Proceedings of an Exploratory Symposium on
NEW EXPECTATIONS FOR UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
~ an urban institutional perspective ~
Sponsored by The National Science Foundation
Hosted By Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa
October 24, 1997
Proceedings of the Symposium
SHAPING THE FUTURE
NEW EXPECTATIONS FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN
SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Sponsored by The National Science Foundation
Hosted by Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
October 24, 1997
Through Presentations and Dialogue from the
perspective of Faculty, Institutions/Administration,
and Industry the Symposium will:
ƒ
ƒ
Steering Committee:
Eli Fromm, Chair
VP Educational Research & Development,
Drexel Univ.
Describe and discuss regional and institutional
actions and plans to achieve widespread
improvements in undergraduate Science,
Mathematics, Engineering and Technology
education;
Addie J. Butler, Assistant Dean
Community College of Philadelphia
Cecilie Goodrich, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences,
Drexel University
Discuss what we have learned from, and what
are the implications of, the reforms to date;
ƒ
Consider whether current assessment methods
meet the needs of the reform movement;
ƒ
Discuss what are, and should be, the roles of all
our stakeholders in this reform; and
ƒ
Consider the challenges and what institutional
changes are needed to build capacity for reform
and their implementation.
Bashar W. Hanna, Director
Math & Science Resources Center,
Temple University
Raj Mutharasan, Interim Dean
College of Engineering, Drexel University
Norman L. Fortenberry, Director
Division of Undergraduate Education, NSF
Terry Woodin, Program Officer, NSF
1
AGENDA
Plenary Presentations (AM Sessions)
8:45
Breakout & Dialog (PM Sessions)
1:30 Each parallel session, through examples of work
“Welcome
A Look Into The Crystal Ball"
in progress, to address the issues from the
faculty, administrative leadership, and industrial
perspectives:
Dr. Eli Fromm, VP – Educ. Research & Dev.
Drexel University
9:10
9:30
ƒ
“NSF Objectives/Vision”
“Cooperative Learning”
Joanne Darken, Community College of
Philadelphia
Mitchell Litt, University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Norman Fortenberry, Director
Division of Undergraduate Education
National Science Foundation
ƒ
“Innovative Educational Paradigms:
A Faculty Challenge”
ƒ
“Instructional/Educational
Technologies and Methodologies”
Robin Carr, Drexel University
“Learning by Doing”
Wayne Magee, Drexel University
Robert Quinn, Drexel University
10:00 Refreshment Break
2:30 Refreshment Break
10:15 “An
Academic Institutional Process
for Change”
3:00 The Innovations as they are Applied to the
Interacting Disciplines as well as the embedding
of the humanities, social, and economic sciences.
Examples of successes and best practices:
Dr. Michael Crow, Vice Provost
Columbia University
11:00 “Articulation
Arrangements:
The Challenges as Educational
Paradigms Shift"
ƒ
Basic Sciences
Kerri Armstrong, Community College of
Philadelphia
Penny Hammerich, Temple University
Dr. Addie Butler, Assistant Dean
Community College of Philadelphia
ƒ
Mathematics
David Weksler, Swarthmore College
11:30 “An
Industrial Perspective:
What is Needed”
ƒ
Engineering
Rajakkannu Mutharasan, Drexel University
David Miller, Drexel University
Margaret Wheatley, Drexel University
Mr. Stanley W. Silverman, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer
PQ Corp.
4:00 Summary & Reports from Breakout Sessions
12:15 Lunch
4:45 "NSF Programs in Support of SMET”
Dr. Norman Fortenberry, Director
Division of Undergraduate Education, NSF
5:15 Reception
2
Shaping The Future
New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology
An Exploratory Symposium of the Urban Institutional Perspective
Conference Overview
Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering &
Technology, is a report issued by the Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human
Resources (EHR), and provides the context for this Conference. The document is the final report of the review
carried out by the Subcommittee on Undergraduate Education, under the leadership of Dr. Melvin George. The
report has become the centerpiece for a national dialog in the agenda of the NSF directorate. This Symposium
is a part of that dialog.
The Symposium brings together higher education faculty, administrators, and industry representatives to
explore with NSF the recommendations made to all constituencies in Shaping the Future; not to define once
again what the problems are but rather, to share the vision and what specifically is being done to address these
issues. A major goal is to begin immediately to take, as the Report urges, “decisive action to achieve an
America in which: All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering & technology, and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the
methods and processes of inquiry.”
Speaker Backgrounds
Eli Fromm received his BS in Electrical Engineering, the MS in Biomedical Engineering from Drexel
University, and the Ph.D. from Jefferson Medical College. His industrial experience includes work a municipal
electrical power generation and distribution facility, the Life Support Systems group of the General Electric
Missile and Space Division, and the Engineering Physics Laboratory at the corporate research center of the E.I.
DuPont Company. His academic appointments have been in both the Colleges of Engineering and the College
of Science of Drexel University and currently is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and holds
the Roy A. Brothers University Professorship.
Dr. Fromm has served in numerous administrative capacities at Drexel University including Dean (interim) of
Engineering for several years, Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies for six years, and Vice President
for Educational Research and Development for the past two years. He has also served in legislative and
government affairs as a Congressional Fellow and staff member of the Committee on Science and Technology
of the US House of Representatives, Program Director at the National Science Foundation, and Visiting
3
Scientist with the Office of Legislative Liaison of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Fromm is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a Charter Fellow of the
American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), has received the IEEE Centennial Medal,
the ASEE Centennial Medal, the Drexel University Research Achievement Award, and is a member of the
Drexel 100. Projects that he has led have received awards such as the first ABET award for Innovation in
Engineering Education, the Electrical Engineering Department Heads Association award for Innovation in
Engineering Education, and the Computerworld/Smithsonian Institution medal and inclusion of materials in the
Smithsonian research archieves for the Creative Use of Information Technology in Academia.
Dr. Fromm has conducted research in bioinstrumentation, sensors, and microminiature physiologically
implanted devices and studies relating thereto. In the past decade his activity has centered on major alterations
and systemic reforms to the Engineering Educational Enterprise. He was the Principal Investigator of the
"Enhanced Engineering Experience in Engineering Education" which was partially sponsored by the National
Science Foundation and which became the lead program to stimulate major engineering educational reforms
taking place in the U.S. and several foreign countries. That program has led to the Gateway Engineering
Education Coalition, also partially sponsored by the National Science foundation, and of which he is Principal
Investigator and Director.
Dr. Fromm has produced approximately 60 publications, given numerous presentations and exhibits, and has
mentored 25 graduate students through their research MS and Ph.D. programs.
Norman L. Fortenberry, has, for the year beginning November, 1996, assumed the position of Division
Director, Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), the focal point of NSF’s agency-wide effort in
undergraduate education. DUE’s programs and leadership efforts aim to strengthen and ensure the vitality of
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology (SME&T) for all students as they
prepare for their futures as SME&T professionals, K-12 teachers, technicians, civic leaders and responsible
citizens in an increasingly technological society.
Dr. Fortenberry is a rotator from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he is a member of the clinical
faculty of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics. Previously, Dr.
Fortenberry served as Executive Director of the National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in
Engineering and Science, Inc. (The GEM Consortium), headquartered at the University of Notre Dame in
Notre Dame, Indiana. His prior NSF services included stints as Associate Program Director, Program Director,
and Staff Associate in DUE from 1992 to 1995.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology awarded Dr. Fortenberry the Sc.D. degree in 1991. His
specialization was Applied Mechanics and Design. His BS and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering were
also awarded by MIT. He is a full member of Sigma Xi (1990) and was a GEM Fellow (1982-1984), IBM
Fellow (1984), and NASA Fellow (1987-1990).
While preparing for his doctoral studies, Dr. Fortenberry held internships and engineer positions with Millipore
4
Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company, Batelle-Columbus Laboratories, and Polaroid Corporation. During his
doctoral studies, he served a Research Associate in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering; Research
Staff Member in the Science and Technology Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses and Space
Administration’s Massachusetts Pre-Engineering Program – Graduate Research Development Program.
Before joining the NSF staff in 1992, Dr. Fortenberry was Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and
Associate Director of Minority Engineering Programs at Florida A&M University/Florida State University
College of Engineering in Tallahassee, Florida. At FAMU/FSU, he had sponsored research programs in the
areas of design theory and methodology. While a member of the DUE staff 1992-1995, Dr. Fortenberry was
liaison to the Board on Engineering Education of the National Research Council, and served as member of the
Technical Education Working Group for the Committee on Education and Training of the National Science and
Technology Council.
Michael M. Crow serves as the Vice-Provost of the University and Professor of Science and Technology policy
at Columbia University in the city of New York. At Columbia, he coordinates university efforts in research,
innovation and technology transfer and strategic initiatives. Previously, he served as Director of the Institute for
Physical Research and Technology, and Institute Professor of Technology Management at Iowa State
University. A graduate of Iowa State University, he holds the Ph.D. in Public Policy (Science and Technology)
from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.
The author of three texts in science and technology policy he has most recently published on policy issues
related to the design of R&D systems, technology development and science policy in: Science and Public
Policy, Technovation, Revue d’ Economie Francais and the Journal of Technology Transfer. His forthcoming
manuscript (with Barry Bozeman) entitled Limited by Design: Chaos in the U.S. R&D Laboratory System will
be available late in 1997.
Addie J. Butler is a native Philadelphian. She was educated in the Philadelphia public schools before earning
her bachelor of science degree from Howard University, her master of science degree from Pennsylvania State
University and her doctor of education degree from Teachers College, Columbia University. She has held
several positions within the sphere of academic affairs at Community College of Philadelphia, including
Instructional Development Specialist, Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and now Assistant
Dean in the Division of Business, Science and Technology. For the past ten years, or so, she has been involved
in the development of articulation agreements between Community College of Philadelphia and other
institutions.
Dr. Butler is a published author and serves as an evaluator for the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools. In addition, she is a member of this conference’s steering committee.
Stanley W. Silverman is executive vice president and chief operating officer of the PQ Corporation, Valley
Forge, Pa., a leading manufacturer of sodium and potassium silicates, silica gel adsorbents and catalysts,
5
zeolites and zeolite based catalysts, molecular sieves, and glass microspheres. The PQ Corporation is a globally
diverse company, operating in 21 countries at 72 plant locations around the world, and participates in nine joint
ventures.
Mr. Silverman was born in Philadelphia, PA. in 1947. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical
engineering from Drexel University in 1969 and an MBA from Drexel in 1974. He also completed the
Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School in 1989.
In 1969, Mr. Silverman began his career as a process engineer at ARCO. He joined the PQ Corporation in 1971.
During his career at PQ, Mr. Silverman has held positions in engineering, planning, marketing, and sales
management, leading to his appointment in 1984 as president of National Silicates Limited, a PQ subsidiary in
Canada. In 1987, Mr. Silverman was appointed President of PQ's Industrial Chemicals Group, one of the
company's three worldwide businesses. In 1991, he was appointed to his current position.
Mr. Silverman has served as chairman of Drexel University's College of Engineering Advisory Council, and the
Council's Development and Public Relations Committee. Mr. Silverman has been named as one of Drexel
University's 100 most distinguished alumni.
BREAKOUT FACILITATORS
Dr. Kerri Armstrong, Professor of Biology, Community College of Philadelphia.
Dr. Robin Carr, Director of Freshman Engineering Laboratories, Drexel University.
Joanne Darken, Professor of Mathematics, Community College of Philadelphia.
Penny Hammerich, Assistant Professor of Science Education, Deptartment of Secondary Education,Temple
University.
Dr. Mitchell Litt, Professor and Chair of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Wayne E. Magee, Nes Professor of Bioscience/Biotechnology, Drexel University.
Dr. David L. Miller, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Drexel University.
Dr. Rajakkannu Mutharasan, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Interim Dean of the College of
Engineering, Drexel University.
Dr. Robert G. Quinn, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University.
Susan Varnum (Jansen), Professor of Chemistry, Temple University.
David Weksler, Professor of Mathematics and Director of Math Forum, Swarthmore College.
Dr. Margaret Wheatley, Associate Professor – Chemical Engineering, Drexel University.
6
Welcome - A Look into the Crystal Ball
Dr. Eli Fromm
7
Welcome - A Look into the Crystal Ball
Dr. Eli Fromm
I welcome you to this symposium on Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering & Technology. I would like to thank the members of the Steering
Committee for their help in our basic planning and structure of the entire day. Our focus today is to look at the
current status, discuss what may be ahead in the near future based on what the people here envision and are
doing now and, perhaps, a little bit of what may be in the farther out time period. I would like to thank the NSF,
Division of Undergraduate Education, for helping to make this possible. In the morning we have several
speakers to address broad issues and presentations that deal with the topic in the broadest and general sense. In
the afternoon we will have break-out sessions as you see in the final program plan. Each session will start with
a short presentation and then evolve into a group discussion. We have asked the leaders of those discussions to
raise five questions: what have we learned, what are the implications of the reforms to date, what are the current
assessment methods, what are and what should be the roles of the stakeholders in this reform, and, of course,
who are the stakeholders, and how can they become more involved.
The rapid pace of change in the structure and organization, as well as the change in content, in inventing
technology and different ways in which we begin to conduct our educational process really began taking hold
less than a decade ago. We at Drexel began in 1988 with an engineering and science program. To some people
it would be considered a revolution. To others it is an evolution. As Einstein noted, "The significant problems
we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking and feeling we were at when we created them." In short
it is really saying that we have to think outside of the traditional box. That has been, I believe, the key to the
movement in educational reform. Now, the components of the educational enterprise are broad and diversified,
as we came to realize over the last few years. We started with curriculum innovation and structure and then
brought in educational technologies. We then realized that it really is the human dimension, the development of
the students and faculty, and linking that human dimension to innovative educational methodologies that is
really an important key. Finally, in the last few years the serious question of assessment has taken hold and a
significant change is taking place in the culture of our educational institutions, at least in many colleges and in
many departments, in recognizing the importance and the role that assessment can play. I will touch on each of
these very briefly.
