Title : NSF 96-139 -- SHAPING THE FUTURE: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Type : Report NSF Org: EHR / DUE Date : October 03, 1996 File : nsf96139 ******************************************* [Begin Report] S H A P I N G T H E F U T U R E New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology A Report on its Review of Undergraduate Education by the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources ******** Notices of Disclaimer 1. This report of the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation's Directorate for Education and Human Resources has been received by the Foundation. The views, opinions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the Advisory Committee; they are presently being reviewed by the Foundation and do not necessarily represent the official views, opinions, or policy of the Foundation. 2. The pronouns "we," "our," and "us" used in the Recommendations section of this report refer to the Advisory Committee, not to the National Science Foundation or to its representatives. As employed in the remaining text of the report, these pronouns may refer additionally or alternatively to the general population, to the academic community at large, or to those segments of either with special interest in undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. ******** Committee on the Review of Undergraduate Education Melvin D. George, Chair President Emeritus St. Olaf College (MN) Sadie Bragg Borough of Manhattan Community College (NY) Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr. Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ) Denice D. Denton University of Wisconsin - Madison Peter Gerber MacArthur Foundation (IL) Mary M. Lindquist Columbus College (GA) James M. Rosser California State University--Los Angeles David A. Sanchez Texas A&M University Carolyn Meyers North Carolina A&T State University (Consultant to the Committee) ******** Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources Chair: James M. Rosser Vice Chair: Kerry Davidson Susan Agruso Director, Authentic Assessment State Department of Education (SC) Edward W. Bales Director of Education, External Systems Motorola Corporation (IL) Joan Barber Director for Student Life North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (NC) George Boggs President Palomar College (CA) Sadie Bragg Acting Dean of Academic Affairs Borough of Manhattan Community College (NY) Diane J. Briars Office of Educational Design and Assessment Pittsburgh Public Schools (PA) Kerry Davidson Deputy Commissioner Louisiana Board of Regents Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr. Maricopa Community Colleges (AZ) Denice D. Denton Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Wisconsin - Madison Charlotte K. Frank Vice President, Research and Development The McGraw-Hill Companies (NY) Alan J. Friedman Director New York Hall of Science Melvin D. George President Emeritus St. Olaf College (MN) Peter Gerber MacArthur Foundation (IL) N. Gerry House Superintendent Memphis Public Schools (TN) Jane Butler Kahle Condit Professor of Science Education Miami University (OH) Charlotte Keith Indian Trail High School (KS) Mary M. Lindquist School of Education Columbus College (GA) Stanley S. Litow Director, Corporate Support Programs International Business Machines Corporation (NY) Jack R. Lohmann Associate Dean, College of Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Charles Merideth President New York City Technical College Robert E. Parilla President Montgomery College (MD) Diana Garcia Prichard Photoscience Research Division Eastman Kodak Company (NY) James M. Rosser President California State University--Los Angeles David A. Sanchez Department of Mathematics Texas A&M University Maria Santos Supervisor, Mathematics & Science Department San Francisco Unified School District (CA) Robert Schwartz The Pew Charitable Trusts (PA) Calvert H. Smith Office of Systemic Reform State of Ohio Gwendolyn W. Stephenson Chancellor St. Louis Community College System (MO) Uri Treisman Department of Mathematics University of Texas--Austin Leon Ukens Department of Physics Towson State University (MD) Donna L. York Science Curriculum Coordinator Anchorage School District (AK) ******* Table of Contents Executive Summary References and Notes for Executive Summary I. To Begin: Background and Purpose of This Review II. A Look Back: Recent History of Educational Reform History of Undergraduate Programs at NSF Since the Neal Report Funding History of the Neal Report Recommendations Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements III. The Situation Today: Findings of the Review A Changing World and Economy Rising Expenditures and Growing Financial Constraints Undergraduate Education Today Barriers to Improvement Lowering the Barriers and Meeting New Expectations IV. Recommendations References and Notes ******** "NSF is determined that all students at all levels will be exposed to programs with high standards for understanding and accomplish- ment; that all students have the opportunity to advance to higher levels; that all students who enter advanced training at the professional level are well and broadly trained; and that the process of learning does not end with the classroom. "Meeting this goal requires efforts from all parts of the Foundation. The undergraduate level plays a pivotal role." - Excerpt from "NSF in a Changing World: The National Science Foundation Strategic Plan" (NSF 95-24, p. 29) ******** EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Under the auspices of the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a committee of the Advisory Committee to EHR has conducted an intensive review of the state of undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) in America. The purpose of this review was to "consider the needs of all undergraduates attending all types of U.S. two- and four-year colleges and universities," addressing "issues of preparation of K-12 teachers in these fields, the needs of persons going into the technical work force, the preparation of majors in these areas, and the issue of science literacy for all." [Reference 1; list following Executive Summary] This is the final report of the committee, which was to be "action oriented, recommending ways to improve undergraduate education in SME&T ... not just to the NSF but, as appropriate, to mission- oriented Federal agencies, business and industry, academic institu- tions and their faculties and administrations, professional societies, private sector organizations, state and local govern- ment, and to other stakeholders in undergraduate education." [1] While the focus of this review was undergraduate SME&T education, that is just one part of the continuum of SME&T education in America that runs from pre-school through postgraduate work. The various parts of this continuum are interdependent; undergraduate SME&T education depends on the students who come from grades K-12, relies on faculty who come out of graduate programs, and prepares teachers for the K-12 system and students for graduate school. The kinds of programs offered for graduate students have significant implications for the future of undergraduate education; the profes- sional standards adopted for student learning in grades K-12 impact undergraduate education as well. So, these sectors have mutual obligations to each other, and the fulfillment of those obligations is essential for the health of the whole. Furthermore, as K-12 education changes, as a result not only of standards but of new emphases on inquiry, on active learning, and with new uses of technology, students will come to undergraduate education with new expectations, increasing pressure for reform at this level as well. And to sustain the kind of reform occurring in our nation's elementary and secondary schools, changes in under- graduate education, perhaps particularly in teacher preparation, will be essential. For all these reasons, this report and its recommendations are important to all parts of the continuum of SME&T education in the United States. The goal - indeed, the imperative - deriving from our review is that: All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry. America's undergraduates - all of them - must attain a higher level of competence in science, mathematics, engineering, and technol- ogy. America's institutions of higher education must expect all students to learn more SME&T, must no longer see study in these fields solely as narrow preparation for one specialized career, but must accept them as important to every student. America's SME&T faculty must actively engage those students preparing to become K-12 teachers; technicians; professional scientists, mathemati- cians, or engineers; business or public leaders; and other types of "knowledge workers" and knowledgeable citizens. It is important to assist them to learn not only science facts but, just as important, the methods and processes of research, what scientists and engineers do, how to make informed judgments about technical matters, and how to communicate and work in teams to solve complex problems. America's businesses and industry, governments, and foundations must provide active assistance and support in this critical endeavor. In an increasingly technical and competitive world with information as its common currency, a society without a properly educated citizenry will be at great risk and its people denied the opportunity for a fulfilling life. The year-long review of undergraduate SME&T education leading to this report has revealed that significant change is occurring and that important and measurable improvements have been achieved in the past decade. Much of this progress is attributable to the leader ship of the NSF, following the National Science Board's issuance of the 1986 report, "Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education," NSB 86-100 ("the Neal Report") [2]. That report called for a significant program of support for undergraduate SME&T education and assigned primary, but not exclusive, responsibility for this activity to a separate division staffed by scientists, mathematicians, and engineers from many disciplines - now NSF's Division for Undergraduate Education - having the education of undergraduate students as its first priority. The implementation of the 1986 Neal Report, despite funding of several key instruction oriented programs at considerably reduced levels over what was recommended, has produced many positive results over the past decade. This success on the part of the NSF has reflected faithfully the dual mission of the Foundation in research and education and the conviction not only of the NSF but also of this committee that undergraduate SME&T education is the responsibility of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists alike. Since the time of the Neal Report and the study that led up to it, the world has changed. The Cold War has ended, and public interest in and support of science have waned correspondingly. The use of new technology is exploding in all aspects of life. The economy is vastly different, with many fewer unskilled but highpaying jobs available to those without technical preparation. The demography of America and of its student population are changing dramatically. Notwithstanding promising progress in SME&T education (many examples of which appear in the body of this report), much more remains to be done; there is now a broader and even more urgent agenda than there was in 1986. This message comes from the many contributors to this review: from focus groups of students and graduates, from testimony of employers, faculty, and administra- tors, from previous studies and surveys of all kinds. Despite the observation that America's basic research in science, mathematics, and engineering is world-class, its education is still not. America has produced a significant share of the world's great scientists while most of its population is virtually illiterate in science. Undergraduate SME&T education in America is typically still too much a filter that produces a few highly- qualified graduates while leaving most of its students "homeless in the universe." [3] Too many students leave SME&T courses because they find them dull and unwelcoming. Too many new teachers enter school systems underprepared, without really understanding what science and mathematics are, and lacking the excitement of discovery and the confidence and ability to help children engage SME&T knowledge. Too many graduates go out into the workforce ill-prepared to solve real problems in a cooperative way, lacking the skills and motivation to continue learning. Meanwhile, the world does not stand still. Knowledge keeps growing, new fields arise, other nations improve their educational systems, and new needs emerge. Governments at the state and federal level; business, industry, and the professional community; institutions of higher education; and the National Science Foundation, playing a key leadership role, must work together with a sense of urgency to make the necessary improvements. Students, for their part, must take learning more seriously. The pressures on America's two- and four- year colleges and universities and on their students, facing an uncertain world of very constrained resources, are great. We do not ask for more of the same effort but rather for a more productive and rewarding kind of undergraduate SME&T education that produces long-lasting results more effectively and excitingly for both students and faculty. The testimony of hundreds of participants in this review over the last year has led to a number of recommendations. These recommen- dations (detailed in somewhat different order in the body of the report) are for action to be taken by: Institutions of higher education We recommend that: SME&T faculty: Believe and affirm that every student can learn, and model good practices that increase learning; start with the student's experience, but have high expectations within a supportive climate; and build inquiry, a sense of wonder and the excitement of discovery, plus communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning skills into learning experiences. SME&T departments: Set departmental goals and accept responsi- bility for undergraduate learning, with measurable expecta- tions for all students; offer a curriculum engaging the broadest spectrum of students; use technology effectively to enhance learning; work collaboratively with departments of education, the K-12 sector and the business world to improve the preparation of K-12 teachers (and principals); and provide, for graduate students intending to become faculty members, opportunities for developing pedagogical skills. Governing boards and administrators: Reexamine institutional missions in light of needs in undergraduate SME&T education; hold accountable and develop reward systems for departments and programs stressing the importance of SME&T education for all students; provide strong programs of faculty development; value and reward faculty who demonstrably facilitate student learning; reduce organizational rigidities, e.g., foster interdisciplinary work; make an institutionwide commitment to the preparation of K-12 teachers, in partnership with the schools; and support research and faculty dialogue on how undergraduates learn. Accrediting agencies: Incorporate principles of sound undergraduate SME&T education into accreditation criteria, focusing on student