ed383274.pdf - eric - department of education

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 383 274 HE 028 387 TITLE Project Impact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Education. Conference Proceedings (Arlington, Virginia, May 31-June 3, 1994). INSTITUTION National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Directorate for Education and Human Resources. REPORT NO NSF-95-69 PUB DATE 94 NOTE 123p. AVAILABLE FROM National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. PUB TYPE Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Biology; Chemistry; *College Curriculum; *College Instruction; Computer Science Education; Engineering Education; Higher Education; *Information Dissemination; *Instructional Innovation; Mathematics Education; Physics; Research Utilization; *Science Education; Social Sciences; *Undergraduate Study ABSTRACT These proceedings report the efforts of National Science Foundation researchers to disseminate innovations in undergraduate education. Section 1 contains forewords and keynote addresses by Robert F. Watson, Neal F. Lane, and Luther S. Williams. Section 2 contains overviews on dissemination and publishing including "Full-Scale Implementation: The Interactive 'Whole Story'" by Susan B. Millar; "Awareness, Access, Assistance: Dissemination Reconsidered" by Donald P. Ely; and "Getting the Word Out: Disseminating Innovation by Means of Traditional and Electronic Publishing" by Jay Sivin-Kachala and Maryellen Kohn. Section 3 contains essays on innovations in specific disciplines, including the following titles: (1) "The Nature of Efforts To Effect Interdisciplinary Reforms: Drivers, Barriers, and Strategies for Dissemination" (Steve Landry); (2) "Current Trends in Undergraduate Biology" (Jeffrey L. Fox); (3) "Chemistry Education: Innovations and Dissemination" (T. L. Nally); (4) "Education Projects in Computer Science" (A. Joe Turner); (5) "Engineering Curricula: Beginning a New Era" (Lyle D. Feisel); (6) "Keep on Moving: Energizers in Mathematics Education Reform" (Brian Winkel); (7) "Bridging the Gap: Disseminating Physics Innovations" (Robert H. Romer); and (8) "From Idea to Impact: Realizing Educational Innovation in the Social Sciences" (Kenneth E. Foote). Section 4 contains a list of conference participants and participating publishers. (MDM) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ***********************************************************************

Upload: khangminh22

Post on 27-Apr-2023




0 download



ED 383 274 HE 028 387

TITLE Project Impact: Disseminating Innovation inUndergraduate Education. Conference Proceedings(Arlington, Virginia, May 31-June 3, 1994).

INSTITUTION National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.Directorate for Education and Human Resources.


NOTE 123p.

AVAILABLE FROM National Science Foundation, Division ofUndergraduate Education, Directorate for Educationand Human Resources, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA22230.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Biology; Chemistry; *College Curriculum; *College

Instruction; Computer Science Education; EngineeringEducation; Higher Education; *InformationDissemination; *Instructional Innovation; MathematicsEducation; Physics; Research Utilization; *ScienceEducation; Social Sciences; *Undergraduate Study

ABSTRACTThese proceedings report the efforts of National

Science Foundation researchers to disseminate innovations inundergraduate education. Section 1 contains forewords and keynoteaddresses by Robert F. Watson, Neal F. Lane, and Luther S. Williams.Section 2 contains overviews on dissemination and publishingincluding "Full-Scale Implementation: The Interactive 'Whole Story'"by Susan B. Millar; "Awareness, Access, Assistance: DisseminationReconsidered" by Donald P. Ely; and "Getting the Word Out:Disseminating Innovation by Means of Traditional and ElectronicPublishing" by Jay Sivin-Kachala and Maryellen Kohn. Section 3contains essays on innovations in specific disciplines, including thefollowing titles: (1) "The Nature of Efforts To EffectInterdisciplinary Reforms: Drivers, Barriers, and Strategies forDissemination" (Steve Landry); (2) "Current Trends in UndergraduateBiology" (Jeffrey L. Fox); (3) "Chemistry Education: Innovations andDissemination" (T. L. Nally); (4) "Education Projects in ComputerScience" (A. Joe Turner); (5) "Engineering Curricula: Beginning a NewEra" (Lyle D. Feisel); (6) "Keep on Moving: Energizers in MathematicsEducation Reform" (Brian Winkel); (7) "Bridging the Gap:Disseminating Physics Innovations" (Robert H. Romer); and (8) "FromIdea to Impact: Realizing Educational Innovation in the SocialSciences" (Kenneth E. Foote). Section 4 contains a list of conferenceparticipants and participating publishers. (MDM)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *



roject imnact.

. -,,VN=:;=:r!irSt-0,1471744**00:7 -

,....4) ,.,' ..,2114 . ....s.,..k.i3Ti"I;tet.... :- - .. r i'41 .,,. : ,... , - -.3''..1.-%: ;:?t,itte*.ik4.54%....:i.8:- , 4.-..44.Z.','",',Lc.....,!:.; . - "- - .


- 41) '''-' :. ' ..--"' ' . .....g..; i'P'.;"."'r ....,:!"*--: . - -- A' ' '.'::4;5.7.HY:*-40',4-54.0:..5.:-.4-1,..--71.4'....,.. -.. 4 v.. . r:- -r.... '''',1'.-.' , 'Va' - ..

_,-,,,...:.... ,

issemina in innovation 1=:,:,.,,,Igyri' te....gregiy,..g.ily,:;., -,,,....., ! .,-...J. ,44.,._ fr.4...!';,. V.404.g,. .,.,.:!''.:::,#"'Zi*:-Ss..:'.

' cir...?::Y. 'I ',- -- -4. -- -

; .'.0 Education190".1:5H,.,..\--4'7,-'.,!:;',;,'-',',r-":':7:



n er ra. _


au=r ",4'4:',47 , . 0 ...II-- .,

.;, ".t ;

ft,F!),14?!;."' .

... .., + -,.. `--. ', ,..2..T..;;..1;(rtt...t't :.4.-r ,,, ., (.--. .*... ....4-- '. . .. ,... - ,.. .., .

.....,Nr..,; ....,. - ..-%-r-,:-.;:er.i,!-4:....jr,,t"i",e,*:".....' ''' '''....":-*Wi,....... ...."'"."-Vtlf.i1;v1.'''''''ete.4 ..- ''' ';'-'......... 'k''..4-1t-*-1*--.G"ff----f7' ''''''I''''..'.,-; --, .,--;:...... ,*-" ..'..**---/-r -1',';'e3.'... ..,:.-.---±:.'.....:'.+0,-**--,?.....7ir ,-,.~-,* '''-- -. . .. '`. "".. ; .,-..- -,,,,..'-=:-!*,-'.:-. -

;--7 .",- -:i.;.. - ... It.' ."41. '' ' : --''". - ..:.4 ..: ' %- ..' -. . -!..A...,..,:{_k ',.., - .....;1. . '--.... '' . , ... % ..k.r .; ......,;;;.:. -., ...^.-'.* . --....-.... -.-.*--.*-' ......,.s.,-4,:-'-'-'.1.'f ..!--*,--


- - ' - ... .:;:-....f........-rr,"..4..!.- -!


-,.174rriP1/4`,0(`'-c-;: ,;',...7

' v


. . ,,,-,Ltp,,P"'1-Lir,'"*;

. -, .; 7

'.c4`, .


:-.... .- s*



Afl', re PIv

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resour

4201 Wilsoti BoulevailreArlington, VA 22230


:.7 TV:ck -OW(''4


National Science



. .', . .

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION01140 of Educational ROSOArCh and Improvement


his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating if

0 Minor changos have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points ol view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representOficial OERI position or policy.

Notices from the National Science Foundation

The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible

for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does

not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation.

The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers. and strongly encourages

women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related programs

described here.

In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age. sex,

national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or L.: subject to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Founda-


Facilitation Awards for Sciences and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance

or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student researchassistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at

(703) 306-1636.

The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf capability, which enables indi-

viduals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or

general information. This number is (703) 306-0090.

Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance: CFDA 47.076

Abstracts and Itotiter information about the projects referenced in this document are found in Project

Impact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Education, Abstracts of Projects: Things That

Work, NSF 95-70.

Project Impact:Disseminating Innovation inUndergraduate Education

Conference Proceedings

National Science Foundation

Division of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources

4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230


May 31June 3, 1994Crystal Gateway Marriott

1700 Jefferson Davis HighwayArlington, Virginia 22202

Division of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources

National Science Foundation


United States Department of AgricultureUnited States Department of Education

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Institutes of Health

Division of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination, NSFDivision of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, NSF

Division of Engineering Education and Centers. NSFDivision of Materials Research, NSF


Ann McNeal, DUE/EHR, Conference CoordinatorWin Aung, EEC/ENG

William Haver, DUE/EHRDonald Kirk. DUE/EHR

Kenneth Krane, DUE/EHRHerbert Levitan, DUE/EHR

James Lightboume, DUE/EHRAndrew Molnar, RED/EHR

Stanley Pine, DUE/EHRGerhard Salinger, ESIE/EHRChalmers Sechrist, DUE/EHR

Ted Sjoerdsma, DUE/El -IR

Special thanks to McGraw-Hill Publishers for their sponsorship of the opening reception.

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introductory Material

Introduction Ann P. McNealForeword Luther S. Williams 4

Foreword Robert F. Watson 5

Keynote Address Neal F. Lane 6

Keynote Address Luther S. Williams 10

Section II: Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

Full -Scale Implementation: The. Interactive "Whole Story" Susan B. Millar 14

Awareness, Access, Assistance: Dissemination Reconsidered Donald P. Ely 19

Getting the Word Out: Disseminating Innovation by Means of Traditional and Electronic PublishingJay Sivin- Kachala and Maryellen Kohn 24

Section III: The Disciplines

The Nature of Efforts To Effect interdisciplinary Reform: Drivers, Barriers, and Strategies forDissemination Steve Landry

Current Trends in Undergraduate Biology ,h1frey ! Foy 44

Chemistry Education: Innovations and Dissemination T.L. Nally 50

Education Projects in Computer Science A. Joe Turner 57

Engineering Curricula: Beginning a New Era Lyle D. Feisel 61

Keep on MovingEnergizers in Mathematics Education Reform Brian Winkel 67

Bridging the Gap: Disseminating Physics Innovations Robert H. Romer 72

From Idea To Impact: Realizing Educational Innovation in the Social Sciences Kenneth E. Foote 75

Project Impact Conference: Participant Feedback 11

Section IV: Resource Guide

1994 Project Impact Conference Participants List1994 Project Impact Conference Participating Publisher.; 114

Ally viewpoints. opinions, and conclusions or reommemhutons expressed in the Conference Proceedings are those ofthe writers and or p irticipants of the Project Impact conference and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation


Introductory Material


IntroductionAnn P. McNea.Division of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human ResourcesConference Coordinator

The idea for a conference on dissemination arose fromdiscussions among Program Directors in the National

Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of UndergraduateEducation (DUE). The calculus reform efforts, which aregathering momentum across the country, sparked by NSFfunding. were aided by yearly conferences of principalinvestigators (PIs). As we searched for ways to speed trans-formation in other areas of science, mathematics, engineer-ing, and technology (SMET) education, the idea of bring-ing selec,,x1Pls together with interested publishers becamemore attractive.

We see a clear need for amplifying federally supportedprojects so that each curriculum project has the greatestimpact outside the walls of its originating institution. NSFobviously does not have enough funds to reach each SMETclassroom individually. Therefore, we rely on Pls to pub-lish, speak, meet, and spread the word so that their innova-tions are adapted and adopted a. -ther institutions. Thisconference was conceived to foster that process. But whatformat would serve that purpose?

The committee that shaped the conference decided earlyin the process that we wanted a participatory conference,not one in which people sat and listened to expert speakers.After all, we were gathering a group of 250 extremelyactive thinkers, teachers, and developers. So each PI shouldshow his or her project to all others. Likewise in the discus-sions, we wanted to get ideas from all participants, ratherthan talk at people. In short, we designed the conference tomodel the kinds of active hands-on participatory learningthat we are fostering in so many of our projects.

The result was a conference in which everyone had a

poster or booth to display their project, many with hands-on activities. More than 10 hours during the 3 days weregiven to participants to roam the exhibit hall (and still,many said that they wished for more time for this activity).Periods for Pls to staff the displays were staggered so thateveryone could see most of the exhibits.

Another 12 hours were spent in group discussions of nomore than 12 people, some gathered by discipline and someacross disciplines. These groups were tasked with generat-ing suggestions for better and more vigorous disseminationof curriculum reform. Valuable suggestions from these dis-cussions have been encapsulated in the essays that are thebackbone of this volume. We hope they will serve as an aid

to present and future Pls so they may spread their ideasmore widely.

It is difficult to convey on paper the excitement thatcharacterized this conference. Clusters of Pls gatheredaround exhibits, told one another of other exhibits, andtalked excitedly. Many times in passing. I heard commentssuch as "Did you see that exhibit on engineering design'!They have an idea that I really want to copy foi my biologycourse . . . Let me show you this math display. It really issimilar to what we're doing in geology, and I think we canuse it . . . What's your e-mail address? Do you have ahandout or disk oh that?" The cross-disciplinary fertiliza-tion, in particular, was extraordinary. Comparing the vari-ous essays on trends in educational reform in the differentdisciplines, appearing later in this volume. one can see agood deal of convergence on the following themes:

Changes in course content (both inclusion of new, ofteninterdisciplinary, topics, and paring down ofcoverage inorder to allow better learning).

Improved pedagogy with more active student participa-hon, cooperative learning, project-based learning, anduse of writing,

Use of technology emphasizing visualization, tools forstudents to explore material actively, and access for allstudents.

Introductory Material 3

Although PIs are actively developing these ideas, themajor issue is how to spread and implement them further,faster, and more effectively. One major stride taken at theconference was bringing together text and software pub-lishers with the PIs to talk and find a common ground. Formany innovations. publishing a text or courseware is animportant means of disseminating the innovation. Hence itis important to have publishers working with Pls in orderfor publishers to appreciate the opportunities andchallenges of working with innovators and for Pls to seehow to interact effectively with publishers (see essay byJay Siv in-Kachala and Maryellen Kohn in this volume). Atthe same time, it is important to recognize that innovationspreads in a community of scholars (see Susan Millar'sessay). Just as research results are disseminated by multipleactive pathsword of mouth, conferences, articles, andreviewsso educational news and changes need more thansimple publication. Some techniques, both in research andin education, spread more by word of mouth and face-to-face contact than through text. An example is collaborativelearning, which seems to spread largely through facultycontact with students or faculty who demonstrate the tech-nique. Among the suggestions in the following essays aremany ideas for active face-to-face dissemination.

This volume is organized as follows:

(1) Introductory materialkeynote addresses and fore-words from Robert Watson, Neal Lane, and LutherWilliams.

(2) Overviews on dissemination and publishing.all-encompassing essays on the process of dissemination,which serve as a guide for current and future PIs onboth the practical and philosophical aspects of dis-semination,

(3) The disciplinesdisciplinary essays outlining trendsin education reforms as well as dissemination in eacharea, and

(4) A resource guidewith Pis' and participatingpublishers' names and addresses, which can serve as away for the SMET education community to learn ofinnovations.

Our hope is to publish an electronic version of thisresource guide, with more information on each project andthe capability for searching by topic. If this guide provesuseful, DUE will consider expanding it to include all proj-ects.


ForewordLuther S. WilliamsAssistant Director of the National Science FoundationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources

Disseminate: to spread or send out freely or widely asthough sowing or strewing seed; to faster general

knowledge of; broadcast, publicize; to strew or scatter overa large area or into many places.

The Directorate for Education and Human Resources(EHR) has two strategies underlying its diverse educationalinitiatives. The first strategy is to fund projects that serve asmodels for educational efforts throughout the nation. Thesecond is to accomplish systemic reform by supportingprojects that bring about substantive change in educationalpractices.

Integral to both of these strategies is the proper dissemi-nation of information, which can he compared to the oldquestion: If a tree fell in the forest but no one was presentto hear, would it make a sound? Likewise, a principalinvestigator, working under an EHR grant, might developan innovative method of teaching science to undergradu-ates. However, if news of the project does not travel be-yond the edge of the campus, other educators will neverhave the opportunity to adopt it for their own use. Thus, theimpact of our work would be severely limited.

This is why the Project Impact: Disseminating Innova-tion in Undergraduate Education conference is so impor-tant. The conference brought together more than 250 prin-cipal investigators and approximately 50 representatives oftext, software, and multimedia publishing companies, toconsider the opportunities and challenges in disseminatingand implementing innovative instructional materials.

Participants were quite pleased with the format of thegathering, which limited the number of formal presenta-tions. Aside from opening and closing panels, the confer-

ence consisted entirely of small workshops, exhibits, andinformal networking among participants. These exerciseshelped bring about a true meeting of the minds on how bestto disseminate information about the important work beingdone on campuses throughout the nation.

One exciting aspect of the conference was the focus onnew ways of disseminating information. The InformationSuperhighway is fast becoming a reality, and formerlyarcane expressions such as Mosaic and World Wide Webarc quickly entering the vocabulary of educators through-out the nation. The exchanges between the Pis and theelectronic publishers at the conference will further the elec-tronic dissemination of educational initiatives.

The conference succeeded because of the hard work ofits organizer, the Division of Undergraduate Education(DUE). Other key participants from NSF included the Divi-sion of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination (RED):the Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Edu-cation (ESIE), all of which are part of the UR Directorate:and the Division of Engineering Education and Centers(EEC), which is part of the Engineering Directorate. I alsowant to thank the Fund for Impt overwt of Post SecondaryEducation (FIPSE) of the Department of Education as wellas other government organizations for their participation.Special thanks go to McGraw-Hill for their support of theopening reception. And most of all, I would like to thankthe more than 250 PIs who came to share the results of theirinnovative work and the publishing representatives whoattended to provide advice.

I look forward with great anticipation to the next dissem-ination conference.


ForewordRobert F. WatsonDirectorDivision of Undergraduate Education

Several years ago, we at the Division of UndergraduateEducation discussed a proposed conference on infor-

mation dissemination. Our original concept was to hold amodest conference where principal investigators couldgather to discuss ways of disseminating information abouttheir projects. At the time, I do not think any of us foresawhow this simple idea could develop into such a successfuleffort. The Project Impact: Disseminating Innovation inUndergraduate Education conference ranks among themost successful gatherings DUE has ever sponsored.

There were two keys to the conference's successthepeople and the formatboth the result of thorough plan-ning by DUE's dedicated Program Directors and staffmembers. More than 250 Pis attended the 4-day gathering,along with approximately 50 representatives of text, soft-ware, and multimedia publishing companies. As I inter-acted with participants during the conference, I was veryimpressed with the caliber of the investigators and thequality of their work,

The format of the conference emphasized small groupdiscussions. Pls and publishing representatives were ableto move quickly beyond formal presentations and enterdetailed discussions about how best to disseminate infor-mation. Mt, networking performed at the conference willlikely lead to many valuable collaborations through whichthe important work of the Pis will be widely disseminated.

An interesting aspect of the conference was the opportu-nity to explore the burgeoning channels for informationdissemination. Although electronic information exchangehas been in existence for 25 years, it is only within the last3 or 4 year. that Internet has become a commonplace term.Advances in computer hardware and software are rapidlyincreasing the volume, quality, and quantity of informationdissemination.

This conference gave DUE staff the opportunity to re-ceive feedback from participants about how to facilitateinformation dissemination better. DUE staff have alreadyimplemented many recommendations that resulted from


the conference, and they are researching ways to imple-ment additional recommendations. This process will leadto closer interaction between the Division, Pis, and pub-lishers.

DUE was pleased to sponsor this conference. We hope tohave an even more successful program at the next dissemi-nation conference.


Keynote AddressNeal F. LaneDirectorNational Science Foundation

Aspecial thanks goes out to Robert Watson and the staffof the Division of Undergraduate Education for mak-

ing this conference a reality. It's a pleasure for me to joinyou this evening.

I want to extend a special welcome to all of you onbehalf of the entire Foundation. You may not have realizedyet how unique a gathering this is. As a group. you repre-sent the full spectrum of institutions of higher learning -2 -year colleges. predominately undergraduate institutions,liberal arts colleges, and research universities. Just as sig-nificant is that we are joined by the leading innovators fromthe other side of the dissemination equationpublishers oftext and software. We have to do this together.

You represent the best of the best of innovation anddissemination in undergraduate education. No one herewas selected randomly. We asked ourselves, and our fellowand sister agencies in the government, "Who is workingand thinking at the cutting edge" of education and dissem-ination? That's who we wanted to be part of this potentiallyhistoric gathering.

For me, this is the kind of event I like best. I get to standhack and watch you do the hard work. Then I can take thecredit when it's all over.

Rest assured, however, tonight I'm not just going tostand hack and watch. I want to use my time to give you asense of why we brought you here.

I have heard more than one person remark that this is justa way for NSF to avoid having to make some 3(X) separatesite visits. There might he some truth to that statement,especially given the state of our travel budget.

However, we do have a few other, but perhaps equallypragmatic, reasons for bringing you to our nation's capitalfor the better part of a week. We have great expectation:; foryou and for this conference. We want to he able to lookhack many years from now and say. "This was the weekthat shook undergraduate education in this country."Never before have we brought together educators and pub-lishers on this scale for that purpose.

Just so you don't think we have any hidden motivations,I want to tell you what Luther, Bob, and the rest of us atNSF see as our role in this conference.

First, we would describe ourselves as a "societal venturecapitalist." Most of you are Pls. We have made an invest-ment in youa sizable one in every case. Your proposalswere selected from among thousands of competing ideas.

This meeting of principal investigators is one way to ensurethat society gets the highest possible return on that invest-ment and that you as individuals receive the maximumbenefit from that effort.

Second, we are what my colleague Labor SecretaryRobert Reich calls a "strategic broker," meaning we bringtogether people and organizations with complementaryskills. Another way of saying this is that we're a match-maker. Many of you are experts at inventing new ap-proaches to teaching; others are experts at helping thoseinventions reach the widest possible audience. Therefore itgoes without saying that this conference promises to he (hebeginning of many beautiful and productive friendships.

Third. there is more than a little bit of the "proud patronand sponsor" in us. We have supported your work, and


Introductory Material 7

now we want to put it on display for all to behold. Thisconference is in many ways a festival to show off yourartistry as innovators in science and engineering education.

Fourth, and finally, we see ourselves the same way wesee youas agents of change. NSF is committed to bring-ing about a fundamental change in what we teach and howwe teach at our nation's colleges and universities.

That is our business. NSF is a foundation for discoveryand learning. But it is also a foundation for change.

Our programs in undergraduate education are builtaround a five-part strategy:

(1) Support the development of new and creative ideas,

(2) Support the development of new courses and se-quences of courses,

(3) Support the involvement of entire faculties across dis-ciplinary lines in improving instruction,

(4) Support the evaluation of products, of supported proj-ects, and of the effectiveness of various teaching ap-proaches, and

(5) Support efforts to ensure that the best approaches andproducts are widely used to improve undergraduateeducation nationwide.

These five points are based on the obvious fact that wewill never have anywhere near enough money to supportthe needed changes, indeed improvements, in every courseat every institution in the country. Even if our wildestdreams were fulfilled and that level of support were avail-able, such an approach would still not be our strategy.

Our strategy begins with you. We rely on the most tal-ented and creative scientists and educators to develop thebest approaches and the best materials for teaching. Thenwe work with you to see that these approaches and materi-als are adopted at institutions throughout the nation.

As you know from your background materials and theprinted program, the goal of this conference flows directlyfrom these overall strategies. Our goal reads as follows:"to increase the impact nationwide of federally sponsoredcurriculum projects in order to revitalize and transformundergraduate education."

I want to take a few moments to dissect this wordy butworthy goal so that we can more fully appreciate what wewill be doing for the next 3 days. Each word is important.

The first phrase reminds us that we are here to increasethe impact of our work. We know that our past efforts havealready made a difference in how math and science aretaught. But we also know that we need to make an evenbigger difference in the future.

This is true first for budgetary reasons. Every dollar weget is scrutinized more closely than ever before. But it isalso true because undergraduate education plays such a keyrole in shaping the future of our society and strengtheningour economy.


This is why the next part of the goal's statement containsthe word "nationwide." No challenge is felt in every city,town, and neighborhood quite like education. In a recentsurvey conducted for NSF, 81 percent of the respondentssaid that education should be the government's highestpriorityhigher than health care (a close second), pollu-tion control, and scientific research. That's a point youmight he able to use to quiet your less supportive col-leagues at your next department meeting.

To have a nationwide impact, we have to put everymechanism available to work for us. We have learned ittakes more than just word of mouth, or word ofInternet, to get the job done. Of course, quala publicationof text and software is of vital importance.

I know that having a nationwide impact sounds like anoverwhelming task. But we have already learned that it canbe done. For example, the calculus renewal project cen-tered at Harvard University began on eight campuseS, in-cluding one community college and one high school. Nowthe new materials, developed with NSF support, are in useat 3 b colleges and universities and 35 high schools. Overone-fifth of the undergraduates currently studying calculusare enrolled in courses that rely on the approaches devel-oped through the national calculus reform movement.

These approaches emphasize the use of calculus in dif-ferent disciplines, the appropriate use of technology, bothin oral and written presentations, and students working inteams. It's a big change from my own experience in calcu-lus, which was a solitary activity.

The final phrase of the goals statement for this confer-ence states precisely why we arc gathered here: in orderto revitalize and transform undergraduate education."

A major part of the Foundation's reason for being is tostrengthen science, mathematics, and engineering educa-tion. Many people think of NSF strictly as a researchagency, perhaps because our education budget is dwarfedby that of the U.S. Department of Education. I want tomake clear this evening that education is at the core of ourmission, and every part of the Foundation has a role ineducation. Education is over 20 percent of NSF's totalbudget.

The science and engineering enterprise is a lot like anecosystem. All parts of it are interconnected, and the healthof the entire system depends on the health of each part ofthe system. NSF long ago dedicated itself to the premisethat science cannot live by science alone. Research needseducation, just as education thrives when it is conducted inan atmosphere of inquiry and discovery. In fact, the separa-tion of the concepts of education and research makes nosense intellectually. It is an artificial and, I believe, unhelp-ful separation caused by the way in which many of us inhigher education have chosen to behave. This is why in allof our education programs we encourage you and yourcolleagues to give students hands-on experiences through


which they learn science by doing science. Furthermore,since so much of research is interdisciplinary, teachingshould be as well.

Within our education portfolio, our precollege programsoften draw the lion's share of the public's attention. Thatcan be both a blessing and a curse. Same of the best knownprograms include the Statewide Sysu'mic Initiatives andthe Urban Systemic In iatives, through which we workclosely with the nation's governors and mayors to changemath and science education on a comprehensive scale. Weare now in the process of launching the Rural SystemicInitiatives, which will focus on selected rural regions of thecountry.

Our undergraduate education programs are somewhatmore modest by comparisonoperating more at the grass-roots level. But we nevertheless expect themthroughyour workto generate an equally comprehensive and sys-temic level of reform.

Returning to the ecosystem metaphor I used a momentagoundergraduate education is in many ways the sus-taining life blood of the entire science and engineeringenterprise. It is important to society for so many differentreasons:

Undergraduate education is the entry point for manyprofessional careers and for graduate education.

Undergraduate education provides professional trainingfor future teachers. Unfortunately, this is the aspect, inmy opinion, of undergraduate education that has beenparticularly shortchanged for a very long time. That isstarting to change, I believe, but there is still much to do.

Undergraduate education is where future scientists, engi-neers, mathematicians, technologists, and other scienceand engineering professionals learn the core scientificprinciples they will draw upon for the rest of their ca-reers.

And finally, for the overwhelming majority of collegestudents, the undergraduate years will be the last timethey devote themselves in a formal way to the study ofmath and science. Most will do so only to fulfill require-ments, yet they will draw upon this knowledge through-out their lives as citizens in our increasingly technology-based society.

For all of these reasons, it is not surprising that membersof Congress and other public officials are taking a greaterinterest in undergraduate science, mathematics, engineer-ing, and technology education. NSF's authorizing legisla-tion is currently up for renewal. Both the House of Repre-sentatives and the Senate are using the reauthorizationprocess to explore different mechanisms for recognizingand rewarding excellence in undergraduate teaching.

I also know that many state legislatures have increasedtheir focus on this issue. In some cases they have enacted

Int roductoly Material

very specific requirements for office hours, classroomtime, and accessibility to students.

This interest has not arisen because our elected represen-tatives have suddenly taken a liking to the internal work-ings of universities. They see the same causes for concernthat we do: the perceived imbalance between teaching andresearch at many institutions, the high attrition rates forscience and engineering courses, and the sense that under-graduate degrees are strictly passports to graduate schooland not to a broader range of careers in business, govern-ment, and other professions. I also think they see another,perhaps even greater, cause for concern. There is evidenceof a new and deep division emerging in our already dividedsociety. Many of us are ready to drive full speed using ourpersonal computers or workstations along the InformationSuperhighway, while others are frightened by the sight of amouse.

Earlier. shis month, The Baltimore Sim ran a front pagearticle on the subject of "technophobia": the fear of tech-nology. The article cited a survey conducted by the DellComputer Corporation. Over half of the people surveyedconfessed to experiencing some degree of technophobia.Some get nervous at the thought of programming a VCR(I'm frankly sympathetic with this reaction); others be-moan the passing of the manual typewriter. How serious aproblem is technophobia? That's hard to say at this point,but the initial signs are not good. I believe the problem ismuch more serious than just having a few VCRs constantlyflash twelve o'clock.

These fears and phobias are giving rise to a confusion offact with fiction in many circles (even among college grad-uates). What once looked like an innocent ignorance (ifthere could be such a thing) is now giving rise to a numberof disturbing debates. More and more, public policy issuesare being swayed by arguments for which the scientificbasis is questionable at best. People seem more worriedabout the perils of power lines and engineered tomatoesthan baking in the UV radiation of the sun. In part, theseattitudes stem from a generally poor understanding of sci-ence. It is often said that we resist and fear what we don'tunderstand. The great poet and scholar Ralph Waldo Emer-son once wrote that "knowledge is the antidote to fear.''

This is where all of us come in. We're in the knowledgebusiness. The changes we are bringing to undergraduateeducation are helping take the mystery out of science andtechnology. But. in addition to raising the public's level ofunderstanding of science, we are also challenged to im-prove the quality of undergraduate education for the pro-fessional workforce.

Let me give you just one example of how we are doingthe latter. NSF has recently begun providing significantsupport for projects to improve undergraduate engineeringeducation. These various projects give students an intro-duction to engineering that is very different from past trash-

Introductory Material 9

tions. They involve fewer prerequisites, less teaching bydrill and practice, and moving away from the "going solo"approach to solving problems.

The emphasis instead is on teaching our future engineersto find solutions from a wide range of alternative ap-proachesnot just those relevant to a particular type cfdisciplinary training. They learn how to integrate knowl-edge from different fields, to work in groups, and they gainthe satisfaction that comes from using their engineeringskills to solve problems that have a human face.

In one project that is part of an Engineering EducationCoalition, instructors assigned their students the task ofdesigning a low-cost, portable shelter that will keep home-less people warm on winter nights. That kind of project caninfuse a sense of service into all of undergraduate educa-tion. It can also teach our students what might be the mostimportant lesson we can teach themhow to put theirskills to work in ways that benefit the greater community.

In conclusion, science and technology are full of myster-iesthe origin of the universe, the origin of life, and thenature of the human mind. Another mystery that has bedev-iled scientists and engineers throughout history is how totransform newly discovered knowledge into practical ben-efits. It is an inherently unpredictable process, often withfrustratingly long horizons.

The United States patent for the fax machine wasawarded in 1863. But it was over 100 years and severaltechnological leaps before these machines became a fixturein the workplace.

In 1917, Albert Einstein predicted that atoms under cer-tain conditions would emit very precise pulses of light. Itwas not unti! 35 years later that Charles Townes and hiscolleagues were able to harness this theory and produce thefirst working laser.

Just for comparison, it took the relatively short time of13 years for the first video game, Pong, to move from thelaboratory to department store shelves. Pong turns out to heanother spin-off from investments in high-energy physics.

It was invented in 1958 by an engineer at BrookhavenNational Laboratory as a way of entertaining visitors forthe lab's annual open house. It turned out to be the mostpopular stop on the tour, and the rest is history.

This week, we don't have 100 years, 35 years, 13 years,or even 13 days to begin moving our ideas about under-graduate education beyond the walls of this great hall.Instead, we have this evening plus the next 3 days to startthe process, and they promise to be a very busy 3 days.

There is no way to predict what will happen here, be-cause we've never done this before. We must neverthelessaim high. I have every hope that what comes out of thisconference will be as practical as the fax machine, as revo-lutionary as the laser, and perhaps in a few cases, as enter-taining as the latest video game.

I want to leave you with a few ideas to guide you for theremainder of the conference.

First, think big about how far your ideas can go. Our goalis to have a nationwide impact. Second, leave your mod-esty at the door. I know it is only human nature to besomewhat shy about marketing your own ideas. And fi-nally, remember that we are all agents of change. Workwith each other, pool your ideas, and push whatever youthink will do the most to catalyze change in undergraduateeducation.

What happens over the next few days is entirely up toyou. As I said earlier, 1 am only a very interested observer.But, one day down the road, when my government serviceis ended, I want to return to teac ,Ing, primarily undergrad-uate teaching. So, I will be anxious to put your ideas andmethods to work. This is your conference, and it is yourchance to reinvent how we teach science, mathematics,engineering, and technology in our colleges and universi-ties.

Your ideas and talents are your tools. We ki.ow you areartists at your crafts. That's why we invited you. This isyour chance to show the world.

Thank you.


Keynote AddressLuther S. WilliamsAssistant Director of NSFDirectorate for Education and Human Resources

It is a pleasure to join you in this important conferencethis morning. I applaud the efforts of Robert Watson and

the DUE staff and gratefully acknowledge the participationof you, the conference attendees, in this exploration ofwhat has been accomplished and its impact on undergradu-ate science, engineering, mathematics, and technology ed-ucation. As you learned last night front Neal Lane, underthe broad rubric of program assessment. evaluations, andaccountabilitydemanded by the Congress and the recentadvent of stringent priority setting directed by the Office ofScience and Technology Policy (OSTP) at the WhiteHousewe are obligated to increase the focus on programimpacts, ensuring that the results of efforts supported byNSF are effectively disseminated and implemented in anarray of relevant institutional settings.

From an OSTP-sponsored forum, Science in the Na-tional Interest, I quote the following statement:

World leadership in basic science. engineering. andtechnology requires well-educated and trained scien-tists, mathematicians. and engineers and a scientifi-cally literate public. Clearly education is a criticalinvestment for our society and responsibility for de-veloping and maintaining a scientifically literate pop-ulation rests broadly on the citizenry. The federalgovernment and the research community share in thatresponsibility.

From its inception over 40 years ago, the National Sci-ence Foundation has supported programs to train thenation's scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Muchof that effort occurs informally through the involvement ofstudents, both graduate and undergraduate, in researchprojects funded by NSF. But, the largest education expen-ditures by the Foundation have been for a broad spectrumof activities intended to improve the quality of science andmathematics education in the elementary and secondaryschools, to recruit talented young people to the study ofthese subjects, and to ensure that both the improvementsand the recruitments decrease the underrepresentation inscience, mathematics, and engineering careers of minori-ties, women, and persons with disabilities.

I listorically, many stellar figures in the research commu-nity have made direct, personal contributions to these ef-forts. They have served as mentors for students inquiringinto basic research: they have taught in summer and aca-

demic year institutes for school teachers of their subjects:they have lent their disciplinary expertise to the creation ofnew and effective instructional materials of every descrip-tion; and they have played active and significant roles inevery education program supported by the Foundation.There are many of them, but never enough of themespe-cially in recent years.

The pattern of NSF education activity, until very re-cently, has been dominated by the research projectmodelthe "Thousand Points of Light" approach. Muchof inspiring quality and impact has been accomplished hereand there by the myriad projects supported by the Founda-tion. But "the system" has not been changed very much. Itis arguable that American education in science and mathe-matics would be in a worse state had NSF not applied

Introductory Material 11

billions of taxpayer dollars to these efforts. But it is a factthat the current state is still far, in quality, effectiveness,and impact, from what is required for the 21st century.

A map of the nation's schools might look like a thousandpoints of light, but that is not the way the schools actuallywork. There is a great deal of local autonomy in Americaneducation, although not usually in areas that really matter.Education in the United States is primarily a cluster ofsystems of schools at the state, regional, and metropolitanlevelsand it is through, with, and, in part, by those sys-tems that lasting beneficial changes will be made. The restof us are helpers of various kinds. Some of the help ismaterial, some is fiscal, and some must he through hack -hone and leadership.

Currently (and for most of the past 3 years). the NationalScience Foundation is reorienting its education activitiestoward systemic approaches and away from the thousandpoints of light mode. That does not mean NSF is phasingout support of small or large projects with a well-definedbut noncomprehensive scope. It does mean that a largefraction of the Foundation's increasing resources for edu-cation will he targeted on school systems, on problems thatexist in essentially every school in a system. and on im-balances and shortcomings that permeate most school sys-tems.

The Foundation's initial program with such purposeswas the Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) program,begun in 1990-91. Participation in SSI was limited to halfthe states, in part to force the dissemination of what waslearned. The second program was the Urban Systemic Ini-tiatives (USI) program; its planning activities were fundedfirst in FY1993. USI is limited to the 25 cities with thelargest number of children living in poverty. Again, it isexpected that other cities will profit from what is learnedfrom the USI implementation projects. Finally, the Na-tional Science Board has just approved inclusion in NSF'sBudget Request funding for a Rural Systemic Initiativesprogram, whicl- will attempt to fuse capabilities and tech-nologies into systems of distance learning. electronic net-works of teachers and students, and all-schools access tonational databases and similar resources.

The world is changing and so must the nation's collegesand universities. More than ever, nations and individualsmust cooperate to achieve their objectives. Increased im-portance has become attached to our abilities to acquire,adapt, transform, and transmit information, energy. andmaterial resources. The networks, bridges, and highwaysthat facilitate the cooperative exchange of information, aswell as goods and services, are being improved and ex-tended in ways previously unimaginable. From appliancesin our homes, to scanners in stores and computers at ourjobs, advanced technologies are central elements of ourliving and working environments. So too has increasedappreciation been gained for the mutual influence of and

need for harmony that exists between the living and work-ing environments and the natural environment.

The promise and challenge of this new era is the devel-opment of individuals who have a variety of adaptableskills and possess an understanding of the science, mathe-matics, and engineering fundamentals that underlie the de-sign. fabrication, and distribution of goods and services asvaried as food, health care, consumer electronics, airports,and hazardous waste disposal. Education for employmentand for living depends on a solid grounding in science andtechnology.

Those seeking this education have changed. The term"diversity" fails to capture the rich variety of personsseeking enhanced educational opportunitythey spanages, genders, ethnicity, regions, professional interests, ap-titudes, skills, and levels of prior preparation. They havedifferent needs, but they all must be empowered to face thesame world of challenges. They must learn to comprehendbasic scientific and technological principles; the interrela-tions among the principles; and the social, ethical, andpolitical contexts in which the principles are applied. Fur-thermore, effective education should enhance students'abilities to apply and communicate their understanding bya variety of means in a variety of settings.

The primary locus of the science and technology educa-tion that prepares individuals for the complexities of mod-ern life and work is the nation's system of undergraduateeducation. Yet the 2-year. 4-year, comprehensive, and doc-toral institutionswhether they be public, private, or pro-prietaryhave not yet responded substantially to the rec-ognized need for cooperation and collaboration. Walls stillexist between disciplines and academic units. These wallsare ill suited to educating the many different individualsseeking preparation for a vast array of personal and profes-sional goals in an increasingly complex world. These insti-tutions have failed to prepare adequately for the new waysof learning that begin at the precollege level and must hecontinued at the undergraduate level. There is growingconcern that what is taught does not adequately preparestudents for the world they enter upon graduation. Theyhave not yet begun to develop the potential of educationaltechnologies fully, nor to apply what is known from re-search on teaching and learning fully. We can no longeralter students to fit the abilities of educational institutions:we must alter the institutions to fit the needs of students.

The National Science Foundation seeks to encourage theplanning of the comprehensive restructuring of undergrad-uate education. The Foundation seeks to stimulate, at avariety of institutions, comprehensive efforts to addressimpediments in providing the academic environmentsneeded for tomorrow's skilled worker, knowledgeable con-sumer, and responsible citizen. Creative and effectiveteaching, mentoring, and advising must be valued and re-v, arded. Recognition must he made of the entire learning


environment from the classroom, to the laboratory (includ-ing practical experiences), to the dorm room. Cognizancemust be taken of the financial, social, and personal ?res-sures exerted on students.

Creative and effective learning must also he encouraged.Students must appreciate that teaming and collaborationare life skills that can be developed in the classroom, learn-ing is enhanced by teaching, active involvement in facultyresearch can provide context and relevance to academicsubjects, and they must ultimately assume responsibilityfor their own education. Finally, students must he helped tounderstand that learning is a lifelong activity they mustvigorously pursue.

The Foundation seeks to foster planning for the restruc-turing of the academic and administrative systems withineducational institutions so as to promote enhanced studentlearning and preparation for the professional challengesthat exist in an increasingly interdependent global society.characterized by the pervasive nature of science and tech-nology. Planning activities should seek to enhance (1) thenature of studentteacher interaction. (2) the completelearning environment, and (3) the relevance of the curricu-lum to the multi- and interdisciplinary challenges of mod-em society. Planning should occur in an integrated fashionwithin a given institutional context.

Comprehensive projects must have the following fea-tures:

Introductory Material

The faculty and institutional support necessary for sys-temic and lasting impact, including close cooperation offaculties across disciplines and academic units, as well asmechanisms to encourage and reward innovative andeffective undergraduate teaching;

An emphasis on developing students' capabilities tolearn on their own as well as interpersonal skills such asteamwork, leadership, and sensitivity to multiculturalconsiderations, while providing the foundation and flex-ibility to prepare students for careers in a variety ofprofessions, including medicine, law, business, andteaching;

Mechanisms to increase the diversity of students who areattracted to and successful in science, mathematics, engi-neering, and technology fields;

Development of new instructional and staffing para-digms that optimize efficient and effective use of instruc-tional staff and technology within the institution, as wellas dissemination that facilitates widespread adaptabilityand increases adoption of the approaches and instruc-tional products developed in the project.

In FY 1995, NSF expects to mount a new effort for thedevelopment of comprehensive projects. Grants will hemade to a diverse set of individual institutions representa-tive of the rich variety of organizations involved in theundergraduate education enterprise.

SECTION IIOverviews on Dissemination and Publishing


Full-Scale Implementation: TheInteractive "Whole Story"Susan B. Millar-

hat is full-scale implementation? The National Sci-ence Foundation's (NSF) 1994 Project Impact con-

ference organizers asked me to write a paper that describes,in the view of the author, key issues in moving from the

development of pilot projects to full-scale implementationof major departures from traditional curricula or from tradi-tional teachi- g approaches. Full-scale implementation in-cludes, but 1. not limited to, adaptation/adoption of materi-als and approaches at other institutions, as well as in otherdisciplines or multiple sections of courses at the principalinvestigator's institution." The organizers also requestedthat I base the paper on both my prior knowledge of under-graduate education and what I learned attending the confer-ence and that I emphasize "key steps which have contrib-uted most significantly to successful implementation."

Taking the organizers at their word, I began interviewswith principal investigators (PIs) at the conference byasking. "What is full-scale implementation? What are thekey steps involved in getting there?" Most of the Pis hadno difficulty formulating criteria for achieving full-scaleimplementation. Most of them also suggested various keysteps that contributed significantly to this achievement.Yet, the PIs always expressed a certain hesitancy, as if I hadnot asked quite the right question. They did not want tosuggest that, if you just complete some sequence of steps,voila, you have full-scale implementation. Art Ellis of theUniversity of WisconsinMadison offered a typical re-sponse. In response to my questions, he paused. explainedthat there certainly were a number of steps involved, andthen said, "Now that you ask me, if you really want tounderstand how my project achieved ful'-scale implementa-tion, I think I'd have to go back to the very beginning andgive you the whole story." Responses such as Ellis' led meto conclude that, while there is value in delineating a se-quential set of steps critical to achieving full-scale im-plementation, the value is substantially lessened unless youget "the whole story." It's similar to knowing the basic plotof a movie but seeing only the last 15 minutes. While ithelps to know the story line, you do not really understandbecause you miss all the important moments and details thatappear in the beginning and the middle.

To be sure, the focus of the conferencedisseminatinginnovation in undergraduate educationwas "the last 15minutes." While we may need to learn the whole story inorder to understand the endgame fully, there is much in

recommending a conference focused on the end. This said,many PIs noted that the conference organizers clearly con-veyed that, in their view, the participants' exploration ofhe endgame was to focus on a specified range of moves.

They wanted to know how best to use publishable materialsto disseminate the results of education reform projects. Justas many PIs responded cautiously when I asked them todelineate the steps involved in full-scale implementation;they also resisted this program focus. Once again. PIs indi-cated that it just is not that simple.

