This document has been archived. Title : NSF93-64 Partners in Progress: The Role of Professional Societies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Type : Report NSF Org: EHR Date : April 1, 1993 File : nsf9364 Telephonic Device for the Deaf The National Science Foundation has a Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with theDivision of Personnel and Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (202) 357-7492. Electronic Dissemination You can get information fast through STIS (Science and Technology Information System), NSF's online publishing system, described in the "STIS Flyer" at the end of this document. Ordering by Electronic Dissemination If you have access to either Internet of Bitnet, you may order publications electronically. Internet users should send requests to pubs@NSF.gov. Bitnet users should address requests to pubs@NSF. In your request, include the NSF publication number and title, number of copies, and your name and complete mailing address. Printed publications also may be ordered by FAX (703-644-4278). Publications should be received within 3 weeks after receipt of request. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES April 1, 1993 Dr. Walter Massey Director National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20550 Dear Walter: I am pleased to submit the report of the National Science Foundation workshop on the role of professional societies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in two-year colleges. The workshop was developed with leadership of the Division of Undergraduate Education and with involvement of all the divisions in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources. On October 29-30, 1992 seventy-four scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, representing twenty-four professional societies, met to encourage the partnership of two-year colleges and professional societies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Participants included two-year, four-year, and university faculty as well as staff from professional societies and NSF. Over a two day period, they worked in both interdisciplinary and discipline-based groups to develop recommendations that provide a basis for future activities and projects designed to inform the general membership of professional societies about two-year colleges, support initiatives to improve education in the first two years of college, and help to develop and promote two-year college leaders and spokespersons. Through their joint efforts and leadership, and with support of NSF and others, these partners can improve the quality of education for an important segment of our population. Sincerely, Luther S. Williams Assistant Director Letter of Transmittal April 1, 1993 Dr. Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director Directorate for Education and Human Resources National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20550 Dear Dr. Williams: We are pleased to forward to you the report of the National Science Foundation workshop, Partners in Progress: The Role of Professional Societies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. The focus of this workshop, held October 29-30, 1992, was strategies to enhance the relationship between professional scientific societies and two-year college and lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. The seventy-four workshop participants represented twenty-four professional societies. They produced two sets of recommendations, one addressing a series of issues raised by conference planners and the other directed toward professional societies. With the assistance of the planning committee and NSF staff members, participants received assignments prior to the workshop designed to stimulate their thinking. Each of five interdisciplinary working groups addressed a preassigned topic: Professional society actions to support the integrated teacher/scholar role of lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Professional society actions to encourage the formation of networks among two-year college leaders from scientific, engineering, and mathematics organizations. Professional society actions to promote membership and leadership in professional organizations by two-year college faculty. Professional society services to enhance lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, particularly those directed to two-year college faculty. Professional society roles in developing initiatives to increase the number and improve the quality of proposals from two-year college faculty to NSF and other funding agencies. Participants also worked in discipline-based groups to map out strategies and develop specific activities to enhance the relationship between professional societies and their two-year college and lower-division members. This report has been reviewed by members of the Planning Committee, the chairs and recorders of the five interdisciplinary groups, and the chairs of the eight discipline-based groups. We now submit it to NSF in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual optimism for the future of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. We encourage NSF, in concert with discipline-based professional organizations and other national associations, to take a leadership role in implementing the recommendations of the report. On behalf of all participants of the workshop, we extend to you and to Dr. Robert Watson, Dr. Elizabeth Teles, and Dr. John Clevenger of the Division of Undergraduate Education, our deepest appreciation for your support of this endeavor. Your continued commitment to undergraduate education programs and your recognition of the significant contribution made by two-year colleges is applauded by the education community. Sincerely, James H. Stith Susan Forman Workshop Co-Chair Workshop Co-Chair FOREWORD In March 1986, the National Science Board (NSB) released its report Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education (NSB 86-100), the outcome of a year-long study conducted by the NSB Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education. The report identified serious problem areas in U.S. undergraduate education and included recommendations to improve the quality of science, mathematics, and engineering programs at two-year colleges. In response to the NSB report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) took steps to develop and implement new programs in undergraduate education. Recognizing the critical role of two-year colleges, NSF convened a workshop in 1988 to obtain a better understanding of the conditions and problems in these institutions. The report, NSF Workshop on Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in Two-Year Colleges (NSF 89-50), was the stimulus for meetings, inquiries, and studies by a variety of individuals and organizations. Reports of these studies, as well as suggestions from professional organizations, served as valuable resources for a subsequent workshop in May 1991. The report of that workshop, Matching Actions and Challenges (NSF 91-111), contained recommendations directed to two-year college faculty, professional organizations, and college administrators that would improve relationships and foster interactions among the organizations, the faculty, and federal funding agencies. Discipline-based professional organizations were specifically recognized as occupying a unique position from which to support innovation and disseminate information. Matching Actions and Challenges recommends that professional societies assume a leadership role in the initiation and development of a new vision of the lower division undergraduate curriculum that capitalizes on the critical role of two-year colleges. Building on past workshops and studies, NSF convened the present workshop. Seventy-four scientists, engineers, and mathematicians represented twenty-four professional societies. Participants included two-year, four-year, and university faculty as well as staff from professional societies and NSF. Over a two day period, they worked in both interdisciplinary and discipline-based groups to develop recommendations that provide a basis for future activities and projects designed to inform the general membership of professional societies about two-year colleges, support initiatives to improve education in the first two years of college, and help to develop and promote two-year college leaders and spokespersons. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not represent NSF policy. The recommendations are currently under review by NSF. TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from Luther S. Williams .............................................................. i Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................. ii Foreword ............... ............................................................................. iv Introduction ................... ....................................................................... 2 Recommendations/Interdisciplinary Working Groups ............................. "Where Do We Go From Here?" Plenary Address, James H. Stith ................................................... Recommendations/Disciplinary Working Groups ................................... "Two-Year College Mission and Students" Plenary Address, George R. Boggs ...................................... "Two-Year Colleges and the Scientific Literacy of the American People" Comments, Benjamin S. Shen, National Science Board ........... Participants ................... ........................................................................ NSF Presenters and Planning Committee ................................................ Participating Professional Societies ......................................................... Epilogue ............... ................ .................................................................. Back Cover: Two-Year Colleges ......................................................... INTRODUCTION On October 29 - 30, 1992, the National Science Foundation sponsored a workshop, Partners in Progress, to address the relationship between professional scientific societies and community college and lower-division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Seventy-four scientists, engineers, and mathematicians represented twenty-four professional societies. Participants included two-year, four-year, and university faculty as well as staff from professional socieities and NSF. Over the two days, they worked in both interdisciplinary and discipline-based groups to develop recommendations that provide a basis for future activities and projects designed to inform the general membership of professional societies about two-year colleges, support initiatives to improve education in the first two years of college, and help to develop and promote two-year college leaders and spokespersons. BACKGROUND This workshop was planned as a follow-up to a previous NSF workshop, Matching Actions and Challenges, held in May 1991. At that time, NSF brought together a group of two-year college science, engineering, and mathematics faculty, administrators, university representatives, and representatives from business and industry to consider actions that could be taken to reaffirm the important role that two-year colleges play in the education of the nation's undergraduates. The result of the workshop was a series of recommendations directed to four specific audiences: (1) faculty and discipline-based professional organizations, (2) two-year college presidents and administrators, (3) non-federal agencies, boards, and other funding sources, and (4) NSF and other federal agencies. The goal of the 1992 workshop was to develop strategies to implement the recommendations that came out of the 1991 workshop. These