In our curriculum, innovation and structure of the discipline-specific curriculum is moving closer to the
beginning of the educational programs. In fact, these aspects of math, science, the engineering sciences, and the
professional materials are all done in parallel and integrative ways. What that does, of course, is give the
student the continuous vision of where the application of the fundamental math and sciences is that they are
learning. That same approach is beginning to take place in non-science, math and engineering programs as well.
Business schools are also moving in that direction. Concurrently we imbedded in that curriculum, the nontechnical or nonscientific materials such as the issues of ethics, social responsibility and environmental
concerns, not as separate entities but, in fact, again tied in with the work that the students are constructing on a
day-to-day basis. As I envision it, this will continue and increase because we recognize that the world all
around us is really an integrative environment and to compartmentalize all these for the students does at least
8
two things that we don't like. For one, it makes the students believe too often that is how the real world is; that
it is so compartmentalized. Secondly, it detracts from what the student would get out of seeing the tie-in with
their disciplinary interests, that is the relationship of those other activities that are not specific to their discipline.
We have tended to lose sight of that relationship if we compartmentalize these things.
We have also stressed cross-institutional sharing and that is beginning to occur more and more often. Through
the educational technologies that we are bringing in we're really restructuring our space and time that we can
utilize for this enterprise. By that I don't mean just the traditional in class kinds of activity and we will touch on
this again in a minute. Networking, for instance, brings us access of vast resources, extending our time and
space and thereby expanding our learning populations. Our communications infrastructure permits us to link
and share with others in ways we have never done before and in partnerships that I will address a bit later. We
do much of this through technology tools. In our environment we have more and more interactive media labs
and learning modules integrated into the classroom. There is much linking with other institutions and experts.
For example, we have used desktop video conferencing to bring experts into the classroom. They remain at their
place of work and yet become part of the dialogue, two-way, or multiple way, dialogue. We have stored
electronic lectures to share with other institutions. I believe this will increase as well. Tutorials and courses onsite and at Web sites sets up a situation for people to access it on demand with increased speed allowing use of
video service and video multi-point conferencing, that I just spoke of. We're doing things -- remotely
controlling laboratory experiments so that students can be anywhere and via the Web they can actually control
physical experiments that are ongoing in another location. That kind of activity is just beginning now but will
increase in the future.
Use of electronic media and our intellectual communications is changing the whole structure of our educational
environment. There are those who express negative concerns about what this leads to. I believe it opens doors
for great opportunities if properly channeled. One can envision what this will lead to. It means that for a large
population, the maturing population that doesn't necessarily want to come to the social environment of the
traditional on-campus college setting, it opens up a whole new vista of engagement. It also allows for a much
more efficient use of the resources that we do have on campus because even the students who are part of the
traditional environment will be able to access these resources from their dorms at any time of the day or night.
Wireless computing is certainly going to play a role in institutional sharing and linking so that we share various
resources, both physical and intellectual. This will lead to other issues that have yet to be addressed, as this
becomes more of the norm rather than an exception. Ultimately, we will have professional development,
continuing education and even the basic education delivered to an individual at his or her home if that is the
format they want and at the time that they want. We see an increasing number of workshops and symposia
dealing with the issues of bringing technologies into the science, math and engineering educational process.
Faculty are becoming more and more aware of the importance of innovative educational methods or construct
even at the most research-intensive universities. It is certainly a healthy involvement that we're moving into.
Once the faculty becomes involved in the issue of educational methodology there is subsequently the
recognition that we need to also look at assessment. The questions that begin to be asked are what are we
achieving with the activity that we're doing, why make the change, and what effect does it have. The students
are also, of course, changing because we are showing them how to learn beyond their textbook, to learn issues
of organizational management and working in teams. This is not provided in a textbook course but because the
9
group dynamics that we are placing the students in during the conduct of the educational enterprise leads it
there. The multi-institutional aspects and the multi-cultural aspects are coming along with that as well as we tie
together and link with multiple institutions. We see more and more innovations in the educational process. Our
faculty are moving from being lecturers to being coaches and mentors. Faculty are very student centered in
these instructional modes. Multi-institutional and new paradigms of learning communities, not common at the
undergraduate level for our science and engineering research institutions, are emerging. In assessment, this
movement has come about more in the last several years. There have been a number of factors and forces that
have moved us in this direction; pressures from some of the stakeholders, interests of the faculty, and the
accreditation processes are all asking questions of what the outcomes are, what is being achieved, and how good
is what we are doing? Before we can even answer those, however, one has to identify the desired outcomes.
That is, what is it that we are trying to achieve? Traditionally we haven't done that very well but we are
certainly moving into that. We are looking at assessment, not just in a faculty evaluation sense alone but an
extensive course evaluation and programming assessment, while tracking our students on an individual basis.
The important thing to keep that movement going is to use it to improve the programs and feedback to our
publics. Most importantly is to use it for guidance and not punishment. If we don't use it in such a constructive
manner we could stifle this whole movement. Ultimately it boils down to really having some accountability for
what we do. While for years we have not necessarily concerned ourselves much with that issue, it's becoming
more and more important and recognized.
Initially I started off describing individually each of the five components of the Educational Enterprise. We also
recognized that they all tie together and that they don't stand individually. It is all of that which comprises the
educational enterprise. Add to this, what I believe will be one of the largest movements in the years ahead, the
issue of partnerships. Within our University crossing traditional boundaries, either across departments or across
colleges within the university, has become much more frequent. We are sharing experiences and resources with
other institutions as well. This has become especially true in the role we play among our Coalition. The
experimental work that I noted earlier with remote control of experiments so those students at one institution
can actually control experimental apparatus at another institution is one example. There are joint ventures
amongst institutions. For instance, we together with three county community colleges surrounding us formed
the Shipyard College at the Philadelphia Naval Base. Initially established for the purpose of education and
training for the displaced workers from the Naval Base, it is now becoming an important component of the
discussions to bring the private ship building enterprise to that location. These kinds of joint ventures will
increase.
Increased involvement with industry will also take place; not just in research but in structuring the
undergraduate program as well. While such partnerships will help prepare our students for the workplace we
will certainly want to make sure we look to their long-term needs as well. Industry by its very nature of having
a short and long-term profit motive has certain needs. We at the academy essentially need to blend our products
with those needs. We must look at the short, medium, and long-term needs of the students. Clearly they are
going to change over the course of their professional lives and they need to be prepared for that. Distribution
and marketing resource partnerships between some of the educational work that we do and distributors of
electronic media of some sort will also take place.
As we try to scale up this kind of activity we see the issues of the human dimension. That is, there is a natural
10
sense of questioning why change and that is why the whole issue of assessment is so important. What's also
important is to be able to provide a rationale based on work that has been done by others. For example, in the
literature on what change can bring to group dynamics and teamwork type of activity. Those are legitimate
questions that are asked and to which we need to respond.
Machiavelli, in the early 1500's, noted that "It must be remembered that there's nothing more difficult to plan
nor doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has
as the enemy all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and luke-warm defenders who
would gain by the new.” It was apparently true then and it's still true now. What we are slowly evolving is a
different educational process. It is not easy but the way to deal with it is through pointing out the attributes.
One doesn't get that until we can measure and assess what is taking place. I have dealt quite a bit on this issue
of linkage and partnerships because I think that is where the real change is going to take place. It is a logical
thing for us in academia to consider. Sharing spreads the knowledge, creates a community, creates new
knowledge because of the interaction amongst the individuals, and is the essence of the educational process.
What we recognize perhaps more fully now because of concurrent non-academic factors is that such
partnerships can help us to conduct our educational mission in a more time, space and cost effective manner.
Fundamentally the concept of partnership and sharing should not be one to scare people. There are legitimate
questions raised of assessing and enunciating the attributes. The partnerships will be in various forms; physical
resources as well as human and our experimental resources. Just imagine, through the technology that has been
described, that a student will have access through the Internet to some laboratory activity in one of the national
labs. Students can be anywhere in the world and be your student. This allows an incredible change.
There is one aspect however, that will clearly have to be addressed, that is the fiscal and organizational issues.
Up to now this kind of sharing and partnership has taken place more or less on a one-to-one basis just as we do
if we work together with another faculty member in some of our traditional disciplinary research at another
institution. It is a very informal process and the individuals personally work out the mechanisms to help make it
happen. As we start moving in this direction for the broader educational enterprise and it starts to become a
serious component of what goes on in our institutions educationally, not in traditional research, these issues
which we have really skirted up to now, the fiscal and organizational ones, are going to have to be addressed.
That is what I meant with things like joint ventures that will take place and other aspects that will have to be
confronted.
So what does the future hold? I'm not a soothsayer but clearly we will have very different learning communities.
We will have a more diverse constituency. We will certainly be technology intensive. The ethical,
professional and business concerns will come up-front and be part of an entire program incidental to all,
integrated into our programs. It will be a multi-disciplinary learning center and, again, linked with the
partnerships. What we will have to learn to do is to manage complex organizational structures and educational
processes with the kind of linkages that I've described. For many reasons however, the academy will remain
but it is going to change.
11
NSF Objectives/Vision
Dr. Norman Fortenberry
12
NSF Objectives/Vision
Dr. Norman Fortenberry
I want to take the opportunity to introduce a member of the staff of the Division of Undergraduate Education,
Dr. Carol Meyers. Dr. Meyers, a member of the engineering faculty at North Carolina A&T State University,
was a consultant to the Educational Human Resources Advisory Committee and is currently a consultant to the
Division. During the time that's reserved this afternoon at 4:45 to talk about NSF programs, we thought that
some of you might be interested in not only discussing NSF programs, but also receiving some guidance on
proposal writing.
I am particularly pleased with the remarks that Dr. Fromm gave. There are certainly a number of issues raised
in his remarks on undergraduate education that touch on several initiatives that we at NSF are pursuing— for
example, the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education (SMETE) Digital
Library, and NSF’s Corporate and Foundation Alliance.
My plan is talk for about 15 minutes and any time we have left, I would really like to answer any questions you
may have. As prelude, allow me to remind you that the National Science Foundation supports research and
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). The Foundation is organized into six
research direct activities covering most of the major disciplines and the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources (EHR), of which my division, the Division of Undergraduate Education, is a part.
The purpose of this conference is to reflect on practical implementation strategies for the recommendations
contained in the report of the Advisory Committee for EHR entitled Shaping the Future: New Expectations for
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. For those of you who want
more complete information, I have provided a list of references and web sites for related.
My talk this morning will summarize the centrality of undergraduate education in the educational continuum,
give some indications for the national context for revitalization of undergraduate education, and then outline the
recommendations for accreditors, administrators, and faculty contained in the Shaping the Future report. Then I
would like for us to engage in a dialogue on practical implementation.
The undergraduate sector is central to the educational continuum. It is the sector to which the pre-Kindergarten
through grade 12 (preK-12) sector delivers its students and from which the preK-12 sector receives its teachers.
Similarly, the undergraduate sector delivers its graduates to graduate education and receives from the graduate
sector faculty who teach undergraduates. It is the case that while all faculty receive their Ph.D’s in doctoral
institutions, most of them do not teach in doctoral institutions because most students are in non-doctoral
institutions. Along all the major transition points – preK-12 to undergraduate, undergraduate to graduate, and
post-graduate there is entry into the workforce, with the most significant entrance occurring after completion of
undergraduate study.
The national context for reform of undergraduate education is framed by the Shaping the Future Study (which I
will describe in greater detail in a moment), recent activities within the disciplines, encouraging results at the
pre-college level, and the major challenges presented by the need for well-prepared pre-college teachers.
13
As I said, I’ll talk more about the process used in developing the Shaping study in a moment. I’d like to first
bring to your attention the increasing strength of discipline-based activities in SMET education. There is
significant and credible research on teaching and learning occurring in physics, mathematics, and engineering.
For example, Dr. Lillian McDermott of the University of Washington is doing some very rigorous research on
what it means to learn physics and what modes of teaching physics are most effective. What this trend means is
that SMET faculty are now taking ownership of educational research and incorporating it into the cultures of
their disciplines. So, that has been a driver for the types of discipline-based activities which Dr. Fromm
mentioned. If we are to encourage this broadening of scholarship within SMET professions, we must
concurrently develop more rigorous means of assessing progress and providing rewards for those who have
made significant progress with respect to the new measures. Within the traditional research enterprise it is
relatively simple to count refereed journal publications, we need similar metrics for educational activities.
Another driver for reform at the undergraduate level is the wave students arriving from the pre-college sector.
These are students who have been educated in new ways and have high expectations of their teachers/faculty.
Large numbers of students are participating in NSF projects to achieve systemic reform of preK-12 education.
Those programs are having positive effects. Yesterday’s New York Times and Washington Post newspapers
reported that the latest National Educational Assessment Test shows that two out of three eighth grade students
have achieved basic competency appropriate to their grade level. Obviously not the excellence we would like to
see, and tempered by the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study which showed US
eighth grade students in the bottom third of their international comparison group, but progress none the less.
The bottom line is students are making progress, and we can no longer afford to teach the same way we have
because the students coming up will be expecting a new reality. Students will be one of the strong forces in
driving the change of how we teach at the teaching level because if we don't change in certain institutions, then
the students will move to those which have. The success of the University of Phoenix is one example of one
aspect of that extremely well-run proprietary academic institution.
The final element of the national context which I wish to discuss is the need for well-prepared teachers. How
many of you in the room are science and math faculty? It looks like most of the room. So it would not be
unfair if I were to assume that most of you don't think of yourselves as working to prepare prospective K-12
teachers. However, the fraction of your baccalaureate graduates who become K-12 teachers runs from 26
percent in the biological sciences all the way down to 1 percent in engineering with intermediate levels in the
mathematical and physical sciences. Furthermore, if your concern is about the quality of the students coming
into your classrooms, then you have to be concerned with the quality of the preparation of K-12 teachers and
that responsibility is yours because K-12 teachers are products of undergraduate education. Furthermore, an
increasing number of states require high school math and science teachers to be SMET majors. So if you’re not
pleased with what and how they are teaching, you need to assume responsibility for improving the situation.
