DOMENT RESUME

ED 347 092 SE 053 081

AMOR Jones, Russel C., Ed.TITLE Technological Literacy Workshop. Proceedings.

(Washington, D.C., May 6-8, 1991).INSTITUTION Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,

Inc., New York, NY.; Association of AmericanColleges, Washington, D.C.

SPONS AGENCY Natiomal Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Feb 92NOTE 191p.PUB TYPE Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021)

EDRS PRICE NFOl/PCOS Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Courseware; *Curriculum Development; Educational

Assessment; Engineering Technology; FacultyDevelopeent; Financial Support; Higher Education;Instructional Materials; *Liberal Arts; *Majors(Students); Program Development; Science and Society;Student Recruitment; Surveys; *TechnologicalLiteracy; Workshops

IDENTIFIERS *Technology Education

ABSTRACTThis document reports the proceedings of a workshop

on Technological Literacy. The objectives of the workshop were: toreview programs and to identify issues in technological literacy forliberal arts majors; to discuss mechanisms for the stimulation ofappropriate additional technological literacy programs; and todevelop an action plan for program, course, and faculty development.The body of the document includes the following: (1) opening remarksby the organizer, Dr. Russel Jones; (2) a review of past and presentefforts in technological literacy; (3) invited views from the LiberalArts and Engineering Colleges concerning differences between scienceand social science courses, the link between liberal arts andengineering, and broader issues in science, technology and society;(4) a summary of the breakout sessions reporting ..m1 curriculum

development, courseware availability and needs, student recruitment,faculty issues, a new consortium approach to promoting technologicalliteracy, identification of funding sources, and issues of initiationand growth of new technological literacy curricula and programs; and(5) closing remarks. The appendix includes the workshop agenda, alist of participants, greetings from the sponsors, complete reportsof the breakout sessions, findings of a survey of current programs, alisting of monographs published under National Liberal Arts support,a list of references, an annotated bibliography, and two proposalsmade by the workshop. (NM)

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

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

TECHNOLOGICAL UTERACY WORKSHOP

Procaeaw

6-8 May nal

Georgetown University Conformice CenterWashington, D.C.

EAUted by

Russel C. JonesUniversity of Delaware

Sponsored by

The Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology

and"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

The Association of Amerkan Colleges MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Funded by

The National Science Foundation

BEST COPY AUKAILE

Russel C. Jones

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER IERICr

U DEPART/AIN'T OF EDUCATIONC/IN LdsuohoNe Reeeemr, end ImProvernenl

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTE R IERIV

K Trus (fix ument nee been *ewoduced as

,oceived frOM le* WSW', 0,910.:StionovOnabrig

r WM). Miniphilba.e beer, mode io ..mwLwe*ooroductioe (loamy _

Ponta el wyeer cssen;ons 'Naiad chorne.,1 do not nocemerny **wooer's oeht-ioi

Of Ri pee,t,on of pokre

Many people assisted in this Technological Literacy Project,and their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

Special thanks are due to the several Uhivexsity of Delawaregraduate students who supported the Principal Investigatorthroughout the Project -- fram proposal writing to research toconference implementation. These students, all doctoralcandidates in the College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy areJack Dustin, Thulasi lamer, and Charles Scholz.

The two sponsoring organizations, Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology and the Association of AmericanColleges, have played critical roles in this project. Specialthanks go particularly to Executive Director David Reyes-Guerraof ABET and Vice President Joseph Johnston of AAC, who workedmost closely with the Principal Investigator throughout theeffort. A special acknowledgement is due to the National ScienceFoundation, which provided grant support for this project and itscentral workshop (grant fENG-8918893).

The time and effort of the participants in the Workshop --particularly the speakers and session chairs -- is alsogratefully acknowledged. Without their expertise, interaction,and follow-up effort the Workshop could not have been a success.

Thanks also go to Mrs. Carol Pijanowski, who managed thelogistic arrangement for the Conference and prepared themanuscript of this proceedings volume. Special thanks also go toDr. Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Director of the Science, Technology,and Society Program at Lehigh University for his assistance tothe Principal Investigator in editing this conference volume.

- Russel C. JonesPrincipal InvestigatorTechnological Literacy Project

Executive Summary 1

Preface 7Brief History of Technological Literacy Project

IntrOmatimagenina_Ramarka

Dr. Russel C. Jones

_ _ t - I.

9

Dr. Barrett Hazeltine 17Dr. Rustum Roy 23Dr. John Truxal 39

,Tpvited PerApectiveq

Views from the Liberal Arts CollegeDr. Thomas Wasow 53

Views from the Engineering CollegeDr. Curtis Tompkins 61

Engineering and the Liberal ArtsDr. David P. Billington 71

Broader Issues in Science, Technology and SocietyDr. George Bugliarello 77

DilgulEign_m_kmailia_kmata

Summary of Breakout Sessions 89

C;osing Remarks

Major Findings 99Recommendations 101Next Steps in Technological Literacy Project 105

APPENDIX,

Workshop Agenda 109List of Participants 111

Greetings From Smonsors

ABET - Dr. Leslie Benmark 117AAC - Dr. Paula Brownlee 120NSF - Dr. Wilbur Meier 122

Breakout Session Reports

Generation of Isques

Dr. Joseph Johnston 125

Curriculum DevelopmentDr. Carl Mitcham 132

Courseware AvailableDr. David P. Billington 136

Attraction of StudentsDr. John Opie 138

Faculty Issues/LogisticsDr. Marian V1sich, Jr 140

Devqlonment of Agenda for What Needs to be Dpqnq

Dr. David Reyes-Guerra 142

Couseware NeededDr. Paul T. Durbin 150

Consortium ApproachDr. Stephen H. Cutcliffe 156

Funding DirectionsDr. Samuel Goldberg 159

Stimulation of ProgramsDr. Bethany S. Oberst 163

Resources Ayaljable

Current Programs Survey 169

NLA Written Materials 185

References on Technological Literacy ProgramsIssues and Prospects 191

Annotated Bibliography of Selected Books 195

Proposals

ABET Information Center 203

Three-Year Demonstration Project . 204

iv

ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY FOR LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS:PROSPECTS AND RECONZONDATIONS

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, theAssociation of American Colleges, and the National ScienceFoundation sponsored a Workshop on Technological Literacy forLiberal Arta Majors at the Georgetown University ConferenceCenter, Washington, D.C. during 6-81 Nay 1991. The Workshop wasorganized by Dr. Russel C. Jones of the University of Delaware,Principal Investigator of the Technological Literacy Project.