In analyzing the comments I obtained from PIsand inlight of my experience evaluating undergraduate educationreform programs--I realized that to limit our exploration ofdissemination to a discussion of how best to utilize publica-tions was to lose the capacity to articulate what many PIsbelieve is the key to their success. This key is that, yes,without products and publications (deliverables) you areunlikely to achieve full-scale implementation. but if youwant to know how to achieve full-scale implementation,you need to focus on the interactions that take place duringconversations and demonstrations. In so saying, I note thatwhat matters about these interactive conversations/demon-strations is not whether they occur face-to-face or in elec-tronic media, but whether they involve a genuine two-wayexchange of knowledge and perspectives. During theseinteractions, reformers naturally and meaningfully presentto those interested their newly developed curricular andteaching materials and their stories and data about theirreengineered learning environments. Understanding thesematerials, stories. and data in context, the audience is morelikely to shift from being merely interested to being activeadopters/adapters of education reforms. Moreover, thesekey dissemination moments are valuable to experiencededucation reformers. From observing the responses of oth-ers, reformers can better understand why their new materi-als and approaches work and how they can help othersgrasp the essential features of these materials and ap-proaches. In focusing on the central role of interactionduring conversations and demonstrations, we do not dimin-ish the importance of high-quality published materials. Onthe contrary, it is by bringing into focus the interactivesituations in which these materials become real for othersthat we arc able to understand how these materials actuallycome to be adopted/adapted widely. Without these conver-sations, the materials have limited value.

OVOTiett'A on Dissemination and Publishing

Principal investigators who resistc ' focusing on publish-able materials and chose to focus on the importance ofinteractive conversations/demonstrations are people whoapply lessons learned in their reformed classrooms to thesituations they encounter in the halls of their professionalmeetings. Many of these Pls spent years assuming that themore carefully organized and clearly presented their lec-tures, the easier it would be for students to acquire thepurveyed knowledge. Apparently unaware of a phenome-non confirmed by education researchersthat excellentknowledge delivery in no way ensures that students under-stand and can effectively use knowledgesome educatorstirelessly produced and performed polished lectures. Then,for any number of reasons, they had the opportunity toobserve students in active-learning environments. Thesemoments, when they became aware of and compared theeffects on students of passive and active environments,-ledthem to change certain basic assumptions. Abandoningtheir content-focused/delivery-based teaching approaches,they began developing student-focused/active-learning-based environments.

In the same fashion, these PIs realized that creating andpublishing a new textbook or piece of educational softwareand using standard traditional marketing techniques to con-vey new materials to their professional colleagues do notensure effective use of these materials. As Ann McNeal,one of the conference organizers, expressed it, "I taughtthem but they didn't learn anything." This statement isequal to "I developed a model program, but no oneadopted it" or "I wrote a great text but no one is readingit." Principal investigators have opportunities to observeand compare the circumstances that do and do not movetheir faculty colleagues to adopt new approaches. GregMiller presented his analysis of these circumstances in thefollowing lengthy interview excerpt, which captu .'es theessence of what many other Pls said.

GM: My experience has been that, if I talk to peopleabout it, they just nod their heads and that's about it. If Iwrite something about itwell, people who aren't alreadyengaged in these activities don't typically read these jour-nals, there aren't that many !engineering education jour-nals], and it's kind of once removed from what you arereally talking about anyway. However, if someone walksinto my office or watches my presentations, I can say,"Here's what we're doing," and I tell the whole story. I'ma big believer in the story and in oral communication ingeneral. And by this I don't mean describing experimentsinvolving inanimate objects, where the typical jargon-laden language is ineffective. I think telling and communi-cating the story about what you do and what the students doand how infrastructure plays into it is most effective.

SM: Do you ever notice exactly when people get onhoard the wave?


GM: It's when I show them. It's pretty much during theshowing. And different people jump on at different times.

SM: Is it that you begin the story verbally and then youmove tohow does this work?

GM: Usually I'll start off talking about ECSEL [one ofthe NSF Engineering Education Coalitions] and its goalsand the overall activities. Then I say, "OK, here's what I'mdoing as part of this big thing. What I have are about sevenor eight components here in this course: group learning,design projects, alternative tests, etc." A lot of these com-ponents people can visualize. So if I say, "Oh, we dohands-on experiments with this," they say. "I understand.I've been in classes where we've done these sorts ofthings." They can understand how that's effective. Then Italk about some of the computer-augmented lecturing I do,and that makes a lot of people take note because that'ssomething they are not familiar with. So I talk about what'seffective and what's still problematic about it. That's usu-ally when I move to my computer and demonstrate some ofour directed information environments or some of our ani-mations.

SM: HyperCard material and things like that?

GM: Things that you could not do at all with traditionalmedia. That's often when people see a new term in theequation that puts some of the other things I've been talk-ing about into real life and also makes them go, "Yes! Ithink that I could do some interesting things if I had that."

SM: So it sort of gives them a handle. Is that like aturning point?

GM: I think so. It's like when you see something that youhaven't seen before but you can immediately see how it canhe helpful to you. You go "Ah ha!" You get excited.

SM: I like to think of those as learning moments. Thekinds of moments we want our students to have, right?

GM: Right, that's often how it conies about. And formany people, that learning doesn't happen when we showthem just a couple of things. It happens when we give anindication that we've done the whole darn class this waythat you can scale it up. Unless you're able to show large-scale implementation, people will just think of it as a nov-elty. But when you show them that you've reallyinstitutionalized these classes, so that the same studentswho would normally take them are enrolling, and youaren't using an unusually high level of instructional re-sources, people can no longer think of it as a novelty. Theyget the idea that you can actually change the way you dothings.

Reactions such as those expressed by educational re-former Greg Miller point to important differences in basicassumptions used to make sense of education reform activ-


ity. To wit, the conference organisers' ideas--that full-scale implementation can be understood as a definitive setof steps leading to a planned outcome and that the dissemi-nation p;lase can he optimised by foeu,ing on how best touse publishable materialsare consistent w ith more linear.objectivist assumptions. The ideas of the Pls I inter-viewedthat full-scale implementation entails "the wholestory'. and that efforts to isolate and understand a particularphase of dissemination should not focus on products/publi-cations but on the interactions that take place during con-versations and demonstrations---are consistent with morenonlinear, interactionist assumptions.

To convey what it means for nonlinear, interactionistassumptions to inform one's approach to a project, I willnow distill hard-earned advice and wisdom. from scores 01'interviews and other conversations held at the Project Im-pact conference, into a schema that shows hov, moving tofull-scale implementation entails a reform project's"w hole story." Note that success in each phase turns uponcomplex interpersonal communications. It is these interac-tions that lead to the adaptation/adoption of materials andapproaches at other institutions,. as well as in other dis-ciplines or multiple sections of courses at the Pl's institu-tion.

Phase 1. Articulate the need. Help colleagues and :1(11. .n-istrators understand that there is a gap between ( ) stan-dards and expectations for student learning held by facultyand/or students and/or society at large and (2 t actual stu-dent learning experiences. For example, Jim Fasching,wanting to understand what students knew before hestarted teaching, began his spring-term course with a pre-test consisting of the same questions used on the fall -termfinal. He found that his students conld not answer in Janu-ary the same questions they answered correctly in the pre-vious December. More to the point, he found that tellingothers about this finding helped them understand that thereis a gap between faculty expectations for, and the reality of.student learning. Once aware of this gap. they understoodthe need for reform.

Phase 2. Develop promising reform ideas and reform-ready colleagues. ( Benchmark an existing "bestpractice" by reviewing the research on learning, attendingconferences, and es'ablishing informal networks of col-leagues in one's own, and related, field(s). In the process,take note of people, in other departments and at otherinstitutions, who seem particularly interested, as you maywish to involve them as beta site testers. (2) Simulta-neously seek reform-read) colleagues and brainstormideas. Try to include high status members of your own andother departmentsboth senior and junior people. includ-ing, graduate and undergraduate students. and people fmmboth genders and diverse ethnicities. ( I noted that Pls who

1'('1 1'1('11'1 WI 1)1.1 SC111111(111011 (111(11)1(141.011.11,1;

had achieved full-scale implementation were quick to ac-knowledge that they had learned much from colleagues inother disciplines and institutions. They "walk their talk"w hen it comes to collaboration. teamwork. and valuingdiversity.) Stay clear of the, in Rob Cole's (The EvergreenState College) phrase, "reform vampires"--people whodraw their sustenance from resisting people. (3) Move backand forth between Phase I and 2: as those in your emergingreform team develop their own ideas, their understandingof the need for change deepens.

Phase 3. Get a plan. Produce the proposals that will pro-vide the requisite external and internal financial, ad-ministrative. and moral support. While doing so, developyour skills as friendly but politically astute "guerrillas."Use the "public accountability factor" to your advantageby helping your colleagues. chair, dean, and provost under-stand that the hest way to deal with external demands foraccountability is to stay ahead of the problemon yourown terms. (A good strategy for bringing administrators'attention to this matter is to provide information aboutsuccesses at peer institutions.) Mort Brown advised ap-proaching administrators with the following agenda: showthe problem. show the solution and make clear that yourunit will make a sacrifice, and demand resources. He cau-tioned that the moment you demand resources, deans de-mand evaluation data. "While no one really is convincedby these data:. he added, "deans need it in order to get theresources from their bosses. The whole process is morepolitical than anything else." Critically assess yourinstitution's reform readiness. Your institution is readyonly if you can enlist both a group of co-reformers whoshare your vision and a couple of key leaders/administra-tors who not only understand and care about the need youhave identified but also have the power to help you. In-cluded among these leaders should he at least one personfrom your institution and, optimally, people from otherinstitutions who can bring pressure to hear on your depart-ment and college. (The coalition structure is useful insofaras it automatically connects you with leaders at other insti-tutions.) If you encounter major resistance in your owndepartment. seek support for a pilot project that may beused at some institution, leaving it to your colleagues todecide at a later time if they would like to adopt yourapproach. If you are at a research institution, involve grad-uate students as much as possible. As several put it, "Grad-uate students are the future." During this phase you shouldalso work with an evaluator who can help clarify researchquestions, plan how to acquire baseline data, and designyour reform so that evaluation data are optimally useful.Meanwhile, keep henchmarking others' best-case prac-tices.

Phase 4. Engage in initial implementation. Work withyour reform colleagues to develop new materials, develop

Overviews on Dissemination and Pahli%Inaq 17

your new teaching methods, and so forth. Of special note.Joe Lagowski of the University of Texas stressed the im-portance of developing examinations and assessments that"put a measure on" the new kinds of know ledge and skillsthat your reform seeks to help students develop. l le empha-sized that, to achieve full-scale implementation, colleagueswho remain outside the reform effort must come to under-stand and accept these new assessments. Often this initialimplementation phase involves interactions with a range ofpeoplesuch as department chairs, registrars. student ad-visors, computer technicians, and space management per-sonneland entails finding ways to simplify frustratinglycomplex implementation processes. Sustain your friendlyguerrilla'' orientation by learning about and becoming fac-ile in the politics of organizational change. Priscilla Law sof Dickinson College advised holding workshops on tech-nique, philosophy, and the politics of change. All the \A bile,continue henchmarking others' best-case practices.

Phase 5. Implement and evaluate the reform on a pilotbasis. During the pilot stage, arrange for your evaluator toprovide real-time formative feedback on student learningexperiences, and/or use informal classroom assessmentprocesses. Along these lines. Mort Brown ads iced. "Don'temploy researchers who want to do evaluations in order tosatisfy their own scientific criteria. You w ant to get theevaluation work out into someone else's hands. but makesure the evaluators understand your mission. Meet fre-

quently with your co-reformers-- including any graduateand undergraduate teaching assistantsto describe and re-flect on your experiences and make midcourse corrections.Continue benchmarking others' hest-case practices.

Phase 6. Revise and beta lest the reform. Engage inter-ested colleagues to work with you as beta site testers. Inselecting beta sites, he aware of the "prophet in his/herown land'' syndrome: you are likely to have more troubleconvincing your own colleagues than people in other dis-ciplines at your institution or in your discipline elsewherein the country. A second reason to conduct beta tests else-where is to assess whether your reform is robust in differentenvironments and to learn how to adapt it to diverse envi-ronments without sacrificing essential features. Continue toobtain formative evaluation, meet frequently with yourlocal and test site reform colleagues. and benchmarkothers' hest-case practices.

Phase 7. Locate and work with a publisher. Assesswhether you are producing materials that others may wantcopies of and begin looking for a publisher. Publishers mayinclude the full range of commercial print establishments:organizations specializing in electronic, video. and audiomedia: and not-for-profit organizations such as your pro-fessional society or a campus education research center. oreven your own reform team. Es aluate potential publishers

in terms of their w:Ilingness and ability to work col-laboratively with you. Project Impact participants stressedthat they particularly valued publishers who have charac-teristics such as:

The capacity to build flexibility into your materials andapproach so that users can modify them to suit their localneeds.

The ability to arrange situations that give you the bestopportunities to interact with potential users with theleast expenditure of your time. (Bear in mind that thehighest cost of effective dissemination is in facultytime--on the phone. on e-mail, in hallways and work-shopsand that faculty receive no tenure and promotionrewards for spending time in this ay.) For example.your publisher might develop two or more workshopformats: a 1/2-day format for interested others who arestill "scanning the options'' and a 3-day format for peo-ple who are sold on your approach and want to learn howto implement it.

The capacity to engage others at a sophisticated level.The publisher assumes that your new approach will at-tract only a portion of the potential users and that theseusers might he alienated by broad spectrum advertise-ments and missionary zeal. He/she ascertains what kindof person your reform is likely to attract and approachesthese people with materials carefully designed to interestthem. For example, Art Ellis (acting in this instance ashis own publisher) is always ready to pull from hispocket little strips of "memory metal" which he uses todemonstrate how solid materials can provide superbways to illustrate chemical principles. He has found thata little sample of metal acts as a hook that helps peoplemake surprisingly sophisticated connections between ev-ery day experiences and scientific abstractions. Anotherexample is the low-budget video. Low-budget videos of,for instance, conference talks by known reformers, aremore credible to professors than more glossy presenta-tions. Easily able to imagine themselves in the everydayspaces featured in such videos, faculty get involved inthem as if they had been there.

Appropriate attitudes toward on-line electronic media.Your publisher should view on-line electronic media not as"the answer" but as a new kind of space in which interac-tive conversations/demonstrations can occur. In this regard,several Pk emphasized that the availability of the WorldWide Weh does not, by itself, motivate others to use themand that students respond to these pages as yet anotherpassive text. (While locating and working with your pub-lisher. continue with iterations of Phase 6.)

Phase 8. Hand-off to the Publisher. Turn your materialsand process over to the publisher as soon as you can hear tolet them go.

18 (verview.% on Dissemination and Publishing

There is much a new PI can achieve by attending to theaccumulated wisdom and advice of the Project Impact par-ticipants who contributed to this eight-phase schema. Asnoted above, each of these phases depends on interaction.The phases themselves interact and double back on eachother. Taken together, they compose a "whole story." Butthey do not compose the whole story. Each local reformstory is played out within the larger structure of highereducation, a structure which no single reform project team.or single institution, or ali the publishers together canchange. Attuned to the opportunities and constraints of thisencompassing structure, many Project Impact participantssaw the need for systemic change in how institutions ofhigher education promote educational reform. In particular,they found that their efforts to achieve full-scale im-plementation were seriously hampered because facultylack opportunities to function on a sustained basis inchange-agent roles. To make this point, I return to myinterview with Greg Miller, who explained that an effect ofdemonstrating his new materials is that people "get theidea that you can actually change the way you do things."In his continuing remarks, he shifted to the systemic level:

GM: It !demonstrating the project) gets them thinking.And probably a large percentage of people look at theproject and say, "Wow. that'd he great! But I don't havethe time to learn how to do that." They still see a steeplearning curve . . and they want to have a workshop.That's the point where I've always had to kind of go, "Uh,we'll try to put together a workshop. Uh. urn, .. ." That'swhen I stop. They are interested. but the next step isn'ttherebeyond me, saying, "Oh. I'll teach you how to doall this stuff." There are just no good procedures andmeans that allow me to say, "Yeah! Get involved. Here'swhere all these resources are, it's not just me, it's all thesepeople working. "rake our stuff. Add your own things ..."The infrastructure isn't there. I mean, I can't individuallytrain 40 instructors all over the country to do these things.

Similarly, Charles Patton of Oregon State Universityexplained, "We need to address the issue of supportingpeople whose entire job. entire project, is taking somebodyelse's material, and somebody else's pedagogy, and mov-ing it to other contexts. It was hoped that publishers woulddo this, and they have to a certain extent. But still theperson who stands up there is Tom Dick of Oregon StateUniversity, or Greg Foley of Sam Houston State Univer-sity. or me. And there are only so many bodies. So moneyis one issue. But another issue is there are only so many

bodies. Consortiums work well because you have a lotmore bodies and you can share the training work.. But it'sstill not self-sustaining."

Phase 9. Work for change on the national level. GregMiller's and Charles Patton's analyses suggest an addi-tional phase in which Pis must engage in order to achievefull-scale implementation: work for change on the nationallevel. With the addition of this phase, we find that full-scaleimplementation not only involves more than the "last 15minutes" of your project but also involves more than justyour local "whole story." All too frequently I hear facultytell of how 10 years later there is either no trace of aneducation reform effort or only a few isolated courses orminor innovations. To move beyond this local and short-lived approach to full-scale implementation. Pis and othersmust work together to modify the opportunity structurewithin all of higher education. If we work collectively, wemay be able to develop an infrastructure that allows eachproject team to teach others across the nation and allowsteams to learn about and implement what other educationreformers have learned. In this regard, it is very encourag-ing that NSF, aware that individual universities and col-leges offer faculty little to no incentive to engage in sys-temic, large-scale dissemination work, is taking steps toremedy the situation. NSF provides dissemination funds toprojects that show evidence that their products and ap-proaches are of interest to the academic community. Thesefunds can be used for workshops, training workshop lead-ers, providing newly trained individuals with money to runtheir own workshops, and providing loanable equipmentand field test sites that agree to provide feedback. Finally,the success of this ninth, as well as all other phases. dependon making the most of the interactive conversations/dem-onstrations in which the value of your work becomes realfor others.

Susan B. Millar is a cultural anthropologist and the Director ofthe University Of W 5011. s Learning through Evalu-

ation, Assessment and Dissemination (LEL-AD) Services Ce171C1".Prior to assuming this position, she was a Research Associate atthe Penn State Center for the Study of Higher Education, whereshe provided external evaluation for the NSF' s Engineering Edu-cation Coalition, Engineering Coalition of Schools for Ex( ellencein Education and Leadership (ECSEL) and completed a calculusreform assessment and dissemination protect funded by the NSF'.~Division of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination


Awareness, Access, Assistance:Dissemination ReconsideredDonald P. Ely

. . . i am absolutely convinced that there is not asinglecolitary problem in American education thathas not been solved by somebody, somewhere . .

What we have done as a nation is to resist institution-alizing change, to resist, therefore. holding ourselvesaccountable for results as a nation . . . in every state,

people . . . repeatedly resist learning from each other,borrowing from each other, capturing each other'sbest ideas.

President Clinton, May 16, 1994, on the occasion ofsigning the Goals 2000 legislation

This is clearly a time for dissemination. The time haspassed when the knowledge and products developed

through National Science Foundation (NSF) grants are un-known or unused. Of course, many efforts are made byprincipal investigators (31s) to inform the science, mathe-matics, and engineering communities of research and de-velopment findings. Many of these efforts were demon-strated at a conference sponsored by NSF's Division ofUndergraduate Education (DUE) in June 1994. Project Im-pact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Educa-tion brought together Pis, NSF program officers, publishersand producers of educational materials, and a group ofobserver/writers for an intensive exploration of both theprocesses and products of dissemination. This paper de-scribes the current status of project dissemination, identi-fies promising practices. raises several issues regardingcurrent practices, and makes recommendations for futureefforts. First, it is necessary to define the concept of dis-semination in light of its many interpretations.

The Evolution of Dissemination

The distribution of information to colleagues or the publichas traditionally been called "dissemination." The diffi-culty in understanding dissemination may begin with itstraditional definition: spreading the word. In academic cir-cles dissemination is usually manifested through the print-ing of professional journal articles or the presentation offormal papers at professional meetings. The assumptionhas been that if "the word" is printed or spoken, dissemi-

nation has taken place. In the sense of distribution, theword has been announced and any further action is up tothe individual. But many professionals are beginning torealize that the traditional approach is no longer sufficientin bringing about important changes in teaching and learn-ing science, mathematics, and engineering. The very con-cept of dissemination has been broadened.

K.M. Stokking (1994), in the paper "Dissemination andDiffusion of Knowledge and Innovation," calls for a dis-tinction between dissemination as an activity, a process,and a result. "Activity" is an awareness function with thepurpose of informing potential users in a conscious man-ner. for example, a journal article. "Process" involves thetransfer of knowledge and/or materials to potential users.As an access function, it helps potential users become morefamiliar with new products and encourages them to usethem in the future. An example is the acquisition of theUniversity of Nebraska Cinema Classics videodisc that canbe used in a physics class or laboratory. "Result" is achange function whereby new knowledge or materials areused by individuals and groups that will use them in teach-ing and learning procedures. An example is the use oflaboratories created by Bowdoin College for the Duke Uni-versity Project CALC program.

The broadening concept of dissemination has led to awidely accepted multiple definition now acknowledged byprofessionals in the scientific community. The definitiondescribes four goals of dissemination: spread of informa-tion, choice of alternative products or procedures, ex-change of information, and implementation of new pro-cesses or procedures (Klein, 1992). These goals are evidentin DUE-sponsored projects as well as in other science,mathematics, and engineering programs. One of the firststeps in planning dissemination is determining the goal(s).

Audience: Who Are the Constituents?

Once the goals have been described, consider the audience.Each audience may require unique methods. Consider forinstance the national curriculum reform in calculus as com-pared with the needs of biology departments. Or think aboutchemistry professors who communicate information aboutnew approaches to teaching as compared with the astronomyprofessor who needs laboratory materials for her teaching.

r- J


Each of these instances requires a different diss,mtinationstrategy, which begins with defining the audience.

What Is Being Disseminated?

Dissemination often involves instructional innovations:new knowledge and ideas about teaching and learning (pro-cess innovations) and new materials (product innovations).Process innovations include new teaching methodologiessuch as collaborative learning and inquiry-based laboratoryexercises. Product innovations include individual "standalone" products like CD-ROMs, computer software, andlaboratory manuals. Combinations are found in com-prehensive modules and course reconfigurations. Some-times an entire curriculum is involved.

The Current Status of NSF Dissemination

After identifying the importance of goal-setting, audienceidentification, and the substance of the process or productbeing disseminated, the PI or dissemination agent consid-ers techniques for reaching the intended audience. NSFprojects illustrate a wide variety of these techniques.

The use of newsletters and e-mail has created networks.Every successful project that continues to provide lead-ership has a regular newsletter, an active listserv, or both.Calculus Currents is a newsletter for individuals in-volved in the calculus reform movement. The mailinglist for Project CALC at Duke University numbers morethan 28.000 names. The publisher, D.C. Heath, also pro-vides a toll free telephone number for assistance.

Software for computers as well as CD-ROMs is an inte-gral part of many courses and curricula. Software isavailable on floppy disks and on network sites fordownloading. CD-ROMs such as Metazoa: VanishingKingdom are available.

Videodiscs, videotapes, and slides have been developedand field tested. The Physics Info Mall offers a selectionof resources to assist teachers and learners. The develop-ers at Kansas State University have involved users infield testing.

Workshops are held on college and university campusesand at national and regio-..1 professional meetirgs. TheWetlands project at Colorad .) State University uses a"multiplier approach" in its workshops. Individualswho are trained to use modules developed by the projectare expected to offer similar workshops in their region.

Videoconferences have been held using satellite commu-nication systems. California State University at Fullertonhas coordinated videoconferences highlighting success-ful NSF projects of national interest such as UriTreisman's approach to increasing minority participationin mathematics and the calculus reform effort.

()vervilv.s on 1)i.s NOM/M/0n WO /)/Ibli.Shing

Cooperative and/or collaborative arrangements existamong programs with similar goals and special audi-ences. The Southern California Coalition in Education inManufacturing Engineering involves six universities inpartnership with several industrial organizations. The de-partments of physics, mathematics. and computer sci-ence at the University of I fart ford arc w king with 18institutions to revise existing teaching materials in thesefields and assisting in iniplementation throughout Con-necticut.

Local and national mass media have been employed bysome projects. Others use professional journals to pro-mote programs, materials, and workshops. Some projectshave used local public relations personnel to promote theactivities and findings of NSF projects that later appearin the local and national press and broadcast media. TheJournal of Chemical Education has a column eachmonth that highlights two or three exemplary NSF-sponsored programs in undergraduate chemical educa-tion.

Computer networks arc used not only for e-mail but alsoas file transfer protocol (ftp) sites to make materials andinformation available. The Coalition for Ordinary Dif-ferential Equations Experiments (C-ODE-E) at HarveyMudd College now offers its resources through WorldWide Web and Mosaic on the Internet. The seven-institution consortium disseminates specific problemsfind graphics. Their effort has led to a theme issue of theCollege Mathenunis Journal and workshops at theMathematical Association of America annual meeting.

Textbooks, readers, laboratory manuals, instructor'smanuals, exercises, and combinations of printed re-sources arc published, marketed, and distributed to usersacross the nation by commercial publishers. Some textmaterials are accompanied by computer software that isintegral to the text or references. Some publishers pro-duce "non-revenue" publications at the request of the PIto insure better utilization of the total publications pack-age.

Combinations of the various dissemination vehicles areoften employed. Such packages are likely to producemore than the sum of the parts. The Washington Centerat Evergreen State College performs individual consulta-tions on the improvement of mathematics and scienceteaching with 44 colleges and universities in the north-west region. There are follow-up workshops based onlocal needs. An active network permits continuing inter-action between the center and the institutions and amonginterested people in the institutions.

The best dissemination efforts make potential usersaware of new resources, provide access to materials, andassist in using materials (Ely and Huhemian, 1994).

Overviews int Dissemination and Publishing 21

Promising Practices: Trends

The success of dissemination practices is judged by diver-gent criteria. One criterion used by commercial publishersand producers is the number of items sold and the extent towhich second and third editions are released. Other criteriameasure the amount of change that has occurred. Such dataarc not easy to tabulate but personal interviews indicate theoccurrence of change through new course syllabi, newlaboratory arrangements, and new problem-solving proto-cols.

J.M. Cousins and K.A. Lei dm ood (1993) in K nowledge:

Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, created a list of factors thatimpact the extent to which disseminated information isused:

(1) Informational needsgaps in personal knowledgeand expertise of the intended audience.

(2) Focus for improvementresolution of issues con-cerning dissemination effort.

(3) Political climate--the explicit and implicit prioritiesestablished within the school setting and the associ-ated weight anributed to vary ing intOnnation,

(4) Competing informationinformation, in addition tothe focus for dissemination. that may influence deci-sions or thinking (e.g., practical knoss ledge).

(5) Personal characteristics of usersgender, experience.prior history of inforination use, and leadership style,all of which may influence respon,e to disseminatedinformation.

(6) Commitment/receptiveness of usersthe extent towhich the audience's attitudes ss ill facilitate the intakeof the disseminated information.

Discussion groups at the 1994 NSF Project Impact con-ference confirmed the above list and identified a host ofpromising practices that follow the awareness, access, andassistance pattern.


If a new idea or material is not knoss n. it cannot be consid-ered for adoption. Ass areness is the provision of informa-tion to specific audiences for the purpose of informing.Here arc ways in which some projects are accomplishingthis function:

Placing announcements in professional journals andsending advertising material to individuals on targetedmailing lists has been effective. Publishers often joinwith authors and developers to distribute newsletters ona regular basis.

Disseminamtti over the Internet, computer bulletinhoards. listsei s, and special interest groups (SIGs)reaches out to people who may not receise informationIrons other sources.

Involving institutions in testing creates awareness andownership.

Planning marketing strategies for new materials withpublishers and producers creates close working relation-ships. Commercial publishers assist by publishing non-revenue support materials and sponsoring workshopsfeaturing authors and product developers.

Using popular mass media, such as ANN.() ScientificAmerican, Chronicle of lligher kducat on, and others.informs the general public. Especially noteworthy ispublicity in major t '.5. newspapers and on news stationssuch as CNN.

Presenting videoconterences through satellite communi-cation has alerted professionals to new developments. A1993 videoconleience, sponsored NSF. reached morethan 250 sites in 49 states.


A teacherscientist cannot use innovative materials andprocedures if access is difficult or unavailable. Accesstakes many forms. Conference participants shared some oftheir knowledge about this important factor:

Publishers and distributors are the most organized andmotivated people in pros ding the resources for innova-tive programs. It is in their best interest to stock materialsand fill orders promptly. They usually succeed and arehighly reliable.

Some projects place materials on Internet sites. The Uni-versity of .Arizona placed math tools on ftp. QueensCollege loaded their QStat programs, and Harvey MuddCollege provides differential equation problems in thesame ss "a.

Computer-based materials such as Kansas State's Phys-ics lnfoMall CD-ROM and the rhemScholar tutorialdeveloped at the University of Rhode Island join a"catalog' of software created through the NSF projects.The University of Rhode Island includes on-line help aspail of its software package.


Awareness of and access to information. as important asthey might he, must he connected to a source of assistanceif change is to occur. Assistance is the function that helpsindividual adopters learn how to use limo% ative materials

22 Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

or practices. It is an "800" number by telephone or acomputer connected to an information source or helpline.Assistance is one of the most important aspects of dissemi-nation at the time of implementation. Without it, manyadopters would give up or misuse the new resources. Listedbelow are some forms of assistance that were recom-mended at the Project Impact conference:

Workshops, faculty development strategies, and work-shops at professional conferences are some of the mostfrequently used and most effective assistance strategies.Beloit College's BioQuest program offers workshops atannual meetings of biology teachers. Gettysburg Collegeoffers similar opportunities at the meetings of the Amer-ican Astronomical Society.

Coalitions and other collaborative efforts provide assis-tance through a formal network of professionals andinstitutions that are dedicated to bringing about change intheir fields. Regular communication among individualswithin these cooperative arrangements gives assistanceto colleagues. The California State University ScienceTeaching Development Project involves 20 institutionsthat share instructional modules and research reports.Collaborative Curriculum Development at the Univer-sity of Washington includes seven universities.

Beyond Awareness, Access, and Assistance

Professional literature describes factors that promote theutilization of new knowledge and products that go beyondawareness, access, and assistance. Factors enumerated in arecent NSF publication (Hutchinson and Huberman, 1993)were confirmed by PIs at the Project Impact conference.Among the most important are:

(1) Relevance and compatibility. Users want flexibilitywhen adopting new materials and procedures; in fact,they want to adapt materials to their own style andcourses. Modular resources are more acceptable thanrigid protocols that cannot be bent to serve localneeds.

(2) Quality. Expected through documentation of results,field test data, and other forms of validation. "Empir-ical studies show, however, that people will not auto-matically use knowledge because of its quality orbecause of its lack thereof" (Hutchinson and Huber-man, 1993). Factors associated with quality, identifiedby Cousins and Leithwood (1993) are useful in assess-ing product quality:

Sophisticationthe perceived quality of the sourceof information, including its technical sophistica-tion, appropriateness, rigor, and the like.

Credibilitythe perceived believability and valid-ity of the source of help and of those responsible fordissemination (i.e., track record).

Relevancethe extent to which the audience forwhom it was intended perceives the knowledge tobe pertinent to their needs (defined especially interms of practicality).

Communication qualitythe perceived clarity,style, readability, flair, and the like, with which theknowledge is conveyed to the intended audience.

Contentthe nature and substance of the actualknowledge being disseminated. Especially impor-tant is whether or not the content is perceived to hecongruent with existing knowledge as valued. posi-tive, and of sufficient scope.

Timelinessthe extent to which knowledge is per-ceived to be disseminated at an appropriate time anddelivered in an ongoing manner.

(3) Linkage among users. Closely related to networking.These are interpersonal exchanges that support newand continuing users of specific innovative programsor materials. Users often employ e-mail or meet inspecial interest groups at professional meetings. Theyare usually on the same listsery and mailing lists andbecome tutors for new users and leaders in bringingabout change

(4) Engagement. Occurs through participation in fieldtesting, workshops, and other activities that permithands-on use of innovative materials. Such activitieshelp users become comfortable with new proceduresand, in some cases, permit reinvention for local use.

(5) Sustained activity. The frequency, as well as the in-tensity, of the contact between the developer (or dis-semination agent) and the receiver of the new infor-mation and materials is an excellent predictor ofcontinued use leading to institutionalization.


On the surface, dissemination seems very simple. A newproduct or process is created and works well. How doothers become aware of it and begin to use it? Is this asimple marketing problem? Is it a matter of scholarly com-munication? How does the message reach those who oughtto know about it? There are many questions that should beasked before launching into a full-scale dissemination ef-fort:

( 1 ) Quality. What should he disseminated? How canquality be determined? Who will determine the stan-dards? Who will evaluate the standards and the proj-


Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

ect? What information is required prior to dissemina-tion?

(2) Public domain. New materials and procedures aredeveloped with government funds. Some users be-lieve that all of these materials should be available aspublic domain resources. When commercial publish-ers and producers become the marketing organiza-tions for these materials, they sell them to users. Howcan NSF-funded products be made available at little orno cost?

(3) Product vs. process dissemination. Products arefairly easy to disseminate since they often are tangibleitems of hardware and software. How are innovativeprocesses and practices disseminated? How are suchlearning methods as discovery learning and team ap-proaches communicated? These are activities and pro-cedures that are difficult to transfer. What is the mostefficient way to achieve effective dissemination?

(4) Perception of dissemination. How can the percep-tion of dissemination as one-way communication bechanged? "Spreading the word" has been the com-mon understanding of "dissemination" hut, in a timeof multiple means of reaching audiences, there needsto be a broader concept that embraces choice of alter-natives. exchange of information, and implementationof new processes and procedures.

(5) Impact. How can impact be measured? Is the invest-ment in NSF-funded projects intended to make a dif-ference in learning and scientific discoveries? Theimpact of a project cannot be measured at its immedi-ate conclusion. The impact is usually seen years afterindividuals have been exposed to innovations.

(6) Coverage. How broadly should the results of NSFprojects be reported? Should dissemination go beyondthe target audience? Some projects have had excep-tional success in disseminating through the publicmass media, such as newspapers, television, and pop-ular magazines.

The systemic reform of science, mathematics, and engi-neering education at all levels depends on the creativeinteraction of content specialists and educators. It requires


vision and ways to develop the means for facilitating inno-vation. The Division of Undergraduate Education of theNational Science Foundation has funded projects acknowl-edged to be among the best that American scholarship canoffer. Implicit in each of the projects is the improvement ofundergraduate education in science, mathematics, and en-gineering. Once completed, the projects offer some of thefinest innovative materials and practices available. There isno single formula for dissemination, as each innovation isidiosyncratic and each setting is unique. Teachers, profes-sors, and instructors should adapt innovative materials andpractices to meet local goals and specific audiences. Ifthese efforts are to make a difference in education, thedissemination process is critical, and attention to it must bea top priority.


Cousins, J.M. and K.A. Leithwood (1993) "Enhancing knowl-edge utilization as a strategy for school improvement." Knowl-edge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 14(3 ):305-333.

Ely, D.P. and A.M. Hubcrman (1993) User-Friendl Handbookfor Project Dissemination: Science. Mathematics, Engineeringand Technology Education (NSF publication # 94-17). Wash-ington, DC: National Science Foundation. 19 p.

Hutchinson, J. and A.M. Huberman (1993) Knowledge Dissemi-nation and Use in Science and Mathematics Education: .4Literature Review (NSF publication #93-75). Washington, DC:National Science Foundation. 30 p.

Klein, S.S. (1992) "A framework for redesigning an R&D-basednational education dissemination system in the United States."Know/edge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 13(3):256-289.

Stokking, K.M. (1994) "Dissemination and diffusion of knowl-edge and innovation" in The International Encyclopedia ofEducation. Second Edition (T. Husen and T.N. Postlethwaite,Eds.). New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 1549-1553.

Donald P. Ely is Professor and Chair of Instructional Design.Development and Evaluation at Syracuse University. During/992-1993 he was Program Director for Dissemination in theDivision of Research. Evaluation and Dissemination of the Na-tional Science Foundation.


Getting the Word Out:Disseminating Innovation byMeans of Traditional andElectronic PublishingJay Sivin-Kachala and Maryellen Kohn

Results of the Project Impact Conference:A Summary

During the 4 days of the 1994 Project Impact conference,principal investigators (Pis) had a rare opportunity to inter-act with one another and with commercial publishers. Theconference provided a variety of meeting opportunities.One of the most successful was the exhibit hall, whichoffered all participants the opportunity to become aware ofone another's work and aware of one another as resources.Pis were able to find potential test sites for their projects aswell as a ready audience and support for adoption of inno-vative projects. Publishers were able . get first-hand andhands-or. experience with a wide variety of innovativeprojects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Plenary sessions provided a venue for NSF to clarify andreiterate its missionto promote the successful dissemina-tion and adoption of the work of its Pls. Group discussionswere structured to enable participants to discuss dissemina-tion issues within their particular discipline and across disciplines. Workshops enabled all participants to gain a max-imum of information about all forms of dissemination,including pros and cons.

There were also many informal opportunities to networkand meet. On-site meals and coffee breaks helped to ensurethat participants would continue thinking and interactingwithin the theme of the conference and would he able totake advantage of the proximity of their peers.

Outcomes of the Conference

The major outcomes of the Project Impact conference werethat the participants shared information, defined problems,and proposed solutions that should result in greater dissem-ination of NSF-funded work.

Pls discussed the best routes to dissemination, the pit-falls to dissemination, and the effects of technology ondissemination. This sharing of information increased theunderstanding of software and multimedia publishing andof the current state of print publishing. The option to dis-

seminate via the Internet was also discussed. Much of thediscussion between Pls centered on the best ways to workwith publishers, including finding a publisher, developing acontract, and dividing the responsibilities in the authorpublisher relationship.

Participants were able to define and clarify commonproblems. Chief among these was the difficulty of dissem-inating innovative projects. The majority of Pls acknowl-edged the difficulties posed by the lack of a ready market,the lack of innovative and profitable dissemination chan-nels, and the underlying knowledge that resistance to inno-vation is automatic. Participants also acknowledged thattheir unfamiliarity with software and multimedia publish-ing necessitates further discussion of the industries.

Participants identified another common problemthatmost innovators resist publishing for profit, preferring freeaccess to their work. This stems from a number of factors:fear of loss of control over projects: the lack of projectfunding and support for dissemination activities: and theavailability of "alternative" distribution channels, such asworkshops, minicourses, word of mouth, distribution ofkits, and the Internet. Innovators and publishers also ac-knowledged the need to work together to develop newstrategies and paths to adoption.

Suggestions for Solutions

A long list of suggestions was proposed as a result of theProject Impact conference. There was broad agreement onthe need to institute an annual or biannual Project Impactconference that would include administrators and morepublishers. In addition, participants want to establish atelecommunications-based electronic forum to ensure on-going communication and awareness of one another'swork.

Pls expressed the need for NSF to institute a clearing-house for innovation resources. They also suggested thatNSF employ a three-phase evaluation process. whichwould encourage the support of those projects most likelyto he widely adopted.

Overviews nn Dis.senumition and Publishing

Pis encouraged NSF to adapt the funding structure toincrease support for dissemination activities. They alsorecommended that NSF increase its efforts to put innova-tion in the limelight with the use of a strong presence atprofessional meetings, computer conferences, and otherpublic venues.

Publishers were encouraged to help "make a market"for innovation. Innovators were advised to focus on"customer-driven" innovation. It was recommended thatinnovators build consensus for innovation among their col-leagues and within their institutions.

All participants agreed to continue working together tofind ways to make the adoption of innovation "worth thecost." They acknowledged that change is difficult andresolved to find was to make the path to educationalreform smoother for all.


When the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) ofNSF brought 250 of its most promising educational reform-ers to meet with a group of commercial publishers for theProject Impact conference, the focus was on disseminationof instructional innovation and. where appropriate, publi-cation through commercial and noncommercial channels.

The mission of DUE is to improve undergraduate educa-tion in mathematics, science. engineering, and technology.on a national scale. The Project Impact conference was animportant part of DUE's effort to ensure that funds foreducational improvement have the greatest possible im-pact, especially during a time of fiscal restraint.

To that end, the Pis of NSF-funded projects spent 4 dayswith one another and with publishers to:

Observe and appreciate one another's work.

Improve their understanding of the nature of dissemina-tion of instructional innovation in today's world.

Define problems inherent in disseminating innovativecurricula and instructional approaches,

Develop concrete plans to spread effective educationalinnovation throughout the nation.

Before one can fully understand the issues related to thedissemination and publication of educational innovations.it is necessary to understand what the innovators meat, 'y"reform." Ii is the goal of many Pis to reform educationnot just by changing the tools that educators and studentsuse, but by changing the whole curriculum and the peda-gogy. Their goals include:

Empowering students to construct their own knowledgebases so as to acquire and use knowledge rather than just"receive" it;

Encouraging hands-on learning;


Providing real -world contexts to mathematics, science.engineering, and technology education;

Helping students visualize abstract concepts:

Addressing the particular needs of incoming undergrad-uates (especially freshmen and students who may heacademically underprepared).

An important part of the challenge of bringing abouteducational reform is that innovators often find themselvesat odds with their institutions and peers. In the currentacademic environment, great research is valued more thangreat teaching. Research receives support and acknowledg-ment while teaching is often looked upon as a necessaryevil (e.g.. references to research "opportunities" andteaching "loads° ). Pis at the Project Impact conferenceacknowledged this challenge and stressed the need tochange the campus culture and the very definition of schol-arship so that great teachers are valued as greatly as re-searchers.

The remainder of this report is divided into two parts.

(1) Publishing Instructional Innovations: TraditionalMethods and Electronic Alternatives

(2) Recommendations to Conference Participants

Publishing Instructional innovations:Traditional Methods and ElectronicAlternatives

Many educators think of mass dissemination of innovationstrictly in terms of print publishing, principally in the formof journal articles and textbooks. While print-based dis-semination remains important, other publication methodsand formats are growing significantly within the academiccommunity. A broad range of publishing options was dis-cussed during the Project Impact conference, includingprint, software, multimedia, and distribution via telecom-munications using the Information Superhighway.

Print Publishing

One of the most often heard questions from Pis was, "Howdo I find a publisher in my field?" The Association ofAmerican Publishers (AAP) was suggested as a good start-ing point, but as an industry trade association the AAPcannot provide specific recommendations. Mary Wallingof the AAP suggests that the best place to locate a publisheris in the "bible" of the industryThe Literary Market-place (LMP), published by R.R. Bowker. "The LMP canhe found in any good reference library. It lists all publish-ers, in alphabetical order and cross-referenced by state,subject area, and product type (textbook, software, multi-media, etc.). It includes publishers in the U.S. and Canada.It also includes listings of agents, organizations, editors,

26 Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

translators, paper manufacturersanyone involved in thepublishing industry," Walling said.

Conventions or meetings were also recommended asgood places to find a broad selection of potential publish-ers. Another suggested path was to make use of an estab-lished contact with a publisher's sales representative. Get-ting the name of a contact within the publishingorganization from a sales representative can help PIs toavoid "blind letters [that] are usually a waste of time."

The Choice of a publisher. PIs and publishers workedtogether at the conference to develop guidelines for choos-ing the best publisher for innovative curricula or instruc-tional approaches.

Know how each publisher deals with the kind of materialthe innovator wishes to disseminate. Check thecompany's track record with innovative products. Lookfor an organization that has previously published similarwork and talk to authors about their experiences.

Know what the publisher can do for the innovator and hisor her workincluding marketing, design and layout,editing, sales, and customer support. When it comes tomarketing, the publisher "should shape demand, not justmeet it." The publisher should also help the innovatorcreate a product that reflects changing classroom dynam-ics (e.g., integrating technology with the curriculum, in-corporating cooperative learning strategies).

Check a company's turnover rate for editors and salesforce. Having the same editor on board throughout thelife of the project helps ensure consistency and avoidswasting time. Having a consistent sales force gives acompany legitimacy in the eyes of prospective purchas-ers.

After the field is narrowed to a few potential publishers,it is important to check the quality of the editor and of theentire project team (marketing, design, administration,etc.).

The authorpublisher relationship. What should one ex-pect of the authorpublisher relationship after a publisherhas been chosen? Innovators with prior publishing experi-ence and publishers at the conference offered the followingadvice:

Start early in the process to establish a shared vision ofthe final product.

Expect that the publisher will analyze the market andwill make important decisions about the product, such aswhere and how it should be shown and advertised, itsprice structure, and the packaging design and configura-tion.

It is in both the publisher's and the author's interest forthe publisher to test the materials with students andteachers prior to publication.

Expect that the publisher may seek to revise work thathas taken years to develop.

A common stumbling block in the PI publisher relation-ship can be the development of a contract. Many PIs voicedthe opinion that contracts appear to favor publishers. Thepoint was stressed that it is vital for PIs to seek legal helpand guidance from a lawyer specializing in copyright andintellectual property issues. They should establish theirrights and/or the rights of their institution to the concept,content, and design of the project so that those rights can headequately protected in a publishing contract. If the PI'scollege or university has a legal stake in the project. theinstitution's legal staff should be involved in the negotia-tions with the publisher.

The impacts of technology on print publishing. Publish-ers attending the conference discussed the effects of tech-nology on all aspects of print publishing. The publishingindustry has changed dramatically with the advent of suchinnovations as custom publishing and on-line distribution.