recommendations stated that professional societies should: Assume a leadership role in the initiation and development of a new vision of lower- division undergraduate curriculum; Design programs to recruit and involve faculty from two-year colleges and other institutions whose primary mission is undergraduate education; Assist NSF and other appropriate granting agencies by providing updated lists of interested and qualified reviewers; and Establish grant committees whose charge is to encourage, lead, and coordinate grant application efforts that reflect the diversity of two-year college students. Prior to the meeting, the professional societies sent information to NSF about their activities in lower-division undergraduate education that workshop planners used to assess where we are now and to think about new areas in which initiatives might be developed. Society activities described at the plenary session included: Publishing journals that focus on content and pedagogy in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Two-year college faculty are frequent contributors to these journals. Developing and publishing documents and reports of particular interest to two-year college faculty. Ensuring representation from two-year colleges on executive committees and governing boards. Establishing committees that address the concerns of two-year colleges. Holding special sessions and workshops at national and local meetings focusing on two-year college and lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Undertaking major initiatives involving two-year colleges. The American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) is an example of a scientific association whose primary constituency is two-year college faculty. It offers its members a full range of services. It holds summer institutes and annual meetings and sponsors a Student Math League. Every two years, AMATYC presents the Mathematics Excellence Award to an educator who has made outstanding contributions to mathematics or mathematics education at any level. Its regular publications are The AMATYC Review and AMATYC News, and it is in the process of completing three major documents: a strategic plan; guidelines for mathematics departments at two-year colleges; and guidelines for the academic preparation of mathematics faculty at two-year colleges. THE WORKSHOP The format of the workshop was designed to give participants opportunities to think about broad issues as well as strategies for their own disciplines. Each interdisciplinary group addressed one of the following five key issues, which gave structure and substance to the proceedings. Professional society actions to support the integrated teacher/scholar role of lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Professional society actions to encourage the formation of networks among two-year college leaders from scientific, engineering, and mathematics organizations. Professional society actions to promote membership and leadership in professional organizations by two-year college faculty. Professional society services to enhance lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, particularly those directed to two-year college faculty. Professional society roles in developing initiatives to increase the number and improve the quality of proposals from two-year college faculty to NSF and other funding agencies. After hearing preliminary recommendations from the interdisciplinary groups, participants met with others in their discipline to discuss actions that professional societies they represented might take. They met in working groups in astronomy, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering and engineering technology, life sciences, mathematics and physics. These groups made specific recommendations relevant to these disciplines and prepared the groundwork for presentation of these recommendations to their respective societies. On the second day of the workshop, additional representatives from the professional societies and the National Science Foundation were invited to hear the final recommendations from the interdisciplinary groups. They were then asked to meet with others in their disciplines to discuss and plan activities the individual professional societies might undertake in response to the recommendations. The remaining portions of this document describe in detail the recommendations from both the interdisciplinary and discipline-based working groups. CLOSING The atmosphere throughout the conference was that this is an extremely important time for two-year colleges. Two-year colleges must plan jointly with four-year colleges, universities, and professional societies on ways to enhance the role of two-year colleges in improving undergraduate education. No one group can do it alone; all must cooperate. Working together, the educational community can improve the quality and effectiveness of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at all levels. With continued support from the National Science Foundation and other organizations that share this vision, our nation will remain a leader in the world marketplace and meet the challenges of the future. Working Group A: Professional Society Actions to Support the Integrated Teacher/Scholar Role of Lower Division Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty Questions regarding faculty roles and rewards have been raised throughout the postsecondary community. Professional societies need to consider carefully how they can contribute their support to strengthening science, engineering, mathematics, and technical education by validating their members' work in improving instruction and curriculum development at all levels. Fundamental to the following recommendations is an understanding of the role of scholarship in two-year colleges. The definition of activities which are considered scholarly must be broadened and diversified. In addition to research in one's discipline, scholarship includes but is not limited to engagement in professional development activities, research on the learning process, and development of instructional materials. The primary objective of scholarship in two-year colleges is to enhance teaching effectiveness apropos their missions: transfer programs, technical education, life-long learning, and public outreach. Societies should: Sponsor sessions and workshops at national and regional meetings that present ways two-year college faculty can participate in scholarly activities. Include articles by two-year college faculty on scholarly activities of the type described above in new or existing publications. Publicize the existence of model programs at two-year colleges. Collect baseline data on the current state of scholarship in two-year colleges. Communicate to two-year college administrators the importance of recognizing, rewarding, and supporting faculty involvement in scholarly activities and providing release time and other resources for such activities. Promote exchanges of personnel and resources between two-year colleges and four-year colleges/universities and between two-year colleges and business and industry. Include two-year college faculty on committees and task forces concerned with scholarship issues. Working Group B: Professional Society Actions to Encourage the Formation of Networks Among Two-Year College Leaders from Scientific, Engineering, and Mathematics Organizations Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are closely linked disciplines and share complementary issues and concerns with respect to lower division education. By learning more about what others are doing and building on mutual efforts, two-year faculty can have a stronger impact on reform in what is taught and how it is taught. Actions must be taken by societies to create better communication and networking by faculty in the same discipline and across disciplines. Interdisciplinary projects can play a major role in reforming science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. By taking the initiative in forming strong networks, two-year college faculty can play a leadership role in the educational community by demonstrating ways in which coalitions can be used to strengthen undergraduate education. Within disciplines, societies should: Publish a membership list that identifies faculty by institution. Establish a network among members to exchange information about and to make presentations on two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics issues at the national and regional level. Across disciplines, societies should: Develop, maintain, and disseminate a database of two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty, including those in developmental skills departments Invite two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty from other disciplines to make presentations at regional and national meetings. Assist in the formation of networks among leaders in two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Take the lead in promoting electronic communication among two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Establish an interdisciplinary two-year college consulting service to assist departments and programs in enhancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Encourage networking and collaborative efforts between faculty, disciplines, and organizations in order to increase the quality and number of grants by bringing people together to share ideas and by providing a mechanism for the ongoing exchange of ideas via conferences and electronic communication. Working Group C: Professional Society Actions to Promote Membership and Leadership in Professional Organizations by Two-Year College Faculty There are numerous misconceptions about the roles and missions of two-year colleges, and faculty at these institutions are often not regarded as equal players in postsecondary education. Professional societies must address these issues and play a role in informing the higher education community about two-year colleges. In spite of the fact that they play a pivotal role in the educational process, many faculty who teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at two-year colleges do not belong to nor participate actively in professional societies. Yet there are important roles they can play in professional societies, especially in areas that touch on issues central to the discipline such as instruction and curriculum development and the state of the profession. Societies should: Encourage two-year college faculty to participate in governance structures, strategic planning processes, and appropriate formal committees by such means as including them on nominating committees, developing a ladder for advancement into leadership positions, and providing for a flow of new talent to executive and other committees through aggressive outreach. Establish and promote a committee (or other appropriate division) devoted to the promotion of excellence in teaching. Include two-year college faculty on program committees to help ensure that programs at local, regional, and national meetings contain sessions of interest to lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Inform two-year college administrators about the need to include two-year college faculty's activities and leadership roles in professional societies as part of consideration of applications for tenure, promotion, and other rewards. Use local and regional sections or chapters to recruit new members, stimulate active participation by two-year college faculty, and provide additional opportunities for leadership development. Develop leadership among two-year college faculty for the purpose of informing political leaders as well as the public about two-year college issues and concerns. Working Group D: Professional Society Services