The purposes of the Workshop were: 1) to review programsand to identify issues in technological literacy for liberal artsmajors; 2) to discuss mechanisms for the stimulation ofappropriate additional technological literacy programs; and 3)to develop an action plan for program, course, and facultydevelopment.

The invitational Workshop was attended by some 50participants, most of them deans of liberal arts and engineeringcolleges, and representatives of various organizations withactivities in the technological literacy area. The Workshop wasopened with a background and mission statement by Russel Jon-and with greetings from the sponsors. This was followed byreview of past efforts in technological literacy by Rustum Roy ofPennsylvania State University and Barrett Hazeltine of BrownUniversity. Professor Roy documented the need for technologicalliteracy and presented in detail the STS movement's approach toeliminate technological illiteracy. Professor Hazeltine brieflydescribed the evolution of interest in technological literacy andsome of the earlier conferences and their outcomes. Laterportions of his presentation covered in detail the activities ofCUTHA (Council for the Understanding of Technology in HumanAffairs) and the Sloan Foundation projects.

Professor John Truxal reviewed the ongoing efforts intechnological literacy with a specific example--high speed groundtransportation--and generalized into various issues oftechnological literacy. His presentation clearly established themultidimensional aspects--technical (design), social, economic,environmental, and psychological--of technological projects andthe need for technologically literate citizens. He then reviewedconstraints such as curriculum, students, faculty, and costsfacing technological literacy education, and identified promisingapproaches.

Professor David Billington of Princeton University presentedhis work on structures and machines. Through historical casestudies of the Iron Bridge and the Rotary Steam Engine, he

1

described haw technological literacy is synonymous with definingmodern engineering. Included in his prasentation were basicprinciples underlying the steamboat, according to some historiansof technology America's first major contribution to modernengineering, and its impact on society.

In his broader issues presentation, President GeorgeBugliarello of Polytechnic University presented the majorproblems facing society such as poverty, unemployment, and crime,and how technological literacy can help to solve these problems.He then reviewed some of the outcomes of new developments inscience and technology such as globalization, environmentalproblems, and international security. Finally, he indicated thatscience and todhnology alone are not sufficient to solve theseproblems and underlined the need for a multidisciplinaryapproach, such as that typically envisioned in the STS movement.

Thomas Wasow presented the division between "the twocultures" as viewed from the humanistic fields of study. Heoutlined the differences between science and social sciencescourses. Re explained, in detail, the courses andinterdisciplinary programs at Stanford University designed toenhance technological literacy of students through a system ofdistribution requirements to guarantee breadth of study. Onesuch course, "Introduction to Computers," deals with artificialintelligence, databases, spreadsheets, graphics, security andprivacy, computer systems, human factors, hardware, and networks,Later he identified problems encountered in faculty cooperationin teaching interdisciplinary courses and in the development ofnew courses at Stanford University.

In his presentation on views from the engineering college,Curtis Tompkins cited pros and cons concerning engineeringschools offering technological literacy courses for non-engineering students. This was mainly based on a survey of 26engineering schools. Some of the major concerns of theengineering schools include their small faculty size, problems ofcooperation from humanities and liberal arts faculty, financialviability, absence of reward or incentives for faculty, and lackof high school level knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, andphysics in liberal arts students. Based on the views expressedby engineering schools, he identified an optimistic goal ofincreasing substantially the number of individuals, particularlyyoung people, who are motivated, inspired, and prepared to learnon their own on a continuing basis about technological matters.He also noted the interest of liberal arts students in areas suchas solid waste disposal, acid rain, global warming, andalternative fuels, and thus the need to provide basic principlesabout technology to interested students.

Major portions of the Workshop were devoted to breakoutsessions on specific issues--curriculum, courseware, attraction

2

7

of students, faculty issues, logistics, and fanding directions.Joseph Johnston and David Reyes-Guerra chaired sessions on thegeneration of issues for the breakout sessions. Following is asummary of each of the breakout sessions.

The gatagglagLimmelignmat session was devoted to thediscussion of issues such as objectives of curriculum elements,instructional formats, and evaluation techniques fortechnological literacy programs. The curriculum discussion groupfocused on the issues of technological literacy as a designproblem. As with many design problems, discussion was centeredaround critical dimensions such as the definition oftechnological literacy, the relation between technologicalliteracy and engineering literacy, and content and process issuesin technological literacy. In the discussion group itself therewas an implicit assumption that technological literacy wasequivalent to engineering literacy or literacy about engineering.There was also a general consensus that the communication =canewas more important in any technological literacy curriculum thanany particular cqntent.

The maimmarcmailahli session was concerned with theeducational materials available to provide background to facultymembers and for use in courses and laboratories. The groupmainly focused on course content, forms of teaching materials,and results obtained so far. The group identified designprocess, critical thinking, and problem solving as the threemajor aspects of technological literacy course content.Historical case studies and business school decision making unitswere the central focus of discussion on the forms of teachingmaterials.

