, the number of college-age (ages 20–24) individuals

is expected to grow from 18.5 million in 2000 to 21.7 million by 2015.’’

• ‘‘Changes in the demographic composition of the college-age population as a

whole and increased enrollment rates of some racial/ethnic groups have contributed to changes in the demographic composition of the higher education

student population in the U.S.’’ ‘‘The demographic composition of students

planning S&E majors has become more diverse over time.’’

• ‘‘The baccalaureate is the most prevalent degree in S&E, accounting for 77

percent of all degrees awarded. S&E Bachelor’s degrees have consistently accounted for roughly one-third of all Bachelor’s degrees for the past decade.

Except for a brief downturn in the late 1980’s, the number of S&E Bachelor’s

degrees has risen steadily, from 317,000 in 1983 to 415,000 in 2002.’’

2. S&E LABOR FORCE (Chapter 3)

• ‘‘An estimated 12.9 million workers reported needing at least a Bachelor’s degree level of S&E knowledge—with 9.2. million reporting a need for knowledge of the natural sciences and engineering and 5.3 million a need for knowledge of the social sciences. That the need for S&E knowledge is more than

double the number in formal S&E occupations suggests the pervasiveness of

technical knowledge in the modern workplace.’’

• ‘‘The 3.1 percent average annual growth rate in all S&E employment is almost triple the rate for the general workforce.’’

• ‘‘S&E occupations are projected to grow by 26 percent from 2002 to 2012,

while employment in all occupations is projected to grow 15 percent over the

same period.’’

• ‘‘Recent recipients of S&E Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees form an important

component of the U.S. S&E workforce, accounting for almost half of the annual inflow into S&T occupations. Recent graduates’ career choices and entry

into the labor market affect the supply and demand for scientists and engineers throughout the United States.’’

• ‘‘Although it is a very subjective measure, one indicator of labor market conditions is whether recent graduates feel that they are in ‘career-path’ jobs.’’

3. S&T: PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND UNDERSTANDING (Chapter 7)

• ‘‘Knowledge of basic scientific facts and concepts is necessary not only for an

understanding of S&T related issues but also for good citizenship.’’

• ‘‘Having appreciation for the scientific process may be even more important.

Knowing how science works, i.e., understanding how ideas are investigated

and either accepted or rejected, is valuable not only for keeping up with important science-related issues and participating meaningfully in the political

process, but also in evaluating and assessing the validity of various types of

claims people encounter on a daily basis.’’

66

4. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (Chapter 1)

• ‘‘Strengthening the quality of teachers and teaching has been central to efforts to improve American education in recent decades. Research findings consistently point to the critical role of teachers in helping students to learn and

achieve. Many believe that. . .changes in teaching practices will occur if

teachers have consistent and high-quality professional training.’’

67

68

69

70

71

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN E. BURRIS

EDUCATION:

September 1972—December 1976: Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Thesis title: Photorespiration in Marine Plants—advisors A.A. Benson and O. Holm-Hansen

September 1971—June 1972: M.D.–Ph.D. program at the University of Wisconsin,

Madison

September 1967—June 1971: A.B. in Biology from Harvard University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

August 2000–present: President, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin

September 1992–August 2000: Director and Chief Executive Officer, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

July 1988–September 1992: Executive Director, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

October 1984–January 1989: Director, Board on Biology, Commission on Life

Sciences, National Research Council

June 1989–2001: Adjunct Professor of Biology, the Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, Pennsylvania

72

October 1985–June 1989: Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology, the Pennsylvania

State University

June 1983–October 1985: Associate Professor of Biology, the Pennsylvania State

University

December 1976–June 1983: Assistant Professor of Biology, the Pennsylvania State

University

September 1972–December 1976: Research Assistant in Marine Biology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

BOARDS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES:

Member, National Science Foundation Science of Learning Centers Site Visit Team

in October, 2005

National Associate of the National Academies (November, 2003–present)

Chairman, Committee to Review the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of

Coastal Oceans (PISCO) for the Packard Foundation (September–December,

2003)

Member, Executive Committee, Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and

Universities (2003–present)

Member, Board of Directors, Wisconsin Foundation for Independent Colleges (2003–

2005)

Member, Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science,

Washington, D.C. (2002–2006)

Member, Board of Directors, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima,

Japan (2001–present)

Member, Board of Trustees, The Grass Foundation, Braintree, Massachusetts

(2001–present)

Member, Consiglio Scientifico, Stazione Zoologica ‘Anton Dohrn,’ Naples, Italy

(1996–present)

Member, Awards Committee for Biodiversity Leadership, Bay and Paul Foundations, New York, NY (1996–present)

Chairman, Advisory Committee on Student Science Enrichment Program, The Burroughs Wellcome Fund (1995–2002)

Consultant, Committee on Science and Human Values, National Conference of

Catholic Bishops (1993–2002)

Member, Board of Trustees, The Krasnow Institute, Fairfax, Virginia (1999–2002)

Co-Chairman, Scientific Advisory Committee of the Law and Science Academy of the

Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the Courts, Washington, D.C. (1999–

2001)

Member, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee (1997–2001)

Member, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (1993–1997)

Member, Steering Committee, the Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology, The University of Massachusetts, Boston (1993–2001)

Awards Committee, American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) (1998)

Member, Science Curriculum for State Court Judges Presiding in Toxic Exposure

Cases, Georgetown University Medical Center and Law Center (1991–1992)

Co-chair, Disciplinary Workshop on Undergraduate Education in Biology for the Directorate for Science and Engineering Education at the National Science Foundation (1988)

Chairman, External Advisory Committee for the University Research Initiative Program in Marine Biotechnology at the University of Maryland and The Johns

Hopkins University (1987–1991)

Member, University Research Initiative Evaluation Panel in Marine Biotechnology,

Office of Naval Research (1986)

PROFESSIONAL AND HONORARY SOCIETIES:

Member: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute

of Biological Sciences (AIBS), Phi Beta Kappa

73

Past-president, January–December 1997, American Institute of Biological Sciences

(AIBS)

President, January–December 1996, American Institute of Biological Sciences

(AIBS)

President-elect, January–December 1995, American Institute of Biological Sciences

(AIBS)

74

75

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Burris.

Dr. Goroff.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL L. GOROFF, VICE PRESIDENT FOR

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS; DEAN OF THE FACULTY, HARVEY

MUDD COLLEGE

Dr. GOROFF. Chairman Inglis and distinguished Representatives

of the Subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to

participate in these hearings on what is working in undergraduate

science, mathematics, and engineering education.

And to illustrate what is working, I think of a senior named

Stephanie at Harvey Mudd College, who has been invited to professional physics conferences as the only undergraduate there to

speak about her research findings. Actually, this happens rather

routinely to our students. Once, though, a well-known researcher

came over to her faculty advisor to praise Stephanie and her talk

and to ask if the advisor had thought about how very unlikely it

was that Stephanie’s discovery could lead to a product with commercial potential. The advisor cut him off and said, ‘‘You don’t get

it.’’ She pointed across the room at Stephanie and said, ‘‘That is my

product. I produce physicists.’’

Three quick points about this story.

First of all, the United States needs more undergraduate ‘‘products’’ like Stephanie. ‘‘But how many do we need?’’ everyone asks.

All of the recent reports about competitiveness raise alarms based

on the number of scientists and engineers being trained abroad. As

a mathematician, I am a big skeptic about numbers. Perhaps

China really is producing hundreds of thousands more engineers

annually than we do. Well, the Chinese Army is also very big. But

regarding either our military forces or our scientific workforce, I

am less interested in body counts and more interested in the capacity that young people like Stephanie demonstrate for teamwork,

communication, innovation, and creativity, not to mention a familiarity with the latest technology.

We may never be able to recruit as many technical students as

the Chinese are now, but we do have lots and lots of potential

Stephanies, and U.S. institutions can, precisely because we do not

have to operate at such huge scales, do a better job at selecting and

enculturating productive members of our scientific communities. As

with the Army, more scholarships and other incentives may help

with initial recruiting, but what ultimately keeps people working

effectively is a sense of belonging to a community that is purposeful, well-equipped, and important to society.

I have met so many undergraduates at Harvey Mudd and at

Harvard and throughout the country who passionately want to become scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or teachers so that

they can devote their talents to solving some of the world’s problems. My hope is that the admirable intentions of the President’s

American Competitiveness Initiative will be implemented in ways

that not only provide these passionate students with temporary

scholarships but that also demonstrate to them that careers in

these professions can be as sustained and sustaining over a lifetime

as the other kinds of opportunities available to U.S. students.

76

Which brings me to point number two. We need more faculty like

Stephanie’s advisor. Again, I find little of the interest or talent, but

much to be learned from community-building organizations like

Project Kaleidoscope and Harvard’s Derek Bok Center for Teaching

and Learning.

Point number three. We need more programs that can prepare

students like Stephanie for exciting work as an engineer, mathematician, teacher, or scientist. What good is it to attract young people to study a field unless we have the institutions and the infrastructure for providing appropriate programs, courses, and experiences?

Changes in science and technology are so rapid and so expensive

today that it is hard to expect each individual college on its own

to keep its facilities, its curricula, and its facilities all up-to-date

without benefiting either from an occasional grant or from the result of grants made to other organizations.

The Division of Undergraduate Education at NSF has traditionally supported everything from teacher preparation to course, curriculum, and laboratory improvement. The budget for such work

has been slashed in recent years, though. Regardless of what you

think should happen to K–12 educational efforts at NSF, support

for undergraduate education should not only remain based at the

National Science Foundation, it should thrive there. This is essential to achieving the goals of the American Competitiveness Initiative since the college years are so very critical for both the future

teachers we need to improve K–12 science and mathematics education as well as the technical specialists we need to improve innovation and economic competitiveness. Trying to promote innovation

and competitiveness without paying careful attention to the role of

undergraduate education would be as absurd as trying to promote

progress in science and engineering without paying careful attention to the role of mathematics.

And finally, let me assure you that Stephanie, with four published papers so far, is not a magical exception but rather an inspirational example of what can work widely. Over 20 original mathematical papers have been published in reference journals by Harvey Mudd College undergraduates during the past four years. And

Mudders’ names were on 13 patent disclosures last year alone.

Through our clinic program, students work on real design-testing

or research projects, cases, if you will, proposed and sponsored by

industries or by the Federal Government. These clinic experiences

are carefully structured to develop those student skills related to

communication, teamwork, leadership, and creativity. For example,

Fluid Master will soon begin manufacturing a toilet designed by

Harvey Mudd undergraduates that saves 10 percent of the water

needed per flush. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has supported the development at HMC of a system that

first responders can use to warn them when a burning building is

about to collapse. And both Hewlett Packard as well as Amgen are

commissioning international clinics this year that will also help

students learn to work, think, and cooperate globally.

These are just a few examples and principles illustrating what

works when you actually set out to produce engineers, educators,

and mathematicians, not to mention scientists like Stephanie.

77

I would be happy to provide more details during the question period.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goroff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. GOROFF

Chairman Inglis and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate

the opportunity to participate today in hearings on ‘‘Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education: What’s Working.’’

There is a story many of us like to tell about what has made America’s economy

run like clockwork that goes like this:

(1) Investment in instruction

(2) Invigorates innovation and

(3) Increases incomes.

This three-step process for producing prosperity and progress is somewhat oversimplified, as I will point out. But that has hardly mattered much in the past because the theory was not testable anyway. We could not, after all, run history over

again to experiment with whether investing in Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics (STEM) education as we did, say, after Sputnik, really was an important cause of our subsequent economic prosperity and growth.

The good news is that we now have better evidence that some form of this STEMwinder story was right all along. The bad news, according to many Americans, is

that this evidence is being generated in countries like China and India rather than

in the U.S. But is this such bad news? A threat to our nation? A perfect storm that

will wash away all we treasure?

Opportunity or Threat?

I want to begin by arguing that, although global trends in STEM education and

employment do demand our attention, we should welcome them for at least three

reasons besides the fact that us storytellers are being proven correct:

First, these global trends are good for the world. We are witnessing how STEM

education can lift diverse, poor, and even hopeless people from socioeconomic status

lower than most Americans can imagine into the stable middle or even entrepreneurial classes of their countries. Science need not discriminate on the basis of race,

religion, or gender; its efficacy is a heritage potentially available to all. And in a

world that feels more and more like it is about to fall apart, we can still communicate and agree about scientific findings more easily than about matters that divide

civilizations.

Second, these trends are good for science. There is growing excitement and enthusiasm all over the world for STEM and STEM education. And so there is so much

we can learn from one another, especially if the U.S. remains a hub for the scientific

exchange of both people and ideas. Enthusiasm and excitement about STEM still

exists among many young Americans, too, not to mention a great deal of idealism

in the undergraduates I meet about dedicating their talents to serving others and

solving problems by teaching, innovating, and leading: they volunteer to Teach for

America; they want to help address world-wide challenges like AIDS or global

warming or sustainable energy or cyber security; and some just want to make an

amazing discovery or start the next big high-tech company along the way, too.

A third reason why the trends abroad are good is that they provide a wake-up

call. We must re-examine our STEM policies and practices in ways that mattered

less when the U.S. enjoyed such undisputed dominance in science and technology.