learning, not just on organizational and process issues. Business, industry, and the professional community We recommend that: Business and industry: Help those making public policy decisions understand the critical importance of quality SME&T education; make clear to educational institutions their expectations about graduates; and provide both partnerships and funding to colleges and universities to advance institution-wide reform initiatives. National and regional media: Become better informed about the condition of undergraduate SME&T education in the United States and better inform the public about its critical significance for the nation's future. Professional societies: Through journals and programs, honor and support education as well as research. Publishers and testing agencies: Develop, validate, and disseminate materials and assessment tools incorporating desired goals for learning. Governments at the state and federal level We recommend that: The President and Congress: Develop a new social contract with higher education, to put in place processes to sustain the relative excellence of the nation's higher education and so prepare the U.S. for a new century. Other Federal funding agencies and foundations: Make strategic investments in support of the common agenda for improving undergraduate SME&T education. State governments and higher education boards: Ensure that funding formulas and state policies provide incentives and rewards for excellent undergraduate SME&T education; and encourage collaborations among institutions, including sound articulation understandings. The National Science Foundation We recommend that the NSF: Make clear the high priority of undergraduate education. To do so, it is crucial to have within NSF a unit (the Division of Undergraduate Education, within EHR), staffed by practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists from many disciplines, that has undergraduate education as its first priority and that relates to all institutions providing undergraduate SME&T education. This Division must continue to maintain strong linkages with NSF's discipline-oriented research directorates, which in turn must continue to support undergraduate education within their specific fields. Aggressively improve undergraduate SME&T education through a variety of programs, beyond the base recommended in the Neal Report. A doubling of the present funding level in real dollars in the next decade will be needed to erase the gap between that recommended base and present program funding levels, and to extend the benefits of those programs to all SME&T students. 1. First priority must be given to allocation of enhanced resources to the activities of the Division of Under- graduate Education (DUE) and to the undergraduate part of the Alliances for Minority Participation program in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). 2. The Foundation should encourage the research directorates to expand the allocation of their resources to discipline-oriented and interdisciplinary research- related educational activities that integrate education and research and that promote sharing the excitement of, and engagement in, research with under graduates - with additional emphasis on primarily undergraduate institutions. Further, we recommend that the Foundation: * Lead the development of a common agenda for improving SME&T education. * Give more priority to implementation, particularly of K-12 teacher preparation programs, faculty enhancement, and institutional reform, without diminishing support of innovative ideas and individual faculty curricular and pedagogical improvements. * Lead the development of and provide support for a research agenda in human learning at the undergraduate level, using the results to evaluate programs (including long-term evaluation of student learning outcomes) and guide future program development. * Develop an effective means of validating, codifying, and disseminating good practices in undergraduate SME&T education. In all of its undergraduate programs, NSF should put emphasis on implementation of what is known to work, on genuine institutional change, and on sustainability of hard-won improvements. All of NSF's directorates should: * Continue their support of strong activities to correct underrepresentation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities among students and faculty at the undergraduate level; * Support outreach activities that bring SME&T to the general public; and * Consider funding mechanisms that both assign responsibility and provide incentives and rewards for achieving excellence in undergraduate programs not just to individuals, but to whole departments and entire institutions. Our final recommendation is that the National Science Foundation accept leadership of the efforts necessary to implement all these recommendations. This is an exciting agenda for action that concentrates on achievable goals. It requires a change in the way we think about SME&T education more than it calls for more hours or dollars spent on a task. It requires motivation as well as money, commitment as well as competence, and an interest in students as well as in science. Carrying out this agenda will be an energizing and exciting adventure in what is surely the most challenging and awesome enterprise in the world human learning. References and Notes for Executive Summary 1. Luther S. Williams, Charge to the Subcommittee for Review of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation (June 1995). [Copies available on request; See also Volume II of this report.] 2. National Science Board, Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education, Homer A. Neal (Chairman), Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education; Role for the National Science Foundation and Recommendations for Action by Other Sectors to Strengthen Collegiate Education and Pursue Excellence in the Next Generation of U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology, (Washington DC: National Science Foundation, 1986, NSB 86-100). 3. Gerald Holton, Professor of Physics, Harvard University, Introductory Comments, National Research Council/ National Science Foundation Symposium on Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education, Sponsored by the Exxon Education Foundation and hosted by GTE Corporation (Boston, MA: November 1995). [End Executive Summary] ********************************************* [Begin Report Text] SHAPING THE FUTURE New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology [Begin Chapter I] I. To Begin: Background and Purpose of This Review In 1986, the National Science Board (NSB) issued the report Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education ("the Neal Report")[Reference 1; list begins after end of Chapter IV], which has guided the National Science Foundation's undergraduate education activities in the ten years since. Much has changed in the past ten years, and 1996 requires a new and even stronger vision of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) education in this nation. This 1996 report, following an intensive review involving hundreds of thoughtful people across the country, conveys not only a vision but specific recommendations designed to bring it to fruition. This report is intended to be an agenda for action by the SME&T community and those who support it. It is the conviction of this review committee that improved SME&T education is central to shaping America's future. The future will increasingly require that citizens have a substantial understanding of the methods and content of science and technology - and some understanding of their potential and limitations as well as their interconnectedness. Furthermore, we believe that undergraduate SME&T education is the linchpin of the entire SME&T education enterprise - for it is at the undergraduate level that prospective K12 teachers are educated, that most of the technical work force is prepared, and that future educators and professional practitioners in science, mathematics, and engineering learn their fields and, in many cases, prepare for more specialized work in graduate school. On the basis of all that we have heard and learned during this review process, we urgently wish for, and urge decisive action to achieve, an America in which: All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry [2]. This is a powerful vision of an America of the future where every person has an opportunity for a life of economic security and personal satisfaction through pervasive learning that provides competence in scientific and technical fields. This vision derives from the conviction that SME&T learning has value for its own sake as well as powerful utility in the workplace and in the exercise of citizenship. We wish to help shape a future in which large numbers of students in America achieve substantially improved competence in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields, including better understanding of connections among disciplines and enhanced skills important for life as well as for work - problem-solving and lifelong learning skills, the ability to communicate effectively and work as part of a team, and personal traits such as adapta- bility, openness to new ideas, and empathy for the ideas of others. Our stress is on student learning that is measurable and involves much more than the acquisition of facts. This vision focuses on students and on learning, but there are four other key words in the statement: * all - every student should have access, whether in a two- year or four-year institution, not just those who intend to major in or pursue a career in SME&T; and groups traditionally underrepresented in SME&T (women, minorities, and persons with disabilities) must be included - for talent is not restricted to a pre- determined class of individuals; * supportive - our programs must encourage and nurture students in subjects that for many seem forbidding and remote, if not impossible, and that have traditionally been viewed as the proper domain of only the few; * excellent - we must have high expectations and provide superb educational experiences for every student, of sufficient quality that those who do major in these fields or otherwise go on to careers in scientific and technical fields are prepared at a world- class level; and * inquiry - although there is disagreement about the meaning of the term "science literacy" and doubt about whether agreement is possible on a list of facts everyone should know, there is no disagreement that every student should be presented an opportunity to understand what science is, and is not, and to be involved in some way in scientific inquiry, not just a "hands-on" experience. We heard elements of this vision from many people at many stages during this review. For example, in April 1995, approximately 300 faculty in science, mathematics, and engineering, together with administrators, representatives of professional societies, federal agencies, and foundations, gathered at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a national convocation: From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology [3]. Working under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), this group discussed for two full days the present state of under- graduate education and began the development of an agenda for significant improvements in the future. The one recommendation emerging from all the others and reflecting the conviction of this leadership group was almost identical with the vision above. Such a vision is possible today only because of the enormous advances that have been made both in our understandings of human learning and in SME&T education in the past 10 years, many of them with the strong support of the National Science Foundation (see Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements, in Chapter II). In the area of learning, we know through research in cognitive psychology that the mind is active - it always interprets and is not simply a passive receiver of information "broadcast" to it. We know that students interpret new information in terms of what they already know; so, to promote learning, teachers must provide "stepping stones" for the minds of students to reach desired understanding [4]. We know that students rarely realize the applicability of knowledge from one context to another. We know that the diverse communities or cultures from which our students come have different values, norms, and expectations about the education process; learning is inhibited when those culturally determined norms clash with what the instructor is doing. Research in sociology suggests that working in groups in a cooperative setting produces greater growth in achievement than straining for relative gains in a competitive environment. Parallel with these increased understandings, the SME&T community has made enormous advances in undergraduate education in recent years, with the powerful support of the NSF - reflected particu- larly through its Division of Undergraduate Education, but in other divisions of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) as well and with the effective participation of the research directorates. For example, the SME&T community has increasingly developed courses and curricula that stress inquiry, teaching effectiveness, and learning outcomes; has improved access to SME&T programs for those in groups that have traditionally been under represented in these fields; and has significantly increased the opportunity for undergraduates to engage in a real experience with inquiry/research. Through the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program, faculty have been both stimulated and assisted in upgrading hundreds of laboratories in American colleges and universities, in connection with revamping courses to incorporate modern laboratory experiences. The NSF has helped institutions develop model teacher education programs, encouraged and supported collaboratives across institutional boundaries, and helped many undergraduate faculty enhance their competence. A major program, Advanced Technological Education (ATE), centered in the community colleges, has been initiated for preparation of the nation's technical work force. The level of conversation about pedagogy among faculty has increased, and many good practices and model programs have been disseminated; notable among these is the calculus reform effort, which is dramatically reshaping the way students learn calculus. All of these activities, stimulated largely by the recommendations of the Neal Report through programs designed and implemented by the NSF, have created a real momentum in SME&T education. *** A research chemist from a major university recently testified about undergraduate education in her field: "The curriculum is knowledge for advanced studies. (I might argue it is knowledge for what used to be advanced studies). And yet 90% of these students will not be chemists. The classroom - it is embarrassing. Chalk and black- board. There are hands-on experiments that the students can do. However, these are largely cookbook, and I think that although NSF really deserves a lot of credit for attempting to put instrumenta- tion into these laboratories, I would say that still, at many, many institutions, my kitchen looks better than those laboratories. The textbooks . . . are large collections of facts. What I see really missing from these textbooks is the process of science. And