to Enhance Lower Division Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, Particularly Those Directed to Two-Year College Faculty In view of the importance of lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and the fact that more than twenty-seven percent of all undergraduates are enrolled in two-year institutions, it is critical that two-year college faculty take a partnership role in lower division curricular and pedagogical reform. Professional societies can serve as a conduit for the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of successful teaching strategies and techniques as well as the implementation of curriculum reform appropriate to lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Because of the emphasis on teaching at two-year colleges, their faculty members have much to offer to the higher education community, especially in finding innovative ways to work with diverse groups and non-traditional students. Societies should: Publicize the importance of two-year colleges in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Provide awards that recognize meritorious teaching in lower-division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Form committees to address lower-division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics issues and concerns. Promote equity in and access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for all students. Advocate the need to experiment with different teaching styles and respect diversity in learning styles. Develop, publish, promote, and disseminate guidelines, recommendations, and resources for the purpose of improving the quality of education in science, technology, engineering, and technology in two-year colleges. Encourage the interaction of two-year college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty with business, industry, and government. Seek input from two-year college faculty and administrators on issues that impact lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Work with accrediting agencies on issues related to quality of programs in two-year colleges. Working Group E: Professional Society Roles in Developing Initiatives to Increase the Number and Improve the Quality of Proposals from Two-Year College Faculty to NSF and Other Funding Agencies In the academic world, an important way to gain greater visibility and respect is by obtaining grants. Opportunities open to awardees can be used to highlight work of two-year college faculty, give them enhanced status in the academic community, and provide a forum in which to inform other members of the higher education community about two-year colleges. Professional societies need to play a major role in the development of initiatives to increase the number and improve the quality of proposals from two-year college faculty. Activities supported by grants benefit students, faculty, institutions, and the greater communities. Societies should: Showcase successful two-year college programs and projects at national and regional meetings as well as in newsletters and other publications. Sponsor workshops on funding opportunities and proposal preparation. Advocate that institutions provide suitable recognition and rewards for developing and writing proposals (e.g., release time, travel, summer support). Encourage funding agencies to provide significant additional resources to address the needs and concerns of two-year colleges. Submit annually names and vitae of qualified two-year faculty reviewers to funding agencies. Encourage NSF and other funding agencies to: Establish interdisciplinary panels of two-year college representatives to provide information on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics issues in two-year colleges. Continue and expand the use of two-year college representatives on Advisory Boards and Review Panels. Develop and disseminate timely and pertinent information on funding opportunities for two-year colleges. Employ program directors with two-year college experience. Establish a pre-proposal review process for preliminary review of proposals if one does not exist. Utilize two-year college leaders in developing future agendas as they relate to lower division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Plenary Address James Stith, Workshop Co-Chair We have met here to discuss "The role of professional societies in two-year college science, technology, engineering and mathematics education." The issue, in my view, is a broader one. We are not suggesting that the two-year college community is in need of handouts. Nor are we suggesting that it must be given resources in order to become full participating partners in the overall educational society. We are really saying that professional societies need to recognize the large and significant role the two-year community plays in educating America's youth. We can no longer afford not to have their programs fully integrated and recognized. We have all heard the statistics. As a matter of fact, we have heard them so often that perhaps the impact of their numbers is lost in the sea of familiarity. Let me take the risk of repeating some of them again. Roughly half of the nation's college freshmen, both full and part time, are enrolled in two-year colleges. Twelve percent of all physics B.S. degree recipients transferred from two-year colleges. In 1990 two-year colleges enrolled forty-three percent of all students taking undergraduate mathematics courses, up from thirty-two percent in 1970. Similar claims can be made for earth sciences, biology, and chemistry. In spite of the monumental teaching loads carried by two-year faculty, their contributions to society and to the furtherance of their discipline all too often are not recognized by their four-year and university faculty colleagues. Even more disturbing is that their contributions are not recognized by their deans or presidents. Additionally, there is growing evidence that many of the scientific societies to which these teachers belong are not aware of their contributions. For too many years, we have viewed the two-year college as a place for high school graduates who possessed neither the grades nor the test scores to get into the four-year college of their choice. It was thought that most of these students would get their associate's degree and enter the job market. A few of the better students would transfer to a four-year institution. There is increasing evidence that in today's economic downturn, many students who had here-to-fore gone to four-year institutions are discovering the two-year college offers an appealing option. They find in those institutions instructors who are dedicated to teaching, and who are genuinely interested in their students. As a case in point, The Middletown Record, the local paper in my home town, had a recent front page article reporting that the annex of the local two-year college was running out of space. This story helps to illustrate what has become a growing trend. When it comes to getting started on the road to a degree in science or mathematics, the four-year college is no longer a necessity, it is just another opportunity. Our discussions over the past one and a half days have been extremely fruitful and focused. As I walked around to the different discussion groups and listened to reports in plenary sessions, I could not help but hear in those discussions a sense of frustration. Yet, I have also detected a real sense of optimism. A theme that kept coming through is that by working with the societies and getting our colleagues more involved, we can build a stronger coalition with the four-year community. What have been some of the key points of our discussions? One is that we must broaden the definition of scholarship within the math/science community. As that definition is refined, there must be open communication with two-year institutions. We are reminded that this broadened definition is not just for the benefit of the two-year college community, but for the entire teaching community. In May 1991, the NSF Workshop on Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in Two-Year Colleges stated: "the education community can and must improve the quality and effectiveness of instruction in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology programs." If the quality of teaching in classrooms all over this country is to improve, then teaching as a profession must be valued by all members of society, especially by those in positions to make major decisions. A concern raised in several of the working groups has been the sense of isolation experienced by many faculty at two-year colleges. Many departments have only a single faculty member teaching in a particular discipline. In fact, an informal survey by a member of the two-year physics community found that 67% of the two-year physics faculty responding to her survey were the single faculty member teaching physics at those institutions. A strong recommendation from several groups is that professional societies must establish networks to help eliminate that feeling of isolation. Another recommendation is that societies should develop a database of two-year faculty, indicating those who are available to lend assistance. Deans and college presidents must be sensitive to the importance for all faculty, not just two-year faculty, to participate in professional meetings and conferences. Professional societies must continue to develop guidelines and promote standards and practices that improve the quality of life for all faculty and students. We must pay as much attention to faculty development as we do to student development. If we expect to reap the rewards of good teaching, we must be willing to make an investment in it. The call for an emphasis on excellence in teaching has been eloquent and vocal. We must help to establish standards that limit the maximum number of contact hours per semester. I keep hearing horror stories of instructors having as many as 27 contact hours per week. By no stretch of the imagination can this result in good teaching. At best, teachers in this situation can only hope to survive. Another strong message that came through is that two-year college faculty must be involved in society governance and strategic planning. Too many societies have never had members from two-year institutions in key positions of leadership and decision making, i.e., president or board member. Two-year faculty are often not considered for major awards of the society, nor are there awards designated for them. The time has come, no it is past due, for a change in business as usual! Professional societies must continually review the services they offer to their full membership. If we expect to attract two-year college faculty to meetings, we must provide programs that are of interest to them. Conferences and meetings must be held at a time when two-year faculty can attend. Journals and newsletters published by the societies must contain articles that explore the full range of subjects about which the two-year college faculty should be informed. Editors of society journals must be more active in seeking articles and guest editorials written by members of the two-year community. We have heard the figures which state that 22% of all matriculated students at the two-year college are minority. As professional societies develop gender and culturally sensitive materials that recognize the significant roles played by minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, the two-year community must be consulted. Materials which are tested and evaluated must be evaluated at two-year colleges as well as four-year colleges and universities. The two-year community provides us a rich resource. We cannot and must not squander it!! If we expect this nation to continue to progress, if we expect to use