For decades, the oversimplified STEM-Winder story we started with was good

enough. Now it is time to examine, critique, and refine how we imagine and design

policy based on each of the three steps in our recipe for economic bliss.

The Chinese Army

As an organizational leader these days, one of my favorite questions is, ‘‘What

problem are we trying to solve?’’ Our challenge today is not simply to devote more

dollars to STEM, or even to create more STEM majors. Those may be means to an

end, at least if we go about such tasks wisely. But the real goal is to reap the prosperity and progress promised by our original story. Most recent attention has focused on how many STEM specialists different countries are educating. What conclusion should we draw from reports that, while the U.S. trained 70,000 new engineers in 2005, India produced 350,000 and China 600,000? Or was it only 400,000

in China (they counted people without B.S. degrees) and 100,000 in the U.S. (including computer scientists as in the Chinese data)?

78

As a mathematician, I am very suspicious about numbers (though I am sometimes

impressed by growth rates). The Chinese Army is also very big, after all. But quality

counts as well as quantity. What gives me faith in the U.S. military has less to do

with efforts to recruit more individuals (especially since we cannot keep up anyway)

than with the teamwork, communications, leadership, creativity, and innovation embodied in its institutions. Similarly, I want to emphasize and illustrate how STEM

policy recommendations should not only support incentives for individuals, but also

support the kinds of infrastructure and institutions those individuals need to get the

job done well. This point of view helps, at each step, with distinguishing among: (a)

good policies aimed at individuals; (b) better policies that address the collective nature of STEM work; and (c) best examples to inspire us.

Step 1: Will investing in education produce more STEM workers?

(1a) There are currently some good policy recommendations before Congress dealing

with individual incentives. Kavita Shukla in her Bachelor’s degree thesis at Harvard, recently asked fellow students about the $20,000 annual scholarships for

STEM majors called for by the NRC report Rising Above the Gathering Storm

(RAGS). While 50 percent professed no interest whatsoever in science or engineering, 14 percent said they would switch to a STEM field if such support were available. At present, only 18 percent of Harvard undergraduates are STEM concentrators, so this would be a huge increase.

Will there be enough students arriving at college with the prerequisites to make

such a switch into STEM fields? RAGS sets ambitious goals for expanding Advanced

Placement classes in high school. One basis for my confidence that we can meet

these goals has been the success of the ThinkFive Services for supporting AP teachers and students online, whose development I helped advise in partnership with

AgileMind, Inc. and the Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

Will there be enough qualified teachers? Again, I take heart from the success of

examples like the ‘‘Masters in Mathematics for Teaching’’ degree program founded

as a partnership between the Harvard Mathematics Department and the Division

of Continuing Education.

Will undergraduates continue on in STEM? Tables in Appendix 1 show that applications for NSF graduate fellowships improve both quantitatively and qualitatively

in response to the kinds of spending enhancements advocated by RAGS. This data

was compiled by Richard Freeman and Tanwin Chang for the Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

(1b) While we can help produce more STEM degree holders in these ways, will they

then go on to become working scientists and engineers? The opportunity costs to a

U.S. undergraduate incurred by going into the life sciences, say, as opposed to business, law, or medicine are substantial—approximately $1 million in present value

according to calculations by Richard Freeman. So policy must also address retention

through means that are not just financial.

Besides dollars, what makes people persist in their fields is a shared sense of collective purpose and mutual support. This sense of community is what works in the

military, after all. Policies will therefore be even more effective to the extent that

they build infrastructure and institutions that reduce uncertainty, indignities, and

delays for groups of young STEM workers.

(1c) The best policy levers for promoting the healthy growth of STEM communities

are, for now, at the National Science Foundation (NSF). It is no secret that the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate at NSF is being decimated. Significant funds have been taken out of the hands of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians there, and transferred to the Department of Education. This may or may

not make sense for K–12. But the staff and clientele of the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) at EHR used to represent a strong community of expertise dedicated to improving STEM education at the college level. While funding can

and should be restored and predictably grown at least in proportion to total NSF

budget growth, the community associated with DUE is in danger of scattering

irretrievably.

Step 2: Will more STEM workers produce more innovation and invention?

(2a) The RAGS report is one of dozens of similar accounts that implicitly link the

number of STEM workers present with the rate of technological innovation and invention. Obsession with counting bodies seems rooted in romantic idealism about

scientific discovery: inspiration, like lightning, unpredictably strikes those with good

STEM educations, so the more well-educated lightning rods in your country, the

higher the likelihood of a hit? Again, we are not so special that we can ignore lessons from other countries. During the Cold War, for example, the Soviet Union did

79

not innovate or invent in proportion to its highly talented, vast, and technically

well-trained workforce—mainly because the economic infrastructure functioned so

poorly under communist central planning.

Of course, the RAGS report does present good suggestions for providing individual

incentives and rewards to STEM workers who innovate or invent, including 200 new

grants of $500,000 over five years for young researchers as well as a new Presidential Innovation Award. These would be welcome additions to the already large

number of ‘‘winner-take-all’’ tournaments in STEM. But Richard Freeman has pointed out that, although setting up competitions this way may motivate people who believe themselves likely to win, many others may also be discouraged from trying

their best. Compared to schemes that acknowledge and reward cooperation, the net

result could actually be less effort and fewer discoveries in total.

It is not just individual winners, but whole communities that are important

enablers of STEM progress. The number of research papers or patent applications

with multiple authors has been exploding relative to the number from lone geniuses.

It takes teamwork, communication, as well as interactions within and between

fields to make discoveries. Rather than flashing from the sky, think of scientific energy as coursing around networks. Scientists are at the nodes of these networks,

and I am all in favor of increasing their numbers, but it is the strength, density,

reach, and interfaces of their networks (STEM cells?) that promote the innovation

and invention we seek.

(2b) In the STEM wars, then, as in military or political campaigns, the one with

the biggest staff does not necessarily win. We have to make sure our forces are well

deployed, equipped, connected, and coordinated if we expect results against overwhelming odds. So better policy menus will not just address individuals, but also

support institutions and infrastructure, associations and assemblies, international

and interdisciplinary interactions, etc. Besides the hardware in laboratories, the

software in machines, and the wetware in brains, we need this kind of fragile

STEM-ware, too, to give shape to scientific efforts that might otherwise be fluid,

fleeting, and dispersed.

(2c) The best example of a group that has vigorously promoted innovation and invention by STEM faculty and students has been Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL).

Founded in 1989 as an ad hoc organization, PKAL is dedicated to improving the environment for undergraduate STEM education—including everything from the design of science buildings to the career development of young academics. Most recently, PKAL has also worked on establishing international exchanges of undergraduate STEM activists. The spectacular success of this kind of association needs

to be institutionalized and expanded, perhaps in the form of a national center for

undergraduate STEM education.

Step 3: Will innovation and invention produce more progress and prosperity?

(3a) The RAGS report also presents good suggestions for providing incentives to individual corporations and commercial endeavors in the U.S. New R&D tax breaks

and intellectual property protections would certainly be welcome by those organizations. This is the RAGS to riches section of the report.

(3b) But if globalization teaches us anything, it is that new ideas do not stay put.

So even if, in the romantically idealistic account, inspirational lightning strikes a

scientist in one country, there is no real way of stopping that energy from being

transmitted, sooner or later, to other specialists and entrepreneurs throughout the

world. Who eventually benefits? We all might, when discoveries lead to better,

cheaper, or more healthy products. The real question, however, concerns whether

new industries and their profits are retainable within one country or another. We

often talk as if comparative advantage in high technology production necessarily accrues to nations with a large and inexpensive supply of interchangeable STEM

workers. Perhaps it is the networks that matter more than the individuals for this

purpose, too. Think of the robust economic success embodied by communities that

are close-knit, well-connected, and have well-established rules for trust and competition like Silicon Valley, the consumer electronics business in Finland, the diamond

district in New York, or the shipping trade in Hong Kong. Such examples are the

result of high investments not just in human capital, but in social capital—that is,

in the ability to form and sustain mutually beneficially relationships.

(3c) The best example of how to form mutually beneficial relationships between undergraduate STEM students and STEM employers is the Clinic Program at Harvey

Mudd College (HMC). For over 42 years, companies, national laboratories, and othVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
80

ers with real technical problems they need solved have been bringing them to the

Clinic Program for small groups of undergraduates to solve. Last year alone, the

sponsors, who retain the intellectual property rights to the work, put students

names on 13 patent disclosures. Whole divisions and product lines of corporations

have been based on HMC projects. The students, in turn, learn about communication skills, teamwork, leadership, and innovation in addition to technical matters.

A list of sample clinic projects appears in Appendix 4.

Harvey Mudd College also conducts undergraduate research under other programs on topics ranging from the use chitosan—a remarkable healing agent secreted by shrimp shells—in hemorrhage control bandages to the mechanisms specific enzymes use to repair and remove damaged DNA; and from the design and

testing of new GPS protocols to the invention of portable systems that give first responders a few minutes warning before a burning building collapses.

Projects like these are not part of undergraduate education in other countries.

Precisely because China and India have such enormous populations, their institutions of higher education operate at scales that do not facilitate the selection or education of students for creativity. The four-year liberal arts college is a uniquely

American invention whose students contribute disproportionately to the STEM

workforce. The economics of higher education, particularly in STEM fields, is particularly challenging at small schools like these. Like PKAL and DUE, the continuing ability of these institutions to continue their good work is not assured without some wise and timely policy interventions. The short answer about what works

is community. That is why recommendations and reforms should support not only

individual incentives, but also infrastructure and institutions.

With less than six percent of the world’s population, the United States cannot expect to dominate science and technology in the future as it did during the second

half of the last century when we enjoyed a massively disproportionate share of the

world’s STEM resources. We must invest more the resources we do have, encourage

those resources to produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM

enterprise by working with diverse groups to make sure that innovations developed

here or overseas produce prosperity and progress for all.

Many believe that U.S. investments in STEM education following Sputnik paid

off handsomely in later technological and economic advances. In 2005, word came

that the European Union is sponsoring a satellite designed and built entirely by students. We must re-dedicate ourselves to what is working in undergraduate science,

mathematics, and engineering education.

81

Appendix 1

Undergraduate STEM Education Principles

1. I believe that what makes an educational institution great has less to do with

the criteria used in magazine rankings and more to do with a shared sense of

purpose and identity.

2. I believe that professors want to teach well and students want to learn well,

but they sometimes need, and often welcome, help with figuring out how. Many

also share my belief that education can help fix the world.

3. I believe that, just as you cannot fatten a calf by weighing it, simply requiring

undergraduates to take standardized tests will not automatically improve college education.

4. I believe that teaching to the test is fine if it is a good test, but that Advanced

Placement examinations should not be used to predict or preempt student performance in college courses.

5. I believe that content knowledge is necessary but not sufficient in order to become a successful teacher.

6. I believe that the sticker price of a college education can be crushingly high for

too many families, that a college diploma should still be worth every penny paid

for it (whether by the student or by society), and that tuition still does not cover

the full cost of an undergraduate education, especially in technical fields such

as science and engineering.

7. I believe in accountability, but also that accountability is not just a matter of

collecting data. I believe in collecting data systematically, but also that the lack

of statistical proof of what works does not excuse inaction.

8. I believe changes in science and technology are so rapid and so expensive that

it is hard to expect each individual college on its own to keep its faculty, curricula, and facilities all up to date without benefiting either from an occasional

grant of its own or from the results of grants made to other organizations.

9. I believe in competition when it comes to awarding grants. That should involve

requests for proposals and peer review, organized by people who know how.

10. I believe that interdisciplinary work is exciting but not a goal in and of itself,

that students also need solid grounding in the basics, and that confronting real

problems is one of the best ways for them to master both.

11. I believe that science is best learned and practiced in groups rather than by

lone geniuses. More important than the number of individual scientists available is the density, strength, reach, and organization of the relational networks

connecting those scientists, both within a given country and internationally.

12. I believe that sincere and thoughtful philosophical differences about education

or government are healthy as long as they do not get in the way of working

together for the good of the next generation.

82

Appendix 2

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Data

Prepared by Richard Freeman and Tanwin Chang for the Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project of the National Bureau for Economic Research.

83

84

Appendix 3

Facts About Harvey Mudd College

A member of the Claremont University Consortium, Harvey Mudd College was

founded in 1956 as ‘‘The Liberal Arts College of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering’’ and remains true to its mission statement:

Harvey Mudd College seeks to educate engineers, scientists, and mathematicians well versed in all of these areas and in the humanities and social sciences

so that they may assume leadership in their fields with a clear understanding

of the impact of their work on society.

The students at HMC are truly among the best and the brightest in the United

States. According to applicant pool data, the four institutions with the greatest

number of overlap applications are MIT, U.C. Berkeley, Caltech, and Stanford. Statistics for the 2005–6 entering class include:

• Median SAT 1480

• 27 percent National Merit Scholarship finalists

• 91 percent in top 10 percent of their senior class

• 26 percent valedictorians

• 35 percent women

• 35 percent students of color.