AtImagIANLIZAINginIA dealt with various issues involved inreaching out to selected groups of students. Issues discussedincluded the difference between liberal arts and engineeringstudents in their attitude toward courses, and the differencesbetween humanities and social sciences courses and engineeringcourses offered in a typical local environment. The group alsodiscussed the problems involved in identifying more attractivecourses and subjects, and the absence of any data about thestudents interest. To attract students, the group believed thatcourse content should be aimed at specific target populations,and needed to be linked with the social environment.

The zuglIy_zummaggiatima group discussed the problemsassociated with getting faculty interested in teaching courses,and the logistics of introducing technological literacy coursesinto the curriculum on a given campus. Attention was given tofaculty teaching load, faculty reward system, and facultymember's career patterns. There were also discussions on theavailability of funding for technological literacy programs andon the available curriculum materials.

3

The breakout session on gmajlespild was devoted todiscussion of gaps in the available materials and possibilitiesfcr new types of coverage and multiple formats. The group spenta significant portion of its time in discussing book length casestudios and explored the possibilities for more historical casestudies. Other forms of educational materials discussed includedfilms and videos, interactive and remote-site TV presentations,and computer software.

The COmsoptiviLlmmach group was concerned with thepossible mechanisms for enhancing technological literacyprograms, including the idea of consortia. This group tdantifiedvarious institutions currently active in technological :iteracyand new institutions that can be encouraged or approached tobecome involved in promoting technological literacy. Newmechanisms identified both for promoting technological literacyand for actually incorporating it into the curriculum include acommon core curriculum requirement, a top down CEO approach, andstate and regional consortia. Based on its discussions, thegroup also recommended short-term action elements such asdeclaring 1993 as the year of Technological Literacy, working tomake technological literacy a general education requirement forall undergraduate programs, and mailing the executive summary ufthe conference to the heads of all appropriate engineering andacademic societies and organizations.

The task of the 7Un6ina Directions group was mainly toidentify various funding sources which might be approached topromote technological literacy. The group discussed the generalissues related to funding and identified several potentialfunding sources. They were classified into four main categories:government, private foundations, industry, and colleges anduniversities. Wlthin the four categories, the group alsoidentified a few specific agencies that are potential fundingsources.

The ptimulation of Proarams session was devoted to issues ofinitiation and growth of new technological literacy curricula andprograms. The group discussed the various opportunities toinitiate new programs, and also to encourage faculty and studentsto become involved in technological literacy. Some of theopportunities discussed included holding annual conferences,publishing articles in journals, and arranging meetings withengineering deans (perhaps through ASEE) and liberal arts deans(perhaps through the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences) todiscuss issues of technological literacy.

The Technological Literacy Workshop provided a thoroughreview of current programs and issues, and set pramisingdirections for the future. It became clear that technologicalliteracy courses and programs should be offered at many moreinstitutions, utilizing the models and materials developed over

4

the past decade or so. Engineering school leadership iscentrally important in starting and supporting such programs, butliberal arts faculty should also be involved in the planning andimplementation.

It was suggested at the end of the conference that twofollow-up thrusts were most appropriate:

- Development of a national clearing house fortechnological literacy information and materials,building upon the base already developed.

- Development of a mechanism for pilot program initiationat additional schools, utilizing experts from currentprograms as consultants and providing necessary start-upfunding.

The sponsors and leaders of the Technological Literacy Workshopare pursuing these directions.

5

During the 1960s Americans recognized that they needed abetter understanding of the impact science and technology had onsociety in order to protect the environment, to minimize thediscord caused by change, to sustain political and culturalvalues, and to insure the full participation of citizens in theeconomic and political system. In a world already reshaped overrecent decades by nuclear weapons, new technologies oftransportation and communication, and a host of innovations inagriculture, medicine, and many other fields, the pace of changegives no sign of slackening. The capabilities of our political,social, and economic institutions will be limited if a largeportion of the citizenry is not aware of the implications ofthese changes.

Over the last fifteen years universities and colleges,foundations, professional and higher education organizations, andstate and federal governments have engaged in a wide variety ofinnovative activities to improve the science and technologicalliteracy of a broad range of individuals. Thus far, the literacyprograms that have been developed are diverse, often divergent,and normally focused on science. Technological literacy has notreceived the same emphasis, study, funding, or curriculumdevelopment as science literacy. Over the last five yearsefforts to overcome this serious shortcoming have come fromindividuals and organizations loosely identified with "science/technology and society" (STS) curricula and programs. Whilecredit should be given to those involved in STS, technologicalliteracy continues to be a largely unknown quantity in highereducation curricula.

Investigations of literacy have discovered two areas ofcritical need in higher education. First, engineering majorswere deficient in liberal arts learning; and secondly, liberalarts majors were deficient in technological learning. In 1988the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and theAssociation of American Colleges completed a three-year study todevelop a liberal arts curriculum for engineering majors. Thisstudy produced eight model course clusters and serves as afoundation for improving the quality of engineering education.While there are a number of programs underway that approachscience literacy in a similar comprehensive fashion, a similarstudy of technological literacy is conspicuously absent.

In view of the above/ the Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET), the Association of AmericanColleges (AAC), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) havedeveloped a project entitled "Issues in Technological Literacyfor Liberal Arts Majors: Prospects and Recommendations" underthe guidance of Dr. Russel C. Jones of the University of

7

11

Delaware. The main objectives of the Project were to studyexisting programs, curricula, and literature concerned withissues in technological literacy in higher education; toorganize a workshop to address various issues identified; and topropose future efforts.

This volume reports on the Workshop held in Washington, D.C.on May 6-8, 1991 as part of The Technological Literacy Project.Its program focussed on:

- Curriculum Development- Course Development- Attraction of Students- Faculty Development- Funding Directions- Program Implementation and Evaluation- Consortium Approach

The Workshop was attended by some 50 participants, many of themdeans of liberal arts or engineering colleges, and heads ofvarious non-profit organizations concerned with technologicalliteracy. The diversity and experience of the participants ledto very stimulating discussions on these issues.