Custom publishing enables publishers to produce uniqueeditions of textbooks and other printed teaching materialsin small quantities. Rather than adapting a course to fit amass market textbook, educators can order custom versionsof teaching material to fit the particular requirements oftheir school or course.

On-line distribution enables college book stores to ordermaterials for delivery via computer. The book store thenbecomes the publisher and distributor, "printing" enoughcopies to satisfy the demands of educators and students.The publishing company eliminates the expense of paper.printing, binding, shipping, and returns. The book storeeliminates inventory, overstock, and theft. Educators andstudents benefit from availability (the book store can"stock" many more titles and can't run out) and continuedupdating of materials.

PIs were curious to know how their work might fit intothese new formats. Such custom and quick-print optionsopen the door to new, innovative teaching materials thatwould not support a masF market. These innovations enablepublishers to serve small markets as they develop andgrow.

Publishing Software

Personal computers make it possible for faculty and stu-dents in undergraduate education to explore subject areasand experiment in ways unimagined just 10 years ago. Thewidespread and growing use of computers in undergradu-

Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

ate education was reflected at the Project Impact confer-ence. Most of the projects utilize computers and software.And most participants indicated that school administrationsperceive technology as critical to attracting students.

The high interest in software publishing was temperedby fear of the complexity involved and several unavoid-able, ongoing problems:

Software products that are rich in content become obso-lete as soon as they are published.

Software that is not developed to be compatible with allversions of a computer (older models and newer ones)cannot reach the largest possible market, but softwarethat is compatible with older computer versions oftencannot take advantage of newer models' most advancedfeatures (e.g., video and human speech).

Software products must be regularly upgraded to elimi-nate technical problems and to keep pace with hardwareadvancements.

An important component of the software publishing en-terprise is customer service. This requires financial andhuman resources to keep pace with customer questionsand problems.

Concerns and expectations. Software publishers sharesome of the same concerns as traditional print publisherswhen it comes to innovative products fcr education:

Is the size of the market sufficient to justify the cost ofdevelopment? If not, how might the market be furtherdeveloped?

Will the product be adopted by a large segment of themarket'?

Is the content sufficiently unique so as not to competewith any of the publisher's other products?

How does the product compare with the competition?Are there similar products already on the market or is theproduct easily distinguished?

Is the product inherently useful to the student and theeducator? Does it support and enhance the curriculum?

What is the expected life of the product? How long willit remain viable? What is the cycle for revision? What isthe projected profitability of the product over its ex-pected life?

What kind of relationship can be established between theauthor/innovator and the publisher? How willing is theauthor to provide product support over the life of theproduct (e.g., participation in workshops, promotionalactivities)?

Publishers also identified new issues unique to softwarepublishing:


What is the product's level of completeness? How muchtime, money, and effort are required to bring it to mar-ket? What are the costs of development tools or licens-ing?

Is there a plan for support and maintenance of the prod-uct that includes participation of the author/innovator?Or is support and maintenance solely the responsibilityof the publisher?

Does the design of the user interface meet the expecta-tions of the market? Or does it need to be redesigned andtested?

Does the product use the most popular operating envi-ronments and computer platforms? Does it take into ac-count upcoming changes in those environments and plat-forms? Has it been tested for downward compatibilitywith earlier systems?

Is the product designed for distribution on the most ap-propriate media (computer diskette, CD-ROM)?

What testing has the product received?

Who owns the rights to the product, both the computercode and any content (including text, graphics, videosegments, and sound)?

What plan is in place to combat software piracy? Shouldthe product be encrypted?

Publishers and Pis acknowledged that in recent years thenature of the product delivered to classrooms has changed,from textbook only, to:

Textbook + ancillaries (supplementary materials, such asbooks, journal articles, study guides, charts, kits),

Textbook + ancillaries + software,

Ancillaries + software + textbook,

Software + ancillaries + textbook,

Software + ancillaries,

Software only.

These variations make it even more difficult for PIs andpublishers to determine if the product they are offering willsatisfy the needs of the market.

An underlying conflict. Though Pls know that publishersbring expertise. money, time, and the profit motive to theenterprise, they worry that publishers might take control ofthe projectand most of the profits. In fact, profit is amajor source of conflict between publishers and Pls. Whilethe publishers' goal is to make a profit, most Pls want tooffer free access to their work. Many feel that since thework was created using public funds, there is an obligationto give the work back without seeking profit.

In the case of software publishing, the problem seemsmore pronounced. With a traditional print product, Pls cansee the need for a publisher to produce the product and to

distribute and promote it to the ss idest possible audience.With software, the as ailability of electronic distributionmakes a traditional publisher seem unnecessary to manyPls. However, the cost of product development, testing,distribution, and continued customer service of software ishigh and makes a relationship ss ith a software publisherhighly desirable to ensure successful distribution.

The appeal of turning over software dissemination prob-lems to publishers is grossing. For example. one PI notedthat she began ss ith the goal of free distribution but wasquickly overss helmed w ith providing technical support forher software products: she eventually decided that if shewere to continue to serve as a softss are developer (herprimary interest), she could not continue to be a softwaredistributor.

The -do list. At the conference. software publishers andPk who hase already developed successful relationshipswith publishers identified the follow Mg ingredients o!. suc-cessful PI-developed software products:

( Transportability. The product should he useful on anational or international les el. Ideally. it should hereles ant to more than one discipline.

(2) Realistic time frame. The creator and publishershould he able to agree on a development cycle thatdelivers a quality product in a reasonable length oftime. Creators have to plan sufficient time to be in-solved with product development. Publishers have toavoid the tendency to push products to market ;leforethey are ready.

(31 Engaging presentation. Lively, attractive, and well-designed content is essential to the adoption and con-tinued successful use of the product.

(4) Personal demonstration of usefulness. The creatorshould he able to prove that successful implementa-tion of the software with students in a learning envi-ronment is likely.

(5) Ready market. The creator should he able todemonstrate that people want to use the product, in-cluding students, faculty, and key decision makerswithin the college or university administration.

(6) Pilot testing program. The creator should he able toprovide documentation of the results of pilot testing orshould have a plan for such testing. Department semi-nars, student clubs, and personal contacts are all goodsources of potential pilot test sites.

( 7 ) Documentation. A v, rg a n i /ed. ea sy -t o useinstructor's manual is essential. Demonstration soft-ware and sample materials will improve the chancesof a successful marketing effort.

()I 'eft ti irs (/// i)LSActill Mid! )0 and Publishing

Publishing Multimedia

The popularity of multimedia softw are products for educa-tionthose that employ a combination of text, graphics.sound, and video--is growing. Conference participants at-tributed this growth to several factors. One factor is theawareness that people think and learn in different ways. Forexample, one student might he considered a visual learnerwhile another might be an auditory learner. In fact, educa-tors have found that most learners experience success wheninformation is presented in a combination of formats.When multiple media are combined, the potential for learn-ing is at its maximum.

Many Pls believe that students are ready for the randomaccess to information resources offered by multimedia.They also believe that many colleges and universities aretechnologically ready for interactive, individualized in-struction. Pis look at the rapid growth of videodisc playersand CD-ROMs in undergraduate institutions as an indica-tion that the time is right for the development and use ofmore multimedia products. Edward Warnshuis, publisherof T.H.E. iournal, estimates that there are more than1(10.000 videodisc players and 250.000 or more CD-ROMdrives in colleges and universities throughout the UnitedStates. He estimates that the rate of growth in acquiring ofCD-ROM drives was almost 400 percent from 1991 to1994 and over fit) percent from 1993 to 1994.

Asking key questions. Pis and publishers identified somekey questions about preparing products for the market, andprovided some answers as well:

Who will use the product? Is it intended as an aid for theprofessor giving a lecture or as an exploratory tool forstudents in a lab, or both?

What is the time frame for development? It may take aslong as 3 or 4 years of development and testing to createa high-quality product.

What are the standards for high-quality multimedia prod-ucts?

( I High-quality products exhibit effective use of tech-nology, including:

Unique content. The product's array of informa-tion resources and ways of combining themshould offer something beyond what is availablein a textbook or in other computer-based produc ts.

Ease of use. Users should he able to enter, use,and leave the product with a minimum of instruc-tion. On-line, context-sensitive help should beavailable at all times. Users should never feeltrapped or lost.

Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing 29

High level of interactivity. Users should be able toexplore the product at their own pace and level.Products should go well beyond the level of inter-activity provided in books (i.e., reading and turn-ing pages).

Open-endedness. Users should be able to add in-formation to the content of the product. Tools forword processing, spreadsheet development,database construction, drawing, and graphics en-hance the product's value.

(2) High-quality products serve special needs.

They serve a sensory-deprived audience by usingsight and sound to develop concepts.

They include optional captioning of informationprovided by human speech.

(3) High-quality products generate positive effects.

Users are able to accomplish more in less timethrough the use of the product.

Students demonstrate increased understandingand retention.

Students demonstrate higher motivation.

How should multimedia products address the assessmentneeds of educators? Educators agree that assessment isan important aspect of instruction, but no one knows if anassessment component will improve the marketability ofmultimedia products. If assessment is built-in, it shouldreflect what instructors actually want to know about stu-dent performance. The system for accessing and inter-preting assessment data must be easy to use or educatorswill avoid it.

What are the problems associated with copyrights? Thecontent of a multimedia product is its heart and soul.Assembling a broad and rich assortment of informationis costly and time-consuming. Add to that the necessityof determining the ownership of each piece of informa-tion and then obtaining permission to use it in the prod-uct.

The United States Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C.Sec.107) refers to "fair use" exceptions to the rights ofcopyright holders. While "fair use" is not defined byfederal statute, accepted guidelines suggest that repro-duction of a print source may be considered fair, depend-ing on four factors:

(1) The purpose of the use (nonprofit educational pur-poses are usually considered acceptable),

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work.

(3) The amount and proportion of the whole copy-righted work used (the smaller the proportion, themore likely the use will be considered fair).

(4) The effect the use might have on the copyrightedwork's market potential or value (U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment, April 1986).

It is unknown at this time how "fair use" will beapplied to electronically reproduced works, especially tographics, sound, music, and video. As a precaution, de-velopers of multimedia projects should meticulously re-search the copyright status of each information resourceto be included and should obtain reproduction and distri-bution rights. Such rights are often available on a feebasis and for only a limited duration. It takes time toresearch ownership of content, make contact with copy-right holders or their agents, and obtain the neededrights.

For content items that clearly fall within "fair use"guidelines, the product developers must be sure to prop-erly cite the copyright holder or the source of the con-tent. The alternative of creating all content from scratchis equally time consuming and expensive but assures thecreator and the publisher of clear rights to use the mate-rial in the product.

What criteria should be considered when choosing mul-timedia development tools? The term "multimedia de-velopment tools" refers to programs specifically de-signed to combine and organize the text, graphics, sound,and video content of a multimedia product.

For the novice developeror someone simply want-ing to create a product prototypethere are basic devel-opment tools that sequence the content elements andprovide ways to link them for interactive exploration.Basic development tools are easy to learn, and theyrequire little, if any, scripting or programming kill.Most assume that the conl-nt elements have been createdelsewhere using compatible software and can be im-ported into the development package. Developers choos-ing this path will need to consider compatible graphics,video editing, scanning, and other types of software usedto develop content for the multimedia product.

For more advanced users, or for those creating a prod-uct intended for commercial release, high-end develop-ment tools are more appropriate. Most high-end devel-opment tools enable the user to create, edit, andmanipulate content elements and combine them in com-plex and interesting ways. The learning curve on high-end programs may be more difficult, but can save timeand money over the long term. Most high-end toolsrequire scripting or programming, but the most sophisti-cated are icon-driven, employing "visual program-ming" (using a graphic metaphor for the process ofassembling the program). Most include a "run-timemodule" which allows end-users to run multimedia pro-grams created with the development tool without owninga copy of the development tool itself. Most run-time

30 Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

versions are now provided royalty-free as part of devel-opment tool packages. Debugging tools are usually in-cluded in high-end packages.

The ultimate choice of tools will depend on threefactors: the type of project, the ill level of the devel-oper, and the budget. Whatever the type of product, thecreator or publisher should choose development toolsthat are easy to learn and that speed development. Thetools should make it possible to develop versions of theproduct that run on most popular computers using a rea-sonable amount of memory. Finally, the cost of the de-velopment tools should be reasonable. Many develop-ment packages offer a discount to educationaldevelopers.

According to the August 1994 issue of Windows Mag-a:ine, some of the leading multimedia developmentpackages include Alit/tot-ware Professional (Macrome-dia), Icon Author (Aim Tech), Macromedia Director(Macromedia), Multimedia ToolBook (Asymetrix), andMultimedia Viewer (Microsoft).

Prices vary widely, from thousands of dollars to a fewhundred. Most are available to educators at a discount.The developer's package for Authorware Professionalsells for $4,995 retail, but is sold to educators for $995.Macromedia Director is priced at 51.195 retail and issold to educators for $598. Both products are availablefor Macintosh or Windows. Multimedia Viewer (a Win-dows-only product) costs around $500 retail. MultimediaToolBook (a Windows-only product) costs $895 retailand is sold to educators for $532.

Among the less-well-known packages, If verWriterProfessional from Ntergaid (a Windows-only product)sells for $4,000 retail, but costs $2,400 for educators.QiMedia from Q/Media Software (another Windows-only product) sells for $199 retail and does not offer adiscount.

The range of prices reflects the level of features andsupport available with each package. It is important toresearch development tools thoroughly before making achoice, keeping in mind not just price and current needs,but the possible future needs of the multimedia programbeing developed. Popular computing magazines aregood sources for the latest reviews and comparisons ofmultimedia authoring products. Specialized magazines,such as New Media and The World of Macintosh Multi-media, focus directly on multimedia authoring products.

Choosing a multimedia publisher. Determining what tolook for in a multimedia publisher is difficult since com-mercial publishing of multimedia is in its infancy and, thus.few publishers have established a track record. However,Pis and publishers at the conference did agree that a multi-media publisher should provide:

Expertise to determine the market for the product;

A team to convert concepts to product, including visualand audio experts, content developers, technology exper-tise, and professionals experienced in acquiring permis-sion to use multimedia information resources;

Assistance to identify the best technology platforms anddevelopment strategy;

Product support, including marketing. advertising, train-ing of sales representatives, workshops, videotapes, anddemonstration versions;

Customer support, including telephone and/or on-linesupport, return policies, free or low-cost upgrades forproduct owners, lab-packs, and other educational dis-count plans.

Working with a publisher. The publisher is not the onlyone who must bring something to the table in a multimediapublishing venture. To work successfully with a multime-dia publisher, authors should plan to:

Contact a publisher early.

Have a prototype.

Make sure that the product warrants national distribu-tion, providing evidence of this if possible.

Provide a directory of all software used to develop theproduct and al! people involved in the process.

Authors should also rcalite that many publishers willexpect to design the product, with the author acting as acontent consultant. In general, academic authors should notgo to a publisher if they do not want their projects to heedited.

Since some academic authors have already developed aproduct or are in the process of developing a product, theyseek an alternative to the standard process in which thepublisher serves as designer and developer. In this case. therole of the publisher and the author are as follows:

(1) The publisher

Develops standards for products designed and de-veloped by academic authors,

Reviews draft versions of products and decides toaccept for publication and/or makes recommenda-tions for revisions.

Provides the production services (design and print-ing of package components), dissemination system(e.g.. catalogues, order fulfillment), and customerservice support.

(2) The author

Maintains prime responsibility for design and devel-opment and aids in customer service support.

Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing 31

Facing the problems for authors. Regardless of the pub-lishing model, multimedia publishing poses some problemsfor academic authors. At the Project Impact conference.many Pis had the impression that publishers do not yetknow how to sell multimedia in general, let alone multime-dia for innovative curricula. The PIs believe that publish-ers tend to concentrate on one type of thing (e.g., justmathematics, just textbooks). This is generally a misper-ception, since most college publishers service multiple dis-ciplines and some traditional textbook publishers are cur-rently exploring multimedia publishing.

The nature of multimedia development may also meanless financial compensation for authors, since a percentageof royalty payments must he reserved for the technologyprovider (the programmer or licenser) and the copyrightholders of multimedia content materials (e.g.. photos andvideo clips).

Dissemination via the InformationSuperhighway

At many of the sessions of the Project Impact conference,there was keen interest in the telecommunications-basedInformation Superhighway and its role in:

The exchange of information in academia,

The development and dissemination of innovative edu-cational products.

The Information Superhighway refers to a digital datanetwork of computer networks used by educators and oth-ers seeking to exchange information nationally or interna-tionally. In the not-too-distant future, the superhighwaywill make long-distance text. voice, graphic, and videocommunication between individuals and among groupseasy and commonplace. For now, the superhighway refersto the Internet, which relies primarily on text-based com-munication. with some exchange of nontext files (e.g., soft-ware programs. databases, graphics).

Most PIs at the conference had had some experiencewith the Internet and were eager to find out more about itspotential. Current usage of the Internet in academia focuseson communication and research. The most popular featuresof the Internet for faculty and students are:

Electronic mailproviding instant written communica-tion within an institution and among all connected insti-tutions around the world,

On-line research--enabling users to tap into a wide arrayof libraries, archives, and databases.

All participants expressed some general concerns aboutthe Internet. Many commented on the sheer volume ofinformation accumulating on the Internet and the lack ofany monitor or referee to ensure organization and quality

control and to keep redundancy to a minimum. Many par-ticipants suggested professional societies as a good sourcefor standard setting and maintenance on the Internet.

Many educators came to the conference with the mis-taken belief that the Inrnet is a cost-free environment.They learned that institutions, corporations, individuals.and the federal government all pay fees for the develop-ment, use, and maintenance of the Iniernet. The fees arecharged according to the level of access, the kind of useinvolved (e.g., corporate vs. personal), the time of day(peak business hours vs. oft' hours). and the amount of timeused.

Many educators at the conference had questions aboutgetting started on the Internet. Such questions can best heanswered in one of the many books of instruction that arenow available. (The article, "INTERNET expeditionmaps," in the April 1994 edition of Nev'Media provides a

valuable overview of these publications.) Many Pls be-lieved that step-by-step guidelines are needed to help savetime and ensure good results. Whether experienced or inex-perienced, they all wanted to know:

How to find out what resources are available on theInternet.

How to locate a resource and make use of it,

How to join in the exchange of information and ideaspertaining to innovation and reform in education.

These questions were difficult to answer because, as yet,there is no central clearinghouse of information about whator who is on the Internet and because of the rapid growth ofthe system.

Internet publishing issues. Most PIs also wondered howpublishing via Internet compares with traditional publish-ing. Discussion among PIs and publishers centered aroundthe issues of product review, testing, marketing, and intel-lectual property.

PIs generally believed that the Internet had the potentialto improve their ability to get their products reviewed andto test and market them. Easy. quick. and direct access toeducational innovators should provide a ready pool of re-viewers and test groups, and a receptive market for innova-tive products. Providing on-line training tools, supplemen-tary teaching materials, customer service bulletin hoards,and user group lists could ensure a level of customer sup-port that builds a loyal following for the product.

The issue of intellectual property continues to confoundboth Pis and publishers. Some worried that the Internet is"the ultimate copy machine." Publishers and PIs won-dered how the system can ensure that creators are fairlycompensated for their efforts. And as products are increas-ingly developed by groups of contributors along the Infor-mation Superhighway, innovators expressed concern aboutauthorship.

1' .r

32 Overview.s on DiAsembunion and Publishing

Emerging authorpublisher relationships. Pls and pub-lishers also wondered what kind of author publisher rela-tionships will emerge from network publishing. Some par-ticipants even wondered if the advent of the Internet willbring academic print publishing to an end.

To publish or not to publish via the Internet. The ques-tion of whether to publish software on the Internet receiveda variety of responses. There was general agreement thatthe Internet is a good mechanism for the broad dissemina-tion of materials for "free." (Although there are costsinvolved for the institutions that utilize the Internet, mostPIs and the academic audience they seek to reach experi-ence the Internet as a free service.)

Some PIs have attempted to distribute software via theInternet as shareware. "Shareware" is a distributionscheme in which prospective customers download productsfrom a computer network, sample them, and pay for themonly if they decide to continue using them. Many develop-ers of academic software wit() publish shareware view it asa way to generate enough income to support continueddevelopmer.t of the software, not as a way to profit by theirwork. Most PIs who had explored this method viewed it asvery time-consuming and, ultimately, unsuccessful. Serv-ing as one's own software distributor requires a high levelof customer service and continual upgrades. which leavesless time available for software development. Besides, fewacademics support this distribution method in their role assoftware consumers. One PI noted, XXX"If I publishshareware, my colleagues think I'm trying to make money,so they won't use it."

Another method of distribution is emerging on the Inter-net. Some on-line services provide access to materials on afee or prepay basis. Those who join the service pay amembership fee and receive a password that gives access toa database of downloadable materials. In some instances,members may try the software on-line before deciding todownload it. Once the material is downloaded, the cost ischarged to the member's credit card or account number.This is one method that publishers may employ to distrib-ute software broadly, quickly, and at a reasonable cost.Electronic distribution eliminates packaging and shippingcosts, as well as theft and returns of unsold copies. Soft-ware and documentation can he upgraded as often asneeded. As Pls turn to software publishers to disseminetheir work and as more publishers decide to use the Internetas a means of distribution on a fee basis, the Internet maybecome the distribution method of choice.

Internet consensus. The consensus on the Internet's valueto educators as a vehicle for information exchange waspositive. Many participants pointed to the Internet as aplace where there is enough room to accommodate smallinterest groups that might otherwise he unable to sustain

themselves. They also noted the capacity of the Internet toencourage the growth of vigorous technical societies. Mostbelieved that the ultimate benefit of the Internet is its abilityto "level the playing field" for educators and students byproviding broad access to the same resources and commu-nications channels for all.

Recommendations to ConferenceParticipantsThe commercial publishers, Pls, and NSF staff shared thesense that a continued cooperative effort among all partiesis needed. All of the participants offered specific feedbackthat they believed would result in greater dissemination ofprojects and information into the higher education market.

Advice for Educational Innovators

Publishers offered many solid suggestions for ways that Plscould help ensure successful publication and adoption oftheir work. First and foremost, they want PIs to base theirwork on ongoing testing and educational research. Theyalso strongly suggested that innovators work incremen-tally. keeping in mind that sweeping change does not occurovernight and may be counterproductive.

Publishers encouraged PIs to make their material flexi-ble so it can he individualizedan important feature forsuccess. They also encouraged an emphasis on changesdriven by customer demand (student or instructor), whichwill ensure a ready market.

Publishers want Pls to "go out and preach to the uncon-verted." They believe PIs should be motivated to giveworkshops and talks and to publish information about theirwork in journals. In addition, publishers believe that PIscan create an environment to encourage faculty members tochange. They recommended that PIs actively encouragefaculty to attend faculty enhancement workshops. Theyalso suggested that Pls work with other technologicallyproficient faculty members to offer workshops for seniorfaculty who are not up to speed.

Publishers want PIs to "build bridges in lots of differentdirections." To this end, they encouraged building consen-sus on needconvincing the administration, firing-up de-partment heads, and inviting department heads and keyadministrative personnel (e.g., dean of academic affairs) tobecome partners in innovative projects. Publishers re-minded Pls that it is important to "get people to understandwhat you are really doing, not what they think you aredoing." Publishers believe that an important step in"building bridges" is to involve a high-profile facultymember in the project. They believe that senior facultymust endorse reform and he supportive if innovative prod-ucts are to he successfully adopted.

Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

Visibility is important to publishers. To that end, theyencouraged innovators to hold exhibits (similar to thoseavailable at the Project Impact conference) at departmentmeetings. Publishers also encouraged Pls to create videosshowing the changes in educational content and methodol-ogies in their disciplines over the decades to "minimize thefear of change by seeing the history of change in educa-tion."

In general. publishers believe that teaching institutionshear the primary responsibility to create a market for inno-vative teaching techniques and materials. Publishers urgedinstitutions of higher education to emphasize the develop-ment of strong teaching skills as part of graduate educa-tionso that professors-in-training will emerge as excel-lent instructors and will value improved teaching materials.

Advice for Publishers

Pls want publishers to use more imaginative marketingsurveys to identify unmet needs and market niches thatmay nurture innovation. They believe that publishers canhelp to ease the pain of innovation by encouraging evolu-tionary changeintroducing some elements of reform inestablished products.

Pis hope that publishers can he flexible in the productdevelopment process, allotting more time for innovativeproduct development. They also hope that publishers candevelop or adapt marketing strategies to accommodatethose projects that may take some time to establish a mar-ket. For example, Pis suggested that publishers might de-velop and conduct educational innovation workshops. Theworkshops could he used to help authors spread the newsabout innovation and to train instructors in the use of inno-vative products. One publisher suggested that it mightmake sense :o establish separate electronic forums to build"mindsharc"a cadre of educators who are receptive to ageneral direction in educational reform or to specific inno-vations.

There were many suggestions related to improvement ofthe review process. Pls hope that publishers will ehoesereviewers for innovative projects more wisely, looking forthose reviewers who have a track record with innovationand who can fairly evaluate the merits and shortcomings ofa project. Pis also suggested that a higher rate of pay forreviewers would bring more qualified people into the pooland generate better results of the review process.

Overall, Pis hope that publishers will show more will-ingness to take some risks with innovative products andthat short-term profit will not he their only goal.

Recommendations to NSF

Participants at the Project Impact conference offered awide variety of recommendations to NSF. Some mirror


actions already being taken. Many other valuable sugges-tions are currently under review.

Actions NSF is already taking. As recommended by con-ference participants, NSF will continue to:

Serve as a catalyst for the transfer of knowledge andtechnologies created in academia to the marketplace.

Require that grant proposals include a review of relevantpast literature (journals and other media). New innova-tive efforts are more likely to be productive and success-ful if the new investigators profit from the lessons oftheir predecessors. It often does not occur to curriculumreformers that others may have tried similar things in thepast. Furthermore, linking a reform to past reforms maytap an audience of potential adopters--educators whoare already sympathetic to past reforms.

Maintain elements of NSF's existing proposal processthat encourage broad dissemination.

Continue to require innovators to explain how theproject's utility will he demonstrated and how feed-back will he obtained.

C'ontinue to require a detailed dissemination plan.Dissemination is expected of all grant recipients andcannot he an afterthought. A plan to test ideas andmaterials at other institutions, including identificationof collaborators, is required as part of the dissemina-tion plan. This requirement develops champions forthe innovation at other institutions and ensures thatthe ideas and materials are transportable.

Assistance in developing dissemination plans willhe continued through publications such as the User-Friendly I landlhwk jOr Project Dissemination, pub-lished by NSF (Ely and liuberman, 1993).

If dissemination is not an integral part of a proposal,"add-on" funding can be considered. Once projectmaterials have been tested and validated, assistancemay he provided to make potential users aware of the

new resources and establish access points for these

new materials.

Facilitate communication with professional societiessince most of these organizations have dissemination asa major objective. Close association with professionalsocieties has proven to he one of the best mechanisms fordissemination. Continued and enhanced participation atprofessional society conferences and meetings throughworkshops, presentations, and "education expos" andthrough periodical publications (columns, news briefs)can he effective and often inexpensive ways to dissemi-nate new ideas and products. Exhibits at these meetingsoffer still another channel.

Submit abstracts and status reports of NSF projects tohigher education newsletters on a continuing basis.



Expand the horizons for dissemination mechanisms be-yond the current emphasis on textbooks and other printpublications to include:

---Electronic repositories accessible via the Internet. Arecently funded NSF project to establish a centralrepository for computer science course materialsshould be a great help in accessing course materialsfrom various repositories by providing a single entrypoint. A general problem, however, is having materi-als maintained after a repository is initially estab-lished. Other problems include determining whichitems in a repository are still current and providingreviews that indicate the value of available items.Funding should be provided to address these prob-lems.

Workshops to review project results and to providepeer feedback.

--Presentations at conferences (e.g., national and re-gional educational computing conferences) and atother institutions.

Fund more projects dealing with higher level courses.The goal is to encourage some projects that specificallytarget upperclass major courses.

Take affirmative action to include the 2-year collegesand predominantly minority institutions in an investmentin educational research.

Recommendations currently under review. Conferenceparticipants recommended that NSF:

Hold more Project Impact conferencesperhaps oneevery 2 years. Conferences should include Pls, adminis-trators (provosts and deans), and more publishing indus-try representatives.

Getting innovators, administrators, and publishers to-gether and talking with one another for a few days is aneffective way of making the professoriate and other par-ticipants in educational innovation aware of the varietyof creative work that is going on around the country.

Improve future Project Impact conferences as follows:

Consider broadening the emphasis of future confer-ences to include not just dissemination but adoptionand incorporation of one another's work. Also em-phasize the lessons that can he learned about betterdissemination from the experience of adopting theinnovations of others.

Provide workshop discussion leaders with more di-rection on how to perform their role effectively.

Make the conference longer to give attendees moretime to explore the project presentation booths. Aftermuch time and effort was expended to set up the

Overviews on Dissemination and PubhAhing

booths, most attendees had time to visit only a tinyfraction of the displays.

Invite assistant professors who show interest in buthave no NSF funding to attend as conference guests.The opportunity to observe the size, diversity, andexpertise of the DUE community and to appreciateNSF's commitment to education could help legiti-mize these activities in the eyes of younger facultymembers.

Encourage Pls to bring students along as conferenceparticipants who can speak about educational reformfrom the standpoint of the final "customers."

Whenever an education reform grant is awarded, ask therecipient institution's deans and administrators to ex-plain to NSF how they plan to help the faculty diffusetheir work across campus. Suggest that, just as institu-tions have found it necessary to provide an infrastructureto support their faculty's research activities, they need toprovide an infrastructure to support their faculty's educa-tion reform and improvement activities.

Hold regional workshops where administrators, re-searchers, and faculty are invited to discuss the strategicinitiatives and the incentives available to catalyze long-tem transformation of undergraduate curricula and in-struction.

Work with various publishing associations (e.g., Associ-ation of American Publishers, Software Publishers Asso-ciation) to establish ongoing dialogues and a system ofinforming publishers of creative innovations availablefor publication.

Extend incentives to influence continued developmentand adoption of innovations, including adequate rewardsfor teaching as a component of scholarship.

Increase funding support for substantive project evalua-tion. Available funding levels are generally insufficientto allow extensive assessment efforts. As part of its eval-uation efforts, NSF should use external evaluators toreceive early feedback and assessment of the directionand progress of each project so as to determine the likeli-hood of its success.

Provide guidelines for successful publishing to those Plswithout prior academic publication experience (espe-cially Pls whose focus has been software and multimediadevelopment). For example, let them know that theyshould conduct a professional literature search, explainwhy and how their efforts could be implemented else-where, and provide evidence as to the success of theinnovation in terms of student performance.

Foster the establishment of a regular electronic forumand, ideally, a central clearinghouse for considering andcritically evaluating innovative approaches to teaching

01111ettS MI Dissemination and Publishing

college science, mathematics, engineering, and technol-ogy. Use the forum to air and evaluate the issues ofintellectual property rights and copyright protection, andto work with other federal agencies to help resolve these

problems. The clearinghouse could be in the form of anelectronic database of NSF-funded and other innovativeprojects and products, as well as information for contact-ing innovators. This will ensure awareness of and accessto previously unknown resources. The mathematics ar-

chive at the University of Tennessee and the EisenhowerNational Clearinghouse on Mathematics and Science In-structional Materials at Ohio State University couldserve as models for adaptation.

Also encourage the establishment of an electronic bul-letin board for rapidly disseminating small-scale innova-tive ideas for changing science courses or, conceivably,for updating popular textbooks.

Revise NSF proposal requirements to include the follow-


Provide guidance to future PIs through final reportson NSF grant projects. In particular, reports should

include a section on goals a'.:complished and futureplans for dissemination.

Consider at least brief dissemination of reports onunsuccessful projects. The information that some-thing did not workthat students exposed to the in-novative approach did no better or perh,qps did worsethan the control groupis data that will be useful toothers.

Pls should be assured that the more effectively theydescribe and analyze efforts that did not work, themore likely it is that NSF reviewers will value theirproject highly. In particular. PIs should he encouragedto develop powerful cautionary stories that are based

on data and that convey the wisdom of experience.

Require that transportability be planned from thestart. Instructional innovators should plan to exposeideas early and often during the project to the scrutinyof other educators who might eventually adopt theinnovation. Project team members should plan to at-tend national conferences and regional meetings, andto participate in electronic network list servers. Plans

should include video recording students using the in-novative materials or approach, as a means of sharingthe learning environment with other educators. Plansshould always include pilot testing at other sites.

Provide a plan for reform that addresses not justsweeping change, but modular change that would ap-peal to conservative professors and limited budgets.

Establish quality control procedures for project out-puts prior to dissemination. In his report on the Proj-

ect Impact conference. Don Ely of Syracuse Univer-


sity makes a strong case for quality controls based notjust on empirical data but on the subjective opinionsof a sampling of potential users (both instructors andstudents) concerning:

The project's level of sophistication;

The believability and validity of the source (e.g.,the innovators' track record);

The project's pertinence to the needs of the audi-ence (i.e., practicality);

The work's clarity, style, readability, and flair incommunication;

The quality and substance of the content;

The timeliness of the innovation.

NSF should consider the review procedures used bythe National Diffusion Network and Project Kaleido-scope as resources for developing its own procedures.

Consider shifting the focus of project evaluation andcontinued NSF funding to the probability of successfuladoption, using a three phase approach:

Phase 1: Fund preliminary research and work with apilot audience of students and faculty. Make it clear toPls that continued funding beyond Phase I will focuson replication of the innovation and, ultimately. large-

scale dissemination.

Phase 2: Submit the Phase I project, along with a planfor beta testing at other sites, to peer review. Fund thebeta test only if the PI can convince the review panelthat the project is highly likely to be succe' fullyreplicated at other sites. If the panel is unconvinced,discontinue the project. Conduct beta testing of ascale replica at other sites. Assess the ultimate out-comes of the project and its potential for broad dis-


Phase 3: Submit the results of Phase 2, along with aplan for national distribution, to peer review. Funddissemination only if Phase 2 was successful and ifthe distribution plan identifies a clearinghouse mech-anism for expertise and dissemination that will sup-port all those who seek to adopt the new innovation.

The result of this shift in focus would be more fundsfor Phase 2 and 3, limiting the number of Phase I proj-ects. However, it would result in greater disseminationand adoption of those projects most likely to succeed.

Shift a greater proportion of funds to long-term projects,thereby giving PIs the space to make the kinds of mis-takes that are inevitable when trying things that are gen-uinely innovative and difficult. NSF should make it clearthat the slow progress of educational reform indicates notthat reformers are doing a poor job but that this is work


36 Overviews on Dissemination and Publishing

fraught with difficulty and a high likelihood of falsestarts and problems.

Look for links between current grants and facilitate con-tacts among Pls. Increase Pis' awareness of others doingsimilar work. All need to read the reports of abstracts offunded projects published by NSF and other sources(e.g., UME Trends) and to establish contact with person-nel working on similar projects.

Closer relationships should also be developed be-tween course/curriculum development projects and fac-ulty enhancement projects within NSF. A disseminationofficer within NSF could help to develop disseminationplans, set standards, coordinate efforts among projects,and perform outreach activities to professional organiza-tions, university administrators, and the public massmedia.

Facilitate public domain sharing of new materials devel-oped with NSF funds to encourage participation in fieldtesting by potential users. Some projects are alreadymaking materials available to users at little or no cost.Cost is sometimes an impediment to acquisition, andNSF should do everything in its power to facilitate ac-cess to materials produced by projects it funds.

Once materials are validated, negotiations can pro-ceed with commercial organizations, which are morelikely to support curriculum materials over the long termthan are the university-based developers. This type of

cooperative effort among developers, users, and com-mercial vendors offers a balanced approach to access.

Create a network of PIs to continue and follow up thepositive outcomes of the Project Impact conference.Such a network could be developed on the Internetand/or by publication of abstracts with indexes to Pis,institution, discipline, and products and instructional ap-proaches. From such a rcNwork, subsets of individualswith similar specific interests would likely form. If theInternet is used, NSF should consider organizing andfunding on-line forums of PIs with similar interests. SuchPI interest groups could become potential beta test sitesand dissemination contact points for one another's inno-vation.


Ely, D.P. and A.M. Huberman (1993) User-Friendly Handbookfor Project Dissemination: Science, Mathematics, Engineeringand Technology (NSF publication # 94-17). Washington, DC:National Science Foundation. 19 p.

Jay Sivin-Kachala and Maryelln Kohn are Vice President andResearcher /Writer respectively, for Interactive Educational Sys-tems Design (IESD), Inc., an educational technology consultingfirm in New York City. IESD provides a variety of consultingservices related to the research. evaluation, and development ofeducational technology and instructional innovation.

seuHdps!a au III N01103S


The Nature of Efforts To EffectInterdisciplinary Reform: Drivers,Barriers, and Strategies forDisseminationSteve Landry

The Backdrop for InterdisciplinaryInnovation

Momentum can be a great influence, and it can be difficultto overcome. Over the past century, the increased move-ment toward concentration within an academic disciplinehas taken charge of the curriculum, as well as serving tocompartmentalize the professoriate and the institution.Consider, for example, the extent to which an academicdiscipline results in the compartmentalizing, specializing,and vocationalizing of today's academic pursuits. The firstquestion asked of most college-bound students is "What isyour major?"; for the graduate the question is "What wasyour major?": and for the graduate student, there is evenmore specialization. Professors are hired within a disci-pline, are tenured into departments within a discipline,advise students within their academic discipline, and areresponsible for expanding the knowledge base within adiscipline, publishing in a discipline, and serving as men-tors for the next generation of specialists in that discipline.

Even in the midst of this massive flow toward 24-karatpurified disciplines, many social, technological, and aca-demic forces press us to introduce cross-disciplinary influ-ences. As a chronicler of the 1994 Project Impact confer-ence and having been asked to restrict my consideration tomultidisciplinary projects, I set out to discover and orga-nize what I call the "drivers" of the research, i.e., thoseforces. beyond pure academic curiosity, that prompt re-searchers to seek innovation in science, mathematics, andengineering education. Such drivers are somewhat obviousand hence easy to identify. Yet, for me, they seemed theappropriate organizers for this report.

Drivers for Educational Innovation

Within the context of the Project Impact conference, Iobserved what seemed to be natural distinctions that parti-tioned the projects. Some were immediately obvious andothers quite subtle. For the sake of this paper, recognizing

that I restricted my review to only 65 projects, I haveelected to partition them based on the force or driver thatcreates the impetus for the innovation. These drivers are:

The arising of new knowledge or improved content,

The desire for improved pedagogy, better resources forteaching, or new courses,

The changes in social and demographic considerations,

The desire to consider the integrating factors among thedisciplines,

The need to keep the professoriate current.

In each of the following subsections I present a briefframework for the grouping and then briefly identify sam-ple projects highlighted at the conference.

Drivers: New Knowledge orImproved Content

An explosion of new knowledge, as well as a constantsynthesis of the old with the new, propels much of thedisciplinary and interdisciplinary innovation. The first sub-category includes projects that introduce new topics intotraditional courses and those that advance new courses

Thu Disciplines

within a discipline. Another subcategory includes venturesthat promote new courses outside of any traditional disci-pline. These include efforts to introduce thematic courses thatapply to many disciplines and stress general skills such asproblem-solving skills or invention and design skills. Alsoincluded in this category are those projects that synthesizenew degree programs, such as one in "regulatory science."

Sample projects seeking to introduce new knowledge orimprove courses within a single discipline include:

Introducing modern genetic engineering into traditionalbiochemical engineering is David Graves' goal at theUniversity of Pennsylvania. He is creating experimentsand apparatuses to integrate topics related to geneticengineering into a new lab.

At the University of California at Los Angeles, HaroldMonbouquette, with the assistance of an interdisciplin-ary team, is developing lab experiences and curriculummaterials to expose students to the challenges and oppor-tunities involved in culturing and purifying productsfrom seldom-studied micro-organisms.

At State University of New York College at Brockport.John Hubbard, developed a faculty enhancement work-shop in contemporary hydrology issues for instructors ofcollege-level introductory courses with water resourcescontent. A wide variety of resources. including informa-tion databases of the U.S. Geological Survey and interac-tive computer-based teaching modules, are utilized.

To help faculty keep up with the rapidly changing fieldof computer graphics, G. Scott Owen and Valerie Millerat Georgia State offer relevant undergraduate facultyworkshops. Participants receive CD-ROM-based soft-ware.

Patricia Morse, Northeastern University, and BarbaraThorne. University of Maryland, have organized a seriesof symposia to disseminate current research and ideasconcerning biodiversity. In addition, materials such asreferences, visual aides, and support resources assist edu-cators in improving their courses.

The new field of microelectromechanical systems is thefocus of a team of engineering faculty at the Universityof Minnesota. Six new academic courses and a hands-onlab have been developed.

Sample projects seeking to introduce new knowledge orimprove courses outside a traditional discipline include:

A laboratory for exploring new ways of teaching inven-tion and design is the goal of a project by Michael Gor-man, Larry Richards, and William Scherer at the Univer-sity of Virginia.

A multimedia-based curriculum that seeks to improvecomputational problem-solving skills is the goal of Dan-iel Friedman, Susan Bard, and Russel Poch at Howard


Community College. Particular attention is given toproblems from biology, chemistry, and physics.

The team developing the "Linguistic Semantics asScience" project proposes that linguistics provides aunique medium for introducing students from a widevariety of academic backgrounds to principles of scien-tific reasoning and method. The research team atSUNYStony Brook includes Richard Larson, DavidWarren. Kostis Sagonas, and Juliana Lima.

Drivers: improved Pedagogy

Sterile lectures and lack of relevance are sources of muchof the dismay and unhappiness directed toward higher edu-cation. At some level, most of the innovations discussedthroughout this chapter address these issues, at least indi-rectly. Several projects have set out to reach new levels ofeffectiveness in pedagogy. I have divided research projectsin this classification into three subcategories: ImprovedMethods, Improved Resources and Materials, and Im-proved Course or Curriculum Designs.

Drivers: improved methods. Projects in this category at-tempt to strike at pedagogical disenchantment by payingattention to all of the elements that give life to learning:students, teachers, and the connections between learningand teaching. The recurring themes here are active learn-ing. cooperative learning, inquiry/discovery-based learn-ing, and hands-on learning. All of these methods attempt toengage the student as a full and active participant in thewhole process of the learningteaching connection.

Sample projects seeking to deliver improved pedagogi-cal methods include:

Two semester long. student-centered, active learningcourses that integrate the study of the physical and lifesciences and emphasize scientific inquiry were inte-grated into the curriculum at Nassau Community Collegeby Rhoda Berenson, Shirley Aronson-Unger, MaureenDaddona, and Tom O'Brien. The courses build on obser-vation and experimentation and rely heavily on collabo-rative student activities and on nontexthook sources.

At Lehman College of the City University of New York,a two-semester integrated mathematics and science pro-gram is run entirely as a hands-on laboratory. The pro-gram begins at the student's current level and uses adiscovery-based methodology. Investigators are JackTillman. Ronald Ellis, and Jerome Epstein.

A project seeking to replace lectures with an active/co-operative learning format using small-group problem -solving activities was undertaken by Judith Miller, JohnWilkes. and Ronald Cheetham at Worcester PolytechnicInstitute.


40 The Disciplines

Drivers: improved resources and materials. The purposehere is to leverage new technology effectively. Computers,digital networks, and multimedia aides are among the mostobvious technological advancements that assist the teacherand the student.

For the teacher, these aides facilitate the presentation ofknowledge and enliven the teaching event through visual-ization and sound. For the student. these new resourcesmean contemporary, fresh, and more relevant materials.

Sample projects seeking to deliver new teaching re-sources include:

Computer-based tools, particularly multimedia, whichare being used in a large number of projects to aid theprofessor in delivering more spirited and visually stimu-lating presentations and to empower students with inter-active lab environments. In physics, Ronald Thornton et

al. at Tufts University, Jan Tobochnik et al. atKalamazoo College, Jack Wilson at Rensselaer Poly-technic Institute, and a large team of colleagues frommany universities are using computer-based systems toprovide hands-on, interactive, and simulation-basedlearning tools. In mathematics, Gareth Williams. et al. atStetson University and Edmund Lamagna et al. at theUniversity of Rhode Island are developing interactiveenvironments to support the teaching of linear algebraand of calculus, respectively. Also in mathematics,Thomas Banchoff at Brown University is applying inter-active computer graphics to differential geometry ofcurves and surfaces. Numerous other projects are bring-ing new tools to the professoriate.

Drivers: improved course or curriculum design. As ob-served earlier, knowledge, society. and demands on thecurriculum change over time. Projects placed in this group-ing are those that seek to improve the curriculum or a givencourse explicitly through their distinct designs. In mostcases, the reverse of compartmentalizationintegration orbroadening beyond a single disciplineis put forth. Addi-tionally, new courses and curricula are being developedbecause it is perceived that there is a community that willbenefit from them.

Sample projects seeking to deliver improved course orcurriculum design include:

By integrating a common set of computer-aided toolsand reporting procedures upward through the curriculumfrom the sophomore year to the senior year, John Uhranand Eugene Henry at the University of Notre Dame. haveintroduced vertical curriculum lab support to enhance thestudent's design capacity and experience.