finally, the exams . . . are really a nice way to give the student a grade, but I doubt that they really measure what the students are learning, where their critical thinking skills are." *** But the data and the community - both those in SME&T fields and those outside who employ our graduates or influence public policy - say that there is yet a long way to go. The chancellor of a major research university, which is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and a very large generator of scientific knowledge in many fields, recently said this: "... despite the outstanding character of American higher education, the one place where people see an Achilles' heel is the quality of science education." The 1993 report of The Wingspread Group on Higher Education, chaired by William E. Brock, was entitled An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education. [5] While it criticized higher education generally, several of its points speak especially to SME&T undergraduate education. For example, it noted the 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey, which shows that a "surprisingly large" number of college graduates are unable to perform simple tasks involving mathematics. The report states that classroom learning must be accompanied by "knowledge derived from first-hand experience," a conviction that applies centrally to SME&T education. Employers have consistently pointed out that higher education, because of the shortening half-life of knowledge, simply must do a better job of providing motivation and skills for life-long learning. And, as an executive of a large oil company testified at a recent NSF hearing: "Skills such as communications and teamwork are essential. Unfortunately, these are often given low priority during the SME&T professional's undergraduate education." *** The president of a liberal arts college, at an NSF hearing recently: "A vital work force for the 21st century is peopled with the technically literate, inquisitive, and entrepreneurial in spirit. . . We have all talked about the need for improved educational experiences for our children. We have publicly acknowledged that our future leadership, tomorrow's work force, are today's children. Yet we do not adequately support the one profession in whose hands these children are. I am talking about teachers from K through college. NSF, with its dual mission of promoting the human resources as well as the discoveries, has a unique opportunity to make a difference." *** A statement made by the National Science Board in 1994 [6] includes this sentence: "At the same time, the American public's level of scientific literacy and general technical preparedness are [sic] not adequate to meet the needs of the changing economy." That statement echoes the goal enunciated in the 1994 White House report Science in the National Interest [7] to "raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans." The president of an historically black institution spoke with passion at a hearing conducted as part of this review: "The intractable movement of African-Americans into the Ph.D. ranks, particularly in math, science, and engineering, is a moment of crisis for this nation. If every year we are having an erosion of those numbers, then you have got to ask what it is that we must do to get the feed system up to snuff so that more can come out of there. The inadequacy and obsolescence of laboratory facilities and the lack of modern technology on many campuses creates a drudgery syndrome with the teaching and doing of math, science, and engineering. So it is drudgery, and it is no wonder kids opt out of math and science and engineering." And indeed they do opt out of SME&T. The extensive study Talking About Leaving [8] by Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt notes the high attrition rates among SME&T majors -for reasons having little to do with two popularly misconceived causes, namely language problems with foreign Teaching Assistants and large class sizes. Rather, the major reasons students identify for dropping out of SME&T have to do with the intimidating climate of the classroom, the poor quality of the educational experience (including too much dull lecturing and poor academic advising), the lack of encouragement for those interested in becoming K-12 teachers, the lack of motivation, inadequate counseling about career opportunities, and general lack of nurture of the student. SME&T education at the undergraduate level today is largely passive rather than active. It is certainly not providing "all students" access to "supportive, excellent" SME&T experiences that acquaint them with "the methods and processes of science." *** A community college president: ". . . teachers too often discourage a student from pursuing a field or career, especially in math or science, by ignoring or redirecting them to "easier" studies. The future generation of scientists and technicians will be recruited by faculty who must democratize the process." *** Thus, despite the enormous advances in undergraduate SME&T education in the past ten years, there is a challenge before us; it can be summed up in the words of David Goodstein: ". . . the United States has, simultaneously and paradoxically, both the best scientists and the most scientifically illiterate young people: America's educational system is designed to produce precisely that result. America leads the world in science - and yet 95 percent of the American public is scientifically illiterate." [9] Ten years ago the focus was on the problem of ensuring an adequate supply of world-class professional scientists for national needs. We must continue this important part of our responsibility for shaping the future. However, there is now a much broader agenda, with equally urgent new components, and it is in this light that the Directorate for Education and Human Resources of the NSF asked its Advisory Committee to undertake a new review of undergraduate SME&T education in the nation. First, the SME&T education community is coming to recognize what should have been clear all along - that the teachers of the students coming out of the K-12 system were prepared primarily at the undergraduate level for their school careers. Second, the national work force is changing dramatically, as high-paying but relatively unskilled factory jobs disappear in the face of foreign competition and technological advances; consequently the educational needs of the prospective work force are now vastly different. For these two reasons, both the preparation of teachers and the role of community colleges are much more central today among SME&T undergraduate education concerns. In addition, we have awakened to the long-term disas- trous consequences of leaving major segments of our society substantially out of SME&T. So, while much has been accomplished, there are new and important agenda items to be addressed. *** At a hearing conducted as part of this review [10], the superin- tendent of a major urban school system commented about new teachers coming out of undergraduate programs: "Many new teachers arrive at their first assignments lacking sophisticated skills in writing, speaking, and computing. All new teachers should be able to use technology and adapt to its roles and applications. SME&T content is also essential for all new teachers. In their content areas, SME&T teachers should know more about the subject materials than they are required to teach . . . (and they) should have the benefit of sufficient practicum/internship experience before they graduate." *** The review process has been overseen by a committee of the Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, charged by NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, Dr. Luther S. Williams [11], to: " . . . consider the needs of all undergraduates attending all types of US two- and four-year colleges and universities that provide undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. In particular, the review should address issues of prepara- tion of K-12 teachers in these fields, the needs of persons going into the technical work force, the prepara- tion of majors in these areas, and the issue of science literacy for all." In June, 1995, the review process formally began, with the sending of a letter from Dr. Williams to some 200 leaders in the scientific and industrial community, including professional societies, and other federal agencies. More than 150 responses provided a major part of the information considered in this review, but they were supplemented in several very important ways. In particular, the review was conducted in cooperation with the National Research Council; the April 1995 NRC-NSF Convocation, followed by the NRC's "Year of National Dialogue" [12] about undergraduate SME&T education, provided much rich material. The Foundation convened focus groups of SME&T students, graduates, and parents in the fall of 1995 [13], and hearings were held at NSF during those months for disciplinary faculty, institutional leaders, and executives of employers of SME&T graduates [10]. The research directorates of the NSF have contributed to the review in several important ways. Finally, at many meetings of scientific societies and professional associations over 1994 and 1995, the issues of the review were discussed and valuable comments and reactions gathered. This report is the result of this extensive process of consultation and review. [End Chapter I] ******************************************** [Begin Chapter II] II. A Look Back: Recent History of Education Reform It may be instructive to spend a moment to look back at the recent history of science education reform, which has, as with so much human activity, tended to be cyclical. For example, there was a flurry of reform activity after the 1957 launch of the USSR's Sputnik that awakened America to the fact that it was behind in "the space race" and galvanized the nation to make changes. Numerous projects were undertaken, many with NSF support, to develop new curricula and instructional materials, primarily for K- 12, that were inquiryoriented and in which students were to be active learners, not passive subjects. Despite the fact that a residue of these notable efforts remains in the commitment to "hands-on" science classrooms, these reform projects did not result in systemic change in either K-12 or undergraduate education. In part, this failure was due to the fact that the preparation of teachers did not change fundamentally, and many K-12 teachers were simply unprepared to deal with the very different new materials. In part, simple complacence set in after the U.S. became the first nation to land on the moon, which was taken as a clear (!) signal that the problem had been solved, and presumably once and for all. Then, in 1981, funding for much of the educational effort at NSF, particularly for undergraduate education, was reduced drastically and almost fatally. This cycle of intense activity, particularly under an outside threat, real or perceived, followed by complacence, erosion of public interest, and shifting of societal priorities, is not at all uncommon and will likely be repeated. But it is important to note that the rest of the world changes as well, so it is essential to consolidate our domestic gains, to institutionalize improvements, and to establish a new and higher base for the next cycle. What is important now, as we look at undergraduate education, is to put in place processes that will sustain the relative excellence of U.S. education in a competitive world. The next cycle in undergraduate education may have begun with the issuance of the Neal Report by the National Science Board in 1986 [1]. History of Undergraduate Programs at NSF Since the Neal Report The report, Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education (NSB 86100), of the 1985-1986 Task Committee of the National Science Board has been the principal guide for the restoration and evolution of NSF's undergraduate education activi- ties since its acceptance by the Board in March 1986. The numerous recommendations in the Board Report fell into two categories: A. Leadership The central leadership recommendation of the National Science Board Task Committee was that the Foundation ". . .develop quickly an appropriate administrative structure and mechanisms for the implementation of these . . . recommendations. The focal point should be the [Education Directorate]; it should foster collaboration among all parts of the Foundation to achieve excellence in science, mathematics, and engineering education." The Foundation established such a unit later in 1986, and the present successor of its evolution is the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). The Board Task Committee made several additional major leadership recommendations to the Foundation. It urged the NSF to: "(1) take bold steps to establish itself in a position of leader- ship to advance and maintain the quality of undergraduate education in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences." "(2) stimulate the states and the components of the private sector to increase their investments in the improvement of undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics education." "(3) implement new programs and expand existing ones for the ultimate benefit of students in all types of institutions." "(4) actuate cooperative projects among two-year and four-year colleges and universities to improve their educational efficiency and effectiveness." "(5) stimulate and support a variety of efforts to improve public understanding of science and technology." "(6) stimulate creative and productive activity in teaching and learning - and (7) research on them - just as it does in basic disciplinary research. New funding will be required, but intrinsic cost differences are such that this result can be obtained with a smaller investment than is presently being made in basic research." "(8) bring its programming in the undergraduate education area into balance with its activities in the precollege and graduate areas as quickly as possible;" and "(9) expand its efforts to increase the participation of women, minorities, and the physically handicapped in professional science, mathematics, and engineering." Substantial progress has been made in all these areas under the leadership of EHR, particularly DUE; to establish and support this unit was a wise decision, as can be seen clearly in the many good things that have happened in SME&T undergraduate education since. NSF, with leadership from DUE and with major involvement of other EHR divisions and the research directorates, has made its mark through the programs described below. B. Leveraged Program Support Undergraduate programs at the NSF in 1986 were limited to the College Science Instrumentation Program (CSIP) in the Directorate for Science and Engineering Education (SEE), EHR's predecessor directorate, and two programs operating across the several research directorates: the Research In Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program, supporting faculty research in predominantly undergraduate institutions, and the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. The Board Committee recommended specific changes in this pattern of support. It envisioned that by FY 1989, NSF's budget would provide funding for Laboratory Development, Instructional Instrumentation and Equipment, Faculty Professional Enhancement, Course and Curriculum Development, Comprehensive