all our resources efficiently (and that list of resources includes our students and faculty), then we must seek greater participation by all segments of society. I would, in my lifetime, like to go to a professional meeting and find more minorities than I have fingers. The students and faculty are out there. Let us invite them into the fold, not because of equity issues, economic reasons, or the national interest, but because it is simply is the right thing to do. Finally, there is funding. As professionals, we are dedicated to the premise that the best projects should receive the available dollars. Professional societies should be dedicated to increasing and improving the quality of proposals submitted by its members. We remind societies that their membership includes two-year college faculty. Professional societies must encourage networking and collaborative efforts between two-year and four-year institutions. Most two-year colleges do not have grant/development offices to assist in proposal writing. Professional societies can and must help fill that void. This workshop has been but a beginning. We have spent one and a half day in intense, focused discussions. We have had some wonderful ideas presented. We must now put those ideas into action. Each of us must depart as an advocate for the process. Each of us has increased our circle of friends and colleagues. Let us use wisely what we have learned here. Ellis, S.D. and Mulvey, P. J. , 1988-89 Survey of Physics and Astronomy Bachelor's Degree Recipients, AIP Pub. No. R-211.21, April 1990 Ewen, D, Mertes, D, Matching Actions and Challenges, Report of a National Science Workshop on Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in Two-Year College, NSF 91-111, May 1991 Informal Conversation, J Tavers Recommendations from the Disciplines After meeting in interdisciplinary working groups for a day and a half, participants in the workshop separated into groups representing eight scientific disciplines: astronomy, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, engineering and engineering technology, life sciences biological, mathematics, and physics. The following are the recommendations that participants made to their respective disciplines. The opinions and recommendations are those of the workshop participants collectively and do not reflect policy or opinions of the societies or the National Science Foundation. Participants did however together make preliminary plans for presentation to their respective professional societies for implementation of the recommendations in this report. An epilogue is included indicating preliminary actions that participants and societies have taken on these recommendations. ASTRONOMY The American Astronomical Society (AAS) should: Make arrangements for the Working Group on Astronomy Education to sponsor a session at a professional meeting on "Education Initiatives at Two-Year Colleges." Identify astronomers who teach at two-year colleges. Continue to have a representative from a two-year college on the Education Advisory Board. Include two-year colleges in a funding proposal for public outreach in astronomy. Activate the two-year college committee of the Education Office. CHEMISTRY The American Chemical Society (ACS) should: Conduct baseline studies on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics issues at two-year colleges including curricula, faculty, definition of scholarship, and facilities and resources. Identify and submit names of qualified two-year college faculty to NSF and other funding agencies to be considered as proposal reviewers, workshop leaders, and program directors. These names should include representatives of chemical technology. Be an advocate for two-year colleges to Congress and other government agencies. Highlight to two-year college faculty the benefits of membership in professional societies. Solicit increased participation by two-year college faculty in all functions of the American Chemical Society including decision making. Establish a mentoring system for proposal writing. Enhance the profile of two-year colleges by including articles about successful two-year college programs in ACS publications. COMPUTER SCIENCE The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) should: Include a regular discussion of two-year college issues in the ACM newsletter, Communication of the ACM. Include representatives from two-year colleges in the governance structure and establish a committee on two-year colleges. Include two-year colleges in the academic directory of departments and faculty in computer science. Explore ways to get access to electronic communication for faculty at two-year colleges. Encourage more participation by two-year college computer science faculty by holding meetings on campuses of two-year colleges, including information about two-year colleges in journals, and extending the programming contest to two-year colleges. EARTH SCIENCES Professional societies in the Earth Sciences should: Raise the awareness of members of the critical role two-year colleges play in higher education through editorials and articles in journals and newsletters and sessions at national and regional meetings. Encourage greater participation of two-year college faculty in society meetings by including them in the planning process for workshops, sessions, and field trips. Develop and support cooperative partnership programs between two-year colleges and other academic and research institutions, government agencies, and the private sector. Sponsor joint society conferences on the status of earth science education through Penrose and Chapman conferences. Act as catalyst for the improvement of undergraduate earth science education through joint two-year/four-year college activities such as summer institutes, cooperative reviews of curricula, and preparation of standards. Obtain baseline information on two-year college earth science education. ENGINEERING/ ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY Professional engineering societies should: Encourage institutions involved in NSF Engineering Education Coalitions to include two-year colleges as formal, integral partners. Encourage the Community College Network within the ASEE to form a coalition of regional and state articulation councils in order to address urgent issues of lower division curriculum reform in engineering. Explore ways for faculty at two-year colleges to get access to electronic communication and advocate both the need and solutions to administrators and funding agencies. Work with two-year colleges to develop interest in engineering and engineering technology careers among students at the K-12 level. Develop programs with two-year colleges to significantly increase the number of people from currently underrepresented groups in engineering and engineering technology. Gather and disseminate information on engineering and engineering technology education in two-year colleges. INTER-DISCIPLINARY The Society for College Science Teachers should: Formalize the practice of having at least one representative of two-year college faculty on its Executive Committee. Continue to have strong representation from two-year colleges on its committees, especially the introductory course committee. Explore the feasibility of preparing a publication which highlights exemplary science programs at two-year colleges as part of its ongoing monograph series. Actively seek participation of two-year college faculty for it awards and mini-grant programs. Strengthen its network in two-year colleges in cooperation with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) by sending two-year college faculty a copy of the Journal of College Science Teaching which highlights professional involvement of two-year college faculty. LIFE SCIENCES/ BIOLOGICAL Professional life science societies should: Establish a faculty database that will enhance opportunities for faculty at two-year and four-year colleges and universities to network across the life sciences. Commit resources to two-year college life science education. Set standards for lower division undergraduate life science education. Ensure two-year college representation on education policy and planning committees. Raise the awareness of members about the contributions and critical roles that of two-year colleges play in undergraduate life science education. Provide opportunities and incentives for scientists in industry and government to network with two-year college faculty. MATHEMATICS Mathematics societies should: Through the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), endorse the broad definition of scholarship recommended in the report of Working Group A. The CBMS should send a letter stating that endorsement to the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and ask that they communicate to two-year college administrators the importance of recognizing, rewarding, and supporting faculty involvement in scholarly activities and providing release time and other resources for such activities. Take the lead in promoting to two-year college mathematics faculty and administrators the importance of electronic communication and other electronic services. Where necessary, the associations should facilitate networking between two-year colleges and other institutions of higher education to provide interim solutions to connectivity problems. Seek input from two-year college faculty about services that could be provided electronically to support improvement of teaching, learning, and scholarship at two-year colleges. In particular, the MAA Committee on Electronic Services should seek such input. Include in the AMS/MAA/SIAM Combined Membership List (CML) members of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC). AMATYC should provide electronic files, including e-mail addresses, and help contribute to funding the production and mailing of the CML. Periodically arrange joint meetings that provide K-12, two-year, four-year and university faculty opportunities to exchange ideas and develop mechanisms to work on projects of common interest. Recommend for assignment to national committees two-year college mathematics faculty identified at regional and sectional levels. PHYSICS The American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) should: Establish a Center for Teaching/Learning to serve as a resource for individuals who teach physics at all levels. Two-year college faculty should play a leading role in the establishment of this center. Solicit input from two-year college faculty regarding the development, evaluation, and dissemination of lower division undergraduate physics education programs and courses. Hold local, state, regional, and national meetings on two-year college campuses. Include two-year colleges and their faculty in a professional directory. Conduct a survey to assess the needs of two-year college faculty. Coordinate programs that provide opportunities for two-year college students to participate in physics research projects. Two-Year College Mission and Students Plenary Address George R. Boggs It is very gratifying to see the National Science Foundation and the professional societies recognizing the important role played by our community colleges in educating our future scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. It is a role we have been playing since before the turn of the century. As early as 1936, Robert Hutchins spoke of the institution that we now call the community college as the "characteristic educational institution of the United States." Its egalitarian and open-access mission and its community-responsive curricula uniquely reflect our country's democratic ideals and values. The founders of what was then called the junior college movement were influenced by German models of education. They