Part of assuming that responsibility is recognizing the need to collaborate with faculty in the colleges of
education in the preparation of prospective teachers. More than that, we need to get to the point where we can
consider every student in our classrooms as a potential preK-12 teacher. Such an assumption would suggest
that we would, minimally, encourage our students to reflect on what they are learning, how they are learning,
and how they would transmit their new understanding to others. It seems to me that such self-reflection would
be of value to all of our students, irrespective of their career goals.
14
All of this is so important because the Department of Education estimates that we will need 2 million new
teachers by the year 2005. This represents a tremendous opportunity and a tremendous challenge. Given the
practical and political realities, those positions will be filled. The question we have to answer is will these new
teachers be well prepared in math and science? That is our challenge and that is our opportunity.
I’d like to go back and provide some details of the process which went into the production of the Shaping the
Future study. It was a year-long effort, led by Dr. Melvin George, involving testimony by all the major
stakeholders—faculty, administrators, and employers-- at national hearings and regional workshops. Focus
groups were held with students and employers. The report has numerous recommendations to a variety of
stakeholders. I thought this group would be particularly interested in the recommendations to four groups: 1)
accrediting agencies, college governing boards, higher education administrators, and faculty.
The vision enunciated as a result of the study, a vision which is shared in the companion study From Analysis to
Action by the National Research Council, is that
All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in
SMET and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods
and processes of inquiry.
Note the emphasis on the words “all”, “supportive”, “excellent”, and “inquiry.” When we say “all” we mean all
students, not just the best and the brightest. And we mean in all types of institutions—two-year, four-year,
comprehensive, doctoral, and research-intensive. Supportive—it’s okay to say that because the next word is . . .
. Excellent -- normally that goes without saying, but in an educational context we have to be explicit. Finally,
all students should learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry. We are
firm in our belief that an inquiry base is an appropriate foundation to take in education. We observe that the
distinction between discovery in original research and in student learning lies primarily in the prior knowledge
of what is being discovered. Whether the knowledge is new to the field or simply new to the individual learner.
And so the integration of research and education is one of the major themes of the National Science Foundation
and is reflected in our budget documents.
The elements within the vision are all students preparing for careers for SMET professionals, medical and other
professionals, prospective teachers, and technicians, as well as all students as citizens in an increasingly
technological society. At this point, let me give a preview of some of my remarks this afternoon. The fastest
growing sources of funds within the Division of Undergraduate Education are in support of teacher preparation
and technician education. With respect to both of these target populations, there is increasing recognition by the
Foundation of the role of two-year colleges. For technicians the connection is obvious, but we’re also finding
that a rather substantial number of preK-12 teachers receive their only mathematics and science instruction
within community colleges.
The vision enunciated in the Shaping the Future study calls for science, mathematics, engineering and
technology to be infused into the education of all students— SMET majors and non-SMET majors alike. The
curriculum for SMET majors may be fine, but what’s going on in the general studies program? SMET
education is reflected in institutional and faculty priorities; this has implications for the structure of the faculty
15
reward system. Student centered approaches are appropriate; we must shift the focus from teaching to learning.
Our efforts must cross knowledge boundaries and introduce students to the “messy” problems of the real world.
Academic departments are not reflected in nature. At the graduate level, the Foundation is offering Integrated
Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT) to encourage interdisciplinary approaches. The
Foundation also expects to support a new initiative in fiscal year 1998 called Knowledge and Distributed
Intelligence which looks at complex issues and seeks their solution. Part of the required integration is not
simply across fields of knowledge, but across various parts of the education sector and linking education with
the employing sectors of business and industry.
Thus, the critical components which must be strengthened for a revitalized SMET undergraduate education are
faculty, curricula, instructional materials, learning technologies, broadened consideration of student learning
environments outside the classroom, as well as employer and societal need. We have to look at the educational
infrastructure—academic advisement, etc.
Recommendations to accreditors include devoting increased attention to the SMET education of all students as
a factor in making accreditation decisions. Also recommended is increased attention to the new ways of
assessment and evaluation which must accompany these new approaches to undergraduate education. Within
the engineering disciplines, the move to outcomes-based accreditation criteria by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET) is a very positive development.
The recommendations to governing boards and administrators were that they also devote increased attention to
the SMET education of all students within their institutions and hold departments and colleges accountable for
the progress of those students. Increased attention should be devoted to align advisement, career counseling,
and other student services with the formal curriculum. Support should also be provided to faculty to enhance
their knowledge of how to most effectively aid student learning—pedagogy, learning technologies, and
assessment. More broadly, efforts should be made to increase workplace relevance both through
interdisciplinary approaches and through the preparation of prospective preK-12 teachers for an employing
sector of increased importance. We believe that all students who go to college would like to be employed at
some point; and colleges should acknowledge that reality.
The recommendations to institutions echo those made previously, with an emphasis on putting student learning
first among institutional priorities. That implies changing faculty and departmental incentives and engaging in
broad partnerships.
Finally, the recommendations to the departments and faculty reinforce those previously made with a
fundamental emphasis on improving student learning by employing best practices and bringing rigorous
pedagogical approaches to a strong content base.
In summary, the recommended roles for stakeholders in higher education are to spread the word of best
practices and teaching innovations, to reward best practices in curriculum and faculty development, and to
engage in rigorous assessments of student learning and evaluation of programmatic interventions.
So, the Shaping the Future report makes quite a number of recommendations to the various parts of the
16
stakeholder community. What will NSF do to assist in creating an environment which encourages adoption of
the recommendations? I can’t speak for the entire Foundation; NSF is a $3 billion agency. However I can
speak for the Division of Undergraduate Education which has a portfolio of 5 programs—addressing teacher
preparation, technician education, faculty enhancement, and curriculum and laboratory development—and a
budget of $85million. Our plan, beginning in fiscal year 1999 (which begins in October 1998), is to reduce
some of the bureaucratic boxes which separate our programs allowing you to build coherent approaches to your
most vexing problems. We wish to recognize laboratory development as fundamentally a curriculum
development activity which should be integrated into a departments overall curriculum. And faculty
enhancement should be tied to curricular innovation.
There are two major changes contemplated. First, we are contemplating explicit support for adaptation and
implementation of proven curricular models. A number of strong models exist, Drexel’s E4 is one, but there are
others. We will not tell you which are the best models, that is for you to judge and for you to make the case in
your proposals. However, because NSF does not normally support adaptation, there will be a fifty percent costshare requirement. The second major change is the adoption of institutional approaches to teacher preparation
in addition to multi-institutional, state-wide or city-wide collaboratives. Institutional grants will be intermediate
between the multi-institutional grants and the small funds for support of teacher preparation within our
discipline-focused curriculum and laboratory development grants.
The Foundation will shortly announce the formation of an NSF-wide working group which will examine
systemic approaches to undergraduate education. It will examine the lessons learned from the Recognition
Awards for the Integration of Research and Education, the Institution-wide Reform Awards, the Engineering
Education Coalitions, and other NSF-grant programs in order to recommend what path the Foundation should
pursue in the future. The recommendations of this group will, I suspect, be taken rather seriously.
In closing, let me remind you that paradoxically, the barriers and enablers of reform are the same—two sides of
the same coin: curricular innovations (or lack thereof), infusion of educational technologies (or lack of access),
a faculty reward system and institutional policies and practices which encourage attention to student learning
(or not), and most fundamentally, attitudes toward change. The purpose of this conference is to determine what
you will do on your campuses. That’s what we’re here to discuss. And so with my remarks as preamble, I
would be happy to take your questions.
17
FROM THE AUDIENCE: I'm Richard Weisenberg from Temple University. I think there is one glaring gap
that I see in the presentation to a large degree. That is that I think the average classroom teacher from K-12 up
to graduate school, perhaps, is influenced more by the publishers of the textbooks, the publishers of the
software, and the publishers of the CD-ROM. It wasn't clear what you were saying, but I gathered you're
talking about trying to work more with those people because the publishers have little interest in innovation
from my experience. Their interests seem to be duplicating what's out there.
DR. FORTENBERRY: Let me respond to that because that's a very important point. Within course and
curriculum development projects supported by the Division of Undergraduate Education, a criterion for success
is the development of a textbook, piece of software, CD-ROM, etc. We would like to see you make money.
We see that as an important incentive to get good materials out into the community. We have, in fact, been
working with the publishers. They do have concerns about how many units they can sell, but they are also
facing the challenges of new technologies. We're not seeing intransigence from publishers particularly at the
undergraduate level. At the undergraduate level we see only enhanced opportunities from the publishing sector.
We're looking at additional ways to have faculty share information on courses, curriculum, the modules that Dr.
Fromm mentioned in his talk. We foresee, but have not begun development of, a National SMET Education
Digital Library which would serve as a resource for faculty in the development of curricular material. As a
performance goal we have posited the situation where a faculty member is enjoying a nice dinner. He or she
happens to look at the clock, see that it’s 8 p.m. and realizes that she has to prepare a lecture for tomorrow’s
class. That faculty member could then go on-line for a syllabus, select tested and peer-reviewed learning
modules in support of that syllabus appropriate to the background preparation of his/her class, along with
appropriate assessment materials .The key factors are fully developed materials, in modular format, and peerreview. I think we have time for one more question.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Have you ever considered a format in which you bring together people who have
received grants together in a forum like this?
DR. FORTENBERRY: We do that. We do that within the disciplines at professional meetings and
conferences. For example, at the annual conferences of the American Society for Engineering Education for the
past several years, we have sponsored a project showcase where we bring in principal investigators. Similar
things are occurring in mathematics, chemistry, physics. I suspect I am out of time so I thank you for your time.
18
An Academic Institutional Process for Change
Dr. Michael Crow
19
An Academic Institutional Process for Change
Dr. Michael Crow
What I thought I would do today is give you an overview of some of the things happening at Columbia in the
context of working to shape the future as it relates to science, math and engineering education. I thought I
would try to do that by, first, putting into context the kinds of things that we're doing and the kinds of things
that we're working on.
First, the environment in which we're working to help bring about changes in terms of how you teach and how
you learn and how we carry these processes out is a very, very tough environment. We know that. It's a
tremendously tough environment. Why is it so tough? We're at the end, if you will, of about a 4,000-year-old
teaching. We've been teaching the same way for about 4,000 years. We're at a transition point in that teaching.
You don't take 4,000 years of art and 4,000 years of practice and change it because it's been so successful. It's
been very successful and it's not easy to change.
Second, most of our teaching and learning activities in institutions that we call colleges or universities are an
organizational form that's about 700 years old in its design. What we call the college and the way that we
organize the teaching and learning within that kind of environment is 700 years old. You don't change that very
easily either. Most of the institutions in which we are imbedded within that organizational design that's 700
years old are between 100 and 300 years old themselves, individually. Some of the community colleges have
come along a little bit more recently than that. They draw from that original design. So we have an ancient
culture, an ancient organizational design, and very old and very conservative institutions. On top of that, add
one other dimension. This is something that most people outside of universities don't understand about things
and this is what I would call the rate constraints in institutions, and the time constraints. Academic institutions
change on a generational basis. The smallest unit of time within an academic institution is a semester, not a
week, not a month, not a day, not next week, not next quarter, but a semester. When you take this general
environment, ancient culture, ancient organizational form, old and conservative institutions, and generational
rates of change and say, “Let's take advantage of some new technological developments and some new society
demands to change the way that we teach one another” and put that on the table then all of a sudden you’ve got
yourself a big, big problem. It's not easy to do. It takes a long time and it will be very expensive. Anyone who
thinks that it will be none of those is incorrect in their assessment and incorrect in their judgment.
This environment that we call an academic institution, the way that we operate and the way that we do things,
manifests itself in a certain way. I'm going to use the concept, or the word, of a wall. There are a number of
walls that have been constructed to allow this academic culture and to allow this academic teaching and
learning environment to be as successful as it has been for a very long time. These are the walls that we have to
deal with when we start thinking about moving in new directions relative to the future. First, there are walls
that surround the university. At my own campus, we're literally walled on all sides. We're on the top of a hill
and there are walls around us and if you're very smart and have a lot of money, you can get in. If you're not,
stay out. So we have that wall, literal and intellectual. There are intellectual walls around our institution as
well. We hold people at bay, admitting only the select and that's true for everyone. That's true for all classes of
academic institutions.
20
There are walls between the sciences that have evolved over time. Those walls are still there, still very strong,
and in many ways quite purposeful. There are walls between teaching and research. At an institution like the
one that I'm at right now, the walls between teaching and research are a serious problem as well as a serious
strength, depending on how the institution is designed, how it's modeled, how it's financially operated. We
generate 300 million dollars a year from research. We generate 250 million dollars a year from tuition. There
are walls between those functions because there are different outcomes and different purposes in the minds of
some people relative to those.
There's a definite wall around science and engineering education. It's quite purposeful and in my opinion based
on unnecessary intimidation, but it's there for a number of reasons and it evolved for a number of reasons, all of
which are valid, some of which are becoming less valid. Now, I'm not going to argue that the key to making
math and science and engineering education more open and more accessible and more successful for the society
as a whole is the breaking down of these walls because that would be a foolish thing to recommend. It would
be an impossible thing to achieve. The walls cannot be broken down and in many ways shouldn't be broken
down because they are a part of the foundation, part of the success of the institutional class that we call a
university or college. What I'm going to argue, however, is that we need, and at Columbia I've been involved in
building, what I would call gates through the walls, and bridges from wall to wall.
First, a little bit about Columbia just to put yourself into context. We have about 9,000 undergraduates in four
undergraduate curriculums which are Engineering, something called Columbia College, something called the
College for General Studies and our affiliated women's college, Barnard College. We have about 12,000
graduate students in twelve professional schools spread out throughout the University. We have about 3,000
faculty members that are regular faculty members and about 4,500 faculty members in total. What does that
mean relative to our environment? Well, I think what it means is it's chaos. It's very hard for us to sit in the
central administration at the University and say, “let's do this” or “let's do that”. It just doesn't happen that way.