Improvement Projects, Under- graduate Research Participation, Minority Institutions, and Infor- mation for LongRange Planning. Laboratory Development (LD) and Instructional Instrumentation and Equipment (IIE) Over the decade 1986-1995, the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program, which may be the most widely known and most highly regarded of NSF undergraduate programs, embodied the objectives of both LD and IIE, mostly in the support of compact projects. Large projects in LD became possible under a Leadership in Laboratory Development component of the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI-LLD) program initiated in FY 1994 to support the development of national models for undergraduate laboratory instruction that undertake fundamental reform and improvement. While the need for such larger-scale programming was recognized by the NSB Task Committee, the experience of nearly a decade of less comprehensive projects had to be gained before either the Founda- tion or its constituent communities were ready to undertake it. Faculty Professional Enhancement (FPE) The report of the NSB committee suggested a combination of instruction-oriented and research- oriented activities, and both kinds have been supported. Because there were only researchrelated undergraduate programs at NSF when the committee's report was written, it is clear that the emphasis recommended was strongly on direct improvement of instruction. * The pre-existing Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program has grown steadily: RUI awards to faculty in primarily undergraduate institutions are now about one percent of NSF's total research budget. * The Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program in EHR/DUE was funded first in FY 1988. UFE enables faculty members in all kinds of institutions to adapt and introduce new content into courses and laboratories; to learn new experimental techniques and evaluate their suitability for instructional use; to investigate innovative teaching methods; to synthesize knowledge that cuts across disciplines; and to interact intensively with experts in the field and with colleagues who are active scientists and teachers. Course and Curriculum Development (CCD) A majority of DUE's Course and Curriculum Development (CCD) program funds support proposals for introductory-level courses, curricula, and laboratories that address two general priorities: the develop- ment of multi- and interdisciplinary courses that will contribute to the scientific, quantitative, and technological literacy of all students; and, the encouragement of faculty in SME&T to take leadership roles in developing education experiences that enhance the competence of prospective teachers and encourage students to pursue careers in teaching. The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), through its CISE Educational Infrastructure Program, supports innovative educational activities that transfer research results into undergraduate curricula in its fields. The projects are expected to act as national models of excellence. Engineering Education Coalitions (EEC), begun in FY 1988 as a joint effort of the Education and Engineering Directorates, became an Engineering Directorate responsibility in FY 1991. These coalitions stimulate bold, innovative, and comprehensive models for systemic reform of undergraduate engineering education, based on substantive resource linkages among engineering colleges and collaborating secondary schools. * A joint effort of CCD and NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences exemplifies the systemic effects possible when a clear and catalytic plan is funded over a period of years. Through a succession of solicitations (Calculus Reform; Calculus and the Bridge to Calculus; etc.), these NSF units supported a variety of experiments with new methods, peda- gogies, and technologies for calculus instruction. By 1995, at least a dozen different innovative courses were being taught to at least 35 percent of all students enrolled in calculus. Comprehensive Improvement Projects (CIP) The program of Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in SME&T (the "IR initiative"), begun only in FY 1996, is the first clearly CIP-like undertaking of the Division of Undergraduate Education. As with the ILI-LLD program, considerable experience with smaller projects was essential before it was feasible to institute such a large systemic effort. Undergraduate Research Participation (URP) The NSB Task Committee's report recommended that FY 1986 expendi- ture on undergraduate research participation be increased several- fold. While the current support from NSF's research account for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program has passed the financial target, important areas of the programmatic target have not been addressed. REU projects are concentrated heavily in researchrich environments, where possibly cutting-edge research may be, not where the students are. Such a pattern of awards leaves unfulfilled in most institutions a central purpose of URP as proposed by the NSB committee: ". . . the involvement of advanced undergraduate students in research in their colleges . ." Minority Institutions Program (MIP) The Foundation has had programs designed to correct underrepresentation of minorities in science and engineering since the mid-1970's. Most were focused on individuals and were concentrated on the areas of graduate student support and faculty member research. The focus of the NSB Report was on institutions, specifically minority institutions, but inferentially on non- minority institutions that were educating substantial numbers of minority undergraduates. EHR has two broad programs addressing these objectives: Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP, established in FY 1990), and Research Careers for Minority Scholars (RCMS, established in FY 1989 but consoli- dated with AMP in FY 1996). These programs fund efforts in student and academic enrichment, curriculum improvement, and institutional enhancement. An NSF- wide program, Model Institutions for Excel- lence (MIE), supports both instructionand research-oriented activities. Information for Long-Range Planning (ILRP) NSF's Division of Science Resources Studies has principal responsibility to collect, study, and analyze information and data (e.g., on undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics) to assist long-range Foundation planning. However, there is no general undergraduate SME&T education database at NSF - nor anywhere else, for that matter. Other Programs The Directorate for Education and Human Resources now has two substantial programs in areas not included in the recommendations of the Neal Report. They were developed in response to emerging needs, which have been reinforced by the findings of the current review: * The NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) program, sited in DUE, which supports efforts to achieve comprehensive changes in the undergraduate education of future teachers and to increase substantially the quality and number of teachers well- prepared in science and mathemat- ics, especially members of underrepresented groups. * The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, managed jointly by DUE and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE), which promotes exemplary improve- ment in advanced technological education at the national and regional levels by supporting curriculum development and program improvement through specific activities of associate degree granting institutions and of alliances of two-year institutions with four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, business, industry, and government. Funding History of the Neal Report Recommendations It is important to examine the funding history of these programs. [The approach taken in this section is to compare the level of funding recommended for FY 1989 in the Neal Report with the actual level of funding in FY 1995, both figures stated in 1995 dollars for comparability. In the case of one program recommended in the Neal Report but not started until FY 1996, we have reported the planned FY 1996 expenditure in order to give an accurate accounting of the current status of NSF undergraduate education programs recommended in the Neal Report.] The NSF FY 1987 budget estimate (used in the Neal Report as a starting base for its recommendations) included $17.8M(illion) for undergraduate programming: $9.9M in SEE for the College Science Instrumentation Program (CSIP); and $7.9M in the research director- ates for two efforts - $2.6M for support of the research of faculty in predominantly undergraduate institutions [mostly through the Research In Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program], and $5.3M for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program and similar activities. * The NSB report recommended a total to be achieved by FY 1989 (i.e., in just two years) of $149.4M for undergraduate activities: $18.4M oriented toward research (12.3%), and $131.0 million oriented toward instruction (87.7%). * NSF's budget in FY 1995 for the categories of program covered by the NSB report totaled $178.2M, of which $69.9M (39.2%) went for research-oriented activities and $108.3M (60.8%) for instruction-oriented programming. While NSF expended $28.8M more ($178.2M less $149.4M) in FY 1995 than recommended by the Neal Report, this calculation masks serious deficiencies in several individual program areas. It is important, therefore, to examine the funding history in more detail. * Laboratory Development and Instructional Instrumentation - after more than a decade, its funding ($21.7M in FY 1995) is less than a third of that envisioned by the NSB committee ($75.7M) - falling unit costs of computers and microprocessors have helped stabilize the prices of laboratory instrumenta- tion, but demand for it has grown substantively. The intense competition for ILI awards (fewer than one-third of proposals receive awards) is but one demonstration of a great unmet need. The funding gap in the LDI area is $54.0 million. * Faculty Professional Enhancement (FPE) - Current funding for instruction- oriented Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement is $7.2M, about 26 percent of that provided through the RUI program ($27.3M) to support the research of faculty in primarily undergraduate institutions, and far short of the $17.1M amount recommended by the NSB Committee for instruction-oriented FPE. The funding gap for instruction-oriented FPE is near $9.9 million. * Course and Curriculum Development - Its current funding ($23.8M in FY 1995) in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is more than the NSB committee's target amount ($17.1M), and there is substantial support for such activities ($23.9M) in other directorates. * Comprehensive Improvement Projects - FY 1996 first-year funding for the Institution-wide Reform of Undergraduate Education initiative ($4.0M) is a small fraction of that recommended for FY 1989 ($13.2M). The funding gap in the Comprehensive area is at least $9.2 million. * Research Participation - The Neal Report recommended that the $5.3M budget estimate for undergraduate research participation in FY 1987 be increased by FY 1989 to $15.8M. NSF expended $27.8M for this purpose (Research Experiences for Under- graduates [REU] program) in FY 1995. * Minority Institutions - The FY 1989 target was $6.6M; the FY 1995 expenditure on this category of programs was $42.5M. * Planning - None of the FY 1989 target ($1.3M) has been funded. It is clear that in three program areas (LD+IIE, instruction- oriented FPE, and CIP) current funding (FY 1996 data except for CIP) is some $73.1M below the level recommended in the Neal Report. This gap has limited seriously the ability of these programs to achieve all that was anticipated for them in 1986. However, current funding in four areas (CCD, research oriented FPE, URP, and MIP) is some $103.2M above the level recommended in the Neal Report. This overage reflects differences in mechanisms and priorities from those embodied in the 1986 report. These NSF programs, notwithstanding the gap in funding some of them, have produced clear benefits through institutions and faculty who have used NSF program support to improve the learning experi- ences of SME&T undergraduates. There has been a special emphasis on evaluation of the programs in undergraduate education at the NSF over the years. The process of evaluation is lengthy; results are not usually available until a program has been operating for some years; and evaluation foci sometimes change as the work proceeds. It is only in the last few years, for instance, that EHR's evalua- tions have emphasized student learning outcomes - clearly an important focus. Nevertheless, evaluations have demonstrated many program benefits and have led to modifications that increased program effectiveness. Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements Program evaluations have documented the fact that a growing group of faculty in many types of institutions, drawing frequently on this NSF program support, have developed and tested an impressive number of curricular and pedagogical improvements in undergraduate SME&T education in recent years. As an important part of our review, leaders in the SME&T community were asked to indicate the major improvements in undergraduate education in these fields that had occurred during the past decade. We begin by summarizing the improvements cited most frequently in their thoughtful letters. These include: * incorporating new knowledge into lower level courses more rapidly and more thoroughly; * introducing SME&T concepts by examining current issues for which most students have some personal context that are illuminated by SME&T knowledge - particularly new knowledge; * organizing courses, or often course modules, to address real world problems; * developing curricula that expose students to key inter- disciplinary connections, and multidisciplinary perspectives stressing concepts as much as facts; * focusing on processes (how to pose researchable questions, how to acquire information to address those questions, assessing the quality of information) at least as much as on the trans- mission of facts; * using the vast computational power of modern personal computers and mathematics to explore SME&T concepts and illustrate properties of matter in ways that entice students; ensuring that students have frequent access to active learning experiences, in class (such as in peer groups or in laboratory classes) and outside of class (as in study teams, using inter- active class bulletin boards, and/or in faculty research projects); * developing curricula that embody some or most of the above features, and that take full advantage of modern technology, particularly personal computers, multimedia materials, digital libraries, hypertext links, and access to vast networked resources, including databases and activities on other campuses; * improving ancillary skills (communication skills, teamwork, respect for ideas of others, cognitive skills, etc.) as a critical byproduct of modern approaches to teaching and learning; * ensuring that students have ready access to people who can provide them with reasonable assistance (faculty, teaching assistants, graduate students, advanced undergraduate students, and able peers); * demonstrating respect for students' genuine efforts to