HMC ranks 18 among liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News & World Reports survey, and second among undergraduate engineering programs. The Washington

Monthly placed HMC fourth in its ranking of ‘‘what colleges are doing for the country.’’

In 1997, HMC became the first undergraduate institution to win the prestigious

International Association of Computing Machinery Programming Contest from

among over 1,000 entries worldwide. In the prestigious William Lowell Putnam

Mathematical Competition, HMC teams have earned top-ten spots in three of the

past four years and finished twice in the top five, a record unsurpassed by any other

undergraduate institution.

In 2005, the American Mathematic Society presented HMC with its first-ever

‘‘Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a Mathematics Department.’’

The citation reads:

The American Mathematical Society (AMS) presents its first Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a Mathematics Department to Harvey

Mudd College in Claremont, California. The Mathematics Department at Harvey Mudd College excels in numerous dimensions. Its exciting programs have

led to a doubling of the number of math majors over the last decade. Currently

more than one out of every six graduating seniors at Harvey Mudd College majors in mathematics or in new joint majors of mathematics with computer

science or mathematical biology. Furthermore, about 60 percent of these math

majors continue their education at the graduate level.

The Harvey Mudd College Mathematics Clinic has served as a trailblazer and

a model for other programs for more than thirty years. This innovative program

connects teams of math majors with real-world problems, giving students a terrific research experience as well as a glimpse at possible future careers. Undergraduate research is a theme throughout the mathematics program at Harvey

Mudd College, as exemplified by the over twenty papers published in the last

three years by Harvey Mudd College mathematics faculty with student co-authors.

85

Appendix 4

The Clinic at Harvey Mudd College:

• Sponsor proposes real problem

• The responsible Clinic Director appoints a team of 3–5 students, a student

project manager, and a faculty advisor

• The sponsor appoints a liaison

• The students prepare a work statement (subject to liaison agreement) to

produce scheduled deliverables:

— Presentations, reports, prototype, models, analyses, code. . .

• No guarantee of unique solution

• Fee paid by Sponsor = $41,000

Clinic Project Selection:

• Must be important to Sponsor

• Emphasizes design and experimental skills

• Allows for team interaction

• Work scope 1,200–1,500 person hours

• Fixed end date

• Concrete measurable goals

Computer Science Clinic Examples

The Boeing Company/ATM (2002–03)

Design and Prototype of a Low-Cost Weather Information System for General Aviation

Liaisons: James Hanson ’64, Paul Mallasch

Advisor: Geoffrey Kuenning

Students: Paul Paradise, Luke Hunter, Kyle Kuypers, Rafael Vasquez

Boeing ATM has tasked us with the design and implementation of a proof-of-concept design for delivering weather data to aircraft pilots in-flight. Using a Pocket

PC PDA as a hardware architecture and a custom client and server, we are able

to deliver METAR (Meteorological Reports) and NEXRAD (NEXt-generation RADar)

to pilots. Our current implementation uses 802.11b wireless technology for the communication, but is ideally suited for satellite-based broadcast as a final product.

Medtronic MiniMed (2003–04)

Diabetes Data Management Software API Design and Implementation

Liaison: Pam Roller

Advisor: Belinda Thom

Students: Jessica Fisher, Mark Fredrickson, Aja Hammerly, Jon Huang

With approximately 17 million people in the U.S. with diabetes, Medtronic

MiniMed has produced several distinct lines of diabetes devices to aid in the treatment of the disease. These devices, however, do not utilize a standard communication format. The Clinic team is designing and implementing an extensible interface

that will unify communication with Medtronic MiniMed’s current and future insulin

pumps, glucose sensors, and related diabetes technology.

Engineering Clinic Examples

The Aerospace Corporation (2003–04)

Development of Picosat Add-On Boards

Liaisons: Samuel Osofsky ’85, Nelson Ho

Advisor: John Molinder

Students: Andrew Cole (Team Leader), Nathan Mitchell, Brian Putnam, Daniel

Rinzler, Gabriel Takacs, Philip Vegdahl

Picosats are very small satellites (typically a 4’’ cube) launched in conjunction

with a larger satellite. Aerospace designed the original Picosats, with the first

placed in orbit in 2000. The technology has the potential to be used for a variety

of tasks, including imaging of the launch vehicle to evaluate damage. A Harvey

Mudd College Engineering Clinic team developed digital camera and GPS add-on

boards for the Picosat platform. A single board was designed that is able to support

86

either a camera or a GPS daughterboard. The engineers at Aerospace were surprised and pleased that the team was able to accomplish the project goals using primarily commercial off-the-shelf technologies, thus increasing the system’s reliability.

The board is provisionally scheduled to fly on an upcoming Space Shuttle mission.

Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology (2004–05)

Design of a Prototype Cooling System to Prolong and Preserve Limb Viability

Liaisons: Alex Pranger ’92/’93

Advisor: Donald Remer

Students: Nicolas von Gersdorff (Team Leader), Jay Chow, Michael Le, Robert

Panish, Ajay Shah

While combat armor advancements have increased soldiers’ survival rates, modern weaponry ravages warfighters’ extremities, causing massive trauma and tissue

loss; two-thirds of the more than 10,000 combat injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan

afflicted patients’ limbs. Inducing local hypothermia (i.e., significant cooling of the

affected limb) would prolong limb viability, lengthening the window for soldiers to

obtain restorative and regenerative care and thereby avoid amputations. The Harvey Mudd team developed a lightweight, easily deployable, evaporative cooling wrap

to induce therapeutic hypothermia on the battlefield. A patent disclosure has been

filed, and the next stage of development is underway by the project sponsor.

9Fluidmaster, Inc. (2004–05)

Innovative Designs for Flushing Systems

Liaisons: Chris Coppock

Advisor: Lori Bassman

Students: Joe Laubach (Team Leader), Shawna Biddick, Rami Hindiyeh, Joey Kim,

John Onuminya, Sarah Taliaferro

Fluidmaster, Inc. is a worldwide supplier of plumbing products. The company is

determined to aid in the conservation of scarce fresh water as well as to enable people worldwide to enjoy the benefits of safe and reliable sanitation. This requires a

cost-effective and reliable flushing system that uses a consistent low volume of

water regardless of variations in supply water pressure and toilet resistance. The

HMC team designed and prototyped two designs that accomplished these goals, resulting in a reduction of 0.1 gallon per flush, a potentially very significant improvement. Two provisional patents were awarded to the team, and Fluidmaster has indicated their intention to take one of the designs to market.

UVP, Inc. (2004–05)

Uniform Illumination for Fluorescent In Vivo Imaging

Liaisons: Sean Gallagher, Darius Kelly, Colin Jemmott ’04

Advisor: Qimin Yang, Deb Chakravarti (KGI)

Students: Alyssa Caridis (Team Leader), Stephanie Bohnert, Ekaterina Kniazeva,

Erika Palmer, Laura Moyer, Jeremy Bolton (KGI), Linda Chen (KGI)

In order to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of live animal in vivo imaging,

UVP tasked a team of Harvey Mudd College and Keck Graduate Institute students

to design, simulate, and test innovative imaging systems to achieve unparalleled illumination uniformity. Uniform lighting is needed for quantitative analysis of images of live creatures, which are used for research into cancer and other diseases.

The team developed novel methodologies for measuring light uniformity as well as

several successful designs for the lighting system itself. A successful 3–D image

lighting system will allow researchers to follow the pattern of tumors in the same

test animal, improving the understanding of the disease and simultaneously reducing the number of animals needed for such tests. UVP filed several patent disclosures based on the team’s work, and is in the process of bringing one of the designs

to market.

Mathematics Clinic Examples

HP Labs (2004–05)

Analyzing and Correcting Printer Drift

Liaisons: John Meyer, Gary Dispoto

Advisor: Weiqing Gu

Students: Jeffrey Hellrung (PM), Brianne Boatman, Durban Frazer, Katie Lewis

In color printing, a look-up table (LUT) is a mapping from a computer’s color

space to the ink combinations required to print these colors. An LUT will drift over

time due to a variety of factors including mechanical and environmental changes,

resulting in an undesirable change in the printed results. Currently, constructing

87

a new LUT is a time consuming process. This project focused on developing a

quicker method to recalibrate a printer when drift occurs.

VIASAT, INC. (2001–02)

Using Elliptic Curve Cryptography for Secure Communication

Liaison: Hunter Marshall

Advisor: Weiqing Gu

Students: Simon Tse (TL), Colin Little, Cameron McLeman, Braden Pellett

The ViaSat clinic team will present methods for performing secure cryptography

over an insecure network by 1) Introducing the use of algebraic objects known as

elliptic curves to accomplish this task 2) Presenting Diffe-Hellman key exchange

protocol using elliptic curve cryptogtaphy (ECC) 3) Discussing potential attacks on

this cryptosystem and 4) Demonstrating their implementation of this algorithm allowing two network users to agree upon a secret key over an insecure connection.

Physics Clinic Examples

University of California Irvine Department of Otolaryngology (2003–04)

Modification of a Laryngoscope for Optical Coherence Tomography

Liaison: Brian Wong

Adivisors: Elizabeth Orwin, Robert Wolf

Students: Nikhil Gheewala (PM), River Hutchison, Tonya Icenogle, Rachel Lovec

Currently laryngeal cancer can only be diagnosed with biopsies which are

invasive, permanently damaging, and can miss cancerous tissue. Optical Coherence

Tomography (OCT) is an imaging technique that non-invasively images several millimeters into tissue to seek structural abnormalities, which can indicate cancer. We

will design and construct an OCT device for attachments to a laryngoscope that will

image two-dimensional cross-sections in the larynx, for the purpose of diagnosing laryngeal cancer in its early stages.

Sandia National Laboratories

Optical Characterization of Coated Soot Aerosols or ‘‘Flames and Laser’’

Fall 2004 Students: Mark Dansson, Rachel Kirby, Tristan Sharp, Shannon Woods,

Mike Martin. Spring 2005 Students: Patrick Hopper, Brendan Haberle, Matt

Johnson, Julie Wortman, Mark Dannson, Octavi Semonin

Advisor: Peter Saeta

The optical properties of coated soot aerosols produce the greatest uncertainty in

climate change models. This project aims to measure the scattering and absorption

of light by sub-micron-sized soot particles similar to those produced in diesel exhaust. Total absorption and scattering cross sections of 635 nm laser light are measured using cavity-ringdown and angle-resolved scattering techniques. Soot particles

are created in situ by partially combusting ethylene and coated with a volatile organic compound.

88

BIOGRAPHY FOR DANIEL L. GOROFF

Daniel Goroff is Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty at

Harvey Mudd College. He has held this post since July of 2005, when he also became a member of both the Mathematics and the Economics Departments.

Goroff earned his B.A.–M.A. degree in mathematics summa cum laude at Harvard

as a Borden Scholar, an M.Phil. in economics at Cambridge University as a Churchill Scholar, and a Ph.D. in mathematics at Princeton University as a Danforth Fellow.

Goroff’s first faculty appointment was at Harvard University in 1983. He is currently on leave from his position there as Professor of the Practice of Mathematics,

having also served as Associate Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and

Learning, and Resident Tutor at Leverett House.

A 1988 Phi Beta Kappa Teaching Prize winner, Goroff has taught courses for the

mathematics, economics, physics, history of science, and continuing education departments at Harvard. He was also the founding director of a Masters Degree Program in ‘‘Mathematics for Teaching’’ offered through the Harvard Extension School.

In pursuing his work on nonlinear systems, chaos, and decision theory, Daniel

Goroff has held visiting positions at the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques in

Paris, the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, Bell Laboratories

in New Jersey, and the Dibner Institute at MIT.

In 1994, Goroff was elected to a three-year term on the Board of Directors of the

American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). During 1996–97, he was a Division Director at the National Research Council (NRC) in Washington, and during

1997–98, Goroff worked for the President’s Science Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). That year he was named a ‘‘Young

Leader of the Decade in Academia’’ by Change: The Magazine of Higher Education.

As Director of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (JPBM) from 1998 to 2001,

Daniel Goroff was called to testify about educational and research priorities both by

the House and again by the Senate during the 106th Congress. He currently serves

as Chair of the U.S. National Commission on Mathematics Instruction at the National Research Council, and co-directs the Sloan Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

89

90

Mr. EHLERS. [Presiding] Thank you very much.

And I apologize for the musical chairs here, but Chairman Inglis

has another committee he has to go to periodically to vote.

I also thank you for reminding us of the important role both of

you at the smaller liberal arts colleges play, and I think they provide the best teacher candidates that I have seen in many cases.

I also have a connection to Harvey Mudd, because your—one of

your predecessors, a dean, tried to recruit me some years ago to

come and teach at Harvey Mudd, and——

Dr. GOROFF. We are going to try again.

Mr. EHLERS. I am too old. Thank you.

But next, we are pleased to recognize Ms. Collins from Moraine

Valley Community College, which I have no connection with, but

welcome. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MS. MARGARET SEMMER COLLINS, ASSISTANT

DEAN OF SCIENCE, BUSINESS, AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, MORAINE VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Ms. COLLINS. That is okay. By the time I am done, you will all

feel very comfortable with Moraine Valley Community College.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Moraine Valley Community College. My name is Margaret Collins, and I am

the Assistant Dean of Science, Business, and Computer Technologies.