This report is intended to present the full text of meljrrpresentations, and summaries of the proceedings of the Workbnop.The last section of the report summarizes the major findings, aswell as outlining proposed next steps in the TechnologicalLiteracy Project. The appendices of the volume include a list ofWorkshop participants, a brief report on current programs and abibliography of books and periodical literature in thetechnological literacy field.

8

12

Russel C. JonesUniversity of Delaware

Ratkamund

Welcome to the Technological Literacy Workshop. This is thesecond in a series of projects done as collaborations between theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and theAssociation of American Colleges (LIC). It follows ane that ABETand AAC did in 1986-88 to broaden engineering education throughoptimization of the humanities and social sciences component.ABET has required, for many years, that one eighth of thecurriculum of engineering students be in humanities and socialsciences. It felt that it was not getting sufficient results forthat investment on the part of a lot of students. The firstproject between AAC and ABET focused on that, and has had somebeneficial results.

As a second effort, ABET and AAC have chosen teChnologicalliteracy for college students other than engineers. With anemphasis on liberal arts majors, including those liberal artsmajors who are going to go on into teaching in K through 12, thefocus of this workshop will be on technological literacy. Wewill try to find a way to complement the direction that AAC andABET effected the first time around by trying to have same inputfrom the technical side of the campus to the science andengineering component for liberal arts majors. Clearly theultimate goal here is technological literacy for a broadpopulation.

Bumanities 6 Social Sciences Tor _Engineers

Let me give you a capsule of the first study between ABETand AAC. The problem observed by ABET visitors over the yearshas been that engineering stue:nts tend to take an uncoordinatedset of introductory level cov ',4es in humanities.and socialsciences. The earlier project first went out and documented this,and presented its results in an AAC publication titled"Unfinished Design." It documents what most engineering facultymembers already knew, that engineering students tend to take 100level courses only when they have to get into MSS. They willtry to get sections where there are at least three or fourhundred students so there is little chance of them beingstimulated or challenged personally. They will take whateverfits their schedule on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 3:00 o'clock inthe afternoon or whatever fits between laboratories andengineering classes. To counter this attitude, the approachdeveloped by the AAC/ABET project team was one of utilizingclusters of courses to provide appropriate depth of exposure.Figure 1 lists the clusters developed by the project team.

9

13

Figure 1

AMEIZICIZET-M

II Management

Public Policy and the Enviz-onment

m American Studies

Arts

Great ideas

International (e.g. Japanese Studies)

Cognitive Science

Not yet chosen

This approach should guide students into taking sequences ofrelated courses with vertical advancement in successive coursesso that they will at least understand the ways social scientistsand humanists approach problems. The disciplines generally takeapproaches quite different than the ways an engineer or scientistapproaches problems.

Technoloaical Literacy

Our current project (the one we are here to deal with thesecouple of days) is technological literacy for college studentsother than engineers. One driving force behind this project,obviously, is the desire for an informed citizenry who canparticipate in setting policy on difficult technological issues,such as energy policy and pollution control.

An approach related to technological literacy/ the Science,Technology, and Society movement, has tried to work at thisinterface between technology and society. However/ I am veryconcerned that we have drifted in a direction where too fewtechnical people are involved. At any rate, there is a major STSmovement which is typically focused on helping technical peopleunderstand the way things can go right and can go wrong as theydeal with society. I think it is a very valuable movement, butone that would benefit from the addition of further technicalcontent and understanding.

10

14

One approach is to see whether we can get appropriateengineering faculty members involved by offering courses for non-engineers. A major issue is how difficult it is to getengineering faculty members to take on additional tasks,particularly when they currently devote extensive time to writingresearch and development grants and contracts. At any rate, thisis something we would like to explore. We can point out thatengineering enrollments are declining and this is a way to buildtheir enrollments back up; and we can tell them that this is away to enter into the intellectual life of a campus instead ofworking over in a corner with their own professional students.

Let me come back to the particular importance oftechnological literacy for pre-college teachers. Many of us inthe room are very concerned about the quality of K through 12education. We know that until we fix that pipeline, things arenot going to be very good for us in higher education. So in ourown enlightened self interest, we need to pay particularattention to those who will go back and work on that pipeline.

Znout From Engineering

It is not clear what elements should be in a technologicalliteracy program. It appears that many of the things that are incurrent STS programs, such as history of science and technology,and the ethics of professionals dealing with the public, need tobe included. What will an engineer or other technical personbring to such a program--perhaps jointly done with thephilosophers, the historians, the political scientists, andothers on campus?

One element that I think an engineer would bring is howtechnical things work. How does a computer work? How does anautomobile work? This will provide a basis for exploring theroles of engineers in creating technology for society in responseto its needs.

Engineers would also contribute by exposing students totheir unique approach to problem solving. Engineers usequantitative methods, consider tradeoffs, do trial solutions,utilize feedback--our own version of the scientific methodperhaps. This approach is something very useful to try totransmit to non-engineering students, probably within somethingother than a lecture format, perhaps with a case study format.

The third thing that I think engineers might bring to thetable is elements of design. This could allow students to workfrom the front end of a project, instead of doing an analysis ofwhat went wrong at Three Mile Island, or what went wrong in somemajor bridge collapse. Working frontwards through the designprocess the way an engineer does would be quite different in

11

15

approach than most of the STS courses would take. Students wouldlook at the interplay of economics and aesthetics and a varietyof other things that go into the design process.

Finally, engineers would expose students to the elements ofteam work. Most engineers today work less as individuals than asmembers of a team. How can we transmit that ability to broadersociety so that we could get more teams to bridge across thetraditional liberal arts field and the engineering field?

