[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, MATH, AND
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: WHAT'S WORKING?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-481 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina AL GREEN, Texas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington VACANCY
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas VACANCY
VACANCY BART GORDON, Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
KARA HAAS Professional Staff Member
AVITAL ``TALI'' BAR-SHALOM Professional Staff Member
RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 15, 2006
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member,
Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Elaine Seymour, Author, ``Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences;'' Former Director of
Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at
Boulder
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 45
Financial Disclosure......................................... 46
Dr. Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics, University
of Colorado at Boulder
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
Biography.................................................... 50
Financial Disclosure......................................... 51
Dr. John E. Burris, President, Beloit College
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 53
Biography.................................................... 71
Financial Disclosure......................................... 74
Dr. Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean
of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College
Oral Statement............................................... 75
Written Statement............................................ 77
Biography.................................................... 88
Financial Disclosure......................................... 89
Ms. Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business,
and Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community College
Oral Statement............................................... 90
Written Statement............................................ 92
Biography.................................................... 98
Financial Disclosure......................................... 101
Discussion....................................................... 102
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Elaine Seymour, Author, ``Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences;'' Former Director of
Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at
Boulder........................................................ 114
Dr. Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics, University
of Colorado at Boulder......................................... 117
Dr. John E. Burris, President, Beloit College.................... 118
Dr. Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean
of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College............................ 119
Ms. Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business,
and Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community College.... 120
UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, MATH, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION: WHAT'S WORKING?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Undergraduate Science, Math and
Engineering Education: What's Working?
wednesday, march 15, 2006
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science will hold a hearing to examine how colleges and
universities are improving their undergraduate science, math, and
engineering programs and how the Federal Government might help
encourage and guide the reform of undergraduate science, math, and
engineering education to improve learning and to attract more students
to courses in those fields.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Elaine Seymour is the author of Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences and the former Director of
Ethnography and Evaluation Research at the University of Colorado at
Boulder.
Dr. Daniel L. Goroff is Vice President and Dean of Faculty at Harvey
Mudd College. Prior to joining Harvey Mudd, Dr. Goroff was a professor
of the practice of mathematics and the Assistant Director of the Derek
Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University. Dr. Goroff
co-directs the Sloan Foundation Scientific and Engineering Workforce
Project based at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dr. John Burris is the President of Beloit College in Wisconsin. Prior
to his appointment, Dr. Burris served for eight years as Director of
the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
and he served for nine years as a Professor of biology at the
Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Carl Wieman is a distinguished Professor of physics at the
University of Colorado at Boulder and the recipient of the 2001 Nobel
Prize in physics. Using his Nobel award money, Dr. Wieman has launched
an effort to reform introductory physics. Dr. Wieman currently chairs
the National Academy of Sciences Board on Science Education.
Ms. Margaret Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science, Business and
Computer Technology at Moraine Valley Community College in the
southwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.
3. Overarching Questions
What are the obstacles to recruiting and retaining
science, math, and engineering majors and what actions are
being taken to overcome them?
What are the obstacles to implementing reforms in
undergraduate science, math, and engineering education?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation (NSF), played in improving
undergraduate science, math, and engineering education? What
more should federal agencies be doing in this area?
4. Background
Undergraduate education is the first step toward a career in
science, engineering, or mathematics; it is the primary source of
education and training for technical workers; and, it is often the last
time non-majors will take a class in science and mathematics. Yet the
undergraduate level is also the point at which many students who begin
college interested in science, math, and engineering decide to move out
of these fields.
U.S. Competitiveness
Over the past several years, a number of industry and policy
organizations have released reports calling for increased investment in
science and engineering research and increased production of students
with degrees in scientific and technical fields, including the Council
on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, AeA (formerly the
American Electronics Association), the Business Roundtable, Electronic
Industries Alliance, National Association of Manufacturers, TechNet,
and the Association of American Universities. While the companies and
the industry sectors represented by these organizations varies widely,
one general recommendation was common to all of the reports: the
Federal Government needs to strengthen and re-energize investments in
science and engineering education.
The National Academy of Sciences, in its report Rising Above The
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future, recommended establishing 25,000 new four-year
scholarships to attract more U.S. undergraduate students to science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, and it
encouraged research universities to offer two-year part-time Master's
degrees that focus on science and mathematics content and pedagogy.
Similarly, the Business Roundtable and other industry groups have
recommended creating scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for
students who pursue degrees in STEM fields and emphasize the need to
improve recruitment and retention of STEM majors at undergraduate
institutions.
Challenges in Undergraduate Education
The U.S. contains a large and diverse group of institutions of
higher education. While American graduate education in STEM fields is
generally considered to be the best in the world, the quality of
students' undergraduate experiences can be hindered by insufficient
pre-college preparation, poor college instruction, and high rates of
attrition among potential STEM majors.
College Readiness
Recent results of national assessments of high school science and
mathematics suggest that few students graduate with the mathematical or
analytical skills necessary for college-level mathematics or science.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, all of the
Nation's community colleges and most four-year institutions offer
remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics. In addition,
Freshman Norms\1\ trend data also reveals that more than 20 percent of
first year college students intending to undertake a science or
engineering major and 10 percent of those in the mathematics report
that they believe that they will need remedial course work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), University of
California at Los Angeles, The American Freshman: National Norms, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal education efforts undertaken in the context of the 2001 No
Child Left Behind Act are providing greater focus on math and science,
with annual assessments in mathematics occurring now and assessments in
science starting in 2007. But many education experts point out that,
until the quality of STEM education at the elementary and secondary
levels improves, some students will continue to lack the necessary
preparation for undergraduate education in STEM fields.
Attrition
According to the 2005 Survey of the American Freshman, the longest
running survey of student attitudes and plans for college,
approximately one-third of all incoming freshmen have traditionally
contemplated a major in a science and engineering field, with most
intending to major in a field of natural or social science and a
smaller percentage selecting mathematics, the computer sciences, or
engineering. Yet, half of all students who begin in the physical or
biological sciences and 60 percent of those in mathematics will drop
out of these fields by their senior year, compared with the 30 percent
drop out rate in the humanities and social sciences. The attrition
rates are even higher for under-represented minorities.
In research for Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the
Sciences, the authors determined that the most common reasons offered
for switching out of a science major included a lack or loss of
interest in science, belief that another major was more interesting or
offered a better education, poor science teaching, and an overwhelming
curriculum. This study reinforced earlier anecdotal evidence that
suggested that the sciences did a poor job of retaining young talent.
In addition, and contrary to conventional wisdom that suggested that
the students who switched out of science majors were somehow less
academically able, the researchers discovered that those who left were
among the most qualified students\2\ who had initially expressed the
greatest interest in pursuing a STEM major.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Most qualified students were identified by high math SAT scores
(at least 650) and their high school preparation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many researchers, including Stanford economist Paul Romer, believe
that undergraduate education actively discourages more students from
majoring in STEM fields or taking additional science or mathematics
courses. Many colleges and universities have institutionalized a
process partially designed to ``weed out'' all but the most committed
students. While some amount of switching is appropriate, and few would
disagree about the selective nature of many science and engineering
programs, this ``science-for-the few'' approach seems to reduce the
number of STEM majors unnecessarily and may be particularly alienating
to women and under-represented minorities.
According to Talking About Leaving, most of the concerns of those
who dropped out of science majors were shared by those who continued in
science, math, and engineering. The chief complaint, cited by 83
percent of all respondents, was poor teaching. In the university
setting, the traditional reward structure for faculty often favors the
conduct of research over teaching. This can create an environment where
faculty enthusiasm for and commitment to teaching is limited. As a
result, undergraduates who take science and mathematics at many
colleges and universities often find themselves in large lecture halls,
taught by junior faculty. Student interaction with prominent research
scientists ranges may be limited, and many of the junior faculty and
teaching assistants may not be trained or motivated to teach well. Some
may even be discouraged from expressing an interest in teaching or
mentoring undergraduates.
In addition to these problems with courses for STEM majors, many
introductory courses for non-majors fail to foster scientific
understanding among the non-science majors. Without a broader context,
many students never understand the process of science or the content of
the subject matter. According to research in the Journal of College
Science Teaching, this narrow approach to STEM courses alienates non-
majors who graduate with the perception that science is difficult,
boring, and irrelevant to their everyday interests.
Undergraduate Reforms
Individual faculty, departments, professional societies, and
institutions of higher education are increasingly involved in reform
efforts to enhance STEM curriculum and improve undergraduate teaching.
Many of these reforms include the reexamination and restructuring of
introductory and lower level courses to benefit both those who go on to
careers as STEM professionals and teachers, as well as the vast
majority who do not plan to become STEM majors.
The new goal of ``science-for-all'' seeks to provide opportunities
for students of all backgrounds and interests to study science as
practiced by scientists. Some faculty are trying to supplement lectures
with discussion, small group work on a question or problem, and other
short activities that are designed to break up the session and engage
students in understanding and applying class materials. The new
approaches attempt to present students with a coherent structure of
general concepts that are established by experiment and to lead
students to use problem-solving approaches that are applicable to a
wide variety of situations--something that is typically experienced
only in upper level courses. In addition, some colleges and
universities are reexamining their incentive structures to encourage
faculty to teach or mentor undergraduates and to ensure that
introductory courses are taught by experienced faculty.
Federal Support for Undergraduate Education
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has historically been the
primary federal agency to provide support for undergraduate education
in STEM fields. In 1987, the National Science Board released a report
on Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education,
better known as the ``Neal Report'' \3\ after its chairman, Homer Neal
of the University of Michigan. The Neal Report urged NSF to increase
its investment in undergraduate education, and particularly to offer
programs to involve undergraduate faculty and students in research
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education,
National Science Board, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF Undergraduate Education
NSF primarily funds undergraduate STEM education programs through
its Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). Funding for DUE programs
at NSF has declined each year since fiscal year 2004 (FY04). FY06
funding for DUE totaled $211 million, and the FY07 budget request is
$196 million.
Several NSF programs in undergraduate education were created or
expanded by the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002.
This Act established the Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) to increase the number of
U.S. students majoring in STEM fields. Specifically, STEP provides
funding and rewards to colleges and universities that develop creative
and effective recruitment and retention strategies that bring more
students into science, mathematics, and engineering programs. The FY06
appropriation for STEP was $25.5 million; the request for FY07 is $26
million.
The Act also strengthened and expanded the Advanced Technological
Education (ATE) program, which aims to expand the pool of skilled
technicians in the U.S. by providing support to community colleges.
Specifically, ATE supports curriculum development; professional
development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; and
efforts to align curricula to allow easy transition from high school to
community colleges and community colleges to four year colleges and
universities. The FY06 appropriation for ATE was $45 million; the
request for FY07 is $46 million.
A third major program in DUE is the Course, Curriculum and
Laboratory Improvement Program (CCLI). This program supports efforts to
create new learning materials and teaching strategies, develop faculty
expertise, implement educational innovations, assess learning and
evaluate innovations, and conduct research on STEM teaching and
learning. Funding for this program has declined in the past two years,
falling from $94 million in FY05 to $88 million in FY06. The FY07
request is $86 million.
Other Undergraduate Support at NSF
In addition to the DUE programs described above, the Division of
Human Resource Development (HRD) at NSF supports programs to increase
the participation of under-represented students in science at all
levels. Undergraduate programs in HRD include the Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation Program ($35 million in FY06, $40
million requested in FY07), the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Undergraduate Program ($25 million in FY06, $30 million
requested in FY07), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
($9 million in FY06, $12 million requested in FY07).
Through its Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, which
is run through NSF's research directorates, NSF supports active
participation by undergraduates in research funded by NSF. Under this
program, undergraduate students are associated with a specific research
project, where they work closely with faculty and other researchers,
and are granted stipends and, in many cases, assistance with housing
and travel. (The research work can take place at a student's home
institution or elsewhere, usually during the summer.)
Support for Undergraduate STEM Education at Other Agencies
While the U.S. Department of Education (ED) supports programs to
strengthen undergraduate education, most are targeted to particular
institutions and most are not STEM specific. For instance, ED supports
several programs to build the capacity of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and other minority serving
institutions, but funds may be used for a variety of purposes so it is
difficult to determine what, if any, portion funds STEM reform. Outside
NSF and ED, federal science agencies, including the U.S. Department of
Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, provide
opportunity for undergraduates to participate in research experiences
at their facilities.
Legislation
While this hearing is not designed to focus on any specific
legislation, it is worth noting that several bills have been introduced
to strengthen STEM education in response to the various reports and
commissions on U.S. competitiveness. Most of these bills seek to
address the undergraduate recruitment challenge. Specifically, S. 2109
and H.R. 4654, the National Innovation Act, expand NSF's STEM Talent
Expansion Program from $35 million in FY07 to $150 million in FY11. S.
2198, Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act, awards
scholarships to students majoring in STEM education who concurrently
pursue their teacher certification, and H.R. 4434, introduced by
Congressman Bart Gordon, implements the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. S. 2197,
PACE-Energy, also includes undergraduate education provisions, such as
a scholarship program for students in STEM fields and the creation of a
part-time, three-year Master's degree in math and science for teachers,
but the programs are administered by the Department of Energy--not NSF.
5. Questions for Witnesses
The panelists were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony before the Committee:
Dr. Elaine Seymour:
What has your research shown about why potential
science majors drop out of undergraduate science programs?
What changes in undergraduate science education could
prevent capable students from leaving science disciplines and
perhaps also attract students initially not interested in
science? What are the principle obstacles to implementing these
changes?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate
science education? What more should federal agencies be doing
in this area?
Dr. Daniel L. Goroff:
What obstacles have you encountered at Harvey Mudd
College and Harvard University in recruiting and retaining STEM
majors and what actions have you taken to overcome them? How
are you measuring the effectiveness of those actions?
What are the obstacles to implementing similar
improvements at other institutions of higher education?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation (NSF), played in improving
undergraduate STEM education? What more should federal agencies
be doing in this area?
Dr. John Burris:
What obstacles have you encountered at Beloit College
in recruiting and retaining STEM majors and what actions has
Beloit College taken to overcome them? How are you measuring
the effectiveness of those actions?
What are the obstacles to implementing similar
improvements at other institutions of higher education?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation (NSF), played in improving
undergraduate STEM education? What more should federal agencies
be doing in this area?
Dr. Carl Wieman:
What obstacles have you encountered at the University
of Colorado in recruiting and retaining physics majors and what
actions have you taken to overcome them? How are you measuring
the effectiveness of those actions?
How would your experience apply to other institutions
of higher education or to other fields of science?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation (NSF), played in improving
undergraduate STEM education? What more should federal agencies
be doing in this area?
Ms. Margaret Collins:
What obstacles have you encountered at Moraine Valley
Community College in recruiting and retaining STEM majors? What
actions has Moraine Valley Community College taken to overcome
them? How are you measuring the effectiveness of those actions?
What are the obstacles to implementing similar
improvements at other institutions of higher education?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate
STEM education? What more should federal agencies be doing in
this area?
Chairman Inglis. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come
to order.
Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Udall, who are not Members of the
Subcommittee, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And I recognize myself for an opening statement.
And thank you to the panel for coming to share some
thoughts about STEM education. It is crucial for us, as a
nation, to figure out how to continue to lead in technology,
and certainly the basis of that is an effective educational
system.
I had an opportunity to hear some challenging remarks from
David McCullough, the author of one of my favorite books,
``John Adams,'' and I am listening now to 1776. David
McCullough said something very interesting to a group of House
Members, and Mr. Udall may have been there. He said, ``We
should eliminate the departments of education at colleges and
universities.'' He said that we shouldn't have people that have
education degrees teaching. ``We should have experts teaching
in their fields.'' His point of view was that historians should
teach history, not education majors. It is a very interesting
and provocative thought. He congratulated some work being done
at, I believe, the University of Oklahoma that is headed in
that direction, and it starts to sound promising, because, you
know, when you think of it, when I was in high school, if I had
been taught by somebody who loved math, passionate about math,
and understood the interconnectivity of math principles,
perhaps I might have caught the math bug. If I had been taught
by somebody in science that really loved the subject matter,
perhaps I might have caught the bug. As it was, my most
memorable teachers were word teachers, English teachers who
loved English, and the result was I headed more toward words
than to formulas.
Now that has to be balanced. David McCullough's view has to
be balanced with another observation. And this I have heard
from visiting with research facilities at USC, University of
South Carolina and Clemson University, for example, where the
feedback that I have heard from some students is the teacher,
the professor is just boring, as dull as a doornail, cannot
teach, cannot inspire, cannot hold anybody's interest, and in
some cases, a very difficult question has been raised, ``I
can't understand what he or she is saying.'' Now English is a
second language for them, and they say ``I literally cannot
understand what they are saying in class.''
Now that being the case, it seems that there is need for
balance somewhere between David McCullough's point of view,
which is only scientists should teach science, and the
observation that if you don't understand education methods,
maybe you can't really teach. And so, as always in life, there
is a need for balance.
I hope that that is part of what we get at here at this
hearing today. And it seems to me, it goes to one of the
challenges we have got, which is how do you keep students
involved in math and science? How do you capture their
imagination? I am a lawyer, and one of the things that I have
observed about legal education is that it is pretty interesting
because most law is based on cases, and instruction of the law
is based on cases. Well, cases are really stories, a story of
how Mrs. Pfaltzgraff was standing by the railroad track and
something happened and the clock hit her in the noggin, and she
sued the railroad company, as I recall. I hope my professor
from law school isn't here and remembering that I--realizing
that I don't remember all of the facts of that case, but it is
something like that. There is a story.
It seems to me, one of the challenges of science education,
math education, engineering is making it that interesting.
Recently, we on the Science Committee, had an opportunity to go
to Antarctica. Yesterday, I was writing a thank-you note to one
of the presenters down there. Truly a master teacher. The
fellow held our interest for at least an hour, and really we
would have begged him to go on, because he truly was a master
teacher. He would ask--he would answer questions, but quickly
get back to the subject that he wanted to talk about. He just
did a masterful job. If I had had such a teacher in math and
science, perhaps I would have continued on and not fallen into
the dark side of the law.
But those are--I hope we get into that. I hope we figure--
we hear some thoughts today about how we captivate the
imagination and stimulate the interest of our students. And I
thank the panel for joining us today.
Mr. Udall is voting in a committee. This is going to be a
challenge today. We need a scientific breakthrough on having
people in two places at once, and hopefully that is going to
happen, because just as Mr. Udall is out now voting, I have a
markup in the Judiciary Committee downstairs, so occasionally,
I am going to be running from this room, literally, downstairs
three floors to vote in that committee and then coming back.
So--but we do have Mr. Rohrabacher here, and I would be
happy to yield to the gentleman from California for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bob Inglis
Good morning. Today's hearing on ``Undergraduate Science, Math, and
Engineering Education: What's Working'' may be one of the most
important hearings this subcommittee has this year and one in which I
take a particular interest. I firmly believe that if we are to remain
the world's leader in innovation and technology, we must provide our
children--at all ages--with the education and tools necessary to excel
in math and science, and we must make sure that those entrusted with
teaching them possess not just the knowledge but the enthusiasm to
inspire and stimulate them to excel in math and science. This is
imperative if we are to sustain a strong and competitive science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) workforce capable of solving
the known challenges of today and carrying us beyond the unknown
challenges of tomorrow.
Recently, I had the privilege of accompanying National Science
Foundation (NSF) Director Arden Bement to Mauldin Elementary School in
my district. We witnessed a wonderful class project called ``A World in
Motion,'' which was originally funded by the NSF through a grant to the
Society of Automotive Engineers. We watched fifth graders race small
cars propelled by balloons that they had designed, built and studied.
We heard their stories of the trials and tribulations they experienced
while trying to build the car that would travel the fastest and the
straightest. This was not just a project to see whose car looked the
coolest. No, they had to learn how to measure speed and distance and
figure out what aerodynamics would be best. Needless to say, watching
these children with their science project made me ponder the question,
``How do we as a nation continue to capture the science and math
imagination and enthusiasm of these students as they continue their
education?'' For those who seemed really fired up and excited about
what they were learning. . .and you could see it in their eyes. . .how
do we keep that passion and motivation going to produce our next
generation of scientists, mathematicians and engineers?
Granted, there are several hearings we could hold to examine the
pros and cons of what we're doing along the K-12 path. The purpose of
today's hearing, however, is to explore what is happening at the
undergraduate level for those students who enter college enthusiastic
about pursing a STEM degree and for those non-majors who would still
benefit tremendously from a better background in math and science
education. As we hear from our witnesses on how our colleges and
universities are improving undergraduate STEM programs, we will
hopefully be able to determine how the Federal Government might help
further encourage and guide the reform of undergraduate STEM education
to improve learning and to attract more students to courses and careers
in the STEM fields.
While exact numbers tend to differ, all of the recent studies and
reports that have recently been released suggest that the U.S. is being
outpaced by China and India in terms of degrees granted in science and
engineering. If we are to remain competitive, we must reverse this
trend. To do so, we need to tackle several impediments that are
affecting our ability to attract and retain students in STEM fields,
primarily insufficient pre-college preparation, poor college
instruction, and high rates of attrition.
Certainly, NSF, the primary federal agency tasked with providing
support for undergraduate STEM education--and STEM education in general
for that matter--is working hard to overcome these challenges. Other
agencies, including the Departments of Education and Energy as well as
NASA also have important roles to play. We need to make sure that they
are coordinating their education efforts to ensure that this nation is
poised for a new generation of innovative progress and prosperity, but
that is a topic for another day and another hearing to be held later
this month.
Not long ago, I read an intriguing article by a former chemical
engineering major who left his course of study ``in shame and disgust
to pursue the softer pleasures of a liberal arts education.'' I'll
submit the entire Tech Central Station article, ``Confessions of an
Engineering Washout,'' by Douglas Kern for the record, but want to
kick-off the hearing with his telling admonition:
If you want more engineers in the United States, you must find
a way for America's engineering programs to retain students
like, well, me: people smart enough to do the math and
motivated enough to at least take a bite at the engineering
apple, but turned off by the overwhelming course work, low
grades, and abysmal teaching. Find a way to teach engineering
to verbally oriented students who can't learn math by sense of
smell. Demand from (and give to) students an actual mastery of
the material, rather than relying on bogus on-the-curve pseudo-
grades that hinge upon the amount of partial credit that bored
T.A.s choose to dole out. Write textbooks that are more than
just glorified problem set manuals.
I think he makes some valid points.
With that, I'd like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. I look
forward to hearing from them on the strides they are making to improve
undergraduate STEM education in the U.S., and I turn to the senior
Democratic Member, Mr. Udall, for any opening statement he may wish to
make.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me just note that I, too, am going to be running
off, because I have a markup in my committee, in my
International Relations Committee, where I am Senior Member, in
which we are marking up a bill dealing with one of the greatest
challenges we have for our country today, and that is a
relationship with Iran. However, I am leaving a hearing that I
believe is focusing on what America's greatest challenge to our
future is, our total future, and that is making sure that we
are equipped to compete in the world of the--of tomorrow by
making sure that our children are properly educated in math and
science and engineering.
I would just like to make a couple thoughts for the record.
And we had a discussion on this subject somewhat about a month
ago. And I mentioned that we need to pay young people and other
employees who are--have an expertise in math and science and
engineering need to pay them better, and that is a way,
perhaps, to attract more young people into the professions. And
I got a lot of flack for that, Mr. Chairman. I mean, to me, it
is a no-brainer, but I just got a lot of flack for saying that.
But the kids who look and see that the lawyers all have the
good--nice-looking cars and the big houses and maybe a very
smart young person then decides to go into law rather than into
engineering. I can understand that.
Well, let me just note that I see cost and compensation as
being major factors in this discussion. And cost is what we
need to bring down the cost for young people who want to get
degrees in math, science, and engineering so when they leave
their school they don't end up with a mountain of debt which
they are not then hired by some law firm to take care of that
debt, because now it is--they are on their own where math and
engineering students from overseas, who are here taking
advantage of our graduate programs especially, are sponsored by
their own government, and they end up in no debt at all where
our students end up entirely in debt, and they are almost
indentured servants for five or 10 years of their life. That
needs to be addressed. And my--I have some legislation aimed
at--well, at least providing full scholarships provided by
every department of government that uses an engineer or a
scientist or a mathematician to provide scholarships designed
to--then they--the student could pay it back by working for
that government agency, which is a thought that I would like to
discuss with the panel.
Second, we do not compensate our teachers in mathematics,
science, and engineering at a different scale than we
compensate the people who teach basket weaving and self-
fulfillment and perhaps things of--and I will tell you, no
wonder somebody who is a scientist or someone who is an
engineer is not going to be attracted to teaching if, indeed,
his compensation--his or her compensation level is no more than
somebody who basically has the skills that I was talking about.
I am not degrading basket weaving or home economics or anything
like that, but perhaps we need the engineers and more skilled
people in our schools, and we need to compensate them for it.
Finally, let me note this. When we talk about compensation,
we have--I have had many a panel here talking about this
problem, and I have seen this over the last--I have been a
Member of the Science Committee now for 18 years. But you have
these same businessmen who come here talking about the need of,
you know, attracting our young people into these fields, and
they are the same companies that come here lobbying us for
massive numbers of H-1B Visas so that we can bring in people
from overseas with these skills. And let me tell you what
happens when you bring hundreds of thousands--we are talking
about hundreds of thousands of engineers and mathematicians
enter into this country over and above what our regular quota
is for immigration. What it does is bid down wages. What it
does, Mr. Chairman, is mean that the compensation of these
young people, American young people, can expect is now lower
because companies now can hire some fine young person from
India or Pakistan or wherever to do that job at half the wage
that they would have to pay an American to do it.
All of these things are impacting on these--on us and
trying to solve this problem. And I would suggest again that
the way to make sure that we have more young people who are
intelligent young people, because, after all, there is a
certain level of intelligence that you go into various fields,
but we would like young people to go into engineering and math
and science, and the best way to do that, Mr. Chairman, is to
make sure you pay them more money. And we shouldn't be ashamed
of that. We live in a capitalist society, and--but we have to
do it based on all of these factors, making sure they are not
in debt when they get through school and making sure we don't
bid down their wages by bringing in hundreds of thousands of
people from overseas in order to make sure that there is less
money in their income.
With that, I appreciate my--you letting me have my say, and
I will stay as long as I can, but I do have to handle this
Iranian crisis, which is on us today, which I might add was
created by engineers who are building nuclear power plants for
a moolah-driven regime in Iran.
So with that said, that is it.
Thank you.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
I--you will be hearing from the Basket Weaver Association
later.
It is like the time I was on the Floor and said something
about used car salesmen and then got calls from around the
country.
Mr. Udall will be back momentarily, and when he comes back,
we will recognize him for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, also
called STEM, has long been a passion of mine.
As former Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee, I know the
importance of STEM education and the prosperity and job security it can
bring to our communities.
My home State of Texas is investing heavily in nanotechnology
industry development and in other high-tech ventures. We need domestic
talent to fill future jobs in these areas.
I would like to make the case of the critical importance of
attracting ethnic minorities to STEM careers. My district is a
``majority-minority'' area, meaning we have more minorities than any
other ethnic group.
I am interested what today's witnesses will tell us about how to
captivate students' attention for STEM from a young age and hold their
attention throughout middle school, high school, college and graduate
school.
STEM careers often require advanced education, hard work and
personal sacrifice.
How can we persuade kids to make a lifelong commitment to a STEM
career when they are mired with student loans, academic positions are
scarce and those that are open are quickly filled by individuals coming
from outside the U.S.?
Major policy changes at every level will be needed. It is my hope
that today's hearing can help legislators uncover the greatest leverage
points to encourage participation in STEM careers and thus drive our
economy forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to
today's hearing on exploring ways to improve undergraduate science,
technology, engineering and math education--or STEM education, for
short.
I would like to specifically welcome Dr. Weiman and Dr. Seymour
that both have ties within my district at the University of Colorado.
As many here know, Dr. Weiman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001.
However, what is most relevant to this hearing is how Dr. Weiman has
leveraged this Prize to focus on improving undergraduate physics
education. I hope Dr. Weiman will share with the Committee some of what
he is doing in this area.
Dr. Seymour, the former Director of the Ethnography and Evaluation
Research at the University of Colorado, is also joining us today. She
is the author of Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the
Sciences. This book evaluates why students are attracted to STEM fields
and what causes them to switch fields of study. It also highlights the
interaction of students with faculty.
I would like to again welcome both of you, and all of our witnesses
for coming to discuss this important topic.
I see this hearing as addressing two important issues: how do we
attract and retain students in associate and baccalaureate degree
programs in STEM fields, and how do we ensure that all undergraduate
students receive a quality educational experience in their STEM
courses, regardless of the career path they choose.
Policy discussions of undergraduate STEM education tend to focus on
numbers--are we producing too few scientists and engineers; are other
countries out-producing us; can we stay competitive unless we greatly
increase production?
Well, I certainly agree we must be sure that we are meeting the
needs of the private sector and government for STEM graduates, and
there is considerable evidence that we are doing so at present.