Moraine Valley is located in the southwest suburban Cook County in Illinois. I mention this because community colleges are all

about the communities they serve. I have considered this community my home for my entire life, and I consider myself a southsider,

just like the World Champion Chicago White Sox. I was raised in

a little suburb called Marinette Park and now live and raise my

children, Carly and Billy, in Evergreen Park. My sister lives two

blocks away, and my parents are right down the street.

Moraine Valley is the second largest community college in Illinois out of 48 with a spring 2006 headcount of just under 16,000.

We offer 123 degree and certificate programs and have just over

46,000 students enrolled annually. We also encounter obstacles to

recruitment and retention of STEM majors.

As we converse today about the recruitment and retention of

STEM undergraduates, I bring the unique perspective of the community college. Certainly, our struggles are similar to institutions

that grant upper-level degrees, and I echo the sentiments of the

panel here today, but distinctive to the community college and

unique to Moraine Valley Community College are issues that arise

because of demographics, geographic boundaries, and open admission policies.

Community colleges serve all people, and we are proud to do so,

but we also must face obstacles, including under-preparedness in

math and science. With the high school population, we also encounter misalignment between secondary and post-secondary math and

science, which causes a gap—a knowledge gap for many of the students entering Moraine Valley Community College. By all means,

as an educator who works closely with area high schools, and who

has children in a local elementary school, I sympathize with their

91

struggles to meet and exceed state standards while providing a

quality, well-rounded education. I praise all of these teachers and

educators for their efforts in this challenging time.

Despite these obstacles, our discussion today must focus on solutions. Our most recent accomplishment has resulted from finelytuned collaboration and lots of human energy. I am lucky to work

with so many dedicated individuals. The Academy Awards would

have the orchestra playing only a third of the way through my

thank-yous. CSSIA, the Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances with much-appreciated funding from the National

Science Foundation, also an ATE center, enables us to address

issues of recruitment and retention from several perspectives.

Briefly now, but in greater detail in the written testimony, the

ATE center has been—helped us to develop curriculum, expand internship opportunities, build a Women In Technology mentoring

program, produce video that showed technology in a more appealing and interesting way, offer a career development course that dispels common myths. We have also been able to provide low or nocost teacher training and curriculum development. We have also

developed an excellent outreach program, which I wanted to tell

you a little bit more about today.

During the past two years, I have had the opportunity to work

with a very special group of students as part of our CSSIA outreach program. The high school students that attend the Mirta Ramirez Computer Science Academy in Chicago, Illinois do so because

they seek careers as programmers, IT professionals, IT security

specialists, and network engineers. Our efforts to assist these

young people focus on providing a seamless transition from our

high school—from high school to college. We have sponsored several on-campus events, combined with activities at their own

school, that allow students to earn college credit, gain skills, and

understand the importance of continuation beyond high school.

Through our community outreach event and computer health

clinics, students assist the community members by conducting

virus scans and other security-related operations on PCs. The students also competed in teams and presented their projects before

a judging committee. The winning teams were invited to Washington, DC to present at the annual ATE conference. My best experience as an educator was participating in the travel with these

dozen or more students. The experience for all of us was pretty

amazing, and the result of hard work, dedication, and good funding

was visible to all.

In addition to NSF funding, we have appreciated funding from

other federal sources. It is outlined in greater detail in the written

testimony, but Carl Perkins and Tech Prep funding has significantly aided our efforts to recruit and retain STEM majors. It has

done this through dual credit, math alignment programs, tutoring,

implementation of contextual learning, career exploration opportunities for high school and elementary students, and of course, to

purchase equipment and supplies. The college also engages TRIO

funds to provide support services, academic advising to create

awareness, and again, to provide some tutoring and academic support.

92

The colleges uses operational funds to help recruit and retain

STEM majors. We do this by providing dual enrollment opportunities for advanced placement high school students in calculus, statistics, college algebra, trigonometry, biology, and chemistry. We

work closely with the upper level colleges to create two-plus-two

agreements that assists Moraine Valley students to transition into

engineering and computer science programs. We improved diversity

in our full-time teaching faculty through a strong commitment to

diversity in our hiring practices.

As for the measurement of effectiveness, my written testimony

outlines in more detail the scrutiny and thoroughness applied to all

of our assessment activities. At Moraine Valley, institutional effectiveness has always been, and will remain, a high priority for our

institution, and I would be glad to entertain your questions upon

conclusion of this statement.

In closing, I would like to emphasize ways in which the Federal

Government may continue to help us address the obstacles we face.

We need to continue to emphasize the seriousness of the social and

economic issues related to recruitment and retention of STEM majors. We need to provide more recognition to the role of the community college in providing pathways and opportunities in higher education, especially for the under-served and under-represented. We

need to support—we need more support for post-secondary collaboration through Tech Prep and Carl Perkins. We also need to emphasize the social issues, including gender, race, and socioeconomic

status. We also need to replicate successful best practices and programs.

Thank you again for allowing the voice of the community college

to be present at this hearing today. Community colleges have become, and will remain, a vital means for students otherwise unable

to participate in higher education. The issue of recruitment and retention of science, technology, engineering, and math majors is crucial—is a crucial economic and social issue that demands greater

consideration. I feel honored to have been afforded this opportunity

to sit with an esteemed panel and to contribute to the discussion.

I look forward to the positive outcomes that result from this conversation.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET SEMMER COLLINS

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the

opportunity to testify on the role of community colleges in the recruitment and retention of undergraduate science, math and engineering majors. I would like to introduce myself, my name is Margaret Collins and I come to you with fourteen years

of experience in higher education. My experience includes college teaching, career

and workforce development, grant writing and most recently academic affairs administration. My last twelve years of employment have been at the community college. Currently, I am the Assistant Dean of Science, Business & Computer Technologies at Moraine Valley Community College.

I recognize the tremendous challenge that our nation’s educational institutions

face as we prepare graduates to compete in a global economy. My testimony today

comes from the perspective of the community college, from my experiences at Moraine Valley Community College (MVCC). I intend to address obstacles to recruitment and retention of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) majors

at Moraine Valley Community College and discuss how we work towards minimizing the obstacles through extensive collaboration, grant funding and human capital.

93

Question One: What obstacles have I encountered at Moraine Valley Community College in recruiting and retaining STEM majors?

Students who attend community college, specifically at Moraine Valley Community College face unique obstacles that students at upper division colleges and universities may not. Regardless of the particular institution, most STEM programs remain challenged by issues considered more universal to recruitment and retention.

1. Under preparedness or college readiness (traditional aged students coming

from high school). According to the United States Department of Education,

(2005) college readiness is one of the seven national education priorities and

although improvement has been seen in recent years, too many students remain unprepared for college.

a. Math remediation—based on the MVCC placement test scores 54 percent

of students in 2004 require some level of developmental math before entering college level algebra. This figure is up from 48 percent in 1999

(2005).

b. High school science requirement for graduation—Graduation requirements in the State of Illinois dictate that students complete two years

of science credit which is typically taken in the 9th and 10th grades. (Office of the Governor, State of Illinois, 2005). This leaves a large gap between the completion of high school science requirement and entrance

into community college science.

c. Curriculum not aligned across secondary and post-secondary institutions—Secondary curriculum is aligned with the Illinois Learning Standards and the statewide standardized exam. However, community college

curriculum aligns with the Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI) and the

requirements of higher level post-secondary colleges and universities.

This often causes a gap in the knowledge base that contributes to under

preparedness.

d. Transitional opportunities not well understood or conveyed—Developmental guidance programs in area high schools continue to improve in

our region but extensive work remains related to helping students understand career paths, career development and their associated educational plan. This task has become more complex because of increasing

specialization in STEM careers.

2. Lack of Opportunity

a. 1st generation college students (neither parent has a four year college

degree or higher)—Ample research on first generation college students

exists. These investigations consistently indicate that, compared to students whose parents are college graduates, first generation students are

more likely to leave at the end of the first year, be on a persistence track

to a Bachelor’s degree after three years, and are less likely to stay enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

rolled or attain a Bachelor’s degree after five years. (Pascarella, Pierson,

Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004). First generation students represent 67 percent of the MVCC student population.

b. Economically disadvantaged—Community colleges by nature serve populations of students with great diversity including socioeconomic status.

MVCC is no exception with a portion of the student based considered

economically disadvantaged.

c. Multiple priorities including work, other courses, and family obligations—Community college students trend towards having multiple priorities. According to the MVCC spring 2005 Community College Survey of

Student Engagement, 60 percent of the respondents indicated that their

full time employment is likely to lead to withdrawal, while 50 percent

of the students surveyed indicate that caring for dependents is a likely

reason to withdraw from class or the college.

3. Negative perceptions associated with science, technology, engineering and

math including:

a. Perception of poor labor market, few job opportunities—Persistent belief

that few jobs exist for science, technology, math, and engineering majors

continues. At MVCC, informal student surveys reflect this perception.

nationally, most job outlook surveys bolster this perception. For example,

in the March 10th edition of the USA Today, an excerpt from a recent

study compiled by the Department of Labor (2005), showed strong job

opportunities in allied health and nursing, a brief mention of technologyrelated jobs, and no mention of job opportunities in the traditional areas

of science and engineering.

b. Perception that STEM is unattractive, uninteresting and only for the

super smart—For decades our society has perpetuated the stereotypical

perception that people who work in science, math, technology, and engineering tends towards being very smart and less interesting. Work to

dispel the notion of the science and computer geek has not progressed.

Students continue to associate these majors as being for a small group

of capable and stereotypical individuals. In a recent survey of students

published in the proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education, students listed as some reasons for not persisting in

STEM majors as due to the excessive work load, sedentary lifestyle, antisocial nature, dullness/tediousness and competitiveness. (Yasuhara,

2005).

c. Perception of STEM as male oriented and male dominated—The issue of

gender bias in STEM majors receives an abundance of research attention

related to the perception that these are male oriented and male dominated fields. Research shows that many female students not only have

low expectations of themselves in science classes, but also have

stereotypical views about scientists, believing that boys are more likely

to become scientists. This view has a negative effect on the probability

of girls considering science as a career (Bohrmann & Akerson, 2001).

What actions has Moraine Valley Community College taken to over come the obstacles?

At Moraine Valley Community College addressing the obstacles faced by students

in STEM majors takes on different fundamental nature depending on the precise

student population at hand. Moraine Valley, like most community colleges, enrolls

students interested in a community college education as a means to an end, i.e., job

training. Often referred to as the career program students, at MVCC these students

make up half of our student population. The other half consists of students interested in earning credit hours and/or degrees that transfer to other institutions. We

refer to these students as transfer program students and they are interested in a

community college education as a vehicle to a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

For the career program students, those interested specifically in technology and

engineering programs and degrees. Critical funding from the National Science Foundation, Carl Perkins and Tech Prep has enabled several of our programs to reverse

the national trend of declining enrollment. Many of our programs have experienced

increased enrollment and higher retention.

95

Funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the past five years has

resulted in significant impact on our success. These successes include the college’s

ATE Center and the Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances

(CSSIA). The funding has resulted in helped us to:

1. Develop curriculum in mechanical design, pre-engineering, Internet specialist, information technology security, wireless and Voice Over IP (through

two projects and the ATE center).

2. Expand internship opportunities by hiring an internship/externship coordinator exclusively designated for CSSIA.

3. Build a ‘‘Women in Technology’’ mentoring program that was originally funded from a previous NSF project and now funded through CSSIA.

4. Develop an outreach program for economically disadvantaged inner city Hispanic youth who attend a computer science charter school. The student population is half female.

During the past two years, I have had the opportunity to work with a very special

group of students as part of our CSSIA outreach program. The high school students,

who attend the Mirta Ramirez Computer Science Academy, a charter school sponsored by Aspira of Illinois, are inner city Hispanic youth (Half Mexican and half

Puerto Rican), of which half are also young women. They attend the computer

science academy because they seek careers as programmers, IT professionals, IT security specialists, and network engineers.

Our efforts to assist these young people focus on providing a seamless transition

from high school to college. We have sponsored several on campus events combined

with activities at their own school that provide opportunity for the students to earn

college credit, learn about IT careers and understand the importance of continuation

their education beyond high school. We organized a community outreach event, a

computer health clinic, that enabled students to assist community members by conducting virus scans and other security related operations on PCs brought to the

event. The students also competed in teams and presented their projects before an

audience at the all day event. The teams with the best projects were invited to

Washington, D.C. to present at the annual ATE conference. Twelve students traveled from their west side neighborhoods. The experience for all of us was pretty

amazing and the result of hard work, dedication and good funding was visible to

all.

5. Produce video segments that show technology related careers as more appealing, interesting and attractive

6. Offer a career development course that dispels myths about the poor labor

market, provides career exploration through specialized interest inventories,

provides an outlet for career related research in the areas of information

technology

96

7. Provide low or no cost teacher training and curriculum development opportunities that foster program updates. The CSSIA faculty development opportunities have enabled us to train over 800 faculty members on information assurance, network security and wireless technologies.