I hope that you will help to improve this list of whatengineers night bring to a technological literacy effm.t over thenext couple of days, because there is expertise available at thisworkshop to sharpen that up considerably.

29A112221Sgatilialaitiaitirt-LMISC-t

The Ttchnological Literacy project came about because theengineering leadership at the National Science Foundation thoughtthat it was timely, and the appropriate next step after theproject on better utilization of the humanities and socialsciences component of engineering education. NSF agreed to fundthis workshop effort to document and avaluate the current state-of-the-art in technological literacy, and to suggest directionsfor future efforts.

What I and my graduate student colleagues have done over thepast year or so is a reasonably comprehensive review of existingprograms. I have visited many of the major programs in thecountry. We have looked at the curriculum materials, and havetried to provide you a summary of that in the packets you havebeen sent prior to the meeting. We have looked at the literatureon technological literacy that covers what the experts aresaying. Wt sent you a few samples of that type of paper in thepackets that you hopefully read prior to coming to the meeting.

21111analsagioal_leitar

With that background we are here to conduct a technologicalliteracy workshop--an invitational workshop of some 50 people inWashington. The outcome of this meeting will include a workshopproceedings covering both presentations and discussions.

During the workshop we hope to identify those issues thatare important, and have tried to sketch those out in theprogram in terms of broad categories. We will have breakoutsessions wtere we try to focus on such issues in depth, andhopefully make appropriate recommendations. For example, weshould address wtether there is something in technologicalliteracy efforts to date that is worth trying to propagate acrossmany more institutions than the reasonably small number of highquality programs that are currently in place. If there is indeed

12

16

something that should be done further, how do we do it? Bow dowe develop and sell a proposal that might result in the resourceseither on individual campuses or from same external fundingsource to mount such a program?

Lets look ahead to what we have put together aver the nextcouple of days. We start with a few words of welcome fromsponsoring organizations, then a review of past effort intechnological literacy by a couple of experts, who have beeninstrumental in technological literacy efforts to date. Tomorrowmorning a review of some ongoing efforts in technologicalliteracy, then a series of meetings that I call breakout sessionswill generate appropriate issues to be addressed. After suchbreakout sessions we will get back together and share our ideas.The program includes a pair of discussions: one an howtechnological literacy and related fields look from the liberalarts college, and one on how they look from the engineeringcollege. Then for those who want a snapshot of some real livetechnological literacy education, Professor Billington fromPrinceton has agreed to give us a demonstration lecture onbridges and society so that you have some idea of what happens insuch a course. Then we have a major epee/ter on broader issues inscience, technology, and society for tomorrow evening as part ofour evening festivities. Back to work Wednesday morning withanother set of breakout sessions on what needs to be done in thefuture. Then finally, a closing session on Wednesday onsuggestions for an action plan that can be put together forgroups like ABET and AAC and NSF, and perhaps a consortium of theorganizations that are now already active in this field, to moveforward with.

That is where I hope we are going to go, but we on theWorkshop staff are here to listen and take good notes as well.We will try to understand where it is that this group ofdistinguished people would hope the field of technologicalliteracy would go, and how it should get there.

13

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY

PAST AND PRESENT EFFORTS

1 5

I s

z _;4/1_16' 11 61;111 4110L4.: ei.olo

Barrett HazeltineBrown University

"Much have I seen and known; cities of menAnd manners, climates, councils, governments,"

Tennyson

When Ulysses got back from Troy, he needed to tall everybodywhat happened, and I feel somewhat the same. Like Ulysses, I cantalk best about what I was involved in. I hope I will notoverlook the contributions of others, and I especially hope Iwill not overlook the contribution of any one in the room.

A question that came up often, especially in the late 1970s,was why one would want to get into this business of teachingliberal arts students about technology. A flip answer vas mystrong admiration for John Truxal and Mike Visich and thechallenge to see if I could do as well. A slightly less flipanswer was because my dean was worried about enrollments in 1973or sothe balance of payments were unfavorable, we were sendingengineering students out to take courses all over campus and noneof the non-engineers were coming to us.

Actually, a major impetus was a concern that students wantedto change the world but did not have any sense of what could bedone. I recall about that time a campus meeting concerned withthe Seabrook NUclear Plant. An otherwise sensible person withsame stature on campus pointed out that the plant was not reallyneeded--tidal power would be sufficient as a substitute. Perhapsthat assertion was what prompted John Sununu to comment that whatgovernment needed was more people who understood the differencebetween a million and a billion.

That era in the late 1970s, when technological literacybegan to attract engineering faculty was another "greening ofAmerica time," when greening referred to softer attitudes ratherthan the environment. Many on engineering faculties felt we hadsomething to contribute. We wanted to be part of the solution,wanted to be part of campus-wide movements, not considered partof the problem. My notes from a meeting at the time containreference to the 3Ps--the three major societal problems:Poverty, Pollution, and Pornography, all of which have asignificant technological component and need sone technologicalunderstanding for solution.

Students from all aver the campus were also interested inlearning about technology. Perhaps even then they were worriedabout getting a job but many were good enough to tell us theyenjoyed learning about things tsley dealt with every day and had

17

19

never understood. Then, and still, students came up and said howvery pleased they were to understand what their parents did. Ofcourse, many were just excited to design and build something andsee it work.

External events, beyond the campus, also made the study oftechnology intriguing. National reports on education werereacting to the pure abstraction of many subjects, the gulfbetween what was being taught and the real world. One of SamuelFlorman's books included the following passage:

People today would get more pleasure out of theworld if they understood more about science andtechnology. A good education should includeenough in these areas so that the ordinarycitizen is not deprived of her/his birthright,which includes savoring the engineering creationsof the world.