A sample of a new interdisciplinary course based oncontemporary perspectives is under development atThiel College. There, Guru Rattan Kaur Khalsa et al.have designed a course that examines pressing global

issues and ways in which the rich natural and culturalheritage of the Earth can be sustained. The focus is onNigeria, India, China, and Brazil.

New York University is developing an integrated three-course math/science sequence, a Science Core Programthat will be taken by all non-science-majors. Courseswill be sequential, becoming gradually more sophisti-cated, and multidisciplinary. All courses will have sub-stantial quantitative content. The students are prepared inquantitative methods by the first core course, "whichexplores connections between math and scientific in-quiry."

A ,ample of a new curriculum, developed in response to;. perceived economic and social need, is under way atIllinois Institute of Technology. Sudhir Kumar, JotinKhisty, and M. Shahidehpour are developing a curricu-lum in Railroad Transportation.

Drivers: Social/Demographic Issues

The observation has been made that, in proportion to theirpopulations, minorities and women are not present in thescience and engineering fields. In addition, this group isquickly becoming a large component of the available stu-dent population and workforce. The big questions are"How can we recruit women and minorities into scienceand engineering'? Once recruited, how can we retain themin science and engineering?" Another important questionis "What are the harriers, and how can they be elimi-nated?"

Sample projects seeking to attack social and demo-graphic issues include:

At Carlow College, Charlotte Zalew:;ky and Elaine Leeshave created a 1-semester introductory course specific-ally designed to address the needs of AfricanAmericanwomen who find science courses a roadOlock in theiracademic path and a place for failure. Numerous innova-tions close the gap between the content and pedagogicalstyle of the course and the student's experiences.

The Women and Science program conducted within theUniversity of Wisconsin System is using the talent andmentoring capacity of Distinguished Visiting Professorsin Women and Science to reach students in order toaddress the underrepresentation of women and- minori-ties in science. This project appears to be an excellentmodel for faculty development and new and revisedcourse development. The project is under the direction ofJacqueline Ross.

A new course for enhancing the Three-Dimensional Spa-tial Visualization Skills of students is under developmentby Beverly (limmestad and Sheryl Sorhy- Marlor at

The Disciplines 41

Michigan Technological University. All freshmen engi-neering students with weak three-dimensional spatialskills are the target audience. However, the Pis note that,since "women are about three times less likely than mento have these prerequisite skills, it is anticipated that thiscourse will increase the accessibility of engineering stud-ies to women."

Drivers: Integrating Disciplines

In his book, Cut-rim/um, Frederick Rudolph draws upon aprofessorial quote from 1901 to characterize the academicmalaise of that time. It states that "Young doctors of phi-losophy, fresh from the prolonged study of some remotenook of science or literature, have been turned loose onfreshmen and sophomores and have bored them to desper-ation with minutiae." While this is not the full character-ization of the ills for which reintegration of the disciplinesis intended to cure, I believe it captures much of the spirit.

Numerous projects seek to acknowledge, and henceteach from the standpoint of. the connections between dis-ciplines in order to avoid "desperation with minutiae." Insome projects the connections are concentrated around aunifying theme, but others concentrate on enhancing thestudent's understanding of the connections inherent amongdisciplines.

Sample projects seeking to reintegrate traditional dis-ciplines include:

Holding that, for the most part, "students of science andengineering . . . have a very shallow idea of their owndisciplines' connection to the common culture," Ste-phen Weininger and David Samson. at Worcester Poly-technic Institute, designed and implemented a juniorse-nior seminar that draws on physics, philosophy, biology,art history, history of science, mathematics, and com-puter science. The seminar is divided into four units: (1)Assumptions and Intuition in Science. Knowledge andMethod in Art, (2) Perspective in Art and Science: TheShared Metaphor, (3) Reductionism: Diffraction ofLight, Fragmentation of Perception. and (4) Active orPassive? How We Understand What We See.

The border between the United States and Mexico is azone of influence that magnifies the environmental. de-mographic, economic, and cultural differences of thecountries. A new course developed by Elizabeth Braker,Manuel Pastor, and Raul Villa at Occidental Collegeintegrates science, social science, and the humanities tostudy relevant issues such as immigration, agriculture.industry, and public health.

Modern manufacturing is the integrating theme for theproject undertaken by Judith Tavel et a/. at DutchessCommunity College. The project's goal is to design a

"single, unified course integrating elements from whatare currently separate courses in introductory mathemat-ics, chemistry, physics. English, and reading" to educatepersonnel working in industry.

Drivers: Keeping the Professoriate Current

Not only must courses and curricula evolve but the profes-soriate must also in order to cope with an expanding knowl-edge base, new technologies, and advances in pedagogy.The following collection of projects sought to providelearning opportunities for college professors so they couldenhance their own classes.

Sample projects seeking to advance the learning of pro-fessors include bc;1 discipline-based projects and outside-of-discipline projects.

Discipline-based projects. These projects seek to enrich ateacher's knowledge in his/her own discipline and are par-ticularly influenced by new developments and the need forexpertise and specially equipped laboratories:

An Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement short-coursethat focuses on lasers and their application to solvingchemical problems has been designed and implementedby Ben DeGraff, Dom Peterson, and David Homer atJames Madison University.

An interdisciplinary (biology, geography, and chemistry)workshop on the Chesapeake Bay has been designed andimplemented by Patricia Cunniff et al. at PrinceGeorge's Community College and the Chesapeake Re-search Consortium.

Outside-of-discipline projects. Those projects that seek toadvance a teacher's knowledge in an area other than his/herprimary discipline include:

The objective of the project by Clayton Ruud et al. atPennsylvania State University is to use manufacturing toillustrate principles of science, mathematics, and engi-neering. Faculty from these disciplines are exposed tometal casting, machining, electronics, assembly, and nu-merically controlled dimensioning and milling. The goalis for the faculty to use these experiences to add vitalityand relevance to their own teaching.


The Changing Landscape

There is an evolution going on. The primary medium ofdistribution is changing from textbooks to software. It is

happening slowly when compared with expectations gener-ated by the current public hype. At the same time, it is

42 The Disciplines

happening rapidly when compared against the hundreds ofyears during which the printed text was the primary me-dium of dissemination. In one of the discussion groups onsoftware publishing, the following observation was pre-sented to represent the changing of teachers' support mate-rials:

The traditional form: the book only

Add additional support: book + ancillaries:

Add dynamic support: book + ancillaries + software:

Change focus: ancillaries + software + book

Change focus more: software + ancillaries + book:

Integrate: software + ancillaries:

Integrate more: software.

This evolution is neither linear nor monotonic. However,the tendencies are obvious and persistent. Technologicaladvances in computing, multimedia, voice recognition. andnetworking continue to reach new thresholds that beg fornew applications in teaching.

Barriers to Dissemination

While progress invites new applications, it is apparent thatmany barriers must be confronted by the disseminator ofinnovation. Some barriers are technological, such as a lackof standards and many different platforms. Some resultfrom the cost of putting enough systems in classrooms andin labs. Other barriers stem from the lack of expertise indeveloping fully effective materials. Some simply arise asa broad, diverse, and in some cases stubborn or fearful,professoriate avoids change or becomes lethargic whenconfronted with attempts to integrate new tools and meth-ods into crammed courses and jammed curricula. The dif-ferences between the academic cultures at 2-year institu-tions, 4-year undergraduate institutions, and researchuniversities introduce complications to the broad accep-tance of some innovations.

In addition, the issues associated with transfer credits foran innovative interdisciplinary course can be a real obsta-cle. For multidisciplinary innovations, the existing disci-plinary organization, and in some cases accreditation,poses an inherent impediment to adoption.

For the reformersthose individuals or teams attempt-ing to disseminate an innovationobstacles and harriersare sometimes close at home. Existing reward systemsoften demand research that advances the discipline. Also.faculty often meet with resistance from administrators whochoose not to support advancing pedagogy, in favor ofother activities.

Attending to Dissemination

From the beginning. If dissemination is to he effective, itshould be considered an integral part of a project from thebeginning. Much of the success of dissemination dependson the initial reformer or the designer of the project. Dis-semination will often depend on his/her willingness topropagate the results. However, this is also a process thatrequires considering the needs of those who might adoptthe innovation. In short, if dissemination is to be success-ful, there must often be a willingness to carry the ball andto accept feedback. At the outset, the innovator shouldthink about how the project's utility will be demonstratedand how feedback will be obtained.

A key result of considering dissemination early in theprocess can be transportability. Front-end steps should in-clude consulting with someone who knows about dissemi-nation. Involving a publisher can be an effective means toimproving the likelihood of successful dissemination. Asone would suspect, it is wise to cast the nets broadly and bediscerning when selecting a publisher. The publisher's ex-perience should be used to get a deep understanding ofwhat dissemination will require and to get support for mar-keting. layout, permissions, editing, and other aspects ofdeveloping project results. This is particularly importantfor multimedia projects that require a diverse set of talents.An advisory board may also be useful.

Throughout the project. During the developmental phaseof the project, it is easy to overlook activities related todissemination because of the focus on developing results.However, a few simple activities accomplished concur-rently (and even in support of development) can improvethe dissemination results. It is valuable to expose ideasearly and frequently to obtain feedback. At the local level,it can be useful to use local departmental seminars or stu-dent clubs as sounding boards. A broader range of endeav-ors to consider are national conferences, regional meetings,and electronic network list servers. Keep in mind that somespecifications for the project may change through usageand may require consideration and implementation beforedissemination is possible.

Throughout development, it is important to look aheadto devices such as videotapes of students in labs and jour-nals from teams working on the project that will supportdissemination at a later stage. As the end of the projectapproaches, it is important to develop pilot testing pro-grams. Regionally based colleagues often serve as the mosteffective beta sites because they are nearby and can easilyhe obtained through personal contacts.

Actions for dissemination. It is clear that excellent andworthy results alone will not guarantee quick and broaddissemination. Indeed, it is necessary to prove that your

The Disciplines 43

results will be of value to others. To this end, it is worth-while to identify willing listeners, give personal demon-strations of an innovation, and develop a network of satis-fied users. The source of assistance for building aneffective network can often begin with enrolling a seniorand recognized colleague to endorse and assist with theproject. Increasingly. free media such as electronic networklist servers, electroL.c mail, workshops, and visiting lec-tures are effective ways to publicize results and their poten-tial for application. In some instances, newsletters,minicourses, or teleconferencing are effective promotionalmechanisms. Obviously, when a publisher is involved, anoutreach potential is already established. When software ormultimedia is the medium of delivery, plugging into exist-ing user groups can provide an instant dissemination net-work. Another option for software and multimedia is thedistribution of samples.

There are indeed trade-offs between producing a com-plete package that is ready for adoption versus providing aframework that permits the adopter to customize the prod-uct. In general, however, innovations that have been devel-oped with dissemination in mind will be easier for others to

adopt if they are (1) transportable, modular, and flexible;(2) scalable and adaptable for incremental use; (3) welldocumented, including instructors manual, demonstrationsoftware, sample materials, and tutorials; and (4) low incost.

For initiatives that involve software and multimedia,much of the publishing context is the same as for traditionaltext. That is, one must consider market size, contentuniqueness, and the competition. Items that are of particu-lar concern for these media are completeness, maintenance,user interface, operating environment, distribution media,and the need for additional support products.

On the emerging frontier of distribution over the Inter-net, numerous key parameters are evolving quickly and canpose unique problems. Among these are pricing/payment,piracy, encryption, general availability, and access.

Steve Landry is Director of Research and Sponsored Programsand Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University ofSouthwestern Louisiana. Dr. Landry's research interests includeknowledge representation, computer architecture, and artificialintelligence.


Current Trends inUndergraduate BiologyJeffr-ey L. Fox


Diverse efforts are under way to improve the teaching ofundergraduate biology in the United States. Two broadtrends are particularly noteworthyone emphasizingresearchlike laboratory experiences and the other the in-creased use of computers to supplement classroom andlaboratory teaching. Other smaller-scale changes are alsobeing implemented in undergraduate biology courses.Many of these changes are aimed at non-science-majorswho need to develop a basic science literacy and an appre-ciation of modern biology.

Diversity is an overall strength of the U.S. educationalsyst m. However, many college-level biology facultymembers are concerned that the teaching of their disciplineis too diverse. Critically, biology lacks a central clearing-house for evaluating, recognizing, and rapidly distributingoutstanding new ideas about teaching as well as new teach-ing materials that spring up at the hundreds of universities,colleges, community colleges. and other higher educationfacilities around the country. Hence, many biologists arewondering how promising new software packages or cur-r;ailum supplements can best be evaluated and, once ac-cepted, efficiently disseminated to maximize the impact ofthese innovative developments on undergraduate students.

In courses for biology majors. the main focus of changeis the laboratory, and an important secondary focus is theincreased use of computers and specialized software. Forexample, software is being developed to extend the con-ventional laboratory course, including programs that create"virtual" data sets that simulate what would otherwiserequire students to do time-consuming, costly repeats ofmany experiments. Although the current emphasis is ontraining undergraduate students how to think about biolog-ical systems, biology faculty members continue to developinnovative ways for helping biology majors to appreciatethe breadth and depth of the field. Here, too, computer-as-sisted approaches are proving helpful, particularly for stu-dents taking courses in esoteric subspecialties of biology.

NSF-sponsored innovations aimed at making biologymore interesting and accessible to undergraduate non-sci-ence-majors, are taking many directions. Sometimescourses emphasize historical approaches or develop otherstrategies to make biology more immediately relevant andengaging for such students. For example, some courses

draw attention to human biology or other health and envi-ronmental issues and then explain the underlying biologywith examples taken from current issues and events. Forinstance, several new biology courses for nonmajors fea-ture an increased emphasis on computer simulations ofpopulation dynamics or large-scale environmental phe-nomena. In some cases, biology faculty members are de-veloping query-based ways to engage both majors and non-majors with relatively simple laboratory exercises designedto be unintimidating, effective teaching devices.

In this brief overview of current trends in teaching un-dergraduate biology, faculty experts outline common prob-lems and some of the new materials being developed forclassroom and laboratory use; new strategies to teach biol-ogy majors using specialized software or revamped coursesthat emphasize innovative approaches to the general sub-ject, such as teaching biology through women's healthissues; new approaches to teaching nonmajors, includingcourses that emphasize Darwin or other historical figuresand laboratory workshops showing the importance of theexperimental approach in biology; and the general value ofquery-based approaches in biology courses for both majorsand nonmajors.

Analysis of Common Problems, Trends inTeaching College Biology

The teaching of undergraduate biology is changing dynam-ically. Faculty members throughout the United States say

TI 45

their efforts to reform biology curricula would benefit from aforum for exchanging and evaluating new ideas and ap-proaches to teaching courses for both majors and nonmajors.Although a central clearinghouse might best serve this pur-pose, an annual meeting or regular series of NSF-sponsoredworkshops at which biologists could discuss such matterswould be a useful step toward realizing this concept. In anycase, a concerted effort is needed to keep pace with new andchanging approaches, particularly with the growing emphasison the use of computer-based materials to supplement tradi-tional forms of instruction. Moreover, these changes will re-quire enhanced cooperation and understanding between biol-ogists and commercial publishers.

Because biology is such a sprawling field, biology teach-ers find it difficult to speak with a common voice. More-over, they have no central group to which they can turn foradvice on teaching. Not only is there no central mechanismbut also no regular forum for discussing issues such as idealcourse content, critical goals, and innovative strategies forteaching biology at the college level.

To a certain extent, the professional societies, such as theAmerican Society for Microbiology and the American So-ciety of Zoologists, have recognized and are trying to fillthis gap, but their efforts are fragmentary because they arelimited by disciplinary focus. Hence, many college-levelbiology teachers agree that developing some form of acentral clearinghouse to review new publicationssuch astextbooks and software packagesand to provide informa-tion about new approaches to teaching and developing ameans for evaluating those approaches, would be welcome.

Although some careful review of new teaching materialsis conducted on an ad hoc basis, a central clearinghousecould institute systematic reviews to ensure the consistenthigh quality of such new materials. It might also helpshorten the lag time before teaching innovations are widelyadopted. One key to shortening this lag may be to focusinitially on the middle tier of institutions that are sympa-thetic to new teaching approaches rather than on thoseeither bound to traditional approaches or those in the van-guard of change. Moreover, appealing to administratorsand even the surrounding community, where appropriate,may be useful in overcoming barriers for such innovations.

In the absence of a central clearinghouse for informa-tion, national and regional workshops devoted to educa-tional themes are viewed as helpful devices. Many biolo-gists espouse the notion of a regular conference on biologyeducation, similar to the Gordon Conferencea well-es-tablished annual series of week-long meetings where spe-cialists gather to discuss recent scientific developmentsinformally. The liberal use of electronic bulletin boards isalso regarded as a useful means for sharing at least theoutlines of new programs and curricula. The more tradi-tional journals, although potentially useful for distributinginformation on such topics, have an important drawback in

that not one reaches the full audience biology educatorsseek.

Expanded cooperation with commercial publishers isviewed as another important means of achieving educa-tional reforms in biology, but there is wariness on bothsides of this potential partnership. Innovative tools devel-oped in colleges or universities may have little impactunless they are widely disseminated by the private sector.Yet, some educators resist commercial development. Somebiologists developing innovative approaches for teachinggeneral and specialized courses say they are not sure whichefforts are ready for wholesale adoption and which requirefurther work. This uncertainty makes some of them reluc-tant to approach commercial publishers.

Some educators prefer to distribute materials they de-velop freelyoften haphazardly relying on word of mouthto alert others that the material is availablewithout copy-right protection, commercial backing, or expectations ofprofits. Others simply do not care to take the extra respon-sibility that goes with commercial development: the refine-ments, commitment to making revisions, and so forth.

At the same time, many educators question publishers'commitment to innovative teaching approaches because somany biology textbooks look alike. Some educators thusquestion whether unusual approaches recommended fromsome academic centerssuch as greater reliance on CD-ROM and piecing together materials from separate text-bookswill become acceptable to publishers. Throughoutthese discussions, educators emphasize the value and im-portance of peer review for new materials being consideredfor wide use, and some of them express explicit qualmsover the substitution of marketing analysis for genuine peerreview.

Meanwhile, growing interest in and increasing relianceon electronic communication and electronic teaching toolsare changing the way publishers in the private sector con-duct their business. These rapid-fire developments have putpublishing in a state of flux that has many publishers per-plexed over several attendant issues, such as the dispositionof intellectual property rights and the anticipated change inrelative roles of electronic versus printed texts over thenext decade.

Several new forces are at work, but their impact on theteaching of biology is still uncertain. For instance, someeducators are experimenting with exchanges of course ma-terials over the Internet. This communication process eas-ily bypasses traditional commercial publishers but, at leastin some cases, may entail forfeiting copyright protection.Publishers are wondering how these changes will affectthem if and when they try to incorporate materials intoconventional textbooks or other commercially marketablematerials for college-level biology courses.

Despite these complications, many academic biologistsrecognize that publishers in the private sector can add value

46 The Disciplines

to good products and certainly help with the disseminationand wide adoption of those products through marketingefforts.

Innovations Aimed Primarily atBiology Majors

The main focus of change for biology majors is the labora-tory. Educators generally agree that students benefit greatlyfrom lab work when it fits the research mode. Achievingthat goal requires resources for equipment and supplies andputs heavy demands on faculty members for their time andexpertise in design of the students' researchlike undertak-ings. Implementing researchlike approaches in more under-graduate biology lab courses is viewed as a majorchallenge.

Even when resources for meeting this challenge are rela-tively plentiful, adjunct materials are helpful, if not vital,for rounding out the learning experience of biology stu-dents. For instance, various software packages are beingdeveloped or already are being used to broaden students'laboratory experience and make it more researchlike inways that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.

(1) Software that simulates researchlike approach.Since 1986, a group of faculty members from more than adozen institutions, primarily in the Midwest, has cooper-ated in developing and critically reviewing software proto-type laboratory simulationsknown as BioQUESTthatfoster a researchlike approach to learning biology. In aconventional laboratory students might perform one or twogood experiments. According to John Jungck of BeloitCollege, one of the principal developers of this approach,BioQUEST enables students to analyze data as if they haddone dozens of such experiments, thereby allowing them togenerate hypotheses and think like researchers. "This ma-terial is supplementary to wet lab and field experiments,not a replacement," he says.

About a dozen high-quality simulations covering a widevariety of research specialties are now available throughBioQUEST, including packages for microbial genetics,axon physiology, fruit fly genetics, and protein sequences.Although the materials were designed primarily for col-lege-level majors, they can be used by nonmajors and evenhigh school students. According to Jungck, these softwarepackages are now used in 50 to 100 colleges and universi-ties.

In a similar but independent effort, Brad Kincaid andPeg Johnson of Mesa Community College and Anton Law-son of Arizona State University are incorporating a com-puter software package as part of an inquiry-oriented ap-proach to teaching biology. The computer phase of thestudents' activities reinforces their laboratory explorationof new concepts. Early in the course, the program empha-

sizes palpable elements of biology rather than its abstractmolecular and cellular underpinnings. Computer materialsenable students to follow a line of thought from the labora-tory work or to examine diagrams and micrographsreadily accessible on-screendescribing a particularly in-teresting creature in depth, through the review of detailedimages or analytic readings on the laboratory's subject.

(2) Women's health. Instead of teaching biology withthe traditional lectures that focus first on chemistry, cellbiology, and basic physiology, the biology faculty at theCollege of St. Catherine are experimenting with a coursebased on two themesthe biology of women and women'shealth and the biology of the environment. The goal is tospark student interest in biology by teaching cellular, mo-lecular, and physiological details in the context of theirown bodies and in the larger social frameworks surround-ing these issues.

For example, during the first semester, the class spendsabout 4 weeks studying the menstrual cycle and reproduc-tive biologycovering hormones, cellular changes, repro-ductive anatomy, and some neurobiology on early nervoussystem and brain development. Once this segment is com-plete, the traditional subject of genetics is presented also interms of sex differences between males and females, inher-ited tendencies to develop breast, ovarian, or cervical can-cer, and so forth. Although this format does not cover asmuch content as the traditional approach, St. Catherine'sDeborah Wygal says it generates greater interest amongtheir students.

The laboratory approach for this course is also nontradi-tional, with students doing full-semester projects on a gen-eral topic that fits with the course theme. For instance,students study vaginal microtlora for the first semester andacid rain for the second term. The biggest problem here,and elsewhere, is finding workable group dynamics in afour- or five-person team.

(3) Invertebrate biology by hypertext. Although manyteachers of introductory courses in biology are movingaway from an emphasis on content, some teachers say thisoption will not work for specialized courses. Regardless oftime compression, they still want their students to learn thecomplete body of material. For one such course in inverte-brate zoology, Kerry Clark of the Florida Institute of Tech-nology has been adapting computer hypertext to be anenrichment tool and a "hook" to catch the interests of hisstudents. Often several students hover together at a com-puter terminal, working cooperatively to master the mate-rial. His initial focus on developing the software materialseventually led him to revise and "groom" course lectures,making them compatible with the material used on thecomputer.

Clark's long-temi project is full of gimmicks and humor,including t-shirt contests, computer-generated correct pro-nunciations of multisyllable species names, software-em-

The Disciplines 47

bedded "treasure hunts" that serve as learning tools, de-tailed color diagrams and micrographs, and much more.Some 1,500 cards are entered in the system, which hecontinues to expand and improve. Clark began selling thesystem at cost in 1993, but he has little interest in marketingthe material, saying that "debugging" efforts are moreimportant.

(4) Learning of advances in particular fields. For adecade, the zoologists who established "Science as a Wayof Knowing" have assembled materials from a symposiumthey periodically convene into a journal supplement. Ac-co, ding to Patricia Morse of Northeastern University thismaterial is then used by teachers to enrich specializedclasses, acquainting students with developments in a par-ticular field of interest in biology. The symposia are in-tended for undergraduate-level students but can be used atthe high school and graduate levels. Materials from a recentsymposium on biodiversity could be used as a module in anintroductory college-level course in biology, Morse notes.

Innovations For Nonmajors

The innovations aimed at making biology more interestingand accessible to nonmajors are highly diverse. There is noobvious way to classify or evaluate these efforts, many ofwhich are brand new and admittedly tentative. Moreover,some efforts are geared to specific student bodies withspecial needs or interests. The following descriptions pro-vide a representative sampling of approaches, being triedaround the country.

(1) Darwinism from varied perspectives. A group offaculty members from approximately 10 different depart-ments at Baruch College is developing an unusualnonmajors' course focusing on Darwinism. The course typ-ically has 3,000 students per year. many of whom arebusiness and accounting majors. The approach will be todescribe how Darwin's findings in natural biology and histheory of evolution have affected far-flung disciplines, in-cluding social and political science as well as economicsand philosophy.

An important element of this course is the presentationof Darwin as a person, points out John Wahlect of Baruch,one of two biologists who is helping teach the course. Thesubject matter becomes more interesting and accessible tothe students, who see Darwin as an "appealing character,"he says. Discussions throughout the course have provedmore lively, engaging students who tend not to participatein other settings where biology is taught.

(2) Historical case studies. In a similar vein, the biologyfaculty at Radford College are using a series of historicalcase studies to presentand "humanize"important con-cepts, mainly from 20th-century biology, for nonmajors.The typical course enrolls 2,0(X) students in sections of 125,

according to Radford's Joel Hagen. He points out that thecourse itself is still in an "experimental state." In particu-lar, he and his colleagues are trying to integrate laboratoryexercises with the discussion side of the course. Nonethe-less. Hagen says students who were previously "turnedoff" by science now say they "really like" this approach.

Students discuss the process leading up to a scientificdiscovery or the development of a particular theory in abroad context. For example, students review the observa-tions, including some of the dead-end paths, that led to therealization early this century that particular chromosomesare the critical sex determinants. They also discuss the factthat a woman, Nettie Stevens, was a key figure in thisrealization but that she did not receive appropriate creditfor her efforts.

(3) Anthropocentric/anthropologic approach. A labo-ratory course for nonmajors at the University of Coloradounintentionally recaptures some of the features of thecourse on women's health and biology now being taught atthe College of St. Catherine. According to Colorado'sDarna Dufair, men and women students at the University ofColorado work in groups of four examining questions suchas the relationship of muscle size and strength to gender;eye color, ear lobe attachment, tongue dexterity, bloodtype, and heritable traits; or diet as a way of recognizingbiological patterns. Although students may begin with aseemingly simple assignment, they are encouraged to askmore questions about each topic so as to integrate pro-cesses with content. In general, Dufair points out that stu-dents "really like learning about themselves."

(4) Laboratory/workshops. The University of Oregonhas developed a series of workshop exercises as part of thelaboratory side of the introductory biology course for non-majors. According to Oregon faculty member DanielUdovic the workshops rely heavily on computers, but alsoinvolve other nontraditional approaches, such as creatingposters on public policy issues. The format works well withclasses of about 180 students, who meet in smaller discus-sion groups of 30 and even smaller workshop groups. "Weplace high value on students' being able to make gooddecisions on matters pertaining to science," Udovic says."We want students not just to buy a big textbook but alsoto look at literature of some sort, even if it's just a weeklynews magazine."

One component of the course requires students to manip-ulate population data by computer, adjusting variables suchas life expectancy to visualize their impact on populationdynamics. The students make comparisons between differ-ent cultures on different continents and are then asked togenerate hypotheses and see the effects variables such asinfancy death rates have on overall life expectancy. Henotes that as the course progresses most students tend tofocus on nonenvironmental issues, although some studentsdo perform projects outdoors.

48 The Disciplines

(5) Laboratory made more accessible and engaging.Like many conference participants, Jo Handlesman of theUniversity of Wisconsin is concerned about attracting morewomen and minority students to biology. She and her col-leagues use an assortment of props and humorous ap-proaches to overcome students' fears about biology andfinding out firsthand how the scientific process works. Forinstance, students are handed a "pet" microbe at the begin-ning of the laboratory course and are told they are to learnempirically how to take care of itkeep it alive and in pureculture and determine what its traits are as far as possible.They also work extensively with plants and insects duringthe course.

(6) Global perspective. Thiel College has developed acourse in biology that presents a global, ecological per-spective. During the year, the course looks broadly at sev-eral problems, treating each with a particular global regionin mind, such as biodiversity in Brazil or food in India.Laboratory exercises are geared to each unit, so studentsmay grow mung beans to appreciate some of their proper-ties and to value how a specific type of food can meetnutritional needs in a particular geographic and culturalsetting.

Special Query-BasedApproaches/Evaluative Efforts

Some approaches to learning biology aim to help studentsdiscover ideas for themselves instead of the more conven-tional approach of studying and memorizing what othershave uncovered. On occasion, these precepts are furtherextrapolated to help teachers gain insights into how theirnew teaching approaches are working and in what areastheir students show particular strengths or weaknesses.

For example, Nancy Walker and her colleagues at Bay-lor University set a theatrical tableau for students in intro-ductory biology labs, using simple props and sparse ex-planatory material that force students to follow theirinstincts and curiosity to discover basic principles forthemselves. In one such setting, the students are given artreproductions to viewobjects to observe through a mi-croscope and describe for a partner to draw without view-ing it him or herselfunlabeled jars to sniff, and otherobjects to touch. After examining the array of objects, thestudents then describe their experiences and observationswith guidance from an instructor. In the process, they cometo realize that they can examine their environment withcare and intelligence, but often their descriptions may notbe altogether objective. The approach "works and can beastonishingly effective," Walker says.

Kathleen Fisher of San Diego State University describesthe use of a software package that enables users to assem-ble ideas and concepts depicting their relationships in net-

works. Applying this program to exercises where studentsdescribe relationships of organ systems in the human bodycan help to reveal unusual weaknesses in students' back-grounds and, of course, can be used to set misguided ideasstraight. Fisher says this commercially available softwarehelps students "integrate ideas."

The growing emphasis on computers and on researchlikelaboratory work in biology accentuates an issuegroupdynamics among studentsand typically represents abonus from the education reform movement. Most generalbiology lab courses are organized so that students work ingroups of two or four. Often these groupings carry oversometimes by necessity but often by choicewhen stu-dents move to the computer segment of their courses.When a course is going well, group dynamics play a valu-able and often synergistic role for student participants.Sometimes, however, faculty see that particular groupingsdo not work well and may even hamper learning, points outLynda Harding of California State University Fresno.Hence, faculty members need to be prepared to dealadroitly with such problems so that students are not boggeddown in these situations.

Much of the time, faculty deal with these problems byrelying on intuition and the practical wisdom they havegained from their teaching experience. However, a fewsmall-scale systematic efforts are under way to treat suchissues as social science problems and use analytic methodsfrom the social sciences to describe the elements un-dergirding problematic group dynamics and other factorsaffecting biology students.

For example, John Wilkes of Worcester Polytechnic In-stitute is working with biology colleagues to classify stu-dents by "cognitive type" as part of an effort to evaluatechanges in the biology curriculum. Over a several yearperiod, he finds it helpful and effective to accommodatecourse changes to the types of learner who may be enrolled."We can profile a class pretty quickly," he says. No matterhow the makeup of the student body shifts in a particularyear, it helps to have students from past years to assistgroups of students seeing course material for the first time.

As another example of such an assessment, Diane Ebert-May and her colleagues at Northern Arizona Universityhave begun a several year evaluative effort called "A Sliceof Life." The laboratory side of the introductory biologycourse is being divided into two broad segments. In one,students will follow tradition, doing exercises described ina standard laboratory manual. In the other, however, stu-dents will ask their own questions and design their ownexperiments. As this teaching experiment goes forth, Ebertand her colleagues will test the students before the course,during the course, and a year later to see how well membersof the two groups do and therefore which of the two labora-tory formats works better. Plans call for conducting a sim-ilar evaluation for the lecture course.

The Disciplines49


Biologists involved in reforming undergraduate curriculain this discipline recommend establishing a regular forumunder NSF auspices and, ideally, a central clearinghousefor considering and critically evaluating innovative ap-proaches for teaching college biology. Not only is peerreview essential, but some other sign of qualitya "seal ofapproval"for new materials should be considered.

Biologists also recommend closer cooperation withcommercial publishers, particularly as both educatc.s andpublishers are faced with fast-paced changes brought aboutby advances in computers and electronic publishing. Notevery useful change should or will be considered for com-mercial publication. The challenge is to find equitable andefficient ways of using new technologies that promote therapid dissemination of ideas.

For example, some biologists recommend that NSF es-tablish an electronic bulletin board that can rapidly dissem-

inate small-scale innovative ideas for changing biologycourses or, conceivably, for updating popular textbooks.However, once such information is introduced by elec-tronic bulletin boards, what are the next appropriate stepsfor implementing those recommended changes? Also, howare intellectual property rights, including commercialcopyright protection, affected by such a system? Becausesuch questions need to be fully addressed, both biologistsand publishers recommend that NSF and other federalagencies help air these issues so that they can be fullyevaluated.

Jeffrey L. Fox, whose Ph.D. is in biochemistry from the Universityof California. Davis, is an independent science writer and editorbased in Washington. D.C. He also serves as Current Topics andFeatures Editor for ASM News, published by the American Soci-ety for Microbiology. and as a Contributing Editor to BiofTech-

nology magazine.


Chemistry Education: Innovationsand DisseminationT. L. Nally


The call for accountability in federally funded science fuelsand coincides with a reform movement in undergraduatechemistry education. An openness to change is seen onmany fronts. For example, in the private sector, industryhas articulated a need for a differently prepared chemistrygraduate and seeks a chemist with a broad base of skills.Industry needs graduates with critical thinking and prob-lem-solving abilities who are also able to work on multidis-ciplinary teams within a diverse workplace and a globalcontext.

In the academic sector, administrators and chemistryfaculty are altering the undergraduate curriculum andhow it is taught. Also driving the need for a metamor-phosis in the curriculum are changing demographics,levels of student preparedness, and mandates about qual-ity raised by students and parents. Commercial publish-ers are looking for fresh approaches in chemistry. Newtechnologies and their potential for attracting students tothe school are significant incentives for institutionalmodifications in chemistry. The prestigious GordonConferences recently have devoted a conference to im-proving chemistry education. Academia is reexaminingthe definition of scholarship and expanding it to legiti-mate chemistry's multiple missions to the discipline, theprofession, and those in the public who do not under-stand chemistry. To be a vitally functioning chemistrydepartment, faculty must nurture all the activities sup-porting the missions of chemistry, including teachingand outreach.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has been instru-mental in promoting change in undergraduate chemistryeducation. Through NSF's investments in educational re-search. administered by the Division of Undergraduate Ed-ucation (DUE), transformation and revitalization are occur-ring in the following three areas:

(1) Technologies, such as communication networks,computers, and multimedia, to enhance current teachingapproaches and to alter the methods used in the classroomand laboratory;

(2) Content, which includes new subjects, topic-ori-ented curricular materials to introduce chemical conceptson a need-to-know basis, and interdisciplinary courses; and

(3) Pedagogy, to engage students actively in the learningprocess through various techniques, such as cooperativelearning, guided inquiry experiments, problem solving, andinteractive lectures.

Innovations in these areas, funded by DUE and otherfederal agencies, were highlighted at the Project Impactconference. This chapter reports on some of the changesthat the federal government is supporting in chemistry edu-cation, the growth areas for curriculum reform, and theimportant dissemination and implementation strategies thatmay effect change. This chapter is written to assist futurechemistry education grantees in developing and dissemi-nating their research. It also offers policy options for con-sideration in enhancing dissemination and increasing thevalue-added return on the federal educational research in-vestments.

Technologies and DisseminvtionStrategies that Work

Computers and related technology strongly influencechemistry curriculum development, and the use of thesetechnologies will increase in the years to come. Manyreformers can envision an undergraduate chemistry educa-tion in which a computer link between students and teach-ers may deemphasize extensive lectures in favor of discov-ering chemical principles using software tools.

The Disciplines 51

Computers have been used for many years to acquire andanalyze data in the laboratory. Many academics have heldthat, since industries use these techniques, students shouldbe trained on computers, appropriate software, and com-puter-interfaced equipment. Kutztown University' has de-veloped the LIMSport System, providing data acquisitioncommands for Lotus 1-2-3 so that the spreadsheet can beused for both data acquisition and data reduction in generalchemistry and all other courses that follow. Use of thisstandard spreadsheet prepares students for the workplace.Moreover, use of a standard software increases the dissem-ination potential as it makes the system transportable andresistant to obsolescence, two factors that are barriers tobringing information technologies to a profitable market.

East Carolina University' also is developing its soft-ware for computer-aided chemistry experiments, which issellable in a larger market. The software, designed forstudents with visual impairments. will run on a personalcomputer equipped with low-cost and easily accessible.adapted outputs (e.g., synthetic speech, electronic music,enlarged text, and graphics). The software will be usable atany educational level at which instrumental measurementsare performed, and it should be readily adaptable to dis-ciplines other than chemistry. Using this type of softwaretool to reach a precollege market is particularly critical forattracting and retaining in science physically disabled stu-dents, who otherwise might be counseled to avoid sciencebecause of inaccessibility to performing in experimentaldisciplines. Using this software to reach niches outside theundergraduate chemistry market makes the innovation amore financially viable proposition for commercial invest-ors.

Tutorial software holds the promise of offering new ap-proaches to chemistry, including providing new methods ofinvestigating chemical processes and allowing teachers toask more meaningful questions of the student. CaliforniaState University, Fullerton' is developing interactive in-structional materials to enhance the comprehension of mo-lecular processes covered in beginning chemistry courses.With this software, which correlates macroscopic. molecu-lar, mathematical, and graphical representations of chemi-cal phenomena, students can visualize structures and chem-ical processes and draw more substantive conclusions thanin the past when line drawings were used. This softwarehas commercial potential because it can he used in thelecture as well as by students for tutorials. The material isnot boring to the student. It is user-friendly and provides agood, uncluttered visual.

Publishers caution, however. that software cannot he justa virtuoso performance; rather, the material must be mean-ingful. The Iowa State University of Science and Tech-nology4 is developing an interactive, multimedia softwareprogram for exploring electrochemical cells. The softwareis being developed based on an analysis of students' errors

and misconceptions on exam problems, interview tasks,and laboratory work. Data also are being compiled andanalyzed to determine how the use of the software affectsstudents' conceptual and mathematical solutions to electro-chemical cell exam problems, as well as how it has im-proved the quality of instruction in lectures, laboratoryactivities, recitation sections, and resource rooms. Evalua-tion regarding the quality and effectiveness of the softwareis an important element for a prospectus given to potentialpublishers and potential users of the product.

Innovations are being created that are very good for oneor two lectures, but a small piece of a course in the absenceof other compatible modules may not provide enough in-centive for a school to invest in the resource. Software thatis comprehensive and integral to the curriculum as a wholehas the possibility of a large enough market to sustaindevelopment and marketing costs. The Montana StateUniversity' CCLI InitiativeComputers in ChemistryLaboratory Instructionis overcoming the barrier of in-completeness with a consortium of 11 colleges and univer-sities working to develop a laboratory curriculum usingcomputers. Knitting together innovations from diversesources also may help to ensure that products will be usefulfo: many markets, such as 2- and 4-year colleges, researchuniversities, and predominantly minority institutions.

Another method of building a comprehensive softwareprogram is to work with a publisher as a partner early indevelopment. Publishers are beginning to allocate substan-tial investments particularly in CD-ROM technology,which is viewed as having the power, flexibility, and stor-age capabilities to enable students to approach subjects ona more individual basis than do textbooks. In addition toassisting in development, the publisher may have thewherewithal to pull together a package of software andhardware in order to promote adoption to users who other-wise may not be able to purchase equipment and maintainit. Also, the publisher may be an active partner in reviewingthe innovation and in conducting the necessary field testsof the developing product, if these steps were not alreadytaken in building the prospectus.

Publishers are seeking pedagogically useful softwarethat is interactive. ChemScholar, developed by the Univer-sity of Rhode Island is a unique program for self-instruc-tion that provides guided practice in solving problems typ-ically encountered throughout a first-year chemistrycourse. ChemScholar gives the student a set of easy-to-usetools (e.g., arithmetic expression tool, chemical equationtool, and electron configuration tool) and chemical refer-ence tools (e.g., constants, periodic table, and unit conver-sions) to help in solving both simple and complex prob-lems. This individually paced program has a tutor thatmonitors the student's work and offers hints and immediatefeedback appropriate to each student's rate of progress andproblem-solving style. ChemScholar has the potential to fit


52 The Disciplines

several niches because it is flexible, which is a criticalcomponent in promoting commercial viability. This soft-ware is designed to complement the way instructors wish toteach. Through an accompanying program calledChem Scholar Instructor, the teacher can customizeChem Scholar's syllabus of chapters and topics, edit newand existing problems, and tailor the program to any text-book, syllabus, or need of a student. Flexibility built into aninnovation relinquishes insistence on epistemologicalalignment and, instead, gives the user ownership over theproduct as the user integrates the product into each uniqueneed and practice.

Other Technology Dissemination Issues

Several other issues need to be examined in optimizingdissemination of information technology innovations. Con-siderable discussion evolves around the issue of consis-tency in platforms, establishment of basic protocols for allsoftware, and compatibility with hardware. In studying in-novations, some thinkers believe that market forces willallow good products to catch on. The advice is to continuedevelopment, as market forces also will shape ways inwhich innovations will be used once developed. For im-plementation potential to be maximized, it is important tobuild from the start the potential for upgrades. By the timesoftware is brought to the market, it is highly likely that thehardware platform already has evolved from the point atwhich the initial software development began.

Cost considerations inhibit implementation of comput-ing innovations into the undergraduate curriculum. Someschools believe that they cannot afford to not promote theuse of computers in education, as students are choosingcolleges where use of technology is integral to thecoursework. But for those institutions where funds are notreadily available for equipment purchases and mainte-nance, there is a reluctance to make the investment. Onechallenge to implementation is to demonstrate that comput-ers and related technologies are flexible and have value-added qualities to the extent that they can be used in librar-ies, among many disciplines, and in many ways in thecurriculum.

The institutionalization of an innovation is facilitatedover time when customer and technical support systems areavailable. 'Support systems (e.g., hotlines, short courses andteacher workshops, and user networks) provided by a pub-lisher and focused on the user/customer accept feedbackwith the intent that specifications of the product mustchange with usage. Support systems improve the potentialfor long-term organizational use by sustaining the interac-tion between the innovator and the user, thus allowingchange to be phased in as the user reconfigures the newknowledge and practices for unique needs and conditions.

Some controversy exists as to the benefits of productdistribution over computer networks such as Internet. Thepossibility of copyright infringement exists, and computernetworks are not recognized as an ideal medium for con-veying innovations. Users rarely adopt an innovation solelyfrom reading about it. Typically, the strategies that are mosteffective in implementation are those involving personalcontact (e.g., workshops, hotlines, and presentations).Computer networks are seen as valuable technologies forsharing and accessing information and for promoting col-laboration among faculty and students.

Course Content and DisseminationStrategies that Work

An important trend in undergraduate chemistry curriculumreform revolves around course content. Innovators in thisarea are working to develop materials that

Incorporate leading-edge research into the curriculum, tostimulate student interest and prepare students better forthe workplace;

Focus on applications, to establish the fundamental inter-connections and dialectic relationships in chemistry,among chemistry and other disciplines, and within thesocietal context;

Use current knowledge of cognitive psychology andlearning theory to shape curricula.

James Madison University' has developed lecturenotes and 18 laboratory experiments on lasers and theirapplications to solving chemical problems in all branchesof chemistry. The lecture notes were designed for a jointchemistry/physics course and several of the experimentscan be used in other laboratory courses, including physicalchemistry, instrumental analysis, and biochemistry. Adapt-ability in applying these materials to diverse courses in-creases the potential for implementation of the innovation.The materials have received special attention, not onlybecause they center on front-edge innovations but becauseseveral of the experiments can be conducted at a low costand set up easily. Innovations such as materials are primecandidates for dissemination as they address the currentchallenge of limited academic budgets by demonstratinghow chemistry can be taught better and cheaper.

Implementing substantive change in the chemistry cur-riculum presents the challenge of choosing which conceptsto use and which to leave out. The University of Wiscon-sinMadison8 initiated its project of a materials-orientedgeneral chemistry course by holding a meeting with severalleading researchers in materials science. Bringing thought-provoking research into the curriculum lends credibility toeducational innovation as a scholarly activity and makesthe materials developed more attractive for adoption. In-

The Disciplines

corporating solids, including metals, semiconductors, su-perconductors, and minerals, into the introductory chemis-try course makes chemical concepts more relevant to thereal world and visually accessible to the student. The likeli-hood of faculty using this material is increased because theproject contains a comprehensive package of instructionalmaterials comprising a book with text, exercises, over 50demonstrations and 15 lab experiments, an optical transfor-mation kit, and a solid-state model kit. The package alsoincludes a matrix identifying in which chapter of the book thechemical concepts are covered. Matrices are important toolsto help teachers see the connections between the innovativecurriculum and the traditional course materials.

The Wisconsin instructional materials are available ataffordable prices because they are provided through educa-tional, nonprofit organizationsviable alternatives to thecommercial publisher. The kits are supplied by the Institutefor Chemical Education and the book. Teaching GeneralChemistry: A Materials Science Companion, is publishedby the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS'Committee on Education provided funding for the initialmeeting with the leading researchers in the field and isfeaturing this materials science approach in a satellite TVconference for teachers during National Chemistry Week1994. A videotape of the conference, which will serve todisseminate the project further, will be available throughthe ACS. Leveraging the resources and prestige of a cogni-zant professional society potentially has substantive pay-offs for disseminating a new product.