One has to find ways to do things and that's what we've been experimenting with in the last five, six, seven
years in terms of making things happen. The kinds of gates and bridges that we've been building to connect
these walls are the following types. Both of the earlier speakers, I think, hit on each of these. I just want to
highlight them and talk about what we're specifically doing because there's a number of lessons that we've
learned in the building of these gates and bridges.
First is what I would call the visual language bridge as manifested through media technology. We've become
convinced at Columbia, and this includes a number of our faculty, that visual learning is actually a
transformational process; the movement to learning in three dimensions, rather than learning in two dimensions.
In engineering they've been doing this a lot for a long time in different kinds of ways. In the sciences they
haven't been doing this a lot because a lot of what they're doing can't be seen all that well. We've been making
significant internal investments from the center of the University in new media technology designed to drive
visual learning across a number of disciplines. We've been funding content development projects. We've been
putting a number of facilities on the ground to facilitate making the visual learning environments occur. We're
spending a lot of research on infrastructure. We've been encouraging and supporting financially something that
has been very important which is making these processes of visual learning very much student driven with full
student participation with the faculty members from the outset of the conceptualization in the building of the
21
learning environments. We've been placing a lot of technology on the ground in terms of helping to facilitate
the visual learning process. We've been doing other things through the resources that we've been making
available essentially from the University.
We've been basically saying the following -- I'll pick our School of Engineering. The School of Engineering
oversees resources from the University when the School of Engineering works more effectively with the School
of the Arts and the School of Journalism and the School of Education because we think that one of the things
that has happened is that the disciplines have evolved and siloed themselves. I used to be out in Iowa. There's a
silo on every corner. I don't know if there are that many silos in Philadelphia. The silos become isolated from
each other. We've been trying to use new media technology and visual language building techniques in terms of
bringing disciplines together. For example, people in the School of the Arts know how to think visually and
teach visually and act visually in ways different from our engineering faculty. Bringing them more closely
together somehow enhances the overall environment.
Second, in terms of gates and bridges, is that we've been trying to facilitate the process of group learning. This
notion of the faculty members standing up here like I'm standing up here and talking to you as being the
learning process is viewed as something that has got to go. It's not the only way that things should be occurring.
For instance, we have taken some of our most senior faculty in chemistry and they have evolved a whole new
way to teach organic chemistry to freshmen that many freshmen throughout the undergraduate population are
involved in. It's a completely different process of how these students and faculty members are working with
each other and with their graduate students in groups, and interacting. They have an intensive multi-site Web
page with each new environment, what they call lectures and sections, are fundamentally different for working
in group learning environments. They use that as a gate and a bridge to overcome these walls that I'm talking
about.
The third gate or bridge, or, at least, the process, if you think about this from an engineering perspective, is
building gates and bridges to make your walls less controlling. You're going to have to experiment. So we have
been experimenting on a number of different fronts. We took over a campus out in Arizona for the sole purpose
of doing nothing but large scale totally emergent science training experiments. We have integrated physical
science, natural science and social science disciplines focused on teaching about the Earth in different ways. We
can thematically focus on the Earth as the center of the teaching regime integrating science disciplines and nonscience disciplines and putting them into a totally emerged program. We've taken some of the assets and made
them available through the National Science Foundation and the Gateway Coalition to create a smaller teaching
and learning environment in three dimensions where we've been experimenting in whole new ways to modify
the engineering curriculum. What we see now is that we not only modify the engineering curriculum but we
modify the architecture curriculum. We modify the science curriculum. We modify the arts curriculum. It just
goes on and on. That’s another experiment we’ve been involved with.
Fourth, we've been working to open full-scale images to the outside. If anyone were to cut off from the rest of
the world, that would be us, because we are a type of institution which has used the walls to build itself into a
particular kind of place. That particular kind of place then has found itself cut off almost totally from K through
12 education. It's found itself with separate research campuses. We have two campuses where there are no
undergraduate students. There are only doctorate students and faculty working with them. Those things we see
22
as counterproductive to the overall objective of the kinds of things that we're here to talk about today. We have
taken significant steps to try to build significant gates into the institution from the outside of the institution at all
levels, including K through 12, community colleges, other colleges, and so forth. We do that through things
like project Eiffel, which is connecting us with 100 public schools in New York City directly linked into our
science curriculum. That's not very easy to do. It's extremely difficult to do, but it has been something that we
have been trying to help facilitate our way of thinking both on the part of our faculty and on the part of our
administration.
Another gate and bridge, in fact the last gate and bridge that we're working on is probably our most significant
one. We have set off on a course of trying to spend a lot of our time and energy building what we presently call
digital libraries, but we don't know what they will ultimately be called. What we do know is that all of our
institutions are involved in the same business of storing knowledge, creating knowledge and transferring the
knowledge. We now have the means available to take these various aspects of knowledge that we are storing
and creating and make them available to a wide range of audiences simultaneously. We can do this without
overtaxing our faculty who are involved in front line education and front line research with students' in-yourface kind of ways. We've been putting a lot of money and a lot of resources into the building of this kind of
technology. We hope that it facilitates this sort of gate opening and bridging process that we're talking about.
In doing all of these things, we have discovered several keys of success, for us, anyway. One is the following
and this is very, very important. The administration of colleges at every level, including community colleges,
four-year colleges, research universities, polytechnics, etc., must realize that they're putting an unfair burden on
their faculty. The unfair burden is to ask them to teach your students the way you've always taught them and at
the same time and at no extra resource base transform yourself and your teaching environment into the new
media base, solution based visually oriented teaching and learning environment. Well, that's impossible and it
will fail. It will fail. Universities have got to understand, and colleges have got to understand, from the center
and the leadership of the institutions, that we must make significant long-term investments in this
transformation process. Otherwise, what we'll find ourselves doing is getting into this for three or four or five
or ten years and not having the resources following behind the process of moving into these. Then it will fail
and we'll have to start it over again at some point and we will have lost a lot of ground. It's a long-term project.
We have to deal with it that way. There must be redirection of resources from the center.
Another key to success is significant investments in new media technology. Sometimes we find ourselves
saying, why is it that such and such a group isn't more involved in doing media-related teaching and learning.
Then we realize that they don't have the means. Sitting on a faculty's desk is a machine that's incapable of
doing what needs to be done or the faculty member may be incapable of interacting with that machine in a way
that is necessary, because the faculty member may have insufficient background or support. We have to focus a
lot on that. Another key to success is senior faculty leadership. If the senior faculty does not embrace the
process, then all the junior faculty, excuse the use of the term, will be butchered later on. We have experienced
this ourselves and it's something that we've been working on and trying to get around. Senior faculty and senior
faculty leadership is entirely critical. So if you figure out who your best faculty members are and go to them
and get them engaged, that will go a long way in helping make things work. Infrastructure investments or
enhanced communications, a lot of what we're talking about is communication. Demands on everything are
increasing. If you're still spending all your money on your library and you're not spending money on your
infrastructure to make these things happen, you're going to have a problem. It's a tough decision for people to
23
make, but it's a decision that has to be made in terms of moving in a new direction. You either have to redirect
your resources or infrastructure investment or get other resources, infrastructure or investments, and get them in
a way that helps facilitate this process.
Let me reiterate one more time. You need to think long-term, very long-term, and understand from the
beginning that you're going to have a number of failures along the way. You're going to invest in content
development projects and multimedia projects and science and math and engineering ways of teaching. You're
going to put in whole new laboratories that may not work and may not be successful. This is a process of
innovation. This is a process of learning. Go back to my initial comment; a 4,000-year-old culture, a
700-year-old institution, institutions that are themselves 100 and 300 years old. We go through this process of
transforming how we teach math, how we teach science, how we teach engineering, how we teach technology.
There are going to be significant failures. Those should not be held against the faculty who are involved with
those projects that don't work. That's just the way it goes. You have to accept that from the outset and be
willing to take your losses. Not everything is going to work.
A key element to success, I think partly because of the way technology evolves and because of generational
changes and generational shifts, is that the technological awareness and technology, if you will, is going to be
changing more and more. My daughter is in sixth grade now. When she goes to college in six years, I can
already tell it will be unlike anything any of us that are at the university or at the college or at the community
college can presently imagine. She's already doing things and working on things and thinking about things in
certain ways. She has nightly E-mail chat groups with all of her girlfriends. They're hooked on at the same
time on a speaker phone and they're talking and E-mailing each other at the same time, sometimes goofing off,
sometimes working on projects, sending files back and forth to each other. Now, admittedly, she lives in a
privileged community, but eventually that level of technology will permeate itself throughout society and will
change the way that people like her think and work. If we're not prepared in higher education to deal with that,
then we're going to have a problem.
So the next key to success, which we can already see, is the integration of students from the day they arrive on
campus in teaching and learning process as teachers, as co-teachers, as collaborators in the teaching process.
Just because the freshman doesn't understand the organic molecule that you're trying to teach, doesn't mean that
that freshman can't out teach that professor as a teacher. He can contribute to that teaching process with the
new teaching process. We've seen this already in a few of the experiments that we have going on and even the
faculty members who are involved come to realize this, most of them. The rest of them think about retirement.
The last key to success is going back to the wall and gate and bridge analogy. If you're building teaching and
learning and academic infrastructure and you're building bridges, bridges require maintenance because they will
be attacked. They will be corroded and attacked by different kinds of forces, and different kinds of elements.
You have to realize that you can't come along and say, well, here's our brand-new Gateway Teaching Lab for
3-D engineering and not realize that if you really want that to work, you better commit to it for ten or fifteen or
twenty years. You're going to have to realize that you're going to have to turn that technology over every three
years. Design that into your thinking. Design that into your plan.
Let me tell you how we've been doing some of our experiments in our journalism school. It's a small 250
24
student graduate journalism school. We've been doing some experimenting on our own with the University.
About three or four years ago, we decided that the school would go all digital. We would change all of its
functions, the library, all teaching and learning functions, digital audio, digital video, digital everything. Then
we looked at the school budget, and asked how they would maintain an all-digital environment. They had to
add several technicians. They had to add several specialists. They had to build an infrastructure around it. So
we had to rethink, what we are as an academic unit, what our income sources are, how we will teach, how we
won't teach, and this technology has been driving this process. We've been experimenting on a school basis,
transforming journalism, architecture, and a few others. There are several ways to make this kind of thing
work. We've been experimenting at Columbia over the last few years to try to make things work. I think with
that I will stop and hopefully there are some questions or comments.
25
FROM THE AUDIENCE: What is the cost effectiveness of all these changes?
DR. CROW: The cost effectiveness is not there.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: So why are we doing it?
DR. CROW: We're doing it because it enhances the way that people learn. We've seen this in our chemistry
classes. I'll give you rough numbers. A third of the people that come into our chemistry classes get it. They
understand chemistry when it's taught in two dimensions. A third get it for the sake of the classroom and then
forget it and a third never get it no matter what. We found that we've been able to go from that one-third that
get it to two-thirds that get it by changing the way that we teach it and our chemistry faculty, which is a very
elite chemistry faculty, agree with that and are moving in that direction as a group. They believe that they have
hit a threshold in the way that chemistry can be taught and they believe that people will understand chemistry
differently. They believe they can have a greater impact in the University because of the new ways of teaching
chemistry. We have members of the National Academy of Science group working together on teams of
undergraduate students changing the way that they teach freshman organic chemistry. They think they're being
much more effective from the way that they've been able to teach it. That's the reason. That's the rationale. It's
not a cost-basis rationale because there is no cost-basis at the moment. Another example is in art history. We
took an art history curriculum and linked that with architecture and linked that with engineering and
transformed the way that this art history course is being taught. Now, we’re teaching that from an engineering
perspective, as well as an architectural perspective, as well as a cultural perspective. Right now there's no way
to measure the cost effectiveness but we do know that the students coming out of that class are changed forever.
They are different and that's the reason we do it.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: A lot of reform in education, as I think you're really pointing out, is caused by
technological innovation. Do you have any thoughts about other major impulses that shape educational reform
besides technology?
DR. CROW: Major impulses that shape educational reform. There's reform going on in a number of different
angles in a number of different ways. You mean other external forces? I think we'll hear later about what
industry and what the private sectors wants. There's a lot of changes there in terms of what people actually
think they need to be effective in a global marketplace. That's a significant source that we all know about. I
think other sources that affect us are the transformation of what I would call institutional types. We think that
there's a process underway that's going to be like musical chairs where there's music playing and you have to
stop and sit down. The chairs where everybody sits down is going to be what we call a mega university, the
University of Washington, the University of California, the University of Arizona, the University of Illinois.
Those kinds of places. That would be more like us. We have a niche that we're playing in and there are going to
be a number of institutions that call themselves research universities now that won't be research universities 30
or 40 years from now because there aren't enough resources in that direction. This is a shifting process of who
is going to play what role and how they're going to work with each other in this knowledge transfer and
knowledge acquisition game. That's a tremendous force that hasn't been worked out and so I don't know where
that's headed or what to call it, but from high school to community colleges to colleges to research universities,
they're not well enough connected. They're shifting back and forth. There are lots of forces working around
26
them and they're not integrative enough as a community. The outcome of that can have a lot of effects on us at
higher education. I see that as a significant force also.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Do you imagine or can you estimate the cost of delivering these kinds of education?
Is it double what it used to cost and how are you paying for that and how do you intend to keep paying for that?
DR. CROW: I don't think anybody can give you a very good estimate of that, particularly in a place like
Columbia. It's very hard for us to give you estimates like that. We barely know what our budget is sometimes.
I'm guessing that it's in the 30 to 50 percent increased cost range for some period of years, more than five,
probably more than seven, working in this sort of new media technology teaching realm. We made internal
investments, all of which have come from the center of the University, not from the department or schools,
because they have a hard enough time keeping up with their normal processes, with their existing budgets. We
have shifted other resources in to make things happen. What we have said to them is that we will support you
from the center for a while and then you have to be entrepreneurially creative to expand your income extremes
using these new technological means to expand your research.