Now I would like to describe sone of the things thathappened. The major early event, at least for me, was an effortby Ed Krick of Lafayette College to find out about efforts atvarious colleges. This was reported in a paper in ZnainewingZducation. Of course, history of technology had been a viableacademic field before then but its focus was sonewhat different.

Jerry Nadler organized a pair of conferences in Madison in1978. One conference turned out to be international withrepresentatives from Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Thetopics in the conference included TV programs of the Nova varietyproduced by the University of Michigan and a description of MosheRubenstein's problem solving course. John Truxml described theMan-made World, a technological literacy course used in highschools, and changed the lives of many of us.

One outcome of the second conference was the establishmentof CUTHA (Council for the Understanding of Technology in HumanAffairs). CUTHA stated its three objectives as follows:

- Collect information on ongoing activities- Disseminate that information- Proselyte.

Ah implied objective, of course, was to get some grants tosupport these desirable efforts, which we did. Another impliedobjective was to make the whole field more respectable andattractive.

18

2 0

curHA did four kinds of things: hold conferences,participated in other people's conferences, facilitatedconsultation, and published The Weayet.

curia attracted a wide range of participants from both theliberal arts and the humanities at a series of national andregional conferences. The initial focus was on defining wtat wasmeant by technological literacy, and as the movement gainedexperience it increasingly focused on pedagogical techniques thatworked especially well for specific courses and programs.

curHA representatives have given numerous presentations atsuch meetings as those of the American Association of C011eges,American Association for Higher Education, Council of IndependentColleges, National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges, and others. Sessions have also been sponsored atseveral ASEE_annual meetings and at least one Frontiers inEducation conference. CUM also represented the technologyliteracy, perspective on the study group that produced the ASEEreportaha_LaftEKLAEL121-agi2=2.

Our objective was to be a clearing house for people wantingour advice or other kinds of assistance. I don't think anybodyever called =HA asking for a consultant but several of us werecalled directly. Most of these requests seemed to have beengenerated from the conferences.

The intention of The Weaver was to publish essays eitherabout teaching technology or about the interaction of technologywith other fields. Articles tended to fall into threecategories: 1) discussions of the rationale, purposes, contextor need for technological literacy, 2) descriptions of specificcourses and programs, or 3) introductions to aspects oftechnology which would be bases for suitable courses. Thearticles in the next issue will be related to space. Theprevious issue dealt with technology and the social sciences. Itcontained, among others, articles about technology as a socialproduct in the context of its time, about the publicunderstanding of risk assessment and about how technology has thepotential to engineer control over society. The first editor ofThe Weaver was Edith Ruina. We are distributing about 5000copies an issue.

The CUTHA board voted the organization out of existence inthe spring of 1990, partly because a niche for the organizationdid not seem apparent and partly because of the taY exigencies ofmaintaining a non-profit organization. It is worth mentioningthat CUTHA had three presidents: Edward Friedman of StevensInstitute of Technology, John Truxal of SUNY-Stony Brook, andLeon Trilling of MIT.

19

21

One reason that the need for 711MIL decreased was that theNov Liberal Arts program supported by the Sloan Foundation was sosuccessful. The genesis of the New Liberal Arts program was anessay by Stephen White published by the Sloan FOundation in 1981,with commenting essays. Jim Koerner, who coordinated the NewLiberal Arts Program within the Sloan Foundation in its earlydays edited the volume. Stephen White's essay was entitled "TheNew Liberal Arts--an Exchange of Views" and spoke totechnological literacy, quantitative reasoning, and computerfacility as central to the liberal education in the last quarterof the 20th century. The respondents--two college presidents,one enginesr, three historians, a mathematician, and aphilosopher were supportive.

The New Liberal Arts program itself began at a meeting inKey Biscayne in 1961. During its ten year lifetime, it gavegrants to liberal arts colleges and historically blackinstitutions. It ran a series of workshops, some introducingtechnological literacy and some on specific topics. In the earlydays, it sponsored a traveling seminar which went through the NewEngland colleges. More recently it has sponsored the writing ofbooks and monographs and the administration of the Stony BrookCenter under the direction of John Truxal and Mike Visich whichpublishes the wezt News and is a source of information andassistance. The Sloan Foundation has not only been generous ithas also been willing to experiment with different approaches.

what has been the results of these efforts? Of course it ishard to attribute any success to any cause in education but,technological literacy does seem to be accepted as worthwhile andpossible. The Wall Street Journal and Neysweel; both have regularcolumns on technology. I was struck by how different invitingpeople to a New England regional New Liberal Arts nesting in thespring of 1990 was from inviting people to the first CUTHAmeeting at MIT in 1980. Now, at least, people know what you aretalking about and are sympathetic. Friends at an Africanuniversity want to know more, so do people at other United Statesuniversities.

We, the technological literacy people, are sometimes askedhow we differ from the STS people. We are really friends and theline is fuzzy, but the distinction is worth understanding. Weteach courses in engineering, not about engineering. We wantstudents to see the joys of engineering at its best, to design,to build, to learn by doing, to have fun by starting with an ideaand making it work, to work in a team because the project is toobig for one person. We want them to develop self confidence, asense of control in dealing with technology. Russel Edgertonsaid it very well:

20

'12

In an encaunter with a string of courses, astuCent can pick up only a tiny fragment oftechnological knowledge. They can learn some ofthe ways engineers think about things. But mostcrucial of all, a course can give students a toehold of self-confidence about their ability tounderstand and master things technological. in aproper sequence of courses, this self confidencecan grow. Students can learn that, with effort,they can be in charge. That to me is worthfighting for.

And to me also.

References

Edgerton, Russell. "Feeling in Control, Or, Why would a Humanistenvy an Engineer." Chanae: The Magazine for Highey.Learning. March/April 1986.

Florman,New

Tennyson,

Sanuel C. The_Existential Pleasures og Enaineering.York: St. Martins Press, 1976.