argued that the first two years of collegiate education should be left to the secondary schools, freeing the universities from undergraduate education to concentrate on upper division and professional curricula. In 1892, William Rainey Harper at the University of Chicago separated the University into two divisions which came to be known as the "Junior College" and the "Senior College," and by 1900 the University was granting an associate's degree to those completing the first two years of college work. In 1901 the first publicly-funded junior college, Joliet Junior College, was founded in Illinois. Throughout the early 1900s, education for transfer to four-year institutions was the focus of the colleges, and their curricula were similar to those of the first two years of undergraduate studies. Although transfer education continued to be the goal of the majority of two-year college students, a parallel movement in the 1920s was toward the development of occupational and vocational programs. The addition of vocational courses and the responsiveness to local community needs engendered by these courses eventually led to the present-day comprehensive community college. A significant boost to community colleges came in 1946, with President Truman's establishment of the Commission on Higher Education to look at ways to meet the needs of the streams of service men and women flowing into higher education as a result of the GI Bill. The Commission cited barriers including economics, restricted curriculum, and racial and religious prejudices or quotas, stating in its final report that "The Commission does not subscribe to the belief that higher education should be confined to an intellectual elite, much less a small elite drawn largely from families in the higher income brackets." It concluded that education in the United States should be accessible and tuition free through grade 14. The community college has played a significant role in what has been referred to as the "democratization" of higher education. Community colleges offer the ideal pathway for preparing first-in-the-family college students for college work in four-year institutions. These students find the affordability of a community college education very attractive. Without us, the doors of higher education would be closed to them. Questions regarding the emphasis placed on one or the other of the two primary missions of transfer and vocational education continue to the present time. However, community colleges seem quite capable of providing both of these sets of curricula, and, indeed, the proximity of the two opens new options to students, who often shift from vocational to transfer courses of study and vice versa. Today, there are more than 1400 public and private two-year colleges serving more than five million students. Most of our students are in public institutions, and nearly 25 percent are in California. In 1991, 43 percent of all postsecondary students taking courses for college credit and 51 percent of all first-time college students were enrolled in community colleges. The average age of our students is 28. More than half are older than the traditional college-age cohort (18-24). Only 40 percent receive financial support from their parents, compared to 70 percent at four-year colleges, and only 29 percent receive some form of financial aid. Part-time students account for 67 percent of all enrollees. The overwhelming majority have full-time or part-time jobs. Figures for 1986 showed that minorities comprised 22 percent of all credit students. In California, the figure is close to 40 percent. During the 1990s, more than four out of every five new California residents will be Asian or Hispanic. That trend will be reflected on our campuses. Encouraging this emerging student body mature, employed, and independent to begin and persist in the study of science is a challenge that may require some new approaches on the part of a faculty that can engage their imagination, inspire them, and be responsive to their special needs. I have heard it suggested that we need to make special allowances for these students, with the implication that they are somehow less academically proficient than the "traditional" college student. This is not at all what I have in mind when I speak of special needs. In fact, for a student body that is not necessarily proficient in English, mathematics, the universal language of science, can provide an immediate common ground enhancing mutual understanding. The community college faculty of the future will have to be flexible, not in teaching classes at a more elementary level, but in understanding the financial, job, and family constraints that affect many of our students. They will have to offer exciting learning opportunities that engage the enthusiasm of students who worked late the night before, or evening students who have worked all day at their regular jobs. They will have to communicate to their mature students, many of whom may be employed in the fields they are studying, not only the excitement of scholarship and research but also the potential applications of what they are learning. They will have to avoid letting students be imprisoned by stereotypes that the students themselves may believe. To succeed at these tasks, we will need committed, scholarly faculty who have the time for professional development, who can take advantage of research opportunities in four-year and graduate institutions, who can interact with other scholars in their fields, and who have access to up-to-date equipment and time to develop course material that is stimulating and challenging. We want our students to have the finest education we can offer in science, mathematics, and engineering.Our students must be prepared to live in a world where an understanding of science is essential, and they must also understand the limits of technology. Our colleges must create an organizational climate for professional development based upon clear expectations, institutional recognition of achievement, opportunities for intellectual growth, enhancement of classroom teaching skills, and community-building in support of a shared vision of excellence. In their monograph, Fostering a Climate for Faculty Scholarship at Community Colleges, James C. Palmer and George B. Vaughan show that there is plenty of reason to be positive about the scholarship of our faculty. In studies where scholarship is defined solely in terms of research and publication, community college faculty involvement has often appeared low. However, when other scholarly activities are included, the level of participation has been found to be much greater. In a national survey during 1989-90, Palmer (1992) broadened the definition of scholarship to include not only publications but also conference papers; instructional materials, including instructional software and unpublished text books or learning guides used by colleagues beyond the writer's own classroom; research or technical reports; community informational materials, exhibits or performances in the fine arts; technical innovations (patents, new technologies, noninstructional computer software); and other products. He found that 86% of all full-time faculty had completed at least one such scholarly product in the two years preceding the survey. Fifty-five percent had presented papers at conferences, 36 percent had published, 34 percent had developed instructional materials for use by colleagues, 28 percent had produced research or technical reports, 23 percent had developed community informational materials, 16 percent reported exhibits or performances in the fine arts, and 12 percent reported technical innovations. Significantly, this level of scholarship was achieved despite the fact that 27 percent said they had received no help at all from their institutions: no encouragement from colleagues or administration, no computer time or equipment, no release time or sabbatical, no additional financial assistance. Generally, when support was received, it was in the form of encouragement from administrators and colleagues rather than more tangible help such as f inancial assistance, computer time, or release time. Palmer saw these findings as encouraging, concluding that "collegial relationships have the potential to compensate--at least partially--for the lack of resources available to support faculty scholarship." While the encouragement of peers and administration is clearly an important factor in community college faculty scholarship, full time faculty identified the time spent in teaching as the principal barrier to participation in scholarly activities. Sixty-one percent of respondents felt that "teaching takes up too much time, " while lack of financial support was cited as a barrier by 45 percent. Thirty-two and 28 percent, respectively, cited advising/work with students outside of class, and administrative/committee work. Thirty-one percent were concerned about the lack of rewards for engaging in scholarship, indicating that it would not improve their rank or salary. That time constraints can be an important barrier is shown by the typical teaching load at Palomar College. Full-time faculty generally spend 15 lecture hours or a combination of 20 hours of lecture and laboratory in the classroom. They are expected to have a minimum of five office hours weekly. Three preparations are about average, but it would not be impossible for a faculty member to have f ive. In addition to these requirements, our faculty participate in college governance. Interestingly, in their responses to Palmer's survey, many faculty did not want scholarly activities in their institutions to be made mandatory. They felt this would introduce the "publish or perish" mentality of the universities into an environment they had selected because of their love of teaching. Scholarship, they felt, should be encouraged for those who wish to be involved, but it should not be required. In exploring ways to encourage community college scholarship, there is another facet of community college history that must be understood: a tendency to view teaching and scholarship as a dichotomy, with the implication that faculty who chose the former must reject the latter. As James Ratcliff (1992) has pointed out, "Community college educators take pride in their commitment to teaching. They view the ideal faculty member as a concerned, dedicated, and effective teacher." This emphasis has resulted in "a static vision of teaching . . . and a slighting of scholarship as a source of renewal and reinvigoration for community college faculty." Ratcliff refers to the origin of this feeling during "the second great growth period of community colleges (1955-1975), when many of today's community college faculty were hired. During this time, college leaders often expressed open hostility toward scholarship and the role of subject matter expertise in the preservice education of two-year college teachers." In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis in community colleges on what Ernest Boyer (1987, 1990) has called "the scholarship of teaching." Duvall (1992) quotes Boyer as saying that "scholarship is at the heart of what the teaching profession is all about ... and to weaken faculty commitment for scholarship ... is to undermine the undergraduate experience, regardless of the academic setting." A growing demand for accountability in education coincides with this emphasis on scholarship. Community college faculty are increasingly becoming involved in assessment of student outcomes, and "these efforts, rooted in the scholarship of discovery and application, should enable colleges to track the intellectual and personal growth of students over time, measure changes in student attitudes and values, and determine the knowledge and skills that students