learn, understanding that many learn through initial failures, and encouraging further efforts to learn; * mentoring students, when this is possible; and * devoting more energy to advising students about course selections and career options. A simple precis is that these improvements are attempting to nurture a sense of wonder among students about the natural world, and to maintain students' active curiosity about this world while equipping them with tools to explore it and to learn. Do these approaches really make a difference? Overwhelmingly, professional educators and researchers answered "yes." As one example, Alexander Astin, Director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, wrote to us about the findings of his comprehen- sive study of students and faculty, conducted several years ago [14]. He found extensive evidence documenting the importance of these kinds of curricula and pedagogy. Based on student responses and faculty interviews, Astin recommended that institutions should take several steps in order to make their SME&T programs more attractive and stimulating to a broad base of students. Institu- tional leadership appears to play a crucial role. In particular, his data suggest faculty will be much more likely to use active forms of teaching and learning if they work in an environment that encourages interdisciplinary work, team teaching, research oppor- tunities for undergraduates, and high levels of faculty-student interaction; and that provides a supportive campus climate, with a high priority placed on undergraduate education. The social sciences workshop we sponsored in February 1996 [4] described the research knowledge underlying the superior effective- ness of curricular and pedagogical approaches that are congruent with the types of improvements described above. One of the conclusions of the workshop was that a good teacher must do more than ensure the presentation of new and interesting information in the classroom - that teacher must also understand how the minds of students interpret and manipulate that information. Stressing the importance of active student engagement, Professor Eugene Galanter (Director, Psychophysics Laboratory, Columbia University)observed in a letter to the review committee: "Insofar as every science depends on data for both theory and application, laboratory or field data collection experience is an absolute necessity. Adding up numbers from a textbook example is not the same as recording those numbers or qualitative observations based on one's own effort. When students "own" their data, the experi- ence, I suggest, becomes a personal event, rather than a contrived exercise. The tested retention of such infor- mation in our admittedly minimal current evaluations suggest enhancements in understanding by a factor of six." Many contributors to this review noted that major efforts have been made to improve introductory courses and to develop valuable course sequences for students who are not planning to become research scientists or mathematicians, or practicing engineers. A number of these improvements require actions on the part of multiple parties - for example, the delivery of a multidisciplinary course for introductory students, or special courses built around major public issues by faculty from different departments. This shift to a broader student clientele is considered by these contributors to be particularly valuable for this nation as an increasing number of college graduates become "knowledge workers." As we have already noted, the SME&T education of students preparing to become teachers and technicians has received increased emphasis. A number of educators who wrote to us noted that there has been significant and sorely needed attention to these two groups of students. Many contributors called our attention to the value added by partnerships among colleges and universities, as well as among faculty. Virtually all administrators and faculty from community colleges who wrote to us stressed the value of partnerships in improving the quality of education in community colleges. A number of our contributors, in discussing teacher preparation programs, noted the importance of partnerships between the education faculty and SME&T disciplinary departments, including participation by accrediting and licensing groups. *** Professor David Hata of Portland Community College (Oregon) observed that the most significant improvement in undergraduate SME&T education that had occurred over the last ten years was: "Recognition of two-year colleges as key players in SME&T education as exhibited through federal legislation, increased funding opportunities through the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies, and inclusion in forums, conferences, and meetings to discuss undergraduate SME&T education. . . My ATE grant has promoted partnerships with colleges in New Mexico, Colorado, California, Arizona, and Oregon as we all endeavor to install associate degree programs in microelectronics technology, patterned after the Intel/Portland Community College program developed here in Oregon." *** John Goodlad, who conducted a major study of education faculty in the US six years ago, and who is particularly interested in the education of K-12 teachers, wrote to us that the growing efforts to make SME&T fields more accessible to students who do not have a strong background in them, and are not planning to major in them, have collectively led to a major improvement among students planning teaching careers. Previously, Goodlad had written [15, p. 242]: "Again and again, prospective secondary school teachers told me that they were unable to make connections between their undergraduate subject matter education and the high school curriculum they were required to teach. This is not a "methods" problem; it is a problem of understanding what curriculum reformers of the 1960's referred to as "the structure of the disciplines." The probability that few teachers graduate from college with the necessary understanding merely illustrates the probability that few college graduates of any persuasion do." In his current letter, Goodlad wrote that he was particularly impressed with the success of efforts to promote accessibility through interdisciplinary learning over the last few years. *** Goodlad stated: "This [success] has been [achieved] primarily through some relaxing in the boundaries separating these fields from one another. Through a greater focus on topics and problems cutting across the traditional subject fields, science and mathematics in particular have become somewhat more compelling for students." *** The possibilities for such interdisciplinary learning are high in the immediate future, partly due to the fact that information technology increases the ease of such efforts. Many curricular and pedagogical improvements are mutually reinforcing. Also very important is the observation made by many, particularly employers, that a welldesigned, active learning environment assists in the development of other skills and traits they seek in employees: cognitive skills (problem solving, decision-making, learning how to learn), social skills (communica- tions and teamwork), and positive personal traits (adaptability and flexibility, openness to new ideas, empathy for ideas of others, innovative and entrepreneurial outlook, and a strong work ethic). This point has been made repeatedly in testimony at our hearings and in published studies and reports (see [16], for example). The technology revolution has helped to accelerate much of the improvement in SME&T education. For instance, Doyle Daves, Jr., Dean of the School of Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, wrote to us: "As the tools of the information, communication, and computing technology revolution become integrated into the educational process, the traditional classroom reliance on the lecture format becomes increasingly anachronistic. The essence of the new technology is the empowerment of the user. Inevitably, in use of computer- based technologies, learning becomes both active and under the control of the learner. Similarly, when students are actively engaged in the learning process using multimedia and information technology tools, almost inevitably they work together in groups or teams sharing insights and experiences and, in the process, learn teamwork, communication and organizational skills as well as subject matter." At the social sciences workshop (February 1996) mentioned earlier, Kenneth Foote, Professor of Geography and Associate Vice President for Research at the University of Texas - who both advocates and is developing a network of departments and faculty from many univer- sities through the World Wide Web - noted that his students would frequently photocopy the electronic text that was part of their assigned homework until they realized that in paper form it was "dead," in other words, had lost the dynamic qualities provided by its hypertext links to other material. By the end of the course, students typically had become enthusiastic about the value of these links personally, very much in support of the Dean Doyle Daves' observation about empowerment. Some Specific Improvements There have been many specific curricular and pedagogical improve- ments over the last ten years. These are covered in greater detail in Volume II of this report. Here we will restrict mention to a few in order to provide a sense of what is being developed. A large number of respondents identified calculus reform as perhaps the most mature curricular and pedagogical innovation over this recent past. Professor Hyman Bass of Columbia University (and Chair of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board) was one of many letter writers who nominated the calculus reform movement as one of the significant successes. This movement has achieved widespread adoption across every kind of campus, and has made calculus accessible to a much larger number of students. Overall, calculus learning is much less "from books," and much more akin to "an apprenticeship model." *** Professor Bass observed that, "Originally, calculus reform was conceived as an effort to streamline and focus the content of calculus courses. It was expected that the emerging modules and textbooks, and the increasing pedagogical use of technology would be the most significant products." He went on to note that most people close to this activity now recognize that new pedagogy has been the most significant outcome. Teachers use these materials with considerable discretion and variation, not as tight scripts to follow. Of common concern to them are pedagogy and experimentation with its new forms: cooperative learning, open-ended problems, hands-on learning, and authentic assessment. *** As often happens with educational improvements, there is currently a backlash to calculus reform [17]. Criticisms have been made that this new approach oversimplifies the subject, is too reliant on graphing calculators and personal computers, and has gone too far in making calculus look easy. While obviously there is need for long-term assessment of student achievement resulting from calculus reform approaches, even critics admit that the calculus reform movement has had a positive impact on the attitudes of mathematics faculty toward teaching. An early and successful effort to improve physics instruction has been achieved by the Workshop Physics Project initiated at Dickin- son College by Professor Priscilla Laws. Workshop Physics involves a redesign of the teaching methods in introductory physics courses to take advantage of recent findings in physics education research and to start students using modern computer tools. Integrated computer applications include microcomputer-based laboratory tools for data collection and display, spreadsheets for mathematical modeling and data analysis, and digital video analysis tools for the study of two-dimensional motion and electrostatics. Activity guides have been developed in order to support interactive teaching approaches in the traditional laboratory setting. Workshop Physics is continuing to work with faculty at institutions with conven- tional course structures to incorporate interactive teaching approaches in their programs without restructuring the entire program. A number of institutions now use this approach, mentioned by several letter writers. With NSF support, Louis Gross at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville) Department of Mathematics has developed entry level and second-year curricula in biology emphasizing the great utility of quantitative approaches in analyzing biological problems, drawing on many examples from recent biological research. Software has been developed to allow students to experiment with a variety of biological assumptions by means of mathematical models and assess the resultant quantitative and qualitative behavior of these assumptions. This project was completed in the summer of 1995 and the software and approaches are still being developed and tested. The project has also been used as a springboard for workshops to bring together faculty working on similar efforts. An example of efforts to bring new research results into the undergraduate curriculum is found in another curriculum project in biology. Jack Chirikjian of the Georgetown University Medical Center has been developing creative curriculum models to teach the core technology of biotechnology through theory and hands- on experiments applied in a context that demonstrates recent develop- ments and applications of biotechnology in such areas as medicine, agriculture, forensics, and industrial procedures and processes. NSF has provided significant support to the BioQUEST Curriculum Development Project through awards to Professor John Jungck at Beloit College. BioQUEST was started by a group of biologists who initiated the development of curricular and instructional materials around an approach to learning that stresses problem posing, problem solving, and persuasion of peers ("the three P's"). Initial work was followed by a demonstration project leading to the development of a network of biologists who are working to improve introductory courses and courses for students who are not majors in biology, by stressing open-ended problems in biology. The project has matured into major efforts to develop instructional materials, including additional software simulations and tools, materials that are not computer dependent, and materials that can be used in large lectures to engage students in problemposing, problemsolving, and persuasion. The use of BioQUEST materials has been spreading. The use of peer learning techniques in lecture courses is beginning to spread as faculty become convinced of the effectiveness of this approach measured in student learning. One of the best known efforts of this kind is Professor Eric Mazur's ConcepTests and Peer Instruction, developed originally for an introductory physics course at Harvard University. In each course, the students' educational background and preparation are assessed, and each student's understanding of basic concepts is tested, in order to discover common student misconceptions. The results of this testing are incorporated into lectures that have three defining characteristics: brevity, emphasis on conceptual material, and active class involvement. In the active portion of class time, all students are required to try to explain concepts to one another in small