Alfred Lord. Ulysses.

21

2:3

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY- -the more important goal inengineering, science, and math education

Rustum RoyPennsylvania State University

;literacyThe awareness of a "national deficit" in math and science

education has increased dramatically aver the last five years.Regrettably both the academic community and the policy makershave shown little evidence that they appreciate the radicallydifferent components of the "national deficit." However, thereis now increased agreement that there are two easilydistinguished components:

a) The technological illiteracy of 90-95% of the populationincluding parts of the professional scientific community,the Federal Cabinet of the U.S., many CEO's and equallythe culture of urban poverty.

b) The insufficient numbers and quality of professionalengineers, applied scientists, and scientists in theworkforce.

During the last few years while the science community hascontinued to call for an ever increasing number of scientists,most cormetent and experienced policy makers have finallyrealized that it is, first of all, most important to change themat= of what passes for science within all of U.S. educationtoday, as made available to a wider audience.

This is no longer only the view of the avant garde, it hasalso emerged as mainstream consensus thinking. A whole series ofquotations from different sectors and levels of education andpolicy will show how pervasive this now is among the leadership.

We must now begin to make the case for a stronger andmore sustained national commitment to achieving a levelof popular scientific literacy in this countrysufficient for the needs of a free and democraticsociety.

Paul Gray, President, M.I.T. (1989).

We need to realize that improvement is needed...toproduce a generation of voters with at least enoughknowledge to avoid being bamboozled by foolishness.

Don Kennedy, President, Stanford University (1989).

23

24

Teaching science to non-science majors is a nationalchallenge. ...the faculty has created a Council onScience and Technology to assist faculty members indeveloping new courses and renovating existingones...and to foster upper-level courses in science andtechnology that address cultural and societal issues.

Harold Shapiro, President, Princeton University (1990).

The connection of technology to scienge, and both to societalproblems and issues are called for in dozens of reports:

(For Science in Grades 7 and 8) A beginningunderstanding of the integration of natural sciences,social sciences, and mathematics; familiarity inintegratina technologies with exneriences in thesciences (emphasis added).

(Secondary Biology) Understanding biologically basedpersonal and social i,roblems and issues such as health,nutrition, environmental management, and humanadaptation; ability to resolve problems and issues ina whiguagagiaLsranrtvolving_invae or ethicalconsiclerations (emphasis added).

(Computer Science) General understanding of theproblems and issues confronting both individuals andsociety as a whole in the use of computers, inclqdingsocial an4 ethical effects of comnutersl_ the ethicalissues involved in computer automation (emphasisadded).

From ; ki= th 'f'we (October1983), Final Report: National Science Board Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology:

The need for genuine inter-disciplinarity is expressedrhetorically by virtually every leader--but hardly everimplemented by any administrator.

Liberal education requirements should be expanded andreinvigorated to ensure that students and facultyintegrate knowledge from various disciplines (emphasisadded).

A "principal aim" of liberal education is "the sPilityto integrate what is learned in different disciplines,"and hence that reform must be based on "collaborationamong faculty from different departments," which will"establish specific inteorative mechaniptp.n

From aliz.

Alluircim-liighELEdagatign (1.S. 4):

24

f);

These goals are not only for college; the sane calls are issuedfor R-12.

Science curriculum grades 9-11 be nitimatmcal_Acmgzas.intaractiginc stLsgiansta_ancuangastcauctuLth2mastuLaindsuin with instruction centered aroundproblems that funtAgnim_bingmladge from engineering,physics, biology, earth science, and appliedmathematics.

A curriculum "organized around gzektlejmisaminsuirja116.real 1j.ft issues, and Raxmaaa_and_JmmommAteAlmaimi2n=king.

rom . scienceiF Sc CUM_ tutchmaziy_sdurgarsignAragagurau (April 1983):

The basic common points encompass a tripartite call for:

1. Greater intardisciplinarity.2. Integration of knowledge, and3. Connection to social issues, including ethics and values.

Realization of the parallel and synergistic dharacter of thetwo goals in science and technology education has also now beenaccepted in Congress. The very first sentence of Title I of theOmnibus Science Education bill introduced by Senators Kennedy andHatfield in January 1990

declares =Urinal gbjectives to:

(a) imprwe nublic scientific and technical literacy(b) increase the supply of scientists, engineers, and

technologists...

The STS movement from its birth twenty years ago has beenthe initiator and sustainer of the national push for this"scientific and technical literacy" for the majority of citizens.

To close this section which establishes the new "legitimacy"of technoldnical as opposed to scientific literacy two quotesfrom opposite ands of the spectrum of commentators will suffice:

First the phy. Times Education Editor shows that theidea has, at least, reached the leadership in themedia. On January 31, 1990 he titled his column,"Lessons, Teaching Technology, the subject that offersno single best answer to problems."

Second, Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation, also in1990, redefines a new balance among the functions of theuniversity thus:

25

r.

(1) We describe in the report (aghplarship Reconsidsred,Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,1990) a four-part model with the advancement ofknowledge as one of the quadrants.

(2) We see scholarship involved in the integration ofbigarlealgit.

(3) We also propose that notions of scholarship shouldinclude the application of knowledae. We propose amore even relationship between the twoone in which werecognize and appreciate the wisdom of practice. Weneed to take practice more seriously and benefit fromthe relationship between the two.

(4) Finally, we propose a component of scholarship we callrepresentation. Here we argue for a scholarship thatsupports teaching.

The "integration" and "application" of knowledge are keyrationales for assuring for all citizens, and certainly allcollege students, a level of technological literacy.

Perhaps the non-professional's view is the most tellingbecause it connects teaching about technology to teaching STS.Technology involves values: hence the STS route is not only anexcellent gateway to technological education, it is part ofeducation about technology. Here is Ed Fiske of the N.Y. Timesagain

Teaching technology, posesbecause it 4oes not fit intocategories.