For instance, if NSF ultimately built a digital library for science, math, engineering and technology education,
there is a mechanism for us to put our stuff into that system and get compensation back from it. You can
believe that we're going to be there and the stuff that we're going to have there is going to be good. We're
looking at those kinds of things in order to reach out and make things happen, to enhance what we're doing. We
think that there is tremendous blatant economic value. We're only receiving a fraction of the monitoring for the
contents that we're delivering to the world and we have people pay us to get content when they come to us. We
think that people will pay us to get content that we have who don't come to us. There's a substantial economic
exchange going on between the schools. We're working on that also.
I might say, just on the side, we're doing that with all of our intellectual property. In one of the universities
there is a thing called Columbia Innovation, which transfers not only technology from science tech to industry
but also the new media technology to other industries. Our income for that unit last year closed June 30th at 62
million dollars. In terms of those kinds of property assets, we think that is only the beginning of that process.
We think everyone in all of the higher education, community colleges up, have the chance to lever their
knowledge to those kinds of things, and going back to the earlier comment, this is a capitalistic system that we
live in. We have a commodity of great value and that commodity is constantly being added to, so we have the
ability to expand. What we have is new media technology that will help us do that in some ways. Is that a bad
answer or too long an answer?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: This is a really serious problem. Who pays for this? Because we are putting out
tremendous resources that would go to other things.
DR. CROW: And the question should be not only who pays for it but who pays for it and how do we leverage
it to get more back from the investment that we make. Every investment that we make, every single investment
that we make, we look at from that angle. That doesn't mean that we can't get something back if we don't make
the investment. Sometimes we do it because it's the right thing to do, but the general direction is to position
ourselves for the leverage. Our asset is knowledge. Knowledge is production.
27
Articulation Arrangements: The Challenges as
Educational Paradigms Shift
Dr. Addie Butler
28
Articulation Arrangements: The Challenges as Educational Paradigms Shift
Dr. Addie Butler
Good morning. In anticipating the session this morning and knowing that a lot of activities will be quite high
tech, I decided to be low tech and circulate a single-page handout that will highlight some of the ideas that I will
be addressing. I want to begin with the definition that appears at the top of the handout. It distinguishes
between articulation and transfer, although we will be talking about both of these this morning. “Articulation
refers to the entire range of processes and relationships involved in the systematic movement of students
interinstitutionally and intersegmentally throughout postsecondary education. Transfer -- the mechanics of
credit, course and curriculum exchange -- is one of these processes.”1 If it all works as it should, students
should experience a “seamless transition” moving from one institution to another. That is clearly what
interinstitutional means.
But intersegmentally? What is that all about? That is about going from the segment of K-12, perhaps, to the
segment of a community college, or from baccalaureate to the masters and doctoral segments. Have I ever seen
it work that way? Well, we are in the process of working on a project that has intersegmental articulation as the
goal. Fortunately, it is one of those projects that has been privately funded. And funding is an issue. The
project is called Pathways and it is not specifically related to science, math, engineering and technology.
However, it is a model that may come to be used in this arena at a later time. The goal of Pathways is to
increase the number of minority persons - African Americans and Hispanics - that get involved in medical
research areas. The ranks of medical doctors include many minorities but other health areas do not. Pathways
is a collaboration among middle schools, a community college, and Allegheny University, for both the
bachelor's and the master's level. Does it work? Well, it is still relatively young, but I do know that we have
faculty members from the Community College going to visit students at the middle schools, describing various
careers and various aspects of healthcare. I do know that the high school involved, William Penn High School,
which has a Health Academy, has students completing that Academy and transferring to a health career
program at Community College of Philadelphia. And I do know that at least two students completed
Community College of Philadelphia’s Nursing Program, worked at Allegheny University during the summer on
a scholarship, gained their Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing at Allegheny University, and are now
working on their Master’s Degree Program. Again, Pathways is not specifically science, math and engineering,
but we might be able to use this model in the future.
From the perspective of a community college, and that's not just the Community College of Philadelphia, the
ideal articulation agreement would be one that guarantees that all students who earn associate degrees would be
admitted to baccalaureate degree granting institutions as juniors or third year students. That is the ideal. Are
we there yet? No, we're not there, but it would acknowledge and give acceptance to the associate degree. And
students would experience transfer as a seamless transition. It is a goal not yet achieved.
In the interim there are two primary processes. One is the program-to-program articulation agreement. For
example, a student who completes the Electronics Engineering Technology Program at the Community College
of Philadelphia, through the program-to-program articulation agreement, would enter Temple University, for
example, as a third-year electrical engineering technology student. Our Fire Science Program has a program
29
articulation agreement with Holy Family College. Once the students have earned the associate degree in Fire
Science, they may transfer to Holy Family College and continue in the Fire Science and Public Safety
Administration baccalaureate degree program, there.
The second process is course-by-course transfer. At the College’s Office of Career Planning and Placement ,
students are advised of courses that are compatible to courses at other institutions. This is far from seamless. It
is far from the ideal.
The third type of articulation agreement is not so much for science, math and technology, but I want to bring it
up here because it is a special arrangement that Community College of Philadelphia has with Drexel University.
It is called the “Blue and Gold Connection” and offers dual admission status to high school seniors from the
City of Philadelphia who initially apply to Drexel but do not meet the University’s standard of admissions
criteria. One of the real perks of the “Blue and Gold Connection” is that, through the grant, funds equivalent to
the tuition paid to the Community College are reimbursed to the student. That serves as a real incentive!
To facilitate the transfer of students from Community College of Philadelphia to various baccalaureate
institutions, each of the more than 60 programs at Community College of Philadelphia has a Program Advisory
Committee that usually meets twice per year. The Committees are made up of faculty (not only at Community
College of Philadelphia but at baccalaureate degree granting institutions), prospective employers (persons from
business and industry), and students. Those are the actual members of the committee. When the committees
meet, certain College administrators are invited to participate in the meeting. As Assistant Dean, I have the
responsibility for oversight of these Advisory Committees, and been invited to some of the meetings. I
participated in an Engineering Science Program Advisory Committee meeting recently. At that meeting, there
were four faculty from other institutions. Some were department chair from baccalaureate degree institutions
and one was a representative of a consortium of educational institutions and industry. Six faculty members
from Community College of Philadelphia, two administrators from the College and two students, one current
student and one former student attended the meeting. The major agenda item had to do with transfer of the
engineering science program. The components of Calculus I, II and III at Community College were shared with
the group. How they matched up with similar courses at the other institutions represented was discussed. There
was a great deal of discussion about an electric circuits course. It was an issue because, in many of the other
institutions represented, such a course was taken by students in the upper levels. Transferring this course from a
community college would have implications for ABET accreditation. One of the issues that was brought up this
morning by Dr. Fortenberry pertained to ABET 2000 and I would not be surprised if, in the future, that would
be an agenda item for an Advisory Committee meeting. Another thing that was discussed was computers:
which computers? which software? which activities? They also discussed courses where computer activities
were involved. The students who had studied at both the Community College and the four-year institution were
able to share their experiences.
At another Program Advisory Committee meeting, the main agenda item was a discussion of the development
of a fiber optics course. The composition of this group included four people from the industry: two representing
a fiber optic company; one a human resources person from that fiber optics company who had heard about the
meeting and asked to participate, and a manufacturer of fiber optics equipment. There were faculty members
from both the Community College and baccalaureate degree granting institutions. (We try to get away from the
30
terms “two-year” and “four-year” institutions because it does not always take students two years or four years to
complete these programs.) There was also one administrator. The fiber optics course being discussed was
being developed. This is an example of the ways in which educational paradigm shift has impacted courses,
programs and, ultimately, transfer and articulation. We are finding out earlier what is needed at the senior
institution and what is needed for employment. The partners are different. The perspectives of faculty,
administrators, associate degree granting institutions, baccalaureate degree granting institutions and industry are
brought to bear in the development and revision of courses and programs. As Dr. Fromm noted earlier, there
are new linkages and new partnerships as this new educational paradigm is implemented.
Changes in the educational paradigm have occurred in all segments of the postsecondary educational arena,
including: collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning and enhanced use of technology. These changes have
had an impact on articulation and transfer in several ways.
In this section, I want to share a few more examples of educational initiatives that have had an impact on
articulation and transfer. These initiatives have been made possible through the support of grants: NSF (for
sure) but also smaller and more local foundations. For example, Community College of Philadelphia is one of
the institutions involved in the Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation that was mentioned earlier.
The aim of this project is to teach teachers, prospective teachers, in a way that is different from the way that
they were taught. So, when they go into the classroom, they will be able to teach the students in a different
way. What happened in that program? Courses were developed jointly by Community College of Philadelphia
and Temple University. I can not say exactly identical courses, but comparable courses. The students will have
similar kinds of experiences at both institutions. These courses were intentionally developed to use technology.
Intentionally the faculty from both the Community College and Temple University worked together in the
development of the course. The students move from one institution to the other and, again, not just with the
course content but the range of experiences are similar in both settings.
Another experiment is in place. It is one in which a course in calculus is offered at the University of
Pennsylvania and taught by faculty members of the Community College. The students are both Community
College and University of Pennsylvania students. It is enhanced by an additional hour of instruction in a
calculus workshop. It is enriched by the use of computers. It is innovative in that there is collaborative learning
involved. There are students from two different segments, if you will, learning in the same ways and, no, we do
not have an articulation agreement with the University of Pennsylvania. But these are some steps used in the
absence of an articulation agreement, by which we can assure that students have similar kinds of experiences.
One outcome of this project, an unintended outcome, was that the faculty member from the Community College
was awarded an “Excellence in Teaching” award by the mathematics faculty at the University of Pennsylvania.
Another effort that sort of “piggy backed” on other initiatives is the Culture, Science and Technology Program.
The College had a General Studies Program that was primarily for students who were not really sure what major
to pursue. At one point, we found that the largest number of students were enrolled in the General Studies
Program. Based on our experience and the literature, we knew the importance of students being connected to an
identifiable program, for retention. The General Studies Program was discontinued and two other programs,
one in Culture, Science and Technology and the other in Liberal Arts were developed. This effort was assisted
by an NSF institutional reform grant. Articulation agreements were developed for both of these programs with
31
Temple University. If these new programs work as planned, the transition to the senior institution will be
seamless and appear transparent to the students. And articulation is one of the College’s goals. Articulation
arrangements, like many components of post secondary education, are changing to meet the demands of a new
era, and these are some of the ways in which it is changing. Thank you.
1- Kintzer, F.C. and Wattenhbarger, J.L. (1985). The articulation/transfer phenomenon: patterns and directions
(Horizons Issues Monograph Series). Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges, Council of Universities and Colleges, iii.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Two quick comments picking up on your remarks. One is the importance of
teaching. Our data is showing that 26 percent of the teachers in some states take all their math and science
courses at two year institutions. The second issue has to do with the success of Gateway Coalition and other
Coalitions. There are a number of institutions moving the math and sciences courses down to the first two
years. As that happens, articulation becomes more challenging. So the program-to-program versus the courseby-course articulation agreement becomes more important, because of those disparities in content. The third
thing is a point of information. There was a press conference yesterday. The City Colleges of Chicago and the
City College Superintendents of nine urban areas are hosting a conference to look at issues of urban college
students and their preparation.
DR. BUTLER: Thank you.
32
An Industry Perspective on Undergraduate
Science and Engineering Education:
What is Needed
Stanley W. Silverman
33
An Industry Perspective on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education:
What is Needed
Stanley W. Silverman
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here today to provide an industry perspective on
undergraduate science and engineering education. The National Science Foundation report which is the subject
of today’s symposium recommends that “business, industry, and other employers of our recent graduates
communicate clearly to colleges and universities their expectations about the desired characteristics of potential
employees and, hence, of the kind of educational preparation needed at the undergraduate level.”1 This is my
purpose today.
Why is there all this attention on the effectiveness of the U.S. educational system, not only at the undergraduate
level, but through K-12 as well? Quite simply, in today’s technological world, a well-educated population is
essential to our country’s global competitiveness and our long-term standard of living.
The NSF report calls for improvements in science, mathematics, engineering, and technical skills for all
undergraduates. ABET 2000 lists a broad range of attributes for our engineering undergraduates.2 These
attributes, along with strong computer programming, spreadsheet, word processing, and data base software
skills, are essential to meet today’s ever increasing requirements of industry.
By design, my presentation today will not focus on the gap between what is taught by our colleges and
universities and what is required by industry in the areas of science, mathematics, engineering and technology.
This has already been the subject of much attention and focus by others, and much has already been done to
close this gap. Rather, my emphasis will be in other areas, where I believe the gap between the actual
knowledge level of our recent graduates and the knowledge level which is required is sufficiently large to merit
our attention. Some of these other skills are addressed in ABET 2000, while others are not addressed.
In addition to sharing with you my own thoughts on this subject, I would also like to share with you the
responses from a survey of a group of managers and recent college graduates at the PQ Corporation.3 For the
purpose of this survey, a recent graduate was defined as an individual who received his or her undergraduate
degree within the past 10 years. The survey is anecdotal, not scientific. However, I believe the responses
provide a rich source of data to stimulate thought and to gain insight into the issues under discussion.
1
Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation, “Shaping the Future: New Expectations for
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology,” May 15, 1996, p. 62.
2
“ABET Engineering 2000,” Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, December 1995.
3
The work of Dr. William F. Rathgeber III, Manager - Human Resources and Organization Development, PQ Corporation,
in designing, conducting, and interpreting this survey is greatly appreciated.
34
We asked the recent graduates, “What skills, knowledge, talents, and attributes were instrumental in helping
you gain employment after graduation?” Among the responses were:
•
Technical skills in my area of expertise
•
Good grades and extra curricular activities
•
Hard work, discipline, determination, commitment, confidence, dedication,
desire to excel, and motivation
•
Summer internships and co-op experience
•
Communication skills
•
Interpersonal skills and the ability to work in a team environment
These recent graduates were also asked, “What skills, knowledge, talents, and attributes do you think are critical
for success at the PQ Corporation?” The responses included:
•
Knowledge of functional area
•
Knowledge of how PQ works -- culture, policies, and expectations
•
“Out-of-the-box” thinking and creativity
•
Ambition, ethics, honesty, common sense, and the desire to continue to learn
•
Demonstration of leadership and the willingness to assume responsibility
and accountability
•
Communication skills
•
Interpersonal skills and the ability to work in a team environment
I am very impressed with the attitudes of these young people and their desire to learn, grow, and mature. They
have the required personal traits, characteristics, and values for achieving success in their careers. I believe they
are representative of their contemporaries throughout the U.S. They challenge the status quo and long-held
beliefs as to why things are done a certain way. They are eager to succeed and eager to assume responsibility.