I believe the key issue is not only numbers but also the quality of
STEM graduates and the capabilities they develop during their post-
secondary education.
Project Kaleidoscope, which has been working for 10 years or more
to improve undergraduate STEM education, recently released a report,
``Recommendations for Urgent Action,'' that lays out the questions we
should ask in assessing whether STEM education is meeting the
competitiveness challenge:
What are the characteristics of a successful innovator? What
are the characteristics of a life-long learner? What are the
characteristics of a contributing and productive participant in
the 21st century workforce?
The answers to these questions should inform STEM educational
goals, the kinds of STEM courses offered, and the teaching styles and
approaches used in undergraduate education.
Ultimately, the United States cannot out-produce the world in the
number of new science and engineering graduates. Rather, we must ensure
that our educational system produces graduates with capabilities that
set them apart, so that they become successful innovators, life-long
learners, and productive members of the Nation's workforce.
Today, we will hear from those who are engaged in undergraduate
education in a range of educational settings--two-year colleges,
primarily undergraduate colleges, and research universities.
I am interested in the witnesses' assessment of the current state
of undergraduate science education and in their experiences regarding
efforts to make improvements.
The basic questions today are what works, and what are the
conditions necessary for success? I hope to hear what barriers and
impediments exist in improving undergraduate STEM education, and in
particular, what kinds of federal programs have proven to be helpful--
or not helpful--in bringing about reform.
Naturally, the Subcommittee would be interested in your comments on
the value of NSF-sponsored programs, and on any recommendations you may
have for ways to improve the recruitment and retention of students in
the science degree track.
I believe a major goal of efforts to improve undergraduate STEM
education must be to institute policies and programs that will tap the
human resource potential of individuals from groups under-represented
in science and technology.
Simple demographic trends make clear the importance of increasing
participation rates of women and minorities in meeting workforce needs
of the future.
This is particularly true for attracting individuals to careers in
the physical science and engineering. I know some of our witnesses have
been engaged in programs that address this issue, and I look forward to
learning more about them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening this hearing on
this important subject. I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses
today and I look forward to our discussion.
Chairman Inglis. In the meantime, let me go ahead and
introduce our panel. Mr. Udall may, in the course of his
remarks, want to introduce two folks from Colorado, but first,
we have Dr. Elaine Seymour, the author of ``Talking About
Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences.'' She is a
former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research at the
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Dr. Carl Wieman is a Distinguished Professor of Physics at
the University of Colorado at Boulder and recipient of the 2001
Nobel Prize in Physics. Using his Nobel award, Dr. Wieman has
launched an effort to reform introductory physics. He currently
chairs the National Academy of Sciences Board on Science
Education.
Dr. John Burris is the President of Beloit College in
Wisconsin. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Burris served for
eight years as Director of Marine Biology--let me try that
again, Director of Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole,
Massachusetts, and he served for nine years as professor of
biology at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Daniel Goroff is the Vice President and Dean of Faculty
at Harvey Mudd College. Prior to joining Harvey Mudd, Dr.
Goroff was a professor of the practice of mathematics and the
Assistant Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and
Learning at Harvard University. He co-directs the Sloan
Foundation Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project based
at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ms. Margaret Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science,
Business, and Computer Technology at Moraine Valley Community
College in the southwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.
And when my colleague, Dan Lipinski, gets here--he is
testifying at an Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee
meeting, when he gets here, we will get a more full
introduction of Ms. Collins by Mr. Lipinski.
So we generally recognize witnesses for five minutes, and
then we will look forward to the time of questions and further
comments from you and answers as we move beyond the testimony.
So, Dr. Seymour, if you would like to begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELAINE SEYMOUR, AUTHOR, ``TALKING ABOUT
LEAVING: WHY UNDERGRADUATES LEAVE THE SCIENCES;'' FORMER
DIRECTOR OF ETHNOGRAPHY AND EVALUATION RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO AT BOULDER
Dr. Seymour. Thank you very much for inviting me, Chairman
Inglis. I appreciate this. It is a great honor.
In my written testimony, I structured my response in the
following way.
First of all, I said something about factors, which, in my
view, are shaping the problem that we have, and then the
consequences for current and future STEM undergraduates, and
then something about strategies, which I think will make a
difference, some of these are underway, some of these are
needed, and then some caveats.
What I think is underlying the problem we face is a
historic decline in the perceived value of teaching. It has
general relevance in the population, but it is particularly
salient as part of the professional role of STEM faculty, where
it has suffered over the last half-century with respect to the
dominance of research. We noted it, in particular, in our book,
``Talking About Leaving,'' in the decline in the number of
seniors who were interested in entering K-12 science and math
teaching which dropped from 20 percent to less than seven
percent by senior year over the course of our study. And most
interesting, they--the seniors described their faculty as
discouraging students from entering K-12 math and science
teaching. And the students who decided to go on did not
disclose their intention, normally, to faculty, because they
feared that faculty would take them less seriously.
Now this problem creates, I think, an imbalance in our
science structures. First of all, we have a salary structure in
STEM faculty which is disproportionate to teaching effort. We
have a reward structure for tenure and promotion such that
research achievements are more stringently defined than
teaching or service work, and teaching and the scholarship of
teaching are barely developed or acknowledged.
The consequences are certainly seen in our work that the
most serious problem spoken about both by people who field-
switched out of the sciences and those who persisted amongst
well-qualified students, whom we interviewed on seven different
campuses, was that poor learning experiences were their most
common problem. So for both groups, this was the main issue. Of
the 23 issues that they raised, this was the most common issue.
This problem has not gone on unnoted amongst the many, many
reports that we have seen over the last few years--that the
quality of undergraduate STEM education has declined and is
declining.
The second consequence, I think, shows in the inadequate
preparation of teaching assistants who become young faculty,
which then contributes significantly to poor quality
undergraduate learning experiences, both now and when they
become faculty. And we have a terrible shortage of good
programs for training TAs, and they tend to be short
orientations not specific to the discipline or the course. They
do not significantly ground TAs in learning research and the
knowledge and the practices that derive from this. And
unfortunately, the STEM TAs seem the least likely to receive
appropriate preparation. I have reviewed all of this evidence
in our latest book ``Partners in Innovation,'' which is about
TAs.
Thirdly, we have serious limitations in the K-12 math and
science teaching force. It takes the form both of a serious and
growing shortfall of disciplined, qualified math and science
teachers in our middle and high schools, and in the quality of
those teachers.
I have offered you, in the testimony, some of this
evidence. We have vacancies in science and mathematics that we
simply cannot fill. And in the latest report of the National
Academy of Sciences' ``Gathering Storm,'' 59 percent of middle
school students have math teachers who lack even a math
education major. We saw this in our own book that just about
the same numbers of switchers and persisters in the STEM majors
struggled with under-preparation from the deficiencies of their
math and science education in schools. The TAs, as I mentioned
earlier, also endorsed this situation, over two-thirds of the
TAs in our 2005 study, and those in another study done at the
University of Nebraska (i.e., the same proportion) reported
that students arrived under-prepared in the fundamental
knowledge and skills needed to perform adequately.
The strategies that I have outlined in my testimony focus
largely on professional development based on methods grounded
in research about how students learn. And the groups who are,
in my view, in need of professional development are current and
future K-12 science and math teachers, they are TAs in STEM
undergraduate courses, and they are current STEM faculty.
And matching the faculty incentives and reward system to
the objectives of an improved education in science for all is
critical if we are going to succeed in any of these strategies.
I will conclude my remarks at this point.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Seymour follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elaine Seymour
The Research Subcommittee has asked me to address the following
questions:
What has your research shown about why potential
science majors drop out of undergraduate science programs?
What changes in undergraduate science education could
prevent capable students from leaving science disciplines and
perhaps also attract students initially not interested in
science? What are the principle obstacles to implementing these
changes?
What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation, played in improving undergraduate
science education? What more should federal agencies be doing
in this area?
On the basis of my work as a science education researcher and as an
evaluator of both campus-based and large national initiatives focused
on improving quality and access in undergraduate science education, I
offer some answers to these questions under the following headings:
1. Factors that shape the quality of undergraduate science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
2. Their consequences for current and future STEM
undergraduates
3. Strategies (both underway and needed) that address current
difficulties
4. Some caveats: why are some changes difficult to secure
1. Factors that shape the quality of undergraduate science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
Two inter-related factors--one cultural, the other structural--
underlie the problems with undergraduate science education that have
been identified over the last two decades. These factors also explain
some of the difficulties encountered by those who seek to improve STEM
education, both at the undergraduate and K-12 levels. The first may be
described as a history of decline in the perceived value of teaching.
Among STEM faculty, teaching has come to be seen as a far less
important part of their professional role than research, and STEM
faculty overall do not encourage K-12 mathematics and science teaching
as a career for their STEM graduates.
In our study of why undergraduates leave the sciences (Seymour &
Hewitt, 1997), we noted that, although almost 20 percent of our student
sample had seriously considered science or mathematics teaching, this
dropped to under seven percent in senior year among those who persisted
in their STEM majors. A major factor in this decline was students'
awareness that their professors--whose approval and support they sought
in developing a career path--defined teaching ambitions as ``deviant.''
Faculty were commonly believed to withdraw from students who openly
expressed an interest in K-12 teaching and those who still intended to
teach become covert about their intentions:
I think that's ultimately the problem with math and science in
this country--we don't value teachers enough. Professors are
valued but the high school teachers are not. If you wanna teach
science in high school, that's taboo: you're treated as an
outcast by the faculty here. (male white switcher)
I've never discussed it with any of my chemistry professors.
For the most part, I've got a feeling of disdain for teaching
from them. This is something that they have to do, but they
don't really support anyone who wants to do it. Fortunately, I
had an incredible chemistry teacher in high school, and I go
back and chat with him still. He tells me, You're going to be a
good teacher.'' I get more encouragement from him than from
anyone on campus. (male white science persister)
Students who wanted to teach also described discouragement from
family members and peers who perceived teaching as a career with low
status, pay, and prospects. Students of color were the only STEM
seniors who reported encouragement from faculty and advisors to become
K-12 teachers.
With respect to faculty's own work, the balance of status and
rewards has, over time, tipped heavily towards research and away from
teaching. Although lecturing has historically been the dominant mode of
instruction, it was traditionally supported by various forms of
interactive small group teaching such as tutorials and seminars, and by
advising and mentoring of students on an individual basis. The pressure
to spend more time on research has led to the dwindling of these
interactive teaching functions among faculty, and their placement in
the hands of (largely untrained) teaching assistants (TAs). Thus
``straight lecturing'' (often in classes of several hundred students)
has increasingly become faculty's main or sole mode of teaching.
This trend has its roots in the 1950's and '60's with a progressive
shift from private to public funding for university research. The
Federal Government offered increasing funds to carry out large-scale
basic research and projects with both military and industrial/
commercial relevance (Kevles, 1979; Fusfield, 1986). Professional
success in academe is now clearly defined in terms of research grant
writing and publication. This imbalance is reflected in the
departmental and institutional rewards systems for tenure and promotion
in which research achievements both outweigh and are more stringently
defined than teaching or service work. While the scholarship of
teaching is a lively and growing area of intellectual dialogue on
campuses nationwide, its application to criteria for faculty rewards is
barely developed and under-acknowledged (Boyer, 1990). The main
mechanism by which teaching effectiveness is judged, namely student
course evaluation surveys administered by institutions, are widely
acknowledged to be poor measures of teaching performance and even
poorer measures of student learning gains (Kulik, 2001).
The consequences of this situation have not gone unnoticed.
Concerns about the quality of STEM undergraduate education have been
raised in a number of reports, notably, those of the National Science
Foundation (Shaping the Future, 1996), the National Research Council/
the National Academy of Sciences: Transforming Undergraduate Education
(1999), Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (2003), and, most recently, Rising above
the Gathering Storm (2005). There has also been a rising demand for
course assessment tools that more accurately reflect student learning
(Hunt & Peligrino, 2002) by accreditation boards (and others) who no
longer view grades given by faculty as acceptable evidence of student
learning. State legislatures have also expressed concerns about the
quality of undergraduate education (e.g., Colorado Governor, Bill
Owens' State of the State address, January 2006) and departments are
increasingly called upon to define objectives for student learning and
demonstrate their attainment (Wergin, 2005; Peterson and Einarson,
2001).
Although many STEM faculty are currently seeking to improve the
effectiveness of their teaching and to develop more accurate ways to
assess their students' learning, they do so in the face of deterrents
in the faculty rewards structure. In our interview studies, pre-tenured
faculty commonly report that they are strongly counseled by their
mentors to defer an interest in teaching until after they gain tenure--
often seven or so years into their careers. In our evaluation work for
two of the five major chemistry initiatives sponsored by the National
Science Foundation\1\ that have developed and tested modular materials
and methods for the teaching of undergraduate chemistry, three active
young faculty contributors to that initiative were denied tenure on the
grounds of their ``over-focus'' on educational scholarship (Seymour,
2001). Panelists and participants at the 1998 National Institute of
Science Education (NISE) Forum on the future of STEM education
concluded, with regret, that younger faculty should be advised to defer
their interest in improving their teaching and assessment methods and
avoid the introduction of education scholarship into their tenure
portfolios (NISE, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ChemLinks Coalition (``Modular Chemistry: Learning
chemistry by doing what chemist do'') and the Modular Chemistry
Consortium, now combined as ``ChemConnections.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consequences for current and future STEM undergraduates
The lower value placed on teaching compared with research both in
STEM faculty attitudes and in academic salary and rewards structures
has consequences for the quality of both undergraduate and K-12
education in science and mathematics.
A. STEM undergraduates' problems with their learning experiences
In Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences
(1997), Nancy Hewitt and I discussed our findings from a study of
field-switching and persistence among well-qualified students (i.e.,
those with SAT mathematics scores of 650 or above) who entered science,
mathematics and engineering majors in seven institutions of different
types. Across all seven campuses, we found that reports of poor
learning experiences were by far the most common complaint both of
those who switched out of science, mathematics, and engineering majors
(90 percent) and of graduating seniors in those majors (74 percent).
Undergraduates' problems with what they referred to as ``poor
teaching'' ranked first among 23 types of problems with their majors
identified by graduating seniors in six of the seven institutions.
Unsatisfactory learning experiences in their science and mathematics
courses were the primary cause of switchers losing their incoming
interest in the sciences, and moving into disciplines where they had
better educational experiences. The students' concerns about how their
courses were taught focused on the following issues:
Courses (and the curriculum overall) were over-
stuffed with material and delivered at too fast a pace for
comprehension, reflection, application, or retention;
Faculty paid insufficient attention to preparing
their courses, selecting course content and materials at an
appropriate level and depth, or presenting them in a logical
sequence;
Objectives and content of class and lab did not
``fit'' together; students did not perceive the conceptual
connections between them; (for example, students commonly
reported that they did not know why they were conducting
particular lab experiments); and saw lack of coherence between
course content and tests, the text, and/or homework;
Conceptual material was little applied, illustrated,
or discussed;
Curved grading systems disengaged grades from
learning and from students' perceptions of mastery; created
artificial and demoralizing forms of competition; and made
collaborative peer learning difficult;
Faculty showed or expressed dislike or disinterest in
teaching;
Faculty appeared to distance themselves from first-
and second-year students, and seemed insufficiently available
for help and advice;
Faculty modes of teaching suggested that they took
little responsibility for student learning, such as checking to
see if students were understanding class material;
Faculty did not clarify their learning objectives for
students and showed little knowledge of pedagogy other than
lecturing;
Able students became bored by their introductory
science courses despite their strong incoming interest in
science;
Many students developed instrumental attitudes
towards their STEM education: they focused on grades rather
than mastery, cheated to beat the curve, and did not retain
content knowledge that they memorized mainly for tests.
The aspects of introductory classes that discouraged young women
were different from those that deterred young men from continuing in
STEM majors (Seymour, 1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Broadly, features
of faculty teaching that reflected the weed-out system (such as fast
pace, work and content overload, harsh competition created by curve
grading) were far more effective in prompting male students to switch.
Young women suffered from different aspects of STEM faculty's approach
to teaching undergraduates: they experienced rapid loss of their
incoming confidence because they were unable to establish with their
professors the kind of interactive learning and support they had
enjoyed with high school teachers. Faculty's failure to encourage them
was taken as active discouragement. This was compounded in departments
where hostile treatment from male peers was a daily experience. Able
women quickly came to doubt whether they belonged in the major, and
doubts shared with their families provoked more encouragement to switch
out of the sciences than was experienced by similarly placed male
peers. The result in our own university was that women were switching
out of STEM majors with higher Predicted Grade Point Averages (PGPA)
than the men who persisted in them.
We concluded that problems with the quality of undergraduate
education especially in the first and second years were a major
determinant of the consistently high field-switching rates (40 percent
to 60 percent) reported for STEM majors in the American Freshman
studies of the Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA (HERI, 1992).
The students' descriptions of their experiences and their responses to
them were also consistent with the view (directly articulated by some
students) that many faculty disliked teaching, did not value it as a
professional activity, and lacked incentives to learn how to teach
effectively:
About the end of the semester he said, ``I guess by now you've
all realized that the university is not for teaching
students.'' He put it plain, right out in the open. . ..In
effect, he was telling us, ``If you want to succeed here,
you're going to have to do it by yourself.'' (male, white,
science senior)
The students also reported experiences with science faculty who
seemed to enjoy their teaching, took pains to be well organized and
clear, and who took an active interest in their students. Seniors were,
however, aware of the research pressures on their professors that
limited the time and energy they could give to teaching. They were less
aware of the tenure and rewards system that made it difficult for
faculty interested in education to improve their pedagogy or that made
it a highly risky form of activity for pre-tenured faculty.
Some caveats: Students can only describe their classroom problems in
light of what they know about teaching and learning from current and
prior experience. For less well-prepared students, their undergraduate
STEM course experiences often mirror in an extreme form the limitations
of their high school science learning experiences. These are
characterized by passive reception of information (rather than active
engagement with ideas), minimalist attitudes to reading and writing,
formulaic approaches to learning focused on memorization rather than
conceptual grasp, and carrying out tasks rather than thinking. Students
also lack a conceptual framework based in cognitive science research to
explain why the pedagogy they have experienced does not enable their
learning. Most students in the study simply did not know what other
modes of teaching and learning might be available and regarded the
lecture format and curved grading systems as inevitable parts of
undergraduate life. Lack of knowledge of what alternative pedagogical
methods would entail helps to explain a certain amount of student
resistance to the introduction of new pedagogies. When faculty begin to
address the problems students identify by teaching in ways that require
more active student engagement and responsibility, students often
resist these unfamiliar, more demanding pedagogies--at least initially.
Better the devil you know. . ..
How some STEM faculty have responded to their students' learning
problems that they also have recognized is discussed in the next
section.
B. The lower level of importance that faculty assign to their teaching
role (whether by choice or career necessity) is also reflected in
inadequate educational preparation of graduate students for their
roles, either as teaching assistants (TAs), or as young faculty despite
faculty's increased dependence on TAs to provide interactive learning
support to students. As I have recently outlined (Seymour, 2005) the
need to prepare TAs was first mooted in the 1930s and it continued to
be proposed throughout the following decades. However, in a historical
review, Nyquist, Abbott and Wulff (1989) comment on the slow progress
of universities to provide formal professional development for teaching
assistants. After the first national conference on TA issues in 1989,
more universities began to offer TA preparation in an effort to improve
undergraduate education. However, the available research (summarized in
Seymour, 2005, Chapter 10) indicates that most institutions and
disciplines either do not offer formal educational preparation for
their TAs or offer programs that are informal or limited in scope--most
commonly, short orientation sessions that are not discipline- or
course-specific. Furthermore, most existing programs do not ground TAs'
work in learning research and the teaching practices that derive from
this body of knowledge. Most TA training (sic) programs give advice on
management of their lab and recitation sections that are relevant only
to the lecture mode. Although the STEM disciplines are major employers
of TAs in their large introductory classes, Shannon, Twale, and Moore
(1998) found that TAs in science, mathematics, and engineering classes
were the least likely to receive appropriate educational preparation
for their teaching support work. This ongoing situation significantly
contributes to poor-quality undergraduate learning experiences. It is
of particularly concern because STEM undergraduates attest the
importance of good TAs to their learning and academic survival (Seymour
& Hewitt, 1997).
A large body of cognitive research and classroom practice exists upon
which STEM faculty can draw in rethinking their own teaching and in
developing appropriate educational preparation for their TAs. Broadly,
research on learning (cf., Brandsford, et al., 1999; 2000) proposes
that students progressively build a personal knowledge framework based
on what they already understand, and, that conceptual mastery and
resolution of misconceptions is best accomplished in active engagement
with ideas and problems, including interactive exchanges with teachers,
TAs, and peers. Strategies that reflect the findings of cognitive
science include a shift in approach from teaching to enabling learning,
a focus on problem-based and contextual learning, inquiry and hands-on
discovery, and reduction in the breadth of ``coverage'' in favor of
strategies that encourage deeper understanding. Students are also
encouraged to connect and apply their knowledge and to take more
responsibility for their own learning. Teachers are encouraged to
articulate their learning objectives, match their selection of
materials, content emphases, and learning assessments to these, make
their learning objectives and expectations clear to students, and
``signpost'' for students the intellectual path they are taking through
the content (Seymour, 2001). Teaching methods derived from this body of
theoretical and applied knowledge are increasingly referred to as
``scientific teaching'' (Handelsman et al., 2004). The available
literature is too large to summarize here, but, in addition to
theoretical and research publications, it includes descriptions and
evaluation results from STEM faculty's endeavors to implement these
principles in their approaches to the teaching and development of class
and lab materials and methods--a body of work that constitutes a
growing scholarship of education among an active minority of STEM
faculty.
The research, its applications, and outcomes have, in recent years,
been offered in forms that are very accessible to faculty who are
interested in understanding more about how students learn and how best
to enable learning in their own teaching work (reviewed by DeHaan,
2005). Strategies for teaching student to be active, interactive, and
independent learners, and for designing problem-based, inquiry-focused
class and lab work are offered on a number of web sites, for example:
http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu, www.udel.edu/pbl/,
www.bioquest.org, www.provost.harvard.edu/it-fund/
moreinfo-grants.php?id=79. Information about workshops that
give faculty hands-on experience in using active learning methods
(including working with chemistry modules) is available at
www.cchem.berkeley.edu/ midp. Some web sites focus on particular
disciplines: In chemistry: http://chemconnections.llnl.gov, PLTL:
www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/-chemwkssp/nde.html, CPR: www.molsci.ucla.edu/
default.htm, OGIL: www.pogil.org/. In physics: TEAL: http://
evangelion.mit.edu.edu/802TEAL3D, SCALE-UP: www.ncsu.edu/per/
scaleup.html. In biology: BioSciEdNet(BEN): www.biosciencenet.org,
Bioquest: www.bioquest.org/BQLibrary/bqvolvi.html, undergraduate
bioinformatics: www.cellbioed.org/article.cfm?ArticleID+157. Others
sites (such as those offered by the University of Wisconsin) offer
assistance to faculty in designing learning assessments (tests,
projects, etc.) that reflect course learning objectives (using the
Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide); and in obtaining feedback on
the degree to which students assess their learning gains in particular
aspects of their courses (the on-line ``Student Assessment of Their
Learning Gains'' instrument). Both sites can be found at
www.flaguide.org. I have been closely involved in the development of
both sites and attest to their widespread use by STEM faculty. The
University of Wisconsin Center for Education Research also houses web
sites offering practical advice to faculty in collaborative learning
methods and in the use of technology in their classrooms.
Notwithstanding its growing availability, this knowledge is still
unknown to and unused by most, STEM faculty, and the knowledge and
expertise of education faculty at their own institutions is often
ignored or discounted. A survey of 123 research-intensive universities
nationwide by the Reinvention Center at Stony Brooke (2001) found
evidence of scientific teaching among only small numbers STEM faculty
at approximately 20 percent of these institutions. Failure to convey
this knowledge to TAs perpetuates in the next generation of faculty the
limited knowledge of research-grounded teaching practices and limited
priorities that characterize current faculty teaching. Both our TA
study, and that done by French and Russell (2002), note how quickly
graduate students can develop misconceptions about how learning takes
place, and assume unfortunate attitudes towards teaching that they
observe in their professors. Once established, these prove hard to
dislodge. Hammrich (1996) found that TAs commonly believe student
understanding to be a matter of ``automatic transmission or
absorption'' rather than an ``active process of interpreting
information and constructing understanding'' (p.8). In the innovative
science courses included in our study, one (happily minority) source of
TA resistance was the requirement that all TAs use the same active,
interactive, inquiry-based methods that they were being taught to use
in their lab and recitation sections. This affronted some TAs'
presumption that, like faculty, they had the right to teach however
they saw fit. Creating change among the existing STEM faculty, though
not (as I shall later argue) impossible, is a more difficult endeavor
than choosing to give graduate students an adequate preparation for
their present and future teaching roles that is grounded in a
researched-based understanding of how students learn.
C. STEM undergraduate under-preparation and limitations of the K-12
teaching force
Lack of faculty support for science and mathematics teaching
careers among their STEM majors, coupled with a historic decline in the
number of high-ability women entering mathematics teaching (noted by
Schlechty and Vance as early as 1983), and perceptions of lower status
and pay for K-12 teachers in the general American population, have
combined to create a serious shortfall of discipline-qualified
mathematics and science teachers in middle and high schools. The
situation has been well-documented over the last decade (e.g., Gafney
and Weiner, 1995; Schugart & Hounsell, 1995; Clewell & Villegas, 2001),
and was most recently cited in the National Academy of Sciences report,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2005).
Problems of shortage are compounded by concerns about quality. The
1990-91 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS) warned that 72 percent of
public secondary school mathematics teachers and 38 percent of science
teachers had not earned a Bachelor's degree in their disciplines and
that those with a disciplinary qualifications were an aging group that
was not being replaced by entrants to the profession. In 1997, the U.S.
Department of Education reported that 39 percent of school districts
had vacancies for mathematics and science teachers, of which 19 percent
went unfulfilled. In that year also, President Clinton, in his State of
the Union address, urged that, ``We should challenge more of our finest
young people to consider a career in teaching.'' Whether in response to
this appeal or to a down-turn in the job market, in the late 1990s, the
numbers of non-STEM baccalaureate entrants to the teaching profession
began to rise. However, this was not the case for science and
mathematics teachers where the shortfall continued to worsen. In 2000,
National Science Teachers' Association nationwide survey showed that 61
percent of high schools and 48 percent of middle schools were
experiencing difficulty in locating qualified science teachers to fill
vacancies and that many schools were obliged to fill vacancies with
less qualified or temporary teachers. In 2004, Bruillard reported that
districts were importing international K-12 teachers to fill their
mathematics and science vacancies. The situation has been most acute in
schools with more than 20 percent minority enrollment (Clewell &
Villegas, 2001). States such as Texas, Florida, and New Jersey with
high mathematics and science teacher vacancies have turned to
alternative or emergency certification of people with some STEM
background, such as retired military personnel. Most recently, the
National Academy of Sciences (2005) report warned that only 41 percent
of U.S. middle school students had a mathematics teacher who had
majored in mathematics education (let alone an undergraduate
mathematics major), while, internationally, the average is 71 percent
and in many countries is greater than 90 percent.
The consequences of the shortage of qualified mathematics and
science teachers in middle and high schools were evident in our Talking
About Leaving study findings. The discovery of a gap between the levels
of knowledge with which students had graduated from their high schools
and those demanded of them in introductory college mathematics and
science courses was a common experience. However, it was evident that,
in 39 percent of all student statements about problems with their
educational experiences, the gap reflected serious under-preparation.
There was no difference between the switchers (40 percent) and the
persisters (38 percent) in this regard. However failure to find
remedial help from a tutor, study group, or other means in order to
make up the gap was mentioned as a factor in switching.
Many switchers and persisters who had taken Advanced Placement
mathematics and science courses were shocked to find that these courses
had been offered at too low a level to adequately prepare them for
their first college courses. Their experience is echoed in findings of
significant variations in the quality of AP courses first reported by
Juillerat et al. (1997). There were also regional and race/ethnicity
patterns in our findings on under-preparation problems. Students at the
east coast state university in our sample experienced the greatest
variability in the reliability of their high school science and
mathematics grades as an indicator of their college-level work. They
expressed frustration that neither they nor their parents could have
known the extent of their under-preparation from their grades or their
teachers' evaluations of their work. Students of color from high
schools predominantly attended by students of the same race/ethnicity
were at particular risk of a phenomenon that we labeled, ``over-
confident and under-prepared.'' Teachers, parents, and community
members had sent students to college with a strong sense that they
could succeed in STEM majors, only to find that their science and
mathematics preparation seriously undermined their chances. This group
gave some of the most heart-rending accounts that we heard in this
study of their failed efforts to close the preparation gap. Rather than
identifying inadequacies in educational provision as the cause of their
problems, most of these students blamed themselves. These students were
at high risk, not only of switching, but of dropping out of college
altogether. Faculty attitudes towards under-prepared students also
played a role in the loss of able students. Questioning the adequacy of
their high school preparation was highly evident at institutions where
we found the weed-out tradition to be strongest: loss of confidence and
discouragement engendered by low grades were highly ranked as a cause
of switching in the two western state universities where weed-out
assessment practices were strong, particularly in the colleges of
engineering.