gain through the educational experience" (Duvall, op. cit.). As all of our faculty become increasingly concerned with evaluating the effectiveness of their classroom presentations and teaching techniques, we can anticipate a concurrent willingness on the part of science and mathematics faculty to become involved in professional societies that offer the opportunity to share information and improve the ways in which their disciplines are taught. As the results of classroom research become available to faculty, scientists will be encouraged to remain current in their fields and to develop laboratory activities and classroom demonstrations that will expose students to the excitement of scientific research and discovery. In addition, sharing classroom research findings with other faculty in their field may draw into professional societies faculty who have not been involved in the past (Duvall, op. cit.). As Vaughan (1992) says, "Once the link between scholarship and teaching is established, the definition of the community college culture will begin to change from the negative statement, "The community college is a teaching institution whose faculty do not do research," into the positive statement, "Community college faculty members are teachers and scholars." Professional societies can help in this transformation by offering opportunities for professional contact, making a conscious effort to include community college faculty in their activities, and recommending standards for maintaining quality education within disciplines. The American Association of Physics Teachers, for example, held a conference on Critical Issues in Two-Year-College Physics and Astronomy. The group recommended that the workload of two-year-college physics and astronomy faculty should be limited to 15 contact hours per week, 360 student contact hours per week, and three preparations. Given the number of student contact hours now expected of the typical community college faculty member, and budgetary constraints that may make it difficult to implement these worthwhile recommendations for all our faculty, it is vitally important that we build into the academic year opportunities to develop their professional skills. In California, the Education Code requires that faculty have a minimum of 175 contractual days annually, only 160 of which are required to be instructional days. At Palomar College, our academic calendar provides for 165 days of classroom instruction. The remaining ten days are reserved for professional development activities arranged by each faculty member. The activities must be well-planned, professionally appropriate, and described in detail in a professional development contract. Qualifying activities fall into three major areas: currency and growth in one's field, workplace effectiveness, and organizational dynamics. Maintaining currency and growing in one's field can include activities such as preparing for conference and workshop presentations, attending professional conferences and workshops, writing for publication, engaging in original research, or taking advanced courses. To give you an idea of what community college faculty can achieve if they are given time and encouragement, here are some recent professional development activities of our science faculty. Conducting visual perception research and writing a paper on visual short-term memory. Field research and completion of a pictorial manuscript about lichens. The article will focus on the "marriage" between algae and fungi to form this successful symbiotic life form and will include photomicrographs of a seldom-seen marine lichen growing on the calcareous shells of barnacles, chitons, and limpets. Natural product research on chemical constituents of a plant with malodorous leaf-components that might have antirodent activity due to the possible fatty ketone content. Studying marine mammals and birds of the islands off Baja California. Studying penguin breeding behavior in Antarctica and avifauna and marine mammals in Tierra del Fuego. Research and development involving reactions of Friedel-Crafts alkylation on microscale. Research and Development of Diels-Alder "safe" insecticide analog. Research and Development involving N-Bromosuccinimide. Learning to use a new system for producing weather maps and satellite images for use in the meteorology program. In addition, we encourage our faculty to take sabbatical leave. A botanist on our faculty used his sabbatical to work with experts in Berkeley, the Virgin Islands, and Zurich, and to study tropical botany. A mathematics professor completed a three-book series of mathematics texts in college algebra and trigonometry. A life sciences faculty member produced microscopic videos of cell organelles and protists. (Incidentally, this was only possible because Palomar College has the necessary microscope and video camera equipment.) A physicist used his sabbatical to study computer numerical methods and programming techniques to be used for physics applications. One of our mathematics faculty wanted to work for short periods of time at several high-tech firms to gain experience in mathematics applications that she could share with her students, but she was unable to find a firm that was willing to offer her a short-term project and had to revise her plan. Here is a situation where association support might have been helpful. A chemist used his sabbatical to develop new chemistry lab experiments. When I look at scholarly achievements like these, on the part of faculty at colleges where so much time must be spent in the classroom and preparation, I can only feel optimism. Again, I am heartened by the effort each of you is making to enhance the teaching of science in our community colleges, and I applaud your concern for the future of science in our country. References Boyer, E. L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1987. Boyer, E. L Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate Princeton, N. J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990. Duvall, Betty. "Scholarship and the Academic Dean." In James C. Palmer and George B. Vaughan, Fostering a Climate for Faculty Scholarship at Community Colleges. American Association for Community and Junior Colleges, 1992, pp. 17?-22. Palmer, James C. "The Scholarly Activities of Community College Faculty: Findings of a National Survey." In James C. Palmer and George B. Vaughan, Fostering a Climate for Faculty Scholarship at Community Colleges. American Association for Community and Junior Colleges, 1992, pp. 49-65. Ratcliff, James L. "Scholarship, the Transformation of Knowledge, and Community College Teaching." In James C. Palmer and George B. Vaughan, Fostering a Climate for Faculty Scholarship at Community Colleges. American Association for Community and Junior Colleges, 1992, pp. 39-47. Vaughan, George B. "Scholarship and the Culture of the Community College." In James C. Palmer and George B. Vaughan, Fostering a Climate for Faculty Scholarship at Community Colleges. American Association for Community and Junior Colleges, 1992, pp. 1-9. Two-Year Colleges and the Scientific Literacy of the American People Comments Submitted to the National Science Foundation by Benjamin S. Shen Dr. Shen, a member of the National Science Board, is vice-chairman of its Committee on Education and Human Resources and chairman of its Task Force on Scientific Literacy. The following is based on remarks he made at the Workshop. He points out that the views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSB or NSF. I would like to say a few words about scientific literacy and how it relates to two-year colleges. In this talk, I will use the word "science" or "scientific" in the broadest sense, to include mathematics, applied science, technology, even preventive medicine. Generally, instead of saying "health, mathematical, scientific, and technological literacy", I'll just say "scientific literacy" for short. I feel particularly comfortable talking about scientific literacy with this audience, for in the proceedings of one of your earlier workshops [NSF 89-50, June 1989, page i] I find a statement to the effect that science education in two-year colleges has at least two aims: (1) to increase the supply of the nation's scientific and technical personnel, and (2) to improve significantly the "scientific literacy of the general public". It was along similar lines that the National Science Board recently took steps to re-emphasize its interest not only in the education of present and future scientists and engineers -- a vital task in itself -- but also in the scientific education of the 90% of Americans who are not or do not intend to be scientists or engineers. The Board did so by establishing an ad hoc Task Force on Scientific Literacy, which has been asked to develop concrete recommendations for improving the scientific literacy of the American people. I do not need to dwell, especially with this audience, on why it would be highly desirable, even necessary, for Americans of today and tomorrow to be scientifically literate, that is, to possess a lifelong acquaintance with some of the basics of mathematics, science, technology, and health to a degree appropriate to their needs, just as it has long been necessary for everyone to acquire varying degrees of acquaintance with the three R's. At a practical level, Americans will increasingly find that just to qualify for entry-level jobs in the future workplace or even to function efficiently in everyday life will call for a moderate level of quantitative reasoning and problem-solving skills that their parents or grandparents have not found necessary. Simultaneously, there is an increasing need for the citizenry to possess what is sometimes called "civic scientific literacy", that is, the ability to form judicious opinions about the growing number of public issues that have a scientific and technological content, whether in the area of environment, energy, space, health, safety, research, industry, commerce, or general national prosperity. Finally, at a cultural level, there are also sound reasons to believe that some aspects of science and technology ought to be an integral part of the knowledge base of an educated person, of the liberal arts curriculum, and of the general culture of a nation otherwise so steeped in those fields of endeavor. To be sure, these major objectives of scientific literacy -- the practical, the civic, and the cultural -- overlap a great deal in terms of target audiences, standards, and means of delivery. In doing its work, the Task Force on Scientific Literacy has decided to focus its deliberations on three specific areas: First, we would like to see what specific actions may be taken, both within and outside the nation's education system, that would ensure that young people entering the industrial workforce will possess enough basic mathematical and technical knowledge and skills to allow them to take advantage of more specialized on-the-job training. Second, we would like to help enhance the role played by the communications media and by other institutions of public access in imparting and maintaining lifelong scientific literacy; these would include radio, broadcast and cable television, newspapers, magazines, and computer networks, as well as libraries, museums, science centers, planetariums, parks, botanical gardens, zoos, etc. Third, we are concerned about the scientific literacy of college graduates, and the nature of the introductory science courses for non-science majors that often constitute the only exposure to science of future leaders of education, government, business, and industry. Let me say a word about a couple of pitfalls that could discredit efforts to improve scientific literacy. First, there is occasionally a tendency for those promoting