Carl Perkins and Tech Prep funding has significantly aided our efforts to recruit

and retain STEM majors by enabling us to:

1. Provide dual credit opportunities for students in Career and Technical Education (CTE) classrooms.

2. Develop a math alignment program that brings high school teachers and college faculty together to discuss math remediation and ways to better prepare

high school students for college math.

3. Develop and offer a tutoring program for Management Information Systems

students.

4. Provide professional development opportunities to teachers at the secondary

and post-secondary level to better implement contextual learning.

5. Provide career exploration opportunities for high school and elementary students that portray technology and engineering in a more positive light.

6. Purchase updated instructional equipment supplies and equipment to meet

the ever changing demands of industry.

The obstacles for transfer students, although similar to those of career program

students, are handled differently and through different funding streams:

Specifically, the college has several large Department of Education (DOE) grants

from the TRIO program (Upward Bound, Talent Search and Student Support Services) that help us overcome obstacles and address recruitment and retention for

STEM majors through activities that:

1. Provide support services, academic advising and career planning for students

already attending MVCC.

2. Create awareness about college opportunities for pre-high school under-represented students who are economically disadvantaged and/or first generation college bound.

3. Provide tutoring and academic support that addresses remediation issues for

under prepared students.

4. Offer career development opportunities that emphasize the importance of college education after high school.

In addition to grant funds that enable Moraine Valley Community College to directly address issues of recruitment and retention for STEM majors, the college also

utilizes operational funds that assist to:

1. Provide dual enrollment opportunities for Advanced Placement high school

students in calculus, statistics, college algebra, trigonometry, biology, and

chemistry.

2. Create 2+2 agreements in mechanical design and information technology

that assist MVCC student’s transition into engineering and computer science

Bachelor’s degree programs.

3. Improve diversity in our full-time teaching faculty through a strong commitment to diversity in our hiring practices.

How are we measuring the effectiveness of these actions?

Measuring the effectiveness of our efforts to recruit and retain STEM majors is

a multi-tiered process. Because grant funded programs require high standards of accountability and because NSF grants specifically are awarded on a competitive

basis, we adhere to stringent standards for program evaluation and effectiveness.

The best model for evaluating program effectiveness comes from a process recommended by the National Science Foundation. With help from the NSF we contract an external evaluator whose purpose is to monitor our progress against our

grant objectives. A National Visiting Committee is also designated to assist in the

evaluation of CSSIA. This committee provides an annual appraisal with extensive

feedback. Also through NSF funds we conduct large scale surveys that assess productivity and accomplishment.

In addition to NSF determined evaluation processes, at MVCC, we benefit from

opportunities available to us through our resource development and institutional research offices. These resources assist front line program administrators and coordinators with report writing, data gathering and quality analysis of our programs.

97

Through Tech Prep funding we contract a research associate to perform a longitudinal inquiry on dual credit and articulation related data. The outcomes from our

extensive assessment of programs and yearly reporting on effectiveness are used as

a basis for continuation of activities as well as in the development of new initiatives.

Question Two: What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other

institutions of higher education?

An issue of importance to all academic institutions and an issue often difficult to

fully address concerns the magnitude of role models related to retention of STEM

majors. At MVCC we address this issue with a strong effort towards diversifying

the faculty. Hiring is a long-term commitment that requires a constant focus every

single year and consumes a great deal of resources.

A major obstacle faced by other institutions of higher education is the lack of financial resources necessary to pursue competitive funding programs. In the State

of Illinois our level of State funding has declined over the past few years and continues to decline. The college now finds itself more dependent on grant funded initiatives like NSF, Perkins and Tech Prep. Due to the volatile status of funding it

becomes difficult to make long-term plans. We have a strong commitment to pursue

NSF funding but it is very competitive. Unlike many other institutions of higher

education, our institution is committed to providing the time and resources needed

for the extensive proposal process.

Illinois community colleges were plagued by a lack of statewide curriculum alignment. The standardized general education core (Illinois Articulation Initiative) helps

to alleviate the problems. Other states continue to struggle with this alignment.

Question Three: What role have federal agencies, particularly the National Science

Foundation (NSF) played in improving undergraduate STEM education? What more

should federal agencies be doing in this area?

This has been addressed in the context above.

What more should federal agencies be doing in this area?

• Federal agencies should continue to emphasize the seriousness of the social

and economic issues related to recruitment and retention of STEM majors.

• Federal agencies should provide more recognition to the role of community

colleges in providing pathways and opportunities in high education especially

for the under-served and under-represented.

• More support should come from the federal agencies related to secondarypost-secondary collaboration (Tech Prep, Carl Perkins).

• Curriculum alignment and refinement of standards in STEM should remain

a priority of the federal agencies.

• Social issues including gender and race bias in higher education should remain high priority for federal agencies.

• Continued federal support of faculty development programs should remain a

priority through NSF and DOE grants.

• Investment in replicating best practices and programs that experience continued successful achievement should be prioritized at a national level.

In closing, thank you again for allowing the voice of the community college to be

present at this hearing today. Community colleges have become and will remain a

vital means for students, otherwise unable, to participate in high education. The

issue of recruitment and retention of science, technology, engineering, and math majors is a crucial economic and social issue that demands greater consideration. I feel

honored to have been afforded this opportunity to contribute to the discussion and

look forward to the positive outcomes that result from this conversation. Thank you.

References

Bohrmann, M.L., & Akerson, V.L. (2001). A Teacher’s Reflections on Her Actions to

Improve Her Female Students’ Self-Efficacy toward Science. Journal of Elementary Science Education 13(2), 41+. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from Questia

database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002438891

Facts & Figures: Past Present and Future (2005). Moraine Valley Community College, Office of Institutional Research and Planning.

Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini, P.T. (2004). First-Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and Outcomes. Journal of Higher Education 75(3), 249+. Retrieved March 10, 2006,

from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5005988022

98

Office of the Governor, State of Illinois. Plan increases high school graduation requirement, better prepares students for success after high school. Retrieved on

March 10, 2006 from: http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases

United States Department of Education (2000). Reasons for Optimism, Reason for

Action. Retrieved on March 10, 2006 from: http://www.ed.gov/news/

pressreleases/2005/08/08182005.html

USA Today, March 10, 2006.

Yasuhara, K. (2005). Choosing Computer Science: Women at the start of the undergraduate pipeline, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from

http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/yasuhara/cv/publications/

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARGARET SEMMER COLLINS

Education:

Candidate: Doctorate of Education, Adult, Counseling and Higher Education,

Research Agenda: Recruitment & Retention of Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math

Dissertation Topic: Gender Gaps in Advanced & Emerging Technologies at Midwestern Community Colleges; Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL; Anticipated completion: August 2006.

Master of Arts, Communication Studies (1992), University of Illinois at Chicago,

Chicago, IL

Bachelor of Science, Communication Studies (1987), Northern Illinois University,

DeKalb, IL

Professional Experience:

Moraine Valley Community College 1994 to present

Assistant Dean, Science, Business & Computer Technologies (2002 to present)

• Provide administrative leadership on grant projects that include the Center

for Systems Security and Information Assurances (CSSIA), CSSIA Supplemental Grant, Tech Prep Support Grant and Tech Prep Consortium grant.

• Chair search committees to select and hire math, science, business and information technology faculty.

• Lead non-tenured faculty evaluation process by chairing evaluation teams.

• Direct program improvement projects for career and technical education programs that include Tech Prep, 2+2, dual enrollment, career development and

work based learning.

• Assist in the oversight and management of sub-division and grant budgets.

• Work closely with faculty to strategically address marketing, outreach and

improved collaboration with high schools, four-year colleges/universities and

the community.

• Advocate and encourage the development and enhancement of recruitment/retention efforts geared at non-traditional students especially women in IT.

Moraine Area Career System, Oak Lawn, IL 1999 to 2002

Assistant Director/Tech Prep Coordinator, Moraine Area Career System

• Administer all fiscal and administrative responsibilities for the three regional

Career and Technical Education grant programs. Responsible for budget management, progress reporting, grant writing, program development, and program supervision. Work collaboratively with staff at the Illinois State Board

of Education, secondary administrative personnel, community college administration and teachers at both the secondary and post-secondary levels. The

grants managed include: Federal Tech Prep, State Tech Prep and Work Based

Learning.

• Lead efforts to enhance career and technical education within the Moraine

Valley region by promoting and managing the development of articulated and/

or dual enrollment courses aligned with Business, Industrial Technology, and

Family and Consumer Sciences.

• Research local, State, and national labor market data and monitor educational trends at Moraine Valley Community College for the purpose of inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
99

troducing progressive Career and Technical education programs, into local

high schools.

• Develop and implement professional development opportunities for area educators including secondary and post-secondary teachers, counselors and administrative staff that help educators align curriculum with the standards,

learn about alternative instructional delivery techniques, and examine the

latest trends in learning, instruction and curriculum development.

Coordinator for Work Based Learning, Education to Careers (1998 to 1999)

• Coordinated the development of regional work based learning programs for

six high school districts and twenty-one elementary school districts in the Moraine Valley region.

• Collaborate with business and industry representatives to develop and implement work based learning strategies that meet the needs of employers and

address labor shortages.

Recruiter (1997 to 1998)

• Developed and implemented recruitment strategies that promote Moraine

Valley’s educational offerings and community services including all credit and

non-credit, adult basic education, continuing education and professional development programs.

Contractual Grant Writer (1997 to 1998)

• Researched, developed, wrote and edited grant proposals aimed at securing

external funding for programs servicing the college and the region. Worked

on several large federally funded TRIO grants as well as professional development grants through the Illinois State Board of Education.

Placement Specialist (1994 to 1997)

• Provided job search and career development assistance to students, community residents and alumni through one-on-one advisement, instruction of

workshops and presentation of customized classroom discussions.

• Initiated and implemented the improvement of many Job Placement Center

programs and procedures.

• Collaborated with instructional faculty to serve the students’ job placement

needs, keep abreast of labor market trends and prepare students for life after

college.

Adjunct Faculty (1994 to 1997)

• Instructed basic speech communication course focussing on public speaking,

group dynamics, interpersonal skills, effective listening and cultural consciousness in communication. (COM 103).

Robert Morris College, Chicago, Illinois 1992 to 1994

Placement Coordinator/Career Development Instructor

• Designed from start-up an internship and job placement program for students

requiring non-paid clinical experience that included the creation of contracts,

evaluation materials, tracking devices and correspondence.

• Coordinated closely with business and industry to customize each training

and/or internship experience that met specific requirements of the school and

employer.

• Taught career development courses designed to promote college and career

success through an emphasis on work place skills and work based learning.

Publications & Presentations:

• National Tech Prep Network Annual Conference, Presenter Topics: NSF ATE

Pre-conference. The Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances

(CSSIA) 2004 Minneapolis, 2005 Orlando and ‘‘Math and Science Alignment

the Tech Prep Way.’’ Minneapolis, 2004.

• Wisconsin Careers Conference, Spring 2003, Madison, WI; Showcase Presentation. Topic: ‘‘Working Together for Workplace Skills Success.’’

• National Tech Prep Network Annual Conference, Presenter Fall 2002. Topic:

‘‘Working Together for Workplace Skills Success.’’

100

• Illinois State Board of Education, Connections Project, Conference Presenter

Spring 2002. Topic: ‘‘The Aspen Health Sciences Academy, Moraine Valley

Community College and Aspen High School Working Together.’’

• Illinois State Board of Education, Connections Project, Connections Conference, St. Charles, Illinois. ‘‘The Moraine Area Cisco Academy.’’ Presentation to Educators. Spring 2001.

• Illinois State Board of Education, Connections Project, Connections Conference, Springfield, Illinois. ‘‘Tech Prep Transition Grant.’’ Presentation to

Educators. Spring 2000.

• American College Personnel Association, Eleven Update, Fall 1997 ‘‘An

Emerging Professionals Perspective on Leadership.’’ (Article published in association newsletter).

• Department of Leadership and Educational Policy Studies, Graduate Student

Symposium, Northern Illinois University, ‘‘Effective Conference Planning.’’

Presentation. Spring 1999.

Margaret Semmer Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science, Business and Computer Technologies at Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills, Illinois.

She received her Bachelor’s of Science from Northern Illinois University, a Master

of Arts from University of Illinois at Chicago and is currently a Doctoral Candidate

in Education from Northern Illinois University. Margaret’s research agenda concentrates on gender gaps in science, math, and technology, with her dissertation

specifically related to retention of women in emerging technologies at community

colleges. She began her career in community college administration at Moraine Valley Community College 12 years ago. As Assistant Dean she is the lead administrator for the National Science Foundation Advanced Technical Education Center

(The Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances) and provides programmatic leadership for Tech Prep, dual enrollment and 2+2 articulation with

four-year colleges and universities. Margaret is a single mom with two children ages

7 and 9.

101

102

DISCUSSION

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Collins.

Thank you all for your testimony.

I will recognize myself for a round of questions.