Teaching assistants in our 2005 study also struggled with high
variability in the high school preparation of the undergraduates with
whom they worked in recitation and lab sections. The 42 chemistry TAs
at the University of California, Berkeley who were helping to prepare
students to enter chemistry majors, expected undergraduates to enter
the course with sufficient knowledge and skills in chemistry and
mathematics to undertake the class work. They assumed that students
would be able to solve problems, operate in the lab, write lab reports,
and tackle unfamiliar problems by using what they already knew. In all
of these expectations, they were disappointed. More than two-thirds of
the Berkeley TA sample reported that students arrived under-prepared in
the fundamental knowledge and skills needed to perform at least
adequately. Their direct experience with students in their lab and
recitation sections led them to conclude that many did not posses an
understanding of the methods and principles of science and some could
not do elementary algebra. TAs also noted that the writing and study
skills of some students were poor. Overall, fewer than one-third of the
TAs working in this large introductory chemistry class felt that most
of their students entered the course with the requisite knowledge and
skills to undertake it:
A lot of these students have problems, not just with the math,
but with basic algebra and with manipulating equations to get
things in the right form and so on. And the class assumes that
they know how to do that kind of thing.
Concern that their first- and second-year students entered their
classes under-prepared for their course work was also documented in a
survey of 314 TAs in forty-five courses at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln (Luo, Bellows, & Grady, 2000) in which (as at Berkeley) two-
thirds of the TAs assessed their students as under-prepared. By
contrast, the Berkeley TAs noted that some students were over-prepared
for this introductory course. Indeed, the TAs' largest single teaching
difficulty was the wide variation in the levels of preparation in
mathematics, science, writing, and study skills that their students had
received from their pre-college education. Their testimony underscores
the problems both of widespread under-preparation in middle and high
school mathematics and science, and of significant regional and local
disparities in the quality of mathematics and science education
offered.
The 110 TAs included in our study were generally not disposed to
blame the students for inadequate preparation and we document their
efforts to help their students make up for lost ground. However, we
also note the irony of STEM faculty treating under-preparation as an
indication of students' lesser worth given the contribution of STEM
faculty as a whole to the continuing shortage of adequately qualified
K-12 science and mathematics teachers. In light of the problems this
shortage creates for access, quality, and persistence in undergraduate
STEM education, I propose that rethinking the roles and professional
development of teaching assistants offers an opportunity to break part
of the cycle that has simultaneously perpetuated the decline in the
perceived value of teaching, diluted the quality of undergraduate STEM
education, and constrained the building of a discipline-educated
teaching force in science and mathematics that is adequate to national
needs.
3. Strategies (both underway and needed) that address current
difficulties
Given my diagnosis of factors contributing to problems in the
quality of undergraduate STEM education, I focus on three main areas of
activity that seem to offer the best promise of improvement. All three
involve active efforts in the professional development of teachers--
current and future K-12 science and mathematics teachers, teaching
assistants in STEM undergraduate courses, and STEM faculty--based on
methods grounded in research on how students learn.
First some caveats: Faculty will always be at varying stages of
readiness to change their thinking and attitudes about teaching and
learning or consider new practices. Some are already active; others
interested, curious, or skeptical; and some will remain firmly
committed to current teaching methods regardless of the evidence as to
the greater benefits of alternative approaches or evidence of failures
in what they are doing now. Providing clear and convincing evidence
that innovative forms of teaching are as effective or better than more
traditional approaches is always a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for change. The idea that good ideas, supported by convincing
evidence of their effectiveness, will spread `naturally' as their
success becomes known, is unfounded. As Kuhn (1970) noted, shifts in
scientific theory do not occur as an automatic response to
accumulations of data. When the shift that is called for is one of
values, attitudes, and social behavior, the response is, as Tobias
(1992) observed, often unaffected by available evidence. Indeed, there
is research evidence that the personal endorsement of classroom
innovations by colleagues who are esteemed for their research standing
is more effective than evidence presented in scientific articles or
direct demonstrations of the superior outcomes of particular methods
(Foertsch et al., 1997). Thus, change of whole departments or
institutions in the same time frame is apt to be difficult, and may
prove impossible.
Although I am aware of some STEM departments where every member is
actively implementing new forms of teaching and learning, these are a
small minority. In most departments, innovation-minded faculty will be
a minority. Whether changes are mooted by more radical colleagues, by
institutional or state leaders, or by outside agencies, departments in
which the majority of faculty are committed to the status quo can
effectively resist change. (The exception seems to be accreditation
boards which can and do exercise effective leverage.) Departments have
the power to resist change, partly because of the established tradition
of faculty post-tenure autonomy in matters of academic and professional
judgment, and partly because reference to disciplinary standards and
practices can be argued by department members to supersede other
authorities. While this system has merit for many other reasons, it has
proved a serious barrier to widespread faculty use of the many
pedagogical alternatives that are freely available to them.
These difficulties suggest two lines of action:
a). Following the argument already laid out, I urge the design and
implementation of department-based, discipline- and course-specific,
programs for the professional development and support of teaching
assistants (STEM and otherwise). This preparation should expose them to
cognitive science research on student learning, the range of teaching
approaches and specific methods that this research reports, and offer
guided practice in working interactively with students to enable their
learning. In the view of the TAs in our 2005 study, preparation and
support programs were best when attached to the faculty and course that
each TA served rather than broader preparation in departmental or
campus-wide programs that are unrelated to their working experience. As
argued earlier, this strategy holds the promise of preparing the next
generation of faculty more appropriately and adequately for their
teaching role than their predecessors and will make the diffusion of
effective educational methods progressively easier with each generation
of STEM graduates.
A set of suggestions for what such a course might contain for TAs
who are working with faculty who are implementing innovative courses
was offered by TAs in my 2005 study. Grounded in their experience, they
sought a course that would:
introduce them to the scholarship of learning and the
educational practices that support student learning
give clear guidance as to the principles and methods
of the course they are to work in, its learning objectives, and
the methods and materials to be used in working with students
model for them pedagogical skills and techniques for
working interactively with students
guide them in dealing with common problems--handling
questions to which they do not know the answers, disruptive or
non-participative group members, and disciplinary problems
prepare them working alongside faculty for new
activities, such as inquiry-based labs and teaching students to
work with authentic data
offer practice and feedback on their work
enable resolution of issues encountered in
implementing course activities through regular (weekly)
collegial discussions with each other and their course faculty
engage them collegially in the development and
refinement of new courses, including learning assessment, and
their faculty's educational research based on their courses.
The TAs felt that they learned most when their education was firmly
related to the work they were doing and where they had opportunities to
contribute in a collegial manner to course development.
b) Secondly, I urge concentration on the professional development
and recognition of STEM faculty who recognize problems in the quality
of STEM education, who are curious about or interested in alternative
approaches to teaching and learning, are open to change, and those who
have already begun to work with new material and methods. Connect these
faculty with similarly-interested colleagues in other STEM departments
at the same and other local institutions, and with national
disciplinary networks of innovative STEM faculty, to form mutually-
supportive communities of learner-practitioners. This strategy is
discussed in terms of professional development workshops for faculty.
While the Talking About Leaving study was underway, faculty around
the country who had also recognized many of the problems identified by
students had begun to explore and share at conferences and on web sites
a body of research-based knowledge about how learning happens and
strategies that would better enable it. By the time the book went to
press, the first workshops for faculty wishing to learn how to teach
more actively and interactively were already being held. These were
largely offered by Project Kaleidoscope, organized by Jeanne Narum at
the Independent Colleges Office. Project Kaleidoscope has also taken a
leading role in the dissemination of materials that promote and
describe scientific teaching and learning methods.
In 2000, the National Science Foundation funded the Multi-
Initiative Dissemination (MID) Project workshops which were organized
and offered by faculty who were active in the undergraduate chemistry
initiatives also funded by the NSF. These workshops continued to be
held in regional centers until recently when government funding for the
NSF's STEM education work was reduced. Faculty-led workshops have
proved a highly effective and relatively inexpensive way to:
make other faculty aware of the range of teaching
methods and materials grounded in cognitive science research
available to them
see these methods modeled
try them out in a supportive group context, and
begin to develop their own course material and
methods with help from workshop organizers and other
participants. This activity continues to be supported beyond
the workshop.
The faculty who organize and run the workshops are drawn from a
growing pool of experienced users of scientific teaching materials and
methods. They are paid only a modest stipend and their travel expenses.
Workshop evaluators (Lewis & Lewis, 2006; and Burke, Greenbowe, &
Gelder, 2004) point to the power of the workshop method to change the
participants' conceptions of teaching and learning:
They leave the workshop sessions thinking in a different way
about how effectively their students are currently learning and
what modifications they might make to change that. (Burke,
Greenbowe, & Gelder, 2004, p. 901)
Teaching practices are well known to be guided by faculty beliefs
and conceptions of teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b); thus
genuine improvement in teaching must begin with a change in faculty
thinking about teaching and learning (Ho, 2000). Lewis and Lewis (2006)
found that in the ChemConnections workshops sessions, 43 percent of
respondents were using modules by the following spring and another 13
percent were planning to use them in a future course. A larger
proportion (57 percent) reported a variety of other changes in their
teaching practice and 72 percent described a variety of gains from
their experience. Lewis & Lewis also found that uptake of new teaching
ideas was greater in workshops lasting two or more days than in shorter
workshops. Among respondents to their follow-up surveys, the New
Traditions workshop evaluators found an even higher rate of uptake (78
percent) of the teaching and learning strategies that they had
experienced (Penberthy & Connolly, 2000). Workshops were found to
stimulate faculty new to active learning to try out these strategies.
The workshops also helped repeat attenders (i.e., those already
experimenting to improve their use of these strategies) to deepen their
knowledge and encouraged them to add other methods.
Workshops were also offered as part of the NSF's Undergraduate
Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program; their evaluators (Marder et al.,
2001; Sell, 1998) estimated that 81 percent of the 14,400 participants
in the UFE workshop program made moderate or major changes to their
courses, affecting an estimated 2.8 million undergraduates. When the
workshops directly addressed teaching methods and provided time for
participants to work on their own teaching materials, this was
associated with later revision of a course.
As an evaluator for ChemConnections, I observed that the experience
of teaching workshops helps active participants to build and sustain
their networks of engaged STEM faculty and expands the pool of faculty
with knowledge and expertise to share. (This is also evident in the
Project Kaleidoscope workshops which solicit the engagement of senior
colleagues by requiring faculty to participate in teams that include
two senior members of their department or institution.) The capacity of
workshops to engage as well as to educate, and to continually extend
the networks of faculty convinced of the value of scientific teaching
and learning methods, and ready to share their work with colleagues,
makes them a powerful force for sustained change. Regional workshops
bring together faculty from different institutions and connect them to
like-minded colleagues locally and nationally. These connections are
especially important in supporting faculty who lack departmental
colleagues with similar educational interests. Connections are
sustained by correspondence and reinforced by live encounters at
conferences and other meetings. (It is notable that disciplinary
conferences have developed education sections to service a growing
interest in science education scholarship.) New collaborations form
spontaneously, sustained by the intrinsic pleasures of working with
like-minded colleagues to build web-sites, develop new projects,
produce new teaching materials, undertake research, and co-author
articles and grant proposals. In short, faculty development workshops
have emerged as a highly productive, cost-effective way to build a
nationwide network of STEM faculty who are actively engaged in
implementing the principles of scientific teaching and learning in
their own courses and ready and able to share their knowledge and
expertise with others.
A third set of strategies suggested by the evidence and arguments
that I have offered in this paper is to develop national programs:
to promote mathematics and science teaching as a
rewarding and well-rewarded profession using the resources of
the media to reach both students and their families; to pro-
actively recruit existing STEM undergraduates with an interest
in teaching. Incentives might include scholarships or loan
waivers, and removal of additional costs to students of
additional years in education certification preparation.
to develop and support baccalaureate programs
combining STEM disciplinary degrees with concurrent educational
preparation for teaching in the K-12 system. Students would
need to be financially supported and mentored through to their
early years as teachers (given the high loss rates in early
teaching careers). My thoughts in this matter reflect those of
the 2005 National Academy Report.
The NSF has sought through a number of ongoing programs--
Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, Math and Science
Partnerships, the State and Rural Systemic Initiatives, and a variety
of outreach programs that engage STEM college faculty and their
graduate students to work with K-12 mathematics and science teachers
and students--to strengthen the disciplinary preparation of students
entering programs of teacher preparation in colleges of education.
These will continue to be needed as infusion of the teaching force with
new teachers graduating with degrees in STEM disciplines will take time
to build.
As a member of the National Visiting Committees of both the Texas
CETP and the Puerto Rico Math and Science Partnership, I have observed
in action the value of drawing university and college STEM faculty into
partnerships with K-12 teachers and the two-way learning and respect
that can develop from this. In our own evaluation of outreach programs
using volunteer STEM graduate students, we found that the positive
effects on graduate students working in K-12 classes in increasing
their own interest in teaching and understanding of its challenges were
at least as great as the impact that their classroom work had on the
levels of interest in and understanding of science among their students
(Laursen et al., 2004, 2005).
However, as I am not a specialist in K-12 education, beyond these
broad suggestions, I would defer to others better qualified to
determine the details of a strategic national plan to address our
urgent need for a profound improvement in the quality of our
mathematics and science teaching force.
A Major Caveat
For each of these strategies to make a discernible difference to
the quality of both undergraduate and K-12 STEM education, ways must
now be found to address the fundamental problems with which I began
this paper. The beliefs and practices that determine faculty rewards,
incentives, and tenure have to be rebalanced so as to encourage and
support scientific modes of teaching and educational scholarship. We
understand what needs to be done. The principles were clearly laid out
by the late Ernest Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professorate (1990), and, in 2003, the National Research Council
translated these principles into action items. Their recommendations
include the following: ``That presidents, deans and department chairs:
Should use their visible positions to exhort faculty
and administrators to unite in the reform of undergraduate
education and dispel the notion that excellence in teaching in
incompatible with first-rate research.
Match the faculty incentive system with the need for
reform. Tenure policies, sabbaticals, awards, adjustments in
teaching responsibilities, and administrative support should be
used to reinforce those who seek time to improve their
teaching. . .Rewards should go to those who are teaching with
research-tested and successful strategies, learning new
methods, or introducing and analyzing new assessments in their
classrooms. . .
Consider efforts by faculty who engage students in
learning-centered courses as important activities in matters of
tenure, promotions and salary decisions, and modify promotion
and tenure policies in ways that motivate faculty to spend time
and effort on developing new teaching methods or redesigning
courses to be more learning-centered.
Consider faculty time spent on redesign of
introductory courses or in research focused on teaching and
learning a discipline as evidence of productivity as a teacher-
scholar.
Create more vehicles for educating faculty, graduate
students, post-doctoral fellows, and staff in tested effected
pedagogy. Incorporate education about teaching and learning
into graduate training and faculty development programs and
fully integrate these into the educational environment and
degree requirements.
In hiring new faculty and post-doctoral fellows,
place greater emphasis on awareness of new teaching methods,
perhaps ear-marking a portion of support packages to fund their
attendance at teaching workshops.
As I have argued, we now have a solid, well-disseminated body of
theoretical knowledge and practical know-how upon which to build the
capacity of STEM faculty and their TAs as enablers of student learning.
What we have lacked is the moral and political will to create a climate
in STEM departments that will support and reward faculty who use this
knowledge to improve student and TA learning. To do this will take
strong leadership from university and college presidents and senior
administrators, acting both individually and collectively. It will also
take financial and other forms of leverage from organizations that
provide higher education funding--whether to institutions, or more
directly to departments and their members. Such organizations include
federal and State legislatures, public and private funding agencies,
accreditation boards, university business partners and benefactors.
Obviously, it is preferable for all of these efforts to proceed by
consultative rather than adversarial processes. It will also be optimal
for the disciplinary and professional associations that represent
faculty interests to work as partners in a collective endeavor to
rethink the rewards, incentive, and tenure structures that shape the
choices and practices of their members.
We have side-stepped this difficult issue throughout the two
decades that we have been aware of its relevance for the problems of
quality and access in STEM and K-12 education. Perhaps we hoped that we
could improve the situation without directly addressing it. However, it
has now become the elephant in the room that we can neither ignore nor
circumvent. We must now squarely face the issues raised by the faculty
rewards system and find collaborative ways to make it the norm rather
than the exception for faculty in STEM departments to use scientific
teaching and learning methods, to ensure the appropriate professional
development of the future professorate (the graduate students), and to
make K-12 teaching by STEM undergraduates once more an honored and
encouraged career choice.
In conclusion, I would like to offer praise to the National Science
Foundation and to the many private foundations who have moved us all
forward in our understanding of the dimensions of undergraduate STEM
education issues, through their support of STEM education research and
program evaluation; who have led the way in soliciting and funding
initiatives with enough scope to promote innovation among large numbers
of STEM faculty; who have encouraged, supported and disseminated model
programs; and who have been ready to grapple with difficult issues such
as under-representation in STEM disciplines of women and people of
color. I also commend the NSF for its experimental approach to
fostering change. It intentionally funds innovative, sometime high-
risk, programs (such as those that address under-representation) and
anticipates that not all funded initiatives will work well. In sum, it
is impossible to imagine how limited would be our understanding of the
issues that STEM education faces, what strategies are valuable in
addressing them, where barriers lie, and how to move forward, without
the work of the NSF and the foundations.
This said, I nonetheless urge the NSF to more fully complete the
experimental cycle, and invest even more heavily in evaluation and, in
particular, long-term evaluation. We do not understand the longer-term
positive outcomes--both intended and unanticipated--of the larger
programs. The normal project funding span of five years is rarely
enough time to develop projects to maturity and track their impacts: it
is thus important to fund longitudinal or follow-up studies that can
determine the dimensions of change that these larger initiatives
continue to promote.
In November, 2005, I was privileged to represent the U.S. science
education research and practitioner community at a multi-national
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting
Amsterdam on issues in STEM education. It was clear that the European
universities and school systems were struggling with many of the same
issues as the United States in attracting, retaining, and educating
effectively their STEM undergraduates. I was struck how much further
ahead the U.S. researchers were in their knowledge and experience of
how to harness cognitive science research in the service of improved
classroom experiences for students. The proportion of faculty actively
engaged in raising the quality of U.S. STEM education, though
constantly growing, is still a minority. However, it far exceeds the
progress made by European colleagues to date in developing, testing,
and disseminating research-grounded materials and methods. Since my
return, I have responded to many requests from conference participants
to supply details of available research publications and STEM web-site
locations. Despite our (valid) concerns about the poorer performance of
U.S. students in international comparisons of K-12 mathematics and
science learning, this is good news.
What is now vital is that, for want of adequate funding, and the
will to rebalance the academic rewards and tenure systems to support
scientific teaching and educational scholarship, we do not loose the
ground we have gained. We owe our progress to date to the investments
we have made in educational innovation and program development, in
research, evaluation, and testing, and, above all, capacity-building
among faculty. Our success to date is especially due to the growing
networks of STEM faculty who have shown the insight and the will to
take change into their classrooms and labs, and who continue to draw
their colleagues into a shared endeavor to rebuild quality in STEM
undergraduate education. I cannot, therefore, overstate the importance
of developing rewards and tenure systems that will support their
excellent work and the effective preparation of our future STEM
faculty.
References Cited
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professorate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Brandsford, J.D. & Pellegrino, J.W. (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn:
Bridging Research and Practice. National Research Council,
Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brandsford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How People
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition.
National Research Council, Committee on Learning Research.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bruillard, K. (2004, March 8). New Visa Ceiling Called Threat to
Teacher Recruitment. The Washington Post, p. A03.
Burke, K.A., Greenbowe, T.J., & Gelder, J. (2004). The Multi-Initiative
Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends and How Effective
Are They? Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6):897-902.
Clewell, B.C., & Villegas, A.M. (2001). Absence Unexcused: Ending
Teacher Shortages in High Need Areas. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. Retrieved 3/08/06 from www.urgan.org/
url.cfm?ID=310379.
DeHaan, R.L. (2005). The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education, Journal of Science Education and Technology
14(2):253-269.
Foertsch, J.M., Millar, S.B., Squire, L., & Gunter, R. (1997).
Persuading Professors: A Study in the Dissemination of
Educational Reform in Research Institutions. Report to the NSF
Education and Human Resources Directorate, Division of
Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Washington DC.
Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center.
French, D., & Russell, C. (2002). Do Graduate Teaching Assistants
Benefit From Teaching Inquiry-based Laboratories? Bioscience,
52:1036-41.
Fusfield, H.I. (1986). The Technical Enterprise: Present and Future
Patterns. New York: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Gafney, L., & Weiner, M. (1995). Finding Future Teachers From Among
Undergraduate Science and Mathematics Majors. Phi Delta Kappan
76:633-641.
Hammrich. P. (1996) Biology Graduate Teaching Assistants' Conceptions
About the Nature of Teaching. ERIC Database document ED401155,
www.eric.ed.gov.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beicher, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A.,
DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman,
S.M., & Wood, W.B. (2004). Scientific Teaching. Science
304:521-522.
Higher Education Research Institute (1992). The American College
Student, 1991: National Norms for the 1987 and 1989 Freshmen
Classes. Los Anglese, CA: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
Ho, A. (2001). A Conceptual Change Approach to Improving Staff
Development: A Model for Programme Design. The International
Journal for Academic Development 5:30-4.
Hunt, E., & Pelligrino, J. (2002). Issues, Examples, and Challenges in
Formative Assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning
89:73-85.
Juillerat, F., Dubowsky, N., Ridenour, N.V., McIntosh, W.J., & Caprio,
M.W. (1997). Advanced Placement Science Courses: High School-
College Articulation Issues. Journal of College Science
Teaching 27:48-52.
Kevles, D.J. (1979) The History of the Scientific Community in Modern
America. New York: Vintage Books.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kulik, J.A. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and
Controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research 109:9-
25.
Laursen, S., Thiry, H., & Liston, C. (2005). Evaluation of the Science
Squad Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the
University of Colorado at Boulder: Career Outcomes of
Participation for the Science Squad Members. Boulder, CO:
Report prepared for the Biological Science Initiative and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute by members of & Evaluation
Research, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., Sheff, E., and Coates, C. (2004).
Evaluation of the Science Squad program for the Biological
Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder:
1. Benefits, Costs, and Trade-offs. Boulder, CO: Report
prepared for the Biological Science Initiative and the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute by members of & Evaluation Research,
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Lewis, S.E., & Lewis, J.E. (2006). Effectiveness of a Workshop to
Encourage Action: Evaluation From a Post-workshop Survey.
Journal of Chemical Education 83(2):299-304.
Liston, C., Laursen, S., Coates, C., &.Thiry, H. (2005). Evaluation of
the Teacher Professor Development Workshops for the Biological
Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Report to BSI and HHMI. Ethnography & Evaluation Research:
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Luo, J., Bellows,L., & Grady, M. (2000). Classroom Management Issues
for Teaching Assistants. Research in Higher Education 41:353-
83.
Marder, C., McCullough, J., Perakis, S., & Buccino, A. (2001).
Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Undergraduate
Faculty Enhancement (UFE) Program. Report prepared for the
National Science Foundation, Directorate of Education and Human
Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication,
by SRI International, Higher Education Policy and Evaluation
Program. See also references therein. Retrieved 4/9/04 from
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf01123/
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic
Future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the
21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology.
NAS: Washington, DC. Available at www.nap.edu
National Institute for Science Education (1998). Indicators of Success
in Post-secondary SMET Education: Shapes of the Future.
Synthesis and proceedings of the Third Annual NISE Forum.
Editor, S.B. Millar. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
National Research Council (2003). Improving Undergraduate Instruction
in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Editor,
DeHaan, R.L. Washington, DC. Committee on Undergraduate Science
Education.
National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New
Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Report on its review
of undergraduate education by the advisory committee to the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Chairman M.D.
George. NSF: Arlington, VA.
National Science Teachers' Association (2000). NSTA Releases Nationwide
Survey of Science Teacher Credentials, Assignments, and Job
Satisfaction. Arlington, VA: NSTA. Retrieved 3/08/06 from
http.//www.nsta.org/survey3/.
National Research Council (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education
in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering. Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press:
Washington, DC.
Nyquist, J., Abbott, R., & Wulff, D. (1998). Thinking Developmentally
About TA Training in the 1990s. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning. (Teaching Assistant Training in the 1990s) 39:7-14.
Penberthy, D., & Connolly, M. (2000). Final Report on Evaluation of New
Traditions Workshops for Chemistry Faculty: Focus on Follow-up
Surveys Documenting Outcomes for Workshop Participants. Report
prepared for New Traditions Project by the LEAD Center.
Retrieved 4/2/04 from http://www.cae.wisc.edu/?lead/pages/
internal.html.
Reinvention Center at Stony Brook (2001). Reinventing Undergraduate
Education: Three Years After the Boyer Report. Retrieved, 7/15/
03 from www.sunysb.edu/reinventioncenter/boyerfollowup.pdf.
Schugart, S., & Hounsell, P. (1995) Subject Matter Competence and the
Recruitment Retention of Secondary Science Teachers. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 32:63-70.
Schlechty, P.C. & Vance, V.S. (1983). Recruitment, Selection,
Retention: The Shape of the Teaching Office. Elementary School
Journal 83:469-487.
Sell, G.R. (1998). A Review of Research-based Literature Pertinent to
an Evaluation of Workshop Programs and Related Professional
Development Activities for Undergraduate Faculty in the
Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering. Report commissioned by
SRI International as part of an evaluation for the
Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program for the
National Science Foundation. Available from the author.
Seymour, E. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in
College Science Teaching. With Melton, G., Wiese, D.J., and
Pedersen-Gallegos, L. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefeld.
Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the Processes of Change in U.S.
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
and Technology. Science Education 86:79-105.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Seymour, E. (1995). Explaining the Loss of Women From Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors: An
Explanatory Account. Science Education 79(4):437-473.
Shannon, D., Twale, D. & Moore, M. (1998). TA Teaching Effectiveness:
The Impact of Training and Teaching Experience. Journal of
Higher Education 69:440-466.
Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things
Work and Most Don't. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser. M. (1996a). Congruence Between Intention and
Strategy in University Science Teachers' Approaches to
Teaching. Higher Education 32:77-87.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Changing Approaches to Teaching: A
Relational Perspective. Studies in Higher Education 21(3):275-
284.
U.S. Department of Education (1997). America's Teachers: Profile of a
Profession, 1993-94. NCES 9-460. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education statistics.
Biography for Elaine Seymour
Elaine Seymour was for sixteen years Director of Ethnography &
Evaluation Research (E&ER), located in the Center to Advance Teaching
Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences at the University of
Colorado at Boulder. The group includes both social and physical
scientists whose research focuses on issues of change in STEM education
and careers, including evaluation of initiatives seeking to improve
quality and access in these fields. The issues of women in these
disciplines have been a special focus and, in recognition of this work
WEPAN awarded Elaine its 2002 Betty Vetter Award for Research.
Elaine's best-known published work may be Talking About Leaving:
Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, (1997) co-authored with Nancy M.
Hewitt. She and E&ER members recently published ``Partners in
Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Science Courses,'' which
draws on findings from three science education initiatives. She and her
group have been evaluators for several national and institution-based
innovations including two NSF-funded chemistry consortia and
(currently) an NSF ADVANCE grant intended to accelerate the career
progress of STEM faculty women.
Notwithstanding her semi-retirement, she is currently working with
E&ER members on a comparative, longitudinal study that explores the
benefits and costs of undergraduate research experiences (and the
processes whereby benefits are generated) as perceived by students and
faculty at liberal arts colleges. She is also working on a study of the
nature and sources of resistance to innovation that draws on data from
several science education initiatives. Elaine has served as an
evaluator and as a member of national visiting committees and advisory
boards for many STEM education change projects. In 2005, she was
invited to represent the U.S. experience in working to improve
undergraduate science education at a multi-nation OECD conference in
Amsterdam. She is a sociologist and a British-American whose education
(Keele, Glasgow, and Colorado) and career have been conducted on both
sides of the Atlantic.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Seymour.
Dr. Wieman, I should underscore just how much--how
impressed we, on the Committee, are with your use of your Nobel
award in the furtherance of changing the education method. And
that really is very impressive.
So maybe you want to talk about that a little bit in the
course of your testimony, if you will.
Dr. Wieman.
STATEMENT OF DR. CARL WIEMAN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF
PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
Dr. Wieman. Thank you.
My main points are simple: one, undergraduate science
education is based on an obsolete model and is doing a poor job
at providing the education that is needed today; and two, we
now know how to fix it; and three, until you fix it, you can't
fix K-12 science education.