Learning theory supports the idea that concepts arelearned in problem contexts with topics that are familiar tostudents. The University of Rochester`' has developed anew freshman chemistry course that uses topics or themesas the conduit for introducing important chemical concepts,which emerge on a need-to-know basis. The course is analternative to traditional general chemistry courses, whichdiscuss concepts and provide topics as an adjunct to illus-trate individual concepts. The University of Rochester'scourse uses current issues and problems in energy and theenvironment, which are the unifying themes that drive thescience content, including the weekly laboratory.

The University of Rochester developed the course inresponse to student need. Experiencing science as it is

found in the world motivated students to learn and tran-scend the discipline's artificial boundaries. The studentlearns about relationships and interface, interdependenceand interconnectedness. A course on the history of scienceand the development of scientific thought reinforces thelimits of uncertainty within the field of science. The chem-istry curriculum package also comes with a writing courseoffered by the Philosophy Department. The course rein-forces analytical skills and constructing an argument.Tying the chemistry course in to courses in other depart-ments ensures the permanency of the reform.


"Light, Vision, and Understanding," developed atWorcester Polytechnic Institute,'" also uses a contextualapproach to understanding science and its limits. By usingthemes to make connections among various science andhumanistic disciplines, the student builds a foundation forreexamining the fundamentals of causality, the measures ofscientific validity, and the basic tenets of science method-ology. This 1-semester juniorsenior seminar, which in-cludes experiments for science, engineering, and manage-ment students, was designed in response the typicallysuperficial understanding science and engineering studentshave of how science is intertwined with, and shaped by,culture.

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute's course is provoca-tive and demands a high level of intellectual activity. Ineffect, it acknowledges that science teaching is not a neu-tral conveyance of thought. Rather, teaching creates aworldview that is a filtering system, internalizing a habit ofthought that tacitly categorizes, abstracts, and assumes re-lationships. Traditional science courses do not explore theunarticulated assumptions (e.g., positivism, reductionism,and objectivism) that underlie Occidental science and itsscientific models. The Worcester Polytechnic approach ex-amines the explanatory powers of the NewtonianCarte-sian paradigm of science, which has been challenged in thiscentury by theories of chaos, relativity, quantum phenom-ena, and quantum field phenomena. Within this transform-ing scientific context, what we "know" of matter is re-placed by concepts of organization, complexity, andinformation. Innovative courses such as "Light, Vision,and Understanding" may offer important growth areas forchemistry curriculum reform in preparing students withcritical thinking skills for an emerging worldview, for con-tinued advances in science and technology fields, and forwork in a diverse and global context.

Carroll College" uses the topic-oriented approach inthe laboratory component of its introductory chemistrycourse. The approach prepares students for the workplacethrough experiments that involve chemical problems ex-tracted from local industrial and community settings. Theexisting experiments remain, but the students are asked toimagine the work as a step in an interesting application ofchemistry, with consideration of additional real constraintssuch as safety, regulations, economics, and time efficiency.A 1993 study from the ACS' Committee on ProfessionalTraining detected, from 1988-1992. a steady growth inchemistry course enrollments, resulting in an approximate3.5-percent nationwide increase in chemical sciences ma-jors. Anecdotal data from other sources seem to indicatethat two factors contributing to gains in matriculation arethe student perception that chemistry is integral to prob-lem-solving and the student desire to contribute to solu-tions to societal problems. Carroll College's "HelpingPeople Through Chemistry" laboratory course is drawing

54 The Disciplines

an enthusiastic response from students and motivatingthem to study chemistry further.

This project is attractive for the teacher because it adaptseasily to any local setting and the time needed to modifythe traditional laboratory course is not burdensome. Thelikelihood of adopting this innovation is increased with itsreadily accessible instructional materials.

Since the topic-oriented approach is a substantivechange from the current curriculum, its acceptance requiresmixed implementation strategies. Prince George's Com-munity Collegeu developed a course that relates chemistryto biology and geography by studying it within the contextof the Chesapeake Bay ecology. The project included a6-day interactive workshop for 24 community college andsmall college faculty from states surrounding the Bay'swatershed. The workshop was held on-site at the Univer-sity of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,where faculty constructed an understanding of the materialthrough an active learning process. The workshop wassupplemented with a rich assortment of media for dissemi-nation. These materials included a set of slides (with narra-tion), a two-part videotape, a videoconference, a photogra-phy exhibit, and a book. With the development of afollow-up book, the potential for product disseminationexpanded within a localized support network. Working oninnovations with a network, rather than in isolation, is keyto implementation.

The context-oriented way of delivering chemical con-cepts is also an effective and attractive approach to teach-ing non-science-majors, who constitute another audienceof chemistry's mission. Examining the interaction of chem-istry with the world demands that each student contributethe knowledge and sophistication of analysis indicative ofher or his own field of study, thus making the learningprocess more meaningful for each student. ColumbiaCollege's" "From Ozone to Oil Spills: Chemistry, theEnvironment, and You" provides various mechanisms forstudents to contribute their knowledge. Students incorpo-rate skills representative of their majors, interests, and cul-tural backgrounds in course projects, such as videotapes,magazine articles, theater scripts, paintings, posters, andsculptures. Through these activities. students are valued forthe wide range of knowledge they bring to the course, andeach student has an equal chance to participate regardlessof science proficiency or personality. The course was de-veloped as a collaborative effort to produce a model pro-gram adaptable for any institution, with students of diverseacademic, economic, and cultural backgrounds. The flexi-bility of the topic-oriented approach provides extended ac-cess to students of all backgrounds and life experiences.

"Chemistry of Art," developed at Brandeis Univer-sity,14 is another example of using a topic-oriented ap-proach for non-science-majors to overcome the tendency tocompartmentalize knowledge. The course essentially is a

materials science program applied to the fabrication, exam-ination, conservation, and authentication of artifacts. Theproject is seeking to develop a text, successful laboratoryexperiments introducing chemical microscopy for pigmentand fiber characterization, and a CD-ROM with the scien-tific and conservation data needed to investigate a famousand problematic artwork. Dissemination of the currentproject's product has been through distribution of coursematerials (e.g., video bibliographies and laboratory manu-als) and presentations at various symposia. Another strat-egy that this project has used for dissemination is buildinga network by championing users through prov;ding on-sitepresentations at other chemistry departments. Oftentimeschanges in the curriculum can be catalyzed and legitimatedwhen a party from outside the department is invited to offerpertinent expertise.

Pedagogy and DisseminationStrategies that Work

The desire to improve student learning has also found afocus in modifying pedagogy. Pedagogy is perhaps the areain curriculum reform that is the most resistant to change.Transforming pedagogy involves redefining the instruc-tional paradigm, the role of the student, and the identity ofthe teacher.

The notion of teaching as a transference of knowledge tothe passive, but receptive, student is being relinquished. Inits place is a growing acceptance of a constructivist episte-mology that involves the student as an active participant inthe process of understanding. This process is itself onewhich, in effect, requires the knower and the known toundergo transformation. In this new context, the studentnot the teacheris insinuated to the center of learning. Thestudent is believed to learn chemistry best when activelyengaged with the material and with the process material-ized. This approach makes education a lively dialectic ded-icated to the authority of the learner to interact, articulatereality, and interpret events, therein giving the experiencemeaning. It is a radically empirical process addressing thetotality of the experience.

Role-playing and discovery are two techniques beingused as innovative instructional strategies. Williams Col-lege uses these methods in a forensic science course fornon-science-majors. The course teaches the principles ofbasic, analytical, and organic chemistry, as well as bio-chemistry, toxicology, pharmacology, and serology, byusing the fascination with crime detection. The laboratoryprogram involves processing a crime scene and analyzingthe collected evidence in the "crime lab" (e.g., high-per-formance liquid chromatography separation and identifica-tion of anabolic steroids from urine of suspects, FTinfra-red identification of drugs in samples confiscated at drug

The Disciplines 55

busts, and fabric identification by differential staining andinfrared analysis).

Through role-playing and discovery techniques, students inthis course are motivated to learn and, more importantly, todevelop critical thinking skills, such as framing a problem andusing deductive and inductive reasoning for solution identifi-cation. Instituting any new type of teaching has its difficulties.Since chemistry faculty in general are not as proprietary withnon-science-majors' courses, there may be more latitude fortaking the necessary risks to develop and refine new pedagogyin these classes. Moreover, the outcomes of the innovations inthe non-science-majors' courses may prove to be incentivesfor extending the new instructional strategies to the chemistrycurriculum for science majors.

Implementation of innovations is enhanced when re-search and development in pedagogy are viewed as a schol-arly activity. Dissemination of results of the innovationsand transportability of the products are recognized as keycomponents of scholarship. The importance of scholarshipis measured by peer-reviewed publications, recognition bycolleagues (e.g., invited presentations at colloquia andmeetings), and financial support. The State University ofNew YorkStony Brook 16 uses all these legitimatedmeans of disseminating scholarship to strengthen the cred-ibility of, and to institutionalize, the innovations devel-oped. The project addresses improving student attitudestoward science, chemistry in particular. The project in-volves a "Reduce Your Lab Anxiety" workshop in whichscience students learn that laboratory techniques are notesoteric rituals, but are closely related to everyday skills.The project also includes a 1-semester elementary "Chem-istry in Practice" laboratory course. In this course, studentsfunction as scientists discovering for themselves how sci-entists acquire information through experimentation andrecognizing that knowledge of chemistry is not simplymemorizing facts, but is knowing how facts are uncovered.To disseminate these novel approaches, the PI has workedwith two commercial publishers to produce a manual and amodule of experiments. The module format advances thepossibility of implementation as it inherently provides flex-ibility to fit a number of niches, as well as fit the construc-tivist view of how a product is adopted. Papers about theproject also have been published in peer-reviewed journalsand have been presented at professional society meetings.

Another effective dissemination strategy for a newteaching method is the use of videotape, such as that pre-sented by The City College of the City University of NewYork." The videotape captured the cooperative learningtechnique that City College, a predominantly minority in-stitution, has explored in its general chemistry course. Thevideotape also shows the level of student interest in, andthe high degree of student engagement in, the learningprocess. Once a week the class breaks up into workshops in

which small groups of students are guided by other students

to solve problems collaboratively. Successes through thisalternative teaching and learning process have steered CityCollege to employ student-led problem-solving workshopsin other chemistry courses. Surveys of students have shownstrong approval of the peer problem-solving workshops.They also show improvement in social skills and commu-nity building, development of the notion that science is asocial enterprise, and recognition of group work as aneffective method of problem solving. Cooperative learningtechniques seem to be effective instructional methods forthe typically underrepresented student in science and, assuch, hold high growth potential for further research anddevelopment.

Evaluation of pedagogy and student assessment are crit-ical to the innovation, dissemination, and implementationprocesses. Measurements of efficacy and effectivenessmust be rethought in order to develop appropriate instru-ments for the pedagogical processes employed. Studentassessment may be more relevant if desired student out-comes are measured. For example, standardized tests toassess individual accomplishment in a competitive envi-ronment may not be transportable to a cooperative learningenvironment in which the abilities to work with groups andto solve problems are important skills to develop for themodern chemical professional.

The College-University Resource Institute, Inc.,'project has strengthened its program evaluation and poten-tial applicability to diverse institutions by testing its newlydeveloped instructional materials at seven institutions andby adding nine more colleges and universities for fieldtesting. The project involves the development of hands-on,open-ended, collaborative modules for restructuring thegeneral chemistry curriculum. These societal-issues-basedexperiments also may be adapted for environmental chem-istry, upper-division integrated laboratories, or otherupper-level courses.

Successful collaborative learning is more difficult andtime-consuming than traditional courses. Each experimentin this project requires 2 to 4 weeks to guide studentsthrough discovery. Since each experiment can proceed inseveral directions, this project is appealing because it pro-vides the necessary documentation for the instructor tohandle the many directions and extend the experiments inother areas. Moreover, the instructional materials are com-prehensive and, therefore, more marketable. The materialssuggest use of available instruments from G-C to FT-IR toAA, as well as other options. Sources for specific equip-ment, amounts of chemicals, safety instructions, use ofcomputers to treat data, and suggestions for spreadsheetdisplay of data from a whole class are included in thematerials. This project provides a how-to in maintaining alaboratory notebook and in writing laboratories as a teamand in an unstructured format in order to assist the studentthrough the discovery process.

56 The Disciplines

Clemson University19 has also developed cooperativechemistry laboratories in general chemistry. This project,called SuperChemLab, presents a viable plan for large en-rollment (i.e., 1,500 students) courses. Students work ingroups to apply their problem-solving skills to projects thatapproximate the research process. SuperChemLab is de-signed for students to learn techniques not as ends in them-selves, but as means to ends. SuperChemLab guides stu-dents through the thought processes and proceduresnecessary for students to devise their own experiments andgrow into complex analyses. Students obtain informationabout laboratory techniques and their applications by ac-cessing a HyperCard stack. They use written and oral com-munication skills to plan, critique, and evaluate their exper-iments.

Although there is less emphasis on facts and theories ina cooperative learning course and more emphasis on waysof knowing and tools of learning, students have more so-phisticated experiences with science. Their abilities to re-trieve and evaluate information, to work usefully withfacts, and to think creatively and independently are in-creased. Students in SuperChemLab are encouraged to ac-cept responsibility for self-instruction and to collaborateproductively among team members. To make cooperativelearning successful, the instructor must change his or herrole to that of designer and coach. The instructor mustnarrow the concepts covered in favor of identifying ways toengage all students in the learning process and in buildingproblem-solving skillsalways listening and meeting stu-dents where they are found.

Other Pedagogy Dissemination Issues

Identifying a suitable publisher requires extensive discus-sion in order to determine whether the goals and plans ofthe publisher are compatible with the innovator's goals andexpectations. Dissemination strategies (e.g., teacher work-shops, booths at ACS meetings, videotapes, and marketingbrochures), technical support systems (e.g., hotlines andnewsletters), evaluation and assessment, and future revi-sions are all important topics for discussion with a pub-lisher. The innovator should provide necessary permissionsfor intellectual property reproduced in the new product. Ademonstration of product quality and effectiveness, per-haps through field test data, shoulu be presented by theinnovator to the publisher.

Innovations by themselves will not produce long-lastingchange in the curriculum. An infrastructure, including abroad base of support, needs to be constructed in order tomaintain permanent reform. Inviting senior staff and keypeople into the development process creates potential foradoption. Distributing to colleagues the outcomes of theinnovations in the classroom builds a database of persua-

sive information. Holding seminars or workshops on theproject and inviting users or expert guest speakers alsoincrease the project's visibility and enable other faculty toexchange ideas about the material. The implementationphase is as critical as the development phase.


'Vitz, Ed. Kutztown University, PA. "LIMSport Workshops: Promot-ing Cost-Effective Implementation of Computer Data Acquisition andReduction in Chemistry Laboratories."

2Lunney, David. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. "Develop-ment of a Data Acquisition and Data Analysis System for Visually Im-paired Chemistry Students."

'Wegner, Patrick A. California State University, Fullerton, CA. "Dy-namic Visualization of Chemical and Instructional Concepts and Pro-cesses in Beginning Chemistry."

'Greenbowe. Thomas. Iowa State University of Science and Technol-ogy, Ames. IA. "Interactivity Chemistry Experiments: A MultimediaApproach."

%Amend, John. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. "IntegratingComputer Technology into the Introductory Chemistry Laboratory."

'Fasching, James. The University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI."ChemScholarAn Interactive System for Teaching Problem-Solvingfor College Chemistry."

7DeGraff, Ben. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA."Chemical Applications of LasersA Short Course."

"Ellis. Arthur B. University of WisconsinMadison. "Developmentof a Materials-Oriented General Chemistry Course."

"Eisenberg, Richard. James M. Farrar, and Jack A. Kampmeier. Uni-versity of Rochester. NY. "Ventures Courses in Chemistry on the Themesof Energy and Life."

mWeininger, Stephen. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA. "Light,Vision, and Understanding."

"Bayer, Richard E. Carroll College, Waukesha, NVI. "WorkshopsWhich Provide Instruction in the Implementation of an Innovative Modelfor Introductory Chemistry Laboratory Manuals."

'2Cunniff. Patricia. Prince George's Community College, Largo, MD."Ecology of the Chesapeake Bay Workshop."

°Lerman, Zafra. Columbia College, Chicago. IL. "From Ozone to OilSpills: Chemistry, the Environment, and You."

"Henchman, Michael. Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. "Develop-ing a Science Course for Non-Scientists on the Chemistry of Art."

"Kaplan, Lawrence. Williams College, Williamstown, MA. "Equip-ment for a Forensic Science Course for Non-Science-Majors."

"'Kande!. Marjorie. State'' versity of New York, Stony Brook. NY."Introductory Laboratory Program in Chemistry: Focus on Attitudes."

r'Gosser. David K., Jr., Mike Weiner, Stanley Radel, and Scott Berlant.The City College of the City University of New York, NY. "Developmentof Peer Problem Solving in General Chemistry."

"'Thompson. Mary E. CSJ. College-University Resource Institute, Inc.,Washington, DC. "Revitalizing the Introductory Chemistry Laboratories:Development of Modules that use a Hands-On, Open-Ended, Collabora-tive Approach."

' "Cooper, Melanie. Clemson University, SC. "Cooperative ChemistryLaboratories."

For two decades, T.L. Nally has worked in the science policy andscience education arenas. Currently she manages the AmericanChemical Society's Office of College Chemistry and is editor ofthe ACS college magazine In Chemistry.


Education Projects inComputer ScienceA. Joe Turner


Note: The terms "computing" and "computerscience" refer to the discipline of computing. Thediscussion generally applies to such degree programsas "computer science," "computer engineering,""information systems," "information science," andothers.

Programs in computing differ from programs in most otherdisciplines in that they are relatively young. Because com-puting is so young and has changed so rapidly, computingcurricula have changed continuously since their introduc-tion approximately 30 years ago. Even though efforts incurriculum development have always been high, there hasbeen a significant increase during the past 5 years or so.There has also been an increasing focus on methods ofinstruction, rather than focusing primarily on curriculumcontent and sequencing.

Many of the most significant projects at the Project Im-pact conference were made possible by support from theNational Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Under-graduate Education (DUE). These projects are the primaryfocus of this report. Generally the projects supported byDUE are either curriculum development efforts, supportedthrough the Undergraduate Course and Curriculum Devel-opment (UCCD) or Instrumentation and Laboratory Im-provement (ILI) programs, or faculty development efforts,supported through the Undergraduate Faculty Enhance-ment (UFE) program. Curriculum development projectsgenerally either (1) develop, implement. test, and dissem-inate new curriculum material, organization, or delivery or(2) develop and disseminate materials to support generallyaccepted curriculum enhancements. Faculty developmentprojects provide workshops or other mechanisms to famil-iarize faculty with new curriculum content or instructionalmethods.

Trends in Computing CurriculumDevelopment

Most curriculum development projects in computer sciencecan be categorized as follows:



(1) Modifications to core courses. These projects aimto improve the introductory (first three to five) computingcourses. Most of these projects can be further classified asone of:

Adding breadth to the core courses. Two curriculumreports, "Computing as a Discipline" (Denning et al.,1989) and "Computing Curricula 1991" (Tucker et al.,1991), suggest that education in computing could beimproved by providing students with an overview of thediscipline in the first few courses, similar to what isusually done in an introductory course sequence in, forexample, physics. The objective is for students to gain abetter understanding of, and appreciation for, the disci-pline of computing after the first three or four coursesthan was provided by previous programs.

Structuring the introductory courses around currentstate-of-the-art practices. Traditionally, computing edu-cation has been structured along the lines of other sci-ences and engineering: first establish basic foundationsand then develop practical capabilities. Some projectsare investigating the practicality and effectiveness ofproviding basic foundations within a context of acceptedstate-of-the-art practices.

(2) Addition of structured labs to computing courses.This has also been suggested by the above-mentioned cur-riculum reports. The idea is to have students perform activ-ities in a structured, supervised laboratory setting (oftencalled a "closed lab" ) to help them learn skills and under-stand concepts more efficiently and effectively.

58 The Disciplines

(3) Development of advanced course material. Thiscategory mostly involves coursework in new areas not gen-erally found in computing programs or new approaches toexisting course material.

Some more recent projects also address pedagogical is-sues, such as collaborative learning and the use of technol-ogy in improving instruction and learning. Given the effortrequired just to keep course material current, it is especiallyimpressive to :..bscrve the level of additional interest andeffort by so many computing faculty to develop and testcurricular innovations that go well beyond what is requiredto update course material.

NSF-Supported Projects

Many beneficial education projects in computing havebeen completed or are underway because of NSF support.Some examples of NSF-supported projects are given in thissection.

Several projects focus on introductory courses, not onlyfor majors in computing, but also elective courses for stu-dents in other majors. For example, the Duke Universityproject "Visualizing Computation: An Automated Tutor,"directed by Alan Biermann, is concerned with a generaleducation course in computing for any major. This projecthas developed a very impressive computer-based systemthat illustrates relationships among a program in a languagesuch as Pascal, a machine language equivalent of the pro-gram, and circuitry that allows a computer to perform amachine language instruction. The process of translating(compiling) from Pascal to machine (assembly) language isalso illustrated, as well as the process for executing a ma-chine language program. The system very effectivelyillustrates rather complex ideas and relationships that areoften difficult to teach, and its use should be a big help tostudents in understanding many fundamental concepts ofcomputers.

An early project that incorporated breadth and closedlabs into its introductory courses was the project "AddingBreadth and Laboratories to the Introductory ComputerScience Courses" at Bowdoin College, Clemson Univer-sity, and the University of Connecticut. Project leaders atthe three institutions developed and tested course materialsand labs in three different academic contextsliberal artscollege, college of sciences, and college of engineering.This project followed the basic suggestions of the curricu-lum reports previously referenced. Good experience hasbeen gained as to reasonable and effective approaches forincorporating breadth and laboratories into introductorycourses, and the project reports and course materials shouldassist curriculum developers at other institutions. Summerworkshops were successful in involving faculty from 30other institutions, and workshop participants provided

valuable feedback on project activities, as well as contrib-uted results from their own programs.

An alternative approach to incorporating breadth intointroductory courses is being investigated in "Develop-ment of Science of Computing Courses 1 and 2" at theState University of New York at Geneseo, directed byDoug Baldwin, Johannes Koomen, and Greg Scragg. Theinvestigators' approach to breadth is to incorporate three"methods of inquiry" (design, theory, and empirical anal-ysis) into introductory courses in such a way that almostevery topic includes components based on each of the threemethods. The investigators are also developing closed labsto support the courses. In addition a collection of "gatewaylabs" have been developed to provide interactive com-puter-based tutorials on fundamental concepts.

Still another approach in incorporating breadth into thecurriculum is under way at Louisiana Tech. The project"An Interdisciplinary, Laboratory-Oriented Course forComputer-Based Problem Solving," directed by BarryKurtz, is an effort to develop an introductory course thatprovides students with an introduction to a broad range ofabstract concepts and practical capabilities in computerscience. The project is also heavily oriented toward thedevelopment of computer-based laboratory demonstrationsand exercises to help students learn the concepts. The soft-ware that supports the labs makes excelle it use of graphicsto illustrate concepts and facilitate interaction. The soft-ware is being developed for common computing platforms.

As anyone who has attempted the development of labo-ratories for introductory computing courses knows, thegreatest effort required is the development of supportingsoftware. The project "A Dynamic Computer Science Lab-oratory," directed by Rockford Ross at Montana StateUniversity, is developing software to support program ani-mation, algorithm animation, and concept animation. Theprogram animation component, which is almost complete,provides execution animation for Pascal programs and in-cludes the ability for reverse execution. Tools such as thisfacilitate the development of a variety of labs that teachskills and concepts. The objective of the project is to pro-vide a tool to assist in developing labs more easily'.

Three NSF-supported projects aim to restructure the in-troductory courses around alternative themes. One veryextensive project is "Development of a Set of 'ClosedLaboratories' for an Undergraduate Computer ScienceCurriculum," directed by William Wulf the Universityof Virginia. This project is developing and evaluating anew curriculum based on current state-of-the-art softwaredevelopment practices with the intention of making thecurriculum exportable to other computing programs. Thecurriculum is focused on laboratories, and the lecture mate-rials primp rily support the laboratories. rather than theother way around. The results at the midpoint of the projectindicate a significant improvement in the capabilities of the

The Disciplines 59

students Who complete the new courses and in theirattitudes toward the program. The results of this projectcould significantly affect the orientation of computer sci-ence programs in the future.

A smaller project with objectives similar to the Univer-sity of Virginia project is "Incorporating Object-OrientedConcepts in the Introductory Computer ScienceSequence" at Temple University. The directors of thisproject, Frank Friedman and Rajiv Tewari, are restructur-ing three of their introductory courses so that they empha-size object-oriented methodology and concepts beginningwith the first course. A textbook has been written to sup-port the first course, and class libraries and applicationframeworks are being developed to support object-orientedsoftware development in all courses. Object-oriented meth-odology is generally recognized as the most promisinggeneral approach to software development, but object-ori-ented concepts are often not introduced until later courses.In fact, many educators are skeptical as to whether the earlyintroduction of extensive material on object-oriented meth-odology is beneficial to students. This project should pro-vide results that will help determine whether useful con-cepts can be introduced effectively and beneficially early inthe curriculum.

A quite different approach is "Restructuring and Coor-dinating the Introductory Courses for Computer Scienceand Mathematics Majors," directed by Juris Reinfelds atNew Mexico State University. The objective of this projectis the restructuring of the first two courses around logicprogramming, functional programming, and imperativeprogramming as a seamless sequence of problem-solvingconcepts and methods. A paperless hypertext-based soft-ware system to support laboratories is also under develop-ment.

The need to try different approaches to curriculum con-tent and laboratories was emphasized in the most recentcomprehensive curriculum recommendations for programsin computing"Computing Curricula 1991." It is import-ant that new ideas be tested on a small scale before they areimplemented in a broad range of programs. Results fromthe diverse projects mentioned above will be valuable indetermining how well various alternatives provide im-provement in computing curricula.

Not all NSF-supported projects in computing are con-cerned with the introductory courses, even though the in-troductory courses have been a special focus for DUE. Forexample, the project "Using a Computer-Supported Coop-erative Problem Solving Environment To Teach Under-graduate Computer Science Students Cooperative Skillsand Requirements Elicitation" at the University of NorthTexas seeks to teach programmers how to work together,which is an important topic of substantial current interest.This project, directed by Kathleen Swigger, has developeda computer-supported cooperative environment designed

to facilitate identifying the requirements of software devel-opment. Students use the software system to develop re-quirements specification using a cooperative elicitation ap-proach.

One objective of most curriculum projects is the devel-opment of materials and ideas that can tic transported toother programs. One useful approach to facilitate portabil-ity is to have one or more collaborators at other institutionstest the project results. Although this approach can be ef-fective, it usually increases substantially the level of effortfor the investigators. Collaboration should be carefullyplanned and arranged prior to the start of a project.

With the rapid changes in course content, curriculumorganization, and instructional delivery methods, it is im-portant that computing instructors have a way to learn newmaterial and teaching methods efficiently. DUE's Under-graduate Faculty Enhancement program sponsors manyprojects that are intended for this purpose. Most of theseprojects conduct summer workshops for faculty to learnabout new subject material, curriculum developments, orteaching methods.

Two UFE projects focused on teaching parallel compu-tation, an increasingly important, but relatively new, areaof computing. Workshops designed to help faculty gainproficiency in teaching parallel computation and to de-velop materials to support the teaching of parallel computa-tion have been conducted by Janet Hartman, at IllinoisState University, and by Chris Nevison, at Colgate Univer-sity.

Other workshops designed to improve teaching capabil-iti z are those conducted by Herman Hughes, of MichiganState University, and Fred Kollett, of Wheaton College.Hughes' workshops addressed the important area of com-puter networks, while Kollett's provided instruction in theuse of four paradigmsfunctional. logic, object-oriented,and proceduralin the undergraduate curriculum.

Workshops conducted by Scott Owen of Georgia StateUniversity were designed to update faculty on current con-cepts and methods in the more traditional area of graphics.This project is noteworthy not only for its success in intro-ducing new subject material to faculty, but also for itsextensive use of a hypertext system for instructional deliv-ery as well as for student investigation. The hypertext sys-tem and instructional approach are available to others whowish to use them.

Finally, new approaches to curriculum organization anddelivery also require faculty development. One such proj-ect at Clemson University conducted workshops to preparefaculty to create effective labs for use in various courses.The inclusion of laboratories in computing courses, espe-cially introductory courses, has generally become acceptedas beneficial, but because the use of closed labs is new incomputing courses, faculty often have difficulty indesigning effective labs. The objective of these workshops

60 The Disciplines

was to help faculty learn how to develop labs by sharingtheir experiences and working with other faculty who havedeveloped successful labs.

A general observation made by Pls is that it is importantto have at least one follow-up workshop with the originalworkshop participants. This provides an opportunity for theparticipants to share their experiences and have the con-cepts that were presented at the workshop reinforced andextended.

Dissemination of Project Results

Disseminatioh methods currently include:

Repositories accessible via the Internet,

Workshops to review project results and to provide peerfeedback,

Presentations at conferences and at other institutions,

Publication of papers and course materials,

Publication of textbooks.

Almost all projects use more than one of these methods,and some use all of them.

The trend is clearly toward the use of repositories ofmaterials in electronic form such as the Internet. This op-tion allows materials to be available faster than in paperform, to be updated at any time, and for new modules to beadded as they become available. Furthermore, materialsobtained in electronic form can be modified relatively eas-ily for local use.

With NSF funding, a central repository for computerscience course materials is currently being established.This provides a single entry point from which various re-positories can be retrieved as well as a place to receivecontributed materials from a variety of sources. A generalproblem with repositories, however, is maintaining materi-als once one is initially established. This includes determin-ing which items in a repository are still current and provid-ing reviews to indicate the value of available items.Funding has not been provided to address these problems.

Workshops represent a valuable tool for obtaining peerevaluation of a project's progress and provide a means ofobtaining suggestions for future direction. Pls should notoverlook workshops as a valuable dissemination and eval-uation mechanism.

Presentations at conferences and at other institutions andpublishing papers and course materials are standards formost projects. Presenting a project's results and plans pro-

vides some of the same benefits of workshops in providingpeer feedback.

Textbooks are important in providing new course mate-rial to students; however, they are of limited value in ad-dressing many pedagogical issues. Furthermore, textbooksare usually not easy to tailor to local needs. NSF's primaryfocus in disseminating materials has been on textbooks, butin many, if not most, cases other mechanisms are at least asbeneficial.


These are exciting times for computer science education.More reform programs are under way than ever oefore.Much of the credit goes to the availability of NSF educa-tional funding. The Project Impact conference clearly dem-onstrated excellent products that would be useful in im-proving computer science education. It was unfortunate,however, that the only faculty who saw the demonstrationswere those who already have projects. Demonstrationssuch as those at the conference would be extremely valu-able to many faculty who are looking for materials andideas to improve their own programs.

One problem that plagues most curriculum developmentprojects, as well as proposal writers, is the assessment ofproject effectiveness. Standard procedures, such as the useof control groups, usually are not feasible. Most attempts tomeasure improvement in student performance are subjectto so many factors that could bias the results that the resultsare of questionable validity at best. Furthermore, fundinggenerally does not allow for extensive assessment efforts. Itmay be the case that the most efficient, and possibly mosteffective, assessment mechanism is to use evaluation by agroup of knowledgeable peers.


Denning, P.J., et al., (1989) "Computing as a discipline," Com-munications of the ACM 32(11:9-23.

Tucker, A.B., et al., (1991) "Computing curricula 1991," Com-munications of the ACM 34(6):70 -84.

A. Joe Turner. Professor of Computer Science at Clemson Uni-versity, currently serves as Treasurer of the Association for Com-puting Machinery (ACM), and he has served as President of theComputing Sciences Accreditation Board, as a member of taskforces to make curriculum recommendations for the ACM, and asa consultantlreviewer for several curriculum projects and aca-demic programs.



Engineering Curricula:Beginning a New EraLyle D. Feisel


Whenever you put more than 300 creative people underone roof for 3 days and conduct activities that mix themtogether in large and small groups, ideas will pop out likemushrooms on a warm June morning. The National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF) Project Impact conference did justthat; it brought together the principal investigators (Pis)from most of the currently funded undergraduate educationprojects. As one might expect, there was no dearth of ideason how to improve education, but as far as how to getothers to use your ideas .. . that was a tougher nut to crack.

Engineers, however, are up to almost any challenge, andthis was no exception. The engineering educators at theconference made a lot of progress toward solving the prob-lem of disseminating great educational innovations. Ideas,some spoken and some implied, were many and varied, andI was challenged and invigorated by my assigned task ofcollecting, collating, analyzing, and recording the bestthinking of this talented group.

In this brief paper, I would like to do two things. First, Iwill try to analyze the general drift of the projects that werepresented and identify a few trends that seem to be devel-oping in engineering education. Second, I will share what Ilearned about disseminating ideas and products and gettingother people to adopt them.

Trends in Engineering Education

A lot is happening in engineering education today, such asan increased emphasis on teaching in all institutions, in-cluding major research universities. This emphasis is di-recting a lot of attention to NSF's education divisions andis helping to determine the direction in which educationresearch and development are going. It's always a bit dan-gerous to try to get too specific in identifying trends, but letme at least express one person's opinion.

Ongoing Trends

Some general areas of educational development promise tobe with us for some time. While they are not new, they are

at the center of what we do as engineering educators and sodeserve to surviveat least for a while.

(1) Design. It has been said that design is the essence ofengineering. If "design" is broadly construed to includenot only the initial design of a product or process but alsoits development and improvement as well as its broaderimpact, I would certainly concur with that assessment. Ob-viously, many of the Pis at the conference also recognizedthe importance of design, not only as a skill that our gradu-ates will require, but also as a mechanism by which stu-dents can be motivated to learn the fundamentals of engi-neering and engineering science. (I hope that no one mindsthat I distinguish between those two areas.)

Over a quarter of the projects at the conference weredirected toward the teaching of design, and many others atleast mentioned design in their description. An example ofan evolving senior design course is "Design of Mechatro-nic Systems," being developed at Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute under the direction of Kevin Craig. This coursehas some very good features, such as the involvement ofindustry and the requirement to produce a working proto-type. At the University of Michigan, H. Scott Fogler isdirecting a project called "A Focus on Developing Innova-tive Engineers." In addition to the development of interac-tive instructional modules, this project concentrates onopen-ended problems and problem-solving strategies.

One of the interesting aspects of design, at least for mostpeople, is how its definition has broadened over the years.Twenty years ago, a'..sign was generally held to he more orless synonymous with synthesis. A design problem would


be stated as "Here is a set of specifications. Define asystem that will meet them." In the more current under-standing of design, a problem would more likely be statedas "Here is a situation. Determine the specifications of asystem that will describe that situation, and then define asystem that will meet those specifications." And in doingso, consider the aesthetic, ethical, economic, safety, andother conditions that exist in what we call the real world.

A project at Georgia Tech, "The Integration of Eco-nomic Principles with Design in the Engineering ScienceComponent of the Undergraduate Curriculum," directedby Gerald Thuesen, brings the real world into the designprocess with a dollar sign. Integration of these threeareasdesign, economics, and engineering scienceap-pears to improve efficiency in the teaching of all three andalso gives the students a more realistic picture of engineer-ing practice.

Most of the projects appeared to adopt this more modernview of design education, although a few were really teach-ing synthesis. Although both are useful, I believe the trendis toward the broader interpretation, and I would expect tosee some interesting work done in the teaching of broad-based design at ali levels.

There is also a continuing trend of introducing designinto the lower division courses. Some educators are ap-proaching this as a motivational activity to increase reten-tion. Certainly this is a worthy goal. I believe, however,that bona fide design education can begin during astudent's first year and continue to graduation, growing insophistication. I think we will see some new thought in thisarea.

(2) Introduction of new knowledge into the curricu-lum. East is East and West is West, and sometimes it seemsthat those twain shall meet before we can succeed in reli-ably linking research with the undergraduate curriculum.Yet that is an absolutely essential function of the faculty. Alarge number of projects (almost one third) were devoted tothis goal, primarily, I suppose, because this has been amajor funding category for NSF.

"The Integration of Sensors into the Electrical Engineer-ing Curriculum," directed by Ryszard Lec at the Univer-sity of MaineOrono, is one example of many such proj-ects. They have developed a laboratory in which studentsactually build sensors irom unprocessed materials and thentest and apply them. Another project, which brings newknowledge to the classroom, is "A New Paradigm forTeaching Undergraduate Materials Synthesis and Process-ing." In this project, Krishna Vedula and Kristen Constantof Iowa State University are developing a series of modulesthat are current in content and can he updated. Jeffrey Grayof Purdue University is developing "An Integrated Under-graduate Program on Semiconductor Devices for PowerFlow Control." As the project name suggests. they arecombining semiconductor device physics, power electronic

The Disciplines

circuits, and power distribution systems. The material isprobably not new, but the integration is.

We must continue this trend of integrating research re-sults into the curriculum. After all, if we do not move theresults of our research activity into the classroom, it wouldprobably be more efficient to perform research in an insti-tute dedicated to that particular purpose and not muck upthe universities by having two unrelated missionsteach-ing and research. Fortunately, I believe that most facultythink those two missions not only are related but are insep-arable, and they work hard to tie them together.

While there were many projects in the area of engineer-ing, I was a bit disappointed in the narrowness of visionthat some of them exhibited. The faculty were certainlytrying to integrate their special knowledge into their owncourses, but many had no real interest in getting it intocourses taught in other institutions. In the past, this processwas carried out at a semi- glacial -pace, as individuals even-tually wrote textbooks containing new material. I fear thatthis process is too slow for tocaty's frenetic rate of develop-ment. We might do well to investigate means of hasteningthis process.

(3) Overall curriculum development. Fundamentalchange in curriculum is hard to achieve, but we have to saythat the NSF-funded coalitions are striving mightily tobring it about. It remains to be seen which of their manyinnovations will be deemed fundamental and, indeed, de-sirable and are adopted by the wider community.

There are also a number of individual projects that arcbringing about curricular change. At Texas A&M Univer-sity, Carl Erdman and Charles Glover's project "A Re-structured Engineering Science Core with a DesignComponent" has resulted in curricular change on that cam-pus and is having an impact on several others as well. InNew England, an ambitious project directed by HaroldBrody is bringing together four institutionsUniversity ofConnecticut, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Uni-versity of Rhode Island, and Hartford Graduate Centertojoin with industry not only in developing a manufacturing-based curriculum but to develop other aspects of engineer-ing education as well.

It seems safe to say that the trend toward curricular im-provement will continue and that NSF will continue to sup-port, in some fashion, projects in this area. Indeed, one mightventure to suggest that we are ready to embark on a new era ofcurricular experimentation in engineering. I am emboldenedto make this suggestion by recent actions of the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET) that are ex-pected to lead to both simpler accreditation procedures andmore broadly defined criteria. Rightly or wronglyI believethe latterABET has long been regarded as a serious impedi-ment to curricular innovation. Ie ABET follows through asexpected, institutions will be encouraged to experiment atwill. I look for this ongoing trend tc expand.

The Disciplines 63

(4) Instructional software. The engineer's love affairwith the computer continues. Almost since the computerfirst came on the scene, we have been sure that it has theability to provide effective, efficient educational activitiesfor our students. We still have the faith, and we are finallystarting to get results. For example, a project at VanderbiltUniversity, "Intelligent Computer-Based Learning Envi-ronments for Undergraduate Engineering Laboratories,"under the direction of John Bourne, promises to increasesignificantly the efficiency of laboratory instruction and thelearning that takes place in the laboratory. At StanfordUniversity, John Eaton is developing "Interactive Soft-ware for Self-Paced Instruction on Laboratory Instrumen-tation and Computerized Data Acquisition." The resultant=feria' is appropriate for either classroom or individual-

ized instruction."Interactive Computer-Based Instruction and Testing in

Engineering Statics" directed by Helen Kuznetsov at theUniversity of Illinois provides both instruction and testingwith the use of the computer.

Some of the software that is being developed has consid-erable potential in and out of the classroom. On the otherhand, some of it is so highly specialized that it probablywill not be used very much. I predict, however, that we willkeep trying and, with the development of CD-ROM, au-thoring languages, faster computers, and high-resolutiongraphics, our success ratio is sure to increase.

It might be wise to pay a little more attention to whateducational psychologists have learned about the way peo-ple learn and try to integrate that knowledge into our edu-cational software. In some cases, we have produced soft-ware that simply solves equations and displays the resultswhile the student learns little more than how to operate theprogram. The potential is much greater than that.

Growing Trends

While these trends did not show up explicitly in many ofthe current projects, they were often present in some fash-ion. Furthermore, any reading of the academic literature ora conversation with any educational leader will demon-strate that the following trends are coming fast.

( I ) Collaborative learning. This category might becalled cooperative learning. if you wish. They are differentbut not sufficiently so that we need to worry about thedistinction here. We have long advised our students tostudy in groups, get together with friends to do homework.etc. We have not, however, really done much to organize.manage, or even facilitate such collaborative learning ac-tivities. Now, a number of educators are studying the pro-cess and are learning FLA*: to make a collaborative learningsystem work. For example, Richard Felder at North Caro-lina State University, has worked extensively in this area

and is evaluating the effectiveness of his methods in theproject "Longitudinal Effects of Innovative InstructionalMethods in the Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum." Iexpect that we will see increased activity in engineeringeducation to experiment with and develop some of thosemethods.

I will admit to a prejudice here and suggest that engi-neers are particularly well qualified to develop collabora-tive learning methods. Most of us are not well versed inpsychology, but we do generally have a good sense ofcausal relations and excellent design skills. We need todesign an educational process that involves students in oneanother's learning and rewards mutual accomplishment.NSF should be looking for people who want to do that.

(2) Teamwork. At first blush, this might seem to be thesame as collaborative learning. Certainly the two are re-lated, but they are sufficiently different that I think theydeserve separate mention. While collaborative learning isan efficient, effective way to learn, it does not have toinvolve teamwork. We could design a collaborative learn-ing system in which students would cooperate in the learn-ing process but only in their own unenlightened self-inter-est. In teamwork, there is an innate, burning desire for theteam to succeed; it's an attitude as much as a skill. As ourcolleagues in industry continue to tell us that the solitaryengineer is as outmoded as the slide ruleand as muchmournedwe need to respond in the kind of education weprovide for our students.

Probably the best place to develop teamwork is in thedesign courses that are increasingly scattered throughoutthe curriculum. At Arizona State University, DonovanEvans is directing a project entitled "Student Teaming andDesign," to develop a set of exercises that can be used at alllevels to develop and maintain team skills. Thomas Regan,at the University of Maryland, has developed a course,"Introduction to Engineering Design." as part of theECSEL Coalition. This course features team-based activi-ties as well as various other skills and again couples intothe design process.

A good, solid project that demands such varied skillswill probably also provide a lot of motivation as the stu-dents are involved in some quasi-real engineering. I think,however, there is a lot of room for creative ideas concern-ing how to develop teamwork in other venues as well.

(3) Career-long education. Of course, we have longbeen concerned about career-long or life-long educationand have always said that we teach our students to learn. Ibelieve, however, that we are experiencing a fundamentalshift in the way engineers will manage their careers in thefuture and that one of those shifts is an increasing emphasison the individual's responsibility to maintain his or herpersonal knowledge base. As educators, we will have todevote more attention to preparing students to do that,efficiently and effectively. At least one 0 ; the coalitions.

64TTthe Foundation Coalition directed by Carl Erdman at TexasA&M University, has as its central theme the creation of afoundation for life-long learning.

On.: aspect of teaching students to learn is what hascome to be called self-directed learning, and I would prob-ably identify this as an emerging subtheme. There is a fairamount of recent thought on the subject, and it could wellserve as the basis for some new approaches to teaching ourstudents how to manage their own career-long education.

Waning Trends

It is fairly safe to say that no educational movement everreally disappears completely. It is possible, however, todetect decreasing emphasis, and I believe I have seen thisin a couple of areas.

(1) Manufacturing engineering. Please do not thinkthat I am suggesting that manufacturing is not important orthat engineering educators should ignore it. On the con-trary, we are still moving toward according it the import-ance that it deserves. I believe, though, that we are movingaway from the fervor that was prevalent in the first fewyears of the manufacturing renaissance and are no longertrying to develop programs to produce engineers who knowonly manufacturing. For many years, we educated designengineers with no concern for manufacturing. Then, for awhile, we tried to educate manufacturing engineers with noconcern for design. Now we seem to be moving towardeducating engineers who are versed in concurrent or, as Iprefer to call it, seamless engineering where design, devel-opment, and manufacturing are seen as one continuous,integrated process.

While I consider manufacturing engineering to be a wan-ing trend, I would expect to see some increased activity indeveloping programs that produce graduates educated inthe process of seamless engineering. The project beingconducted by the Southern California Coalition for Educa-tion in Manufacturing Engineering, under the direction ofRichard Williams at California State UniversityLongBeach, appears to be developing such an integrated andbroad program.

(2) Engineering generalists. During the 30 odd years ofmy engineering education career. I think I have seen aboutthree cycles of the call for engineering generalistssome-one who knows a little bit about every engineering disci-pline but is not weighted down with too much knowledgeabout any one field. Fortunately, in my opinion, this call isdiminishing right now. I hope we do not hear it again. Withthe ever-increasing amount of knowledge available inevery field, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to practicewithout an extensive knowledge base in some area of spe-cialization.