groups. (Eventually, correct explanations are provided by the instructor and selected students.) Use of this technique has led to Mazur's conclusion (shared by others) that students are able to explain concepts to each other more efficiently than instructors - in all likelihood because they have only recently mastered them, are thus aware of the difficulties in understanding them, and know what to emphasize in their explanations. More Things that Work Another large scale effort supported extensively by NSF, headed by Art Ellis of the University of Wisconsin, focuses on extensive collaboration among chemists. It has led to the publication by the American Chemical Society of A Materials Chemistry Companion to General Chemistry. This "Companion" is comprised of text, problem sets, model kits, software, videotapes, and demonstration and laboratory experiments, showing how most topics covered in intro- ductory chemistry courses can be illustrated with solids such as polymers, semiconductors, metals, superconductors, and ceramics - permitting reductions in the cost of laboratory courses. The project is stressing the adoption of these materials into intro- ductory chemistry courses nationwide. Ellis has also worked in numerous other ways to enhance student learning of science and technology. Multimedia approaches have been used more frequently in recent years. For example, Timothy Rowe, of the University of Texas' Department of Geological Sciences and Vertebrate Paleontology Laboratory, developed under NSF support multimedia software modules for a freshman level course for students not majoring in science that is called "The Age of Dinosaurs." This course now enrolls several thousand students annually at more than 20 colleges and universities in the U.S. The modules employ photographic-quality color images, 3-D models, animation, and sound as well as text coupled with hyperlinks that allow users to gain quick and easy access to other information that is remedial, basic, and supple- mentary -- a clear advantage in classes where the incoming SME&T preparation of students differs widely. The modules are being published on CD-ROM for both Macintosh and IBMcompatible personal computers. Another good example of multimedia-based curricula comes from an Advanced Technological Education project at CUNY Queensborough Community College. Professor Bernard Mohr in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology is developing materials to support technology education in data acquisition, embedded systems, and multimedia, and high speed networks. These materials - which include networked laboratory manuals, text, and student exercises - are available also in a modular format to facilitate their use in technology education courses at other institutions. This project has placed a heavy emphasis on disseminating its results to other campuses through five-day workshops for faculty, and there is evidence that its use is beginning to spread. Another innovative approach of high interest to students and relevant to their base of experience is introducing fundamental science in the context of major public problems, stressing their multidisciplinary nature. For example, NSF is supporting Zafra Lerman at Columbia College (Illinois) to work collaboratively with faculty at Indiana University and Princeton University to develop a course built around environmental issues: "From Ozone to Oil Spills: Chemistry, the Environment, and You." Environmental issues offer an excellent vehicle to introduce the major scientific disciplines because many of them have important physical, geological, chemical and biological dimensions, while others feature aspects of engineering, economics, political science, and psychology. There have been many NSF supported efforts in all of the major disciplines of science and engineering to improve the teaching of statistics - an important objective given the crucial role that statistical tools have in an information society. One of the early projects of this type was the development of a new introductory mathematical statistics course called CHANCE. Developed at Dartmouth College with the cooperative efforts of five other institutions - Grinnell College, King College, Middlebury College, Princeton University, and Spelman College - the course is designed to teach fundamental ideas of probability and statistics in the context of real world questions of current interest. Examples are statistical problems related to AIDS, the effects of lowering serum cholesterol on heart attacks, the use of DNA fingerprinting in courts of law, reliability of political polls, and the tendency of basketball players to shoot in streaks. Students learn how statistics are often manipulated, how to process information more effectively, how to ask the right questions, and are drawn into reading scholarly articles published in journals such as Chance, Nature, Science, and Scientific American. The California Alliance for Minority Participation (CAMP) in Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics is one of the 13 sites supported by NSF under the AMP program, designed to reduce barriers to fuller minority student participation in undergraduate programs in the natural sciences and engineering. Organized around eight of the University of California campuses, CAMP is a faculty-based alliance operating statewide, involving the University of Califor- nia, California State University, California community colleges and various independent colleges and universities, as well as corporate partners, national laboratories, and affiliated organizations. CAMP introduces students to SME&T fields through research oppor- tunities and mentorships throughout their undergraduate education. The program consists of: (1) a CAMP undergraduate research scholars program, enabling minority students to participate in research with scientists at four-year colleges and universities in California, at national laboratories, and industrial research sites; (2) community college and precollege alliances strengthening the preparation of minority students to pursue baccalaureate degrees in the sciences; (3) corporate alliances aimed at increasing the role of business and industry in the preparation of minority scientists and engineers; and (4) Alliance faculty symposia and colloquia addressing central issues in the sciences and in undergraduate education. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the work of those disci- plinary faculty who are working to expand our knowledge of how students learn the subject matter of disciplines. The most promising and ambitious of these combine research programs on improved methods of promoting student learning with programs of instruction that impart this knowledge to future educators. A good example is the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, under the leadership of Professor Lillian McDermott, which has received substantial NSF funding to develop their comprehensive, multifaceted program as a model for other institu- tions to adopt. And So? The many strong curricular and pedagogical practices developed under the sponsorship of the Division of Undergraduate Education, and the wide variety and large number of institutions participating in DUE- funded programs, have improved the national prospects for comprehensive institutional reform, leading to revitalization of undergraduate education in SME&T disciplines and to greater atten- tion and priority being accorded to undergraduate education. Recall that it was previously noted that the 1986 Neal Report [1] recommended that NSF should begin to encourage comprehensive reform - a recommendation that went unfunded and may have been ahead of its time. Recently, however, NSF's new IR program (Institution- Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology), initiated in FY 1996 [18], drew more than 200 letters from two- and four-year college and university presidents indicating an intention to submit a proposal, and more than 130 formal proposals. This is a salutary result, considering that the aim of the IR program is to use its awards "to motivate changes in priorities and allocation of resources that will enable institutions themselves to support their reform initiatives." The fact that so many institutions felt ready to apply for an IR grant is further evidence of the advances made in undergraduate SME&T education in the past decade. The programs put in place by the NSF during these recent years have clearly provided important leverage and encouragement to take undergraduate education in SME&T fields more seriously and to make it more oriented toward active learning by students. The progress made by the SME&T community as a result, the broader interest in and commitment to change for the better in undergraduate education, and the enormous societal changes that have occurred in the last ten years have resulted in demands on undergraduate SME&T education almost unanticipated a decade ago and have led to the review we have undertaken. [End Chapter II] *********************************************** [Begin Chapter III] III. The Situation Today: Findings of the Review Education in America exists, of course, in the context of a particular society at a given moment in time. In the decade just past, there has been enormous change in the world external to education. These changes have profoundly influenced the climate for education and, in particular, this review of undergraduate SME&T education. A Changing World and Economy In this period, the Cold War has ended, and with it, there has certainly been some lessening of concern for science and tech- nology, which have tended to have public support in times of an external national threat. At the same time, the use of technology has increased exponentially. Ten years ago there was virtually no Internet, no World Wide Web, and computers in classrooms were few and far between. Robots in factories were still something of a novelty. Today, however, there is an information technology revolution. The economy has changed just as drastically. Manufacturing jobs have declined, while service and information-based segments of the economy have come to dominate. The economy is much more global- ized, as corporations have become multinational in scope and global in their outlook. These corporations search the world for plant and office locations with cost-effective and productive workers. Their first concern is to increase their market value, and their major decisions are scrutinized frequently by investment analysts around the world. In many cases, high-paying jobs on American assembly lines for relatively unskilled workers have migrated overseas or are no longer necessary because of improved technology in the workplace. As a result of these changes in the economy, the work force in our nation is changing dramatically. More and more, the distribution of jobs is bifurcated in the sense that jobs requiring relatively low levels of skill are paying low wages (primarily in the service sector) while those that provide decent economic opportunity demand skills far more sophisticated than those required by routine assembly line jobs in decades past. In the period following the late 1970's, annual income adjusted for inflation has fallen for typical workers who have not acquired at least several years of undergraduate education. The further below this standard of education workers are, the more their income has fallen. It is equally clear that those Americans who have technical skills will fare much better in the workplace of the world of tomorrow than will those who lack such skills and the educational preparation that helps produce them. Thus, SME&T education must play a new and expanded role in the preparation of the American work force for the next decade. One of the realities of this changing economy is the fact that that lifelong learning skills have reached a stage of paramount impor- tance. In an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled: "Consulting Giant's Hot Offer: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," [19], Gene Wright of Andersen Consulting, seeking to underscore the need for experi- enced workers to take full responsibility to ensure their skills are up-to-date, stated: "There's a new skill set required. And it is the responsibility of the individual to retool, not the corpora- tion." We must shape a future for America recognizing that the nation whose people are not well educated will lose out in the long run in this kind of economic world. America's demography is also changing. SME&T and SME&T education have historically been the domain primarily of white males. Ques- tions of value and equity aside - and they are not aside - the facts that the majority of Americans are women and that the proportion of Americans aged 18-22 who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups will rise in the aggregate from 25% in 1980 to more than 35% by the turn of the century (and that number is expected to rise above 40% by the year 2015) have profound implications for SME&T education. Unless SME&T education is much more inclusive than it has been in the past, we will be denying ourselves as a society the talents of the majority of our popula- tion. This is an intolerable situation - it is both morally wrong and economically foolish. There is no doubt that our society is now less committed to formal programs of affirmative action than was the case ten years ago. But the imperative described above - to be much more inclusive in SME&T education - is even stronger. And, while K12 programming can expand the pool of those interested in pursuing careers in SME&T, it is at the undergraduate level where attrition and burnout can be most effectively prevented. What we in undergraduate SME&T educa- tion must do is to concern ourselves with all our students, not just those who historically have been represented in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Such a breadth of concern has important educational benefits as well, as it will force us to think more about how individuals learn and recognize what research has made clear: that there are differences in learning style which profoundly affect achievement. And let us not forget that increasing student achievement in SME&T education is exactly what is needed. Rising Expenditures and Growing Financial Constraints At the same time these general societal influences have changed so dramatically, there have been additional pressures on higher education. Public finances for higher education have become constrained for a variety of reasons (e.g., reduced growth in state tax revenues; competing demands from other areas, particularly K-12 education, the penal system, and delivery of health services), and there has been growing resistance to increases in tuition charges that exceed the rise in the Consumer Price Index. The cost per student of delivering undergraduate education rose from 1980 until the early 1990's, largely as a consequence of increases in the prices of educational inputs that have risen much faster than the CPI. According to national data, in the ten years ending in 1989, average education and general expenditures per student in all institutions of higher education grew at a rate 2.7% higher than the rate of inflation [20;p.300], and a careful estimate is that three-fourths of this aboveaverage expense growth was due to rapid increases in the costs of instructional inputs, particularly faculty and staff salaries (which had declined