As we move into the next century, this generation will be providing the leadership for our country. I believe we
will be in good hands.
35
We asked the managers, “In which areas are students not properly prepared by their colleges and universities for
the workplace?” The most frequent responses were:
•
Practical applications of concepts and theories
•
Communication skills
•
Skills in interacting with people, interpersonal skills, and the ability to work
with others in a team setting
Recent graduates were asked a similar question, “In what areas do you think your college or university did not
properly prepare you for the world of work?” They also identified practical application skills, communication
skills, and interpersonal skills most frequently. This clearly indicates that these skills are very important in the
workplace. Without these skills, our recent graduates are limited in effectively applying the science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology knowledge they learned as undergraduates.
My own experience also indicates that undergraduate programs should become more effective in teaching the
practical applications of concepts and theories. Some recent graduates lack the necessary practical skills to
quickly develop the scope of a simple chemical process using rule-of-thumb techniques, or prepare an order-ofmagnitude capital cost estimate.
Recent graduates need stronger basic practical manufacturing skills, including how product specifications are
established and how to determine if the operating capability of a process unit can meet those specifications.
Recent graduates lack the necessary practical statistical analysis skills to determine if a process is in control or
out of control.
They also need stronger practical knowledge to determine when an operation should be adjusted and when it
should be left alone because the process is operating around its mean and within its upper and lower control
limits.
These basic practical skills are not cutting edge and state of the art. They could be described as “nuts and bolts”
engineering, and perhaps they are not viewed by engineering faculty as favorably as more academically
sophisticated areas of study. In some cases, the professors themselves lack hands-on practical experience in
these areas. One of the managers suggested that adjunct professors from industry collaborate with the classroom
professors to teach “real world” issues that confront engineers and scientists on a routine basis.
With respect to communication skills, there was universal agreement between both survey groups that the oral
and written presentation capabilities of our recent graduates are not as strong as they should be. All science and
engineering professionals will be selling their ideas and their solutions to problems, regardless of their job title.
If they cannot effectively communicate, they cannot effectively present their work or convince upper
management to adopt their recommendations. I have found that this is not only an issue restricted to science and
engineering graduates. Business and liberal arts graduates are deficient in this area as well.
36
Business presentation skills are not the same skills as those learned in an English composition class. Let me be
very specific as to what skills are required. Presenters should use logical, time-tested presentation methods to
which audiences respond. Undergraduates should be taught to prepare their oral and written presentations partly
based on the characteristics of the audience. For example, they need to take into consideration the audience’s
level of understanding of the subject matter and technical expertise, and the time the audience will devote prior
to an oral presentation to reading the author’s written report. The presenter should ask, “If I were a member of
the audience, what would I want to see to convince me to accept the presenter’s recommendations, and how
would I like to see it presented?”
Language must be simple to understand. Grammar and punctuation must be error free. The presentation should
flow logically and build to a conclusion through an orderly progression. Exhibits used in the presentation must
be simple and understandable. The audience should be able to grasp the point of an exhibit within the first few
seconds after it is viewed.
Multi-colored three dimensional pie charts used to compare two sets of data look nice, but most of the time they
are confusing and do not quickly nor easily convey the point that the presenter wishes to make. If two series of
data are to be compared, it should be done in table form, with a third column that shows the percentage
difference between the first two columns. The presenter should explain to the audience what it is that they are
looking at and the relevance of the data before discussing the results.
Displaying large magnitude numbers to the nearest thousand or million is more visually effective than showing
all digits. Rounding to three significant digits helps focus the audience on the meaning behind the data
presented, and not the numbers themselves. Rarely should an exhibit be taken from a report and made part of a
slide presentation without redesigning it specifically for presentation as a slide. Only the data needed to drive
home the point you want to make -- and nothing more should be presented.
Save the audience time and effort by screening out extraneous data before presenting it. Make sure that the
information on the slides can be easily read by people sitting in the back of the room. Finally, and most
important of all, the presenter needs to know when it’s time to conclude the presentation and open the
discussion for questions.
When communicating information in report form, include in the cover letter a summary of the results and
conclusions, so the recipient is not forced to hunt for them in the body of the report. Even when transmitting
information informally in a spreadsheet, include a cover note outlining the meaning of the information
presented.
Good communication skills also are also relevant to the laboratory. Science and engineering undergraduates
should be taught that an experiment is not completed until it is fully documented. Too often, industrial research
is repeated unnecessarily because the original work was not written up, or was not preserved in a way that
makes it easy to search for and retrieve.
I have a reason for being very detailed and specific in describing these communication and presentation skills.
37
These skills seem like common sense, but many recent graduates lack them. A number of senior and middle
managers also lack these skills. We should not assume that communication skills are automatically absorbed by
osmosis just because undergraduates take courses requiring individual and/or group presentations. These skills
must be taught!
In addition to the development of good communication skills, further development of interpersonal skills was
listed by nearly every manager and recent graduate who participated in the survey. Any individual who does not
know how to deal with a variety of people in a variety of situations will achieve limited professional success,
regardless of his or her level of technical expertise. Team skills and the ability to work together in small groups
are critical to the success of any business enterprise.
Many technical and business issues are solved most effectively by multifunctional teams consisting of team
members from engineering, R&D, marketing, and other functional areas. Undergraduates should be taught that
people with diverse backgrounds and life experiences will approach problems in different ways, and together
they can develop novel solutions.
Interpersonal skills applicable to the plant or shop floor, such as the ability to empower others, is lacking in
many undergraduates, The days when one could issue orders and expect people to blindly react are long gone. A
number of our undergraduates will work in production as first-line supervisors immediately after graduation.
Unfortunately, they receive little to no training in how to work with or effectively manage either a union or nonunion hourly workforce.
Employee empowerment creates a significant competitive advantage by asking for, valuing, and using the input
of the hourly employees who operate our factories and plants.
It is only recently that U.S. industry has recognized the huge competitive advantage of engaging shop-floor
employees to help reduce costs, increase throughput, and improve the quality of products produced. Many times
I have seen the power of hourly employee empowerment and involvement. Undergraduates must be taught that
all employees, including those on the factory floor, should be respected and should be encouraged to feel a
sense of ownership and participation in the business.
Other skills which we need to develop in our undergraduates are critical thinking and conceptual problem
solving skills. As for critical thinking skills, undergraduates should receive training in developing and
evaluating alternative courses of action in real world technical and business situations. This includes the ability
(this is really an art!) to develop alternate project scenarios and evaluate their economic impact. All science and
engineering graduates should be proficient in the use and application of the discounted cash flow internal rate of
return, or IRR economic analysis method.
Unlike their engineering counterparts, many science undergraduates do not take courses in engineering
economics or finance. However, industry will expect them to prepare and justify a budget, understand a simple
financial statement, and sell their ideas to management based on economic, as well as technical merit.
Strong conceptual skills are very important in solving the complex and unstructured problems which recent
graduates will face throughout their careers. The case study method, long used to teach business students, is also
38
applicable in exposing science and engineering students to real world situations. All undergraduates should be
given as many opportunities as possible to develop their creative skills and apply “out- of-the-box” thinking as a
problem-solving technique.
Undergraduates should be taught to work on the root cause of a problem and not the symptoms. They should be
taught to challenge existing paradigms and “sacred cows.” They should also be made aware that they will need
to rely on their judgment and past experiences to make decisions when they have only 20% or 25% of the
information they would like to have, and there is not sufficient time to obtain additional information, or the
information is just not available.
In addition to the skills I have just discussed, I would like to share with you two business philosophies that we
should be teaching our undergraduates. First, we should teach them the philosophy of customer orientation.
World-class customer service is the objective of many companies today. In fact, the objective of many worldclass companies is not only to meet customer needs, but also to delight the customer!
You may be thinking, “Why should undergraduates be taught to be customer oriented when few if any will be
interfacing with customers after they graduate because they have chosen career paths in science or
engineering?” The answer is that multifunctional team selling involving R&D scientists and engineers is being
increasingly utilized as an effective selling strategy. Customers now judge a company’s technical prowess as a
factor in deciding whether to establish a long-term supply relationship.
Customers are not just those who buy products and services from a company. There are also internal customers
as well. For example, a company’s manufacturing plants are customers of the R&D and corporate engineering
departments. Too often, R&D will develop a process, and the corporate engineering department will design and
construct a production unit without sufficient input from the plant. After the project is complete and the
engineers go home, it’s the plant operations people who have to make the process work. In many cases, plants
“fix” what the engineers build, to make their process more easily operable. This expenditure of additional effort
and capital is due to insufficient interface between engineering and plant operations during scoping and design.
Engineering needs to recognize that their job is to meet the operating needs of their customers, the plant
operating people. Think of the time and money that could be saved if the production unit were built right the
first time. A customer orientation and a closer degree of collaboration between R&D, the engineering
department, and plant operations will help ensure a much better outcome.
Every employee within a company, university, or any other organization should periodically ask him or herself,
"What can I do for our customers, and how can I help them be successful in their businesses, or help them be more
effective in executing their job responsibilities?" 4 You can be assured that the competition is, or will soon be,
customer oriented. This is an area where no company cannot afford to be in second place.
4
Silverman, Stanley W. , “Reflections on Management’s Search for the Holy Grail - If It’s Not Reengineering, What Is It?”
Speech presented at Annual Meeting of the Associated Drug and Chemical Industries of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, April, 1997.
39
In addition to customer orientation, we should teach our undergraduates the philosophy of continuous
improvement. To survive the future competitive environment, this philosophy must become part of a company’s
core values, or it puts its future at risk.
Why is this the case? For many industries today, increases in product prices significantly lag behind increases in
costs. Therefore, it is imperative that companies continuously improve all aspects of their operations through
technological, managerial, and marketplace innovations to lower costs, increase efficiencies and productivity,
and improve product quality. This includes both incremental as well as step-change improvements. Ideally, all
undergraduates should start their careers with the importance of continuous improvement and customer
orientation firmly embedded as their workplace philosophies.
If you want to give your students an edge in the job market, teach these skills and philosophies -- practical real
world application skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, critical thinking and conceptual problem
solving skills, economic evaluation skills, customer orientation, and continuous improvement. These skills and
philosophies should not only be taught to science and engineering undergraduates, but to all undergraduates,
regardless of major.
Recent graduates who possess these skills and are committed to both customer orientation and continuous
improvement are much more employable than their peers who lack these skills and who are not committed to
these philosophies. Why are recent graduates who possess these skills and philosophies more employable? They
become productive and effective much sooner. Therefore, they are more valuable than graduates who do not
possess these skills and philosophies. They help the businesses that employ them to be more competitive. Just
as important, your undergraduates will have a higher degree of self confidence in their abilities to successfully
fulfill their job responsibilities.
Remember what I said about customer orientation. The better you prepare your undergraduates for their world
after graduation, the more favorably you will be viewed by the customer, your students, and that will result in
higher enrollment at your college or university. The better prepared your undergraduates are when they enter
the job market, the more favorably you will be viewed by the employers who hire your students.
There’s another reason why these skills and philosophies should be taught to science and engineering
undergraduates. They are universal and applicable to all career pursuits. Anecdotal information indicates that as
many as two thirds of engineering graduates five to ten years after graduation will not be practicing scientists or
engineers. They will go on to become doctors, lawyers, self-employed entrepreneurs, or consultants. Some will
go on to earn MBA degrees and assume sales and marketing positions in industry. Some will go on to become
general managers and company presidents.
A study of the CEOs of the top 50 companies in the U.S., as published in an April 1988 issue of Forbes,
indicated that 36% of those CEOs held undergraduate engineering degrees. 5
5
Bassiry, G.R., and Dekmejian, R.H., “The American Corporate Elite: A Profile,” Business Horizons, May-June 1990.
40
You would find many former engineers in the management positions below the CEO level. Teaching these
skills will prepare your undergraduates for their future careers, regardless of the field. Engineering is truly a
technical liberal arts degree, and one that will help undergraduates be more valuable to employers in an
increasingly technologically complex society.
You should share these insights with your undergraduate students and make them aware that with a science or
engineering degree, they have nearly limitless opportunities to pursue any career they desire. This awareness
will lower the attrition rate of science and engineering students transferring to less challenging programs of
study. Ten years after graduation, your students will thank you for helping them stick with the program. I
suggest that you arrange for your undergraduates to interface with science and engineering alumni who have
current experience in business and industry and with whom your undergraduates can relate. This is the most
effective way of conveying this message.
A significant concern is finding the room in today’s crowded science and engineering curriculum to teach these
skills and philosophies. Some of them can be developed in intern or co-op positions. Teaching of practical
applications of concepts and theories, team work, customer orientation, and continuous improvement can be
integrated into the science and engineering curriculum. Exposing freshmen to courses emphasizing the art of
engineering during the freshman year can also emphasize their importance. However, learning other skills
requires more than just practice and application. Formal instruction by faculty trained to teach the subjects is
required.
Please do not misconstrue my message. Do not teach these skills and philosophies at the expense of a well
grounded program in science, math, engineering, and technology. These areas are the foundation for any
technical degree program. The skills and philosophies I have described broaden your undergraduates so that
they may more effectively utilize their technical training.
I believe we are well along in the process of addressing the changes which are needed in our undergraduate
science and engineering curricula. There is widespread recognition that the curricula must change to meet the
needs of today’s technically oriented business environment, This recognition is half the battle.
There are also many initiatives underway to develop the desired skills and characteristics identified by ABET
2000. These initiatives have been undertaken by a number of coalitions on integrated engineering education,
including the Gateway Coalition. Drexel University, Arizona State University, and the University of Colorado
at Boulder all have developed curricula based on the ABET 2000 attributes. Progress at other colleges and
universities will continue through the Fall of 2001, when full implementation of ABET 2000 is planned.