The Disciplines

On the other hand, we have to recognize that our gradu-ates will be practicing in a wide variety of venues and thatmany will find themselves in rather small companies with-out the benefit of a large engineering staff. We must pre-pare them to work in such a situation by giving them toolsto gather knowledge from others and integrate that knowl-edge into the product or process for which they are respon-sible. Can this be done in 4 years of education? Probablynot.

In these last paragraphs I have tried to identify sometrends in engineering education that I gleaned from study-ing the projects and talking to the conference participants.As always, this analysis has rather soft edges, and there areexceptions to every trend. In general, however, I am rea-sonably confident that this is a good representation ofwhere engineering education is headed in the next fewyears.

Dissemination of Products and Ideas

In addition to analyzing the educational trends. I was askedto take a careful look at how the results of this educationalresearch might best be disseminated. To do this, I spent alot of time talking to individual educators and also justlistening to their conversations in informal or workshopsettings. At first, I was bent on simply finding and record-ing specific ideas on dissemination. As the conference pro-gressed, however, I was struck by the emergence of com-mon themes. Specifically, people were giving me not onlyinformation on how to disseminate; they were also helpingto define conditions of the dissemination problem. It oc-curred to me that the most useful approach might be tosynthesize as m.,01 information as I could into an analysisof disseminatic tiffs information would lead to a catalogand an assessn valuation methods. I hope that youwill agree.

The Stakeholders

One of the interesting things I gained from the ProjectImpact conference was a better understanding of the broadrange of people and entities who have a stake in successfuladoption of NSF-sponsored educational research. It mightbe useful to look at those stakeholders and see where theymight better fit into the process.

( I ) The principal investigator. Why should the P1 care?I think there are two reasons. First, NSF has defined asuccessful project as one that has a broad impact, i.e., isadopted by other universities. If the PI is to be successful,his or her ideas must be adopted by others. If the PI is to getmore funding, he or she must be successful. Second, thereis the phenomenon of ego or professional pride. Most peo-

The Disciplines

pie want to have their ideas recognized and appreciated byothers, and adoption of those ideas is the ultimate recogni-tion. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Given thesetwo reasons, it was somewhat of a surprise for me to talkwith a few PIs who really did not have much interest indissemination. Perhaps NSF would do well to clarify what

a successful project entails.(2) The National Science Foundation. It is a truism to

say that NSF wants to see the ideas it has funded find broadadoption. If the benefitcost ratio is high. those at NSFhave done their jobs well, and they will be rewarded withboth professional satisfaction and continued funding. Bothare important. On the other hand, program directors must

be careful not to place too much importance on concreteevidence of immediate adoption. Some ideas will takelonger to germinate than others, and some will never takeroot. It would he unwise, however, to crucify risky innova-

tion on the cross of widespread adoption.(3) Professional societies. In engineering, we are partic-

ularly fortunate to have professional societies that are inti-mately interested in the education of engineers. Clearly, the

better their education, the more they can contribute to the

success of the profession. With few exceptions, engineer-

ing faculty have not made good use of the societies in theirefforts to have innovations more widely adopted. This con-nection might he mentioned by NSF in future solicitations.Indeed, joint proposals involving university faculty for de-velopment, a professional society for dissemination, and apartnership of both to encourage adoption might provequite fruitful.

(4) Receiving faculty. A faculty member who is consid-ering adopting a new idea is engaged in a very complexprocess. I think it would be useful to consider what mightmotivate faculty to adopt the new idea and what mightprevent them from doing so.

Earlier, we noted that a professor's ego would motivatehim to try to get other faculty to adopt his ideas. That sameego tends to keep him from adopting the ideas of others.Understanding that, it would seem that a good tactic is tomake sure that any innovative materials or processes aresufficiently flexible so that the receiving faculty membercan personalize them. This suggests that flexibility needs to

be built into the transferable portion of the project from the

very beginning. The result is an interesting conflict of egos.

Virtually all faculty possess a number of motivators,though. First, most faculty (I hope) want to be more effec-

tive in teaching. Dissemination activities must make it veryclear that adoption of the innovation will result in an im-

provement in the educational process for students. Second,

faculty are very busy and are reluctant to take on the added

effort of making a change in their course material or in their

way of teaching. They would probably do so, however, if it

were clear that they would not be working harder or if,indeed, they were spared some effort. Dissemination activ-


ities must convince the adopter that if an increase in effortis required, it will be only temporary and the effort neededto maintain the new methods will be no more than needed

in teaching, in the old way. Third, there is an increasingtendency in universities to look for and reward good teach-ing and, in many cases, this includes educational innova-tion. It should be made clear that the adoption of a proveninnovation is as useful as generating more innovations andthat such adoption can result in the commendation of one'scolleagues and administration.

(5) Receiving administrators. Throughout the country,academic administrators are being asked what they aredoing to improve teaching at their institutions. It is import-ant that they provide a good answer, because it promises to

have an impact on enrollments, appropriations, graduateplacement, alumni gifts, and other things dear to the heartsof chairs, deans, and presidents. It would seem that docu-mented adoption of the latest in teaching techniques andmaterials would be a very effective response. Most dissem-ination activities concentrate on faculty. Future activitiesmight be directed toward academic administrators. Suchefforts would show how adoption of educational innova-tions can improve teaching at their institution and impacthow their performance is judged.

(6) Sending administrators. Administrators at the insti-tutions where the innovation was developed have the sameneed to show that teaching is improving at their college.Given this, it might be possible to enlist administrators indisseminating, or at least publicizing, their faculty's educa-tional innovations. Indeed, if we could somehow get presi-dents involved in a competition over whose faculty was themost innovative in their teaching, the pedagogical era willhave arrived. In the current climate, an attempt to do justthat would have a fair chance of success.

(7) Students. Obviously, students have a stake in educa-

tional innovation just from the standpoint that it shouldmake their education better, or at least make the educa-tional process more interesting and even fun. I have asuspicion, however, that their interest goes beyond theirconcern over their own education. Consider the following:

First, many, it' not most, students have a greater altruistictendency than do many of their more seasoned and cynicalelders. They will participate in the work of educationaldevelopment and, if invited, the follow-up activities aswell, simply because it seems like the right thin: to do.

Second, they are beginning to realize that they will soonbe looking for employment and that any experience in acreative and responsible position is an asset in the jobmarket. Working on an innovative education project couldhe just such an experience.

How might students be employed in the disseminationprocess? One nossibility, suggested by John Lindenlaub ofPurdue University, is to conduct summer workshops inwhich undergraduate or graduate students participate in the


preparation of educational materials. At the end of theworkshop, the students take the produced materials back totheir own campuses where they would help their own fac-ulty integrate the new materials into their coursework. Ifthe students were teaching assistants, this could be particu-larly effective.

In another scenario, students who receive a baccalaure-ate degree from one institution could take materials withthem when they go elsewhere for graduate school. Forinstance, some kinds of computer software would be usefulto the student and would soon be recognized by otherstudents and eventually the faculty. There are sure to beother possibilities.

I hope this analysis of the stakeholders in the dissemina-tion process proves useful. Recognizing who is (or shouldbe) interested in the process, and understanding how adop-tion of innovations affects their success, can perhaps trig-ger ideas or how to employ them in meeting our dissemina-tion goals.

In talking with the conference participants, I developedthe opinion that the most effective method of disseminationis probably the workshop. A 2- or 3-week faculty workshophas several appealing features. Workshops are usually heldat a remote location, so the faculty member is taken awayfrom regular campus activities that compete for attention.Workshops have depth, so the participant comes awaywell-versed in the innovation and probably convinced thatit will indeed work. Finally, the participant is far enoughalong in the learning curve that effort required for im-plementation is minimal. A well-structured workshop, witha provision for follow-up by the leader, will also create asense of obligation in the participant to indeed implementwhatever is being disseminated.

Another kind of workshop that a few people mentionedis what I call the road show. In this format, the innovatortravels to host campuses and presents workshops for fac-ulty from that campus or from a small group of nearbycampuses. Most likely, they would be 1-day programs, sothe fraction of faculty who become converts would hesmaller than in an extended summer workshop. The cost,however, would be significantly lower, and the benefitcost ratio could be high. Of course, not all innovations lendthemselves to this dissemination format, but, for those thatdo, a good return on investment could be realized.

There must he other ways to reach faculty who areinterested in improving education but are not inclined todevote a great deal of their own effort to doing so. Thesefaculty need to be made aware of innovations, need to beconvinced that innovations will increase their effective-ness, and need to believe that the innovations will not addsignificantly to their workload. With the addition of othercharacteristics that have been identified, a top -down designof a system could achieve some conversions.

The Disciplines

The Internet

Throughout the conference, there was a background humthat, if you listened carefully, could be described ascyberspace crystallizing. Many participants were lookingto the Internet to either advertise their innovative productsand/or to distribute them. Without a doubt, this is a wonder-ful new tool mat we have, and it has a great deal of poten-tial. I would expect a lot of the more innovative, progres-sive educators to he "surfing the net," and, if our wares aredisplayed, they will pick up some ideas as well as somesoftware and other materials.

There are some clever ideas out there. The NationalEngineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS) is a dis-tributed repository of media-based educational modulesindexed at Iowa State University. The group is now ad-dressing the challenge of advertising its availability.Among other things, they are listed in library systems andmade available through the gopher-type access systems.Once a user is tied into the system, she may download thematerial and use it as needed.

Clearly, the Internet has a lot to offer, and its use iscertain to expand. I suspect, however, that a great many ofthe faculty mentioned above will not be doing a lot of"surfing," so we will have to get creative in order to reachthem. Perhaps we can do something to induce ProfessorCyberwalker to ftp some stuff for Professor Cyberphobeeven though the latter does not know a gopher from agateway.

Of course, the use of Internet to disseminate innovations isnot new. Some people, however, are starting to flirt with waysto involve the Internet in the educational process itself. This isan innovation which is, in a way, self disseminating.


The Project Impact conference was, in a probably outdatedidiom, an upper. The people who came to describe theirprojects were enthusiastic about their own projects andsupportive of others. They joined discussions in work-shops, in hallways, and in eating and drinking establish-ments. If there was a problem, it was not with the preach-ing; it was with the congregation. No one attended but thechoir. What is needed is a way to get the message to a wideraudience. It is hoped that this chapter and this publicationwill at least contribute to the achievement of that goal.

Lyle I). Feivel is Professor of Electrical Engineering and Dean ofthe Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science at theState University of New York at Binghamton. An experiencededucator and educational innovator, he is in the affairs ofthe American Sot iety for Engineering Education, Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers, and Ac creditation Boardlat Engineering and Technology.


Keep on Moving--Energizers inMathematics Education ReformBrian Winkel


'Thank you for those words of wisdom you offered atgraduation years ago. I have used them often:' said thereturning engineer to the dean at her class reunion. Puzzledas to what he might have said, the Dean asked for clarifica-tion. She replied, When I came across the stage you shook

my hand, gave me my degree, and said 'Keep on mov-ing. Science, engineering, and mathematics facultysponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) andthe good folks at NSF do just thatkeep on moving!

With curriculum reform spurred by NSF support of thecalculus movement, mathematics Pis were the largestgroup at the 1994 Project Impact conference. Addressingchange, actionreaction, and dialogue, the meeting fea-tured Pis and publishers grappling with issues of dissemi-nating, evaluating, piloting, and upscaling projects. How-ever, there was never an insular atmosphere as exhibitbooths and many discussion groups cut across disciplines.

In leading the mathematics discussion groups, Divisionof Undergraduate Education (DUE) Program Director Bill

Haver reported that nearly two-thirds of the nation's col-leges and universities are undertaking some type of calcu-lus reform involving at least some of their students. Yet the

reform effort is definitely not complete. Only an approxi-mate 15-20 percent of students are enrolled in coursesmaking heavy use of reform approaches. Despite this, I

believe an inner clock ticks toward progress in undergradu-ate curriculum reform. The best programs effectively usecooperative learning: graphical, analytical, and numericalapproaches; oral and written communication; and technol-ogy. Faculty are responding to these reform efforts.

Reform is being spurred in two major ways: (1) profes-sional meetings devotini large portions of their programsto change and improvements in teaching and (2) localadministrators encouraging experimentationdoing some-thing to improve retention. Evidence of reform includes thefollowing:

Standards produced by the National Council of Teachersof Mathematics ( NCTM ) making an impact in textbookpublishing for K-12 mathematics.

Technology engaging teachers,


pROJCTocu coat -- oEp-a

Cooperative learning becoming an alternative to lectur-ing,

Journal literature featuring new approaches to mathemat-ics education.

Published results of reform and peer interaction spreadcurricular change, for as Haver said, "Some mathematicsfaculty are feeling pressure to change, hopefully to im-prove." Stimuli for change abound!

I believe we could do no worse than to continue tolecture on the same topics with the same emphases onanalysis and symbol manipulation. We now see before usan expanding menu of options from emerging approaches,such as graphical, numerical, symbolic, analytic, and com-municative aspects of mathematics, coupled with signifi-cant use of technology and small-group, cooperative learn-ing in which teachers act as coaches and mentors ratherthan knowledge dispensers. A growing number of facultybelieve that their courses should concentrate on a smallerset of materials through which students can "learn how tolearn" and use mathematics with confidence. Less is more!Leaner is better! The emphasis shifts from content to pro-cessan appropriate changefor mathematics offers pro-

cess, not just facts.The Project Impact conference brought publishers and

faculty together to facilitate commercial publication andsustainable dissemination of NSF-funded activities. Thecommercial market offers the exposure and push to enablefaculty to examine, adopt, and deliver new materials. Com-mercial dollars support continued reform by sustaining the


68 The Disciplines

innovators in the process of developing, testing, evaluating,and improving materials. Moreover, in the eyes of somefaculty the "proven" value of commercial texts may bejust the edge to convince them to change. There are, how-ever, others who believe that placing materials on the Inter-net permits fast sharing of materials and significant"localization" and customization. This approach can pro-duce dialogue and feedback, but not extensive and sus-tained reform. Only the commercial market, coupled with agood pedagogical approach and a ready audience of fac-ulty, can ensure real dissemination and systemic change.

Those who are working in mathematics education re-form need to be more aware of one another's efforts andshould incorporate developed ideas rather than reinventthem. In interviewing PI exhibitors. I heard a number ofcommon themes and approaches, although the Pis wereunaware of what the other was doing. PI meetings such asthe Project Impact conference help, but the PIs themselvesneed to spend time and funds publishing materials abouttheir projects, examining other programs, and visiting orhosting colleagues. They all need to read the reports ofabstracts of NSF-funded projects published by NSF andother sources, e.g., UME Trends, and to establish contactwith colleagues doing similar projects. Four years ago theRose-Hulman Institute of Technology founded a journal,PRIMUS Problems. Resources, and Issues in Mathemat-ics Undergraduate Studies, for the specific purpose of sup-porting a wider dialogue.

Finally, a renewed emphasis on the value of teachingneeds to accompany mathematics teaching reform, and in-stitutions must encourage, support, and reward innovativeteaching. We need "at home" recognition of such effortsin the recruitment, mentoring, tenure, and promotion pro-cesses.

One way to realize the forces necessary for reform is toexamine specific efforts. Within the main framework ofmathematics innovation are lab approaches. resource mate-rials, and totally structured curricula. One finds a broadspectrum of efforts, from the community college level,where projects build on the NCTM Standards approach andmake use of appropriate technology, to efforts at large stateuniversities, such as the University of Michigan's efforts toupscale reform calculus instruction, coupled with coopera-tive learning. Let us look at sample innovations in pre-calculus, calculus, upscaling of a calculus effort, cognatecourses, statistics, linear algebra, upper-level specialty andmainline courses, and integrated courses involving science,engineering, and mathematics.


"Functioning in the Real World.- a project of SheldonGordon (Suffolk Community College) demonstrates thata good time to change precalculus occurs when you

change the calculus to deemphasize manipulations. Theprecalculus course can develop more useful skills, e.g.,fitting functions to data using linear regression and non-linear regression by recognizing a pattern, linearizing,fitting a line, and converting back to the nonlinear model.

"Redesign of College Algebra," by Linda Kime (Uni-versity of MassachusettsBoston), fulfills a general uni-versity quantitative reasoning requirement. The course,taught in a computer lab, includes linear and nonlinearfits of data collected in the physics lab, e.g., inversesquare law using light meter. The course stresses groupwork, writing, reading, and reporting with more work forstudents. Performance, however, correlates well with ef-fort and amount of work rather than with innate ability.


At CUNYBorough Manhattan Community College,Patricia Wilkinson, Chair, added a 2-hour lab to calculusfor commuting students. Students meet in small groupsand submit portfolios of work using Uri Treisman'smodel of challenging problems. Students learn word pro-cessing on their own and use Mathematica. Exams lookthe same, but professors include lab grades for as muchas they want and influence lab activities, permitting re-luctant faculty to join in at their comfort level.

With regard to Duke University's "Project CALC,"Lang Moore says they have a revised pedagogical ap-proach driven by real-world lab problems. Jack Book-man, also involved in the project, just finished a longitu-dinal study concluding that "Project CALC" studentsbecome better problem-solvers, possess better attitudes,and, on average, tend to take one more mathematicscourse than students who took traditional calculus. It wasalso revealed that weaker students succeed at a higherrate because group work. Faculty who have taught thisapproach will no longer teach the regular approach eventhough this new approach takes more resources and in-creases the intellectual load for teachers. D C Heath ispublishing the first draft of "Project CALC" material.

Wiley publishes thorough material for the widely usedreform effort of Sheldon Gordon (Suffolk CommunityCollege) and Deborah Hughes Hallet's (University ofArizona) "Harvard Calculus Project.- Students wholearn by algorithm and pattern matching find this ap-proach scary. "You have to be gentle with them at thestart and then firm with them else they will hold on toyour hand forever," says Hughes Hallett. Gordon saysthey get a deeper level of questions hack, and communitycollege students find a release in thinking, not just grind-ing (algorithmic approach). Implicit plots are hard to get,but after doing derivatives and slope of tangent line to an

The Disciplines

implicit plot, students said why not use the tangent line"envelope" to outline the function, thus discovering analgorithm to construct the implicit plot. Faculty do notpresent solutions in class. It is tough to make up exams.The key here is the interplay of ideasstudents think,faculty think.

Greg Foley (Sam Houston State University) works with"Calculus for Comprehensive Universities and 2-YearColleges," a project in which two faculty from each offour local schools meet biweekly to discuss approachesto a calculator-driven calculus course in which studentswork in groups in lab projects. Write-ups ask studentsleading questions and expect written responses. Labslead to healthy discussions, and each group member ratesthe others in terms of contribution. In addition to the u ;eof labs and technology, there are more extensive, long-range projects. There is one "gateway" exam on skills indifferentiation, but major exams are not based on skill,focusing instead on problem-solving and concepts. Ahigher percentage of students go on to more mathematicscourses from this program than from the traditional ap-proach.

Kenneth Hoffman (Hampshire College) states that FiveColleges, Inc.'s, "Calculus in Context" seeks to showhow calculus grew out of attempts to deal with sciencestarting with a science problem and doing mathematicsto address that problem. This technology-based courseopens with nonlinear differential equations. Students

enter program codes for 1 1/2 semesters, then useMathematica. Downstream faculty are happy with stu-dent strengths in modeling and interpretation, but theysay the students' skills in manipulation are weak. Thecourse philosophy is to get a method that works first, inall situations, then show students the few examples inwhich they may get a closed-form solution, e.g., integra-tion is taught with numerical methods first, then a fewspecial methods. Grading homework becomes more in-tense because faculty need to read it very carefully.

Upscaling of a Calculus Reform Effort

In 1990-91, Morton Brown (University of Michigan)taught one section of Calculus 1 using graphing calcula-tors with standard text. In 1991-92, several sections used

graphing calculators with supportive texts, while othersused calculators with traditional texts. In 1992-93, thefirst year of Michigan's NSF support, cooperative learn-ing and reform materials, such as "Harvard Calculus,"were used in 10 pilot sections. Brown thought they weredoing cooperative learning, but in the second week of theterm he found the excellent hook. Active Learning: Co-

operation in the College Classroom, by David Johnson,


Roger Johnson, and Karl `mith (Interaction Book Com-pany, 7208 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN 55435 USA).Brown read the book, modified the teaching style, andbegan to assign roles to students and do true cooperativelearning. In 1993-94, Michigan used calculators and the"Harvard Calculus" materials in all Calculus I and IIclasses. Some classes were still in traditional rooms with35 students in each class; however, a number of sectionswere in smaller rooms (24 per class) using full coopera-tive learning.

The goal is to limit class size to 24 students withgroups of 4 executing cooperative classwork and grouphomework. All faculty and teaching assistants in thisprogram attend a summer workshop on sensitivity train-ing, cooperative learning, technology utilization, and the"Harvard Calculus" materials.

Cognate Courses

An example of this genre is the "Quantitative ScienceCurriculum for Life Science Students" developed byLouis Gross (University of Tennessee, Knoxville). Fewbiology departments require statistics or linear algebra.Gross put together a I -year course driven by data andhypothesis testing to teach necessary calculus, statistics,probability, and linear algebra (with some dynamicalsystems). Gross conducts workshops to encourage edu-cators to offer this approach.


Two examples of enrichment in statistics are RichardSchaeffer's efforts to create an "Activity-Based Intro-ductory Statistics Course" at the University of Floridaand an electronic encyclopedia of examples and exer-cises at the University of Ohio. Elizabeth Stasny explainsthat the Florida project adds a lab component to the"Introductory Statistics" course. Students see statisticalprinciples unfold with materials they use in small dem-onstration groups. Faculty are working toward a labmanual of modules. This approach changed the testsfrom "plug and chug" to "what would happen if .There is more work such as thinking about how to usematerials and grading assignments. The Ohio State proj-ect produces HyperCard materials based on interestingactivities found in the medi?: "Are baseball playersworth their salary?" and "What is the real story ondoctor-to-patient IV spread issue ?" Projects, indexedby topic and by statistical concepts, are on-line, and auser can specify the leve!.


70 The Disciplines

Linear Algebra

Steven Leon (University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth)heads up "Project ATLAST" to encourage and facilitatethe use of software in teaching linear algebra. Summerworkshops using MATLAB are offered for faculty todevelop projects. Participants develop modules, try themin courses, and return the finished product.

Examples of Upper-Level Courses

Through "Geometry at Cornell," David Henderson(Cornell University), as a member of a geometry group,offers a sequence of geometry courses particularly forprospective high school teachers. Efforts stress writing,relate geometry to the real world, and offer classicalgeometry concepts.

By implementing an "Upper-Division MathematicsComputer Classroom/Laboratory," Gary Sherman(RoseHulman Institute of Technology) offers studentsdiscovery-based algebra and discrete mathematics in aMagma/Cayley software environment where algebraicstructures are real, substructures and relationships arecomputed. and theorems are founded on tactile sense andexperience. Sherman has motivated undergraduates atRoseHulman, and his Research Experience for Under-graduates summer efforts have produced published re-search results based on this approach.

Integrated Approaches

Integrated approaches in which mathematics is taught as apart of, and in relation to, elements of a larger picture doexist and are increasing in number. During the summer of1994 at a conference sponsored by NSF. GE Foundations,and RoseHulman Institute of Technology, faculty from 30schools gathered to discuss the merits of an integratedapproach in first-year science, engineering, and mathemat-ics curricula. A number of schools will pilot such an ap-proach in the fall of 1994, among them Texas A&M Uni-versity, University of Alabam' , and Arizona StateUniversity.

Robert Quinn's (Drexel University ) "Enhanced Learn-ing Experience for Engineering Students" ( E4) attemptsto integrate calculus with physics in the first-year engi-neering curriculum. Robin Farr has developed an excel-lent text of applications-driven calculus using Mapletechnology. E4 is now the standard curriculum in engi-nc,:ring at Drexel.

"Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engi-neering, and Mathematics" (IFYCSEM) by BrianWinkel et al. (RoseHulman Institute of Technology) isin its fifth year of teaching one-quarter of entering stu-dents in a 3-term, 12-credit/term, one-grade, team-taught(8 faculty members from science, engineering, and math-ematics) course. All technical material in the first-yearcurriculum is included in this one course and is availablefor mathematics integration on the spot! Mesa Commu-nity College, as a part of the NSF-funded FoundationCoalition, is teaching an IFYCSEM project modeledafter the one at RoseHulman.

Dennis DeTurck (University of Pennsylvania) teamteaches an integrated course with physics and chemistrycolleagues. They found it very exciting and dared to hedifferentstudents can only ask questions of faculty notfrom the field in question.

Learning from and with ColleaguesOutside Mathematics

There is a rich collection of experiences, ideas, and suc-cesses outside mathematics. David Hestenes (Arizona StateUniversity), a leader in the physics community, has discov-ered misconceptions that students bring to physics courses(and they leave with these same misconceptions). Physicsteachers are examining what they do and are introducingmany active, tactile learning opportunities. The new NSFinitiative in chemistry education will produce an effortcomparable with calculus reform. Mathematics educatorsdo not have a monopoly on major reform efforts. Askaround your campus community to find others interested inreform. Perhaps you can form a team interested in inte-grated curriculum efforts, or you might learn somethingfrom these reformers that works for them and could workfor you.

The NSF initiative, Mathematical Sciences and TheirApplications Throughout the Curriculum, will stimulatedialogue among reformers across the disciplines and pro-vide excellent opportunities to work with colleagues out-side the mathematics community. In addition to the supportof upper-division course development, this initiative willenable dialogue across disciplines concerning introductorycourses.

Examples of Sources

"Calculus Reform in Liberal Arts College," representedby Wayne Roberts ( Macalester College), delivered mod-ules and readings from five books from the MathematicalAssociation of America and Roberts' hook Resources for

The Disciplines 71

Calculus. These books serve faculty who do not want toinvest in an entire reform program or who wish to sup-plement a reform program with other projects.

"Snapshots of Applications in Mathematics" by DennisCallas (SUNY College of Technology, Delhi) is creatingReal World, Contrived, and Charming Applications. Thematerial comes from faculty, popular press, and scien-tific journals. Two mathematics journals have agreed tofeature these snapshots in regular columns: TheAMATYC Review and NY State Mathematics TeacherJournal.

General Observations

Commitment and involvement, both individual as well asinstitutional and consortial, are essential. Consider the ef-forts of Lang Moore and David Smith (Duke University)on "Project CALC," who speak at conferences; visit proj-ects; host visitors; write, publicize, work and rework mate-rials; and provide source materials for review and scrutinyin the development stage. The same applies to the teaminvolved with the "Halyard Calculus" project. They fieldtested many versions of their material before approaching apublisher.

Evaluation of materials is generally not done in smallprojects, but often there is at least one other site at whichthe material is being developed and tested. Some of thebigger projects have extensive evaluation. Formal evalua-tion is scarce.

Students learn better when they have to formulate theirideas and communicate them. People talk about coopera-tive learning and small groups, and some do it in labs thataccompany lectures. There is a movement to do moresmall-group work in class and use writing, e.g., logs, jour-

nals, papers, homework write-ups, and portfolios, both forinternal assessment and external evaluation.

Students also benefit when they are given more atten-tion. It may well be economical to do so, for attrition ratesare reduced, the need for repeat courses is lowered, andstudents are more likely to pursue a subject area that makesthem happy.

Final Words

Several years ago, at a national engineering educationmeeting, Richard Boyce (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)said, "It is the most exciting time to be teaching calculus."Indeed, it is the most exciting time to be teaching mathe-matics! More and more faculty are willing to do what ittakes to bring about positive changes in their professionallives, in the learning activities of their students, and in thebroader mathematics education community. Calculus re-form, sponsored by NSF, has been a jump start for mathe-matics education improvement, and those in the field just"keep on moving!"

Brim) Winkel, Professor of Mathematics at RoseHulman Insti-tute of Technology, having taught mathematics in liberal artssettings (Albion College) and now engineering settings (RoseHulman). is committed to teaching with cooperative learning, tousing technology, and to teaching using an integrated approach.He has been a team member in innovating science, engineering,and mathematics education in RoseHulman's "Integrated First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering. and Mathematics" (anationally recognized curriculum originally funded by NSF); ispart of a larger team of educators who form the FoundationCurriculum, funded by NSF to effect systemic change in engineer-ing education; heads an NSF-funded project to create a develop-ment site for complex, technology-based problems in calculuswith applications in science and engineering at Rose Holman:and edits two journals. PRIMUS and Cryptologia.


Bridging the Gap: DisseminatingPhysics InnovationsRobert H. Romer


The 1994 Project Impact conference focused on how to getinnovative teaching materials and ideas out into the collegeand university communities. Curiously, the conference it-self was perhaps one of the best methods of dissemination.

There are two major obstacles to effective dissemina-tion, one posed by the innovators (the disseminators) andone by the intended audience. First, the principal investiga-tors (PIs) on these projects are, for the most part, muchmore interested in the creative work of developing newmethods, texts, software, laboratory apparatuses, etc., thanin the often slow and difficult work of making their effortsknown to others. PIs say, in effect "I'll develop some goodmaterials and try them out on my students. When they'redone, I'll create more materials, for some other topic." Thesubconscious thought is that, if the materials are as good asthe PI thinks, then they will somehow catch on. Dissemina-tion is someone else's department. Surely every textbookauthor (myself included) has had the illusion: "I'll write agreat book, and everyone will use it." However, as everypublished author can testify, distribution is the key problemthat must be solved if the book is actually going to be used.

The second major obstacle is most easily characterizedby the power of Newton's First Law. When considering allthe well-known manifestations of inertia exhibited by col-lege and university professors, it is amazing that anythingever changes. This problem is illustrated by the nearlyidentical tables of contents appearing in several widelyused, introductory physics texts. We often blame this par-ticular inertial effect on the publishers, but I am afraid wecannot so easily evade responsibility. It is professors whochoose textbooks for courses, and, for many understand-able reasons, we are extremely reluctant to change. We arein charge of very large courses. We seem to spend all of ourenergy supervising teaching assistants. We have problemsets and assignments ready for use again. We come up fortenure review, and jobs are scarce, and research funding istight, etc. Why should we adopt someone else's innova-tion? Anything that gives us an excuse--lack of statisticalsignificance in data that supposedly show improved studentperformancewill lead us not to use your innovation butto stick with what is supposedly tried and true (tried,surely, but not necessarily true),



Modes of DisseminationExamples

The only generalization that one can make about currentmethods of disseminating physics and astronomy curricu-lar materials is that they are diverse. There are no cleartrends in methods of dissemination except for the obviousone that electronic means are much more prevalent thanthey were only a few years ago. Materials often dissemi-nated include conventional textbooks. printed newsletters,software of various kinds, videodiscs, and CD-ROMs. In-formation is disseminated through commercial book pub-lishers, postings on electronic bulletin boards, talks andworkshops at regional and national American Physical So-ciety (APS) and American Association of Physics Teachers(AAPT) meetings, papers submitted to journals (The Amer-ican Journal of Physics, The Physics Teacher, PhysicsToday, and others), and various software "publishers"such as Vernier Software and Physics Academic Software(PAS) of the American Institute of Physics.

My participation as an observer at this conference rein-forced my impression that PIs are fascinated with the mate-rials they develop and plans for dissemination tend to getoverlooked. Although the abstracts for this conferenceasked PIs to describe "Published Instructional Materials,"display booths at the conference were focused (understand-ably) on content rather than dissemination. Even thoughthe purpose of the conference was to discuss dissemination,PIs seemed puzzled when I asked about their past, present,and future plans for distribution. Nevertheless, it is clearthat most investigators do want to see their efforts used

The Disciplines 73

elsewhere even though dissemination is not the top item ontheir agenda.

Listed below are examples of projects and various dis-semination methods. It should be understood that this is notan exhaustive list, but rather an illustration of variousmodes of dissemination. Moreover, some PIs are distribut-ing their materials through methods not mentioned here.

Richard Hake, Indiana University, produced a set ofSocratic Dialog Inducing lab manuals, which he supplieson request. He also puts material up on the Phys-L elec-tronic bulletin board, a group coordinated by RichardSmith of University of West Florida.

Larry Coleman, Donald Holcomb, and John Rigden, aswell as many collaborators around the country, are test-ing various new models for the introductory course oftheir well-known "Introductory University PhysicsProject" (IUPP). In addition, they distribute a newslet-ter, have published proceedings of IUPP conferences,and have described their work in a Physics Today article(April 1993).

Robert Fuller. University of Nebraska. and colleaguesDean Zoilman, Kansas State, and Evelyn Patterson, U.S.Air Force Academy, and others, have developed a vari-ety of new materials using new media, includingvideodiscs and CD-ROMs.

Zaven Karian and Ronald Winters, Denison University,have given talks at AAPT meetings and at regional meet-ings of APS sections, on their project to incorporate theuse of symbolic computation in a variety of undergradu-ate science curricula.

Patricia Heller, University of Minnesota, 1,as publishedpapers in The American Journal of Physics about herintroductory physics program. She recommends obtain-ing opportunities to use new materials locally by "offer-ing to teach the physics courses no one else in yourdepartment wants to teach."

Lillian McDermott and her group at the University ofWashington have had remarkable success at getting newmethods and materials for the introductory course intouse. She has published a number of papers in The Amer-ican Journal of Physics and elsewhere. More signifi-cantly though, her research in education follows a con-ventional physics pattern within a physics department.Her graduate students take the same qualifying exams asstudents doing more conventional physics research the-ses. She trains teaching assistants for the entire depart-ment. Part of the introductory course, no matter whichprofessor is in charge during a particular year, is basedon her materials and methods. Much careful and diplo-matic effort is required to become accepted in this wayby a large department at a major research university.

Jerome Pine, California Inst trite of Technology, and hiscolleagues John King, Philip Morrison, and Phylis Mor-rison at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, havepublished an article in The American Journal of Physics(November 1992) on their "ZAP" freshman electricityand magnetism course, offering free sets of their experi-ment notes.

Ronald Thornton, Tufts University, publishes his Micro-computer-Based Laboratory (MBL) through VernierSoftware. He has published various articles on MBL andhas presented rhis work in talks at various places, includ-ing regular physics department colloquia.

Priscilla Laws, Dickinson College, has described herWorkshop Physics in talks at university colloquia, at the"Unity Day" session of the APS/AAPT meeting inApril 1994, and in a Physics Today article (December1991).

Joseph Amato and others at Colgate University are un-dertaking a major revision of their introductory course. Anew lab manual has been produced, and a lengthy articlehas been written for submission to a physics journal.

Laurence Marschall, Gettysburg College, with his Con-temporary Laboratory Experiences in Astronomy proj-ect, publishes a newsletter, maintains an electronic bulle-tin board, and distributes free copies of his software. Inone of the highlights of the conference, Marschall pre-sented the rationale for this policy by entertaining uswith a musical rendition of a verse from Tom Lehrer's"The Old Dope Peddler":

He gives the kids free samples,Because he knows full well,That today's young innocent facesWill he tomorrow's clientele.

Jan Tobochnik, Kalamazoo College, and Harvey Gould,Clark University, produce computer simulations of phys-ical phenomena that cannot be readily observed directly.They edit a regular column in Computers in Physics andhave published a text through a commercial publisher.

Jack Wilson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and manyco-workers at other institutions use a wide variety ofmedia in their Comprehensive Unified Physics LearningEnvironment. They plan to distribute some of their soft-ware through the American Institute of Physics' PhysicsAcademic Software.

Curtis Hieggelke, Joliet Junior College. and co-workershold workshops and distribute a newsletter specificallyfor teachers at 2-year colleges. Their program providescurriculum development workshops for community col-lege physics teachers in all parts of the country.

Robert Beck Clark, Texas A&M University, and co-workers have a faculty enhancement program for teach-

74 The Disciplines

ers at 2-year colleges. They have held workshops all overthe country and presented numerous talks at professionalmeetings.

Because of their specific nature, some very valuableprojects are not readily transferable to other locations. Onesuch project, and one of the most impressive projects Ilearned about at this conference, is that of Elisabeth Char-ron, Gregory Francis, and others at Montana State Univer-sity. They have begun an ambitious outreach program toimprove the preparation of science teachers in rural areaswith large minority populations, a largely ignored problem.By reaching Montana's tribal community colleges, they

hope to increase the level of science teaching forMontana's large Native American population To a NewEngland observer like myself, the distances that must becovered are in themselves daunting.

Robert H. Romer, who receivdd his Ph.D. in physics at PrincetonUniversity in 1955, is Professor of Physics at Amherst College. rifellow of the American Physical Society and of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, he has done researchnn liquid 3He and 'He and superconductivity; since 1988 he hasbeen Editor of the American Journal of Physics.


From Idea To Impact:Realizing Educational Innovationin the Social SciencesKenneth E. Foote

Avenues of Innovation

An upsurge in educational innovation in the social scienceshas occurred during the past several years. A tremendousnumber of projects that have the potential to reshape tradi-tional methods of classroom and laboratory instruction areunderway. These projects respond to a number of forces,not the least of which is the sense that the conventionalwisdom of good research leading inevitably to good teach-ing is not always true in practice. Effective teaching oftenrequires careful thought and special skillsand a substan-tial investment of time and energy. Research advances donot always filter down to the classroom as quickly as theyshould. Scholars are often faced with too many demands tomeet the challenge of continually rethinking and redesign-ing the undergraduate curriculumparticularly when theexisting curriculum is sufficient to serve the basic needs ofundergraduate education. Yet scholars are increasinglyasking whether it may be possible to improve existingmodels of education and to do a better job of preparingstudents for the challenges they will face in professionallife. In higher education, the adage that "if it's not broke,don't fix it" is being supplanted by the view that "if it'snot broke, improve it."

The innovations that are underway revolve around fourinterrelated issues. First, more attention is being placed ondeveloping analytical and problem-solving skills through"active-learning" strategies. At the moment, many curric-ula seem to stress mastery of content over comprehensionof the processes of scientific inquiry. New projects arebased on the idea that the cultivation of analytical reason-ing skills needs to be more assertively pursued at the under-graduate level. Second, many scholars are attempting tospan disciplinary boundaries to challenge students to con-sider concepts and issues from interdisciplinary perspec-tives. The sense here is that conventional disciplinaryboundaries are increasingly blurred in both theory andpractice, and students must learn to apply conceptual andanalytical skills from many disciplines, rather than those ofa single field. Third, a good deal of attention is focusing onissues and student populations that are underrepresented inthe social sciences. A number of curriculum initiativesunderway weave issues of race, gender, and ethnicity into


r Jet,,Z

,_r r


the basic fabric of undergraduate education and also drawan increasingly diverse student population into the socialsciences, reflecting national trends in the workforce. Fi-nally, a great amount of thought and energy is being in-vested in facing the challenge of employing informationtechnologies in higher education. The debate over effectiveuse of information technologies has changed radically inthe past several years. It was possible, even quite recently,to equate information technology with computer use in thequantitative branches of the social sciences, but new tech-nologiesdistance learning, Internet resources, hyperme-diahave spilled over into all disciplines and subfields.Some of the most exciting experiments underway involveattempts to harness the potential of "electronic" class-rooms and textbooks. Numerous examples can be cited ofsuccessful projects in all four categories.

Cultivating Reasoning Skills throughActive-Learning Strategies

The cultivation of student problem-seiving and critical-rea-soning skills is an important part of many initiatives, as onewould expect of effective educational projects. More thanever, emphasis is being placed on developing these skillsthrough "active-learning" strategies. Gary Hanson's 2-se-mester psychology course at Francis Marion University is agood example of this approach. He nas developed 20 laho-


ratory exercises that facilitate the development of scientificthinking and demonstrate the process of science in thecontext of demonstrable psychological phenomena both toimprove scientific literacy among non-science-majors andto attract students to careers in science. Richard Larson ofthe Linguistics Department at the State University of NewYork (SUNY)Stony Brook uses his courses to accom-plish similar goals in so far as syntax and semantics serveas vehicles to engage students in scientific reasoning andmethod. At the University of Colorado--Boulder, HerbertCovert and a team of his colleagues have created a 2-se-mester laboratory sequence in biological anthropology thatemphasizes stuc:mt observation and measurement, the or-ganization and quantification of results, and the develop-ment and evaluation of hypotheses. Andrew Beveridge, ofthe City University of New York (CUNY)Queens Col-lege, has adopted the same aim in his introductory sociol-ogy course, which attempts to bridge the gap betweenintroductory-level training and research experience. Fi-nally, Michael Flower has implemented an honors courseat Poniand State University that uses small-group learningtechniques and collaborative problem-solving to engagestudents in active debate and investigation of pressing sci-entific, political, and social issues. In almost all of theseinitiative., computers and information technology play akey role. Although these technologies will be discussedbelow, they are intrinsic to these projects both to capturestudent interest and to promote problem-solving skills.

Some natural science projects provide other good exam-ples of this approach to introducing the principles of scien-tific investigation and reasoning to non-science-majors.These projects take two forms. The first is organisedaround core courses that seek to integrate the teaching offundamental concepts and methods. Examples includeFrederick Greenleaf's 3-semester math and science se-quence at New York University, Daniel Friedman's projectin introductory science at Howard Community College,and Len Troncale's project at California State PolytechnicUniversity at Pomona. A second set of projects has beendeveloped around interesting topics selected to pique stu-dent interest in science. One of the most original of these isMichael Henchman's course at Brandeis University on the"Chemistry of Art." Henchman uses this interesting topicto draw non-science-majors into careful study of the chem-istry of materials used in the creation, conservation, andauthentication of works of art. Other examples of this sortare Lawrence Kaplan's course "Chemistry and Crirhe:From Sherlock Holmes to Modern Forensic Science" atWilliams College, Zafra Lerman's course "From Ozone toOil Spills: Chemistry, the Environment, and You" at Co-lumbia College of Chicago, and Stephen Weininger's ju-niorsenior seminar "Light, Vision, and Understanding"at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Weininger's project isnotable for its success in incorporating into one course

The Disciplines

insight drawn from physics, biology, art history, philoso-phy, mathematics, computer science, and the history ofscience. All of these courses derive from the natural sci-ences, but the strategies could be applied to the socialsciences to highlight fundamental concepts and commonal-ities of method across many disciplines.

Highlighting InterdisciplinaryResearch Methodologies

Some projects in the social sciences are already highlight-ing interdisciplinary commonalities of method and stress-ing the importance of cross-disciplinary research. Theseinterdisciplinary projects often use a team of faculty toaddress a single important and interesting topic, such assustainable development or environmental quality, from avariety of perspectives. An excellent example is GuruKhalsa's project at Thiel College entitled "Global Heri-tage: A Multidi.:ciplinary Focus on Sustainable Develop-ment." In this project, faculty from the natural and socialsciences and humanities, along with guest lecturers, use theconcept of sustainable development to guide their investi-gations of the cultures of Nigeria, India, China, and Braziland to explore the close interrelationship between cultureand environment in a year-long, sophomore-level course.At Thiel College. the success of the Global Heritage projecthas suggested the possibility of additional integrativecourses at both the louver and upper divisionsthat mayhelp to break down traditional disciplinary boundaries. AtOccidental College, Elizabeth Braker's project, "The Bor-der: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Critical Issues," hasa similar thrust but focuses on the border between Mexicoand the United States. By concentrating on this "edge" or"seam," Braker's team of faculty an students can explorethe environmental, demographic. ecmomic, and culturalinfluences each country has upon the other and, in addition,how these relate to important domestic and foreign policyissues. Among the issues addressed in the classroom and infield projects are immigration, agriculture, industry, andpublic health. Patricia Cunniff. of Prince George's Com-munity College, is pursuing similar goals, but with respectto a different geographical unitthe Chesapeake Bay wa-tershed. Her faculty development workshop compiled fieldprojects, laboratory exercises, and teaching resources forstudents to explore the complex ecological relationships ofone of the major watersheds of the eastern se:;ooard(Cunniff, 1993). Although the disciplines of biology,chemistry, and geography are featured in this project, theother social and natural sciences play a part in understand-ing the processes that have shaped the watershed.

Other topics sometimes serve as the focus of promisinginterdisciplinary projects. The "Connections: A Mosel forIntegrated Freshman Year Studies" project of Barbara

The Disciplines

Olds and Ronald Miller, at the Colorado School of Mines,seeks to get freshmen to appreciate the connections amongtneir courses in engineering, humanities, and the naturaland social sciences By highlighting such connections fromthe very start of the freshman year, Olds and Miller candemonstrate how all courses in the students' programs bearon their future professional work and lives. At CUNY, JohnWahlert focuses on Darwin and Darwinism to explore the-ory construction as well as its social context and culturalramifications. Michael Gorman, of the University of Vir-ginia, has his students study key inventions, such as thetelephone, to demystify the complex forces involved indesign innovation as both a social and a scientific process.Finally, Jack Bristol, at the University of Texas at El Paso,has developed a year-long freshman course that focuses oncritical milestones in the history of science as a way ofexploring the philosophical, cultural, and social dimen-sions of science. All of these projects take a fresh look atthe curriculum and attempt to move away from compart-mentalizing knowledge within time-worn disciplinary cat-egories. Such projects are likely to increase in number andscope in coming years as a means of reintegrating special-ized undergraduate curricula.