considerably during the 1970's), rather than provision of more resources per student. Much of the remaining growth in expendi- tures financed sorely needed capital improvements and modern instructional equipment. In public institutions of higher education, this extraordinary inflation had to be financed or accommodated by means other than raising public appropriations per student, due to the competing and pressing demands for public revenues from other sources. For example, consider the competition for public state-level revenues from the K- 12 sector. Measured in constant 1994 dollars, expendi- tures per student in grades K-12 rose from about $4,000 in 1980 to nearly $5,500 in 1993, and state governments have provided a growing share of these public revenues over the last three decades - 40% in 1970, 47% in 1980, and nearly 50% since the mid-1980's. However, over this same period of time, public revenues for higher education, chiefly from state governments, remained in the vicinity of $4,500 per student in 1994 dollars, and have remained flat at 1.0% of Gross Domestic Product [21]. In both public and private institutions of higher education it was necessary to raise tuition charges faster than the CPI has increased in order to pay for the rapid inflation in the price of educational inputs. From 1980 to 1992, the sum of tuition for in- state students and "room and board charges" rose in constant 1994 dollars from $4,300 to $5,750 in public institutions, and from $9,920 to $15,700 in private institutions. Even allowing for the fact that 1980 was the low cost year, these annual charges are now substantially above their previous highs (reached in 1972) of $5,200 in public institutions and $10,850 in private institutions [21; year 1994, p. 182]. In most public institutions, and many private ones, the effects of these financial pressures have been noticeable to administrators and faculty: nationally, average class size has crept upward at about 0.4% per year during 1979-89 [20]; there is currently less variety in course and class offerings [22]; there is more incentive for (and greater resort to) hiring of teaching assistants and parttime adjunct faculty; and, budgets for student equipment, teaching laboratory facilities, and faculty development have been badly squeezed, according to our sources. Current financial constraints present major challenges and reduced opportunities in many institutions to try innovative approaches to undergraduate instruction while placing a premium on productivity-enhancing changes. These pressures were discussed by many who wrote to us. Differences by Type of Institution These increases in expenditures per student after 1980 varied considerably among different types of institutions. Using the classification reported in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education [23], both percentage and dollar increases were highest in highly selective bachelor's colleges and private research universities, and next highest in public research universities. In the remaining types of institutions, spending increases were either at the rate of increase in the CPI (in public two-year colleges) or moderately above this rate (in public and private doctoral institutions, master's institutions, and the remaining public and private bachelor's institutions). One consequence of these uneven rates of growth in expenditures per student is that current spending per undergraduate student now varies widely across different types of institutions (although the data are not precise, particularly in large institutions with multiple missions). In recent years, the highly selective, private bachelors and research universities have been spending about 75% more per undergraduate student than public research universities. Public research universities have been spending about 20% to 40% more than other types of four-year institutions, and 60% more than public two-year colleges. Changes in Higher Education In addition to these financial pressures, there are other external influences complicating the picture for higher education. Governors, legislators, and parents in many states are raising questions about how undergraduates are treated, especially at major research universities with their heavy faculty research commitments and significant involvement of graduate assistants in the under- graduate instructional program. The whole debate over "teaching vs. research" in faculty workloads and in faculty rewards is being revisited by major controllers of educational purse strings. Several universities are making significant changes in the internal culture surrounding undergraduate education, including in the way faculty are evaluated and rewarded. The American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) has taken a leadership role in finding and publicizing better ways to evaluate teaching effectiveness and in helping institutions think about revising promotion and tenure policies [24]; some of the disciplines (e.g., mathematics) have also given significant attention to such issues. But examples of such effort are few in number, are not yet pervasive in the higher education scene, and are counterbalanced by other forces: for example, some liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions are putting increased stress on research, on adding graduate programs, and on the acquisition of research grants by faculty. Not only do institutions need to make more changes in this important area, other stakeholders must assist them - for example, educational achievements would likely be accorded greater recog- nition in faculty reward systems if there were more effective ways of validating and disseminating such accomplishments, ways akin to the publication of research results. The information technology revolution mentioned previously has been felt also by higher education. Faculty and administrators alike understand that more technology is needed on campus - to enhance productivity; to help to prepare students for the world they are entering (whether in the work force or as citizens); and to satisfy the demands of many entering students who are used to computers, the Web, CDROMs, and video, and who find learning from print and passive listening increasingly foreign. Moreover, rapid changes in technology have created possibilities for organizations other than traditional colleges and universities to offer multimedia instructional packages of great sophistication and consumer appeal, independent of location. Some western state governors are proposing the creation of a "virtual university" using such technology, which might offer instruction more cheaply than a campus could. Whether or not such an institution can actually do all that a traditional campus can do in the human development process (which seems to require a social as well as an information context) is probably irrelevant; the fact that such technology offers the promise of cost reductions is enough to insure that such possibilities will be considered seriously by the political structures of this nation. It is clear that large private corporations with major expertise in software and media could become serious "competitors" in the higher education arena in the near future. William Wulf, writing recently in Issues in Science and Technology [25] makes clear the importance of such an issue to higher education: "Universities are in the information business, and technological developments are transforming that industry . . . Outside forces are always acting on univer- sities. Some of them, notably the political ones, have great immediacy and hence get a good deal of attention. For example, university administrators are acutely aware of the . . . desire for greater "productivity" from the faculty, and so on. As important as these changes may be, I believe that information technology has a far greater potential to provoke fundamental change in our system of higher education. Moreover, I am certain that these changes are much closer than most people realize." A paper by Eli Noam in Science [26; "Electronics and the Dim Future of the University"] observed: "Today's production and distribution of information are undermining the university structure, making it ready to collapse in slow motion once alternatives to its function become possible." Noam notes that more articles on chemistry had been published in the previous two years than throughout all of history prior to 1900. With this kind of growth of knowledge has come increased specialization, which has led scholars in increasingly narrow fields to find electronic peers outside institutions that can no longer maintain all the subdisciplines. In addition, our students now come to the campus with electronic access to more information than is contained in the faculty, library, and laboratories of the college or university - and access to that information is available 24 hours a day at the student's convenience. Noam continued: "This scenario suggests a change of emphasis for univer- sities. True teaching and learning are about more than information and its transmission . . . (are) based on mentoring, internalization, identification, role modeling, guidance, socialization, interaction, and group activity. In these processes, physical proximity plays an important role. Thus, the strength of the future physical university lies less in pure information and more in college as community; less in wholesale lecture, and more in individual tutorial; less in Cyber-U, and more in Goodbye-Mr.-Chips College. Technology would augment, not substitute." Undergraduate Education Today Turning now from external influences on higher education generally, we must examine the present picture of undergraduate SME&T educa- tion in America. Here, too, much has changed in ten years, even the answer to the question, "Where are the students?" For the students are, in fact, not in the kinds of institutions many people might guess [27, 28]. In the fall of 1992, * Two-year institutions accounted for 44% of enrolled under- graduates, 41% of all undergraduate SME&T courses offered for credit, and 34% of all undergraduate SME&T course enrollments. Their share of SME&T enrollments is lower than either their share of SME&T courses or their share of total undergraduate enrollments, because nearly one-half of two-year college students are attending college parttime, and SME&T class sizes are relatively small - on par with those found in baccalaure- ate institutions. * Research universities enrolled 16% of all undergraduates in the fall of 1992, and had nearly 25% of undergraduate SME&T course enrollments. However, the number of SME&T courses taught for credit by research universities was only 15% of the total, because of a high frequency of very large classes. * Doctoral universities accounted for 9% of all undergraduates and of SME&T courses, and for 10% of undergraduate SME&T course enrollments. * Master's institutions and engineering schools with enrollments of 2,000 or higher accounted for 21% of all undergraduates, and for 22% of SME&T courses and SME&T enrollments; and, * Bachelor's institutions and small master's institutions enrolled 10% of all undergraduates, 9% of those enrolled in SME&T courses, but 13% of all undergraduate SME&T courses offered for credit, reflecting a high frequency of small class sizes. In FY 1992, 53% of undergraduates were enrolled in institutions that had no NSF funding for research or education, and another 12% were in institutions that received less than $100,000 from the Foundation. Only 25% were enrolled in institutions receiving more than $500,000 that year. The picture is similar for all Federal agencies combined [29]. More than 88% of all Federal obligations to academic institutions for science and engineering in FY 1992 went to the 125 research universities. A second somewhat distinct group of 461 institutions received virtually all of the remainder (more than 11%) of this funding: this group comprised the 111 doctoral universities (with 6.2% of the total), the top 200 master's level institutions (with 4.2% of the total), the top 100 bachelor's colleges (with 0.7% of the total), and the top 50 two-year colleges (with 0.2%). Funding was also very highly concentrated within the doctoral and master's subgroups of this set of 461: the top one-eighth of each subgroup - 12 doctoral and 25 master's institutions - received more than 50% of the funds awarded in their subgroup. And who the students are is changing, too, even though less rapidly than the demographic makeup of America is changing. "College" has become a nearly universal rite of passage in the 1990's. Overall, nearly 67% of female and nearly 60% of male high school graduates enter post secondary education within a few months of graduation. Another 10% to 15% of adults in their twenties will enter college a few years after graduating from high school, or after leaving high school and earning their general equivalency diploma [21, 30]. * At every age in the span from 18 to 24 years old, the percent- age of US residents enrolled in colleges and universities has risen steadily since 1980. For example, 30% of 21-year olds were enrolled in college in 1980 compared to 40% in 1993. * At older age levels in the interval from 25-34 years, there have not been increases in the fraction of the adult popula- tion enrolled in college during 1980-1993, but there have been growing numbers enrolled due to an expanding U.S. population in this age range. Overall about 8% of adults aged 25-34 were enrolled in college during this period - from 11-13% of 25-year olds and from 5-6% of 34-year olds. Equal percentages of the black, Hispanic, and nonHispanic white populations in this age range were enrolled in college, but those enrolled were disproportionately women. Due to these population demographics, undergraduate enrollments continued to rise through 1992, despite a drop in the number of high school graduates after 1988. [Under graduate enrollments at the national level dropped in 1993, and began to drop slightly in large public institutions in 1992.] Most of the increase in under- graduate enrollments during 1985-1992 was fueled by rising numbers of part-time students (particularly women in two-year colleges) and older students. The fact that undergraduate studies are being pursued by growing fractions of high school graduates and older "nontraditional" students means that the effort required of the SME&T faculty to reach all students with basic course learning experiences that will work for them has grown considerably in recent years. From School to College When these students arrive at America's two-year and four-year colleges and universities, they are (according to the higher education community) not well prepared for collegiate level science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Analysis of high school transcripts does show some apparent improvement during the 80's in the SME&T courses taken by students during high school. The percentage of high school graduates taking the core curriculum recommended by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (4 units of English, 3 units of science, 3 units of social studies, and 3 units of mathematics) increased from 13% in 1982 to 47% in 1992 [22; The Condition of Education, 1994]. An increased number of students took more serious mathematics and science courses than had been the case. Specific gains made during 1982-92 were: 48% to 70% (geometry), 37% to 56% (algebra II), 32% to 56% (chemistry) and 