So the basis of these claims are that there is a relatively
recent phenomenon, but a number of people, like myself, are
doing education research within the science disciplines, like
physics, particularly at the college level. And this scientific
approach to science education provides a growing body of
evidence showing that the great majority of college students,
both science majors and non-science majors, are not gaining
worthwhile understanding from their science classes. Most
students are learning that science is boring and little more
than useless memorization of facts that are forgotten after the
exam.
Our methods are different from those of Elaine Seymour, but
our research indicates a similar conclusion. Namely, science
majors are not being created in college. Rather, they are
primarily the few students that, because of some unusual
predisposition rather than ability, manage to survive their
undergraduate science instruction.
However, this same science education research that shows
the dismal results produced by the traditional science
instruction is also showing us how to improve this situation.
Experimental teaching methods have been developed that achieve
much better learning and attitudes about science for most
students. Widely adopted, these methods would increase the
pipeline of scientists, produce a more technically-literate and
skilled general public, and provide better trained K-12
teachers.
I emphasize this latter point, because our studies show
that the future K-12 teachers are among the worst in their
learning of science and math in college. That is my claim that
unless you improve science education at the college level, you
are wasting time and money on trying to make major improvements
in K-12.
So why haven't universities changed undergraduate science
education so that their students do learn math and science much
better?
They haven't done it, because, first, while there has never
been a shortage of opinions, only recently has there been real
data showing how badly they were doing and how could--it could
be improved. Second, the computer technology required for
economically-practical widespread implementation of these new
approaches also didn't exist until recently. And finally, and
most important, there are no real incentives to make changes,
other than altruism.
I have spent a lot of time visiting and evaluating
universities, and I can assure you that their financial
support, prestige, and the tuition they can change is quite--
charge is quite unrelated to what their students are actually
learning in science. To make these changes I talked about will
require a significant investment of money and effort. And while
these costs are small compared to the total spent on either K-
12 or higher education, resources are tight, particularly at
public universities.
So how best to bring about this desired change?
I would argue that the first priority needs to be
incentives, which can either be positive or negative, to change
education at the department level of the large research
universities. For better or worse, these research universities
set the standards for undergraduate science education in the
United States and train nearly all of the college science
teachers. The department is the unit for science education, and
to have sustained change, departments, as a whole, must change
how they approach science education. Virtually none of the
federal support for improving college science education
addresses the issue at this crucial level. The limited support
available is typically spent on short-term projects that
involve one or two people per department spread across as many
institutions and departments as possible. These programs have
had some excellent results, but they are doomed to largely
remain localized and short-term, because they ignore
organizational realities. It is like trying to change the
direction of stream flows by scooping out a few buckets of
water and pouring it in a different direction.
So in summary, enough is known about how college students
learn science and how to measure and achieve that learning so
that undergraduate science education can be dramatically
improved for all students. However, it is not going to happen
until colleges, particularly the large research universities,
have incentives to make the investment required to bring about
this change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wieman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Wieman
My main points are simple.
1) Undergraduate science education is based on an obsolete
model and is doing a poor job at providing the education that
is needed today.
2) We now know how to fix it.
3) Until it is fixed, you can't fix K-12 science education.
Let me explain the basis of these claims.
There is a relatively recent phenomenon that a number of people
like myself are doing education research within the science disciplines
like physics, particularly at the college level. This scientific
approach to science education provides a growing body of evidence
showing that the great majority of college students (both science
majors and non-science majors) are not gaining worthwhile understanding
from their science classes. This research utilizes the improved
understanding of how people think and learn coming out of cognitive
science and educational psychology, and applies this understanding to
the specific situations of individual college science courses. By
studying the mental characteristics of expert scientists and those of
novice students we are able to better delineate the desired outcome of
science education and then measure how well different instructional
practices affect students' thinking and understanding to achieve this
outcome. The data show that most students are learning that science is
boring and is little more than useless memorization of facts that are
quickly forgotten after the exam. Our methods are different than those
of Elaine Seymour, but some of our research indicates a similar
conclusion to hers. Namely, science majors are not being created in
college through educating students as to the utility and intellectual
challenges and rewards of science. Instead, successful science majors
are primarily those few students that, because of some unusual
predisposition rather than special ability to do science, manage to
survive their undergraduate science instruction.
Modern society has very different needs for undergraduate science
education than in the distant past when our current instructional
approaches were developed. Then the goal of college science education
was primarily to train only the tiny fraction of the population that
was preselected to become the next generation of scientists. Now we
need to educate a far larger and more diverse student population to
become scientifically literate citizens and the technically skilled
work force required for a modern economy to thrive. This new, broader
educational need does not eliminate the need to educate future
generations of scientists. However, all the data suggests that
improving science education for all students is likely to produce more
and better-educated scientists and engineers as well.
The same science education research that shows the dismal results
produced by the standard traditional college science classes are also
showing us how to improve this situation. Experimental teaching methods
have been developed that achieve much better learning and attitudes
about science for most students. These methods recognize that it is not
sufficient to follow the traditional practice of simply presenting the
material as it is understood and appreciated by expert scientists. This
just overloads the students' cognitive processing capabilities and is
perceived in a very different way than is intended. Research shows that
effective science instruction recognizes the gap between the initial
thinking of the student and that of the expert and provides structure
and feedback to guide the student to actively construct their own
``expert-like'' understanding. This understanding must be based on the
foundation of their prior thinking, which may be wrong, and hence must
be explicitly examined and adequately addressed. Desirable features of
instruction include presentation of ideas, homework, and exam problems
in a form that has some obvious real-world connection and utility
rather than as mere abstractions, and making reasoning, sense-making,
and reflection explicit parts of all aspects of the course. Inherent in
this more effective research-based instruction is the need to assess
the individual student's background and thinking and provide effective
feedback and guidance. This would not have been practical to do on a
widespread basis in the past, but computer technology now makes this
economically feasible. More research and development of this
technology, particularly software, is still needed to fully utilize
this potential, however.
Widely adopted, these instructional methods and technology would
increase the pipeline of scientists, produce a more technically
literate and skilled general public, and provide better trained K-12
teachers. I emphasize this latter point because our studies show that
the future K-12 teachers are among the worst in their learning of
science and math in college. Elementary education majors have by far
the least expert beliefs about science of all the different populations
of college students that my group has measured. We also found that in a
typical class of graduating elementary education majors who had
completed all their math and science requirements, 30 percent of the
students thought that the continents float on the oceans, and virtually
none of them were able to answer the question, ``if it takes you two
minutes to drive a mile, how fast are you going?'' These future
teachers have to learn math and science better than this in college if
they are to teach it decently! That is why I claim that unless you
improve science education at the college level first, you are wasting
your time and money on trying to make major improvements in K-12.
So why haven't colleges changed undergraduate education so that
their students learn science much better? They haven't done it because,
first, while there has never been a shortage of strongly held opinions,
only recently has there been real data showing how badly the
traditional science education was failing for most students and how it
could be improved. Also, while enough research has been done to clearly
establish the general problem and the characteristics of more effective
approaches, this work does not cover all subjects and grade levels, and
the results are not yet widely known throughout the science community.
Ultimately, what is needed is research and development to establish the
specifics of how to measure and achieve effective learning across the
full range of college science courses for the full range of college
student populations. That does not yet exist, although it is clear how
to do it. The second reason colleges have not yet changed is that the
computer technology required for widespread implementation of these new
teaching methods also did not exist until recently. Finally, and most
important, there are no incentives to make such changes other than
altruism. I spend a lot of time visiting and evaluating colleges and
universities, and I can assure you that their financial support,
prestige, and the tuition they can charge is quite unrelated to what
their students are actually learning in science. Making the necessary
educational changes, while inexpensive compared to the total spent on
either K-12 or higher education, will require significant investments
of money and effort. With budgets so tight, particularly at public
Universities, no one should be surprised that science faculty and
departments primarily invest their time and resources in trying to
excel in areas for which success is recognized and rewarded.
So how can one bring about this desired and attainable improvement
in undergraduate science education?
I would argue that the first priority needs to be incentives to
change education at the departmental level of the large research
universities. These research universities set the standards for
undergraduate science education in the U.S. and train nearly all the
college science teachers. The department is the unit for science
education and to have sustained change, departments as a whole must
change how they approach science education.
Virtually none of the federal support for improving college science
education addresses the issue at this crucial level. The limited
support available is typically spent on short-term projects that
involve one or two people per department spread out across as many
institutions as possible. This is a politically attractive approach and
these programs have had some excellent results, but they are doomed to
largely remain localized and short-term, because they ignore
organizational realities. They are the equivalent of trying to change
the direction that a stream flows by scooping out a few buckets of
water and pouring it in a different direction.
In summary, enough is known about how college students learn
science and how to measure and achieve that learning so that
undergraduate science education can be dramatically improved for all
students. However that is not going to happen until colleges,
particularly the large research universities, have incentives to make
the investment required to bring about this change.
Biography for Carl Wieman
Carl Wieman grew up in the forests of Oregon and received his B.S.
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973 and his Ph.D.
from Stanford University in 1977. He has been at the University of
Colorado since 1984 where he holds the titles of Distinguished
Professor of Physics, Presidential Teaching Scholar, and Fellow of
JILA. He has carried out research in a variety of areas of atomic
physics and laser spectroscopy, including using laser light to cool
atoms. His research has been recognized with numerous awards including
the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001 for the creation of Bose-Einstein
condensation in a vapor. He has worked on a variety of research and
innovations in teaching physics to a broad range of students, including
the Physics Education Technology Project, (http://www.colorado.edu/
physics/phet) that creates educational online interactive simulations.
He is a 2001 recipient of the National Science Foundation's
Distinguished Teaching Scholar Award and the Carnegie Foundation's 2004
US University Professor of the Year Award. He is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences and chairs the Academy Board on Science
Education.
Mr. Ehlers. [Presiding] Thank you very much for your
testimony. And I appreciate all of the testimony that I have
heard. I, of course, have previous affiliation with the
University of Colorado, and so it is like old home week here.
Dr. Burris, and I have got a friend who taught at Beloit
for a while, I am pleased to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN E. BURRIS, PRESIDENT, BELOIT COLLEGE
Dr. Burris. My name is John Burris, and I am the President
of Beloit College.
I speak today from the perspective of a President of a
liberal arts college with a long and distinguished record in
science and math education. My comments are also guided by my
career as a research biologist and educator, most recently as
the Director of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole,
Massachusetts, an institution dedicated to research and
graduate education.
Although there are a number of challenges in science and
engineering education, I will focus my comments today on STEM
education at the college undergraduate level.
First, let me summarize my main recommendation for your
consideration.
As NSF's budget is doubled in the next 10 years, I
recommend that double dollars be targeted for building and
sustaining a robust, learning environment for undergraduates in
colleges and universities across the United States.
It is important to note that we already have a good idea of
how to improve undergraduate STEM education as many years of
direct observation and research have shown that students learn
science best in small classes with extensive hands-on
experience using an inquiry-based approach. Lectures and
laboratories are often merged, and there is ample opportunity
for learning in groups and group discussions, not just learning
by individuals working alone.
At Beloit College, the success of these approaches is
apparent. For in contrast to national averages, we retain to
graduation more than 80 percent of the students who express an
interest in a STEM major. We also introduce non-science majors
to STEM in a meaningful way, helping to ensure an educated
public that will provide the support and encouragement needed
if the United States is going to remain the world leader in
science and technology.
In fact, the primary reason I came to Beloit College was my
interaction at the MBL with students from small, liberal arts
colleges, such as Beloit. I was incredibly impressed with the
preparation of these young men and women in our Semester in
Environmental Sciences program. They had clearly been thought
to think independently and critically and were able to conduct
graduate-level research while in Woods Hole.
Successes at the liberal arts colleges have not translated
to all other colleges and universities. There are a number of
reasons: our small class sizes, use of research equipment, and
heavy dependence on tendered faculty to do teaching are
expensive. We are committed to that expense, a cost that is
partially defrayed by our annual tuition, but also underwritten
by alumni donations and grants. Federal Government, state
legislatures, and other financial supporters have to
acknowledge and face squarely the fact that hands-on science is
expensive.
As I stated in my recommendation, we need the NSF budget
doubled to help cover some of these costs. We cannot rely on
science being effectively taught in lecture rooms with 400
students and in laboratories that use antiquated equipment and
rely on teaching assistants and cookbook lab manuals.
To excite and interest students in science, we need to have
them do science as it is actually done. Many of our nation's
colleges and universities have opted for a cost-effective
method of instruction with little concern for the educational
effectiveness of that approach. We need to eliminate overly
large introductory courses, often with instructors who see
their role being to discourage, rather than to encourage,
majors.
But none of us can rest on our laurels any more than a
research scientist stops studying and investigating after a
successful experiment. Instead, we need to continue to refine
the way we teach. We need to do research pedagogies, we need to
disseminate what works, and just as importantly, what doesn't.
We need to concern ourselves with what we teach. Textbooks have
gotten enormous. We can't jam all of the material down our
students' throats. My friend, Bruce Albert's, textbook, is
endearingly nicknamed ``Fat Albert'' by the students. We have
to sift and winnow, and we need to constantly be reviewing and
refining the curriculum. We need to keep learning how people
learn and let that inform our teaching. The world is not
waiting for us. We have to keep changing, improving, and
educating.
What can the Federal Government do to help strengthen the
pipeline at the undergraduate level? The NSF needs to support
the development of new pedagogies and new curricula and then
support the implementation and dissemination of the
methodologies that are successful. Funds must be provided for
the equipment and supplies that are needed to implement the
most effective teaching. At Beloit, we have discovered that
students' use of research-grade equipment, even at the
introductory course level, has been enormously successful in
teaching all students how science is done. We need to have
support to build the new science and engineering buildings that
will enable us to apply the latest methodologies and house the
needed classroom laboratories for exciting and interesting
science education. Finally, we need to support our faculty to
do research and remain scientifically current.
Science and engineering education is expensive. It does
cost more than other fields, and that fact needs to be
acknowledged and the funds need to be provided. The future is
challenging, but there is no reason that we can't be successful
in providing an exciting STEM curriculum that includes all of
our students.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burris follows:]
Prepared Statement of John E. Burris
Chairman Inglis and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
My name is John Burris and I am the President of Beloit College. I
appreciate the opportunity to present testimony today and am honored to
do so. I extend my thanks to Chairman Inglis and the other Members of
the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on ``Undergraduate Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: What's Working?'' I
present this testimony from the perspective of a president of a liberal
arts college with a long and distinguished record in science and math
education. My convictions have been influenced also by my eight years
as the director of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods
Hole, Massachusetts, an institution dedicated to research and graduate
education.
In recent years there has been considerable apprehension and
concern expressed regarding the ability of the United States to compete
in a world economy increasingly driven by science and technology. These
concerns have been reflected in particular in the last several years
when over twenty reports have been issued that state concerns about the
United States and its future leadership ability to address critical
needs of our society through the applications of science and
technology.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project Kaleidoscope Report on Reports II: Recommendations for
Urgent Action, Executive Summary and Calls to Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I share many of the concerns expressed in these reports
and agree with a number of solutions proposed, I am not going to tackle
all the problems they identify. Instead I will address specifically the
questions posed to the panel, focusing on science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at the undergraduate
level. My remarks will conclude with a specific recommendation:
That as the overall budget of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) is doubled in the next ten years, doubled dollars be
intentionally targeted for programs that strengthen and sustain
the capacity of America's undergraduate institutions to serve
the national interest by preparing students to be the
innovators, the life-long learners and civic leaders, and the
participants in the 21st century workplace needed for our
country to prosper in these challenging days.
This is a timely hearing. As our country seeks to respond to new
challenges and opportunities and shape the recently announced
`America's Competitive Initiative,' I welcome the opportunity to make
the case for undergraduate STEM as a critical link in America's
scientific and technological infrastructure.
To have a well-trained workforce, we must educate undergraduates in
STEM fields, preparing them as K-12 math/science teachers, for graduate
education that leads to a professional career as an academic or
research scientist, or for the increasing number of jobs that require
scientific and technological expertise. To have a functioning
democracy, we must prepare all undergraduates to understand the nature
of the scientific process, whether or not they choose to major in a
STEM field. An educated public is critical to providing the resources
and encouragement the United States will need to maintain its role as a
world leader in science and technology.
Your first question was: What obstacles have we encountered in
recruiting and retaining STEM majors. . .and how are we measuring the
effectiveness of our actions?
Responding to this question is an opportunity to talk about
successes at Beloit, successes common to the larger liberal arts
college community for which I speak today, successes which have more
than a twenty-year history. In the mid-1980's it was painfully apparent
America was not doing a good job of educating undergraduates in STEM, a
circumstance having a ripple-effect up and down the scientific
pipeline. The famous ``champagne glass'' image of that time graphically
illustrated that the point of serious attrition in science enrollments
was during the first two college years. This reality triggered a
careful review of science education by the National Science Board,
which became a catalyst for national reform efforts led by groups such
as Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), with leadership funding from the NSF.
Much of our knowledge of what does and does not work was summarized
in reports such as What Works: Building Natural Science Communities
(PKAL, 1991). Over many years of direct observation it had become clear
that students learn science best in small classes with extensive hands-
on experience in a so-called inquiry-based approach. They learn best in
settings in which lectures and laboratory experiences are merged, with
ample opportunity for collaborative work in posing, exploring and
solving problems, rather than everything being tackled on an individual
basis. It was clear that participation in research and open-ended
problem solving captured the attention and intellect of the students.
One of the primary reasons I came to Beloit College was my
firsthand interactions at the MBL with students from small liberal arts
colleges, such as Beloit, and others within the Associated Colleges of
the Midwest and the Independent Colleges Office, two consortia of which
we are a part. At the MBL, we had established a ``Semester in
Environmental Sciences'' program where students from small liberal arts
colleges took courses and did independent research. I was incredibly
impressed with the preparation of those young men and women. They had
clearly been taught to think independently and critically at these
schools and were able to conduct graduate level research while in Woods
Hole.
Beloit College is a private, national liberal arts college
enrolling 1250 students. A recent national study by the Higher
Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium has identified Beloit College
as one of the leading producers of doctoral degree recipients in the
Nation, placing Beloit 20th out of roughly 2,000 U.S. baccalaureate
degree-granting institutions in the proportion of its graduates
continuing on to receive a Ph.D. degree, and 11th among 165 national
liberal arts colleges. Beloit is a member of the Science 50 group of
liberal arts colleges noted for its Ph.D. productivity in the sciences.
One of our goals is to continue to be a significant source of students
who receive science Ph.D. degrees.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Report on Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Beloit College
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beloit College is remarkable as the home site for two major, NSF-
funded national efforts, the BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium and the
ChemLinks Coalition. In addition to the BioQUEST Consortium and
ChemLinks Coalition, Beloit has been a major contributor to NSF-
supported efforts to bring solid state chemistry and materials science
into the undergraduate curriculum, with the development and class
testing of many of the labs and demonstrations published in Teaching
General Chemistry: A Materials Science Companion and a decade of
subsequent articles in the Journal of Chemical Education. As a founding
member and the second host campus for the Keck Geology Consortium of a
dozen leading liberal arts colleges, Beloit has contributed to and
benefited from this collaborative student/faculty research network for
18 years with its summer field research projects, shared research
equipment, annual research symposium, and community of science scholars
and teachers. The UMAP Journal, published by the Consortium for
Mathematics and its Applications to focus on mathematical modeling and
applications of mathematics at the undergraduate level, has been housed
at Beloit College since its inception in 1995. As part of the NSF-
supported calculus reform effort, a Beloit faculty member published
Applications of Calculus in conjunction with other liberal arts college
mathematicians.
For our students at Beloit, we have developed and tested inquiry-
based, collaborative, and research-rich experiences at the introductory
and intermediate levels, based on the emerging understanding of how
students learn best through intensive engagement, as recently
summarized in the National Research Council's How People Learn.
We are currently in the process of building a new Center for the
Sciences whose design and technology reflects the experience we have
developed over the past decade through our national leadership role in
developing and disseminating new models and materials for undergraduate
science education. Planning has followed the Project Kaleidoscope
(PKAL) model of starting with goals for students, pedagogy, and
curriculum, and working outward to the design of the physical spaces
needed to accomplish them. But the present successes of Beloit,
although repeated at many institutions, are not universal. This leads
me to respond to your next question.
What are the obstacles to implementing similar improvements at other
institutions of higher education?
Here the answers are easy, from my perspective as a college
president educated as a research scientist: the rapid pace of change;
the cost of responding to that pace of change; and the lack of a long-
range, comprehensive plan to do so.
I emphasized above the strength of Beloit's undergraduate STEM
programs. In large part our excellence and the capacity of our faculty
pioneers to design, develop, and then disseminate their work and
findings to the broader undergraduate community is due to informed
support from the NSF. In responding twenty years ago to the ``champagne
glass'' signal about problems in the scientific pipeline, NSF supported
undergraduate faculty pedagogical pioneers, those building and
sustaining undergraduate STEM learning environments in ways that
reflected research on how people learn, made the best use of emerging
technologies, and emphasized ``doing science'' in the process of
``learning science.''
So, a real obstacle today is the lack of a similar national effort,
most visible in the continued decline in support for precisely the kind
of efforts like BioQuest and ChemLinks, efforts that were ignited,
piloted, sustained and disseminated because of visible and persistent
support from the National Science Foundation. This is a costly effort,
but the greatest cost will be the loss of talent in the service of our
nation.
We may not be preparing the numbers of students in STEM fields the
United States needs to ensure a vital economy, although I must
emphasize that the quality of students we produce may be a more
important benchmark than purely numbers. It is, however, important to
think about numbers in thinking about obstacles to ensuring that all
college graduates are scientifically literate. I have examined data and
information from the 2006 NSB Indicators about real increases in
undergraduate enrollments (expected to grow from 18.5 million in 2000
to 21.7 million in 2015).\3\ These numbers become even more daunting in
the context of thinking about the changing student demographics, as
well as about the need for all 21st century students to become
scientifically, quantitatively, and technologically literate as one
outcome of their undergraduate learning experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NSB Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006: Volume 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, it is of national concern that on many campuses, students
still drop out of these majors during their early college years. Why is
this happening? When science is not presented as science is done, when
faculty see it as their responsibility to use introductory course to
eliminate students rather than to encourage them, when classes are too
large and laboratories are neither interesting nor challenging,
students will demonstrate displeasure by changing majors. If this
problem is not attacked with a national effort, the current legislation
making its way through the House and the Senate for providing increased
numbers of scholarships for students preparing to be a K-12 science or
math teachers will be a bad investment. Just having a scholarship might
not be enough to keep a student interested in persisting in the study
of mathematics and science.
We do have an idea of how to correct this problem, for at liberal
arts colleges such as Beloit, it is not unusual to have 80 percent of
students entering as prospective science/math majors graduate as majors
in those fields. But even the Beloits of the world cannot rest on our
laurels, anymore then a research scientist stops studying and
investigating after a successful experiment. Instead we need to
continue to refine the way our students learn, to continue to
experiment with what works, to disseminate what works and to continue
to examine what does not work for the 21st century students coming on
to our campuses. Students are changing, and science is changing.
This brings me to a further point about the nature of change. Over
ten years ago, Albert Gore, then U.S. Senator, said:
``We could seat children in rows and talk at them when we were
going to expect them to stand in rows in factories and mills.
If they are to be prepared to be the workers and thinkers of
the 21st century, they must be experiencing the world directly,
guided by teachers who act as coaches in helping them to
formulate and answer difficult questions. Now we must give our
children the opportunity to use and strengthen every creative
and inquiring instinct they possess. We know that they must
learn to work cooperatively, to write intelligently, to speak
persuasively, and to acquire a fundamental level of competence
in math and science.''
If we examine these words from the perspective of preparing coming
generations of K-12 math/science teachers, it tells us what their
undergraduate experience should be; if we examine them from the
perspective of preparing new entrants in the workplace, it is equally
clear that the character and quality of the undergraduate STEM learning
environment is a critical factor.
The changing nature of science is clearly reflected in the NSF
Budget Request to Congress from the research directorates. The current
and new programs they outline are explicitly focused on the future.
What they now fund and propose to fund will be keeping my community of
biologists at the cutting-edge of exploration, discovery, and
application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NSF FY07 Request (Selected Programs Re: Undergraduate STEM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a biologist, I am compelled by this careful analysis of how
biology is changing and where biology is growing, and welcome the new
NSF programs in the research directorates that support the future of
the field about which I am still passionate. But as a biologist now
wearing the hat of a college president, I am frustrated by the lack of
a similar vision of the future for the undergraduate learning
environment and of NSF's role in shaping that future.
Thus, I suggest at least three obstacles that we will have to
address as a nation: how to serve the increased numbers and increasing
diversity of undergraduates; how to keep the 21st century STEM learning
community at the leading edge in integrating research and education;
and incorporating insights from research on how people learn in shaping
the learning environment for all students.
Neither NSF's current budget figures or program analyses reflect an
awareness (and here I speak as a biologist) that the systems are
interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. The strength of
Beloit's programs are in direct relationship to the opportunity to
benefit from and leverage grants from NSF programs twenty years ago
that responded to the growing awareness that each link in the Nation's
scientific and educational infrastructure has to be strong if the
system is to function effectively.
I conclude with my recommendation in responding to your final
question: what can the Federal Government do to help in identifying,
assessing and disseminating what works at the undergraduate level that
serves to strengthen the entire system of America's scientific,
technological and educational enterprise?
RECOMMENDATION: That as the overall budget of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) is doubled in the next ten years,
doubled dollars be intentionally targeted for programs that
strengthen and sustain the capacity of America's undergraduate
institutions to serve the national interest by preparing
students to be the innovators, the life-long learners and civic
leaders, and the participants in the 21st century workplace
needed for our country to prosper in these challenging days.
This recommendation has implications for all the stakeholders, not
just for NSF. My presidential colleagues (within the select liberal
arts community and beyond) are concerned about the continued shrinking
of budgets for the kind of undergraduate programs that stimulated a
generation of pioneering pedagogies like BioQuest and ChemLinks.
I mentioned earlier that this was a timely hearing. For the first
time in twenty years, our nation is wrestling with hard questions about
our future and America's capacity to face an uncertain future with
confidence. Congressional response to these reports has been welcome,
but merely increasing the number of scholarships available to
undergraduates exploring STEM careers is not enough. Our Beloit
experience with `what works' offers specific ideas for use of a doubled
budget for undergraduate programs at NSF. We do know what works. There
is a solid base from which to expand and enhance NSF programs in the
coming decade; it is not necessary to start from scratch.
Significant parts of what works are: i) attention to how students
learn; ii) an institutional culture that has a common vision about the
value of building research-rich learning environments; and iii) faculty
who are eager to remain engaged within their disciplinary community,
and who have the resources of time and instrumentation to do so. The
value of dissemination networks, collaborations and partnerships has
been highlighted in many recent reports, as well as signaled by the
work of PKAL and other NSF-funded dissemination networks.
To determine how best to program the doubling of NSF undergraduate
funds over the next ten years, I propose a NSB task force be
established. Its charge would be to outline NSF undergraduate
priorities and budgets in ways that respond to recommendations in the
many recent national calls for action.
We would like on the table for their consideration programs that
support institution-wide initiatives and an expansion of programs that
give faculty from predominantly undergraduate institutions opportunity
to engage in cutting-edge research appropriate for research teams that
include undergraduates. Further, we ask for continued and expanded
programs for the kind of course, curriculum and laboratory improvements
that have enabled colleges like Beloit to be at the cutting-edge in
shaping 21st century learning environments for 21st century students.
Much of this is already happening at NSF, and we are glad for programs
such as Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI), the Research
Opportunities Award (ROA) and the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)
and other programs within the research directorates that provide
critical opportunities for undergraduate faculty to be a contributing
part of their scholarly disciplinary community. But most successes are
isolated, piecemeal, and underfunded. They do not lead collectively to
the kind of interdisciplinary, interdependent world in which most 21st
century scientists and citizens will be working and living.
The 2003 Business Higher Education Forum report, Building a Nation
of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning to Meet
Global Challenges, challenges us all.
``We must immediately support activities that, by 2010, give
two generations of students the benefit of a higher education
system that is more attuned to giving students the analytical
skills, the learning abilities, and the other life-long
learning skills and attributes needed to adapt to 21st century
workplace realities.''
1. EXHIBIT A: PROJECT KALEIDOSCOPE REPORT ON REPORTS II:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR URGENT ACTION, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CALLS TO
ACTION
2. EXHIBIT B: REPORT ON NATURAL SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICS AT BELOIT
COLLEGE
3. EXHIBIT C: NSB SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS, 2006: VOLUME 1
4. EXHIBIT D: NSF FY07 REQUEST (SELECTED PROGRAMS RE: UNDERGRADUATE
STEM)
Representing the Associated Colleges of the Midwest and the Independent
Colleges Office: Allegheny College (PA); Augsburg College (MN);
Augustana College (IL); Beloit College (WI); Birmingham-Southern
College (AL); Bowdoin College (ME); Bucknell University (PA); Calvin
College (MI); Carleton College (MN); Claremont McKenna College (CA);
Coe College (IA); Colby College (ME); Colgate University (NY); College
of the Holy Cross (MA); College of Wooster (OH); Cornell College (IA);
Dickinson College (PA); Grinnell College (IA); Harvey Mudd College
(CA); Hope College (MI); Illinois Wesleyan University (IL); Kalamazoo
College (MI); Knox College (IL); Lake Forest College (IL); Lawrence
University (WI); Macalester College (MN); Monmouth College (IL);
Oberlin College (OH); Pomona College (CA); Reed College (OR); Ripon
College (WI); Skidmore College (NY); St. John's University (MN); St.
