Chemical Education Today
Association Report: CUR
Shaping the Future: CUR Seventh National Conference Continues a National Dialogue by Judith A. Halstead
photo by John Stevens
On the final day of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) Seventh National Conference, participants gathered in small groups outdoors in the beautiful southern California weather to discuss individual responses to the NSF report “Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology” (1). This report was commissioned by the Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources and delivered to NSF in the spring of 1996. It has succeeded in initiating an active national discussion on the nature of teaching and learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) and is expected to heavily influence undergraduate science education in the next decade. In December 1997, CUR contributed a white paper on faculty issues to a national forum (sponsored by Project Kaleidoscope) on the NSF report “Shaping the Future” (2). This white paper, “Elaborating on the Recommendations to and for SME&T Faculty”, by CUR pastpresident Neil Abraham and CUR National Executive Officer Elaine Hoagland, is available on-line at the CUR Web site (http://www.cur.org). Both the NSF report and the CUR white paper were made available to CUR National Conference participants prior to the Saturday morning discussions. The CUR Seventh National Conference discussion of this report started on Saturday morning of June 27th with a plenary debate moderated by James Rosser, President of California State University. Rosser chaired the Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources at the time the report was commissioned. Joining Rosser in the debate were R. Stanton Hales, President of the College of Wooster; Michael Nelson, Dean of Science at Truman State University; and Linda Mandel, President of the Association of Women in Science.
Stanton Hales, President of the College of Wooster, and James Rosser, President of California State University, Los Angeles, discuss the NSF report “Shaping the Future” with CUR National Conference attendees. James Rosser was chair of the NSF–HER Advisory Committee when it commissioned and received the “Shaping the Future” report.
1366
In opening remarks, Rosser confirmed that the type of active hands-on research by undergraduate students advocated by CUR clearly fits the goals and recommendations of the report and briefly commented on his own experiences as an undergraduate research student decades ago. He also emphasized the importance of considering the needs of all students enrolled in SME&T courses at all of types of institutions of higher learning, both science majors and nonscience majors. Linda Mandel addressed the difficult and critical questions of how faculty members at various stages of their careers might best balance the responsibilities for teaching, research, and service. In her recommendations to faculty members she advocated considering our teaching responsibilities in terms of a “group practice” rather than a “solo practice”. She suggested that we make it a priority to share experiences with colleagues and encourage everyone within a division and a department to be aware of what everyone else is doing. Increased communication increases flexibility and has advantages for both faculty members and students. Michael Nelson recommended that departments work through the faculty governance structure to reassess priorities, especially with regard to general science education requirements. Future citizens and leaders need a substantial understanding of the process and potential of science, and Nelson agreed with the assertion in the report that inquiry-based courses are critical to that understanding. Both panel participants and audience members expressed concern over the apparent, increasing indifference on the part of the general public to the scientific enterprise. In the report “Shaping the Future”, it is noted that “America has produced a significant share of the world’s great scientists, while most of its population is virtually illiterate in science” (1). As mentioned in the executive summary, “In an increasingly technical and competitive world, a society without a properly educated citizenry will be at great risk and its people denied the opportunity for a fulfilling life”. An increased scientific literacy for the college-educated population in general is essential for preparing our nation for the 21st century. Additionally, an increased understanding of and appreciation for science among the general population is essential for the health of the entire scientific enterprise. The extent to which science and scientists will continue to be supported by society is largely linked to the extent that we are perceived to be useful. Stanton Hales discussed his observation that, in today’s society, modern equivalents to great scientists and inventors, such as Alexander Bell and Thomas Edison, are often labeled “nerds”. Hales recommended that we “teach students about and help students discover” personal heroes in science. Stories of individual brilliance in science can inspire students and reawaken their often-fading sense of wonder and excitement of discovery.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 11 November 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
Following the plenary debate, conference attendees moved to tables set up in a courtyard outside to participate in breakout discussions of the “Shaping the Future” report. Groups of 12 to 15 participants identified issues and ideas for implementing report recommendations as well as barriers to implementation. Individuals were then asked to design realistic personal plans for action to be incorporated into their lives over the next one to two years. Specified subtopics for various groups included “making institution-wide changes; making division-wide changes; addressing general education requirements; building partnerships; and building support groups for women, under-represented minorities, and firstgeneration college students”. Appropriate and effective action for individual faculty members at various stages of their careers was also discussed. Each subgroup appointed a recorder and submitted summaries of their discussions to CUR. These summaries will be presented in a CUR Quarterly article by Neil Abraham to appear in the December 1998 issue. Information about the CUR Quarterly and CUR membership can be obtained from the CUR National Office at 734 15th Street NW, Suite 550, Washington D.C., 20005 (phone 202-783-4810) or at the CUR Web site. In “Shaping the Future”, college and university faculty are urged to reassess methodology and goals for the educa-
tion of a broad spectrum of students. Meaningful science education reform is an ambitious goal necessarily requiring commitment, action, and effective communication on the part of a large number of individuals and organizations. As stated in the report itself, “We hope that no one will read [about] these recommendations and assume that someone else will carry them out—everyone has an important part.” 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, National Science Foundation, Washington DC, 1996. 2. Project Kaleidoscope. A Day of Dialogue on Shaping the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education. http://www.pkal.org/events/shaping/index.html (presented on December 2, 1997), National Academy of Sciences (accessed September 1998).
Judy Halstead is in the Department of Chemistry and Physics, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, phone: 518/ 580-5126, email:
[email protected].
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 75 No. 11 November 1998 • Journal of Chemical Education
1367