14% to 25% (physics). But the levels reached in 1992 are still too low. For instance, only 22% had taken biology, chemistry, and physics, and only 21% had studied trigonometry. In some states, high school graduation standards are being raised, and a number of major state universities have put pressure on the high schools by increasing coursespecific entrance requirements. But, overall, the picture of the preparation of first-year incoming students for higher education is not a bright one - and the improvements that have occurred in the past decade have been over- shadowed by the exponential growth of knowledge and the changing demands of society. Many faculty in SME&T at the postsecondary level continue to blame the schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly, the higher education community has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers. The Neal Report [1] devoted one brief sentence to teacher preparation, for example (though much more to teacher enhancement). But, virtually every participant in the review work of this committee has expressed concern over the way the under- graduate SME&T education community is working in the preparation of teachers. With a more intensive and effective commitment on the part of institutions to the preparation of K-12 teachers, colleges and universities can raise their expectations about the preparedness of entering students. One way to do that might be for institutions to enter into "treaties" with the secondary schools providing that, after a certain date, credit will not be given at the collegiate level for remediation in SME&T. Students in SME&T Classes When the students arriving on our campuses begin to take SME&T courses, what do they find, and what do they experience? As noted earlier, there have been a number of improvements on many campuses. There are more interdisciplinary opportunities; there are many more opportunities for some students to have research experience with a faculty member; and many more courses stress inquiry and feature active, collaborative learning. Students also find much more technology: on some campuses every student is expected to have a laptop computer; on many, each student has an e-mail account and can interact with faculty electronically. Unfortunately, none of these improvements is widespread and, overall, students report that their experiences in undergraduate SME&T education are not very positive. Seymour and Hewitt's study, Talking About Leaving [8], produced findings that are very critical of faculty teaching practices. *** Seymour and Hewitt conducted a large ethnographic study over the three-year period 1990-93 with 335 students majoring in the natural sciences and engineering (NS&E) drawn from seven campuses that were among the most productive contributors to the nation's flow of new baccalaureates in these fields. Most data were gathered by personal interview. Some data were obtained in focus groups of 3-5 students. An additional 125 students took part in focus group discussions on six other campuses. Half the students were in the biological sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics; the other half were in engineering. All of the students had SAT mathematics scores above 649 and, thus, were considered well-prepared to under- take NS&E studies in college. The student sample was designed to include slightly more students leaving (55%, all juniors or seniors) than remaining in NS&E majors (45%, all of whom were seniors). Underrepresented groups were over-sampled. *** Generally poor teaching by the science and engineering faculty was by far the most common complaint of able students. Nine out of 10 one-time NS&E majors who switched to a non-NS&E major, and three out of four who persevered, described the quality of teaching as poor overall. The next most frequent complaint of NS&E majors was inadequate faculty advisement, mentioned by more than half of the successful majors. Students were very clear about what was wrong with the teaching they had experienced. They strongly believed that faculty do not like to teach (especially lower division courses); that they do not value teaching as a professional activity; and that they lack incentive to improve. In their explanations for the poor teaching they had experienced, students constantly referenced faculty preoccupation with research as the overt reason for their failure to pay serious attention to the teaching of undergraduates, and for specific inadequacies in attitude or technique. Student condemna- tion of the faculty obsession with research changed dramatically, however, when students were allowed to observe or participate in that research. The few students who had this experience liked the pleasant and open way in which faculty treated undergraduates in a research relationship, compared with their apparent indifference to them in a teaching context. According to Seymour and Hewett, the perceived dislike of the natural science and engineering faculty for pedagogical contact with students cannot be simply explained by a greater interest in research, or by the bias of departmental reward systems. Students offered many examples of non-NS&E faculty who evidently enjoyed teaching, saw it as an integral part of their work, and took the trouble to do it well. Important elements in what students saw as good teaching were openness, respect for students, the encourage- ment of discussion, and the sense of discovering things together. Student comparisons of NS&E teaching styles with those in other disciplines are permeated with strong contrasts: coldness versus warmth; elitism versus democracy; aloofness versus openness; and rejection versus support. The distancing of faculty from students was sometimes increased by sarcasm, degradation, or ridicule. These practices, apparently rare in nonSME&T courses, had the effect of discouraging voluntary student participation in classroom discussions, and created an atmosphere of intimidation. Student criticisms focused on: * Lack of student-teacher dialogue, which was thought also to reflect faculty indifference. Classes were mainly one-way lectures, which students compared unfavorably to the high school experiences of many of them, in which there was considerable dialogue. * Evident poor preparation for lectures, indicating to students that faculty were disinterested in student learning. Students were particularly frustrated by faculty who seemed unable to explain their ideas sequentially or coherently. * Students also wanted but typically did not find many illus- trations, applications, and/or discussions of implications. Nevertheless, students did not believe there was anything intrinsically dull about NS&E class material, even though student interest in many classes began to flag when faculty failed to present material in a stimulating way. Many students made reference to the "monotone" voices and dry recitations of their instructors lecturing. * Class tedium grew in instances where faculty were "over- focused" on getting students to memorize material. * Students identified as worst practice reading or copying material straight from text books. Reports of this practice were common in every SME&T discipline and on every campus. Another version of this teaching style was sometimes referred to as silent teaching - an instructor writing on the board with his/her back to the class, whom he/she addresses minimally and infrequently. * Seniors who were going to graduate in SME&T made it clear that the focus on weed-out objectives and use of poor teaching practices in the first two years had given them a shaky foundation for higher level work. They expressed resentment that their own education had suffered in the effort to discard others. * Non-majors also expressed the opinion that their needs for basic understanding of science and mathematics had not been met in lower division SME&T courses. The focus groups of students convened for the current review covered [13] a broader cross section of undergraduates than those created for Talking About Leaving; but, it is noteworthy that the opinions expressed about introductory courses were similar. In our focus groups, students identified introductory SME&T courses as a major barrier. Many non-SME&T majors were discouraged (or screened out) from pursuing further studies. SME&T majors found the introductory courses very challenging, and often described them as "weed-out" courses. All types of students objected to the large lecture format often used in these courses. (Students from two- year colleges, historically black colleges, and comprehensive institutions were not as negative about these courses as those from research and doctoral universities, which have the largest classes.) Even the recent graduates had no difficulty recalling the generally unpleasant experiences they had had in introductory courses. * Students singled-out the practice in some large lecture classes of using television monitors in separate rooms to serve students who could not fit into the lecture hall as very discouraging. The perceptions of many students was that the faculty did not want to teach these courses. * A significant number of students objected to the competitive atmosphere in introductory SME&T courses, calling it a barrier to learning. * Seymour and Hewitt found the most frequent student complaint to be the often weak relationship between classes and supporting laboratory work. Students in our focus groups found similar fault; some found laboratory exercises to be mechanical - seemingly unconnected to concepts of science. Lack of faculty or teaching assistant expertise on site in the labs was cited as another weakness. Students not only find problems in individual courses - they also experience a weaker curriculum. For instance, they find fewer laboratory opportunities because some institutions have made decisionsto lower overall costs by reducing the number of labora- tory sections and adding or substituting nonlaboratory courses. * Comparative data from two national samples provide us with the 12-year, undergraduate course-taking histories of two high school classes: the Class of 1972 (sampled by the National Longitudinal Survey, NLS) and the Class of 1982 (sampled by the High School & Beyond Survey, HS&B). These data indicate that laboratory courses offered and taken dropped by more than 20% from the 1970's to the 1980's. * The 1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty [28] indi- cated that only a small fraction of SME&T courses offered in the fall of 1992 were primarily laboratory courses. At the freshman and sophomore level, these fractions ranged from around 20% in the biological sciences, physical sciences, and engineering, to under 5% in the mathematical sciences and social and behavioral sciences. Only about 10% of students in the physical and biological sciences enrolled in the 20% of courses that were laboratorycentered, while 20% of engineering students enrolled in the 20% of courses so centered. Evidence of erosion in undergraduate science requirements was provided recently in a study conducted by the National Association of Scholars, The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993 [31], in which the Association reported that 90% of 50 highly selective institutions required their students to take courses in the physical and biological sciences in 1964, whereas in 1993, only 34% of them maintained this requirement. In addition to the data about current deficiencies in undergraduate SME&T education discussed above, we have reviewed the opinions of the many leaders in the SME&T community who provided input for our work. In the letter initiating this review, Dr. Luther S. Williams (NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources) asked not only that respondents identify improvements attained in the past decade but also that they comment on remaining barriers to further improvement, reflecting the needs of society [32]. Improvements and barriers were discussed also in the hearings at NSF in the fall of 1995 and in the reviewfocused sessions at many meetings of scientific and professional organiza- tions in the past two years. Barriers to Improvement Some weeks before this review was initiated by Dr. Williams, he expressed concern about barriers to improvement of undergraduate SME&T education in the keynote address to an NSF-sponsored conference [33]: "The [various types of] two-year and four-year . . . institutions have not yet responded substantially to the recognized need for cooperation and collaboration. Walls still exist between disciplines and academic units. These walls are ill suited to educating the many different individuals seeking preparation for a vast array of personal and professional goals in an increasingly complex world. These institutions have failed to prepare adequately for the new ways of learning that begin at the precollege level and must be continued at the undergraduate level. There is growing concern that what is taught does not adequately prepare students for the world they enter upon graduation. [Institutions] have not yet [developed] the potential of educational technologies fully, nor [applied] what is known from research on teaching and learning fully. We can no longer alter students to fit the abilities of educational institutions; we must alter the institutions to fit the needs of students." A wide variety of such barriers were identified and discussed in the over 150 letters the review committee received from the community. Collectively, these letters identified several hundred specific problems. We found it convenient to consider them in seven broad categories: 1. Widely varying levels of student ability, and poor preparation for SME&T studies by many. 2. Curricular and pedagogical problems, including a lack of interdisciplinary courses. 3. Ineffective use of instructional technology. 4. A faculty reward system that does not emphasize the importance of instructional effectiveness. 5. The related problem of inadequate use of evaluation for making informed choices about new curricula and teaching methods. 6. Lack of resources for faculty development, for efforts to disseminate improved practices, and to provide modern instructional equipment and materials to their students. 7. Organizational issues: poor institutional articulation among institutions (high schools and colleges; two-year and four- year colleges; colleges and employers and states) and within institutions (linking teaching and research roles, linking SME&T departments, especially the education and science faculty); resistance to change by key people within academe; indifference to the need for comprehensive change. The comments we received were often tinged with optimism about the prospects for improvement but also frequently conveyed a sense of urgency. Often there was a satisfaction expressed about the progress achieved over the last few years, inter mingled with expressions of alarm about the size of the improvements yet needed. It is very noteworthy that many contributors to this review used largely the same language to describe both significant improvements in undergraduate SME&T education and current barriers. For example, the growing incidence of departments and faculty offering courses that allow students to design their own smallscale research projects and work in teams with faculty guidance to carry these projects forward was noted as an improvement. It was also described as a barrier, namely, it has revealed the poverty of tr