Dr. Wieman, you said in a very interesting part of your testimony that unless you—we improve science education at the college

level first, we are wasting our time and money on making major

improvements in K–12. And I wonder if you could help us, because

we are getting ready to spend a fair amount of money on K–12 education. We do year after year. The President has requested somewhere in the nature of $380 million I believe it is for some of his

initiatives that are aimed at K–12. And I wonder if you might tell

us, if you were in Congress evaluating those proposals, where

would you focus the money? And also, what challenges have you

found from the Administration, in the administration of your university, in implementing the kind of changes that you think would

make a difference?

Dr. WIEMAN. Okay. So those are quite different questions, so——

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

Dr. WIEMAN.—let me just talk about the K–12 situation.

And I don’t presume to be an expert on K–12 education, so—and

it is a vast program. What I will claim to be somewhat of an expert

on is looking at the science preparation—you know, the undergraduate math and science preparation of K–12 teachers, and not

just both their content knowledge, but we also looked at, sort of,

their general beliefs about what science is, how you learn science,

and it is dismal. That is the bottom line. And so we—it is just clear

that these future teachers have to have a better understanding of

science, and they have to have a better understanding of what

science is as well as, sort of, being competent at it if they are going

to present it in a reasonable way to students. Now—so that, in

terms of how that breaks down into focusing on what you would

do, that—I mean, I would have to give it more detailed thought,

but I think that it is clear that too often people can become certified teachers and then end up teaching math and science without

ever the—I mean, teacher certification does not imply, and often is

quite independent, of any competence in those subjects, and certainly a level of competence required to teach them effectively.

Chairman INGLIS. Let me just ask, on that point, to see if anyone

else in the panel would like to comment on that.

Dr. Seymour.

Dr. SEYMOUR. Okay. I think we are, Mr. Chairman, in an emergency situation. And this is gradually getting worse. We have both

a shortfall in the supply of teachers who have at least an education

major in math or science, or even a minor in math or science, to

replace the teaching force that we have. We have depended, for

many years, on very able women mathematicians who used to fill

our classrooms as math teachers that are now retired or retiring,

but young women with math qualifications are not going into

school teaching. So we have taken a resource for granted. We are

now in a situation where we cannot fill the vacancies that we have

with qualified math and science teachers in many states. I have

cited Texas, New Jersey, and Florida as three states of which I am

103

aware where their vacancies are largely filled by alternative and

emergency certification by bringing people who have some background in STEM majors to fill those places. And the provision of

math and science teachers across the country is extremely patchy.

It is very variable. In our research, we have found that even in the

same state, there is enormous variation at what you can expect if

you happen to be a student in those classes. It is very bad in

schools which predominately contain minority young people. We

saw that very clearly in our research. For instance, young people

who came from predominately black and Hispanic and higher middle schools into university STEM classes presented some of the

most dismal stories that we heard in our ‘‘Talking About Leaving’’

research. They came in, as we called it, ‘‘overconfident and underprepared’’: They were strongly supported by their communities and

their teachers in coming to the university to take STEM majors,

but when they got there, were very shocked to find that they were

not remotely prepared for what they had to undertake. And this

was a devastating experience from which they tended not to recover.

So huge variation, as well as a shortfall, in the country in what

is offered. It is regionally very, very different. And we have a crisis

such that we both, I think, are obliged to support and improve the

teaching force that we have by any means at our disposal—by outreach work, by summer workshops, and so on. These go on. They

are well supported by the National Science Foundation and others.

These have to go on. But at the same time, we must recruit teachers for our system that have disciplinary degrees in the STEM majors. And that is where we are woefully short. That is what is not

happening. And I agree with my distinguished colleague that unless we attend to the supply of teachers from the universities, from

baccalaureate students, we are in a deepening, serious national crisis in the quality of our K–12 teaching force. And the comparisons

with the international situation, I think, are very, very well known.

Chairman INGLIS. Okay.

Now the second part of my question, I am interested in getting

Dr. Wieman and Dr. Burris to talk about the second part of that,

which is right here we have a professor and the President of a college sitting side by side. What are the challenges that you have

faced in terms of getting an administration to move the college culture, the university culture?

Dr. WIEMAN. I think it is important to appreciate. I mean, I work

at a large research university. At large research universities, the

culture is really not set by the administration. You can’t go and tell

a physics department or a chemistry department or a biology department—as a President, you just can’t go and tell them what

they should teach, how they should teach, what fields they should

go into. They just ignore you. That is the way those structures

work. So that is why I am saying is if it really happens at the department level and, to a large extent, those departments, they succeed or fail on their external success. I mean, that is why they are

kind of decoupled from the administration. Successful departments

go out and they find federal agencies that will support them to

get—bring in more research dollars. They can be more active. They

can get more prestige. And so that is what I am saying. That is

104

where the reward system—and, you know, the Federal Government

is somewhat responsible for that. But that is really graded, the reward system, and, really, the structure in who answers or doesn’t

answer to whom, in the large research universities.

Chairman INGLIS. Dr. Burris, your comments on that.

Dr. BURRIS. Well, I don’t want to sound overly Pollyannaish, but

the situation at small liberal arts colleges is really quite different.

My sense is that both the faculty and the administration, in making decisions about what model we think works, in fact, means that

there is little or no resistance to implementation of small classes,

hands-on learning, inquiry-based methodology. I certainly know

that is the case at Calvin College where the physics is taught that

way, I am sure. But the point being, it is exactly as Dr. Wieman

said. We are comparing a little bit apples and oranges. The reward

system, which I think very successfully produces K–12 teachers as

well as future scientists at small liberal arts colleges, is based very

much on the success of the faculty as teachers. They must be scholars, and we strongly believe the emphasis and importance of their

scholarship, but they first and foremost must be teachers. As teachers, they see their primary responsibility being to teach in the best

possible way. And that is one of the arguments for the value of

small liberal arts colleges, not only to train future scientists but

train future teachers. We have an education department. Anyone

who wishes to be a teacher in biology or physics or math must

major in the disciplinary field. The education department provides

some of the pedagogical assistance, but their majors, upon graduation, will be in the various fields that they will ultimately teach.

So I don’t think—I think it is a very different reward system. If

I can comment on my own career, where I started at Penn State,

the reward system would be very similar to the University of Colorado, that is I was judged on my ability to receive external funding.

I was judged on my publication record. And to be quite frank with

you, my teaching was very low on the totem pole in terms of a reward system. That is not the case at liberal arts colleges. And until

research universities are willing to attach a reward and that reward translates into promote and 10-year salary increases to teaching, we are not going to change the system easily. And I am sure

that Dr. Wieman would—could speak further to that, but we have

a very different system, as an administrator at a small liberal arts

college.

Dr. WIEMAN. I—can I make a—I actually spend a reasonable

amount of time visiting, not Beloit, but many small colleges, and

I speak lots of places. And there is a difference between being dedicated to teaching and valuing it and doing it effectively. And I see

many small colleges where their—and faculty universities as well

are very committed to teaching, but they are following an obsolete

model that our research says just doesn’t work very well. And that

happens at small colleges, big colleges, universities, and so on. It

is really a different method. It is really an evidence research-based

method that, by and large, is not implemented at any institutions

on a widespread basis.

Chairman INGLIS. I am extending my time quite a bit. And I

should call on Dr. Ehlers, I believe, next.

So Dr. Ehlers.

105

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. It is very difficult for me to answer—

ask a question. I basically feel like saying ‘‘Amen,’’ because it is

rare that I have—that I agree with things that are said by almost

the entire panel of witnesses that are before us.

But you are all right on target. You are looking at different parts

of the target, in some cases, but I really appreciate the work that—

not just the work you are doing, but the work you represent. And

I am very absolutely delighted to see what I would call the awakening of the consciousness of universities and colleges about the

importance of teaching and the search to do it properly and do it

correctly. As some of you know, because I have had conversations

with you, I have spent a good deal of my academic career trying

to teach elementary school teachers both science and how to teach

science. And that arose out of something very simple. I became concerned about what was called scientific illiteracy in the late ’60s,

and I simply asked myself, ‘‘What can I, as a physicist, do? How

can I impact that?’’ And I decided that I was not likely to ever have

a national impact, since I had never intended to get into politics,

but I decided what I could do is, in my classroom, teach—I could

volunteer to teach future elementary school teachers. And that

guaranteed me the job of doing it, because no one else really wanted to do it. And I tried to develop programs that would assist them

and make them feel comfortable once they got into the classroom.

I also taught a couple of National Science Foundation summer institutes for teachers who were already in the classroom, which is,

by far, the greatest problem in this country at the moment, how

do you reach the teachers who are already there who did not learn

enough science and don’t know how to teach it properly. And it is

through no fault of their own. I never knock the teachers, because

every classroom I have worked in, teachers desperately wanted to

teach science and mathematics properly, and they were afraid of

the subject. They did not feel qualified to teach it. And so, I think,

number one, an immediate objective has to be to make them at

least have enough knowledge so that they feel confidence about

what they are trying to teach and not avoid it. But teaching future

teachers is equally important. And we have to do both.

My question for you is what role do you see the Federal Government having? We have no control over curriculum at the federal

level, no control over textbooks, anything of that sort. Most of our

efforts are going to try to help poor school districts and poor students. And by that, I mean financially poor in both cases. What

would you advise us to do in terms of developing programs that can

help people like you and the people at your institutions do an effective job of reaching both existing teachers and the future teachers?

Dr. GOROFF. I would like to agree with my colleagues that I

think the first priority should be investments in in-service and preservice work with teachers, including content faculty at the college

level, working with those teachers. And I just wanted to say,

though, that my experience with this is a little bit different from

my colleagues, and give some hope to the notion that federal and

other dollars can make a difference in all of this. So at Harvard,

a place where, I would say, some people have heard that the faculty and administration can be a bit obstinent, I was the founding

director of a program, a masters degree program, in mathematics

106

for teaching. It is run by the mathematics department. It is offered

through the Harvard Extension School. And right now, we are enrolling about 100 teachers per semester in these courses. And I also

want to say that throughout the mathematical community, there

have been a great deal of reports and reforms specifically about

teacher preparation and its importance for the country and for the

discipline. So I want to say that it can be done and it can make

a difference.

Mr. EHLERS. I personally think one of the roadblocks has been—

is strictly a cultural one that I don’t see in very many other countries, and that is this cultural belief that somehow math and

science are not for women and, perhaps, even minorities. And

that—the tragedy is not that it is—that that view is being imposed,

but that these groups tend to feel that within themselves. And

since the majority of our teachers are female, that creates a real

problem, and I have spent years trying to overcome that cultural

bias. I don’t know how we could address that.

But I gather, from the response and the smiles I see, that someone else asked this question before me. I am sorry. I had to step

out to go to something else. But where would you envision the programs best being housed? The National Science Foundation? The

Department of Education? Or should we simply hand the money to

the states and ask them to do it, following certain guidelines? I

see——

Dr. BURRIS. You have lots of hands on that one, and my answer

is very quick and simple. The National Science Foundation, I think,

is absolutely the best place for such programs to be housed. Unequivocally. No arguments.

Mr. EHLERS. Is that—is everyone agreed on that? It is very important for you to send that message to the Congress and to the

Administration as well, because there seems to be a shift in opinion

on that.

Dr. SEYMOUR. Yeah.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Go ahead.

Dr. SEYMOUR. Working, as I do, as an evaluator of programs,

many of which are funded by the National Science Foundation, I

would say that I have seen stunning work done in the

Collaboratives for Teacher Preparation, which are regional, in the

Math and Science Partnerships. I am a member of the board of the

partnership in Puerto Rico. Quite magnificent. That work needs to

continue. I have also seen, both as evidence, and in person, the

work done by the workshops—many different kinds of workshops—

some by private foundations, like Project Kaleidoscope, but also

ones which have been funded by the National Science Foundation—

the M.I.D. workshops in chemistry, and others. Workshops are one

of the very best ways to get the knowledge out there to faculty who

are interested, or curious, or even skeptical, about new ways of

teaching. They can come into a safe place and try new methods

hands-on and learn them with other people without loss of face.

And with the assurance of camaraderie can go away and work on

these in their own classrooms, and still have that support from the

workshop members. It is a wonderful way of building the whole

community, nationally, of people who are interested in and engaged

107

in the business of how students learn. So NSF workshops are very,

very important.

And then something which we have not done well, which I would

advocate, it—we need programs to educate the teaching assistants

in how to teach in accordance with the new knowledge that we

have. There is plenty of knowledge out there. It is very, very available, and it is also very accessible. So we are not short of knowledge about how to teach well, but we are a little bit primitive in

our understanding of how to educate our teaching assistants how

to use it in active and interactive support of the classes. Unfortunately, most students do not learn their science and math in Beloit

College. It would be nice if they did. The majority are learning

their math and science in the major universities, and that is where

the support for the TA is needed—TAs who work for professors who

are constrained increasingly to work just in a lecture mode. We

need support for the TA who is the person who has the active engagement with the student. That is where the effort needs to be

placed, I think. And, nationally, we are not doing that well. And

I would love to see the National Science Foundation and others

supporting that effort.

Mr. EHLERS. A very pragmatic question. You say you have been

in a lot of workshops. What do you think is the optimum length

of time in a workshop?