Lawrence University (NY); St. Olaf College (MN); The Colorado College
(CO); Union College (NY); University of Redlands (CA); University of
Richmond (VA); Wheaton College (MA).
EXHIBIT B
REPORT ON NATURAL SCIENCES & MATHEMATICS
BELOIT COLLEGE
BELOIT, WI
Beloit College is a private, national liberal arts college in
southern Wisconsin, enrolling 1250 students. A recent national study by
the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium\1\ has identified
Beloit College as one of the leading producers of doctoral degree
recipients in the Nation, placing Beloit 20th out of roughly 2,000 U.S.
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions in the proportion of its
graduates continuing on to receive a Ph.D. degree, and 11th among 165
national liberal arts colleges. Beloit is a member of the Science 50
group of liberal arts colleges noted for its Ph.D. productivity in the
sciences. One of our goals is to continue to be a significant source of
students who receive science Ph.D. degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium, Baccalaureate
Origins of Doctoral Recipients, January 1998. Data drawn from NSF
CASPAR database (caspar.nsf.gov).
MISSION: At Beloit College science teaching and learning is of central
importance. The Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Beloit
adopted a Mission Statement that placed significant weight on educating
all students to understand the processes as well as the concepts of
science in order to make informed decisions in their lives. Our vision
is that all students understand how to choose questions to study
scientifically and why those questions are important, as well as the
practical applications and their social and ethical consequences of the
answers to those questions. They should gain that understanding through
inquiry-based courses and through laboratory and field experiences that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
model how science is done.
VISION: Additionally, our vision is that students majoring in one of
the sciences at Beloit College should be prepared for and encouraged to
participate in research in and out of formal courses, and should be
able to begin to practice their craft and to function as professionals
in their chosen scientific field. This includes, but is not limited to,
asking appropriate questions, seeking solutions to their questions,
communicating their results to specific and general audiences, and
understanding their responsibility to engage in each of these
activities. All students majoring in the sciences should be prepared to
practice science in this way regardless of whether they anticipate a
career in science.
PROGRAM: For all students, we have developed and tested inquiry-based,
collaborative, and research-rich experiences at the introductory and
intermediate levels, based on the emerging understanding of how
students learn best through intensive engagement, as recently
summarized in the National Research Council's How People Learn.\2\ In
this national science education reform effort, Beloit College has been
in the vanguard. As highlighted by Priscilla Laws in her 1999 Daedalus
article,\3\ liberal arts colleges have been leaders in science
education reform, and Beloit College is remarkable in hosting two of
those national efforts, the BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium and the
ChemLinks Coalition. Both of these projects were also highlighted in a
2001 Science feature ``Getting More Out of the Classroom'' in an
article ``Reintroducing the Intro Course.'' \4\ The ChemLinks project
and its Beloit connections were also featured in the American Chemical
Society's Chemical and Engineering News in a 2002 feature ``Focusing on
Reform.'' \5\ Quite recently, a Policy Forum in Science on ``Scientific
Teaching'' \6\ includes references to teaching materials from BioQUEST,
ChemLinks, and a Materials Science project that was partially authored
and class-tested at Beloit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
\3\ Priscilla W. Laws, New Approaches to Science and Mathematics
Teaching at Liberal Arts Colleges, Daedalus, J. Am. Acad. Arts and
Sciences, Vol. 128, No. 1, Winter, 1999, pp. 271-240.
\4\ Erik Stokstad, ``Reintroducing the Intro Courses,'' Science,
Vol. 293, 31 August 2001, pp. 1608-1610.
\5\ Amanda Yarnell, ``Focusing on Reform,'' Chemical and
Engineering News, Vol. 80, Num. 43, October 28, 2002, pp. 35-36.
\6\ Jo Handelsman et al., ``Scientific Teaching,'' Science, Vol.
304, 23 April 2004, pp. 521-522 and online supporting materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than a decade, the hallmark at Beloit has been the
``workshop'' or ``studio'' format courses that combine inquiry-based
classroom and laboratory activities; these have spread from
introductory chemistry and biology courses into intermediate courses in
both of those departments, and more recently into physics, geology, and
computer science courses. Some examples:
``Concept Test'' interactive response systems are now
used in introductory physics courses.
Organic Chemistry uses a guided-inquiry approach in
the classroom, instead of traditional lectures, and inquiry-
based labs using two new research-grade capillary gas
chromatographs as well as NMR and IR spectroscopy.
The Genetics course uses BioQUEST materials with
weekly poster presentations of student projects.
Three successive Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) grants have
supported interdisciplinary curricular development, and successive
National Science Foundation Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory
Improvement (NSF CCLI) grants have provided instruments and student/
faculty research time to develop inquiry-based experiments. We have
seen burgeoning enrollments in these courses as we have made them more
inquiry-based and interactive, with careful attention to measuring
student learning as we use these new approaches. NSF-funded ChemLinks
assessment studies have shown that these new approaches provide
significant increases in conceptual understanding and in scientific
reasoning skills for students, while also increasing their confidence
in their ability to do chemistry successfully.
Throughout the sciences, almost all majors graduate having had at
least one full-time research experience, many two, and some three. In
addition, many students are actively involved in academic year research
at Beloit with faculty research colleagues. Similar opportunities exist
for students who seek clinical or public health experience, and we are
increasingly able to find overseas placements for students with a
particular international interest.
FACULTY: One of our goals has been to provide support and encouragement
in faculty efforts to transform the undergraduate science experience at
Beloit through collaborative work regionally and nationally, as well as
within the Science Division at Beloit. The early and highly successful
establishment of the Pew Midstates Science and Mathematics Consortium,
and its continuation since the end of the Pew Charitable Trusts funding
has provided a forum for curricular change across a dozen leading
liberal arts colleges, Washington University in St. Louis, and the
University of Chicago. The ongoing Pew Faculty Workshops and inter-
campus visits, as well as the annual Undergraduate Research Symposia,
have stimulated curricular reform and supported undergraduate research.
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP: In addition to the BioQUEST Consortium and
ChemLinks Coalition, Beloit has been:
a major contributor to NSF-supported efforts to bring
solid state chemistry and materials science into the
undergraduate curriculum, with the development and class
testing of many of the labs and demonstrations published in
Teaching General Chemistry: A Materials Science Companion\7\
and a decade of subsequent articles in the Journal of Chemical
Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A.B. Ellis et al., Teaching General Chemistry: A Materials
Science Companion, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1993.
a founding member and host campus for the Keck
Geology Consortium of a dozen leading liberal arts colleges,
Beloit has contributed to and benefited from this collaborative
student/faculty research network for 18 years with its summer
field research projects, shared research equipment, annual
research symposium, and community of science scholars and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
teachers.
a founding member of Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL),
continuing to contribute to and benefit from that collaboration
as well.
home since 1995 to The UMAP Journal, published by the
Consortium for Mathematics and its Applications to focus on
mathematical modeling and applications of mathematics at the
undergraduate level.
a part of the NSF-supported calculus reform effort; a
Beloit faculty member published Applications of Calculus\8\ in
conjunction with other liberal arts college mathematicians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ P.D. Straffin, editor, Applications of Calculus, Mathematical
Association of America, 1996.
INSTRUMENTATION: In 2001, Beloit replaced an aging scanning electron
microscope (SEM) with a new research-grade JEOL SEM with an energy-
dispersive spectrometer (EDS) for elemental analysis. This state-of-
the-art system, obtained with an NSF CCLI grant to a faculty member in
Geology and matching funds from an earlier Kresge Foundation challenge
grant for a scientific equipment endowment, has catalyzed a number of
research and course-related imaging and elemental analysis projects
ranging from Geology, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics to Archaeology
and Museum Studies. The ability to examine the surface of a solid
sample in detail and determine the elemental composition of individual
regions provides an extremely powerful tool not only for answering
important research questions, but also for connecting students' visual
and structural understanding with chemistry on the nanoscale. Naturally
occurring minerals collected in the field, light emitting diodes
(LEDs), computer circuits, CDs, nanowires and quantum dots synthesized
by students, and tool marks on archaeological samples become
fascinating images that draw the science major and the non-major
equally into the process of asking questions and gathering and
interpreting data to answer them. Our experience with this instrument
has strongly reinforced our emerging view that providing research-grade
instruments to students as soon as they can help them pose and answer
interesting questions makes sense educationally. Having such
instruments that can be used in a variety of disciplines not only is
cost-effective, but it promotes the kind of interdisciplinary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experience our students want and need.
FACILITIES: We are currently in the process of building a new Center
for the Sciences whose design and technology reflects the experience we
have developed over the past decade through our national leadership
role in developing and disseminating new models and materials for
undergraduate science education. Planning has followed the PKAL model
of starting with goals for students, pedagogy, and curriculum, and
working outward to the design of the physical spaces needed to
accomplish them. The degree of spatial integration among the
disciplines that we plan is highly unusual. Another indication of our
long-term planning for interdisciplinary integration has been the
intention from the start to bring Psychology into the sciences with the
plan to build more programmatic and laboratory space links among
biology, biochemistry, and psychology to reflect the direction that
neurobiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology are taking.
Since its founding in 1846, Beloit College has offered one of the
Nation's most rigorous and inventive science curricula. As we maintain
our position as a leading, national liberal arts college, Beloit's new
state-of-the-art science facility will house and match our leading-edge
science program in the new millennium, empowering the education of all
Beloit students.
EXHIBIT C
NSB SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2006 VOLUME 1
The need for greater attention at the national level to the quality
and character of America's undergraduate STEM learning environment.
1. DEMOGRAPHICS & BACCALAUREATE DEGREES (Chapter 2)
``The importance of higher education in science and
engineering is increasingly recognized around the world for its
impact on innovation and economic development.''
``In recent years, demographic trends and world
events have contributed to changes in both the numbers and
types of students participating in U.S. higher education.''
``. . .global competition in higher education is
increasing. Although the United States has historically been a
world leader in providing broad access to higher education. .
., many other countries are expanding their own higher
education systems, providing comparable educational access to
their own population. . ..''
``After declining in the 1990's, the U.S. college-age
population is currently increasing and is projected to increase
for the next decade.'' ``According to U.S. Census Bureau
projects, the number of college-age (ages 20-24) individuals is
expected to grow from 18.5 million in 2000 to 21.7 million by
2015.''
``Changes in the demographic composition of the
college-age population as a whole and increased enrollment
rates of some racial/ethnic groups have contributed to changes
in the demographic composition of the higher education student
population in the U.S.'' ``The demographic composition of
students planning S&E majors has become more diverse over
time.''
``The baccalaureate is the most prevalent degree in
S&E, accounting for 77 percent of all degrees awarded. S&E
Bachelor's degrees have consistently accounted for roughly one-
third of all Bachelor's degrees for the past decade. Except for
a brief downturn in the late 1980's, the number of S&E
Bachelor's degrees has risen steadily, from 317,000 in 1983 to
415,000 in 2002.''
2. S&E LABOR FORCE (Chapter 3)
``An estimated 12.9 million workers reported needing
at least a Bachelor's degree level of S&E knowledge--with 9.2.
million reporting a need for knowledge of the natural sciences
and engineering and 5.3 million a need for knowledge of the
social sciences. That the need for S&E knowledge is more than
double the number in formal S&E occupations suggests the
pervasiveness of technical knowledge in the modern workplace.''
``The 3.1 percent average annual growth rate in all
S&E employment is almost triple the rate for the general
workforce.''
``S&E occupations are projected to grow by 26 percent
from 2002 to 2012, while employment in all occupations is
projected to grow 15 percent over the same period.''
``Recent recipients of S&E Bachelor's and Master's
degrees form an important component of the U.S. S&E workforce,
accounting for almost half of the annual inflow into S&T
occupations. Recent graduates' career choices and entry into
the labor market affect the supply and demand for scientists
and engineers throughout the United States.''
``Although it is a very subjective measure, one
indicator of labor market conditions is whether recent
graduates feel that they are in `career-path' jobs.''
3. S&T: PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND UNDERSTANDING (Chapter 7)
``Knowledge of basic scientific facts and concepts is
necessary not only for an understanding of S&T related issues
but also for good citizenship.''
``Having appreciation for the scientific process may
be even more important. Knowing how science works, i.e.,
understanding how ideas are investigated and either accepted or
rejected, is valuable not only for keeping up with important
science-related issues and participating meaningfully in the
political process, but also in evaluating and assessing the
validity of various types of claims people encounter on a daily
basis.''
4. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (Chapter 1)
``Strengthening the quality of teachers and teaching
has been central to efforts to improve American education in
recent decades. Research findings consistently point to the
critical role of teachers in helping students to learn and
achieve. Many believe that. . .changes in teaching practices
will occur if teachers have consistent and high-quality
professional training.''
Biography for John E. Burris
EDUCATION:
September 1972--December 1976: Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San
Diego. Thesis title: Photo-respiration in Marine Plants--
advisors A.A. Benson and O. Holm-Hansen
September 1971--June 1972: M.D.-Ph.D. program at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison
September 1967--June 1971: A.B. in Biology from Harvard University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
August 2000-present: President, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin
September 1992-August 2000: Director and Chief Executive Officer,
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
July 1988-September 1992: Executive Director, Commission on Life
Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
October 1984-January 1989: Director, Board on Biology, Commission on
Life Sciences, National Research Council
June 1989-2001: Adjunct Professor of Biology, the Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania
October 1985-June 1989: Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology, the
Pennsylvania State University
June 1983-October 1985: Associate Professor of Biology, the
Pennsylvania State University
December 1976-June 1983: Assistant Professor of Biology, the
Pennsylvania State University
September 1972-December 1976: Research Assistant in Marine Biology,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California,
San Diego
BOARDS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES:
Member, National Science Foundation Science of Learning Centers Site
Visit Team in October, 2005
National Associate of the National Academies (November, 2003-present)
Chairman, Committee to Review the Partnership for Interdisciplinary
Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) for the Packard Foundation
(September-December, 2003)
Member, Executive Committee, Wisconsin Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities (2003-present)
Member, Board of Directors, Wisconsin Foundation for Independent
Colleges (2003-2005)
Member, Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Washington, D.C. (2002-2006)
Member, Board of Directors, Radiation Effects Research Foundation,
Hiroshima, Japan (2001-present)
Member, Board of Trustees, The Grass Foundation, Braintree,
Massachusetts (2001-present)
Member, Consiglio Scientifico, Stazione Zoologica `Anton Dohrn,'
Naples, Italy (1996-present)
Member, Awards Committee for Biodiversity Leadership, Bay and Paul
Foundations, New York, NY (1996-present)
Chairman, Advisory Committee on Student Science Enrichment Program, The
Burroughs Wellcome Fund (1995-2002)
Consultant, Committee on Science and Human Values, National Conference
of Catholic Bishops (1993-2002)
Member, Board of Trustees, The Krasnow Institute, Fairfax, Virginia
(1999-2002)
Co-Chairman, Scientific Advisory Committee of the Law and Science
Academy of the Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the
Courts, Washington, D.C. (1999-2001)
Member, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Life and
Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee
(1997-2001)
Member, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council/National
Academy of Sciences (1993-1997)
Member, Steering Committee, the Policy Center for Marine Biosciences
and Technology, The University of Massachusetts, Boston (1993-
2001)
Awards Committee, American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)
(1998)
Member, Science Curriculum for State Court Judges Presiding in Toxic
Exposure Cases, Georgetown University Medical Center and Law
Center (1991-1992)
Co-chair, Disciplinary Workshop on Undergraduate Education in Biology
for the Directorate for Science and Engineering Education at
the National Science Foundation (1988)
Chairman, External Advisory Committee for the University Research
Initiative Program in Marine Biotechnology at the University of
Maryland and The Johns Hopkins University (1987-1991)
Member, University Research Initiative Evaluation Panel in Marine
Biotechnology, Office of Naval Research (1986)
PROFESSIONAL AND HONORARY SOCIETIES:
Member: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American
Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), Phi Beta Kappa
Past-president, January-December 1997, American Institute of Biological
Sciences (AIBS)
President, January-December 1996, American Institute of Biological
Sciences (AIBS)
President-elect, January-December 1995, American Institute of
Biological Sciences (AIBS)
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Burris.
Dr. Goroff.
STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL L. GOROFF, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS; DEAN OF THE FACULTY, HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE
Dr. Goroff. Chairman Inglis and distinguished
Representatives of the Subcommittee, I very much appreciate the
opportunity to participate in these hearings on what is working
in undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering
education.
And to illustrate what is working, I think of a senior
named Stephanie at Harvey Mudd College, who has been invited to
professional physics conferences as the only undergraduate
there to speak about her research findings. Actually, this
happens rather routinely to our students. Once, though, a well-
known researcher came over to her faculty advisor to praise
Stephanie and her talk and to ask if the advisor had thought
about how very unlikely it was that Stephanie's discovery could
lead to a product with commercial potential. The advisor cut
him off and said, ``You don't get it.'' She pointed across the
room at Stephanie and said, ``That is my product. I produce
physicists.''
Three quick points about this story.
First of all, the United States needs more undergraduate
``products'' like Stephanie. ``But how many do we need?''
everyone asks. All of the recent reports about competitiveness
raise alarms based on the number of scientists and engineers
being trained abroad. As a mathematician, I am a big skeptic
about numbers. Perhaps China really is producing hundreds of
thousands more engineers annually than we do. Well, the Chinese
Army is also very big. But regarding either our military forces
or our scientific workforce, I am less interested in body
counts and more interested in the capacity that young people
like Stephanie demonstrate for teamwork, communication,
innovation, and creativity, not to mention a familiarity with
the latest technology.
We may never be able to recruit as many technical students
as the Chinese are now, but we do have lots and lots of
potential Stephanies, and U.S. institutions can, precisely
because we do not have to operate at such huge scales, do a
better job at selecting and enculturating productive members of
our scientific communities. As with the Army, more scholarships
and other incentives may help with initial recruiting, but what
ultimately keeps people working effectively is a sense of
belonging to a community that is purposeful, well-equipped, and
important to society.
I have met so many undergraduates at Harvey Mudd and at
Harvard and throughout the country who passionately want to
become scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or teachers so
that they can devote their talents to solving some of the
world's problems. My hope is that the admirable intentions of
the President's American Competitiveness Initiative will be
implemented in ways that not only provide these passionate
students with temporary scholarships but that also demonstrate
to them that careers in these professions can be as sustained
and sustaining over a lifetime as the other kinds of
opportunities available to U.S. students.
Which brings me to point number two. We need more faculty
like Stephanie's advisor. Again, I find little of the interest
or talent, but much to be learned from community-building
organizations like Project Kaleidoscope and Harvard's Derek Bok
Center for Teaching and Learning.
Point number three. We need more programs that can prepare
students like Stephanie for exciting work as an engineer,
mathematician, teacher, or scientist. What good is it to
attract young people to study a field unless we have the
institutions and the infrastructure for providing appropriate
programs, courses, and experiences?
Changes in science and technology are so rapid and so
expensive today that it is hard to expect each individual
college on its own to keep its facilities, its curricula, and
its facilities all up-to-date without benefiting either from an
occasional grant or from the result of grants made to other
organizations.
The Division of Undergraduate Education at NSF has
traditionally supported everything from teacher preparation to
course, curriculum, and laboratory improvement. The budget for
such work has been slashed in recent years, though. Regardless
of what you think should happen to K-12 educational efforts at
NSF, support for undergraduate education should not only remain
based at the National Science Foundation, it should thrive
there. This is essential to achieving the goals of the American
Competitiveness Initiative since the college years are so very
critical for both the future teachers we need to improve K-12
science and mathematics education as well as the technical
specialists we need to improve innovation and economic
competitiveness. Trying to promote innovation and
competitiveness without paying careful attention to the role of
undergraduate education would be as absurd as trying to promote
progress in science and engineering without paying careful
attention to the role of mathematics.
And finally, let me assure you that Stephanie, with four
published papers so far, is not a magical exception but rather
an inspirational example of what can work widely. Over 20
original mathematical papers have been published in reference
journals by Harvey Mudd College undergraduates during the past
four years. And Mudders' names were on 13 patent disclosures
last year alone.
Through our clinic program, students work on real design-
testing or research projects, cases, if you will, proposed and
sponsored by industries or by the Federal Government. These
clinic experiences are carefully structured to develop those
student skills related to communication, teamwork, leadership,
and creativity. For example, Fluid Master will soon begin
manufacturing a toilet designed by Harvey Mudd undergraduates
that saves 10 percent of the water needed per flush. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology has supported
the development at HMC of a system that first responders can
use to warn them when a burning building is about to collapse.
And both Hewlett Packard as well as Amgen are commissioning
international clinics this year that will also help students
learn to work, think, and cooperate globally.
These are just a few examples and principles illustrating
what works when you actually set out to produce engineers,
educators, and mathematicians, not to mention scientists like
Stephanie.
I would be happy to provide more details during the
question period.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goroff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel L. Goroff
Chairman Inglis and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to participate today in hearings on
``Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education: What's
Working.''
There is a story many of us like to tell about what has made
America's economy run like clockwork that goes like this:
(1) Investment in instruction
(2) Invigorates innovation and
(3) Increases incomes.
This three-step process for producing prosperity and progress is
somewhat oversimplified, as I will point out. But that has hardly
mattered much in the past because the theory was not testable anyway.
We could not, after all, run history over again to experiment with
whether investing in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) education as we did, say, after Sputnik, really was an important
cause of our subsequent economic prosperity and growth.
The good news is that we now have better evidence that some form of
this STEM-winder story was right all along. The bad news, according to
many Americans, is that this evidence is being generated in countries
like China and India rather than in the U.S. But is this such bad news?
A threat to our nation? A perfect storm that will wash away all we
treasure?
Opportunity or Threat?
I want to begin by arguing that, although global trends in STEM
education and employment do demand our attention, we should welcome
them for at least three reasons besides the fact that us storytellers
are being proven correct:
First, these global trends are good for the world. We are
witnessing how STEM education can lift diverse, poor, and even hopeless
people from socioeconomic status lower than most Americans can imagine
into the stable middle or even entrepreneurial classes of their
countries. Science need not discriminate on the basis of race,
religion, or gender; its efficacy is a heritage potentially available
to all. And in a world that feels more and more like it is about to
fall apart, we can still communicate and agree about scientific
findings more easily than about matters that divide civilizations.
Second, these trends are good for science. There is growing
excitement and enthusiasm all over the world for STEM and STEM
education. And so there is so much we can learn from one another,
especially if the U.S. remains a hub for the scientific exchange of
both people and ideas. Enthusiasm and excitement about STEM still
exists among many young Americans, too, not to mention a great deal of
idealism in the undergraduates I meet about dedicating their talents to
serving others and solving problems by teaching, innovating, and
leading: they volunteer to Teach for America; they want to help address
world-wide challenges like AIDS or global warming or sustainable energy
or cyber security; and some just want to make an amazing discovery or
start the next big high-tech company along the way, too.
A third reason why the trends abroad are good is that they provide
a wake-up call. We must re-examine our STEM policies and practices in
ways that mattered less when the U.S. enjoyed such undisputed dominance
in science and technology. For decades, the oversimplified STEM-Winder
story we started with was good enough. Now it is time to examine,
critique, and refine how we imagine and design policy based on each of
the three steps in our recipe for economic bliss.
The Chinese Army
As an organizational leader these days, one of my favorite
questions is, ``What problem are we trying to solve?'' Our challenge
today is not simply to devote more dollars to STEM, or even to create
more STEM majors. Those may be means to an end, at least if we go about
such tasks wisely. But the real goal is to reap the prosperity and
progress promised by our original story. Most recent attention has
focused on how many STEM specialists different countries are educating.
What conclusion should we draw from reports that, while the U.S.
trained 70,000 new engineers in 2005, India produced 350,000 and China
600,000? Or was it only 400,000 in China (they counted people without
B.S. degrees) and 100,000 in the U.S. (including computer scientists as
in the Chinese data)?
As a mathematician, I am very suspicious about numbers (though I am
sometimes impressed by growth rates). The Chinese Army is also very
big, after all. But quality counts as well as quantity. What gives me
faith in the U.S. military has less to do with efforts to recruit more
individuals (especially since we cannot keep up anyway) than with the
teamwork, communications, leadership, creativity, and innovation
embodied in its institutions. Similarly, I want to emphasize and
illustrate how STEM policy recommendations should not only support
incentives for individuals, but also support the kinds of
infrastructure and institutions those individuals need to get the job
done well. This point of view helps, at each step, with distinguishing
among: (a) good policies aimed at individuals; (b) better policies that
address the collective nature of STEM work; and (c) best examples to
inspire us.
Step 1: Will investing in education produce more STEM workers?
(1a) There are currently some good policy recommendations before
Congress dealing with individual incentives. Kavita Shukla in her
Bachelor's degree thesis at Harvard, recently asked fellow students
about the $20,000 annual scholarships for STEM majors called for by the
NRC report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (RAGS). While 50 percent
professed no interest whatsoever in science or engineering, 14 percent
said they would switch to a STEM field if such support were available.
At present, only 18 percent of Harvard undergraduates are STEM
concentrators, so this would be a huge increase.
Will there be enough students arriving at college with the
prerequisites to make such a switch into STEM fields? RAGS sets
ambitious goals for expanding Advanced Placement classes in high
school. One basis for my confidence that we can meet these goals has
been the success of the ThinkFive Services for supporting AP teachers
and students online, whose development I helped advise in partnership
with AgileMind, Inc. and the Dana Center at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Will there be enough qualified teachers? Again, I take heart from
the success of examples like the ``Masters in Mathematics for
Teaching'' degree program founded as a partnership between the Harvard
Mathematics Department and the Division of Continuing Education.
Will undergraduates continue on in STEM? Tables in Appendix 1 show
that applications for NSF graduate fellowships improve both
quantitatively and qualitatively in response to the kinds of spending
enhancements advocated by RAGS. This data was compiled by Richard
Freeman and Tanwin Chang for the Scientific and Engineering Workforce
Project at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
(1b) While we can help produce more STEM degree holders in these ways,
will they then go on to become working scientists and engineers? The
opportunity costs to a U.S. undergraduate incurred by going into the
life sciences, say, as opposed to business, law, or medicine are
substantial--approximately $1 million in present value according to
calculations by Richard Freeman. So policy must also address retention
through means that are not just financial.
Besides dollars, what makes people persist in their fields is a
shared sense of collective purpose and mutual support. This sense of
community is what works in the military, after all. Policies will
therefore be even more effective to the extent that they build
infrastructure and institutions that reduce uncertainty, indignities,
and delays for groups of young STEM workers.
(1c) The best policy levers for promoting the healthy growth of STEM
communities are, for now, at the National Science Foundation (NSF). It
is no secret that the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate
at NSF is being decimated. Significant funds have been taken out of the
hands of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians there, and
transferred to the Department of Education. This may or may not make
sense for K-12. But the staff and clientele of the Division of
Undergraduate Education (DUE) at EHR used to represent a strong
community of expertise dedicated to improving STEM education at the
college level. While funding can and should be restored and predictably
grown at least in proportion to total NSF budget growth, the community
associated with DUE is in danger of scattering irretrievably.
Step 2: Will more STEM workers produce more innovation and invention?
(2a) The RAGS report is one of dozens of similar accounts that
implicitly link the number of STEM workers present with the rate of
technological innovation and invention. Obsession with counting bodies
seems rooted in romantic idealism about scientific discovery:
inspiration, like lightning, unpredictably strikes those with good STEM
educations, so the more well-educated lightning rods in your country,
the higher the likelihood of a hit? Again, we are not so special that
we can ignore lessons from other countries. During the Cold War, for
example, the Soviet Union did not innovate or invent in proportion to
its highly talented, vast, and technically well-trained workforce--
mainly because the economic infrastructure functioned so poorly under
communist central planning.
Of course, the RAGS report does present good suggestions for
providing individual incentives and rewards to STEM workers who
innovate or invent, including 200 new grants of $500,000 over five
years for young researchers as well as a new Presidential Innovation
Award. These would be welcome additions to the already large number of
``winner-take-all'' tournaments in STEM. But Richard Freeman has
pointed out that, although setting up competitions this way may
motivate people who believe themselves likely to win, many others may
also be discouraged from trying their best. Compared to schemes that
acknowledge and reward cooperation, the net result could actually be
less effort and fewer discoveries in total.
It is not just individual winners, but whole communities that are
important enablers of STEM progress. The number of research papers or
patent applications with multiple authors has been exploding relative
to the number from lone geniuses. It takes teamwork, communication, as
well as interactions within and between fields to make discoveries.
