It is the conviction of this review committee that improved SME&T; education is central to shaping America's future. The future will increasingly require that citizens have a substantial understanding of the methods and content of science and technology - and some understanding of their potential and limitations as well as their interconnectedness. Furthermore, we believe that undergraduate SME&T; education is the linchpin of the entire SME&T; education enterprise - for it is at the undergraduate level that prospective K-12 teachers are educated, that most of the technical work force is prepared, and that future educators and professional practitioners in science, mathematics, and engineering learn their fields and, in many cases, prepare for more specialized work in graduate school.
On the basis of all that we have heard and learned during this review process, we urgently wish for, and urge decisive action to achieve, an America in which:
This is a powerful vision of an America of the future where every person has an opportunity for a life of economic security and personal satisfaction through pervasive learning that provides competence in scientific and technical fields. This vision derives from the conviction that SME&T; learning has value for its own sake as well as powerful utility in the workplace and in the exercise of citizenship.
We wish to help shape a future in which large numbers of students in America achieve substantially improved competence in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields, including better understanding of connections among disciplines and enhanced skills important for life as well as for work -problem-solving and lifelong learning skills, the ability to communicate effectively and work as part of a team, and personal traits such as adaptability, openness to new ideas, and empathy for the ideas of others. Our stress is on student learning that is measurable and involves much more than the acquisition of facts.
This vision focuses on students and on learning, but there are four other key words in the statement:
We heard elements of this vision from many people at many stages during this review. For example, in April 1995, approximately 300 faculty in science, mathematics, and engineering, together with administrators, representatives of professional societies, federal agencies, and foundations, gathered at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a national convocation: From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology [3]. Working under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), this group discussed for two full days the present state of undergraduate education and began the development of an agenda for significant improvements in the future. The one recommendation emerging from all the others and reflecting the conviction of this leadership group was almost identical with the vision above.
Such a vision is possible today only because of the enormous advances that have been made both in our understandings of human learning and in SME&T; education in the past 10 years, many of them with the strong support of the National Science Foundation (see pages below). In the area of learning, we know through research in cognitive psychology that the mind is active - it always interprets and is not simply a passive receiver of information "broadcast" to it. We know that students interpret new information in terms of what they already know; so, to promote learning, teachers must provide "stepping stones" for the minds of students to reach desired understanding [4].
We know that students rarely realize the applicability of knowledge from one context to another. We know that the diverse communities or cultures from which our students come have different values, norms, and expectations about the education process; learning is inhibited when those culturally-determined norms clash with what the instructor is doing. Research in sociology suggests that working in groups in a cooperative setting produces greater growth in achievement than straining for relative gains in a competitive environment.
Parallel with these increased understandings, the SME&T; community has made enormous advances in undergraduate education in recent years, with the powerful support of the NSF - reflected particularly through its Division of Undergraduate Education, but in other divisions of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) as well and with the effective participation of the research directorates. For example, the SME&T; community has increasingly developed courses and curricula that stress inquiry, teaching effectiveness, and learning outcomes; has improved access to SME&T; programs for those in groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in these fields; and has significantly increased the opportunity for undergraduates to engage in a real experience with inquiry/research.
Through the Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program, faculty have been both stimulated and assisted in upgrading hundreds of laboratories in American colleges and universities, in connection with revamping courses to incorporate modern laboratory experiences. The NSF has helped institutions develop model teacher education programs, encouraged and supported collaboratives across institutional boundaries, and helped many undergraduate faculty enhance their competence. A major program, Advanced Technological Education (ATE), centered in the community colleges, has been initiated for preparation of the nation's technical work force. The level of conversation about pedagogy among faculty has increased, and many good practices and model programs have been disseminated; notable among these is the calculus reform effort, which is dramatically reshaping the way students learn calculus. All of these activities, stimulated largely by the recommendations of the Neal Report through programs designed and implemented by the NSF, have created a real momentum in SME&T; education.
| A research chemist from a major university recently testified about undergraduate education in her field: "The curriculum is knowledge for advanced studies. (I might argue it is knowledge for what used to be advanced studies). And yet 90% of these students will not be chemists. The classroom - it is embarrassing. Chalk and blackboard. There are hands-on experiments that the students can do. However, these are largely cookbook, and I think that although NSF really deserves a lot of credit for attempting to put instrumentation into these laboratories, I would say that still, at many, many institutions, my kitchen looks better than those laboratories. The textbooks. . . are large collections of facts. What I see really missing from these textbooks is the process of science. And finally, the exams. . . are really a nice way to give the student a grade, but I doubt that they really measure what the students are learning, where their critical thinking skills are." |
But the data and the community - both those in SME&T; fields and those outside who employ our graduates or influence public policy - say that there is yet a long way to go. The chancellor of a major research university, which is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and a very large generator of scientific knowledge in many fields, recently said this: ". . . despite the outstanding character of American higher education, the one place where people see an Achilles' heel is the quality of science education."
The 1993 report of The Wingspread Group on Higher Education, chaired by William E. Brock, was entitled "An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education." [5]. While it criticized higher education generally, several of its points speak especially to SME&T; undergraduate education. For example, it noted the 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey, which shows that a "surprisingly large" number of college graduates are unable to perform simple tasks involving mathematics. The report states that classroom learning must be accompanied by "knowledge derived from first-hand experience," a conviction that applies centrally to SME&T; education.