Dr. SEYMOUR. I think good. I have reviewed in my testimony

what we know from evaluation of the workshops. What I see—I

have said is a building of a national network which connects people

who are not of the same department or even necessarily of the

same institutions and builds them into a virtual community, which

is actually the mainspring for what is now happening in improving

science education. People are connected. People meet each other at

professional meetings. The professional societies have responded by

developing educational sections. So I see, over the last 15 years, the

building up of a skilled workforce amongst science and math faculty who are the people who teach others and who constantly replenish the workshop teachers. So I am very, very impressed with

them, and we should support them financially. Incidentally, they

are extremely cheap, because the faculty who man the workshops

and woman the workshops do it for free if you just pay their expenses.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

And if I may have a little more time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman INGLIS. Certainly.

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Wieman, you have talked about the research

you have done and the results are clear, have—has this been

adopted by your university and by your departments, or are you a

prophet without honor in your own country?

Dr. WIEMAN. Somewhere in the middle. It is—you know, it is

being somewhat adopted, so they—you know, but it is sort of on an

individual by individual basis. Again, it is—you know, and I think

my department isn’t any different from many other departments.

It is a question of everybody is busy, you know, trying to be as successful as possible. It takes extra time to change, you know, to develop new teaching materials, new teaching methods, to assess and

do good assessment, if they are working. And so, you know, the—

108

convincing people to do that right now, it is pure altruism. You

know, you talk to them enough and you show them the results and

they will try and fit it in a little bit here and a little bit there, but

change driven by altruism is pretty slow whereas when I see you

get big changes are when there is a major—I mean, I see changes

in physics departments that clearly follow federal funding where

there is, you know—it is—but it is always in the research side

where there is a major program. It is clear there is going to be a

large amount of money over a sustained time that really could, you

know, transform a department. Suddenly, a department decides

that, you know, plasma science or nanotechnology is suddenly the

wonderful, important, high-priority thing for their department and

because it can support, you know—they see it correctly as supporting programs and faculty for many years, and they will move

into that area, if there was something. But you know, for teaching,

it—you put in the extra time because you get a warm, fuzzy feeling

inside, but that is about all it comes down to.

So you know, that is within my department and lots of other

places.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. It sounds very familiar.

Now do you think that an NSF program, which was aimed at a

specific department at a specific unit, in other words, they would

apply for a grant to, perhaps, even provide some faculty time for

this, but certainly something that would develop the camaraderie,

the spirit, the altruism that is necessary? What—do you think that

could be successful?

Dr. WIEMAN. If it was designed right, I would be optimistic it

could be. I mean, like I say, you just—the best model is how research funds have transformed departments and institutions and—

but I would say right now, those are the only examples we have

of really—where you have major cultural changes in higher education is—following the money is what it comes down to.

Mr. EHLERS. We need altruistic people who will cough up the

money.

Thank you very much.

You had a comment?

Dr. GOROFF. Can I offer a different perspective, actually?

Dr. WIEMAN. At Harvard, they have so much money.

Dr. GOROFF. Well, I think altruism is actually an important

motivator. But I also want to mention that these problems are intellectually interesting and that that is the reason why most academics went into the field that they did, because they like to solve

problems and they want to know about the research and the kind

of work that Dr. Wieman was talking about before. And if you

present it that way, people can be very engaged in it. And again,

at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard,

where I was the Associate Director, we were able to bring people

in to do a great deal of work, got themselves videotapes to participate in research, to get all sorts of feedback on their teaching, and

this was done confidential and voluntary. There were no rewards

for it or anything else, but the important part about it, and an extensive work, by the way, with the graduate students, none of the

people teaching calculus in the mathematics department were allowed near students before they had gone through a detailed apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 026481 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES06\031506\26481 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
109

prenticeship with visiting classes and doing practice sectors and

being videotaped and getting all sorts of feedback from coaches who

they were paired with. And only then were they allowed to stand

up in front of calculus teachers—in front of calculus students, I

should say. But the important part about it was that we made all

of these things intellectually interesting and useful. And people

showed up, and they continue to show up, and I think that it really

can make a difference in that way.

Mr. EHLERS. Interesting. When I was a student at Berkeley, my

thesis advisor advanced the theorem that the people who are really

concerned about teaching well are the ones who don’t really have

to worry about it, because they generally are already good teachers.

And in fact, when I was teaching there, I always used student evaluation sheets several times during the semester. And he scoffed at

that and says, ‘‘People who hand those out don’t—are the ones who

don’t need it. The people who really need it are afraid to hand

them out and don’t.’’

Dr. GOROFF. These were programs, really, for all of the

different——

Mr. EHLERS. And people didn’t——

Dr. GOROFF.—graduate students and for faculty, including people, who, I have to say, started off really unemployable. Great, talented mathematics from other countries who could not teach at all,

and who, after work and after getting the idea that the culture of

the department was that this was important, this was interesting,

and something that you could get feedback on and improve with,

that some of these graduate students who, as I said, were totally

unemployable to begin with, ended up earning teaching awards.

Mr. EHLERS. Excellent.

Dr. GOROFF. And so it can be done. We just need more examples

and a little bit more resources.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, you have established that you think the National Science Foundation should be running the programs. What

we haven’t established clearly is the types of programs, and I don’t

think there is time for that here. But I would certainly appreciate

any ideas you would want to send the Committee about the best

types of programs for them to sponsor.

Dr. WIEMAN. And you have already said there isn’t time, but I

will jump in anyway. That is—when I said the doubling of the NSF

budget, which is going to happen, we want to make sure that that

doubling includes funding of research on pedagogy, on curriculum,

makes it an intellectually interesting problem, makes it something

that faculty are rewarded for doing, can compete for grants. And

then the second part is sustainability, that it is not simply one program works for two to three years. There has to be some sustainability. So within the NSF budget, just making certain that this is

not lost in the shuffle, as the doubling occurs and the money moves

primarily to the research directorates, make certain that there is

money specifically for these questions like curriculum and learning

how people learn and pedagogy.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Dr. GOROFF. I would echo that.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you.

Now let me recognize Dr. Lipinski.

110

Dr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for being here—getting here late. This is a—something that is very near and dear to my heart, and I think it is critically important. I had an unfortunate—I have been working on this

bill. I have been working for a year to get a hearing on this, and

I was testifying over there. It is actually a bill introduced with the

Chairman. So I was taking care of that.

But I want to thank all of the witnesses here, and especially

send a special thanks to Ms. Collins for being here from Moraine

Valley Community College, which is located in Palos Hills, which

is Palos Hills, Illinois, in my District. And I would like to thank

her for what she is able to add to this hearing, because we—so

much, we sort of overlook the community colleges, and they are

critically important. And if we don’t get kids interested there, the

ones who are attending, then, you know, they are not going to go

on. They are not going to continue in any of the STEM fields. So

I thank Ms. Collins for her work and for her testimony here today.

STEM education, like I said, is near and dear to my heart. I have

a—one of the few Members of Congress who actually has a degree

in engineering. I got a mechanical engineering degree from Northwestern. I got a degree in engineering economic systems from Stanford. My wife actually was a math major in college, and so I have

a lot of experience between myself and her. And I am very happy

to hear what Mr. Goroff was saying about training of TAs, because

certainly TAs, when I was in—an undergraduate, I don’t think they

were trained very well to teach, and when I was a TA, when I

was—I went on to grad school and a—in political science. I actually

turned over to the dark side. But I wasn’t trained. And I think that

is really critical to do. We do more of that, because that is where

you lose so many. You know, you go to calculus class and, you

know, you go to the TA and the TAs just cannot teach and just

really—students lose interest at that point.

I wanted to focus on Ms. Collins here on the—what her institution does. First of all, what would you have to say about the role

of your institution in educating undergraduates who transfer, then,

to a four-year institution to complete their bachelor degree in

science and engineering? I mean, how does your—how do you go

about doing that? How do you specially try to prepare them for

this?

Ms. COLLINS. At community colleges, we have primarily two

types of students, if I can make it that simple. Career program students are ultimately interested in gaining skills so that they can

become employed after an associate degree. And then our other

population is what we consider primarily transfer students, and

those are the students we are preparing to transfer to four-year institutions or higher degree granting institutions. We provide many,

many resources for the students at Moraine Valley Community College to help them succeed, and we do use funds from a variety of

sources to ensure that there is tutoring, academic assistance

through academic advising, and also to help with remediation. It

is an issue at the community college probably more so than at the

large universities and the smaller liberal arts colleges that students come in and are in need of remediation for math and science.

Oftentimes the high school students, in particular, that wind up at

111

the community, they are there because they have chosen that intentionally or they end up there for other reasons. And oftentimes

they don’t have the amount of—or the level of science or the years

of science that students planning to go to the university have. So

we have to address that right off the bat. And what I have found

to be an extremely useful effort is the collaboration between the

teachers at all levels and that—those conversations. And as we

were talking about how the National Science Foundation can help,

I believe in collaboration. I believe that we should get institutions

together. We should get math teachers together. We should get

science teachers together. And we should really talk honestly about

those issues. We were a little nervous bringing our math and

science teachers in a couple of years ago when we wanted to have

this conversation. We thought it would go much like, ‘‘Oh, it is

their fault.’’ ‘‘No, it is their fault,’’ because no one really wants to

take any blame for remediation issues. And what happened was a

really profound and enlightening conversation between educators

who really care about students, who really care about their success.

And since then, we have developed programs to work on preparing

students in high school to take entrance exams, to take placement

tests, to—we have worked in—with our high schools to develop

bridge science courses to help them prepare and become—come to

Moraine Valley so that they can assume that position at college

level and then successfully transition on to the four-year school.

All of these efforts are about collaboration. And I will speak to

collaboration over and over. But it is also about energy and it is

also about good educators caring about the students. We also tried

to develop two-plus-two programs. We have developed a few where

we work with the universities. I am an advocate of that seamless

education. I work with the high schools. I work with the four-year

colleges. And how I work with them is to understand the curriculum and where we meet and where we need to better meet.

And those conversations are always, always beneficial. Most of the

time it comes down to math when we are gearing up towards an

agreement. And most of the time, it comes down to calculus. So we

are working now to help prepare our students at Moraine Valley

to be able to transfer to a university and do better at calculus.

So——

Dr. LIPINSKI. And I am relying on the Chairman here to close

this down. We have to vote, so I am just going to—I am going to

keep going until he does that.

Chairman INGLIS. Go right ahead, Dr. Lipinski. We will let you

know when we have got to run to vote.

Dr. LIPINSKI. Okay.

The—in your testimony, Ms. Collins, you described Moraine Valley’s involvement with the NSF advanced technology education program. What do you see is the—is there anything that you would

recommend for changes to it?

Ms. COLLINS. Our ATE center is very successful. In the past several years, we have trained over 800 faculty members throughout

the country in areas of IT security, in wireless, in other emerging

technologies. So the teacher training component of it is very successful, and it is an excellent model that should be replicated. I

would definitely like to see those efforts in the areas of—the other

112

areas of STEM that took on that flavor, because that has been

hugely successful. Some of the issues that we have pertain to

money or budgetary issues and working with six other institutions

as we try to spend the money. Those kinds of conversations between and among institutions can be complicated, as we all do

thing so differently. But we figure out a way. And the programs

that we develop are certainly worth the effort and the headaches

we have at times. But we will continue to challenge ourselves to

spend that money and learn how to do it in a consortium-like atmosphere.

Dr. LIPINSKI. Okay. Thank you.

I think I probably should wrap—I will wrap up my questions

here, I think.

Thank you all very much. And thank you all for your testimony.

Chairman INGLIS. And we do thank all of you for your testimony.

Thank you for taking time to be with us today. We appreciate your

testimony and look forward to continuing to work towards solutions

on this challenge. It is particularly gratifying as—being—having

the opportunity to chair the Research Subcommittee, which authorizes the budget of the NSF to hear that earlier resounding note of

approval of the NSF’s work. And that is very encouraging to all of

us on the Subcommittee, and I am sure encouraging to the people

at NSF.

There being no further business to come before this hearing, the

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(113)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

114

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Elaine Seymour, Author, ‘‘Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences;’’ Former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at Boulder

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to enter STEM careers?

A1. Perhaps the most effective federally (and privately) funded programs in encouraging students of color to become interested in STEM careers (and that have successfully sustained them into such careers) have been the undergraduate research

(UR) programs that have been specifically targeted towards groups that have been

historically under-represented in the sciences. Undergraduate research programs of

this type have been better evaluated than most other UR programs so we know

more abut their benefits.

Our research group recently wrote a report (Melton et al., 2006) on the Significant

Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS) project which introduces young people of color to the environmental sciences. It is funded partially by

the National Science Foundation (NSF) and partially by the program organizers, the

National Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder, Colorado). It is typical of UR

programs targeting students of color in its emphasis on mentoring and support for

its participants, all the way from high school recruitment to STEM graduation.

Other studies of programs that aim to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the sciences, including men of color, women of all races and

ethnicities, and first-generation college students, all show that undergraduate research experiences are the primary factor prompting these students’ decisions to

enter graduate school. (Foertsch, Alexander and Penberthy, 1997; Alexander,

Foertsch and Daffinrud, 1998; Hathaway, Nagda and Gregerman, 2002; Adhikari

and Nolan, 2002; Barlow and Villarejo, 2004, Russell, 2005). Bauer and Bennett

(2003) found that UR alumni were about twice as likely as non-UR alumni to pursue a doctoral degree and Russell (2005) found a significant correlation between UR

participation by Hispanic and African-American students and their expectations of

receiving Ph.D.s

The success of these targeted UR programs argues for renewed and increased financial support via the NSF, the National Labs, and private foundations.