Rather than flashing from the sky, think of scientific energy as
coursing around networks. Scientists are at the nodes of these
networks, and I am all in favor of increasing their numbers, but it is
the strength, density, reach, and interfaces of their networks (STEM
cells?) that promote the innovation and invention we seek.
(2b) In the STEM wars, then, as in military or political campaigns, the
one with the biggest staff does not necessarily win. We have to make
sure our forces are well deployed, equipped, connected, and coordinated
if we expect results against overwhelming odds. So better policy menus
will not just address individuals, but also support institutions and
infrastructure, associations and assemblies, international and
interdisciplinary interactions, etc. Besides the hardware in
laboratories, the software in machines, and the wetware in brains, we
need this kind of fragile STEM-ware, too, to give shape to scientific
efforts that might otherwise be fluid, fleeting, and dispersed.
(2c) The best example of a group that has vigorously promoted
innovation and invention by STEM faculty and students has been Project
Kaleidoscope (PKAL). Founded in 1989 as an ad hoc organization, PKAL is
dedicated to improving the environment for undergraduate STEM
education--including everything from the design of science buildings to
the career development of young academics. Most recently, PKAL has also
worked on establishing international exchanges of undergraduate STEM
activists. The spectacular success of this kind of association needs to
be institutionalized and expanded, perhaps in the form of a national
center for undergraduate STEM education.
Step 3: Will innovation and invention produce more progress and
prosperity?
(3a) The RAGS report also presents good suggestions for providing
incentives to individual corporations and commercial endeavors in the
U.S. New R&D tax breaks and intellectual property protections would
certainly be welcome by those organizations. This is the RAGS to riches
section of the report.
(3b) But if globalization teaches us anything, it is that new ideas do
not stay put. So even if, in the romantically idealistic account,
inspirational lightning strikes a scientist in one country, there is no
real way of stopping that energy from being transmitted, sooner or
later, to other specialists and entrepreneurs throughout the world. Who
eventually benefits? We all might, when discoveries lead to better,
cheaper, or more healthy products. The real question, however, concerns
whether new industries and their profits are retainable within one
country or another. We often talk as if comparative advantage in high
technology production necessarily accrues to nations with a large and
inexpensive supply of interchangeable STEM workers. Perhaps it is the
networks that matter more than the individuals for this purpose, too.
Think of the robust economic success embodied by communities that are
close-knit, well-connected, and have well-established rules for trust
and competition like Silicon Valley, the consumer electronics business
in Finland, the diamond district in New York, or the shipping trade in
Hong Kong. Such examples are the result of high investments not just in
human capital, but in social capital--that is, in the ability to form
and sustain mutually beneficially relationships.
(3c) The best example of how to form mutually beneficial relationships
between undergraduate STEM students and STEM employers is the Clinic
Program at Harvey Mudd College (HMC). For over 42 years, companies,
national laboratories, and others with real technical problems they
need solved have been bringing them to the Clinic Program for small
groups of undergraduates to solve. Last year alone, the sponsors, who
retain the intellectual property rights to the work, put students names
on 13 patent disclosures. Whole divisions and product lines of
corporations have been based on HMC projects. The students, in turn,
learn about communication skills, teamwork, leadership, and innovation
in addition to technical matters. A list of sample clinic projects
appears in Appendix 4.
Harvey Mudd College also conducts undergraduate research under
other programs on topics ranging from the use chitosan--a remarkable
healing agent secreted by shrimp shells--in hemorrhage control bandages
to the mechanisms specific enzymes use to repair and remove damaged
DNA; and from the design and testing of new GPS protocols to the
invention of portable systems that give first responders a few minutes
warning before a burning building collapses.
Projects like these are not part of undergraduate education in
other countries. Precisely because China and India have such enormous
populations, their institutions of higher education operate at scales
that do not facilitate the selection or education of students for
creativity. The four-year liberal arts college is a uniquely American
invention whose students contribute disproportionately to the STEM
workforce. The economics of higher education, particularly in STEM
fields, is particularly challenging at small schools like these. Like
PKAL and DUE, the continuing ability of these institutions to continue
their good work is not assured without some wise and timely policy
interventions. The short answer about what works is community. That is
why recommendations and reforms should support not only individual
incentives, but also infrastructure and institutions.
With less than six percent of the world's population, the United
States cannot expect to dominate science and technology in the future
as it did during the second half of the last century when we enjoyed a
massively disproportionate share of the world's STEM resources. We must
invest more the resources we do have, encourage those resources to
produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM
enterprise by working with diverse groups to make sure that innovations
developed here or overseas produce prosperity and progress for all.
Many believe that U.S. investments in STEM education following
Sputnik paid off handsomely in later technological and economic
advances. In 2005, word came that the European Union is sponsoring a
satellite designed and built entirely by students. We must re-dedicate
ourselves to what is working in undergraduate science, mathematics, and
engineering education.
Appendix 1
Undergraduate STEM Education Principles
1. I believe that what makes an educational institution great has
less to do with the criteria used in magazine rankings and more to do
with a shared sense of purpose and identity.
2. I believe that professors want to teach well and students want to
learn well, but they sometimes need, and often welcome, help with
figuring out how. Many also share my belief that education can help fix
the world.
3. I believe that, just as you cannot fatten a calf by weighing it,
simply requiring undergraduates to take standardized tests will not
automatically improve college education.
4. I believe that teaching to the test is fine if it is a good test,
but that Advanced Placement examinations should not be used to predict
or preempt student performance in college courses.
5. I believe that content knowledge is necessary but not sufficient
in order to become a successful teacher.
6. I believe that the sticker price of a college education can be
crushingly high for too many families, that a college diploma should
still be worth every penny paid for it (whether by the student or by
society), and that tuition still does not cover the full cost of an
undergraduate education, especially in technical fields such as science
and engineering.
7. I believe in accountability, but also that accountability is not
just a matter of collecting data. I believe in collecting data
systematically, but also that the lack of statistical proof of what
works does not excuse inaction.
8. I believe changes in science and technology are so rapid and so
expensive that it is hard to expect each individual college on its own
to keep its faculty, curricula, and facilities all up to date without
benefiting either from an occasional grant of its own or from the
results of grants made to other organizations.
9. I believe in competition when it comes to awarding grants. That
should involve requests for proposals and peer review, organized by
people who know how.
10. I believe that interdisciplinary work is exciting but not a goal
in and of itself, that students also need solid grounding in the
basics, and that confronting real problems is one of the best ways for
them to master both.
11. I believe that science is best learned and practiced in groups
rather than by lone geniuses. More important than the number of
individual scientists available is the density, strength, reach, and
organization of the relational networks connecting those scientists,
both within a given country and internationally.
12. I believe that sincere and thoughtful philosophical differences
about education or government are healthy as long as they do not get in
the way of working together for the good of the next generation.
Appendix 2
NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Data
Prepared by Richard Freeman and Tanwin Chang for the Scientific and
Engineering Workforce Project of the National Bureau for Economic
Research.
Appendix 3
Facts About Harvey Mudd College
A member of the Claremont University Consortium, Harvey Mudd
College was founded in 1956 as ``The Liberal Arts College of Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering'' and remains true to its mission
statement:
Harvey Mudd College seeks to educate engineers, scientists,
and mathematicians well versed in all of these areas and in the
humanities and social sciences so that they may assume
leadership in their fields with a clear understanding of the
impact of their work on society.
The students at HMC are truly among the best and the brightest in
the United States. According to applicant pool data, the four
institutions with the greatest number of overlap applications are MIT,
U.C. Berkeley, Caltech, and Stanford. Statistics for the 2005-6
entering class include:
Median SAT 1480
27 percent National Merit Scholarship finalists
91 percent in top 10 percent of their senior class
26 percent valedictorians
35 percent women
35 percent students of color.
HMC ranks 18 among liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News & World
Reports survey, and second among undergraduate engineering programs.
The Washington Monthly placed HMC fourth in its ranking of ``what
colleges are doing for the country.''
In 1997, HMC became the first undergraduate institution to win the
prestigious International Association of Computing Machinery
Programming Contest from among over 1,000 entries worldwide. In the
prestigious William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, HMC teams
have earned top-ten spots in three of the past four years and finished
twice in the top five, a record unsurpassed by any other undergraduate
institution.
In 2005, the American Mathematic Society presented HMC with its
first-ever ``Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a
Mathematics Department.'' The citation reads:
The American Mathematical Society (AMS) presents its first
Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a Mathematics
Department to Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California. The
Mathematics Department at Harvey Mudd College excels in
numerous dimensions. Its exciting programs have led to a
doubling of the number of math majors over the last decade.
Currently more than one out of every six graduating seniors at
Harvey Mudd College majors in mathematics or in new joint
majors of mathematics with computer science or mathematical
biology. Furthermore, about 60 percent of these math majors
continue their education at the graduate level.
The Harvey Mudd College Mathematics Clinic has served as a
trailblazer and a model for other programs for more than thirty
years. This innovative program connects teams of math majors
with real-world problems, giving students a terrific research
experience as well as a glimpse at possible future careers.
Undergraduate research is a theme throughout the mathematics
program at Harvey Mudd College, as exemplified by the over
twenty papers published in the last three years by Harvey Mudd
College mathematics faculty with student co-authors.
Appendix 4
The Clinic at Harvey Mudd College:
Sponsor proposes real problem
The responsible Clinic Director appoints a team of 3-
5 students, a student project manager, and a faculty advisor
The sponsor appoints a liaison
The students prepare a work statement (subject to
liaison agreement) to produce scheduled deliverables:
-- Presentations, reports, prototype, models,
analyses, code. . .
No guarantee of unique solution
Fee paid by Sponsor = $41,000
Clinic Project Selection:
Must be important to Sponsor
Emphasizes design and experimental skills
Allows for team interaction
Work scope 1,200-1,500 person hours
Fixed end date
Concrete measurable goals
Computer Science Clinic Examples
The Boeing Company/ATM (2002-03)
Design and Prototype of a Low-Cost Weather Information System for
General Aviation
Liaisons: James Hanson '64, Paul Mallasch
Advisor: Geoffrey Kuenning
Students: Paul Paradise, Luke Hunter, Kyle Kuypers, Rafael Vasquez
Boeing ATM has tasked us with the design and implementation of a
proof-of-concept design for delivering weather data to aircraft pilots
in-flight. Using a Pocket PC PDA as a hardware architecture and a
custom client and server, we are able to deliver METAR (Meteorological
Reports) and NEXRAD (NEXt-generation RADar) to pilots. Our current
implementation uses 802.11b wireless technology for the communication,
but is ideally suited for satellite-based broadcast as a final product.
Medtronic MiniMed (2003-04)
Diabetes Data Management Software API Design and Implementation
Liaison: Pam Roller
Advisor: Belinda Thom
Students: Jessica Fisher, Mark Fredrickson, Aja Hammerly, Jon Huang
With approximately 17 million people in the U.S. with diabetes,
Medtronic MiniMed has produced several distinct lines of diabetes
devices to aid in the treatment of the disease. These devices, however,
do not utilize a standard communication format. The Clinic team is
designing and implementing an extensible interface that will unify
communication with Medtronic MiniMed's current and future insulin
pumps, glucose sensors, and related diabetes technology.
Engineering Clinic Examples
The Aerospace Corporation (2003-04)
Development of Picosat Add-On Boards
Liaisons: Samuel Osofsky '85, Nelson Ho
Advisor: John Molinder
Students: Andrew Cole (Team Leader), Nathan Mitchell, Brian Putnam,
Daniel Rinzler, Gabriel Takacs, Philip Vegdahl
Picosats are very small satellites (typically a 4'' cube) launched
in conjunction with a larger satellite. Aerospace designed the original
Picosats, with the first placed in orbit in 2000. The technology has
the potential to be used for a variety of tasks, including imaging of
the launch vehicle to evaluate damage. A Harvey Mudd College
Engineering Clinic team developed digital camera and GPS add-on boards
for the Picosat platform. A single board was designed that is able to
support either a camera or a GPS daughterboard. The engineers at
Aerospace were surprised and pleased that the team was able to
accomplish the project goals using primarily commercial off-the-shelf
technologies, thus increasing the system's reliability. The board is
provisionally scheduled to fly on an upcoming Space Shuttle mission.
Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology (2004-05)
Design of a Prototype Cooling System to Prolong and Preserve Limb
Viability
Liaisons: Alex Pranger '92/'93
Advisor: Donald Remer
Students: Nicolas von Gersdorff (Team Leader), Jay Chow, Michael Le,
Robert Panish, Ajay Shah
While combat armor advancements have increased soldiers' survival
rates, modern weaponry ravages warfighters' extremities, causing
massive trauma and tissue loss; two-thirds of the more than 10,000
combat injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan afflicted patients' limbs.
Inducing local hypothermia (i.e., significant cooling of the affected
limb) would prolong limb viability, lengthening the window for soldiers
to obtain restorative and regenerative care and thereby avoid
amputations. The Harvey Mudd team developed a lightweight, easily
deployable, evaporative cooling wrap to induce therapeutic hypothermia
on the battlefield. A patent disclosure has been filed, and the next
stage of development is underway by the project sponsor.
9Fluidmaster, Inc. (2004-05)
Innovative Designs for Flushing Systems
Liaisons: Chris Coppock
Advisor: Lori Bassman
Students: Joe Laubach (Team Leader), Shawna Biddick, Rami Hindiyeh,
Joey Kim, John Onuminya, Sarah Taliaferro
Fluidmaster, Inc. is a worldwide supplier of plumbing products. The
company is determined to aid in the conservation of scarce fresh water
as well as to enable people worldwide to enjoy the benefits of safe and
reliable sanitation. This requires a cost-effective and reliable
flushing system that uses a consistent low volume of water regardless
of variations in supply water pressure and toilet resistance. The HMC
team designed and prototyped two designs that accomplished these goals,
resulting in a reduction of 0.1 gallon per flush, a potentially very
significant improvement. Two provisional patents were awarded to the
team, and Fluidmaster has indicated their intention to take one of the
designs to market.
UVP, Inc. (2004-05)
Uniform Illumination for Fluorescent In Vivo Imaging
Liaisons: Sean Gallagher, Darius Kelly, Colin Jemmott '04
Advisor: Qimin Yang, Deb Chakravarti (KGI)
Students: Alyssa Caridis (Team Leader), Stephanie Bohnert, Ekaterina
Kniazeva, Erika Palmer, Laura Moyer, Jeremy Bolton (KGI), Linda
Chen (KGI)
In order to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of live animal
in vivo imaging, UVP tasked a team of Harvey Mudd College and Keck
Graduate Institute students to design, simulate, and test innovative
imaging systems to achieve unparalleled illumination uniformity.
Uniform lighting is needed for quantitative analysis of images of live
creatures, which are used for research into cancer and other diseases.
The team developed novel methodologies for measuring light uniformity
as well as several successful designs for the lighting system itself. A
successful 3-D image lighting system will allow researchers to follow
the pattern of tumors in the same test animal, improving the
understanding of the disease and simultaneously reducing the number of
animals needed for such tests. UVP filed several patent disclosures
based on the team's work, and is in the process of bringing one of the
designs to market.
Mathematics Clinic Examples
HP Labs (2004-05)
Analyzing and Correcting Printer Drift
Liaisons: John Meyer, Gary Dispoto
Advisor: Weiqing Gu
Students: Jeffrey Hellrung (PM), Brianne Boatman, Durban Frazer, Katie
Lewis
In color printing, a look-up table (LUT) is a mapping from a
computer's color space to the ink combinations required to print these
colors. An LUT will drift over time due to a variety of factors
including mechanical and environmental changes, resulting in an
undesirable change in the printed results. Currently, constructing a
new LUT is a time consuming process. This project focused on developing
a quicker method to recalibrate a printer when drift occurs.
VIASAT, INC. (2001-02)
Using Elliptic Curve Cryptography for Secure Communication
Liaison: Hunter Marshall
Advisor: Weiqing Gu
Students: Simon Tse (TL), Colin Little, Cameron McLeman, Braden Pellett
The ViaSat clinic team will present methods for performing secure
cryptography over an insecure network by 1) Introducing the use of
algebraic objects known as elliptic curves to accomplish this task 2)
Presenting Diffe-Hellman key exchange protocol using elliptic curve
cryptogtaphy (ECC) 3) Discussing potential attacks on this cryptosystem
and 4) Demonstrating their implementation of this algorithm allowing
two network users to agree upon a secret key over an insecure
connection.
Physics Clinic Examples
University of California Irvine Department of Otolaryngology (2003-04)
Modification of a Laryngoscope for Optical Coherence Tomography
Liaison: Brian Wong
Adivisors: Elizabeth Orwin, Robert Wolf
Students: Nikhil Gheewala (PM), River Hutchison, Tonya Icenogle, Rachel
Lovec
Currently laryngeal cancer can only be diagnosed with biopsies
which are invasive, permanently damaging, and can miss cancerous
tissue. Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is an imaging technique that
non-invasively images several millimeters into tissue to seek
structural abnormalities, which can indicate cancer. We will design and
construct an OCT device for attachments to a laryngoscope that will
image two-dimensional cross-sections in the larynx, for the purpose of
diagnosing laryngeal cancer in its early stages.
Sandia National Laboratories
Optical Characterization of Coated Soot Aerosols or ``Flames and
Laser''
Fall 2004 Students: Mark Dansson, Rachel Kirby, Tristan Sharp, Shannon
Woods, Mike Martin. Spring 2005 Students: Patrick Hopper,
Brendan Haberle, Matt Johnson, Julie Wortman, Mark Dannson,
Octavi Semonin
Advisor: Peter Saeta
The optical properties of coated soot aerosols produce the greatest
uncertainty in climate change models. This project aims to measure the
scattering and absorption of light by sub-micron-sized soot particles
similar to those produced in diesel exhaust. Total absorption and
scattering cross sections of 635 nm laser light are measured using
cavity-ringdown and angle-resolved scattering techniques. Soot
particles are created in situ by partially combusting ethylene and
coated with a volatile organic compound.
Biography for Daniel L. Goroff
Daniel Goroff is Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of
the Faculty at Harvey Mudd College. He has held this post since July of
2005, when he also became a member of both the Mathematics and the
Economics Departments.
Goroff earned his B.A.-M.A. degree in mathematics summa cum laude
at Harvard as a Borden Scholar, an M.Phil. in economics at Cambridge
University as a Churchill Scholar, and a Ph.D. in mathematics at
Princeton University as a Danforth Fellow.
Goroff's first faculty appointment was at Harvard University in
1983. He is currently on leave from his position there as Professor of
the Practice of Mathematics, having also served as Associate Director
of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, and Resident Tutor
at Leverett House.
A 1988 Phi Beta Kappa Teaching Prize winner, Goroff has taught
courses for the mathematics, economics, physics, history of science,
and continuing education departments at Harvard. He was also the
founding director of a Masters Degree Program in ``Mathematics for
Teaching'' offered through the Harvard Extension School.
In pursuing his work on nonlinear systems, chaos, and decision
theory, Daniel Goroff has held visiting positions at the Institut des
Hautes Etudes Scientifiques in Paris, the Mathematical Sciences
Research Institute in Berkeley, Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, and
the Dibner Institute at MIT.
In 1994, Goroff was elected to a three-year term on the Board of
Directors of the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE).
During 1996-97, he was a Division Director at the National Research
Council (NRC) in Washington, and during 1997-98, Goroff worked for the
President's Science Advisor at the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). That year he was named a ``Young Leader of
the Decade in Academia'' by Change: The Magazine of Higher Education.
As Director of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (JPBM) from
1998 to 2001, Daniel Goroff was called to testify about educational and
research priorities both by the House and again by the Senate during
the 106th Congress. He currently serves as Chair of the U.S. National
Commission on Mathematics Instruction at the National Research Council,
and co-directs the Sloan Scientific and Engineering Workforce Project
at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mr. Ehlers. [Presiding] Thank you very much.
And I apologize for the musical chairs here, but Chairman
Inglis has another committee he has to go to periodically to
vote.
I also thank you for reminding us of the important role
both of you at the smaller liberal arts colleges play, and I
think they provide the best teacher candidates that I have seen
in many cases. I also have a connection to Harvey Mudd, because
your--one of your predecessors, a dean, tried to recruit me
some years ago to come and teach at Harvey Mudd, and----
Dr. Goroff. We are going to try again.
Mr. Ehlers. I am too old. Thank you.
But next, we are pleased to recognize Ms. Collins from
Moraine Valley Community College, which I have no connection
with, but welcome. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. MARGARET SEMMER COLLINS, ASSISTANT DEAN OF
SCIENCE, BUSINESS, AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, MORAINE VALLEY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Ms. Collins. That is okay. By the time I am done, you will
all feel very comfortable with Moraine Valley Community
College.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Moraine
Valley Community College. My name is Margaret Collins, and I am
the Assistant Dean of Science, Business, and Computer
Technologies.
Moraine Valley is located in the southwest suburban Cook
County in Illinois. I mention this because community colleges
are all about the communities they serve. I have considered
this community my home for my entire life, and I consider
myself a southsider, just like the World Champion Chicago White
Sox. I was raised in a little suburb called Marinette Park and
now live and raise my children, Carly and Billy, in Evergreen
Park. My sister lives two blocks away, and my parents are right
down the street.
Moraine Valley is the second largest community college in
Illinois out of 48 with a spring 2006 headcount of just under
16,000. We offer 123 degree and certificate programs and have
just over 46,000 students enrolled annually. We also encounter
obstacles to recruitment and retention of STEM majors.
As we converse today about the recruitment and retention of
STEM undergraduates, I bring the unique perspective of the
community college. Certainly, our struggles are similar to
institutions that grant upper-level degrees, and I echo the
sentiments of the panel here today, but distinctive to the
community college and unique to Moraine Valley Community
College are issues that arise because of demographics,
geographic boundaries, and open admission policies.
Community colleges serve all people, and we are proud to do
so, but we also must face obstacles, including under-
preparedness in math and science. With the high school
population, we also encounter misalignment between secondary
and post-secondary math and science, which causes a gap--a
knowledge gap for many of the students entering Moraine Valley
Community College. By all means, as an educator who works
closely with area high schools, and who has children in a local
elementary school, I sympathize with their struggles to meet
and exceed state standards while providing a quality, well-
rounded education. I praise all of these teachers and educators
for their efforts in this challenging time.
Despite these obstacles, our discussion today must focus on
solutions. Our most recent accomplishment has resulted from
finely-tuned collaboration and lots of human energy. I am lucky
to work with so many dedicated individuals. The Academy Awards
would have the orchestra playing only a third of the way
through my thank-yous. CSSIA, the Center for Systems Security
and Information Assurances with much-appreciated funding from
the National Science Foundation, also an ATE center, enables us
to address issues of recruitment and retention from several
perspectives.
Briefly now, but in greater detail in the written
testimony, the ATE center has been--helped us to develop
curriculum, expand internship opportunities, build a Women In
Technology mentoring program, produce video that showed
technology in a more appealing and interesting way, offer a
career development course that dispels common myths. We have
also been able to provide low or no-cost teacher training and
curriculum development. We have also developed an excellent
outreach program, which I wanted to tell you a little bit more
about today.
During the past two years, I have had the opportunity to
work with a very special group of students as part of our CSSIA
outreach program. The high school students that attend the
Mirta Ramirez Computer Science Academy in Chicago, Illinois do
so because they seek careers as programmers, IT professionals,
IT security specialists, and network engineers. Our efforts to
assist these young people focus on providing a seamless
transition from our high school--from high school to college.
We have sponsored several on-campus events, combined with
activities at their own school, that allow students to earn
college credit, gain skills, and understand the importance of
continuation beyond high school.
Through our community outreach event and computer health
clinics, students assist the community members by conducting
virus scans and other security-related operations on PCs. The
students also competed in teams and presented their projects
before a judging committee. The winning teams were invited to
Washington, DC to present at the annual ATE conference. My best
experience as an educator was participating in the travel with
these dozen or more students. The experience for all of us was
pretty amazing, and the result of hard work, dedication, and
good funding was visible to all.
In addition to NSF funding, we have appreciated funding
from other federal sources. It is outlined in greater detail in
the written testimony, but Carl Perkins and Tech Prep funding
has significantly aided our efforts to recruit and retain STEM
majors. It has done this through dual credit, math alignment
programs, tutoring, implementation of contextual learning,
career exploration opportunities for high school and elementary
students, and of course, to purchase equipment and supplies.
The college also engages TRIO funds to provide support
services, academic advising to create awareness, and again, to
provide some tutoring and academic support.
The colleges uses operational funds to help recruit and
retain STEM majors. We do this by providing dual enrollment
opportunities for advanced placement high school students in
calculus, statistics, college algebra, trigonometry, biology,
and chemistry. We work closely with the upper level colleges to
create two-plus-two agreements that assists Moraine Valley
students to transition into engineering and computer science
programs. We improved diversity in our full-time teaching
faculty through a strong commitment to diversity in our hiring
practices.
As for the measurement of effectiveness, my written
testimony outlines in more detail the scrutiny and thoroughness
applied to all of our assessment activities. At Moraine Valley,
institutional effectiveness has always been, and will remain, a
high priority for our institution, and I would be glad to
entertain your questions upon conclusion of this statement.
In closing, I would like to emphasize ways in which the
Federal Government may continue to help us address the
obstacles we face. We need to continue to emphasize the
seriousness of the social and economic issues related to
recruitment and retention of STEM majors. We need to provide
more recognition to the role of the community college in
providing pathways and opportunities in higher education,
especially for the under-served and under-represented. We need
to support--we need more support for post-secondary
collaboration through Tech Prep and Carl Perkins. We also need
to emphasize the social issues, including gender, race, and
socioeconomic status. We also need to replicate successful best
practices and programs.
Thank you again for allowing the voice of the community
college to be present at this hearing today. Community colleges
have become, and will remain, a vital means for students
otherwise unable to participate in higher education. The issue
of recruitment and retention of science, technology,
engineering, and math majors is crucial--is a crucial economic
and social issue that demands greater consideration. I feel
honored to have been afforded this opportunity to sit with an
esteemed panel and to contribute to the discussion. I look
forward to the positive outcomes that result from this
conversation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret Semmer Collins
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the role of community colleges in the
recruitment and retention of undergraduate science, math and
engineering majors. I would like to introduce myself, my name is
Margaret Collins and I come to you with fourteen years of experience in
higher education. My experience includes college teaching, career and
workforce development, grant writing and most recently academic affairs
administration. My last twelve years of employment have been at the
community college. Currently, I am the Assistant Dean of Science,
Business & Computer Technologies at Moraine Valley Community College.
I recognize the tremendous challenge that our nation's educational
institutions face as we prepare graduates to compete in a global
economy. My testimony today comes from the perspective of the community
college, from my experiences at Moraine Valley Community College
(MVCC). I intend to address obstacles to recruitment and retention of
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) majors at Moraine
Valley Community College and discuss how we work towards minimizing the
obstacles through extensive collaboration, grant funding and human
capital.
Question One: What obstacles have I encountered at Moraine Valley
Community College in recruiting and retaining STEM majors?
Students who attend community college, specifically at Moraine
Valley Community College face unique obstacles that students at upper
division colleges and universities may not. Regardless of the
particular institution, most STEM programs remain challenged by issues
considered more universal to recruitment and retention.
1. Under preparedness or college readiness (traditional aged
students coming from high school). According to the United
States Department of Education, (2005) college readiness is one
of the seven national education priorities and although
improvement has been seen in recent years, too many students
remain unprepared for college.
a. Math remediation--based on the MVCC placement test
scores 54 percent of students in 2004 require some
level of developmental math before entering college
level algebra. This figure is up from 48 percent in
1999 (2005).
b. High school science requirement for graduation--
Graduation requirements in the State of Illinois
dictate that students complete two years of science
credit which is typically taken in the 9th and 10th
grades. (Office of the Governor, State of Illinois,
2005). This leaves a large gap between the completion
of high school science requirement and entrance into
community college science.
c. Curriculum not aligned across secondary and post-
secondary institutions--Secondary curriculum is aligned
with the Illinois Learning Standards and the statewide
standardized exam. However, community college
curriculum aligns with the Illinois Articulation
Initiative (IAI) and the requirements of higher level
post-secondary colleges and universities. This often
causes a gap in the knowledge base that contributes to
under preparedness.
d. Transitional opportunities not well understood or
conveyed--Developmental guidance programs in area high
schools continue to improve in our region but extensive
work remains related to helping students understand
career paths, career development and their associated
educational plan. This task has become more complex
because of increasing specialization in STEM careers.
2. Lack of Opportunity
a. 1st generation college students (neither parent has
a four year college degree or higher)--Ample research
on first generation college students exists. These
investigations consistently indicate that, compared to
students whose parents are college graduates, first
generation students are more likely to leave at the end
of the first year, be on a persistence track to a
Bachelor's degree after three years, and are less
likely to stay enrolled or attain a Bachelor's degree
after five years. (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak &
Terenzini, 2004). First generation students represent
67 percent of the MVCC student population.
b. Economically disadvantaged--Community colleges by
nature serve populations of students with great
diversity including socioeconomic status. MVCC is no
exception with a portion of the student based
considered economically disadvantaged.
c. Multiple priorities including work, other courses,
and family obligations--Community college students
trend towards having multiple priorities. According to
the MVCC spring 2005 Community College Survey of
Student Engagement, 60 percent of the respondents
indicated that their full time employment is likely to
lead to withdrawal, while 50 percent of the students
surveyed indicate that caring for dependents is a
likely reason to withdraw from class or the college.