Employers have consistently pointed out that higher education, because of the shortening half-life of knowledge, simply must do a better job of providing motivation and skills for life-long learning. And, as an executive of a large oil company testified at a recent NSF hearing: "Skills such as communications and teamwork are essential. Unfortunately, these are often given low priority during the SME&T; professional's undergraduate education."
| The president of a liberal arts college, at an NSF hearing recently: "A vital work force for the 21st century is peopled with the technically literate, inquisitive, and entrepreneurial in spirit. . . We have all talked about the need for improved educational experiences for our children. We have publicly acknowledged that our future leadership, tomorrow's work force, are today's children. Yet we do not adequately support the one profession in whose hands these children are. I am talking about teachers from K through college. NSF, with its dual mission of promoting the human resources as well as the discoveries, has a unique opportunity to make a difference." |
A statement made by the National Science Board in 1994 [6] includes this sentence: "At the same time, the American public's level of scientific literacy and general technical preparedness are (sic) not adequate to meet the needs of the changing economy." That statement echoes the goal enunciated in the 1994 White House report "Science in the National Interest" [7] to "raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans."
The president of an historically black institution spoke with passion at a hearing conducted as part of this review: "The intractable movement of African-Americans into the Ph.D. ranks, particularly in math, science, and engineering, is a moment of crisis for this nation. If every year we are having an erosion of those numbers, then you have got to ask what it is that we must do to get the feed system up to snuff so that more can come out of there. The inadequacy and obsolescence of laboratory facilities and the lack of modern technology on many campuses creates a drudgery syndrome with the teaching and doing of math, science, and engineering. So it is drudgery, and it is no wonder kids opt out of math and science and engineering."
And indeed they do opt out of SME&T.; The extensive study Talking About Leaving [8] by Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt notes the high attrition rates among SME&T; majors -- for reasons having little to do with two popularly misconceived causes, namely language problems with foreign Teaching Assistants and large class sizes. Rather, the major reasons students identify for dropping out of SME&T; have to do with the intimidating climate of the classroom, the poor quality of the educational experience (including too much dull lecturing and poor academic advising), the lack of encouragement for those interested in becoming K-12 teachers, the lack of motivation, inadequate counseling about career opportunities, and general lack of nurture of the student. SME&T; education at the undergraduate level today is largely passive rather than active. It is certainly not providing "all students" access to "supportive, excellent" SME&T; experiences that acquaint them with "the methods and processes of science."
| A community college president: ". . .teachers too often discourage a student from pursuing a field or career, especially in math or science, by ignoring or redirecting them to "easier" studies. The future generation of scientists and technicians will be recruited by faculty who must democratize the process." |
Thus, despite the enormous advances in undergraduate SME&T; education in the past ten years, there is a challenge before us; it can be summed up in the words of David Goodstein: ". . . the United States has, simultaneously and paradoxically, both the best scientists and the most scientifically illiterate young people: America's educational system is designed to produce precisely that result. America leads the world in science - and yet 95 percent of the American public is scientifically illiterate." [9]
Ten years ago the focus was on the problem of ensuring an adequate supply of world-class professional scientists for national needs. We must continue this important part of our responsibility for shaping the future. However, there is now a much broader agenda, with equally urgent new components, and it is in this light that the Directorate for Education and Human Resources of the NSF asked its Advisory Committee to undertake a new review of undergraduate SME&T; education in the nation. First, the SME&T; education community is coming to recognize what should have been clear all along - that the teachers of the students coming out of the K-12 system were prepared primarily at the undergraduate level for their school careers. Second, the national work force is changing dramatically, as high-paying but relatively unskilled factory jobs disappear in the face of foreign competition and technological advances; consequently the educational needs of the prospective work force are now vastly different. For these two reasons, both the preparation of teachers and the role of community colleges are much more central today among SME&T; undergraduate education concerns. In addition, we have awakened to the long-term disastrous consequences of leaving major segments of our society substantially out of SME&T.; So, while much has been accomplished, there are new and important agenda items to be addressed.
| At a hearing conducted as part of this review [10], the superintendent of a major urban school system commented about new teachers coming out of undergraduate programs: "Many new teachers arrive at their first assignments lacking sophisticated skills in writing, speaking, and computing. All new teachers should be able to use technology and adapt to its roles and applications. SME&T; content is also essential for all new teachers. In their content areas, SME&T; teachers should know more about the subject materials than they are required to teach . . . (and they) should have the benefit of sufficient practicum/internship experience before they graduate." |
The review process has been overseen by a committee of the Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, charged by NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, Dr. Luther S. Williams [11], to:
In June, 1995, the review process formally began, with the sending of a letter from Dr. Williams to some 200 leaders in the scientific and industrial community, including professional societies, and other federal agencies. More than 150 responses provided a major part of the information considered in this review, but they were supplemented in several very important ways. In particular, the review was conducted in cooperation with the National Research Council; the April 1995 NRC-NSF Convocation, followed by the NRC's "Year of National Dialogue" [12] about undergraduate SME&T; education, provided much rich material. The Foundation convened focus groups of SME&T; students, graduates, and parents in the fall of 1995 [13], and hearings were held at NSF during those months for disciplinary faculty, institutional leaders, and executives of employers of SME&T; graduates [10]. The research directorates of the NSF have contributed to the review in several important ways. Finally, at many meetings of scientific societies and professional associations over 1994 and 1995, the issues of the review were discussed and valuable comments and reactions gathered. This report is the result of this extensive process of consultation and review.