Diversifying the Curriculum and theScientific Workforce

Diversification of education to serve populations un-derrepresented in the professional social sciences is animportant avenue of development. Efforts are being madeon two fronts: (1) developing curricula that seek to serveand perhaps recruitsuch populations directly and (2)weaving issues of gender, race, and ethnicity into the basicfabric of undergraduate education. Examples of the formerinclude Akbar Aghajanian's project at Fayetteville StateUniversity. a summer institute in social demography andpopulation studies for undergraduate faculty at HistoricallyBlack Colleges and Universities. The idea is to holsterdemographic training at such institutions by providing fac-ulty with the training and materials needed to implementeffective curriculum initiatives. Mary Ann Medlin's proj-ect at Barber Scotia College pursues a similar goal, but inanthropology. The project involves a year-long lower-divi-sion course in cultural anthropology followed by a summerfield school in ethnography and a second year of study inlanguage and culture. Emphasis is placed on the scientificanalysis and cultural phenomenon of race as well as thescientific vocabulary, anthropological theories, and techni-cal skills that students can use to understand their ownexperiences within a plt society. Interactive multimediamaterials have been prepared to improve laboratorie, forthese courses and to promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills among students. Claire Bailey's project "lin-


proving Science and Mathematics Education through Inte-grated Content and Interactive Discovery Learning" atFlorid-, Community CollegeJacksonville has similaraims, both to improve introductory training and to drawminorities and women into scientific careers.

Susan Feiner's project at Hampton University, "Improv-ing Introductory Economics Education by Integrating theLatest Scholarship on the Economics of Women and Mi-norities," takes a very different but promising approach.Her work involves collaborative faculty workshops thatseek to rework existing curricula in microeconomics toreflect a realistic appreciation of the role of gender andracial difference in economic processes. Rather than devel-oping a completely new curriculum, Feiner's workshopsseek to make incremental changes in a large number ofcourses at a wide range of institutions. Feiner has foundthat colleagues are receptive to such improvements if theyare provided with guidance about the best materials to useand strategies for integrating them into their courses. Animportant part of this project has been the compilation ofthese materials (Feiner, 1994). This reshaping of existingcurricula is also part of Susan Feigenbaum's project "In-troductory Microeconomics: The Way We Live" at theUniversity of Missouri at St. Louis. In this project, theconcepts and analytical tools of microeconomics are intro-duced to students in the context of the decisions they willmake over the course of their lives. The goal is to drawstudents of all backgrounds into critical reasoning abouteconomic decision making.

Experimenting with InformationTechnology: Electronic Textbooks,Electronic Classrooms, and VirtualDepartments

Some of the most exciting curriculum development proj-ects involve creative applications of information technol-ogy. Indeed, virtually all of the projects discussed abovemake use of information technology in one form or an-other. Even as recently as a few years ago, informationtechnology was equated solely with the use of microcom-puters in traditional quantitative subfields such as econo-metrics, demography, experimental psychology, or geo-graphic information systems. This is no longer the case.Scholars from all disciplines are experimenting extensivelywith multimedia. hypertext, Internet resources, distancelearning, and many other techniques that fall under thebroad heading of information technology. At the moment,the instructional materials beiag developed seem to fallinto two categories: (11 supplementary materials, such aslaboratory exercises, and (2) more extensive sets of materi-als that qualify as "electronic textbooks." At the Univer-sity of Northern Arizona, Kathryn Cruz-Uribc has devel-

78 The Disciplines

oped materials of the first type for her courses in archeol-ogy. To date, she has developed three modules: faunalanalysis from an African archeological site; ceramic analy-sis from the American Southwest; and spatial analysis ofhouse structures in a Mayan area of Central America.These modules can be ust...1 independently in a variety ofcontexts as a complement to conventional course materials.Another example of this approach is the software toolsdeveloped by Richard Larson of SUNYStony Brook forteaching linguistics. Syntactica and Semantica allow stu-dents to explore the principles of scientific reasoning andmethod that lie behind the analysis of syntax and seman-tics. Both tools are distributed with a laboratory manualthat can be adapted to meet the needs of different instruc-tors and students.

Clearly, however, scholars are attempting to create soft-ware prototypes that go far beyond exercises and labora-tory materials and into the realm of the electronic textbook.At the moment, the electronic textbook is more a conceptthan a fact, but a number of projects are moving in thedirection of demonstrating the feasibility of such materials.The extensive suite of materials developed by AndrewBeveridge (CUNYQueens College), Susan Feigenbaum(University of Missouri at St. Louis), Gary Hanson (Fran-cis Marion University), and Mary kin. Medlin (BarberScotia College) come very close to suggesting the formsuch texts may take in the near future. Currently, theseprojects are composed of interlocking laboratory exercises,but it is easy to imagine how they could be expanded into

,mprehensive hypermedia-based texts. Hypermedia"books" may come to supplant conventional textbooks insome courses, but other models for hypermedia develop-ment are being explored in disciplines outside the socialsciences. At California State UniversityLos Angeles,Robert Desharnais and Gary Novak are experimenting withan "electronic desktop" for use in the natural sciencecurriculum. Their idea is to use information technology tounify access to electronic mail, locally developed software,commercial software, reference materials, and Internet re-sources all from a single workstation. Rather than envision-ing a discrete electronic textbook, Deshamais and Novakare using computers to link whatever resources are avail-able with a common graphic interface, an idea closer towhat might be termed an "electronic library" or "elec-tronic laboratory." A related idea has been demonstratedby Len Troncale at California State Polytechnic Universityin a project to support integrated general education in sci-ence. Rather than attempting to teach scientific methodfrom the perspective of a single discipline, Troncale em-ploys hypermedia materials to demonstrate features com-mon to all disciplines.

It is difficult to predict what form such electronic mediawill assume. The momentum being gained by hypermedia-based laboratory materials may carry through into the dc-

velopment of full-scale hypermedia texts. At the sametime, there is no reason for hypermedia materials to imitatethe form of conventionally printed texts. The idea thatstudents will trade in textbooks for CD-ROMs misses animportant point. Information technology is not solely ameans of delivering course materials, but rather a point ofinterconnection, communication, and access. Students canbecome far more active participants in their education asthey search for information interactively and debate com-peting theories on-line. In this view, the "scientificdesktop" or "scholarly workstation" may become themodel of choice. It would allow access to a wide range ofresourcesincluding those hypermedia materials devel-oped locallyas well as on-line discussion and interaction.

Some of the most interesting experiments may be justover the horizon. Hypermedia authoring techniques havejust recently become accessible to large numbers of schol-ars, and it is only in the past year or two that Internetbrowsers like Mosaic have made it possible to envision thedevelopment of on-line course materials. As the academiccommunity gains facility with these resources, experimentsmay go far beyond the creation of individual electronictextbooks. It may be possible to develop "virtual" depart-ments, disciplines. or universities in which ready access toeducational resources of all sorts is available through aneasy-to-use graphical interface. The idea of using the Inter-net and hypermedia resources to link faculty and studentsfrom many departments and universities is, in some re-spects, just around the corner. Such cooperative endeavorswould not only expose students to a richer educationalenvironment but also help to average out the high deve!op-mem costs of hypermedia resources.

Dissemination: Different Projects,Different Paths

Dissemination is usually the last thing on the mind of mostprincipal investigators (Pk) as they begin a project. Theirprimary concern is the project innovationthe ideaandthe problems of mobilizing the resources needed to reachtheir goal. Yet, in the long term, an effective plan of dis-semination is perhaps more important than the innovationitself. A N u pe r b idea will eventually count for very little if itfails to reach a larger audience either within the homeinstitution or among other educators at other colleges anduniversities. The only way to make sure this happens is toconsider dissemination from the very start of a projecteven if plans are a hit sketchy at first- and continue tofocus on these issues throughout the project. The truth isthat dissemination should come first, rather than last, in aPl's plan of work, and some excellent guidelines (Ely andHuberman, 1994) are already Available from the NationalScience Foundation (NSF).

The Disciplines 79

Dissemination, of course, means much more than publi-cation. It entails promoting a project in ways that lead toadoption and change within a department, at a university,or at other institutions. Within the academic world, wethink first of publication as a means of dissemination be-cause it is the model to which we are accustomed in re-search. Educational innovations are different, in so far aswe must persuade our colleagues not only to rethink theirmethods but to do something differently in the classroom.Effective adoption of an educational innovation requireschanging behaviorand more effort is usually required toconvince colleagues to do something differently than toaccept new research findings. Dissemination must beviewed as persuasion, in a very broad sense. Publication isimportant, but other strategies must also be consideredworkshops, training, discussion groups, Internet communi-cation, and other forms of person-to-person and face-to-face interaction. A plan of dissemination will necessarilyentail considering all possible strategies for persuading col-leagues to accept and adopt changeand these strategiesmay vary radically from project to project and from audi-ence to audience. In deciding which strategy to use for agiven project, PIs must keep in mind two points. First, allpossible methods of persuasion must be considered, notjust publication. Second, information technclogies such asthe Internet and "electronic" texts offer new, unexploredresources for facilitating curricular change.

Publication will, for obvious reasons, continue to play animportant role in virtually all curriculum projects. Journalarticles, laboratory manuals, and textbooks remain excel-lent ways of promoting or marketing both the ideas and theconcepts that lie behind an innovation and the curriculummaterials that need to go into the hands of faculty andstudents. Yet with increasing use of electronic media andsoftware, simply publishing new materials sometimes isnot enough. Effective use of electronic media requiresadopters to devote much more time to retooling and rede-signing courses, learning new software, and even creatingnew classrooms and laboratories. The learning curve ismuch steeper for electronic than for print media. Dissemi-nation plans should take this difference into account inseveral possible ways. First, potential adopters should bebrought into the development cycle as early as possible sothat they can learn as the project evolves and even contrib-ute to its development. Second, interaction with potentialadopters should be promoted actively through Internetcommunication, regular gatherings at professional meet-ings. newsletters, and discussion lists. Third, workshopsand training car be built into a dissemination plan, either atprofessional meetings or perhaps in summer institutes.Training with new software and face-to-face discussion iscritical when adopters are faced with retooling their skills.This last point is underscored by the fact that NSF is hol-stering its Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement program to

support precisely these sorts of workshops and institutes.Finally, for investigators envisioning hypermediacourseware, it seems important to make contact with poten-tial publishers early in the development cycleearlier thanwould be the case for print media. Hypermedia is still in itsinfancy, and authors can occasionally find themselves indeadends. Time spent working with professional producersfrom the start can pay off in the long run.

As important is the question of how the Internet canserve as a tool for curricular change. Electronic mail, listservers, and the World Wide Web have all had tremendousimpact on the academic world and should all be factoredinto dissemination plans. Perhaps the best is yet to come.The Internet seems to offer a new forum for collaborativedevelopment, for testing materials, and for "publishing"materials that serve too small a market for commercialpublication. Collaborative development across the Internetis already underway, but testing and publication have notyet attracted as much attention. Many software developersare hesitant to test materials on the Internet for fear oflosing proprietary rights to future publication. Until copy-right issues are clarified this will remain a problem. Onealternative is to put demonstration versions of softwareon-line or at least to place course outlines on the Internet,possibly through World Wide Web file servers and theMosaic browser. Publication on the Internet will offer newopportunities for some projects that may not attract readyinterest among commercial publishers. Many excellentprojects emerge from relatively small disciplines, servevery specialized courses, or produce software and exercisesthat must be constantly revised. Tnese sorts of projectshave always had a difficult time making their way into themainstream through commercial sources. The Internet nowmakes it possible to issue these sorts of ephemeral and"fugitive" materials to an international audience so as toadd to cumulative experience and knowledge. This is animportant issue. In the realm of curriculum development,too many scholars inadvertently reinvent the wheel be-cause they simply are not aware of related projects at otheruniversities. Education is not quite like research, in which acumulative body of scholarship sets the terms of debate. Ineducation, hundreds of instructors are teaching similarcourses in slightly different ways without ever really com-paring notes. Internet publication of course material., andoutlines could reduce this duplication of effort.

Expanding the Bounds of Innovation

The cultivation of innovation requires more than a goodidea and an effective plan of dissemination. Seed projectsrequire nurture and support to effect change. The basicproblem is that, in the current context of higher education,ltt cultivation of educational initiatives cuts against the

80 The Disciplines

grain of institutional rewards and incentives. Although ten-ure, promotion, salaries, and reputations are said to bebased both on research and teaching, at many institutionslittle weight is, in fact, placed on the latter. Although thisproblem has long been faced by scholars interested in edu-cational innovation, the advent of informational technolo-gies has added additional pressures. Many of the mostinteresting innovations now underway in the social sci-ences involve the creative use of information technologies.These technologies make tremendous demands upon edu-cators willing to put them to use in the classroom andlaboratory. Software requires extra time for training.Hypermedia materials are time-consuming to write. Labo-ratory resources require substantial time to establish andmaintain. Not too many years ago, the major complaints ofinnovators revolved around finding funds for hardware andsoftware and issues such as the compatibility of hardwareand software. These are not mentioned nearly as often anymore; rather, the major complaints revolve around balanc-ing the demands of curricular innovation against other aca-demic responsibilities.

Change is likely to come slowly and must occur at sev-eral levels simultaneously: within individual colleges anduniversities, within professional societies, and within fund-ing agencies such as NSF. Bottom-up and top-downchange will play a role at each of these levels. Pis arealready becoming a force of bottom-up change at all threelevels. As conferences such as the Project Impact confer-ence attest, the enthusiasm of innovators can go far toinfluence the reward system of higher education. Top-down changes may be more problematic. Two things musthappen. First, innovators must be recognized for their in-vestments of time and energy by either being releasedperiodically from other responsibilities or being acknowl-edged and rewarded explicitly. Second, methods twist befound within universities and professional societies tobring innovators together to work toward common goals.Within universities, the creation of media centers and insti-tutes and release time for faculty to use these resources canhave a positive effect. Within professional associations, thecreation of specialty groups and working committees isimportant.

Funding agencies such as NSF are already making apositive impact on educational innovation, and it may hepossible to increase this still further. For many innovators,

NSF is already an important source of rewards, such asrelease time and equipment for seed projects, that are not asreadily available through universities or professional socie-ties. Furthermore, NSF awards are often instrumental inpersuading university administrators to support innova-tions. Existing NSF programs can be used to build uponthis trend. The Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement pro-gram, in particular, can support the creation of institutesand working groups to promote innovation among consor-tia of universities and within professional associations. Or-ganizational changes that provide for closer coordinationof the Foundation's research and educational unitsforexample, through the creation of permanent educationalprogram officers for some disciplinescould help to nur-ture innovation even further. The fact remains that NSFdoes have a powerful influence on the reward system ofhigher education. New programs that set an agenda forcurricular innovation, such as the Advanced TechnologicalEducation program, will continue to be an important meansof wielding this power. The idea of creating a nationalteaching college or institute in collaboration with publicand private universities may be another way to expand thebounds of innovation in American higher education.


Cunniff, Patricia A., Ed. (1993) An Interdisciplinary Approach tothe Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Field Activities, LaboratoryExercises, Resources. Largo, MD: Prince George's Commu-nity College.

Ely, Donald P., and A. Michael Huberman. (1993) User-FriendlyHandbook for Project Dissemination: Science, Mathematics,Engineering, and Technology Education (NSF Publication#94-17). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Feiner, Susan F., Ed. (1994) Race and Gender in the AmericanEconomy: Views from across the

Spectrum. New York: PrenticeHall.

Kenneth E. Foote is an associate professor of geography at theUniversity of Texas at Austin, where he teaches in the areas ofcultural geography and geographical methods. He is now at workon developing hypermedia instructional materials (in the WorldWide Web) for the Geographer's Craft, a project that uses active-learning. problem-solving methods to teach geographical infOr-?nation systems. cartography, and other geographical techniques.


Project Impact Conference:Participant Feedback

principal investigators (PIs) who attended NSF's 1994ir Project Impact conference were asked to complete abrief questionnaire to elicit feedback. Responses were re-ceived from 127 PIs. The findings are highlighted below.

Conference Usefulness. As to overall usefulness. 83 per-cent of the respondents said the conference was very usefulwhile 13 percent said it was somewhat useful. The exhibitswere especially well-received, with 80 percent of the Pisdescribing them as very useful and most of the rest findingthe exhibits somewhat useful. Disciplinary workshopswere also quite popular, with 75 percent describing them as

very useful.

Conference Activities and Impacts. Ninety-four percentof respondents said they talked with other PIs or staffmembers about possible future cooperation and 78 percentsaid they are likely to continue their associations with thesePIs after the conference. Most respondents-87 percentsaid they talked with commercial publishers at the confer-

ence, and 46 percent said they are likely to pursue commer-cial publication as a rest., of these discussions.

Many PIs reported that they expect to find concreteapplications for ideas and information obtained at the con-ference: 76 percent said they obtained new course andcurriculum/lab ideas that they are likely to try; 61 percentsaid they obtained new dissemination or implementationideas that they are likely to try; and 78 percent said they arelikely to make Ir .'.e dissemination anc' /or implementationefforts with their project products as a result of the confer-ence.

Recommendations. Some of the more common recom-mendations were to: increase the emphasis on exhibits andon unstructured time for networking; broaden participationto include more publishers, institution administrators,deans, etc.; consider making a videotape or compact disc ofthe exhibits to disseminate to institutions and faculty whocannot attend the conference; and add a how-it's-done,getting-started session for PIs who have never publishedmaterials.

SECTION IVResource Guide

Abstracts and further 4Ormation about the projects referenced in this document are found in Project

Impact: Disseminating Innovation in Undergraduate Education. Abstracts of Projects: Things That

Work, NSF 95-70.


National Science Foundation 1994Project Impact ConferenceParticipants List

For the reader's convenience, projects with available instructional materials are marked with an asterisk (*). Further, theproject's discipline is indicated through the following symbols: A-astronomy, B-biology. C-chemistry, CS-commputerscience, E-engineering, G-geological sciences, I-interdisciplinary, M-mathematics. P-physics, and S-social sciences.

B Dawn Adams*Baylor UniversityDepartment of BiologyBox 97388Waco, TX [email protected]"Design and Implementation of a BioliteracyLaboratory Course to Replace TraditionalIntroductory Nonmajors Biology Laboratories atColleges and Universities"

Adeniram AdeboyeHoward UniversityWashington. DC 20059202-806-6838

S Akbar Aghajanian*Fayetteville State UniversityDepartment of Social and Behavioral SciencesFayetteville, NC [email protected]'Summer Seminar in Social Demography and

Population Studies for Undergraduate Faculty atHistorically Black Colleges and Universities"

E Alice AgoginoUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringS136 Etcheverry HallBerkeley, CA 94720510-642-6450

E Maurice Albertson*Colorada State UniversityDepartment of Civil EngineeringRoom 203 Weber BuildingFort Collins, CO 80523301-491-5753"'Vb.:weed Integrated Wastew ater Pond Systems"

M Charles Alexander*University of MississippiDepartment of MathematicsHume Hall 227University, MS 38677601-232-5405bimet:mmcca@umsvm"Implementation of Calculus Reform at aComprehensive State University with ProjectCALC"

CS Vicki Allan*Utah State UniversityDepartment of Computer ScienceLogan, UT 83422-4205801-750-2022"A Preparatory Course for Computer Science"

S Michael Allison*University of MinnesotaSt. Louis8001 Natural Bridge RoadSt. Louis. MO 63121314-553-5554"Computer Laboratory for Quantitative EconomicAnalysis"

E Sema Alptekin*California Polytechnic UniversityDepartment of Industrial and ManufacturingEngineeringSan Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]"C1M Summer Workshops for UndergraduateEngineering Faculty"

Donald AlstadUniversity of Minnesota1987 Upper Buford CircleSt. Paul. MN 55108612-624-6748dnit(fr

Resource Guide 85

Mobolaji AlukoHoward University2300 Sixth Street, NWWashington, DC1'0059202-806-4632

P Joseph Amato*Colgate UnivctrsityDepartment of Physics and AstronomyHamilton, NY [email protected]"Modern Intix. Juctory Physics: The SecondSemester"

C John Amend*Montana State UniversityDepartment of ChemistryBozeman, MT [email protected]"Integrating Computer Technology into theIntroductory Chemistry Laboratory"

E Abbas AminmansourPennsylvania State Unive-sity104 Engineering Unit AUniversity Park, PA 16802814- 865 -9281"Development of Steel Design EducationalModule (SteeIDEM)"

E Vera Anand*Clemson University302 Lowry HallClemson. SC 29634 [email protected]"A New Approach to Undergraduate EngineeringEducation: Integration of Solid Modeling and FiniteElement Analysis"

M Alfred Andrew*GA Tech Res CorpGITSchool of MathematicsAtlanta, GA 30332-0160404-853-9206andrewai)math.gatech.eilic

The Georgia Tech/Clemson Consortium forUndergraduate Mathematics in Science .ndEngineering-

R. ArimilliUniversity of Tennessee-- Knox., il leKnoxville, TN 37996-2210615-974-5300


E Abd Arkadan*Marquette UniversityDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering1515 West Wisconsin AvenueMilwaukee, WI 53233"Finite Elements for Instruction ofElectromagnetic Fields"

B Phil Arneson*Cornell UniversityDepartment of Plant PathologyIthaca, NY 14853-0031607-255-7871paa3 @cornell.edu"A Dynamic, Interactive. Electronic Textbook inPlant Pathology USDA/CSRS/HEP"

E Cynthia Atman*University of Pittsburgh1048 Bertedum HallPittsburgh. PA 15261412-624-9836"Freshman Engineering Experience"

I Clare Bailey*Florida Community CollegeJacksonville4501 Capper RoadJacksonville, FL 32218-4030"Improving Science and Mathematic EducationThrough Integrated Content and InteractiveDiscovery Learning"

CS Douglas Baldwin*SUNY--GeneseoDepartment of Computer Science1 College CircleGeneseo, NY 14454716-245-5332haldwin @cs.geneseo.edu"Development of Science of Computing Courses 1and 2 at SUNY Ger,esco"

M Thomas BanchoffBrown UniversityDepartment of MathematicsProvidence, RI [email protected]"A Laboratory Approach to IntroductoryDifferential Geometry''


M William Barker*Bowdoin CollegeDepartment of MathematicsBrunswick, ME [email protected]"Mathematica Laboratory Project for Calculus andApplied Mathematics"

I Stuart Baum*SUNYPlattsburghDepartment of ChemistryPlattsburgh, NY 12901518-564-2707"Improving Science Education: An IntegratedApproach Project"

C Richard Bayer*Carroll CollegeDepartment of Chemistry1016 East Roberta AvenueWaukesha, WI 53186414-542-5059"Workshops Which Provide Instruction in theImplementation of an Innovative Model forIntroductory Chemistry Laboratory Manuals"

E Andy BazarCalifornia State UniversityLong Beach1250 Bellflower BoulevardLong Beach, CA 90840-8306"Southern California Coalition for Education inManufacturing Engineering"

William BeckerPortland State UniversityPortland, OR 97207

E Richard Behr*University of MissouriRona107 Straumanis HallRolla, MO [email protected]"ANEX/RIED: Analysis, Experiment, andEngineering Drawings in a Portable StructuralModel Laboratory'

Arthur Bell*North Carolina A&T State UniversityDepartment of Agricultural Education242 Carver HallGreensboro. NC 2741 I919-334-7711"Strengthening Enrollment Using. SharedResources and Distance Delivery"

Resource Guide

Rhoda Berenson*Nassau County Community CollegeDepartment of Engineering/PhysicsGarden City, NY 11530516-572-7018"Improving Scientific Literacy of UndergraduateStudents through Hands-On MultidisciplinaryScience Courses"

S Andrew Beveridge*CUNYQueens CollegeDepartment of Sociology209 Kissena HallFlushing, NY [email protected]"The Introductory Sociology Curriculum Initiative:An Empirical, Scientific Approach"

CS Alan Biermann*Duke UniversityDepartment of Computer SciencePO Box 90129Durham, NC [email protected]"Visualizing Computation: An Automated Tutor"

G Eugene BierlyAmerican Geophysical UnionDirector2000 Florida Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20009202-462-6900, x202

I Thomas BitterwolfUniversity of IdahoDepartment of ChemistryMoscow, ID 83843208-885-6361"Integrated Science for Elementary EducationMajors (ISEEM)"

G Marcia Bjomerud*Miami University at OxfordDepartment of GeologyOxford, OH 45056513 -529- [email protected]"Restructuring an Introductory GeologyLaboratory around Themes of Earth Systems"

Resource Guide 87

M Paul Blanchard*Boston UniversityDepartment of Mathematics111 Cummington StreetBoston, MA [email protected]"Differential Equations: A Dynamical SystemsApproach"

P S. Leslie Blatt*Clark UniversityDepartment of Physics950 Main StreetWorcester, MA 01610508-793-7366"Development of a Discovery Approach forIntroductory Level Physics Courses"

Mark BloomCold Spring Harbor LaboratoryCold Spring Harbor, NY 11724516-367-7240Sheila BlumsteinBrown UniversityBox 1828Providence, RI 02912

M Robert Borrelli*Harvey 'Iudd CollegeDepartn,int of Mathematics1250 North DartmouthClaremont, CA [email protected]"Computer Experiments in Differential Equations"

E Donald BouldinUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleKnoxville, TN 37996-0140615- 974 [email protected]

E John Bourne*Vanderbilt UniversityBox 1570, Station BNashville, TN 37235615-322-2118boumejr(a)vuctrvax.bitnet"Intelligent Computer-Based LearningEnvironments for Undergraduate EngineeringLaboratories"

B Dana BoydAmerican Society for MicrobiologyDirector, Office of Education and Training1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20020202-942-9264

Robert BradfordFlorida A&M UniversityTallahassee, FL 32308904-561-2644

M John BradleyAmerican Mathematical SocietyAssociate Executive Director1527 18th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036202-588-1853

1 Elizabeth Braker*Occidental CollegeDepartment of Biology1600 Campus RoadLos Angeles, CA 90041"The Border: A Multidisciplinary Approach toCritical Issues"

B Carol BrewerUniversity of MontanaDivision of Biological ScienceMissoula, MT 59812406-243-6016

Lia BrillhartTriton CollegeRiver Grove, IL 60171708-456-0300

John Bristol*University of TexasEl PasoCollege of ScienceBell Hall Room 100El Paso, TX 79968"An Interdisciplinary Course in Science. ItsHistory, and Cultural Implications"

E Arthur Brodersen*Vanderbilt UniversityBox 1628, Station BNashville, TN 37235615-322-2498broderaf&vuse.vanderbiltedu."Intelligent Computer-Based LearningEnvironments for Undergraduate EngineeringLaboratories"

88 Resource Guide

B Mark Brodl*Knox CollegeDepartment of BiologyCampus Box 44Galesburg, IL 61401-4999"Transfer of Research Laboratory Excellence toTeaching Laboratories: A Model Approach"

Stanley BrodskyCUNY Graduate SchoolNew York, NY 10036

E Harold BrodyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, PA 15260"Engineering Academy of Southern New England"

M Morton BrownUniversity of MichiganDepartment of MathematicsAnn Arbor, MI 48109-1220313-764-9402

Bonnie Brunkhorst*California State UniversitySan Bernardino5500 University ParkwaySan Bernardino, CA [email protected]"California State University Science TeachingDevelopment Project"

E Louis Bucciarelli*Massachusetts Institute of Technology3-282Cambridge, MA 02139617-253-4061"Engineering Design as NegotiationAn ECSELEffort"

B Joseph Burleigh*University of ArkansasPine BluffPO Box 1081200 North UniversityPine Bluff, AR 71601501-54,3-8151"Regulatory Science Degree Program"

B Rodger Bybee*Biological Sciences Curriculum StudyAssociate Director830 North Tejon, Suite 405Colorado Springs, CO 80903"Biological Education: Development ofCurriculum Frameworl tor High School, 2-Yearand 4-Year Nonmajors Courses"

M James CallahanSmith CollegeDepartment of MathematicsNonhhampton, MA 01063413-585-3863


M Dennis Callas*SUNYCollege of Technology at DelhiDelhi, NY 13753-1190607-746-4133/4102"Snapshots of Applications in Mathematics"

James CanningUniversity of MassachusettsLowellLowell, MA 01854508-934-3633

M Bettye CaseFlorida State UniversityDepartment of MathematicsTallahassee, FL [email protected]

E Robert Caverly*University of MassachusettsDartmouthDepartment of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNorth Dartmouth, MA [email protected]"A Laboratory-Oriented Approach toUndergraduate Analog CMOS VLSI DesignInstruction"

B Amy ChangAmerican Society for MicrobiologyDirector, Office of Education and Training1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20020202 -942- -9264

C Kenneth ChapmanAmerican Chemical SocietyHead, Technician Resources/Education1155 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20020202-872-8068

Orville Chapman*University of CaliforniaLos Angeles405 Hilgard AvenueLos Angeles, CA [email protected]"The UCLA Science Challenge"

Resource Guide 89

P Elisabeth CharronMontana State UniversityBozeman, MT 59717406-994-5953"Systemic Teacher Excellence Preparation: TheSTEP Project"

Jack Chirikjian*Georgetown University Medical CenterDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyBasic Science Building4000 River RoadWashington, DC 20007202-687-2160"Undergraduate Biotechnology CurriculumDevelopment Project"

Norman ChristensenDuke UniversityDurham, NC 27708919-684-3715

B Kerry Clark*Florida Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Biological SciencesMelbourne, FL 32901-6988407-768-8000, x8195clark @roo.fit.edu"Project LABS: Least-Impact Analysis of BioticSystems"

P Robert Clark*Texas A&M UniversityDepartment of PhysicsCollege Station, TX [email protected]"Two-Year College Physics Faculty EnhancementProgram"

Aage ClausenOhio State UniversityColumbus, OH 43210-1063

M George CobbMathematical Association of AmericaWashington, DC 20001-0000413-538-2481gcobb@ mhc.mtholyoke.edu

M Robert Cole*Evergreen State CollegeOlympia, WA 98505-6714206-866-60(X)[email protected]"The Washington Center Calculus DisseminationProject"

E Kristen ConstantIowa State UniversityDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering3053 Gilman HallAmes, IA [email protected]"A New Paradigm for Teaching UndergraduateMaterials Synthesis and Processing"

E Wils Cooley*West Virginia UniversityDepartment of Electrical and Computer EngineeringPO Box 6101Morgantown, WV 26506-6101304-293-6371, [email protected]"Development and Evaluation of Design-OrientedElectrical Engineering Lower Division LaboratoryMaterials"

Thomas Cooney105 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602

C Melanie Cooper*Clemson University271 Hunter Chemistry LaboratoriesClemson, SC 29634-5702803-656-2573"Cooperative Chemistry Laboratories"

James Courtright*Marquette UniversityDepartment of BiologyMilwaukee, WI 53233414-288-1476"Development of Concept Modules for TeachingIntroductory Science"

Herbert Covert*University of ColoradoBoulderDepartment of AnthropologyCB 233Boulder, CO 80309-0233"Enhancing Undergraduate Learning in NaturalScience: A New Curriculum for Laboratory Classesin Biological Anthropology"

E Kevin Craig*Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringTroy, NY [email protected]"Design of Mechatronic Systems"

5 ,4

90 Resource Guide

E James CrossSouthern UniversityDepartment of Electrical Engineering13608 Alba DriveBaker, LA 70714504-775-4153

S Kathryn Cruz-Uribe*Northern Arizona UniversityDepartment of AnthropologyBox 15200Flagstaff, AZ 86011602-523-9503cmskcuol@nauvm"Computer-Based Laboratory Exercises forIntroductory Archaeology Courses. A Pilot Projectfor a Minority Approach to Archaeology"

Hays CumminsMiami University at OxfordOxford, OH 45056

I Patricia Cunniff*Prince George's Community CollegeScience and Technology Resource CenterM-2011301 Largo RoadLargo, MD 20772-2199301-322-0445"Ecology of the Chesapeake Bay Workshop"

Charlene D'AvanzoHampshire CollegeSchool of Natural SciencesAmherst, MA 01002413-582-5569

CS Nell DaleUniversity of TexasAustinAustin, TX 78712

I Kerry DavidsonLouisiana Board of Regents150 Third Street, Suite 129Baton Rouge, LA 70801-1389504-342-4253"Louisiana Collaborative for Excellence in thePreparation of Teachers (LaCEPT)"

M William DavisOhio State UniversityDepartment of MathematicsColumbus, OH [email protected]

M Alfredo de los Santos*Maricopa Mathematics ConsortiumMaricopa County Community College District2411 West 14th StreetTempe, AZ [email protected]"Maricopa Mathematics Consortium (WPC)Project"

Robert Decker81 Apple RoadTolland, CT [email protected]

C Benjamin DeGraff*James Madison UniversityDepartment of ChemistryHarrisonburg, VA [email protected]"Chemical Applications of LasersA ShortCourse"

D Robert Desharnais*California State UniversityLos AngelesDepartment of Biology and Microbiology5151 State University DriveLos Angeles, CA 90032"Integrating the Electronic Desktop into theNatural Science Curriculum"

M Dennis DeTurckUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PA [email protected]

M Thomas Dick*Oregon State UniversityDepartment of MathematicsCorvallis, OR 97331-4605503-737-4686tpdick @math.orst.edu"Calculators in the Calculus Curriculum"

E Katy Disney*Mission CollegeDepartment of Engineering3000 Mission College BoulevardSanta Clara, CA 95054408-988-2200, x3440katy_disney @wvmccd.cc.ca.us"Designing a Portable Technical Literacy Courscfor Use in California"

Resource Guide 91

E Frank Dolan*' :ew Jersey Institute of Technology.nfotech Building, Suite 2400NJIT University HeightsNewark, NJ 07102201-596-5973dolan@admin 1 .njit.edu"Curriculum DevelopmentManufacturing Systems"

Kevin DonaghyRochester Institute of TechnologyRochester, NY 14623

John DoyleCalifornia Institute of TechnologyControl and Dynamic Systems 210-41Pasadena, CA [email protected]

C John DroskeUniversity of WisconsinStevens PointDepartment of ChemistryStevens Point, WI 54481715-346-3771

M Edward Dubinsky*8 Whittier Place, Apartment 6EBoston, MA 02114617-723-7543"Calculus. Concepts, Computers, and CooperativeLearning"

M David DudleyMaricopa Mathematics ConsortiumMaricopa County Community College District2411 West 14th StreetTempe, AZ [email protected]

Darna Dufour*University of ColoradoBoulderDepartment of AnthropologyCB 233Boulder, CO 80309-0233303-492-1167"Enhancing Undergraduate Learning in NaturalScience: A New Curriculum for Laboratory Ciassesin Biological Anthropology"

A Robert Dukes*College of CharlestonDepartment of PhysicsCharleston, SC 29424803-953-8073"Astronomy for Science Literacy: A Program forNon Science Majors"

E John Eaton*Stanford UniversityDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringStanford, CA 94305-3030415-723-1971"Interactive Software for Self-Paced Instruction onLaboratory Instrumentation and Computerized DataAcquisition"

B Diane Ebert-May*Northern Arizona UniversityScience and Mathematics Learning CenterDepartment of Biological SciencesPO Box 5697Flagstaff. AZ [email protected]"A Slice of Life: An Introductory Biology Course"

E Robert EdwardsPennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Nuclear EngineeringUniversity Park, Pt. 16802814-865-1341"Research and Curriculum Development for PowerPlant Intelligent Distributed Control"

C Richard Eisenberg*University of RochesterDepartment of ChemistryRochester, NY 14627-0216"Ventures Courses in Chemistry on the Themes ofEnergy and Life"

C Karolyn EisensteinNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington. VA 22230

M Walter Elias. Jr.*Virginia State UniversityDepartment of MathematicsBox 9060Petersburg, VA 23806804-524-5921"Multi-HBCU Calculus Project"


C Arthur Ellis*University of WisconsinMadisonDepartment of Chemistry1101 University AvenueMadison, WI [email protected]"Development of a Materials-Oriented GeneralChemistry Course"

M Wade EllisWest Valley CollegeDepartment of Mathematics and Science14000 Fruitvale AvenueSaratoga, CA 95070

E Carl Erdman*Texas A&M University Research Foundation301 Wisenbaker Engineering CenterCollege Station, TX [email protected]"A Restructured Engineering Science Core with aDesign Component"

I Nicholas ErorUniversity of PittsburghChair, Department of Materials Science andEngineering848 Benedum HallPittsburgh, PA [email protected]"National Chautauqua Workshop Program"

E D. Fennell EvansUniversity of MinnesotaCenter for Interfacial Engineering179 Shepherd Laboratories100 Union Street, SEMinneapolis, MN [email protected]"Curriculum Development for InterfacialEngineering"

E Donovan Evans*Arizona State UniversityDepartment of Mechanical and AerospaceEngineeringPO Box 876106Tempe, AZ 85287-6106602-965-1381"Student Teaming and Design"

Norman FainsteinCUNYBaruch CollegeNew York, NY 10010

C James Fasching*University of Rhode IslandDepartment of ChemistryKingston, RI [email protected]

Resource Guide

S Susan Feigenbaum*University of MissouriSaint LouisDepartment of Economics8001 Natural Bridge RoadSaint Louis, MO [email protected]"Computer Laboratory for Quantitative EconomicAnalysis"

S Susan Feiner*University of OregonE.S.W.S, Hendricks HallEugene, OR 97403-1201503-346-2256"Improving Introductory Economics Education byIntegrating the Latest Scholarship on theEconomics of Women and Minorities"

E Richard Felder*North Carolina State UniversityDepartment of Chemical EngineeringRaleigh, NC [email protected]"Longitudinal Effects of Innovative InstructionalMethods in the Undergraduate EngineeringCurriculum"

Evan FergusonSigma Xi Scientific Research SocietyDeputy Executive DirectorPO Box 1397599 Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709919-549-4691

Louis Fernandez*California State UniversitySan Bernardino5500 University ParkwaySan Bernardino, CA 92407909-880-5300"California State University Science TeachingDevelopment Project"

Resource Guide

I James FeyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkDepartment of MathematicsCollege Park, MD 20742301-405-3151"Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation"

G Fred FinleyUniversity of Minnesota370 Peik Hall159 Pillsbury Drive, SEMinneapolis, MN [email protected]

'Our Changing Planet: An Interactive ScienceCourse"

I Kathleen Fisher*San Diego State UniversitySan Diego, CA [email protected]"Making the Invisible Visible: A LearningEnvironment to Enhance ConceptualUnderstanding in Physics and Biology"

I Michael Flower*Portland State UniversityCenter for Science EducationPO Box 751Portland, OR [email protected]"Science in the Liberal Arts Education: AnUndergraduate Course Development Project"

E H. Scott Fog ler*University of MichiganAnn ArborDepartment of Chemical Engineering3168 Hill Dow BuildingAnn Arbor, MI [email protected]"A Focus on Developing Innovative Engineers"

M Gregory Foley*Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TX [email protected]"Calculus for Comprehensive Universities and2-Year Colleges"


E Norman FortenberryNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Eunice Foster*Michigan State UniversityDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences160 PSSEast Lansing, MI [email protected]"Decision Case Use in Agricultural Sciences:Researching, Writing, and Teaching"

Donald FranceschettiMemphis State UniversityInterim Vice Provost for ResearchMemphis, TN 38152901-678-2590

P Gregory FrancisMontana State UniversityDepartment of PhysicsBozeman, MT 59717406-994-6625gfrancis @terra.oscs.montana.edu"Systemic Teacher Excellence Preparation: TheSTEP Project"

Peter FreemanGA Tech Res Corp GITAtlanta, GA 30332404-894 4222freeman @cc.gatech.edu

Avner FriedmanUniversity of MinnesotaTwin Cities514 Vincent Hall206 Church Street, SEMinneapolis, MN 55455612-624-6066

Daniel Friedman*Howard Community CollegeDepartment of ScienceLittle Patuxent ParkwayColumbia, MD 21044410-992-4827"Fostering Computational Problem-Solving Skillsin Introductory Sciences: An InteractiveMultimedia Curriculum"

94 Resource Guide

CS Frank Friedman*Temple University314 Computer Activity BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19122"Incorporating Object-Oriented Concepts in theIntroductory Computer Science Sequence"

Eli FrommDrexel UniversityDepartment of Research and Graduate Studies32nd and Chestnut StreetsPhiladelphia, PA 19104215-895-2201"Gateway Engineering Education Coalition"

P Robert Fuller*University of NebraskaLincolnDepartment of Physics and AstronomyLincoln, NE [email protected]"Teaching Physics Using Interactive DigitizedMedia: A Leadership Development Workshop"

M Bernard Fusaro*Salisbury State UniversitySalisbury. MD 21801.410-543-6470bafusar asag.towson.edu"Filling the Tank: The Math Modeling/PreCalculu:;Reform Project"

B Clifford GabrielAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesExecutive Director730 I 1th Street, NWWashington, DC 20001202-628-1500

Alfred Garafalo*Massachusetts College of Pharmacy179 Longwood AvenueBosm, MA 02115617-732-2949"Interactive Learning in Thematically IntegratedFreshman Chemistry and Biology"

Roberi GeitzOberlin CollegeOberlin, OH 44074

Robert GilbertFlorida International UniversityCollege of EducationDM 234Miami. FL 33199305-348-3230

M Gurcharan GillBrigham Young UniversityProvo, UT 84602801-378-2061gillg @hamblin.math.byu.edu

Beverly Gimmestad*Michigan Technological UniversityDepartment of Mathematical Sciences210 Clark StreetHoughton, MI [email protected]"A Course for the Development of 3-D SpatialVisualization Skills in Freshman EngineeringStudents"

M Andrew GleasonHarvard UniversityCambridge, MA [email protected]

E Charles Glover*Texas A&M UniversityDepartment of Chemical EngineeringCollege Station, TX [email protected]"A Restructured Engineering Science Core with aDesign Component"

Fred Goldberg*San Diego State University6475 Alvarado Road, Suite 206San Diego, CA 92101"Making tile Invisible Visible: A LearningEnvironment to Enhance ConceptualUnderstanding in Physics and Biology"

M Elizabeth Goldman*Vanderbilt University221 Kirkland HallNashville. TN 37240615-343-3224"Hypermedia Materials for ElementaryMathematics Teacher Education"

E Mario Gonzalez*University of Texas System0. Henry Hall 402601 Colorado StreetAustin. TX 78701-2982512-499-4207mjg @emx.utexas.edu"Introduction to Electrical and ComputerEngineering'

Resource Guide

M Sheldon Gordon*Suffolk County Community CollegeSe lden, NY [email protected]"Filling the Tank: The Math Modeling/PreCalculusReform Project"

Michael Gorman*University of VirginiaDivision of Technology, Culture, andCommunicationSEASThornton HallCharlottesville, VA 22901804-982-2905"Using Case Studies to Teach Invention andDesign"

C David Gosser, Jr.*City College of CUNYDepartment of Chemistry138th Street and Convent AvenueNew York, NY [email protected]"Development of Peer Problem Solving in GeneralChemistry"

E Byron Gottfried*University of Pittsburgh1048 Benedum HallPittsburgh, PA 15261412-624-9835bsg @civ.pitt.edu"Freshman Engineering Experience"

David Graves*University of Pennsylvania311A Towne Building220 South 33 StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104 [email protected]"Development of a Modular Laboratory Course inBiotechnology and Biochemical Engineering"

E Jeffrey Gray*Purdue UniversitySchool of Electrical Engineering1285 Electrical EngineeringWest Lafayette, IN [email protected]"An Integrated Undergraduate Program onSemiconductor Devices for Power Flow Control'



Ronald GreenDartmouth CollegeEthics Institute6031 Parker HouseHanover, NH 03755

C Thomas Greenbowe*Iowa State UniversityDepartment of ChemistryAmes, IA 50011515-294-7815"Interactivity Chemistry Experiments: AMultimedia Approach"

Frederick Greenleaf*New York UniversityDepartment of Mathematics251 Mercer StreetNew York, NY [email protected]"Large Scale Science Core Program for theNon-Science-Student"

Charles GroatLouisiana State UniversityCCEER 302 Howe-RussellBaton Rouge, LA 70803504-388-6316

Louis Gross*University of TennesseeKnoxvilleDepartment of Mathematics and Graduate Programin EcologyKnoxville, TN [email protected]"Quantitative Sciences Curriculum for LifeScience Students"

John HaddockMemphis State UniversityInterim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences219 Mitchell HallMemphis, TN 38152901-678-2251

B Joel Hagen*Radford UniversityDepartment of BiologyRadford, VA 24142703-831-5143"Discovering Biology: The Process of Learning,the Process of Science"

96 Resource Guide

Marion Hagler*Texas Tech UniversityDepartment of Electrical EngineeringBox 43102Lubbock, TX 79409-3102806-742-3533"Electronics Made SIMPLE"

P Richard Hake*Indiana UniversityDepartment of PhysicsBloomington, IN [email protected]"Project Socrates: Improving Introductory PhysicsEducation through Interactive Engagement"

M Deborah Hughes Hallett*University of ArizonaDepartment of MathematicsTucson, AZ [email protected]"Calculus Bridge Consortium"

B Jo Handelsman*University of WisconsinDepartment of Plant Pathology1630 Linden DriveMadison, WI [email protected]"Biological Literacy through ClassroomCommunity"

E Leo Hanifin*University of DetroitMercyCollege of Engineering and ScienceBox 199004001 West McNichols RoadDetroit, MI [email protected]"GreenfieldCoalition for New ManufacturingEducation"

S Gary Hanson*Francis Marion UniversityDepartment of PsychologyPO Box 100547Florence, SC 29501803-661-1631"Development and Implementation of IntroductoryLaboratories in Psychology"

B Ethelynda Harding*California State UniversityFresnoDepartment of Biology2555 East San RamonFresno, CA [email protected]"Themes, Inquiry, and Collaboration inIntroductory Biology"

CS Janet Hartman*Illinois State UniversityDepartment of Applied Computer ScienceCampus Box 5150Normal, IL [email protected]"Parallel Processing in the UndergraduateCurriculum"

M William HaverNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

P Jack HehnAmerican Association of Physics TeachersAssociate Executive OfficerOne Physics EllipseCollege Park, MD 20740-3845301-209-3300

P Kenneth HellerUniversity of MinnesotaSchool of Physics and AstronomyMinneapolis, MN 55455612-624-7314

P Patricia Heller*University of MinnesotaSchool of Physics and Astronomy159 Pillsbury Drive, SEMinneapolis, MN [email protected]"Breaking the Circle: A Teaching ApprenticeshipProgram for Physics Graduate Students"

Resource Guide 97

Michael Henchman*Brandeis UniversityDepartment of ChemistryWaltham, MA 02254-9110617-736-2558henchman@binah.,:c.brandeis.edu"Developing a Science Course for Non-Scientistson the Chemistry of Art"

M David Henderson*Cornell UniversityDepartment of MathematicsIthaca, NY [email protected]"A Pilot Project for an Introductory LevelGeometry Course"

E Robby Henes*University of CaliforniaDavisCollege of EngineeringDavis, CA [email protected]"Phase I: Model Undergraduate Project for Womenin Engineering"

B Kathryn HickmanRollins CollegeDepartment of BiologyWinter Park, FL 32789407 -646 -210()

P Curtis Hieggelke*Joliet Junior CollegeDepartment of Natural Science1216 Houbolt AvenueJoliet, IL 60436815-729-9020, x237Icjh @pinet.aip.org"Pilot Community College Physics CurriculumDevelopment Workshop Project"

E Hiroshi Higuchi *Syracuse UniversityDepartment of Mechanical, Aerospace, andManufacturing EngineeringSyracuse, NY [email protected]"Improving the Engineering Laboratory throughScientific Visualization"


Walter Hill*Tuskegee UniversitySchool of Agriculture and Home EconomicsCampbell HallTuskegee, AL 36088205-727-8157"Improved Capacity for Ag*Sat RelatedTelecommunications and Distant Learning"

C Susan HixsonNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Ping-Pei Ho'y College of CUNY

138th Street and Convent AvenueNew York, NY 10031

E Yu-Chi Ho*Harvard UniversityPierce HallCambridge, MA 02138617-495-3992"Analysis, Control, and Optimization of DiscreteEvent Dynamic Systems"

0 Dennis HodgeSUNYBuffaloDepartment of Geology415 Fronczak HallBox 601550Buffalo, NY 14260-1550716-645-6100

P George Horton*Rutgers UniversityDepartment of Physics and AstronomyFrelinghuysen RoadPiscataway, NJ [email protected]"Establishment of Extended General PhysicsAnAlternative Course for Underprepared Students"

Allyn HubbardBoston UniversityBoston, MA 02215617-353-2815

G John Hubbard*SUNYBrockportDepartment of Earth SciencesBrockport, NY [email protected]"Techniques in Water Resources Sciences"


CS Herman HughesMichigan State UniversityDepartment of Computer ScienceA719 Wells HallEast Lansing, MI [email protected]"Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement in ComputerNetworks"

M James Hurley*University of ConnecticutDepartment of MathematicsU-9, Room 111196 Auditorium RoadStorrs, CT [email protected]"Integration of Computing into Main-TrackCalculus"

E Anthony Ingraffea*Cornell UniversityEngineering and Theory CenterIthaca, NY 14853607-255-3697"The Synthesis Engineering Education Coalition"

Carol JacobsonIowa State UniversityDepartment of Veterinary' AnatomyAmes, IA 50011515 -294 -340(1

[email protected]

E Raymond Jacquot*University of WyomingCollege of EngineeringBox 3295 University StationLaramie. WY 82071-3295307-766-3171"Development of Computing Materials that UseSimulation and Animation for EngineeringDynamics"

Sheila JasanoffCornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853

Clare JohnsonSUNYFashion Institute of TechnologyNew York, NY 10001212-784-4433

Resource Guide

M Jerry Johnson*University of Nevada--RenoMathematics CenterReno, NV [email protected]"An Interdisciplinary Course in Science, ItsHistory, and Cultural Implications"

Vicki Johnson*Universities Space Research AssociationManager, Advanced Design Program3600 Bay Area BoulevardHouston, TX 77058-1113713-244-2000"NASA/USRA University Advanced DesignProgram"

B John JungckBeloit CollegeDepartment of Biology700 College StreetBeloit, WI 53511608-363-2267/[email protected]"The BioQUEST Curriculum and Learning ToolsDevelopment Project''

E Gretchen Kalonji*University of WashingtonDepartment of Materials Science and EngineeringRoberts Hall FB-10Seattle, WA 98195206-543-1115"Engineering Core Courses from the ECSELCoalition at the University of Washington"

M David Kammler*Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleDepartment of MathematicsCarbondale, IL 629([email protected]"Development of an Innovative Elementary Coursein Fourier Analysis"

C Jack Kampmeier*University of RochesterDepartment of ChemistryRochester. NY 14627716-275-1441kamp(a)chem.chem.rochester.edu"Ventures Courses in Chemistry on the Themes ofEnergy and Life"

Resource Guide. .