scientific literacy to want the general public to know much more about science than necessary or even to want to make scientists out of everybody. The general public have other important things to do, and science should have no greater claim on their attentiveness than art or tax rules or world affairs. Producing more scientists and engineers may indeed be a welcome by-product of scientific literacy, but not its primary objective. Second, scientific literacy should not be aimed at shoring up the reputation of science in the public eye, or at cultivating constituents in favor of public funding for scientific projects. Scientific literacy is not a public-relations opportunity for science or scientists. A person who is scientifically literate may or may not favor science, and that's the way it should be. Can two-year colleges help improve scientific literacy? Most emphatically yes. There are several reasons why I think two-year colleges can play a very useful role. First, since two-year colleges have closer ties with the local high schools from which they get their students than does the typical four-year institution, they should be better able to influence the teaching and learning there. Second, since two-year colleges have close connections with industrial employers to whom they send graduates from their associate and training programs, they have a realistic appreciation of what basic skills and knowledge are needed. Lastly, since two-year colleges enroll at least half of the young people who enter college in this country, many of whom later move on to four-year institutions, they play a major role in teaching introductory mathematics, science, and technology to nonmajors in those fields. More important, since a large fraction of students in two-year colleges are from minority or economically-disadvantaged backgrounds, two-year colleges are in a unique position to help with the scientific literacy of these students. I would like to encourage all of you to think about how you, at your institution and locality, could go about trying to improve the scientific literacy of your graduates, of the students you take in, and of the people in your community. Some of you may have ideas about major projects that would lead to substantial advances in scientific literacy. Having heard the discussions at this workshop, I realize the severe time constraints you may face when you try to divert your interest to worthy educational endeavors beyond classroom teaching. In the long run, it may be that a method of releasing time from teaching to engage in important non-teaching educational activities needs to be worked out at two-year colleges, as it has at many four-year institutions, so that those with external grants from recognized private or public sources can devote concentrated effort to a project. The Task Force would very much like to hear any comments and advice you or your colleagues may have for us on any or all of the issues I raised here. Please send your comments to the Executive Secretary of Task Force: Myles Boylan, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550 (Tel. 202-357-7826; Fax 202-357-1114; e-mail mboylan@nsf.gov). Liaison officers with NSF are Luther Williams and Cora Marrett, both Assistant Directors of NSF. Task Force members are, besides myself, Jaime Oaxaca, James Powell, Ian Ross, and Richard Zare; all are members of the National Science Board, and the NSB switchboard (202-357-9582) can tell you how to reach us individually. Two-Year College Workshop Participants KEY * - Working Group Chair ** - Working Group Recorder + - Discipline Leader ++ - Workshop Co-Chair James M. Adams Computer Science/A ACM 1515 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Don Albers Mathematics/E Associate Director/ Publications and Programs MAA Headquarters 1529 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Robert Anthony Biology/E Science Department 2000 5th Avenue Triton College River Grove, IL 60171 +Charlotte Behm Engineering/B Chair, Engineering Mission College Santa Clara, CA 95054 Tanja Beliz Biology/A Department of Biology College of San Mateo San Mateo, CA 94704 George Boggs Interdisciplinary President - Elect American Association of Community Colleges Superintendent/President Palomar College San Marcos, CA 92069 Peter Boyce Astronomy/D Executive Officer American Astronomical Society 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 +Linda Boyd Mathematics/A Department of Mathematics DeKalb College 555 North Indian Creek Drive Clarkston, GA 30021 John S. Bradley Mathematics/E American Mathematics Society Washington Office 1529 Eighteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Sadie Bragg Mathematics Dean of Academic Affairs City University of New York Borough of Manhattan Community College 199 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Lia Brillhart Engineering/E Engineering Department Triton Community College River Grove, IL 60171 Charles M. Chambers Biology/D Executive Director American Instit. of Biological Sciences 730 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4521 +Amy L. Chang Biology/A Assistant Director American Society For Microbiology Office of Education and Training 1325 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Max Cisneros Mathematics/B Department of Developmental Studies Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute 525 Buena Vista SE Albuquerque, NM 87106 William S. Cohen Biology/B Department of Biological Sciences University of Kentucky 101 Morgan Building Lexington, KT 40506-0225 Nell Dale Computer Science/A Computer Science Department University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 Carol Edwards Mathematics/C Department of Mathematics St. Louis Community College - Florissant Valley 3400 Pershall Road St. Louis, MO 63135 *Donald Emmeluth Biology/D Department of Biology Fulton-Montgomery Community College Johnstown, NY 12095 I. Dwaine Eubanks Chemistry/A ACS Exams Institute Clemson University 223 Brackett Hall Box 341913 Clemson, SC 29634-1913 *Dale Ewen Mathematics/E Vice-President for Academic Services Parkland College 2400 West Bradley Avenue Champaign, IL 61821 ++Susan Forman Mathematics 3701 Connecticut Avenue NW Apartment 439 Washington, DC 20008 Jim Gates Mathematics/D Executive Director National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 1906 Association Drive Reston, VA 22091 Edward Geary Geology/D Educational Programs Coordinator Geological Society of America P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, CO 80301-9140 Ira Geer Meterology Director, Meteorological Society 1701 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Deborah Haimo Mathematics/D Department of Mathematics University of Missouri St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 James G. Harris Engineering/E EL/EE Department Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Richard Hart Engineering/C Engineering Department Cabrillo College Aptos, CA 95003 David Hata Engineering/D Chair Electronics Engineering Technology Portland Community College P.O. Box 19000 Portland, OR 97280-0990 William Hawkins Mathematics Director SUMMA Project MAA Headquarters 1529 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Ed Heath Chemistry/C Committee on Chemistry in the Two-Year College ACS Division of Chemical Education Southwest Texas Junior College Uvalde, TX 78801-6297 *Jack Hehn Physics/C Associate Executive Officer American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) 5112 Berwyn Rd. College Park, MD 20742 **Curtis Hieggelke Physics/E Department of Physics Joliet Junior College 1216 Houbolt Avenue Joliet, IL 60436 +Mary Kay Hemenway Astronomy/A Education Officer AAS Astronomy Department University of Texas Austin, TX 78712-1083 Frank Huband Engineering Executive Director American Society for Engin. Education 11 DuPont Circle Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 John Impagliazzo Computer Science/C Hofstra University Chair, Computer Science 1000 Hempstead Turnpike Hempstead, NY 11550 Frank Ireton Geology/B Executive Advisor for the National Earth Science Teachers Association American Geophysical Union 2000 Florida Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 **Karl Klee Computer Science/D Department of Computer Science Jamestown Community College Jamestown, NY 14702 Donald Kreider Mathematics/A Department of Mathematics Dartmouth College Box 2066 New London, NH 03257 Woodrow Leake Engineering/C Deputy Executive Director American Society for Engin. Education 11 DuPont Circle Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 *J. Ivan Legg Chemistry/A Provost Memphis State University Memphis, TN 38152 John Lennox Biology/C Department of Biology Penn State University Altoona Campus Altoona, PA 16603 Joyce Little Computer Science/E Department of Computer Science Towson State University Towson, MD 21204 **Beverly T. Lynds Astronomy/C Chair Two-year College Commmittee AAS 3244 6th Street Boulder, CO 80304 Marilyn Mays Mathematics/C Department of Mathematics North Lake College 5001 MacArthur Boulevard Irving, TX 75038-3899 James McKenney Interdisciplinary/E American Association of Community Colleges 1 Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 Marcus Milling Geology/C Executive Director American Geological Institute 4220 King Street Alexandria, VA 22302 Shelba Morman Mathematics/E Department of Mathematics North Lake College 5001 MacArthur Boulevard Irving, TX 75038-3899 Sandra Murrell Mathematics/B Shelby State Community College Department of Mathematics Memphis, TN 38174-0568 **Terri Nally Chemistry/B Manager, Office of College Chemistry American Chemical Society Education Division 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Nataraj S. Nataraj Engineering/D Department of Engineering Sinclair Community College Dayton, OH 45402 + Tom O'Kuma Physics/A Department of Physics Lee College 511 South Whiting Road Baytown, TX 77530 Patricia Perez Chemistry/E Chair, Chemistry Department Mt. San Antonio College 1100 N. Grand Ave. Walnut, CA 21789 David Pierce Interdisciplinary President American Association of Community Colleges 1 Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 +Lucy T. Pryde Chemistry/B Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Clemson University 223 Brackett Hall Box 341913 Clemson, SC 29634-1913 Ernesto Ramirez, Jr. Interdisciplinary/D Maricopa Community Colleges Director, Comprehensive Regional Center for Minorities 2411 West 14th Street Tempe, AR 85281-6941 Jack Rhoton Interdisciplinary/B College Director National Science Teachers Association East Tennessee University Box 70684 Johnson City, TN 37614 Virginia Rivers Biology/C Department of Biology Truckee Meadows Community College 7000 Dandini Blvd. Reno, NV 89512 Ron Rosier Interdisciplinary/E Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences 1529 Eighteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Brian Schwartz Physics/B Associate Secretary and Education Officer American Physical Society 335 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017-3484 Karen Sharp Mathematics/D Department of Mathematics Mott Community College 1401 E. Court St. Flint, MI 48503 Benjaming S. Shen Astronomy/Physics Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 Eleanor D. Siebert Interdisciplinary/D President, Society for College Science Teachers Dept of Physical Sciences and Mathematics Mount St. Mary's College 12001 Chalon Road Los Angeles, CA 90049 Lynn A. Steen Mathematics Executive Director Mathematical Sciences Education Board 2101 Constitution Avenue NW HA 476 Washington, DC 20418 ++ James H. Stith Physics Department of Physics United States Military Academy West Point, NY 10996 *Dorothy Stout Geology/B Department of Geology Cypress College Cypress, CA 90630 Marilyn Suitor Geology/E Director for Education American Geological