The better prepared our undergraduates are to meet the challenges of today’s complex and technological society
with a wide range of skills, the more attractive they will be to business and industry. I believe that teaching
41
these skills and philosophies will lead to higher enrollment in science and engineering undergraduate programs,
pursued by young people who will have a variety of career options.
I am encouraged that undergraduate science and engineering education is the subject of significant attention. I
believe we are certainly heading in the right direction, and that we will be successful in this effort.
42
SUMMARY AND REPORTS FROM BREAKOUT
SESSIONS
43
Summary & Reports from Breakout Sessions
Cooperative Learning: Facilitated by Dr. Mitchell Litt and Dr. Joanne Darken
We covered some of the technologies of the support. We talked about how to set up groups that are functional
because one of the most challenging things about cooperative learning is to ensure that students, regardless of
their inabilities, are able to work together. We did discuss some methods that can be used to ensure the groups
are functional, and we also talked about the virtual office hour program that can be used to allow students to get
in touch with each other and with their instructors. We discussed a little bit about lab reports, group lab reports,
how can they be written, how you reward in a positive way groups that function effectively.
Instructional/Educational Technologies and Methodologies: Facilitated by Dr. Robin Carr
The first question we looked at, in fact all of the questions, were in the act of shaping the future report, which is
very definitive in asking for an inclusive kind of education for science, math, engineering and technology,
particularly to get away from what we have had for a long time, which is a filtered system where a few students
make it all the way through and only the best succeed. We want to discuss how technology can accommodate
that kind of goal and, perhaps, broaden the dissemination of science, math and technology through all the
disciplines.
The first question we discussed is what role can instructional technology have in developing and achieving this
inclusive goal as opposed to other kinds of goals. We had four or five things that came up for discussion. The
technologies share curricular material and resources created at Drexel and shared elsewhere or created at
Temple and shared at Drexel. Multimedia technology can reach more by accommodating students' different
learning styles and promoting discovery. New technology enables self-paced learning, which brings in many
learners who would be excluded because they're working during the day and there would be only certain times
that the course would be given. One point that wasn't discussed, but we have written it down on our reports,
was that the new authoring tools are inclusive and enable an individual professor or group to create material for
their particular class that was inclusive by this group. Following up on the last report is that we now have
Internet technology that includes more group activities. In our program we're going to do peer review
requirements in the entire class. So we're actually going to do that now.
The second question in the topic of inclusion is what were the most important new technologies to enable that
goal. Our entire room focused on the Internet as being the most significant development to enable a more
inclusive approach to education. The second most important was low cost, and how computers enable that.
The third question was whether or not technology was a barrier or a facilitator. In particular, has there been an
historic group of students who are excluded because we include technology. I had students come in from Africa
recently who came late into our very technological program. We have a massive Web site with a state-of-theart instrumentation lab, and CD ROMs, and I have to confess that this student is having trouble. He doesn't
have a computer. He's still showing up confused on how to get started. I admit that he started late but here is a
44
student who doesn't have the technology. The sponsors are not agreeing to give him a computer and he is
hurting. On the same line the participants noted that technology only works when there's support from the
technology. Similar to this morning, I go into our lab and nothing would work. Fortunately we're getting there
early enough that we could get one of the support staff to come and invert white to black and black to white on
the overhead projector. Unless you know that you have to do that, you don't think about it.
The fourth question is to ask what both the stakeholders in economic technology and business and other
stakeholders will do to facilitate the positive and inclusive aspects. These groups are contained and have to do
more to support professional development. Business can do more by supporting internships and co-ops. An
example would be that different institutions could contribute one point of a virtual lab. It would be hardware
that you would contribute and we would create virtual hardware that had work stations all across the nation,
maybe a dozen or two dozen, over the Internet. We would be able to do a plethora of remote labs, by sharing
those hardware resources.
Finally, five, I asked what questions should I have asked you that I didn't. At the very end, the last group came
up with a question I really wish I had asked and that is, how our roles as teachers are meant to bring a change in
the midst of all this new technology. You have participated in the NSFP-4 Program and, Eli Fromm, I really
feel that the technology that is in front of me has buffeted me and I think I survived. I changed because of it,
but if you're not accommodating and willing to change, it can be scary.
Learning by Doing: Facilitated by Dr. Wayne E. Magee, Dr. Robert G. Quinn, and Susan Varnum Jansen
Our session began with discussions of current programs at Drexel University: the Drexel engineering
curriculum (TDEC) presented by Bob Quinn, and in my department, the Enhanced Bioscience Education (EBE)
program. Sue Jansen from Temple University described efforts going on there in educational reform. I think we
had a very interesting discussion in the group about how to engage students in active learning activities.
We mostly addressed the first question, that is, Implications of Reform and their Rewards, and perhaps, we
did it a little bit idiosyncratically. We listed some of the things that we think are the most important in the
reform movement, and these include: introducing students early into what they believe is going to be their major
discipline, integration of subjects, interdisciplinary exposure, students working in teams (in many cases
designing their own experiments), and the fact that we now have a chance to try some of these new approaches.
The programs capture the students' interests, are student centered, and I think, contribute a great deal to the
success of retaining students. We talked about the communications aspects of the new curricula. For at least
part of their science program, students are keeping journals, and they are preparing portfolios twice during their
freshman year. The portfolio preparation seems to be a point where the students realize how much they have
accomplished in their first two and three quarters in college. We are very strong in all of these programs on
students reporting out the results of their experiments. The students are expected to be able to explain their
projects in a scientific format to a group of their instructors and peers, thus emphasizing learning by doing.
We think that the aspect of learning to work in a group is very important. Most of us have found that the use of
peer tutors in our programs to be very effective. It also is very important to relate educational material to
45
students' real life experiences. In our case, this may mean experiences that they may have had in their co-op or
an employment situation.
We had a little side discussion on the advantages or disadvantages of using laboratory simulations in present
day educational reform. Some of the immediate advantages that come to mind may be a lower cost per student
than wet labs, providing students with the chance to proceed at their own pace, to choose as many variables as
they like to alter outcomes, and as an effective way to introduce theory. The student can go through simulated
exercises in many cases a lot faster than they could a real life experiment. For our students in life science, and I
expect in most other disciplines, the students really like to do things themselves, and so we felt in our
discussions that it is important, at the very least, to use combinations of simulations and real experiments. We
also talked some about block scheduling students into various courses and, again, in the things that we're
doing, we feel this is very positive particularly in the first quarter when students are adjusting to campus life and
need to see the inter-relationships between their subjects. Later on we feel it's important to be sure that students
have a variety of experiences while they're in college, and this prompted one of our discussants to say that block
scheduling is fine for a semester or two but not to overdo it. Students need broad experiences in college and
need to interact with many others beyond the people in their own major.
The other question that we looked at was Outcomes Assessment. The specific question is--"are they adequate"
and I guess our specific answer would be, "no, they're not". There are things that most of us are measuring and
that are easy to measure, and these include the improved retention and improved graduation rates that many of
us are seeing in these new programs. What we also need is some long-term longitudinal assessments which are
very difficult to get at and which, in most cases, will not give results for many years. Both qualitative and
quantitative assessment tools are needed. The qualitative ones are certainly more direct but we also need the
quantitative ones. We have to sit down and for each of our goals, and indeed for the whole curriculum, set out
distinct desired outcomes. Some of our discussants thought we should pay particular attention to the highly
diverse student body that all of us are seeing in terms of backgrounds, pre-college preparation and interests. Our
students are starting from quite different starting points with distinct leaning styles, and this increases problems
for both instruction and evaluation. We need to design very carefully pre- and post-evaluation methods, a point
that also has been brought up by previous discussants. As institutions, we have to decide if our programs in
science, mathematics and engineering are designed to provide a value added or whether we are still maintaining
a sort of weed out mentality in which only the best survive. I think that many of our innovative educational
programs today are working hard on this aspect of the educational process. We are trying to make our programs
useful to students with a wide range of background and ability, and we really are focusing on the value added
components of higher education.
Mathematics: Facilitated by Dr. David Weksler
We had a conversation about the use of technology and insights for the students. This is still a challenge, of
course, by having people with large classes with lectures that want to manage some of the more individual
people. At the same time I think several people felt that questions of performance has provided a number of
assembly points by various emphases. On one hand we have problem solving and then on the other hand
consider the more traditional. A queston is whether it's easy or not so easy to reconcile? Is there a favoring form
46
in moving away from the traditional method by the focus on a lot of technology, even though it gives more
people insight into some of the topics. One aspect is providing context to teaching mathematics as opposed to
presenting approaches that some people found much more successful. Yet there's still a concern for entering
students in college where the backgrounds are not sufficient for a lot of the basic material such as introductory
Calculus. At the same time technology again challenges people to figure out better ways of incorporating that
material. The down side of the technology innovation is a concern over the ease of manipulation and the
question of students understanding what they actually are doing and how to assess that. A big emphasis is on
trying communication. Students need to communicate better with each other and communicate their own ideas
or lack of understanding with faculty and how we need to better facilitate that. Technology holds some ability
to support that. Although, often on campus, even among disciplines, to combat the topics on math at a physics
point of view, there might always be the right places for that to happen on the campus. At Temple there's been
an emphasis on trying to create learning communities. Students take similar courses like math and sciences.
Whether this is a way of encouraging common interests and peer tutoring to be employed, the challenge of a
dynamic and somewhat changing student population as people come in and out of courses present problems for
that. One interesting question I took from one of the participants, I think, was addressed just a minute ago. The
question of whether there are there two aspects, two similar forms, where we're trying to do better teaching of
more and more interesting material and yet at the same time get more people running through the pipeline of
science, math and engineering. Do these have similar or sufficiently comment to be compatible with each
other?
47
Basic Sciences. Facilitated by Kerri Armstrong
As a group, we addressed the four questions given as they deal with implications of reform. We talked about
real change and reform as a real hit and miss kind of thing. There is also much overt and covert resistance to
reform measures. We talked about there being two groups of resisters; one group is ignorant of the reforms
while the other group knows about the reform but for various reasons chooses not to be a part of it. This latter
group may be more insidious in that they may actually resist reform measures with the result of deterring
reform.
As far as current assessment methods and reform, there was a resounding response that this is not adequately
being addressed. There may be more thinking about assessment and instruction but it was generally felt that
while learning environments were changing assessment was lagging behind. Something that we talked about is
that assessment should drive instruction and learning.
We discussed the stakeholders. We felt that basically all of us are stakeholders; students, teachers, parents,
administration, business and industry, etc. We discussed how we can get the various stakeholders more
involved. One of the ideas we talked about is that many people want to try to be part of initiatives but they as
instructors can’t visualize how these new classroom environments might look like. They are basically teaching
the way they were taught and need to see a different model. One idea is to do more seminars like this where
teachers have the opportunity to actually see and be part of classrooms where instructors and students are in
action. In doing so, they can begin to re-tool their own classrooms. We also need to involve our students more
in the discussion about what is being taught in courses and why it is important.
Engineering: Facilitated by Dr. David L. Miller, Dr. Rajakkannu Mutharasan, and Dr. Margard A. Wheatley
Our group sat off in the Rush Building and discussed some of the successes that we've had with the reform
engineering curriculum called the Drexel Engineering Curriculum drawn out of the E4 program. I have a
feeling that some of the comments we made about the implications and rewards of the system are driven by the
fact that we had too many college administrators in the room and we started worrying about things. You'll
notice the implications of the reform start off by talking about how reform requires effort and money. Even the
missionaries amongst us need to be rewarded properly and they usually have a very difficult time spreading the
word that was alluded to a moment ago. There have to be rewards for that and there have to be sponsorships
and that's not necessarily monetary sponsorship. That's faculty and administrators willing to back people up
when they try to do things that aren't necessarily uniformly popular.
An implication of reform is that you have to have assessment at every stage so you can always defend yourself
from the comment, we landed men on the moon in 1969 in one way so why do we need to do anything
differently now in 1999. So assessment needs to be a part of the reform and certainly everybody needs to be
able to fund the work that needs to go on and process. From our experience there are some definite rewards and
I think we have to come down to the third bullet that came out of the discussions.
Students are better educated and have better skills. I just had a meeting last Tuesday with some of our co-op
employers who are members of the Industrial Advisory Committee and the College of Engineering. They said,
48
your students are much better off now, much better prepared, then they were five years ago and that's even
including the fact that we think that we have, perhaps, had a dip in the quality of our entering freshman class.
The CEO or the chief of engineering of various consulting firms in the city came back and said, Dave, it shows
in the first co-op cycle of students who come in to my shop in that they can now be assigned into decision making positions. Normally we don't let even juniors coming in for summer jobs from some of the local
schools enter into those decision-making positions.
One of the rewards I think Wayne mentioned was that the faculty teamwork has always been one of the rewards
of this program. Getting to talk turkey with your colleagues in physics and chemistry and biology about what
your goals are with respect to educating students is sometimes worth all of the administrative hassles and
certainly makes for a very enjoyable experience in the educational process. As long as you stay out in front and
are looking at new developments, there are some rewards from the reform, which are in the form of marketable
educational material. I think some of the other rewards are more important than the market award material.
They usually occur at the wrong time and they have to be institutionalized and one thing we've done with our
program is to have weekly quality circle meetings among the students and faculty. It's something that we
weren’t sure we were going to keep going when we started it but now it's an essential component of the
assessment process. It is one of the ways that the stakeholders, the students and their parents who are paying
the freight have to provide input to the whole process. The students are empowered to take control of their
education through this process. Certainly another stakeholder is the employer. They need to be engaged with
respect to outcomes assessment. I may go back and face the next committee meeting where someone is trying
to hand me my head on a silver platter because of the decision I made. It would make me feel better to have
that backup from industry. Faculty are always stakeholders in what happens in this operation, which is their
livelihood. We need to engage the faculty in discussions such as this at faculty meetings so that they get an
opportunity to see the benefits from working with the students in this fashion.