My caveat about the undoubted value of targeted UR programs is that they can

only serve relatively small numbers of students because of their labor intensive

character. As the national figures for the production of minority STEM graduates

show, despite considerable expenditure of money (both public, largely via the NSF,

and private, via the Foundations) and over a decade of serious effort, we have made

very little progress in drawing students of color into the sciences and sustaining

them there into STEM careers.

One prime cause of our failures is that we focused too much on encouraging students of color to become interested in the sciences and to aspire to STEM careers

without providing them with an adequate K–12 education in science and mathematics to support such ambitions. The effect has been to create a revolving door in

which we increase minority STEM enrollment only to see these students fail out,

field-switch, or drop out of college altogether. As I indicated in my testimony, it is

the height of cruelty to encourage seriously under-prepared students to undertake

a STEM major.

My answer to the question, therefore, is that, to make a substantial improvement

in both our enrollment, retention, and successful placement of students of color in

STEM-based careers will require a proactive, well-funded policy of recruitment of

seasoned and well-qualified mathematics and science teachers into middle schools

and high schools in greatest need. These schools tend to be in inner cities, rural

areas, and especially include schools with high minority enrollments. (I say ‘‘seasoned’’ because initiatives such as ‘‘Teach for America’’ have found it problematic to

send young volunteer teachers into such settings; there is also a high drop out rate

among trained young teachers in such schools.)

Our national priority should be to improve the science and math preparation of

all K–12 students. On the premise that a rising tide will lift all ships, such a policy

will disproportionately enable more students of color (and also women) to participate

in STEM careers. Without such a policy in place, encouraging seriously under-prepared students to aspire above what they can reasonably accomplish is a waste of

money and damages young lives.

115

Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids and encourage

them to pursue STEM careers?

A2. My answer to this question is connected to that above. One root cause of our

difficulties is (as outlined in my testimony) the serious (and worsening) shortage of

adequately qualified science and mathematics teachers throughout our K–12 system. There are two ways to address the problem:

1. to improve the quality of the teaching force that we already have

2. to induce more people with STEM undergraduate degrees to enter K–12

teaching.

The NSF has worked hard to address the first problem, through (for example):

• the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation

• the Math and Science Partnerships

• the State (sand also Rural) Systemic Initiatives

• a variety of outreach programs that draw STEM faculty and graduate students into working with local science and math teachers to build their knowledge and research capacity, and that often include working in K–12 classrooms to model what it is to be a scientist and to convey to students what

scientists do

• enrichment workshops for science and math teachers.

The NSF are currently hampered in these efforts because of serious cuts in their

recent budgets for education support work.

An example of the benefits both to STEM graduate students and to the middle

and high school students that they teach may be found in our recent reports

(Laursen et al., 2004; 2005) that evaluate the Science Squad Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Thus, the answers to both questions include:

1. increasing and sustaining financial support for the NSF’s educational programs

2. launching a national campaign that will both enhance the quality of the existing science and mathematics K–12 teaching force, and actively recruit and

support STEM undergraduates into K–12 teaching. (Again, the NSF has an

important ongoing role to play in both endeavors.)

References Cited

Adhikari, N., & Nolan, D. (2002). ‘‘But What Good Came of It at Last?’’: How to

Assess the Value of Undergraduate Research. Notices of the AMS 49(10):1252–

1257.

Alexander, B.B., Foertsch, J.A., & Daffinrud, S. (1998, July). The Spend a Summer

With a Scientist Program: An Evaluation of Program Outcomes and the Essential Elements of Success. Madison, WI: University of Madison-Wisconsin, LEAD

Center.

Barlow, A., & Villarejo, M. (2004). Making a Difference for Minorities: Evaluation

of an Educational Enrichment Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(9):861–881.

Bauer, K.W., & Bennett, J.S. (2003). Alumni Perceptions Used to Assess Undergraduate Research Experience. The Journal of Higher Education 74(2):210–230.

Foertsch, J.A., Alexander, B.B., & Penberthy, D.L. (1997, June). Evaluation of the

UW–Madison’s Summer Undergraduate Research Programs: Final Report. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center.

Hathaway, R., Nagda, B., & Gregerman, S. (2002). The Relationship of Undergraduate Research Participation to Graduate and Professional Educational Pursuit: An Empirical Study. Journal of College Student Development 43(5):614–

631.

Laursen, Thiry & Liston, May, 2005. Evaluation of the Science Squad Program for

the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder: 11

Career Outcomes of Participation for Science Squad Members. Report prepared

for the Biological Sciences Initiative and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Available on request from sandra.laursen@colorado.edu

Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., Sheff., E., and Coates, C. (2004). Evaluation of

the Science Squad Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder: 1. Benefits, Costs and Trade-offs. Report prepared

116

for the Biological Sciences Initiative and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Available on request from sandra.laursen@colorado.edu

Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., Donohue, R., Hunter, A–B (2006). SOARS: A Research-With-Evaluation Study of a Multi-year Research and Mentoring Program

From Under-represented Students in Science. Available on request from

pedersel@colorado.edu

Russell, S.H. (2005, November). Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate Research Opportunities: Survey of STEM Graduates. Contributors C. Ailes, M.

Hancock, J. McCullough, J.D. Roessner, and C. Storey. (Draft Final Report to

the NSF.) Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved 2/19/06 from http://

www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/

117

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to enter STEM careers?

A1. Although I am aware of several programs, I do not know enough to say which

of them is best. Judging from the tiny number of ethnic minorities in my own field

of physics, there is no program that is achieving significant success in encouraging

ethnic minorities to go into physics. I have looked a little at the numbers of ethnic

minorities graduating with Bachelor’s and Ph.D. degrees in physics and they remain

minuscule from essentially all the major colleges and universities in the U.S. except

for HBCUs. There is no indication that anyone has found a successful way to attract

and retain ethnic minority students at the college level, except for HBCUs, and few

of them go on to get Ph.D.s at non-HBCUs.

Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids and encourage

them to pursue STEM careers?

A2. This is a big question that could have many different answers. I would say that

one essential item is to have teachers who understand STEM subjects well enough

so that they are not afraid of them and they understand the full intellectual richness and excitement of the subjects. Currently, only a very small fraction of K–12

teachers have that level of mastery of STEM subjects, and virtually no teachers do

who teach at the critical K–6 grade levels. So pre-service and in-service training for

teachers to provide them with the necessary mastery and comfort level in STEM

disciplines, as well as recruitment programs to attract people with talents in STEM

disciplines into K–12 teaching are essential steps. They are probably not the only

things that need to be done to successfully encourage kids to pursue STEM careers,

but if they are not done, it is hard to see how any other programs will be successful.

I am aware of two very similar programs that have been quite successful at attracting talented STEM majors in college into K–12 teaching. They are the U–Teach program at University of Texas at Austin, and the STEM–Teacher Preparation program here at University of Colorado at Boulder.

118

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John E. Burris, President, Beloit College

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to enter STEM careers?

A1. Beloit College is a member of the Wisconsin Alliance for Minority Participation

(which, as you know, is a Louis Stokes program). This works because it is a statewide alliance with the entire University of Wisconsin system and several invited private colleges, including Beloit and Lawrence (both members of the Associated College of the Midwest). Within the Alliance, we participate in regional working groups

(with several of the UW campuses) which have been very successful in planning

joint internship activities for STEM students, beginning with rising first-year students, and also actively engaging students from the two-year campuses in the undergraduate research opportunities sponsored by the Alliance. So to answer your

question directly—programs such as WiscAMP work because of several reasons:

First, the intent is to give students the experience of doing science-introducing

them to the joy of discovery;

Second, for the summer programs, the stipends replace what they might have

earned in a summer job;

Third, students join a community of scientists within the region, that includes

successful upper-level minority students mentoring the younger ones, and we have

a stellar group of faculty who are passionate about science and about students;

Fourth, this is a five-year program, with challenging goals set for that time period, but without the annual applications that are so time consuming.

Finally, I should emphasize that the program is built on ‘‘what works’’ on campuses like Beloit, which is recognized by our colleagues from public institutions in

this state. This means that moving quickly and cost-effectively is possible and

makes the best use of the investment of federal dollars.

Further, I draw attention to the McNair Program, a program that serves the same

students with the same goals. Although McNair is not exclusively for STEM undergraduates, several of our participants have pursued STEM careers. As a result of

our involvement in WiscAMP, we currently have a cohort of students in STEM disciplines who will be entering the McNair Scholars Program in the next entering

class. We are very proud of the success of our McNair scholars and have watched

as they have pursued graduate careers in the sciences.

Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids and encourage

them to pursue STEM careers?

A2. Let me answer this question from the perspective of how to help ‘‘undergraduate’’ teachers, and as a president. First, there have to be institutional programs and structures in place that address the need for faculty development. Dr.

Wieman spoke directly about this at the Hearing on March 15, that the skills of

teaching, of incorporating new pedagogies and technologies, of being able to incorporate research on learning into their scholarly work, are skills that have to be nurtured intentionally. We cannot expect that faculty can gain these skills without

guidance in exploring models of effective practices. So the kind of NSF-funded workshops that Beloit colleagues John Jungck (BioQuest) and Brock Spencer

(ChemLinks) have been leading for almost a decade are critical, and they should be

part of a national agenda to strengthen student learning. Again, as with my discussion about WiscAMP, faculty are also better equipped to captivate students and to

encourage them, when faculty are up-to-date with their field of research and have

good connections to the world of work their students will enter upon graduation.

This faculty development dimension of ensuring a strong STEM infrastructure must

be taken seriously as we shape programs for the future.

119

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Submitted to Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College

These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the

time of publication.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to enter STEM careers?

Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids and encourage

them to pursue STEM careers?

120

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business, and

Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community College

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to enter STEM careers?

A1. The NSF ATE program is an excellent federally-funded program that encourages minorities to enter STEM educational/training opportunities that lead to STEM

oriented careers. My direct familiarity with the Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances (CSSIA), an ATE funded regional center located at Moraine

Valley Community College (MVCC), has provided me with first hand experience related to STEM promotion through curriculum alignment, high school partnerships,

and collaboration with community based organizations. CSSIA works closely with

the Mirta Ramirez Computer Science Academy, a charter high school on the northwest side of Chicago, which is supported by Aspira, a National Hispanic Not for

Profit Organization. This collaboration provides learning opportunities for students

otherwise unavailable to inner city Hispanic and Latino youth. The funding allows

Moraine Valley Community College to work with the students directly while also

affording professional development opportunity for high school faculty and staff. The

results are concrete and long term as specific student feedback indicates an increased awareness about technology careers, a desire to attend college in a technology oriented program and ambition to achieve educational and career goals. I

fully support funding that enables secondary and post-secondary educational institutions to work this closely. I encourage all partnerships that work towards aligning

STEM curriculum, providing transitional services for high school students and involve community based ethnic minority organizations.

Additional funding sources that have assisted in these efforts include the federal

secondary and post-secondary Carl Perkins grant. This funding more specifically assists with program development, implementation and maintenance of the public

high school and community college Career and Technical Education (CTE) and Tech

Prep programs. These programs align more distinctively with engineering and technology programs. ATE funding has the ability to cast a wider net because in addition to technology programs, ATE encompasses science and math curriculum/programs in institutions other than community colleges. Nonetheless, Perkins funding

and the benefit to students should never be underestimated with regard to STEM.

Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids and encourage

them to pursue STEM careers?

A2. Captivating kids and drawing them into STEM careers takes concerted, continual and big picture effort. This effort needs to begin early and should be incorporated into a developmental guidance program. Educational institutions should

focus on technological literacy that begins in the primary grades for all students.

Focused career awareness activities that emphasis STEM careers should be incorporated at the middle school years and career plans tied to educational plans should

be required in the high school years.

More so, kids today need to see STEM as cool. I have an eight-year-old boy and

a nine-year-old girl. From this experience, I see kids most captivated in any activities that allow them to use their hands and solve complex problems. They are engaged in activities that incorporate music, creativity and competition. They best

enjoy math and science when it fully relates to every day experiences, activities and

situations. They use technology to have fun first not realizing they are learning too.

Kids will be captivated with fun, engaging and interactive STEM curriculum. Teachers must have an opportunity to develop skills to deliver STEM in this way and

teachers should be technologically savvy. This skill development and awareness

should occur preferably during teacher training prior to graduation/certification or

through concerted on-going professional development activities at the local level.

At the post-secondary level, namely the community college, teachers should have

opportunity through funding to develop mentoring programs and tutoring assistance

geared at retention of STEM students. Funding for curriculum development that incorporates the most up to date and effective instructional techniques for teaching

STEM courses should be made available. A priority should be placed on understanding how individuals learn, on understanding learning styles and on incorporating the most favorable for STEM success into existing curriculum. Community

college teachers need easy access to professional development for this purpose.