Re-Harnessing the Genie

• J. J. Lagowski ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Texas at Austin

     University of Texas at Austin

     Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: Journal of chemical education, ISSN 0021-9584, Vol. 73, Nº 6 (June), 1996, págs. 479-479
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Fifty years ago Vannevar Bush, with the aid of the Federal Government, released the academic research genie. It was argued at the time, and it still may be true, that only academic laboratories could provide the research and trained personnel needed to sustain American's scientific and technological needs. As history has shown, Bush's instinctive distrust of industrial laboratories as a potential training ground was basically correct. In those days, the country's needs were associated with warfare--the end of WWII and the collective hostile activities historically described as the "cold war." Today the country's needs derive from attempts to stay globally competitive. The government's decision to have universities turning out the bulk of the nation's basic research and to use those universities as a venue for developing research talent has created a network of more than 100 research-intensive universities, the output of which is the envy of the world. But, now there is another growing national need--improving the quality of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education throughout the educational system. The genie released 50 years ago, either has to go back into the bottle, or it needs to be re-purposed. The former is highly unlikely, which leaves only the latter as a viable strategy. Indeed, the National Science Foundation, which could be described as the master of the genie, is attempting to do just that. In the past several years, the budget for NSF's suite of "undergraduate" programs has grown to the point where the Foundation currently spends about $180 million on such projects. These programs represent initiatives at the pre-college and undergraduate college levels that are focused on instructional activities (teacher preparation, curriculum development, faculty enhancement, etc.) and research-oriented activities to compliment undergraduate education in a variety of traditional nonresearch environments. These programs are an attempt by NSF to start redressing the imbalance between research and teaching that the Foundation has actively promoted during most of its 50 years of existence. Now, the NSF strategy is to tell the scientists it has supported in the past, and those who will be supported in the future, that what they do in the classroom is as important as what they do in the laboratory; indeed, some would argue it is the most important activity that NSF has to sustain in the current environment. Since NSF is part of the problem, it has an obligation to be part of the solution, which is the essence of a report of an advisory panel. The draft report also has suggestions to universities on how to revise their approach to SMET teaching. It recommends that departments should set goals for what their students should learn, hold faculty members accountable for students' performance, change the academic reward system to incorporate good teaching, and give science faculty members a bigger role in the education of K-12 teachers.

    The basic problem is that 65% of all undergraduates, including many who will become the nation's precollege teachers, do not attend the more than 100 research intensive institutions that are so heavily supported by NSF's research efforts. In effect, those students have no access to SMET education in a world of growing technical complexity. The report suggests that NSF would do well to redress this imbalance by shifting more of its resources into undergraduate and precollege programs that focus on teaching. This point of view grows out of a 1986 review which centered on how NSF could help science majors. Now, the Foundation is being asked to address the SMET-related problems of all undergraduate students. Clearly, there is danger in attempting to use a system, the relatively meager resources of which have been aimed at about 10% of the population of undergraduates, to serve the entire population. Still, NSF can send a clear message that teaching is important in research-intensive universities. A message that might have a catalytic effect on all institutions.