49
NSF Programs in Support of SMET
Facilitated by Dr. Norman Fortenberry and Dr. Carolyn Meyers
In the time we have available we can do one of two things; and I want you as a group to tell me what you want
to do. We can cover both the existing programs as well as the anticipated changes to those programs. Or, if
there is enough interest, we can give you some general hints and tips about proposal writing in general.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: We can read about what's coming. How do we write about what we need?
DR. FORTENBERRY: We'll try to do both in the time that we have available. I’d like to bring Dr. Meyers up
to explain proposal writing
DR. MEYERS: The Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) in the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources recently published A Guide to Proposal Writing. This document offers the collective wisdom of
DUE program officers as well as that of disciplinary leaders across the nation who have served as reviewers for
DUE programs. A Guide to Proposal Writing, NSF document # 97-83, is available in hard copy and on-line
offering common expectations and helpful strategies applicable across the programs of the Division.
After the Introduction, A Guide to Proposal Writing is organized into these four sections: Before You Write
the Proposal, Writing the Proposal, Before Sending Your Proposal, and Awards and Declinations. As the name
of the document implies, this is a guide; this document and the application of all of the suggestions in it by no
means will guarantee funding from the DUE. However, A Guide to Proposal Writing does contain, in the
opinion of many DUE program officers and reviewers, approaches and strategies that stand to enhance the
competitiveness of your proposal. Let’s highlight some of these.
From Before You Write the Proposal, examine carefully the focus of the Division of Undergraduate Education
and the specific themes of the program or programs of interest to you. The Program Announcement on-line and
in hard copy provides this information. Before writing your proposal, discuss your ideas with colleagues and
with NSF Program Officers concept matching or fit with the program and the DUE in terms of outcomes, value
added, and probabilities for success. And remember, first and foremost, the National Science Foundation
through the Division of Undergraduate Education funds good science. Good science is the driver in every
program in each division of every directorate.
Additionally, before writing your proposal, explore works in process and those already available that relate to
your idea. These are tight economic times; as such, there is a decreased likelihood of gaining support for the
reinvention of the wheel. Redesign, implementation, and deployment are in; reinvention is out. Finally before
writing your proposal, study the program announcement once more with a critical eye on the fit of your idea to
the program concept and its intended audience as well as to the thrusts of the Division of Undergraduate
Education. And once more, the most important factor, the most serious consideration for funding is good
science, good engineering.
50
Once you develop a concept in which you believe and once you are satisfied that your concept is consistent with
program guidelines, builds on the relevant knowledge base in the area, and brings value to the intended
audience, you are now ready to begin Writing Your Proposal. The narrative is your opportunity to market your
concept. This narrative must be readable and well organized, presenting a strong case for funding. There
should be little if any doubt in the reviewers’ minds of what you are proposing for which audience, how and in
what time frame the proposed ideas will be implemented, who will be executing or responsible for what parts of
the proposed concept or activity, what are the expected outcomes, and why the proposed concept or activity is
significant. The narrative should clearly define what, how, when, who, and why. The case for funding is made
in the narrative.
Also, in writing the proposal the budget should be realistic, complete, and compatible with the proposed
concept or activity. Use the space allocated for budget explanations to describe any potentially ambiguous
expenses or costs.
Moreover, the PI and associated personnel should have well defined roles critical to the success of the proposed
effort; likewise, their credentials should be presented in view of the proposed concept or activity. Too often,
particularly for large scale programs, several Co-PIs and associated personnel are included in the proposal with
scant information on specific responsibilities and value added to the proposed effort. The reviewer is then left
to wonder why this person was included, for instance, or what does this person bring to the proposed effort.
Within the guidelines for the format for the proposal leave no doubt or question relating to the critical
participation of personnel for the success of the proposed concept or activity.
Other important factors in writing the proposal as discussed in our breakout groups today are the evaluation
and dissemination plans. These plans should be consistent with the scale and themes of the project and the
intended audience addressing such topics as the significance of this proposal to your home institution, its value
to similar institutions, and the expected broader impacts for education. Mechanisms of dissemination should be
specific and feasible.
Many proposals are strengthened by letters of commitment from other stakeholders in the institution. When
solicited with care, letters of commitment or support are included from those who are critical to the success of
your proposal, its execution, intended outcomes and potential impact. Letters of commitment or support should
specify the contribution or benefit.
Now that the proposal has been written, the last task is to summarize in one page the proposed effort. Your
Project Summary and your Data Form, both of which appear in the front of the proposal package, provide the
first impression of your proposed effort. The Project Summary should state concisely the concept, the
objectives, the approach, the intended audience, and the expected outcomes and impacts. Accurate and realistic
student impact data should accompany the summary on the Data Form. The Project Summary is your opening
statement, setting the tone for the reviewers, and hopefully stimulating their curiosity and appreciation for your
proposed concept or activity.
Before Sending the Proposal, study the review process and the criteria. Discuss with the program officer
common concerns of previous reviewers regarding the program as well as any lingering questions that evolved
51
during the proposal preparation process. Then enlist colleagues to provide friendly reviews. Frequently in
writing proposals the PIs are so excited about and so close to the ideas or activities that obvious ‘holes’ or
deficiencies are overlooked. A friendly reviewer can offer opportunities for clarity, innovation, and
improvement. And sweat the small stuff! Check the grammar, spelling, presentation of figures and graphs.
Misspelled words, incomplete sentences, unlabeled or confusing graphics and the like may give impressions of
sloppiness, haste, and overall lack of attention to details. These can raise the questions of competency in
executing and managing the proposed project.
Now, assuming that you're successful, that the reviewers love your proposal and recommend funding to the
DUE, an awards letter will be sent to you. It is up to you to invest wisely these grant funds. And remember to
reference the NSF and DUE in the resulting presentations, publications and activities.
Conversely, should your proposal not be recommended for funding, a declination letter will be sent. Consider
thoughtfully and objectively the comments of the reviewers which you will receive. Often these comments will
sting, especially on the first reading. Perhaps your good idea strongly matched the program focus but was not
presented well or organized appropriately; perhaps critical information was omitted or assumed. Many times
after a period of a couple of weeks, the sting lessens and frequently the validity of the comments starts to
surface. Remember the reviewers are colleagues who take the review process seriously and are doing their best
to insure the judicious use of the resources of the program. If your concept is truly good science and you believe
sincerely in its potential, revise the proposal and resubmit it.
A Guide to Proposal Writing contains valuable and helpful hints; following all of the guidelines contained
therein will not guarantee funding. There's no magic formula. Good science, careful presentation and
methodologies as described in this guide will increase the competitiveness of your proposal. Thank you.
DR. FORTENBERRY: I want to emphasize two points. One, in the back of A Guide to Proposal Writing are
the NSF proposal evaluation criteria which have just changed. We had just managed to get this book printed
when the criteria changed. However, I think if you read the new criteria, you’ll see that the essence of them is
unchanged. However, they now reflect an emphasis on scientific merit and project impact. The second point
Carolyn talked about was getting a friendly read. If you can afford it, get an unfriendly read. I advise people to
find somebody not in your discipline. If you're married and your spouse is not in your field, show it to your
spouse. Even better, if you have children over the age of 15, show it to them. They will assume that the
technical part is okay, but they have an amazing ability to say, “this thing doesn't cohere. You're saying you're
going to do A, B and C. But then you say that as a result you're going to do D.” A lot of proposals, not most,
fall down because there's insufficient attention to the implementation details of your idea. To make the best use
of its limited resources, NSF has to be concerned about implementation details.
One distinction is worth noting in how most of NSF operates and how our division operates. We in the
Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) are a multi-disciplinary unit. Which means we practice matrix
management. All of our program directors, work all of our programs. So while it may be the case that when
calling a research division it is appropriate to ask for the program director in charge of program “x,” in DUE the
program officers are multi-functional. More important than the program of interest is the discipline of the
52
caller. We request that you identify your discipline when calling, and we will find an appropriate person with
whom you can speak. If you’re a engineer, we may have three engineers on staff each of whom is fully
conversant in all of our programs and what is expected of engineers submitting proposals to them.
I would also like to summarize where I think our programs are going. Recall that there are currently five
programs within DUE. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is centered in two-year
institutions, reaches down to high schools and connects up with four-year baccalaureate institutions. the
emphasis is on preparing technicians for the high performance workplace and also providing math and science
background sufficient for those students who articulate to a four-year degree. In applying to this or any other
program we’ve already supported you're going to want to check via the NSF Web site.
The next major DUE program is the NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP). This
program and the ATE program represent the growth areas within DUE’s budget. CETP provides support for the
introduction of teacher preparation activities within our discipline-based curriculum and laboratory
development programs as well as for very large, multi-institutional collaboratives. We have a large
Collaborative here in Philadelphia. As I indicated before, we are moving toward support of institution-wide
activities as an intermediate step between small projects and large collaboratives. Say, for example, that you're
in an institution and you have College of Arts and Sciences and a College of Education and the faculty are
actually talking to each other. What they need is a little support to move from communication to
implementation. We’re not talking at the level of a single random course, but neither is it a major restructuring
of the curriculum. We’re now looking for ways to support those efforts.
DUE’s other programs are fairly straight forward. They support course and curriculum development,
instrumentation and laboratory improvement, and undergraduate faculty enhancement. As I indicated earlier,
we hope to be given permission to blend these together into something which is more productive. Since these
are all, more or less, focused on improvement of the curriculum, we hope to focus more on outcomes than the
approach used to achieve the outcomes.
We propose, a restructured program named Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI). Within
this new program categories of interest would be educational materials development, adaptation and
implementation, and national dissemination. With education materials development the emphasis is on creation
of new materials—a textbook, lab manual, CD-ROM, et cetera for use by your own institution and by other
institutions. We envision two levels of support. The first level support pilot projects or proofs-of-concept.
These would be projects at a level of $50,000 or less which would develop a proof-of-concept sufficient to elicit
the interest of a publisher or beta testers. The second level is full scale development, which could require up to
several hundred thousand dollars to create a final product.
The second track within CCLI would be adaptation and implementation. The intent here is to avoid reinventing
wheels, to allow you to adapt an existing innovation to your local circumstances. Perhaps you would like to
bring the innovator to your campus to consult on the implementation of their innovation at your institution.
There are two hurdles associated with NSF support of this activity. First, unlike the case with educational
materials development where support may be possible even if your department does not share your enthusiasm
for your idea, but colleagues at other institutions do; the expectation for adaptation and implementation is that
53
there is departmental “buy-in.” If you are adapting an innovation to improve your institution’s curriculum,
someone besides you must believe it to be a good idea. Second, because explicit support for adaptation is
something of a new area for NSF and because need will always outstrip available funds, we will require a 50:50
match on the entire budget, not just the equipment portion of the budget.
The third track will be national dissemination. While in the two previous tracks you can build faculty
enhancement into the structure of the proposal, our intent here is to focus on activities on a broad scale which
go beyond the single topic workshops which characterized much of what we previously supported. We seek to
support projects where they tackle a range of topics and find effective ways to get that information out to large
numbers of faculty across the country. We also have interest in finding new ways to get information out. Are
there things that can be done with internet technologies or with satellite broadcast of videotapes to reach large
numbers of faculty and make them aware of innovations in disciplines?
Those are the types of things we hope to support. We should have word of whether we will be allowed to
pursue this new path by February. Are there any questions?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: On the educational materials development, is it necessary to go through the kind of
pilot phase?
DR. FORTENBERRY: You can go to directly to full scale. We don’t care if the pilot was developed on your
own or through support of another agency or foundation. The pilot does not have to be developed with NSF
support.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Are there specific proposals for specific topics or is everything integrated?
DR. FORTENBERRY: Yes. I brought the current DUE program announcement to give some guidance. The
last effective date in here is November 1997, however, the essence of our existing programs is in here.
Remember that ATE and CETP are not expected to undergo radical change.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: What is the total budget available for proposals?
DR. FORTENBERRY: The total budget is 85 million dollars. Success rate is roughly 30 percent, which is
NSF average. That 30 percent success rate is highly dependent on discipline. Some disciplines are more
proactive in their proposal submission rates and we don't do our budget allocations completely on proposal
purchase. If you want to make a case for saying that we need to increase the overall budget, I won't object to
that.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: In the adaptation and implementation program is it required that you can only adopt
from one model institution or could you throw together a collage of something good from here and related from
here?
DR. FORTENBERRY: A collage is wonderful.
54
FROM THE AUDIENCE: There has been some discussion of a biology initiative in which it might be
supported as is the case with the chemistry and mathematics. Is that still being discussed?
DR. FORTENBERRY: My best guess is that we are not likely to have any more single discipline initiatives.
The interest within the Foundation is really toward integrated approaches to education. That does not mean that
everything must be interdisciplinary, it does mean that we are likely to first define a broad umbrella which
provides a context for our educational efforts, then it will be a matter of the research directorates and the
Education and Human Resource Directorate determining how best to meet the needs of a given discipline within
the structure of the broad umbrella. The programmatic environment is changing in response to external
pressures.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: The ATE program, is that from --?
DR. FORTENBERRY: ATE is a co-managed program. It's jointly managed by DUE and the Division of
Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education. Probably a little over two-thirds of that budget is directly
managed by DUE. So two-thirds of the budget has a distinct undergraduate flair to it.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Do you have any estimated time line for when the first proposals might be due?
DR. FORTENBERRY: Our best hope is to have a program announcement with a closing date of, roughly,
November of '98. I say, roughly, November of '98 because if we select November, the people who would
normally submit to ILI will be looking for it and it will be there. People who normally submit to CCD will be
looking for it because they normally respond to a June closing date. After the initial November 1998 closing
date, our plan would be to move the closing date back to June—this positions it well in the annual budget cycle.
Thank you.
DR. FROMM: Thank you, Carolyn and Norm. I think the material you've presented certainly is a reward to the
people who are here and is certainly appreciated. I again want to thank the NSF for sponsoring this and
suggesting it and I would like to thank all of you for participating and a little bit more of the reward awaits next
door in the liberal arts lounge. Thank you.
55