3. Negative perceptions associated with science, technology,
engineering and math including:
a. Perception of poor labor market, few job
opportunities--Persistent belief that few jobs exist
for science, technology, math, and engineering majors
continues. At MVCC, informal student surveys reflect
this perception. nationally, most job outlook surveys
bolster this perception. For example, in the March 10th
edition of the USA Today, an excerpt from a recent
study compiled by the Department of Labor (2005),
showed strong job opportunities in allied health and
nursing, a brief mention of technology-related jobs,
and no mention of job opportunities in the traditional
areas of science and engineering.
b. Perception that STEM is unattractive, uninteresting
and only for the super smart--For decades our society
has perpetuated the stereotypical perception that
people who work in science, math, technology, and
engineering tends towards being very smart and less
interesting. Work to dispel the notion of the science
and computer geek has not progressed. Students continue
to associate these majors as being for a small group of
capable and stereotypical individuals. In a recent
survey of students published in the proceedings of the
2005 American Society for Engineering Education,
students listed as some reasons for not persisting in
STEM majors as due to the excessive work load,
sedentary lifestyle, anti-social nature, dullness/
tediousness and competitiveness. (Yasuhara, 2005).
c. Perception of STEM as male oriented and male
dominated--The issue of gender bias in STEM majors
receives an abundance of research attention related to
the perception that these are male oriented and male
dominated fields. Research shows that many female
students not only have low expectations of themselves
in science classes, but also have stereotypical views
about scientists, believing that boys are more likely
to become scientists. This view has a negative effect
on the probability of girls considering science as a
career (Bohrmann & Akerson, 2001).
What actions has Moraine Valley Community College taken to over come
the obstacles?
At Moraine Valley Community College addressing the obstacles faced
by students in STEM majors takes on different fundamental nature
depending on the precise student population at hand. Moraine Valley,
like most community colleges, enrolls students interested in a
community college education as a means to an end, i.e., job training.
Often referred to as the career program students, at MVCC these
students make up half of our student population. The other half
consists of students interested in earning credit hours and/or degrees
that transfer to other institutions. We refer to these students as
transfer program students and they are interested in a community
college education as a vehicle to a Bachelor's degree or higher.
For the career program students, those interested specifically in
technology and engineering programs and degrees. Critical funding from
the National Science Foundation, Carl Perkins and Tech Prep has enabled
several of our programs to reverse the national trend of declining
enrollment. Many of our programs have experienced increased enrollment
and higher retention.
Funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the past
five years has resulted in significant impact on our success. These
successes include the college's ATE Center and the Center for Systems
Security and Information Assurances (CSSIA). The funding has resulted
in helped us to:
1. Develop curriculum in mechanical design, pre-engineering,
Internet specialist, information technology security, wireless
and Voice Over IP (through two projects and the ATE center).
2. Expand internship opportunities by hiring an internship/
externship coordinator exclusively designated for CSSIA.
3. Build a ``Women in Technology'' mentoring program that was
originally funded from a previous NSF project and now funded
through CSSIA.
4. Develop an outreach program for economically disadvantaged
inner city Hispanic youth who attend a computer science charter
school. The student population is half female.
During the past two years, I have had the opportunity to work with
a very special group of students as part of our CSSIA outreach program.
The high school students, who attend the Mirta Ramirez Computer Science
Academy, a charter school sponsored by Aspira of Illinois, are inner
city Hispanic youth (Half Mexican and half Puerto Rican), of which half
are also young women. They attend the computer science academy because
they seek careers as programmers, IT professionals, IT security
specialists, and network engineers.
Our efforts to assist these young people focus on providing a
seamless transition from high school to college. We have sponsored
several on campus events combined with activities at their own school
that provide opportunity for the students to earn college credit, learn
about IT careers and understand the importance of continuation their
education beyond high school. We organized a community outreach event,
a computer health clinic, that enabled students to assist community
members by conducting virus scans and other security related operations
on PCs brought to the event. The students also competed in teams and
presented their projects before an audience at the all day event. The
teams with the best projects were invited to Washington, D.C. to
present at the annual ATE conference. Twelve students traveled from
their west side neighborhoods. The experience for all of us was pretty
amazing and the result of hard work, dedication and good funding was
visible to all.
5. Produce video segments that show technology related careers
as more appealing, interesting and attractive
6. Offer a career development course that dispels myths about
the poor labor market, provides career exploration through
specialized interest inventories, provides an outlet for career
related research in the areas of information technology
7. Provide low or no cost teacher training and curriculum
development opportunities that foster program updates. The
CSSIA faculty development opportunities have enabled us to
train over 800 faculty members on information assurance,
network security and wireless technologies.
Carl Perkins and Tech Prep funding has significantly aided our
efforts to recruit and retain STEM majors by enabling us to:
1. Provide dual credit opportunities for students in Career
and Technical Education (CTE) classrooms.
2. Develop a math alignment program that brings high school
teachers and college faculty together to discuss math
remediation and ways to better prepare high school students for
college math.
3. Develop and offer a tutoring program for Management
Information Systems students.
4. Provide professional development opportunities to teachers
at the secondary and post-secondary level to better implement
contextual learning.
5. Provide career exploration opportunities for high school
and elementary students that portray technology and engineering
in a more positive light.
6. Purchase updated instructional equipment supplies and
equipment to meet the ever changing demands of industry.
The obstacles for transfer students, although similar to those of
career program students, are handled differently and through different
funding streams:
Specifically, the college has several large Department of Education
(DOE) grants from the TRIO program (Upward Bound, Talent Search and
Student Support Services) that help us overcome obstacles and address
recruitment and retention for STEM majors through activities that:
1. Provide support services, academic advising and career
planning for students already attending MVCC.
2. Create awareness about college opportunities for pre-high
school under-represented students who are economically
disadvantaged and/or first generation college bound.
3. Provide tutoring and academic support that addresses
remediation issues for under prepared students.
4. Offer career development opportunities that emphasize the
importance of college education after high school.
In addition to grant funds that enable Moraine Valley Community
College to directly address issues of recruitment and retention for
STEM majors, the college also utilizes operational funds that assist
to:
1. Provide dual enrollment opportunities for Advanced
Placement high school students in calculus, statistics, college
algebra, trigonometry, biology, and chemistry.
2. Create 2+2 agreements in mechanical design and information
technology that assist MVCC student's transition into
engineering and computer science Bachelor's degree programs.
3. Improve diversity in our full-time teaching faculty through
a strong commitment to diversity in our hiring practices.
How are we measuring the effectiveness of these actions?
Measuring the effectiveness of our efforts to recruit and retain
STEM majors is a multi-tiered process. Because grant funded programs
require high standards of accountability and because NSF grants
specifically are awarded on a competitive basis, we adhere to stringent
standards for program evaluation and effectiveness. The best model for
evaluating program effectiveness comes from a process recommended by
the National Science Foundation. With help from the NSF we contract an
external evaluator whose purpose is to monitor our progress against our
grant objectives. A National Visiting Committee is also designated to
assist in the evaluation of CSSIA. This committee provides an annual
appraisal with extensive feedback. Also through NSF funds we conduct
large scale surveys that assess productivity and accomplishment.
In addition to NSF determined evaluation processes, at MVCC, we
benefit from opportunities available to us through our resource
development and institutional research offices. These resources assist
front line program administrators and coordinators with report writing,
data gathering and quality analysis of our programs.
Through Tech Prep funding we contract a research associate to
perform a longitudinal inquiry on dual credit and articulation related
data. The outcomes from our extensive assessment of programs and yearly
reporting on effectiveness are used as a basis for continuation of
activities as well as in the development of new initiatives.
Question Two: What are the obstacles to implementing similar
improvements at other institutions of higher education?
An issue of importance to all academic institutions and an issue
often difficult to fully address concerns the magnitude of role models
related to retention of STEM majors. At MVCC we address this issue with
a strong effort towards diversifying the faculty. Hiring is a long-term
commitment that requires a constant focus every single year and
consumes a great deal of resources.
A major obstacle faced by other institutions of higher education is
the lack of financial resources necessary to pursue competitive funding
programs. In the State of Illinois our level of State funding has
declined over the past few years and continues to decline. The college
now finds itself more dependent on grant funded initiatives like NSF,
Perkins and Tech Prep. Due to the volatile status of funding it becomes
difficult to make long-term plans. We have a strong commitment to
pursue NSF funding but it is very competitive. Unlike many other
institutions of higher education, our institution is committed to
providing the time and resources needed for the extensive proposal
process.
Illinois community colleges were plagued by a lack of statewide
curriculum alignment. The standardized general education core (Illinois
Articulation Initiative) helps to alleviate the problems. Other states
continue to struggle with this alignment.
Question Three: What role have federal agencies, particularly the
National Science Foundation (NSF) played in improving undergraduate
STEM education? What more should federal agencies be doing in this
area?
This has been addressed in the context above.
What more should federal agencies be doing in this area?
Federal agencies should continue to emphasize the
seriousness of the social and economic issues related to
recruitment and retention of STEM majors.
Federal agencies should provide more recognition to
the role of community colleges in providing pathways and
opportunities in high education especially for the under-served
and under-represented.
More support should come from the federal agencies
related to secondary-post-secondary collaboration (Tech Prep,
Carl Perkins).
Curriculum alignment and refinement of standards in
STEM should remain a priority of the federal agencies.
Social issues including gender and race bias in
higher education should remain high priority for federal
agencies.
Continued federal support of faculty development
programs should remain a priority through NSF and DOE grants.
Investment in replicating best practices and programs
that experience continued successful achievement should be
prioritized at a national level.
In closing, thank you again for allowing the voice of the community
college to be present at this hearing today. Community colleges have
become and will remain a vital means for students, otherwise unable, to
participate in high education. The issue of recruitment and retention
of science, technology, engineering, and math majors is a crucial
economic and social issue that demands greater consideration. I feel
honored to have been afforded this opportunity to contribute to the
discussion and look forward to the positive outcomes that result from
this conversation. Thank you.
References
Bohrmann, M.L., & Akerson, V.L. (2001). A Teacher's Reflections on Her
Actions to Improve Her Female Students' Self-Efficacy toward
Science. Journal of Elementary Science Education 13(2), 41+.
Retrieved October 27, 2005, from Questia database: http://
www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002438891
Facts & Figures: Past Present and Future (2005). Moraine Valley
Community College, Office of Institutional Research and
Planning.
Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini, P.T.
(2004). First-Generation College Students: Additional Evidence
on College Experiences and Outcomes. Journal of Higher
Education 75(3), 249+. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from Questia
database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5005988022
Office of the Governor, State of Illinois. Plan increases high school
graduation requirement, better prepares students for success
after high school. Retrieved on March 10, 2006 from: http://
www.illinois.gov/PressReleases
United States Department of Education (2000). Reasons for Optimism,
Reason for Action. Retrieved on March 10, 2006 from: http://
www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/08/08182005.html
USA Today, March 10, 2006.
Yasuhara, K. (2005). Choosing Computer Science: Women at the start of
the undergraduate pipeline, Proceedings of the 2005 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and
Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://
www.cs.washington.edu/homes/yasuhara/cv/publications/
Biography for Margaret Semmer Collins
Education:
Candidate: Doctorate of Education, Adult, Counseling and Higher
Education,
Research Agenda: Recruitment & Retention of Women in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math
Dissertation Topic: Gender Gaps in Advanced & Emerging Technologies at
Midwestern Community Colleges; Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, IL; Anticipated completion: August 2006.
Master of Arts, Communication Studies (1992), University of Illinois at
Chicago, Chicago, IL
Bachelor of Science, Communication Studies (1987), Northern Illinois
University, DeKalb, IL
Professional Experience:
Moraine Valley Community College 1994 to present
Assistant Dean, Science, Business & Computer Technologies (2002 to
present)
Provide administrative leadership on grant projects
that include the Center for Systems Security and Information
Assurances (CSSIA), CSSIA Supplemental Grant, Tech Prep Support
Grant and Tech Prep Consortium grant.
Chair search committees to select and hire math,
science, business and information technology faculty.
Lead non-tenured faculty evaluation process by
chairing evaluation teams.
Direct program improvement projects for career and
technical education programs that include Tech Prep, 2+2, dual
enrollment, career development and work based learning.
Assist in the oversight and management of sub-
division and grant budgets.
Work closely with faculty to strategically address
marketing, outreach and improved collaboration with high
schools, four-year colleges/universities and the community.
Advocate and encourage the development and
enhancement of recruitment/retention efforts geared at non-
traditional students especially women in IT.
Moraine Area Career System, Oak Lawn, IL 1999 to 2002
Assistant Director/Tech Prep Coordinator, Moraine Area Career System
Administer all fiscal and administrative
responsibilities for the three regional Career and Technical
Education grant programs. Responsible for budget management,
progress reporting, grant writing, program development, and
program supervision. Work collaboratively with staff at the
Illinois State Board of Education, secondary administrative
personnel, community college administration and teachers at
both the secondary and post-secondary levels. The grants
managed include: Federal Tech Prep, State Tech Prep and Work
Based Learning.
Lead efforts to enhance career and technical
education within the Moraine Valley region by promoting and
managing the development of articulated and/or dual enrollment
courses aligned with Business, Industrial Technology, and
Family and Consumer Sciences.
Research local, State, and national labor market data
and monitor educational trends at Moraine Valley Community
College for the purpose of introducing progressive Career and
Technical education programs, into local high schools.
Develop and implement professional development
opportunities for area educators including secondary and post-
secondary teachers, counselors and administrative staff that
help educators align curriculum with the standards, learn about
alternative instructional delivery techniques, and examine the
latest trends in learning, instruction and curriculum
development.
Coordinator for Work Based Learning, Education to Careers (1998 to
1999)
Coordinated the development of regional work based
learning programs for six high school districts and twenty-one
elementary school districts in the Moraine Valley region.
Collaborate with business and industry
representatives to develop and implement work based learning
strategies that meet the needs of employers and address labor
shortages.
Recruiter (1997 to 1998)
Developed and implemented recruitment strategies that
promote Moraine Valley's educational offerings and community
services including all credit and non-credit, adult basic
education, continuing education and professional development
programs.
Contractual Grant Writer (1997 to 1998)
Researched, developed, wrote and edited grant
proposals aimed at securing external funding for programs
servicing the college and the region. Worked on several large
federally funded TRIO grants as well as professional
development grants through the Illinois State Board of
Education.
Placement Specialist (1994 to 1997)
Provided job search and career development assistance
to students, community residents and alumni through one-on-one
advisement, instruction of workshops and presentation of
customized classroom discussions.
Initiated and implemented the improvement of many Job
Placement Center programs and procedures.
Collaborated with instructional faculty to serve the
students' job placement needs, keep abreast of labor market
trends and prepare students for life after college.
Adjunct Faculty (1994 to 1997)
Instructed basic speech communication course
focussing on public speaking, group dynamics, interpersonal
skills, effective listening and cultural consciousness in
communication. (COM 103).
Robert Morris College, Chicago, Illinois 1992 to 1994
Placement Coordinator/Career Development Instructor
Designed from start-up an internship and job
placement program for students requiring non-paid clinical
experience that included the creation of contracts, evaluation
materials, tracking devices and correspondence.
Coordinated closely with business and industry to
customize each training and/or internship experience that met
specific requirements of the school and employer.
Taught career development courses designed to promote
college and career success through an emphasis on work place
skills and work based learning.
Publications & Presentations:
National Tech Prep Network Annual Conference,
Presenter Topics: NSF ATE Pre-conference. The Center for
Systems Security and Information Assurances (CSSIA) 2004
Minneapolis, 2005 Orlando and ``Math and Science Alignment the
Tech Prep Way.'' Minneapolis, 2004.
Wisconsin Careers Conference, Spring 2003, Madison,
WI; Showcase Presentation. Topic: ``Working Together for
Workplace Skills Success.''
National Tech Prep Network Annual Conference,
Presenter Fall 2002. Topic: ``Working Together for Workplace
Skills Success.''
Illinois State Board of Education, Connections
Project, Conference Presenter Spring 2002. Topic: ``The Aspen
Health Sciences Academy, Moraine Valley Community College and
Aspen High School Working Together.''
Illinois State Board of Education, Connections
Project, Connections Conference, St. Charles, Illinois. ``The
Moraine Area Cisco Academy.'' Presentation to Educators. Spring
2001.
Illinois State Board of Education, Connections
Project, Connections Conference, Springfield, Illinois. ``Tech
Prep Transition Grant.'' Presentation to Educators. Spring
2000.
American College Personnel Association, Eleven
Update, Fall 1997 ``An Emerging Professionals Perspective on
Leadership.'' (Article published in association newsletter).
Department of Leadership and Educational Policy
Studies, Graduate Student Symposium, Northern Illinois
University, ``Effective Conference Planning.'' Presentation.
Spring 1999.
Margaret Semmer Collins is the Assistant Dean of Science, Business
and Computer Technologies at Moraine Valley Community College in Palos
Hills, Illinois. She received her Bachelor's of Science from Northern
Illinois University, a Master of Arts from University of Illinois at
Chicago and is currently a Doctoral Candidate in Education from
Northern Illinois University. Margaret's research agenda concentrates
on gender gaps in science, math, and technology, with her dissertation
specifically related to retention of women in emerging technologies at
community colleges. She began her career in community college
administration at Moraine Valley Community College 12 years ago. As
Assistant Dean she is the lead administrator for the National Science
Foundation Advanced Technical Education Center (The Center for Systems
Security and Information Assurances) and provides programmatic
leadership for Tech Prep, dual enrollment and 2+2 articulation with
four-year colleges and universities. Margaret is a single mom with two
children ages 7 and 9.
Discussion
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Ms. Collins.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I will recognize myself for a round of questions.
Dr. Wieman, you said in a very interesting part of your
testimony that unless you--we improve science education at the
college level first, we are wasting our time and money on
making major improvements in K-12. And I wonder if you could
help us, because we are getting ready to spend a fair amount of
money on K-12 education. We do year after year. The President
has requested somewhere in the nature of $380 million I believe
it is for some of his initiatives that are aimed at K-12. And I
wonder if you might tell us, if you were in Congress evaluating
those proposals, where would you focus the money? And also,
what challenges have you found from the Administration, in the
administration of your university, in implementing the kind of
changes that you think would make a difference?
Dr. Wieman. Okay. So those are quite different questions,
so----
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Wieman.--let me just talk about the K-12 situation.
And I don't presume to be an expert on K-12 education, so--
and it is a vast program. What I will claim to be somewhat of
an expert on is looking at the science preparation--you know,
the undergraduate math and science preparation of K-12
teachers, and not just both their content knowledge, but we
also looked at, sort of, their general beliefs about what
science is, how you learn science, and it is dismal. That is
the bottom line. And so we--it is just clear that these future
teachers have to have a better understanding of science, and
they have to have a better understanding of what science is as
well as, sort of, being competent at it if they are going to
present it in a reasonable way to students. Now--so that, in
terms of how that breaks down into focusing on what you would
do, that--I mean, I would have to give it more detailed
thought, but I think that it is clear that too often people can
become certified teachers and then end up teaching math and
science without ever the--I mean, teacher certification does
not imply, and often is quite independent, of any competence in
those subjects, and certainly a level of competence required to
teach them effectively.
Chairman Inglis. Let me just ask, on that point, to see if
anyone else in the panel would like to comment on that.
Dr. Seymour.
Dr. Seymour. Okay. I think we are, Mr. Chairman, in an
emergency situation. And this is gradually getting worse. We
have both a shortfall in the supply of teachers who have at
least an education major in math or science, or even a minor in
math or science, to replace the teaching force that we have. We
have depended, for many years, on very able women
mathematicians who used to fill our classrooms as math teachers
that are now retired or retiring, but young women with math
qualifications are not going into school teaching. So we have
taken a resource for granted. We are now in a situation where
we cannot fill the vacancies that we have with qualified math
and science teachers in many states. I have cited Texas, New
Jersey, and Florida as three states of which I am aware where
their vacancies are largely filled by alternative and emergency
certification by bringing people who have some background in
STEM majors to fill those places. And the provision of math and
science teachers across the country is extremely patchy. It is
very variable. In our research, we have found that even in the
same state, there is enormous variation at what you can expect
if you happen to be a student in those classes. It is very bad
in schools which predominately contain minority young people.
We saw that very clearly in our research. For instance, young
people who came from predominately black and Hispanic and
higher middle schools into university STEM classes presented
some of the most dismal stories that we heard in our ``Talking
About Leaving'' research. They came in, as we called it,
``overconfident and under-prepared'': They were strongly
supported by their communities and their teachers in coming to
the university to take STEM majors, but when they got there,
were very shocked to find that they were not remotely prepared
for what they had to undertake. And this was a devastating
experience from which they tended not to recover.
So huge variation, as well as a shortfall, in the country
in what is offered. It is regionally very, very different. And
we have a crisis such that we both, I think, are obliged to
support and improve the teaching force that we have by any
means at our disposal--by outreach work, by summer workshops,
and so on. These go on. They are well supported by the National
Science Foundation and others. These have to go on. But at the
same time, we must recruit teachers for our system that have
disciplinary degrees in the STEM majors. And that is where we
are woefully short. That is what is not happening. And I agree
with my distinguished colleague that unless we attend to the
supply of teachers from the universities, from baccalaureate
students, we are in a deepening, serious national crisis in the
quality of our K-12 teaching force. And the comparisons with
the international situation, I think, are very, very well
known.
Chairman Inglis. Okay.
Now the second part of my question, I am interested in
getting Dr. Wieman and Dr. Burris to talk about the second part
of that, which is right here we have a professor and the
President of a college sitting side by side. What are the
challenges that you have faced in terms of getting an
administration to move the college culture, the university
culture?
Dr. Wieman. I think it is important to appreciate. I mean,
I work at a large research university. At large research
universities, the culture is really not set by the
administration. You can't go and tell a physics department or a
chemistry department or a biology department--as a President,
you just can't go and tell them what they should teach, how
they should teach, what fields they should go into. They just
ignore you. That is the way those structures work. So that is
why I am saying is if it really happens at the department level
and, to a large extent, those departments, they succeed or fail
on their external success. I mean, that is why they are kind of
decoupled from the administration. Successful departments go
out and they find federal agencies that will support them to
get--bring in more research dollars. They can be more active.
They can get more prestige. And so that is what I am saying.
That is where the reward system--and, you know, the Federal
Government is somewhat responsible for that. But that is really
graded, the reward system, and, really, the structure in who
answers or doesn't answer to whom, in the large research
universities.
Chairman Inglis. Dr. Burris, your comments on that.
Dr. Burris. Well, I don't want to sound overly
Pollyannaish, but the situation at small liberal arts colleges
is really quite different. My sense is that both the faculty
and the administration, in making decisions about what model we
think works, in fact, means that there is little or no
resistance to implementation of small classes, hands-on
learning, inquiry-based methodology. I certainly know that is
the case at Calvin College where the physics is taught that
way, I am sure. But the point being, it is exactly as Dr.
Wieman said. We are comparing a little bit apples and oranges.
The reward system, which I think very successfully produces K-
12 teachers as well as future scientists at small liberal arts
colleges, is based very much on the success of the faculty as
teachers. They must be scholars, and we strongly believe the
emphasis and importance of their scholarship, but they first
and foremost must be teachers. As teachers, they see their
primary responsibility being to teach in the best possible way.
And that is one of the arguments for the value of small liberal
arts colleges, not only to train future scientists but train
future teachers. We have an education department. Anyone who
wishes to be a teacher in biology or physics or math must major
in the disciplinary field. The education department provides
some of the pedagogical assistance, but their majors, upon
graduation, will be in the various fields that they will
ultimately teach.
So I don't think--I think it is a very different reward
system. If I can comment on my own career, where I started at
Penn State, the reward system would be very similar to the
University of Colorado, that is I was judged on my ability to
receive external funding. I was judged on my publication
record. And to be quite frank with you, my teaching was very
low on the totem pole in terms of a reward system. That is not
the case at liberal arts colleges. And until research
universities are willing to attach a reward and that reward
translates into promote and 10-year salary increases to
teaching, we are not going to change the system easily. And I
am sure that Dr. Wieman would--could speak further to that, but
we have a very different system, as an administrator at a small
liberal arts college.
Dr. Wieman. I--can I make a--I actually spend a reasonable
amount of time visiting, not Beloit, but many small colleges,
and I speak lots of places. And there is a difference between
being dedicated to teaching and valuing it and doing it
effectively. And I see many small colleges where their--and
faculty universities as well are very committed to teaching,
but they are following an obsolete model that our research says
just doesn't work very well. And that happens at small
colleges, big colleges, universities, and so on. It is really a
different method. It is really an evidence research-based
method that, by and large, is not implemented at any
institutions on a widespread basis.
Chairman Inglis. I am extending my time quite a bit. And I
should call on Dr. Ehlers, I believe, next.
So Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. It is very difficult for me to
answer--ask a question. I basically feel like saying ``Amen,''
because it is rare that I have--that I agree with things that
are said by almost the entire panel of witnesses that are
before us.
But you are all right on target. You are looking at
different parts of the target, in some cases, but I really
appreciate the work that--not just the work you are doing, but
the work you represent. And I am very absolutely delighted to
see what I would call the awakening of the consciousness of
universities and colleges about the importance of teaching and
the search to do it properly and do it correctly. As some of
you know, because I have had conversations with you, I have
spent a good deal of my academic career trying to teach
elementary school teachers both science and how to teach
science. And that arose out of something very simple. I became
concerned about what was called scientific illiteracy in the
late '60s, and I simply asked myself, ``What can I, as a
physicist, do? How can I impact that?'' And I decided that I
was not likely to ever have a national impact, since I had
never intended to get into politics, but I decided what I could
do is, in my classroom, teach--I could volunteer to teach
future elementary school teachers. And that guaranteed me the
job of doing it, because no one else really wanted to do it.
And I tried to develop programs that would assist them and make
them feel comfortable once they got into the classroom. I also
taught a couple of National Science Foundation summer
institutes for teachers who were already in the classroom,
which is, by far, the greatest problem in this country at the
moment, how do you reach the teachers who are already there who
did not learn enough science and don't know how to teach it
properly. And it is through no fault of their own. I never
knock the teachers, because every classroom I have worked in,
teachers desperately wanted to teach science and mathematics
properly, and they were afraid of the subject. They did not
feel qualified to teach it. And so, I think, number one, an
immediate objective has to be to make them at least have enough
knowledge so that they feel confidence about what they are
trying to teach and not avoid it. But teaching future teachers
is equally important. And we have to do both.
My question for you is what role do you see the Federal
Government having? We have no control over curriculum at the
federal level, no control over textbooks, anything of that
sort. Most of our efforts are going to try to help poor school
districts and poor students. And by that, I mean financially
poor in both cases. What would you advise us to do in terms of
developing programs that can help people like you and the
people at your institutions do an effective job of reaching
both existing teachers and the future teachers?
Dr. Goroff. I would like to agree with my colleagues that I
think the first priority should be investments in in-service
and pre-service work with teachers, including content faculty
at the college level, working with those teachers. And I just
wanted to say, though, that my experience with this is a little
bit different from my colleagues, and give some hope to the
notion that federal and other dollars can make a difference in
all of this. So at Harvard, a place where, I would say, some
people have heard that the faculty and administration can be a
bit obstinent, I was the founding director of a program, a
masters degree program, in mathematics for teaching. It is run
by the mathematics department. It is offered through the
Harvard Extension School. And right now, we are enrolling about
100 teachers per semester in these courses. And I also want to
say that throughout the mathematical community, there have been
a great deal of reports and reforms specifically about teacher
preparation and its importance for the country and for the
discipline. So I want to say that it can be done and it can
make a difference.
Mr. Ehlers. I personally think one of the roadblocks has
been--is strictly a cultural one that I don't see in very many
other countries, and that is this cultural belief that somehow
math and science are not for women and, perhaps, even
minorities. And that--the tragedy is not that it is--that that
view is being imposed, but that these groups tend to feel that
within themselves. And since the majority of our teachers are
female, that creates a real problem, and I have spent years
trying to overcome that cultural bias. I don't know how we
could address that.
But I gather, from the response and the smiles I see, that
someone else asked this question before me. I am sorry. I had
to step out to go to something else. But where would you
envision the programs best being housed? The National Science
Foundation? The Department of Education? Or should we simply
hand the money to the states and ask them to do it, following
certain guidelines? I see----
Dr. Burris. You have lots of hands on that one, and my
answer is very quick and simple. The National Science
Foundation, I think, is absolutely the best place for such
programs to be housed. Unequivocally. No arguments.