Institute 4220 King Street Alexandria, VA 22302 +Keith Sverdrup Geology/A Chair of Education Committee American Geophysical Union Department Geosciences University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI 53201 Pamela Tabery Biology/E Department of Biology Northhampton Community College Bethlehem, PA 18017 Judith Tavel Physics/B Department Chair Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Dutchess County Community College 53 Pendell Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Brian Tormey Geology/C First Vice-President of NAGT Penn State University Drive Altoona Campus Altoona, PA 16601 Alan C. Tucker Mathematics/C Applied Mathematics Department SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-3600 **Peggie Weeks Engineering/A Department of Engineering and Technology Corning Community College 1 Academic Drive Corning, NY 14830-3297 +John Werth Computer Science/B Chair, Education Board Department of Computer Science Taylor Hall University of Texas Austin, TX 78712 Carol L. White Chemistry/D Assistant Industrial Sponsors Chair Committee on Chemistry in the Two-Year College Athens Area Technical Institute U.S. Highway 29 North Athens, GA 30610-0399 NSF Presenters Lida Barrett Senior Advisor Office of the Assistant Director/ Education and Human Resources John Clevenger NSF/AACJC Fellow Division of Undergraduate Education Elizabeth Teles Program Officer Division of Undergraduate Education Robert Watson Director Division of Undergraduate Education Peter Yankwich Senior Staff Office of the Assistant Director/ Education and Human Resources Planning Committee NSF/AACC Fellows Jody Chase Divison of Human Resource Development John Clevenger Division of Undergraduate Education Carolyn Girardeau Division of Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination Harry Hajian Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Science Lourdes Tinajero Divison of Human Resource Development NSF Program Directors Ray Collings Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Science Patricia Daniels Division of Undergraduate Education Gerhard Salinger Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Science Elizabeth Teles Division of Undergraduate Education Participating Societies in the NSF Workshop on the Role of Professional Societies in Two-Year College Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 1 Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728-0200 American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) 5112 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 345-4200 American Astronomical Society (AAS) 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 200 Washington, D. C. 20009 (202) 328-2010 American Chemical Society (ACS) 1155 16th Street NW Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 872-4587 American Geological Institute (AGI) 4220 King Street Alexandria, Virginia 22302 (703) 379-2480 American Geophysical Union (AGU) 2000 Florida Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 462-6903 American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) 730 11th Street NW Washington, D. C. 20001-4521 (202) 628-1500 American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) c/o Karen Sharp Mott Community College 1401 East Court Street Flint, Michigan 48503 (313) 232-3980 American Mathematical Society (AMS) Box 6248 201 Charles Street Providence, Rhode Island 02940-6248 (401) 455-4000 Washington Office 1529 Eighteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-1100 American Meteorological Society 1701 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 466-6070 American Physical Society (APS) 335 East 45th Street New York, New York 10017-3484 (212) 682-7341 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) 11 Dupont Circle Suite 200 Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 986-8500 American Society for Microbiology (ASM) 1325 Massachusetts NW Washington, D. C. 20005 (202) 737-3600 Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) 1515 Broadway New York, New York 10036 (212) 869-7440 Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) 1529 Eighteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 293-1170 Geological Society of America (GSA) Box 9140 Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140 (303) 447-2020 Human Anatomy and Physiology (HAPS) c/o Virginia Rivers Truckee Meadows Community College 7000 Dandini Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89512 Mathematical Association of America (MAA) 1529 Eighteenth Street NW Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 387-5200 Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) 2101 Constitution Avenue NW HA476 Washington, DC 20418 (202) 334-3294 National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) 11250 Roger Bacon Drive #19 Reston, Virginia 22090 (703) 471-1134 National Association for Geology Teachers (NAGT) c/o Robert Christman Western Washington University Bellingham, Washington 98225-9080 (206) 676-3587 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 1906 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091 (703) 620-9840 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) c/o Jack Rhoton East Tennessee University Johnson City, Tennessee 37614 (615) 929-4288 1742 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 328-5800 Society of College Science Teachers (SCST) c/o Eleanor Siebert Mount St. Mary's Road 12001 Chalon Road Los Angeles, California 90049 (310) 476-2237 EPILOGUE Participants left the workshop with preliminary plans for implementing recommendations of the workshops in their respective professional societies. In the four months since the workshop, NSF has received numerous reports of what has already happened. Below are a sample of these activities. Astronomy: Reported on workshop to the Council of the American Astronomical Society; asked members if they teach at two-year colleges; and made plans to activate two-year committee. Chemistry: Presented chemistry action items to Governance Board at National ACS Convention; included two-year college faculty names in list of nominees for panels and other lists to funding agencies; had the Membership Division sponsor a membership booth at Two-Year College Chemistry Convention (2YC3); published additional articles by two-year college faculty in newsletter of the Education Division of ACS Computer Science: Curriculum Development Guidelines for Computing in Two-Year Colleges was unanimously approved by ACM Education Board; ACM rules have been modified to make it easier to institute a new Special Interest Group and two-year group has been encouraged to submit a proposal; Placed a two-year college faculty member on ballot for a position on the Board of Directors of ACM Earth Sciences: Published an article summarizing the conference and proceedings in the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) weekly magazine EOS called "Does AGE Need Two-Year Institutions? Do Two-Year Institutions Need AGU?"; AGU's Committee on Education and Human Resources has given preliminary approval to having a joint conference with other Earth Science professional and scientific societies that will focus on the role two-year institutions play in the training of scientists; made plans to convene a combined Chapman-Penrose Conference on undergraduate education in the earth sciences. Engineering: Surveyed states concerning establishment of a national two-year college engineering network to deal with issues concerning lower division engineering courses, articulation, and networking with existing and future engineering organizations; placed the issue of establishment of such a network on the agenda of the Community College Section of ASEE; encouraged two-year engineering faculty in California to apply for grants and volunteer to serve as reviewers Interdisciplinary: In cooperation with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) sent two-year college faculty a copy of Journal of College Science Teaching which highlights professional involvement of two-year college faculty. Life Sciences: Published an article in the ASM News about the workshop; planned a survey on technical education in New Hampshire. Mathematics: Made a presentation to the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences on workshop; article on workshop and another on electronic networking appeared in AMATYC News; made action plans at meeting of the MAA Committee on Two-Year Colleges to implement the recommendations, article in UME Trends on workshop; received endorsement of the MAA Committee on Computers in Mathematics Education on two recommendations concerning electronic services, made a presentation to MAA Reward's Committee on Recommendations of Working Group A. Physics: Initiated plans to establish a Center for the Teaching of Physics, established an Advisory Committee for that Center that has a standing member from the two-year community, in partnership with the American Institute of Physics is investigating ways the introductory physics course can be improved and is including two- year college faculty on the Steering Committee, devoted a major portion of retiring President of AAPT to addressing the need to reach out to two-year community (to be published in the Announcer). Two-Year Colleges To meet the economic and social needs of today's society, America's colleges and universities are being called upon to produce mathematically and scientifically literate workers and citizens. The nation's two-year colleges are ideally positioned to serve as catalysts in this effort because while they serve a variety of purposes, they all have a single dominant mission -- effective education for all students. Two-year colleges bring three important strengths to the development of the nation's human resources in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. First, they support a great diversity of learning objectives ranging from technical education and career-oriented courses to remediation and transfer to four-year colleges and universities. Second, they provide access to higher education for many who might not otherwise have the opportunity and enroll large numbers of minority and female students. Third, they take their service to the community seriously by offering courses designed to help the work force upgrade and renew job skills as well as activities and courses for life-long learning. The National Science Foundation intends to work with two-year colleges on their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs. Such programs can yield triple dividends: some graduates of such programs will be ready to embark immediately on careers in the industrial work force; others will continue their education in pursuit of baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; and still others will have acquired useful skills and familiarity with mathematics and science. The National Science Foundation provides educational support to two-year colleges as well as other institutions of education through leadership activities and leveraged program support. This workshop, designed to help determine the role of professional societies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, is an example of a leadership activity. Leveraged program support of projects in two-year colleges has primarily been through the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) which is in the Directorate of Education and Human Resources (EHR). DUE supports projects for the development of laboratory components of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, faculty enhancement, and curricular and instructional improvement. The National Science Foundation also supports two-year college projects in teacher enhancement (K-12) programs, young scholars, career access, materials development, and alliances for minority participation.