C Marjorie Kandel*SUNYStony BrookDer nent of ChemistryStony Brook, NY [email protected]"Introductory Laboratory Program in Chemistry:Focus on Attitudes"

Lawrence Kaplan*Williams CollegeDepartment of ChemistryWilliamstown, MA [email protected]"Equipment for a Forensic Science Course forNon-Science-Majors"

Zaven Karian*Denison UniversityGranville, OH [email protected]"Symbolic Computation in Undergraduate ScienceInstruction"

William KellyNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Donald KellyMiami UniversityOxfordOxford, OH 45056

P Patrick Kenealy*California State UniversityLong BeachDepartment of PhysicsLong Beach, CA 90840-39([email protected]"Structural, Organizational, and NarrativeCoherence: Designing the Introductory PhysicsLaboratory to Increase Retention of ProspectiveScience and Engineering Majors, with SpecialAttention to the Needs of Women and Minorities"

Guru Rattan Kaur KhalsaThiel College (Los Alamos National Laboratory)CST-3. Mail Stop 0346Los Alamos, NM 87545505-667-7334"Global Heritage: A Multidisciplinary Focus onSustainable Development"


P Bernard KhouryAAPTOne Physics EllipseCollege Park, MD 20740301-209-3311

P Yong Kim*Lehigh UniversityDepartment of PhysicsBuilding #16Bethlehem, PA 18015610-758-3922"Numerical SimulationAssisted TeachingLaboratory on Physical Phenomena"

M Linda Kime*University of MassachusettsBostonDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science1(X) Morrissey BoulevardBoston, MA [email protected]"A Redesign of the College Algebra Course"

B William Kincaid*Mesa Community College DistrictDepartment of Life Sciences1833 West Southern AvenueMesa, AZ [email protected]''Computer Applications to EnhanceInquiry-Oriented Laboratory Instruction in Biologyat a 2-Year College"

E Donald KirkNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

CS Mary Kolesar*Utah State UniversityDepartment of Computer ScienceLogan, UT [email protected]"A Preparatory Course for Computer Science"


CS Fred Kol lett*Wheaton CollegeDepartment of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEast Main StreetNorton, MA [email protected]"Programming Paradigms Short Cours."

B Robert KosinskiClemson UniversityCollege of SciencesBiologyClemson, SC 29634-5702803-656-3830

Robert KozmaSRI InternationalDirector, Center for Technology and Learning333 Ravenswood AvenueMenlo Park, CA 94025415-859-3997"Interactive Multimedia and Mental Models inChemistry"

C. KrousgrillPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN [email protected]

Sudhir Kumar*Illinois Institute of TechnologyRoom 259 El10 West 32nd StreetChicago, IL 60616312-567-3211"University/Industry Railroad TransportationCurriculum Development for Enhancing the U.S.Infrastructure and Competitiveness"

E Thomas Kurfess*Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213412-422-6514"A Unified Classical/Modern Approach forUndergraduate Control Education"

Barry Kurtz*Louisiana Tech UniversityBox 10348Ruston, LA [email protected]"An Interdisciplinary, Laboratory-Oriented Coursefor Computer-Based Problem Solving"

Resource Guide--- -_ -- _-

E Helen Kuznetsov*University of IllinoisComputer-Based Education Research Laboratory,School of Architecture103 South MathiwsUrbana, IL 61801217-244-4280helenk @cerhuiuc.edu"Interactive Computer-Based Instruction andTesting in Engineering Statics"

J. LagowskiUniversity of TexasWelch 4.422Austin, TX 78712512-471-3288

Edmund Lamagna*University of Rhode IslandDepartment of ComputFr Science and StatisticsKingston, RI [email protected]"NEWTON: An Interactive Environment forExploring Calculus"

M Jean Lane*Union County CollegeDepartment of Mathematics1033 Springfield AvenueCranford, NJ [email protected]"Calculator Enhanced Instruction Project by anExpanded Consortium of New Jersey andPennsylvania Educational Institutions"

Robert LangSUL, Inc. NA80 Rose Orchard WaySan Jose, CA 95134

S Richard Larson*SUNYStony BrookDepartment of LinguisticsStony Brook, NY [email protected]"Linguistics Semantics as Science"

CS Anita LaSalleNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Resource Guide 101

M Donald LaTorre*Clemson UniversityDepartment of Mathematical SciencesClemson, SC [email protected]"Revitalization of Nonstandard Calculus"

Alan Law leyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PA 19104215-895-2326

P Priscilla Laws*Dickinson CollegePO Box 1773Carlisle, ?A [email protected]"Workshop Physics Instrumentation andLaboratory Improvement"

E Ryszard Lec*University of MaineDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering109 Barrows HallOrono, ME [email protected]"The Integration of Sensors into the ElectricalEngineering Curriculum"

E Kwang Lee*Pennsylvania State University'Department of Electrical Engineering103 EEE BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802814-865-2621"Research and Curriculum Development for PowerPlant Intelligent Distributed Control"

E Sing LeeUniversity of CaliforniaDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer ScienceSan Diego, CA 92093

M Seven Leon*University of MassachusettsDartmouthDepartment of MathematicsNorth Dartmouth, MA 02747508-999-8320"ATLAST"

Zafra Lerman*Columbia CollegeInstitute for Science Education and ScienceCommunication600 South Michigan AvenueChicago, IL 60605-1996312-663-16(X), x108"From Ozone to Oil Spills: Chemistry, theEnvironment, and You"

Joshua LeslieHoward UniversityWashington, DC 20059202-806-6830

B Herbert LevitanNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Nathan LewisCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, CA 91125818-395-6335

CS Jesse LewisNorfolk State UniversityVice President for Academic Affairs2401 Corprcw AvenueNorfolk, VA 23504804-683-8408

M James LighthourneNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

E John Lindenlauh*Purdue University1285 School of Electrical EngineeringWest Lafayette, IN [email protected]"Systematic Restructure of Digital Logic DesignCourse Grant"

Jack LohmannGA Tech Res CorpG1TAtlanta, GA 30332-036(1404-894-3355jacklohmann @coe.gatech.edu


Ramon LopezAmerican Physical SocietyDirector, Education and ResearchOne Physics EllipseCollege Park. MD 20740301-209-3233

M David Lovelock*University of ArizonaDepartment of MathematicsTucson, AZ [email protected]"Mathematics Undergraduate Resource Lab"

C David Lumley*East Carolina University, Institute for the DisabledDepartment of Chemistry and ScienceGreenville, NC 27858919-758-6453ehlunneyftecuvin.cis.ecu.edu"Development of a Data Acquisition and DataAnalysis System for Visually Impaired ChemistryStudents"

G Heather Macdonald*College of William and MaryDepartment of GeologyWilliamsburg, VA 23187-8795"Working in Groups: Developing Assignments forLarge Geology Courses"

E Jordan Mac lay*University of IllinoisDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer ScienceBox 4348Chicago, IL 60680312-413-7582"Combined Research-Curriculum Development inMicrostructure Systems and Micromechanics,Engineering Directorate"

B Wayne Magee*Drexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PA [email protected]"An Enhanced Bioscience Education Program forthe Introductory Years of the Biology Major andfor Interested Preteachers"

e ( 'love Guide

William Marcy*Texas Tech UniversityDepartment of Computer ScienceLubbock, TX 79409-3104806-742-3427eswimnftes.cde.ttu.edu"Electronics Made SIMPLE"

A Laurence Marschall*Gettysburg CollegeDepartment of PhysicsGettysburg. PA 17325717-337-6028marschal@)gettyshurg.edu"Modernizing the Introductory AstronomyLaboratory"

E Edward MastascusaBucknell UniversityLewisburg, PA 17837717-524-1234inastasclObucknell.edu"Computer Tutorials for Teaching IntroductoryElectrical Engineering"

Dana MayoBowdoin CollegeBrunswick, ME 04011

Eric MazurHarvard UniversityD.A.S.Cambridge, MA 02138"Peer Instruction: Stimulating Renewed Interest inPhysics and Other Science and EngineeringCourses"

P Duncan McBrideNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

P Lillian McDermott*University of WashingtonDepartment of Physics, FM-15Seattle, WA 98195206-543-8692"A New Model for Physics Education in PhysicsDepartments: Impro ing the Teaching of Physicsfrom Elementary through Graduate School"


CS John McGregorClemson UniversityClemson, SC 29634 -5702803-656-5859johnmc(rks.clemson.edu

Bruce McKeeUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleKnoxville, TN 37996

Harry McLaughlinRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, NY 12180-3590

Ann McNealNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

S Mary Ann Medlin*Barber Scotia College145 C'abarrus AvenueConcord, NC 29025704 - 786 - 5171,x244

Marnedlin(Wuncecu.edu"Introductory Anthropology for Historically BlackColleges: Strengthening Research Methods andTheory through use of Interactive MultimediaMaterials"

P Gerald Meisner*University of North CarolinaGreensboro1(11 Petty Science DepartmentGreensboro, NC' [email protected]"Physics and the Three R's: Recruit, Restructure.and Retain. A Laboratory Oriented, IntroductoryPhysics Course by Guided Inquiry to Attract andRetain Women and Minority Students"

M Walter Meyer*Ade 1phi UniversityDepartment of Mathematics and Computer ScienceGarden City, NY 11530516-877-4489tneyer0eadelphi.edu"Principles and Practice of Mathematics''

1 43 3


B Lynda Micikas*Biological Sciences Curriculum Study830 North Tejon, Suite 405Colorado Springs. CO 80903719-578-1136"Biological Education: Development ofCurriculum Frameworks for High School. 2-Year.and 4-Year Nonmajors Courses"

E Gregory Miller*University of WashingtonRoberts Hall EXI0Seattle, WA 981952(16-543-1115"ECSEL Core Course Dissemination

B Judith Miller*Worcester Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Biology and Biotechnology100 Institute RoadWorcester, MA [email protected]"Teaching Freshmen to Think: Active Learning inIntroductory Biology"

S Gretlg MitmanUniversity of OklahomaDepartment of Philosophy455 W Lindsey Street, Room 605Norman, OK 73019-0535405-325-6324

F Bernard Mohr*Queenshorough Community College56th Avenue and Springfield BoulevardBayside, NY [email protected]"Engineering Technology Instruction for the 2 I NICentury Master) of Engineering 'Technologyusing Multimedia, Local Ar,:t Networks, and DataAcquisition"

F Harold MonbouquetteUniversity of California- -Los AngelesLos Angeles, CA [email protected]"Laboratory Course Precompetition MicrobialBioprocess''

E Susan Montgomery*University of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109"A Focus on Developing Innovative Engineers"


M Lawrence Moore*Duke UniversityDepartment of MathematicsPO Box 90320Durham, NC [email protected]'Dissemination of Project CALC Methods and


M Vivian Morgan*Rhode Island CollegeDepartment of Mathematics and Computer ScienceNorth Providence, RI [email protected]"The Rhode Island Calculus Consortium ModuleProject"

B Patricia Morse*Northeastern UniversityMarine Science Center and Department of BiologyNahant, MA 01908617-581-7370tmorseq, lynx.neu.edu"Science as a Way of Knowing: Biodiversity"

Rama MurthyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulMinneapolis, MN 55455

A Robert Mutel*University of IowaDepartment of Physics and AstronomyIowa City, IA [email protected]"A CCD-Based Undergraduate AstronomyLaboratory"

R. MutharasonDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PA 19104

E _Mark Nagurka*Carnegie Mellon UniversityDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringPittsburgh, PA 15213412-422-6514nagurka @andrew.cmu.edu"A Unified Classical/Modern Approach forUndergraduate Control Education"

James NelsonVirginia State University6202 Bent Tree PlaceChester, VA 23831-7767804-768-0215

Re vource Guide

CS Christopher Nevison*Colgate UniversityDepartment of Computer ScienceHamilton, NY [email protected]"Parallel Computing for Undergraduate Faculty"

E Keith Nisbett*University of MissouriRolla206A Mechanical EngineeringRolla, MO [email protected]"A Kinematically Intelligent Blackboard forComputer-Aided Instruction"

John NorvellNational Institutes of I lealthAssistant Director for Research Training, NationalInstitute of General Medical ScienceWestwood Building, Room 9075333 Westhard AvenueBethesda, MD 20892301-594-7784

M William Noti*Ohio State Universit\Department orStatisties141 Cockins Ilall1958 Neil AvenueColumbus, OH 43210-1063614-292-3154"Technology-Based Learning: Exploring StatisticalConcepts and Methods"

Gary Noxak*California State UniversityLos AngelesDepartment of Geological Sciences5151 University DriveLos Angeles. CA 90032213-343-2406gnovaWflash.calstatela.edu"Integrating the Electronic Desktop into theNatural Science Curriculum"

Barbara Olds*Colorado School of MinesGolden, CO [email protected]"Connections: A Model for Integrated FreshmanYear Studies"

Resource Guide

CS Scott Owen* M Joseph Petruccelli*

Georgia State University Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Department of Mathematical Sciences

Atlanta, GA 30303 100 Institute Road

404-651-2245 Worcester, MA 01609

[email protected] 508-831-5362"Undergraduate Faculty Workshops in Computer [email protected]

Graphics" "A Modular Laboratory- and Project-BasedStatistics Curriculum"

M Lewis Pakula*University of Rhode IslandKingston, RI [email protected]"The Rhode Island Calculus Consortium ModuleProject'.

C Richard Pawn*Humboldt State UniversityDepartment of ChemistryArcata, CA 95521707-826-5719pasel k axe.humboldt.edu"Visualization of the Abstract in Chemistry'.

Evelyn PattersonUS Air Force Academy I Jerome Pine*

Colorado Springs. CO 80840 California Institute of Technology

719-472-2370 Division of Biology, 156-29Pasadena, CA 91125-2564

M Charles Patton* 818-395-6677Oregon State University "A Hands-on Interdisciplinary Presery ice Course"Corvallis. OR 97331-4605503-737-5179 M Harriet Pollatsek*

Mount Holyoke Collegetpdickialmath.orstedu"Calculators in the Calculus Curriculum'.

Department of Mathematics, Statistics, andComputer Science

F Jack Pat-er* South Hadley, MA 01075

University of Pittsburgh 413-538-2341234 Benedum Hall [email protected]

Pittsburgh. PA 15261 "Entry Level Mathematics: Outreach for the New

412-624-9819 Decade"[email protected]"Freshman Engineering Experience''

M Gerald PorterUniversity of Pennsylvania

B Roger Persell* Department of Mathematics

CUNYHunter College 209 South 33rd Street

Department of Biological Sciences Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395

695 Park Avenue 215-898-8467

New York, NY 10024 [email protected]

212-772-4106 "Establishing Regional Sites for the Dissemination

"Upgrade of Introductory Biology Laboratories of Computer-Based Laboratory Materials inMathematics.'

M Anthony Phillips*SUNYStony BrookDepartment of MathematicsStony Brook, NY 11794 [email protected]"Implementation of Harvard Core Calculus atStony Brook"

C Stanley PineNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230


Henry PetroskiDuke UniversityDurham. NC 27708919-660- 5203


106 Resource Guide

B Herbert Posner*SUNYBinghamton UniversityDepartment of Biological SciencesPO Box 6000Binghamton, NY 13902-6000607-777-2650"Improving Access, Success, and TeachingPerformance in Molecular Biology"

CS Jane PreyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville, VA 22903804 -982 -2223"Development of a Set of Closed Laboratories foran Undergraduate Computer Science Curriculum"

Mary PrichardUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotte, NC 28223

William Prothero*University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraDepartment of Geological SciencesSanta Barbara, CA [email protected]"Multimedia for I over Division OceanographyCourse.'

Vittal Rao*University of MissouriRollaDepartment of Electrical EngineeringRolla. MO 65401314-341-6371"Combined Research-Curriculum Development inSmart Structures"

F Thomas Regan *Iiniversity of Maryland--College ParkDepartment of Chemical EngineeringRoom 2 I 43College Park, MD 20742301-405-1936E.CSE.L"

John ReidHampshire CollegeAmherst, MA 01002413-.582-5569

CS Juris Reinfelds*New Mexico State Universit}Department of Computer EngineeringPO Box 30001Las Cruces, NM [email protected]"Restructuring and Coordinating the IntroductoryCourses for Computer Science and MathematicsMajors"

C Robert Ricci*Holy Cross CollegeDepartment of ChemistryOne College Street, Box CWorcester, MA 01610-2395508-793-3380"Instructors Reference Manual for DiscoveryChemistry"

Betty RichardsNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

M Matthew RicheySaint Olaf CollegeDepartment of MathematicsNorthfield, MN 55.57507-646-3418richeym@stolaledu

P John Rigden*American Institute of PhysicsOne Physics EllipseCollege Park, MD [email protected]"Introductory University Physics Project (IUPP)''

Richard Robbins*North Carolina A&T State UniversityIII Webb HallGreensboro, NC 27411205-727-8157"Improved Capacity for Ag*Sat RelatedTelecommunications and Distant Learning"

Resource Guide 107

E William Robbins*University of MinnesotaDepartment of Electrical Engineering200 Union Street, SE (4-178)Minneapolis, MN [email protected]"Educational and Research InfrastructureDevelopment in Microelectromechanical Systems(MEMS)"

M Wayne Roberts*Macalester CollegeDepartment of Mathematics and Computer ScienceSaint Paul, MN 55105;612-696-6337wroberts(a)macalstr.edu"Calculus Reform in Liberal Arts College"

S Paul RodriguezNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

B Bonita Roohk*Golden West CollegeDepartment of Biological Sciences15744 Golden West StreetHuntington Beach, CA 92647714-895-8181"Toward a Renewed and Invigorated BiologyProgram

Nina RoseherNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Jacqueline Ross*University of WisconsinMadison1612 Van I lise Hall1220 Linden DriveMadison, WI 53706608-262-3056jacqueline.rossc vpaciuN vh(cutopnet.uwsa"Science. Diversity, and Community: RevitalizingIntroductory Curricula'.

CS Rockford Ross*Montana State UniversityDepartment of Computer Science410 Roberts HallBozeman, MT 59717406-994-4804rosy @cs.montana.edu"A Dynamic Computer Science Laboratory"

G Timothy Rowe*University of TexasAustinDepartment of Geological Sciences and VertebratePaleontology LaboratoryAustin, TX 78712512-471-1725rowe@ maestro.geo. utexas.cdu"Computer Multimedia Laboratories forFreshman-Level Science Courses"

B John RummelCandle HouseMarine Biological LaboratorWoods Hole, MA [email protected]

Joel RussellOakland UniversityRochesterDepartment of ChemistryRochester, MI [email protected]"Interactive Multimedia and Mental Models inChemistry"

E Gregory RutledgeMassachusetts Institute of TechnologDepartment of Chemical EngineeringRoom 66-542Cambridge, MA [email protected]"A Module-Based Multimedia TeachingEnvironmentCurriculum Development forComputational Methods in Materials Design andSynthesis of Environmentally Benign ChemicalSystems"

108 Resource Guide

1 Clayton Ruud*Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park207 Hammond BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802814-863-2843"Manufacturing as a Vehicle to Illustrate Principlesof Science, Mathematics, and Engineering"

Vincent SantarelliRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickNew Brunswick, NJ [email protected]

E Partha SarkarTexas Tech UniversityDepartment of Civil EngineeringBox 41023Lubbock, TX 79409-1023806-742-3413

E Sid SattarUniversity of Connecticut191 Auditorium RoadRoom 468Storrs, CT 06269"Engineering Academy of Southern New England"

M Richard Scheaffer*University of FloridaDepartment of StatisticsGainesville, FL 32611204-392-1941"An Activity-Based Introductory Statistics Coursefor all Undergraduates'

E Bruce SchimmingHoward UniversitySchool of EngineeringWashington, DC 20059202-806-4632

E Philip SchmidtUniversity of TexasAustinDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringAustin, TX 78712512-471-3118

Linda SchneiderNassau Community CollegeGarden City, NY 11530

Margaret SchultzMacalester CollegeSaint Paul, MN 55105

E Hertha SchulzeUniversity of Minnesota100 Union Street, SEMinneapolis, MN 55455612-626-2230"Curriculum Development for InterfacialEngineering"

C Curtis SearsNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources420; Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

E Chalmers SechristNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

B John SeilerVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityDepartment of Forestry228 Cheatham HallBlacksburg, VA 24061703-382-9682"Computer-Based Multimedia Instruction forWoody Plant Identification"

Martha Sellers*Northern Virginia Community CollegeAnnandaleDivision of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering8333 Little River Turnpike'Annandale, VA 22003703-323-3553nvsellm vccswest"Science Across the Curriculum"

M Gary Sherman*RoseHulman Institute of TechnologyDepartment of MathematicsTerre Haute, IN 47803812-877-8445Sherman rose-hulman.edu"Implementing an Upper Division MathematicsComputer Classroom/Laboratory"

Bruce SherwoodCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsh'irgh, PA 15213412-268-8530bruce.sherwood cniu.edu

Resource Guide 109

E Larry Shuman*University of Pittsburgh240 Benedum HallPittsburgh, PA 15261412-624-9809"Freshman Engineering Experience"

CS Theodore SjoerdsmaNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Stewart SlaterManhattan CollegeBronx, NY 10458

1 Richard SmardonSUNYAlbanyCollege of Environmental Science and Forestry1 Foronts DriveAlbany, NY 12201518-470-6576

M David Smith*Duke UniversityDepartment of MathematicsBox 90320Durham, NC [email protected]"Dissemination of Project CALC Methods andMaterials"

M J. Laurie Snell*Dartmouth CollegeDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science6188 Bradley HallHanover, NH [email protected]"CHANCE: Case Studies of Current ChanceIssues"

B Mitchell SoginMarine Biological LaboratoryWoods Hole, MA 02543

Eric SpinaSyracuse UniversitySyracuse. NY 13244-5300315-443-4369

M John Spurrier*University of Scx.h CarolinaDepartment of StatisticsColumbia, SC 29208803-777-7800"Elementary Statistics Laboratory CourseDevelopment"

C Angelica StacyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyBerkeley, CA [email protected]

M Elizabeth Stasny*Ohio State UniversityDepartment of StatisticsColumbus, OH 43210"Technology-Based Learning: Exploring StatisticalConcepts and Methods"

Neil StillingsHampshire CollegeAmherst, MA 01002

M Tina StraleyNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate fur Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Joan StraumanisFISPE (Department of Education)Room 3100, Seventh and D Street. SWWashington, DC 20202202-708-6119

M Keith Stroyan*University of IowaDepartment of MathematicsIowa City, IA [email protected]

E William Sullivan*Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University302 Whittemore HallBlacksburg, VA 24061-0118703-231-6656sullivan@vtvm1 (bitnet)"The Integration of Economic Principles withDesign in the Engineering Science Component ofthe Undergraduate Curriculum"


M Marcia SwardMathematical Association of AmericaExecutive Director1529 18th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036202-387-5200

CS Kathleen Swigger*University of North TexasBox 13886Denton, TX 76203817-565-2817kathy @cs.unt.edu"Using a Computer-Supported CooperativeProblem-Solving Environment to TeachUndergraduate Computer Science StudentCooperative Skills and Requirements Elicitation"

1 Judith Tavel*Dutchess Community CollegeDepartment of Mathematics, Physical, andComputer SciencesPoughkeepsie, NY 12601914-485-8407"Basics for Technicians: An Integrated Course ofStudy Encompassing Mathematics, Chemistry, andPhysics"

M Elizabeth TelesNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

M Maria Terrell*Cornell UniversityEndowedWhite HallIthaca, NY [email protected]"A Pilot Project for an Introductory LevelGeometry Course"

I. Fred TerryUniversity of MichiganDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer ScienceAnn Arbor, MI 48109

CS Rajiv TewariTemple University314 Computer Activity BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19122"Incorporating Object-Oriented Concepts in theIntroductory Computer Science Sequence"

Resource Guide

C Mary Thompson*College of St. CatherineDepartment of ChemistrySaint Paul, MN 55105"Hands-on, Open-Ended Collaborative Modulesfor Restructuring the General ChemistryCurriculum"

Ronald Thornton*Tufts University

Colby StreetMedford, MA 02155617-628-5000, x [email protected]"Tools for Scientific Thinking anti Real TimePhysics based on Student Oriented Science"

E Gerald Thuesen*Georgia Institute of TechnologySchool of Industrial Systems EngineeringAtlanta, GA [email protected]"The Integration of Economic Principles withDesign in the Engineering Science Component ofthe Undergraduate Curriculum"

Jan Tobochnik*Kalamazoo CollegeDepartment of Physics1200 Academy StreetKalamazoo, MI [email protected]"Development of Curricular Materials for anIntroductory Level Computer SimulationLaboratory in Physics"

E Antonio Torres*Oregon State UniversityDepartment of Food Science and TechnologyWiegand Hall, Room 202Corvallis, OR 97331-6602503-737-4757torresa @bcc.orst.edu"Integrated Product, Process, and PackageDevelopment (I3PD) in the Food Industry"

Stephen TrombulakMiddlebury CollegeMiddlebury, VT 05753802-388-3711

Resource Guide111

1 Lenard Troncale*California State Polytechnic UniversityPomonaDepartment of Biological Sciences3801 West Temple AvenuePomona, CA 91768909- 869 -404()[email protected]"Integrated Science General Education forNon-Scientists Using a Hybrid InterdisciplinaryTeaching Methodology"

E Joseph TrontVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University444 Whittimore LaneBlacksburg, VA 24061-0111703-231-5067"SUCCEEDSoutheastern University andCollege Coalition for Engineering Education"

B Daniel Udovic*University of OregonEugeneDepartment of BiologyEugene, OR [email protected]"Workshop Biology for Nonmajors: PromotingScientific Literacy through Investigative Labs andIssue-Oriented Activities"

M Jerry Uhl*University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaignDepartment of Mathematics1409 West Green StreetUrbana, IL 61801"Calculus and Mathematica"

John Uhran, Jr.*University of Notre DameDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering384 Fitzpatrick HallNotre Dame, IN [email protected]"An Electrical Engineering Design/ResearchLaboratory"

Jack Ullman*Lehman College of CUNYDepartment of Physics and AstronomyBronx, NY 10468718-960-8542"An Inquiry-Discovery ElementaryMathematics/Science Course with a TeacherTraining Component"

John UnbehaunUniversity of Wisconsin, La CrosseLa Crosse, WI [email protected]

Alan Van-HeuvelenOhio State University Research Foundation174 West 18th AvenueColumbus, OH 43210-1063

E Krishna VedulaIowa State UniversityDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering3053 Gilman HallAmes, IA 5011515-294-4)73 gvedula@ iastate.edu"A New Paradigm for Teaching UndergraduateMaterials Synthesis and Processing"

Paul VellemanCornell University--EndowedIthaca, NY 14853

Paul VespucciNorthern Virginia Community CollegeAssistant Division Chair8333 Little River TurnpikeAnnandale, VA 22203703-323-3276

C Edward Vitz*Kutztown UniversityKutztown. PA [email protected]"LIMSport Workshops: Promoting Cost-EffectiveImplementation of Computer Data Acquisition andReduction in Chemistry Laboratories"

Howard Wachtel*University of ColoradoBoulderDepartment of Electrical and Computer EngineeringCampus Box 425Boulder. CO 80309303-492-7713"Development of Liberal Engineering Programs inElectrical and Computer Engineering"

112 Resource Guide

John Wahlert*CUNYBaruch CollegeDepartment of Natural SciencesBox 50217 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10010212-387-1230"Darwin and Darwinism: Scientific Theory andSocial Construction"

E Jack WaintraubNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

M. Lucius WalkerHoward UniversityWashington, DC 20059

Elizabeth WardNASANASA Langley Space Grant FellowMail Stop 400Hampton, VA 23666804-864-3299

C Sylvia WareAmerican Chemical SocietyDirector, Education Division1155 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20020202-872-8068

C Robert WatsonNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

M Jeffrey WattIndiana UniversityPurdue University atIndianapolisDepartment of Mathematical SciencesIndianapolis, IN 46202317-274-4070jwatt(chrnath.iupui.edu"Software for Active Learning in Mathematics andTeacher Preparation"

M Franklin Wattenherg*University of MassachusettsDepartment of Mathematics and StatisticsAmherst, MA [email protected]"Calculus, Linear Algebra. and ODES in a Realand Complex World"

C Patrick Wegner*California State UniversityFullertonDepartment of Chemistry and BiochemistryFullerton, CA [email protected]"Dynamic Visualization of Chemical andInstructional Concepts and Processes in BeginningChemistry"

Stephen WeiningerWorcester Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Chemistry100 Institute RoadWorcest' r, MA [email protected]"Light. Vision. and Understanding"

C James WeisshaarUniversity of WisconsinMadisonDepartment of ChemistryMadison, WI 53706608-262-0266

James WellsUniversity of KentuckyLexington. KY 40506-0057

B John Wilkes*Worcester Polytechnic Institute100 Institute RoadWorcester, MA 016(19508-831-5579"Teaching Freshman to Think: Active Learning inIntroductory Biology''

M Patricia Wilkinson*Borough of Manhattan Community College583 West 215 Street, #F7New York, NY 100072 I 2-346-853 I"C4L: Calculus, Computers. Calculators, andCollaborative Learning"

Resource Guide------,- ..-

M Gareth Williams*Stetson UniversityDepartment of MathematicsBox 8345De Land, FL 32720904-822-7555williams@suvax 1 .stetson .cdu''Computer Software and Projects for a LinearAlgebra Course for Students in the Sciences,Engineering, and Mathematics"

E Richard WilliamsCalifornia State University1250 Bellflower BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90024614-292-5716"Southern California Coalition for Education inManufacturing Engineering"

P Jack Wilson*Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Physics121 Communication CenterTroy, NY [email protected]"The Comprehensive Unified Physics LearningEnvironment"

M Brian WinkelRose -- Hulman Institute of Technology5500 Wabash AvenueTerre Haute, IN [email protected]

Ron Winters*Denison UniversityGranville, OH 43023614-587-6563winters co.denison.edu"Symbolic Computation in Undergraduate ScienceInstruction"

Gary WnekRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, NY 12180-3590

I Sally Wood*Santa Clara UniversitySanta Clara, CA 95053408-554-4058swood@ scuacc.scu.edu"Interactive Tutorial for Engineering Mathematicswith Applications in Electrical and ComputerEngineering"


B Terry WoodinNational Science FoundationDivision of Undergraduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22230

Arthur WoodwardCity College of CUNY138th Street and Convent AvenueNew York, NY 10031

Alan WortmanMicro Probe Corporation1725 220th Street, SEBothell, WI 98021206-485-8566

CS William Wulf*University of VirginiaDepartment of Computer ScienceCharlottesville, VA [email protected]"Development of a Set of Closed Laboratories foran Undergraduate Computer Science Curriculum"

B Glen Wurst*Allegheny CollegeDepartment of BiologyMeadville, PA [email protected]"Improving Introductory Biology Laboratories atAllegheny College through the Development andImplementation of Computer-Based Modules"

B Deborah Wygal*College of St. CatherineDepartment of Biology2004 Randolph AvenueSaint Paul. MN [email protected]"A Theme-Based, Investigative IntroductoryBiology Curriculum for Women"

E Sinclair Yee*University of WashingtonDepartment of Electrical EngineeringMail Stop FT-10Seattle, WA 98795"Chemical Sensors for Advanced ProcessAnalysis''

114 Resource Guide

Claude YoderFranklin and Marshall CollegeLancaster, PA [email protected]

E Berry YolkenCalifornia State UniversityLong BeachLong Beach, CA 90840"Southern California for Education inManufacturing Engineering"

Sharon ZablotneySUNY CollegeFredonia804 May lurn HallFredonia, NY 14063

B Charlotte Zalewsky*Carlow CollegeDivision of Natural Sciences3333 Fifth AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15213412-578-6262"Science and Language: A Transitional andIntegrative Approach to the Learning of Science"

A Michael Zeilik*University of New MexicoDepartment of Physics and Astronomy800 Yale Boulevard, NEAlbuquerque, NM [email protected]"Conceptual Astronomy: A Process OrientedCourse"

M Lee Zia*University of New HampshireDepartment of MathematicsDurham, NH [email protected]"Improving Graduate Student Teaching inMathematics"

P Dean Zollman*Kansas State UniversityDepartment of PhysicsManhattan, KS [email protected]"Interactive Digital VideoA Case Study inPhysics"

Carl ZorowskiNorth Carolina State UniversityBox 7910Raleigh, NC 27695

M Nancy Zumoff*Kennesaw State CollegeDepartment of MathematicsPO Box 444Marietta, GA 30061404-423-6286nzurnoff @ kscmail.kennesaw.edu"Earth Algebra"


National Science Foundation 1994Project Impact ConferenceParticipating Publishers

Academic Systems Corp.Joanne Weiss444 Castro Street, #1200Mountain View, CA 94041415-694-6861

AddisonWesley PublishingStuart JohnsonBill PooleChip PriceKevin B. StoneOne Jacob WayReading, MA 02164617-944-3700

Association of American PublishersHigher Education DivisionJames Lichtenberg71 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10003212-255-0200, x250

Wm. C. Brown PublishersJeffrey HahnPaula-Christy HeightonMegan Johnson246(1 Kerper BoulevardDubuque, IA 52(101319-588-1451

D.C. Heath & Co.Walt CunninghamCharles Hartford125 Spring StreetLexington, MA 02173617-860-1345

Falcon SoftwareKarl OelgeschlagcrI Hollis StreetWellesley, MA 02181617-235-1767

W.H. Freeman and Co.Deborah AllenRobert BiewenBurton GabrielHolly Hodder41 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10010212-576-9441

Harper Collins College PublishersEd Moura1900 East Lake AvenueGlenview, IL 60025708-486-2826

Houghton Mifflin Co.Paul LeBlancBill Hoffman222 Berkeley StreetBoston, MA 02116-3764617-351-5772

Richard D. Irwin, Inc.Tom Casson20 Park Plaza. Suite 320Boston, MA 02116617-451-1090

Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc,Paul PrindleOne Exeter PlazaBoston, MA 02116617-859-3900

The Learning TeamTom Laster10 Long Pond RoadArmonk, NY 10504914-273-2226

Macsyma, Inc.Richard Petti20 Academy StreetArlington, MA 02174-6436617-646-4550

116 Roouree Guide

Math SoftDavid LeschinskyAllen Ratdow101 Main StreetCambridge, MA 02142617-577-1017

McGraw- -HillDon BurdenRonald G. Dunn1221 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 1002021 2.512-2000

PWS Publishing Co.Edward MurphyToni Rohhins20 Park PlaiaBoston, MA 02116617-542-3377

PWS Publishing Co.Robert StrumP() Box 4461Carmel, CA 93921

Prentice Hall PublishersWill EthridgeTimothy Boa\113 Sylvan Avenue, Route 9WEnglewood Cliffs, NJ 07632201-592-3301201-592-2235

Saunders College PublishingJulie AlexanderPublic Ledger Building, Suite 1250150 S. Indep. Mall, WPhiladelphia, PA 19106215-238-7891

Saunders College PublishingEdith Beard Brady164 SkellyHercules. CA 94547510-724-4906

Springer-VerlagLies] Gibson175 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10010212-460-1611

Videodiscovery, Inc.Joseph ClarkMike Purpura17(X) Westlake Avenue, N, Suite 600Seattle, WA 98109-3012'206-285-5400

Waterloo Maple SoftwareTom LeeStan Devitt450 Phillip StreetWaterloo. OntarioCanada N2L 5J2519-747-2373

West Publishing Co.Peter MarshallJerry Westhy610 Opperman DrivePO Box 64527St. Paul, MN 55164-0526612-687-5791

John Wiley and SonsA. Wayne AndersonBonnie LiebermanKaye PaceNedah Rose605 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10158-0012212-850-6000

Wolfram Research, Inc.Mark Licker100 Trade Center DriveChampaign, IL 61820217-398-0700

Worth PublishersJoanne Dorff33 Irving PlaceNew York, NY 10003212-475-60(X)

Ztek Co.Max KurtzPO Box 1055Louisville, KY 40201-1055502-584-1607

GETTING NSF 7NFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONSThe National Science Foundation (NSF) has several ways for thepublic to receive informationand publications. Electronic or printed coqies of the NSF telephone directory, abstracts ofawards made since 1989, and many NSF k..olications are available as described below. To

access information electronically, there is no cost to you except for possible phone and Internet

access charges. Choose the method of access that matches your computer and network tools. For,t4eneral information about Internet access and Internet tools, please contact your local computer

support organization.

WORLD WIDE WEB:NSF HOME PAGEThe World Wide Web (WWW) systemmakes it possible to view text materialas well as graphics, video, and sound.You will need special software to "webbrowser") to access the NSF HomePage. The URL (Uniform ResourceLocator) is http://www.nsfgovt

INTERNET GOPHERThe Internet Gopher provides access tointormation on NSF's Science andTechnology Information System(STIS) through a series of menus Toaccess the Gopher, you need Gopherclient software; the NSF Gopher serveris on port 70 of stis,nsf.gov,

ANONYMOUS FTP (FILETRANSFER PROGRAM)Internet users who are familiar w tthFTP can easily transfer NSFdocuments to their local system forbrowsing and printing. The best wayto access NSF information is to firstlook at the index (file name:index.txt). From the index, you canselect the files you need. PIPinstructions are:

FTP to stis.nsfgov.Enter anonymous for the user name,and your e-mail address for thepassword.Retrieve the appropriate the (i.e.,filename.ext).

E-MAIL (ELECTRONIC -HAIL)To get documents via e-mail, send yourrequest to the Internet addressstisservenufgov. The best way tofind NSF information is to request theindex. Your e-mail message shouldread: get index.txt. An index with filenames will be sent to you. However ifyou know the file name of thedocument you want, your e-mailmessage should read:get <filename.ext>.

E-MAIL MAILING LISTSNSF maintains several mailing lists tokeep you automatically informed ofnew electronic publications. To getdescriptions of the mail lists andinstructions for subscribing, send yourrequest to: stisserve@nsigov. Yourmessage should read: get stisdirm.txt.

ON-LINE STISNSF's Science and TechnologyInformation System (STIS) is anelectronic publications disseminationsystem available via the Internet telnetto stis.nsfgovi; you will need a VT100emulator. The system features a full-text search and retrieval software(TOPIC) to help you locate thedocuments. Login as public and followthe instructions on the screen.

To get an electronic copy of the "STISUSERS GUIDE," NSF 94-10, send ane-mail request to: stisserve @nsf.gov.Your message should md:get NSF9410.txt. For a printed copy ofthe "STIS USERS GUIDE," seeinstructions "How To Request PrintedNSF Publications."

NON-INTERNET ACCESSVIA MODEMIf you do not have an Internetconnection, you can use remote loginto access NSF publications on NSF'son-line system, STIS. You need aVT100 terminal emulator on yourcomputer and a modem.

Dial 703-306-0212,choose 1200, 2400. or 9(100 baud.use settings 7-E-1. andlogin as public and follow the on-screen instructions.

NSF 95-64 (Replaces NSF 94-4)


HOW TO REQUEST PRINTEDNSF PUBLICATIONSYou may reouest printed publicationsin the following ways:

send e-mail request to:pubsOvnsfgovfax request to: 703-644-4278for phone request, call: 703-306-1130 or Telephonic Device for theDeaf (TDD 703-306-0090)send written request to:

NSF Forms and Publications Unit4201 Wilson BoulevardRoom P-15Arlington, VA 22230

When making a request, please includethe following information:

NSF publication number;number of copies; andyour complete mailing address.


Contact the NSF Information Center ifyou have questions about publications,including publication availability,titles, and numbers. The NSFInformation Center maintains a supplyof many NSF publications for publicuse. You may:

visit the NSF Information Center,located on the second floor at 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington. Virginia.;orcall the NSF Information Center at703-306-1234: or 703-306-0090 forTDD; orsend e-mail message toinfoVosfgov.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THEELECTRONIC SYSTEMSend specific, system-related questionsabout NSF electronic publicationservices that are not answered in thisflyer, to webmaster@nsfgov or call703-306-0214 (c ()ice mail).







' c-;,- :,.:r,..-




Permit No-G:69-.0441W4.z:1_ T-;44i:5V


,- "ii 4'

. ,


NSF 95-69 (new)