Mr. Ehlers. Is that--is everyone agreed on that? It is very
important for you to send that message to the Congress and to
the Administration as well, because there seems to be a shift
in opinion on that.
Dr. Seymour. Yeah.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes. Go ahead.
Dr. Seymour. Working, as I do, as an evaluator of programs,
many of which are funded by the National Science Foundation, I
would say that I have seen stunning work done in the
Collaboratives for Teacher Preparation, which are regional, in
the Math and Science Partnerships. I am a member of the board
of the partnership in Puerto Rico. Quite magnificent. That work
needs to continue. I have also seen, both as evidence, and in
person, the work done by the workshops--many different kinds of
workshops--some by private foundations, like Project
Kaleidoscope, but also ones which have been funded by the
National Science Foundation--the M.I.D. workshops in chemistry,
and others. Workshops are one of the very best ways to get the
knowledge out there to faculty who are interested, or curious,
or even skeptical, about new ways of teaching. They can come
into a safe place and try new methods hands-on and learn them
with other people without loss of face. And with the assurance
of camaraderie can go away and work on these in their own
classrooms, and still have that support from the workshop
members. It is a wonderful way of building the whole community,
nationally, of people who are interested in and engaged in the
business of how students learn. So NSF workshops are very, very
important.
And then something which we have not done well, which I
would advocate, it--we need programs to educate the teaching
assistants in how to teach in accordance with the new knowledge
that we have. There is plenty of knowledge out there. It is
very, very available, and it is also very accessible. So we are
not short of knowledge about how to teach well, but we are a
little bit primitive in our understanding of how to educate our
teaching assistants how to use it in active and interactive
support of the classes. Unfortunately, most students do not
learn their science and math in Beloit College. It would be
nice if they did. The majority are learning their math and
science in the major universities, and that is where the
support for the TA is needed--TAs who work for professors who
are constrained increasingly to work just in a lecture mode. We
need support for the TA who is the person who has the active
engagement with the student. That is where the effort needs to
be placed, I think. And, nationally, we are not doing that
well. And I would love to see the National Science Foundation
and others supporting that effort.
Mr. Ehlers. A very pragmatic question. You say you have
been in a lot of workshops. What do you think is the optimum
length of time in a workshop?
Dr. Seymour. I think good. I have reviewed in my testimony
what we know from evaluation of the workshops. What I see--I
have said is a building of a national network which connects
people who are not of the same department or even necessarily
of the same institutions and builds them into a virtual
community, which is actually the mainspring for what is now
happening in improving science education. People are connected.
People meet each other at professional meetings. The
professional societies have responded by developing educational
sections. So I see, over the last 15 years, the building up of
a skilled workforce amongst science and math faculty who are
the people who teach others and who constantly replenish the
workshop teachers. So I am very, very impressed with them, and
we should support them financially. Incidentally, they are
extremely cheap, because the faculty who man the workshops and
woman the workshops do it for free if you just pay their
expenses.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
And if I may have a little more time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inglis. Certainly.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Wieman, you have talked about the research
you have done and the results are clear, have--has this been
adopted by your university and by your departments, or are you
a prophet without honor in your own country?
Dr. Wieman. Somewhere in the middle. It is--you know, it is
being somewhat adopted, so they--you know, but it is sort of on
an individual by individual basis. Again, it is--you know, and
I think my department isn't any different from many other
departments. It is a question of everybody is busy, you know,
trying to be as successful as possible. It takes extra time to
change, you know, to develop new teaching materials, new
teaching methods, to assess and do good assessment, if they are
working. And so, you know, the--convincing people to do that
right now, it is pure altruism. You know, you talk to them
enough and you show them the results and they will try and fit
it in a little bit here and a little bit there, but change
driven by altruism is pretty slow whereas when I see you get
big changes are when there is a major--I mean, I see changes in
physics departments that clearly follow federal funding where
there is, you know--it is--but it is always in the research
side where there is a major program. It is clear there is going
to be a large amount of money over a sustained time that really
could, you know, transform a department. Suddenly, a department
decides that, you know, plasma science or nanotechnology is
suddenly the wonderful, important, high-priority thing for
their department and because it can support, you know--they see
it correctly as supporting programs and faculty for many years,
and they will move into that area, if there was something. But
you know, for teaching, it--you put in the extra time because
you get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but that is about all it
comes down to.
So you know, that is within my department and lots of other
places.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. It sounds very familiar.
Now do you think that an NSF program, which was aimed at a
specific department at a specific unit, in other words, they
would apply for a grant to, perhaps, even provide some faculty
time for this, but certainly something that would develop the
camaraderie, the spirit, the altruism that is necessary? What--
do you think that could be successful?
Dr. Wieman. If it was designed right, I would be optimistic
it could be. I mean, like I say, you just--the best model is
how research funds have transformed departments and
institutions and--but I would say right now, those are the only
examples we have of really--where you have major cultural
changes in higher education is--following the money is what it
comes down to.
Mr. Ehlers. We need altruistic people who will cough up the
money.
Thank you very much.
You had a comment?
Dr. Goroff. Can I offer a different perspective, actually?
Dr. Wieman. At Harvard, they have so much money.
Dr. Goroff. Well, I think altruism is actually an important
motivator. But I also want to mention that these problems are
intellectually interesting and that that is the reason why most
academics went into the field that they did, because they like
to solve problems and they want to know about the research and
the kind of work that Dr. Wieman was talking about before. And
if you present it that way, people can be very engaged in it.
And again, at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at
Harvard, where I was the Associate Director, we were able to
bring people in to do a great deal of work, got themselves
videotapes to participate in research, to get all sorts of
feedback on their teaching, and this was done confidential and
voluntary. There were no rewards for it or anything else, but
the important part about it, and an extensive work, by the way,
with the graduate students, none of the people teaching
calculus in the mathematics department were allowed near
students before they had gone through a detailed apprenticeship
with visiting classes and doing practice sectors and being
videotaped and getting all sorts of feedback from coaches who
they were paired with. And only then were they allowed to stand
up in front of calculus teachers--in front of calculus
students, I should say. But the important part about it was
that we made all of these things intellectually interesting and
useful. And people showed up, and they continue to show up, and
I think that it really can make a difference in that way.
Mr. Ehlers. Interesting. When I was a student at Berkeley,
my thesis advisor advanced the theorem that the people who are
really concerned about teaching well are the ones who don't
really have to worry about it, because they generally are
already good teachers. And in fact, when I was teaching there,
I always used student evaluation sheets several times during
the semester. And he scoffed at that and says, ``People who
hand those out don't--are the ones who don't need it. The
people who really need it are afraid to hand them out and
don't.''
Dr. Goroff. These were programs, really, for all of the
different----
Mr. Ehlers. And people didn't----
Dr. Goroff.--graduate students and for faculty, including
people, who, I have to say, started off really unemployable.
Great, talented mathematics from other countries who could not
teach at all, and who, after work and after getting the idea
that the culture of the department was that this was important,
this was interesting, and something that you could get feedback
on and improve with, that some of these graduate students who,
as I said, were totally unemployable to begin with, ended up
earning teaching awards.
Mr. Ehlers. Excellent.
Dr. Goroff. And so it can be done. We just need more
examples and a little bit more resources.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, you have established that you think the
National Science Foundation should be running the programs.
What we haven't established clearly is the types of programs,
and I don't think there is time for that here. But I would
certainly appreciate any ideas you would want to send the
Committee about the best types of programs for them to sponsor.
Dr. Wieman. And you have already said there isn't time, but
I will jump in anyway. That is--when I said the doubling of the
NSF budget, which is going to happen, we want to make sure that
that doubling includes funding of research on pedagogy, on
curriculum, makes it an intellectually interesting problem,
makes it something that faculty are rewarded for doing, can
compete for grants. And then the second part is sustainability,
that it is not simply one program works for two to three years.
There has to be some sustainability. So within the NSF budget,
just making certain that this is not lost in the shuffle, as
the doubling occurs and the money moves primarily to the
research directorates, make certain that there is money
specifically for these questions like curriculum and learning
how people learn and pedagogy.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Dr. Goroff. I would echo that.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you.
Now let me recognize Dr. Lipinski.
Dr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being here--getting here late. This is a--
something that is very near and dear to my heart, and I think
it is critically important. I had an unfortunate--I have been
working on this bill. I have been working for a year to get a
hearing on this, and I was testifying over there. It is
actually a bill introduced with the Chairman. So I was taking
care of that.
But I want to thank all of the witnesses here, and
especially send a special thanks to Ms. Collins for being here
from Moraine Valley Community College, which is located in
Palos Hills, which is Palos Hills, Illinois, in my District.
And I would like to thank her for what she is able to add to
this hearing, because we--so much, we sort of overlook the
community colleges, and they are critically important. And if
we don't get kids interested there, the ones who are attending,
then, you know, they are not going to go on. They are not going
to continue in any of the STEM fields. So I thank Ms. Collins
for her work and for her testimony here today.
STEM education, like I said, is near and dear to my heart.
I have a--one of the few Members of Congress who actually has a
degree in engineering. I got a mechanical engineering degree
from Northwestern. I got a degree in engineering economic
systems from Stanford. My wife actually was a math major in
college, and so I have a lot of experience between myself and
her. And I am very happy to hear what Mr. Goroff was saying
about training of TAs, because certainly TAs, when I was in--an
undergraduate, I don't think they were trained very well to
teach, and when I was a TA, when I was--I went on to grad
school and a--in political science. I actually turned over to
the dark side. But I wasn't trained. And I think that is really
critical to do. We do more of that, because that is where you
lose so many. You know, you go to calculus class and, you know,
you go to the TA and the TAs just cannot teach and just
really--students lose interest at that point.
I wanted to focus on Ms. Collins here on the--what her
institution does. First of all, what would you have to say
about the role of your institution in educating undergraduates
who transfer, then, to a four-year institution to complete
their bachelor degree in science and engineering? I mean, how
does your--how do you go about doing that? How do you specially
try to prepare them for this?
Ms. Collins. At community colleges, we have primarily two
types of students, if I can make it that simple. Career program
students are ultimately interested in gaining skills so that
they can become employed after an associate degree. And then
our other population is what we consider primarily transfer
students, and those are the students we are preparing to
transfer to four-year institutions or higher degree granting
institutions. We provide many, many resources for the students
at Moraine Valley Community College to help them succeed, and
we do use funds from a variety of sources to ensure that there
is tutoring, academic assistance through academic advising, and
also to help with remediation. It is an issue at the community
college probably more so than at the large universities and the
smaller liberal arts colleges that students come in and are in
need of remediation for math and science. Oftentimes the high
school students, in particular, that wind up at the community,
they are there because they have chosen that intentionally or
they end up there for other reasons. And oftentimes they don't
have the amount of--or the level of science or the years of
science that students planning to go to the university have. So
we have to address that right off the bat. And what I have
found to be an extremely useful effort is the collaboration
between the teachers at all levels and that--those
conversations. And as we were talking about how the National
Science Foundation can help, I believe in collaboration. I
believe that we should get institutions together. We should get
math teachers together. We should get science teachers
together. And we should really talk honestly about those
issues. We were a little nervous bringing our math and science
teachers in a couple of years ago when we wanted to have this
conversation. We thought it would go much like, ``Oh, it is
their fault.'' ``No, it is their fault,'' because no one really
wants to take any blame for remediation issues. And what
happened was a really profound and enlightening conversation
between educators who really care about students, who really
care about their success. And since then, we have developed
programs to work on preparing students in high school to take
entrance exams, to take placement tests, to--we have worked
in--with our high schools to develop bridge science courses to
help them prepare and become--come to Moraine Valley so that
they can assume that position at college level and then
successfully transition on to the four-year school.
All of these efforts are about collaboration. And I will
speak to collaboration over and over. But it is also about
energy and it is also about good educators caring about the
students. We also tried to develop two-plus-two programs. We
have developed a few where we work with the universities. I am
an advocate of that seamless education. I work with the high
schools. I work with the four-year colleges. And how I work
with them is to understand the curriculum and where we meet and
where we need to better meet. And those conversations are
always, always beneficial. Most of the time it comes down to
math when we are gearing up towards an agreement. And most of
the time, it comes down to calculus. So we are working now to
help prepare our students at Moraine Valley to be able to
transfer to a university and do better at calculus. So----
Dr. Lipinski. And I am relying on the Chairman here to
close this down. We have to vote, so I am just going to--I am
going to keep going until he does that.
Chairman Inglis. Go right ahead, Dr. Lipinski. We will let
you know when we have got to run to vote.
Dr. Lipinski. Okay.
The--in your testimony, Ms. Collins, you described Moraine
Valley's involvement with the NSF advanced technology education
program. What do you see is the--is there anything that you
would recommend for changes to it?
Ms. Collins. Our ATE center is very successful. In the past
several years, we have trained over 800 faculty members
throughout the country in areas of IT security, in wireless, in
other emerging technologies. So the teacher training component
of it is very successful, and it is an excellent model that
should be replicated. I would definitely like to see those
efforts in the areas of--the other areas of STEM that took on
that flavor, because that has been hugely successful. Some of
the issues that we have pertain to money or budgetary issues
and working with six other institutions as we try to spend the
money. Those kinds of conversations between and among
institutions can be complicated, as we all do thing so
differently. But we figure out a way. And the programs that we
develop are certainly worth the effort and the headaches we
have at times. But we will continue to challenge ourselves to
spend that money and learn how to do it in a consortium-like
atmosphere.
Dr. Lipinski. Okay. Thank you.
I think I probably should wrap--I will wrap up my questions
here, I think.
Thank you all very much. And thank you all for your
testimony.
Chairman Inglis. And we do thank all of you for your
testimony. Thank you for taking time to be with us today. We
appreciate your testimony and look forward to continuing to
work towards solutions on this challenge. It is particularly
gratifying as--being--having the opportunity to chair the
Research Subcommittee, which authorizes the budget of the NSF
to hear that earlier resounding note of approval of the NSF's
work. And that is very encouraging to all of us on the
Subcommittee, and I am sure encouraging to the people at NSF.
There being no further business to come before this
hearing, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Elaine Seymour, Author, ``Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences;'' Former Director of
Ethnography and Evaluation Research, University of Colorado at
Boulder
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is
the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to
enter STEM careers?
A1. Perhaps the most effective federally (and privately) funded
programs in encouraging students of color to become interested in STEM
careers (and that have successfully sustained them into such careers)
have been the undergraduate research (UR) programs that have been
specifically targeted towards groups that have been historically under-
represented in the sciences. Undergraduate research programs of this
type have been better evaluated than most other UR programs so we know
more abut their benefits.
Our research group recently wrote a report (Melton et al., 2006) on
the Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science
(SOARS) project which introduces young people of color to the
environmental sciences. It is funded partially by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and partially by the program organizers, the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder, Colorado). It is typical of
UR programs targeting students of color in its emphasis on mentoring
and support for its participants, all the way from high school
recruitment to STEM graduation.
Other studies of programs that aim to increase the participation of
under-represented groups in the sciences, including men of color, women
of all races and ethnicities, and first-generation college students,
all show that undergraduate research experiences are the primary factor
prompting these students' decisions to enter graduate school.
(Foertsch, Alexander and Penberthy, 1997; Alexander, Foertsch and
Daffinrud, 1998; Hathaway, Nagda and Gregerman, 2002; Adhikari and
Nolan, 2002; Barlow and Villarejo, 2004, Russell, 2005). Bauer and
Bennett (2003) found that UR alumni were about twice as likely as non-
UR alumni to pursue a doctoral degree and Russell (2005) found a
significant correlation between UR participation by Hispanic and
African-American students and their expectations of receiving Ph.D.s
The success of these targeted UR programs argues for renewed and
increased financial support via the NSF, the National Labs, and private
foundations.
My caveat about the undoubted value of targeted UR programs is that
they can only serve relatively small numbers of students because of
their labor intensive character. As the national figures for the
production of minority STEM graduates show, despite considerable
expenditure of money (both public, largely via the NSF, and private,
via the Foundations) and over a decade of serious effort, we have made
very little progress in drawing students of color into the sciences and
sustaining them there into STEM careers.
One prime cause of our failures is that we focused too much on
encouraging students of color to become interested in the sciences and
to aspire to STEM careers without providing them with an adequate K-12
education in science and mathematics to support such ambitions. The
effect has been to create a revolving door in which we increase
minority STEM enrollment only to see these students fail out, field-
switch, or drop out of college altogether. As I indicated in my
testimony, it is the height of cruelty to encourage seriously under-
prepared students to undertake a STEM major.
My answer to the question, therefore, is that, to make a
substantial improvement in both our enrollment, retention, and
successful placement of students of color in STEM-based careers will
require a proactive, well-funded policy of recruitment of seasoned and
well-qualified mathematics and science teachers into middle schools and
high schools in greatest need. These schools tend to be in inner
cities, rural areas, and especially include schools with high minority
enrollments. (I say ``seasoned'' because initiatives such as ``Teach
for America'' have found it problematic to send young volunteer
teachers into such settings; there is also a high drop out rate among
trained young teachers in such schools.)
Our national priority should be to improve the science and math
preparation of all K-12 students. On the premise that a rising tide
will lift all ships, such a policy will disproportionately enable more
students of color (and also women) to participate in STEM careers.
Without such a policy in place, encouraging seriously under-prepared
students to aspire above what they can reasonably accomplish is a waste
of money and damages young lives.
Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids
and encourage them to pursue STEM careers?
A2. My answer to this question is connected to that above. One root
cause of our difficulties is (as outlined in my testimony) the serious
(and worsening) shortage of adequately qualified science and
mathematics teachers throughout our K-12 system. There are two ways to
address the problem:
1. to improve the quality of the teaching force that we
already have
2. to induce more people with STEM undergraduate degrees to
enter K-12 teaching.
The NSF has worked hard to address the first problem, through (for
example):
the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation
the Math and Science Partnerships
the State (sand also Rural) Systemic Initiatives
a variety of outreach programs that draw STEM faculty
and graduate students into working with local science and math
teachers to build their knowledge and research capacity, and
that often include working in K-12 classrooms to model what it
is to be a scientist and to convey to students what scientists
do
enrichment workshops for science and math teachers.
The NSF are currently hampered in these efforts because of serious
cuts in their recent budgets for education support work.
An example of the benefits both to STEM graduate students and to
the middle and high school students that they teach may be found in our
recent reports (Laursen et al., 2004; 2005) that evaluate the Science
Squad Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the University
of Colorado at Boulder.
Thus, the answers to both questions include:
1. increasing and sustaining financial support for the NSF's
educational programs
2. launching a national campaign that will both enhance the
quality of the existing science and mathematics K-12 teaching
force, and actively recruit and support STEM undergraduates
into K-12 teaching. (Again, the NSF has an important ongoing
role to play in both endeavors.)
References Cited
Adhikari, N., & Nolan, D. (2002). ``But What Good Came of It at
Last?'': How to Assess the Value of Undergraduate Research.
Notices of the AMS 49(10):1252-1257.
Alexander, B.B., Foertsch, J.A., & Daffinrud, S. (1998, July). The
Spend a Summer With a Scientist Program: An Evaluation of
Program Outcomes and the Essential Elements of Success.
Madison, WI: University of Madison-Wisconsin, LEAD Center.
Barlow, A., & Villarejo, M. (2004). Making a Difference for Minorities:
Evaluation of an Educational Enrichment Program. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 41(9):861-881.
Bauer, K.W., & Bennett, J.S. (2003). Alumni Perceptions Used to Assess
Undergraduate Research Experience. The Journal of Higher
Education 74(2):210-230.
Foertsch, J.A., Alexander, B.B., & Penberthy, D.L. (1997, June).
Evaluation of the UW-Madison's Summer Undergraduate Research
Programs: Final Report. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-
Madison, LEAD Center.
Hathaway, R., Nagda, B., & Gregerman, S. (2002). The Relationship of
Undergraduate Research Participation to Graduate and
Professional Educational Pursuit: An Empirical Study. Journal
of College Student Development 43(5):614-631.
Laursen, Thiry & Liston, May, 2005. Evaluation of the Science Squad
Program for the Biological Sciences Initiative at the
University of Colorado at Boulder: 11 Career Outcomes of
Participation for Science Squad Members. Report prepared for
the Biological Sciences Initiative and the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute. Available on request from
[email protected]
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., Sheff., E., and Coates, C. (2004).
Evaluation of the Science Squad Program for the Biological
Sciences Initiative at the University of Colorado at Boulder:
1. Benefits, Costs and Trade-offs. Report prepared for the
Biological Sciences Initiative and the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute. Available on request from
[email protected]
Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., Donohue, R., Hunter, A-B (2006).
SOARS: A Research-With-Evaluation Study of a Multi-year
Research and Mentoring Program From Under-represented Students
in Science. Available on request from [email protected]
Russell, S.H. (2005, November). Evaluation of NSF Support for
Undergraduate Research Opportunities: Survey of STEM Graduates.
Contributors C. Ailes, M. Hancock, J. McCullough, J.D.
Roessner, and C. Storey. (Draft Final Report to the NSF.) Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved 2/19/06 from http://
www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics,
University of Colorado at Boulder
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is
the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to
enter STEM careers?
A1. Although I am aware of several programs, I do not know enough to
say which of them is best. Judging from the tiny number of ethnic
minorities in my own field of physics, there is no program that is
achieving significant success in encouraging ethnic minorities to go
into physics. I have looked a little at the numbers of ethnic
minorities graduating with Bachelor's and Ph.D. degrees in physics and
they remain minuscule from essentially all the major colleges and
universities in the U.S. except for HBCUs. There is no indication that
anyone has found a successful way to attract and retain ethnic minority
students at the college level, except for HBCUs, and few of them go on
to get Ph.D.s at non-HBCUs.
Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids
and encourage them to pursue STEM careers?
A2. This is a big question that could have many different answers. I
would say that one essential item is to have teachers who understand
STEM subjects well enough so that they are not afraid of them and they
understand the full intellectual richness and excitement of the
subjects. Currently, only a very small fraction of K-12 teachers have
that level of mastery of STEM subjects, and virtually no teachers do
who teach at the critical K-6 grade levels. So pre-service and in-
service training for teachers to provide them with the necessary
mastery and comfort level in STEM disciplines, as well as recruitment
programs to attract people with talents in STEM disciplines into K-12
teaching are essential steps. They are probably not the only things
that need to be done to successfully encourage kids to pursue STEM
careers, but if they are not done, it is hard to see how any other
programs will be successful. I am aware of two very similar programs
that have been quite successful at attracting talented STEM majors in
college into K-12 teaching. They are the U-Teach program at University
of Texas at Austin, and the STEM-Teacher Preparation program here at
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John E. Burris, President, Beloit College
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is
the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to
enter STEM careers?
A1. Beloit College is a member of the Wisconsin Alliance for Minority
Participation (which, as you know, is a Louis Stokes program). This
works because it is a state-wide alliance with the entire University of
Wisconsin system and several invited private colleges, including Beloit
and Lawrence (both members of the Associated College of the Midwest).
Within the Alliance, we participate in regional working groups (with
several of the UW campuses) which have been very successful in planning
joint internship activities for STEM students, beginning with rising
first-year students, and also actively engaging students from the two-
year campuses in the undergraduate research opportunities sponsored by
the Alliance. So to answer your question directly--programs such as
WiscAMP work because of several reasons:
First, the intent is to give students the experience of doing
science-introducing them to the joy of discovery;
Second, for the summer programs, the stipends replace what they
might have earned in a summer job;
Third, students join a community of scientists within the region,
that includes successful upper-level minority students mentoring the
younger ones, and we have a stellar group of faculty who are passionate
about science and about students;
Fourth, this is a five-year program, with challenging goals set for
that time period, but without the annual applications that are so time
consuming.
Finally, I should emphasize that the program is built on ``what
works'' on campuses like Beloit, which is recognized by our colleagues
from public institutions in this state. This means that moving quickly
and cost-effectively is possible and makes the best use of the
investment of federal dollars.
Further, I draw attention to the McNair Program, a program that
serves the same students with the same goals. Although McNair is not
exclusively for STEM undergraduates, several of our participants have
pursued STEM careers. As a result of our involvement in WiscAMP, we
currently have a cohort of students in STEM disciplines who will be
entering the McNair Scholars Program in the next entering class. We are
very proud of the success of our McNair scholars and have watched as
they have pursued graduate careers in the sciences.
Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids
and encourage them to pursue STEM careers?
A2. Let me answer this question from the perspective of how to help
``undergraduate'' teachers, and as a president. First, there have to be
institutional programs and structures in place that address the need
for faculty development. Dr. Wieman spoke directly about this at the
Hearing on March 15, that the skills of teaching, of incorporating new
pedagogies and technologies, of being able to incorporate research on
learning into their scholarly work, are skills that have to be nurtured
intentionally. We cannot expect that faculty can gain these skills
without guidance in exploring models of effective practices. So the
kind of NSF-funded workshops that Beloit colleagues John Jungck
(BioQuest) and Brock Spencer (ChemLinks) have been leading for almost a
decade are critical, and they should be part of a national agenda to
strengthen student learning. Again, as with my discussion about
WiscAMP, faculty are also better equipped to captivate students and to
encourage them, when faculty are up-to-date with their field of
research and have good connections to the world of work their students
will enter upon graduation. This faculty development dimension of
ensuring a strong STEM infrastructure must be taken seriously as we
shape programs for the future.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Submitted to Daniel L. Goroff, Vice President for Academic Affairs;
Dean of the Faculty, Harvey Mudd College
These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not
responded to by the time of publication.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is
the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to
enter STEM careers?
Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids
and encourage them to pursue STEM careers?
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Margaret Semmer Collins, Assistant Dean of Science,
Business, and Computer Technologies, Moraine Valley Community
College
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Regarding ethnic minorities and STEM, what in your experience is
the best federally-funded program or entity to encourage minorities to
enter STEM careers?
A1. The NSF ATE program is an excellent federally-funded program that
encourages minorities to enter STEM educational/training opportunities
that lead to STEM oriented careers. My direct familiarity with the
Center for Systems Security and Information Assurances (CSSIA), an ATE
funded regional center located at Moraine Valley Community College
(MVCC), has provided me with first hand experience related to STEM
promotion through curriculum alignment, high school partnerships, and
collaboration with community based organizations. CSSIA works closely
with the Mirta Ramirez Computer Science Academy, a charter high school
on the northwest side of Chicago, which is supported by Aspira, a
National Hispanic Not for Profit Organization. This collaboration
provides learning opportunities for students otherwise unavailable to
inner city Hispanic and Latino youth. The funding allows Moraine Valley
Community College to work with the students directly while also
affording professional development opportunity for high school faculty
and staff. The results are concrete and long term as specific student
feedback indicates an increased awareness about technology careers, a
desire to attend college in a technology oriented program and ambition
to achieve educational and career goals. I fully support funding that
enables secondary and post-secondary educational institutions to work
this closely. I encourage all partnerships that work towards aligning
STEM curriculum, providing transitional services for high school
students and involve community based ethnic minority organizations.
Additional funding sources that have assisted in these efforts
include the federal secondary and post-secondary Carl Perkins grant.
This funding more specifically assists with program development,
implementation and maintenance of the public high school and community
college Career and Technical Education (CTE) and Tech Prep programs.
These programs align more distinctively with engineering and technology
programs. ATE funding has the ability to cast a wider net because in
addition to technology programs, ATE encompasses science and math
curriculum/programs in institutions other than community colleges.
Nonetheless, Perkins funding and the benefit to students should never
be underestimated with regard to STEM.
Q2. How can we help teachers do their jobs better to captivate kids
and encourage them to pursue STEM careers?
A2. Captivating kids and drawing them into STEM careers takes
concerted, continual and big picture effort. This effort needs to begin
early and should be incorporated into a developmental guidance program.
Educational institutions should focus on technological literacy that
begins in the primary grades for all students. Focused career awareness
activities that emphasis STEM careers should be incorporated at the
middle school years and career plans tied to educational plans should
be required in the high school years.
More so, kids today need to see STEM as cool. I have an eight-year-
old boy and a nine-year-old girl. From this experience, I see kids most
captivated in any activities that allow them to use their hands and
solve complex problems. They are engaged in activities that incorporate
music, creativity and competition. They best enjoy math and science
when it fully relates to every day experiences, activities and
situations. They use technology to have fun first not realizing they
are learning too. Kids will be captivated with fun, engaging and
interactive STEM curriculum. Teachers must have an opportunity to
develop skills to deliver STEM in this way and teachers should be
technologically savvy. This skill development and awareness should
occur preferably during teacher training prior to graduation/
certification or through concerted on-going professional development
activities at the local level.
At the post-secondary level, namely the community college, teachers
should have opportunity through funding to develop mentoring programs
and tutoring assistance geared at retention of STEM students. Funding
for curriculum development that incorporates the most up to date and
effective instructional techniques for teaching STEM courses should be
made available. A priority should be placed on understanding how
individuals learn, on understanding learning styles and on
incorporating the most favorable for STEM success into existing
curriculum. Community college teachers need easy access to professional
development for this purpose.