Chemical Education Today
Editorial: Making the Future Ours President Clinton’s speech at San Jacinto Community College (see pages 1392–1393) emphasizes that interest in education is on the rise—particularly with respect to undergraduate education. The President’s goal of making an associate degree (or two years of college) as universal as a high school diploma not only is a clear recognition of the value of What is needed is education but also will provide much-needed training for a broad real education, range of citizens. The importance of community colleges in achieving and that’s our this goal is also crystal clear and responsibility as reflects the major role these institeachers, not the tutions play in our educational system. president’s or any Another of Clinton’s expressed goals, creating a system where evpolitician’s. eryone keeps on learning for a lifetime, seems more difficult to achieve. The opportunity is there already—again, largely because community and technical colleges are geographically available, accessible to almost everyone, and ready to serve the interests of all kinds of students. But will large numbers take advantage of that opportunity? And will they be interested in more than narrow job training—interested in expanding their horizons to broader, more general education that will likely serve them better in the long run? That’s a tough question, because much of what we do now in undergraduate education, at whatever type of institution, may be turning people away from broad scientific literacy of the sort that might induce a lifelong interest in science. That is the message of a report from the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Education and Human Resources, which conducted a review of undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T). Last year they published Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (1). It is worthy of our collective attention and individual action. According to Shaping the Future, Too many students leave SME&T courses because they find them dull and unwelcoming. Too many new teachers enter school systems underprepared, without really understanding what science and mathematics are, and lacking the excitement of discovery and the confidence and ability to help children engage SME&T knowledge. Too many graduates go out into the workforce ill-prepared to solve real problems in a cooperative way, lacking the skills and motivation to continue learning.
Providing access to instruction is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. What is needed is real education, and that’s our responsibility as teachers, not the president’s or any politician’s. What does Shaping the Future suggest we ought to be doing? The committee’s overall goal is that: All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry.
Shaping the Future recommends action by a broad range of groups: institutions of higher education; business, industry, and the professional community; governments at
the state and federal level; and the National Science Foundation itself, which is encouraged to “accept leadership of the efforts necessary to implement all these recommendations”. The recommendations most relevant to us as teachers involve SME&T faculty and departments. The latter are encouraged to set goals and take responsibility for learning, offer curricula that engage the broadest spectrum of students, use technology effectively, collaborate with departments of education, schools, and business to improve preparation of K-12 teachers, and provide graduate students opportunities for developing pedagogical skills. In many of the sectors where action is recommended, and perhaps even at the department level, many of us will have only a small say in what happens; but all of us can make individual, very influential efforts to see that the recommendations for faculty are carried out. They are • • • •
Believe and affirm that every student can learn. Model good practices that increase learning. Start with each student’s experience, but have high expectations within a supportive climate. Build into learning experiences: inquiry, a sense of wonder at the excitement of discovery, communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and development of life-long learning skills
This is going to be a lot harder than simply providing students with access to courses—and a lot harder than simply teaching those who want to major in our field. It is going to take intelligent, original thought, hard work, lots of cooperation, collaboration, and communication, and lots of support—both monetary and moral.
Can you and I avoid the challenge of continually changing and improving the way we structure our courses and curricula? I think not. I hope not, because it would be a grave error for us, our profession, and our society. The President has accepted the challenge of providing public support for improved access to higher education and for lifelong learning, and that support is evident in his budget. The National Science Foundation has accepted the challenge of providing leadership and support for implementation, and that support has started with the year-long assignment of Robert Watson to publicize the report. Can you and I avoid the challenge of continually changing and improving the way we structure our courses and curricula? I think not. I hope not, because it would be a grave error for us, our profession, and our society. Literature Cited 1. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources, NSF 96-139, 1996; Executive Summary, NSF 96-141, 1996. http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/ due/documents/review/96139/start.htm
Vol. 74 No. 12 December 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
1381