For example, science--the

a challenge to sdhoolsthe traditional acadpmic

search for the rules that

Students answers are usually right or wrong. Bycontrast, technoloax--pature--forces students and teachers alike to deal inthe gray area of value tudgements_ tradeoftk and

Perhaps in technology educationan arena wheregaatiliajinizawas_ingurslaaff_taggsmal must be dealtwith simultaneously--educators haveffit least found axfty_t2_kriggs_thia_gm.

Technology education even turns traditional "handson" education on its head. Science laboratories, forexample are usually intended to_show_the applicationof ..tjegn_lgiumLn_calasik. In technology classesstudents star t. with a oroblemamd then gather the

26

2 7

.ZP, 14.4-15**

1. ILLI_UILLsissalsz jianklimaamigna

Victor Frankl uses the simple example of the visualperception of a solid object to illustrate how different the sameobject looks from different viewpoints. T.L. looks very muchdifferent when looked at by different groups.

Figure I. The realiiy pczcved is Menially afflicted by the direction from which it isviewed. Mewing from mom than one direction may sive an unexpectedaddition (in this case the 3-dimensional nature) to our model of :unity. (AfterV. Frankl.)

The industrial manager looking for more technologicallyliterate employees, the college dean concerned about her B.A.degree holders, and the anti-nuclear activist probably haverather different views of T.L. Yet all these apparentlycontradictory views may describe the same total reality.

2 - Zslau_ALA_Bligan

Slogans are extremely valuable as general rallying pointsfor the masses. "Technological Literacy" as a slogan conveysaccurately--though not precisely--what we would.liks it toconvey. Nopetheless, one should not expect too much of sudhterns. We all agree that "technological illiteracy" is a"problem." Fritz Schumacher of "Small is Beautiful" fame in hisgaidajosmiths...mi distinguishes between convergent amddivergent problems. The former we can solve, bring to a sensibleconclusion, wrap up. The latter "divergent" problems we canaddress, discuss, work away at, knowing that in'essence theycannot be "solved." Technological Literacy" becomes the sloganfor gathering a heterogeneous group of concerned citizens toaddress the problem. The lack of precision in the term may bemade into a virtue, so that a variety of individuals withdiffering approaches may still cooperate in that part where theirinterests do overlap.

27

2AAJa_s_nragas

This observation forms a key component of my thesis. Humansdeveloped many technologies to quite sophisticated levelsmillenia before they were literate (i.e. able to use an alphabetto make words which they could pronounce andior understand).Could the term "technological literacy" therefore be an oxymoron.Clearly technological competence, i.e. carrying out certaintechnological procedures does not.recuire the ability to read orwrite. In the developed world many of us experience this indealing with the very competent automobile mechanics who arealmost technological Alga= in car maintenance but may beilliterate. In the developing world this is commonplace. Thus

Swaminathan discussing the transfer of agriculturalbiotechnologies to the third world also reported that in manydeveloping countries quite complex biotechnologies of plantbreeding and pest control have been passed on from generation togeneration by totally illiterate villagers. Indeed to trainpersonnel to perform the same tasks by the standard procedures ofliteracy, training in science, and learning the techniques wouldbe a formidable, indeed prohibitively difficult and complex taskfor a local government. Idteracy is clearly neither necessarynor sufficient for technological competence. Me will thereforete forced to attempt some definition of the terms we use, and Itry below to add same new terms which are helpful in thedevelopment of this topic.

4. Technological Literwav_is Not Analoaous to °ScientificLiteracy

rvan Mich, who questions literacy as a panacea in his bookwith Barry Sanders, "ABC: The Alphabetization of the PopularMind," shows that the development of the alphabet bothconstrained human communication and simultaneously made it mucheasier to communicate with large numbers of people at lowerlevels of "intensity." The scientific alphabet--of mathematics,symbols, and equations--continued this trend and generated anenormously powerful communication tool, albeit useful to acorrespondingly narrower and narrower group of individuals. Justso, since science requires the use of letters and symbols,scientific literacy is a meaningful and non-paradoxical term.Technological literacy in some aspects, as noted above, does notrequire the 'literate' approach.

5. ed as awith. competence in, and Control of Technology

In order to discuss this in some depth let us attempt somedefinitions of the terms as we are using them here.

Technology is the means by which humans utilize natural andhuman resources to attain a goal.

28

29

Literacy is the ability to communicate through writtenletters and words.

Uncomfortable with technology is the state where, due toignorance, one is both wary and afraid even of the means one mustuse on a daily basis to attain one's goals.

Comfortable with technology is the state in which a humanbeing is at home with the technological means that She or he usesbut unable to assess their impacts on persons or society.

Competence in technology is attained when one has acquiredthe skill to operate competently the means needed for attainingone's goals.

Control of technology requires, in addition to operation, alevel of understanding of the process to shape and adapt it asnecessary to achieve even new goals based on an assessment of itspotential for good and ill.

Perhaps the use of an analogy will help illuminate theseterms (see Fig. 2).

a. ILLITERATE in native tongue.

One can manage, millions dollHow? Led around by others.Sign language, Use pictures, mapsTrial and error.

b. BERLITZ Course

You Ica it and put wordsMAU around city&LI in restaurantsVigit castles

c. FLUENT in local language

Participate in life of cityWORK, INTERACT

to it

Minimalinteraction

UncomfortableNo competenceLittle control

Some comfortLittle competenceNo control

ComfortCompetenceControl

Figure 2. Levels of eT. Tourist Metaphor: How to get aroundcity?

A tourist in a foreign land needs the technology of thelanguage. The person who has no familiarity at all with thelanguage feels at a major disadvantage, has to use sign languageto order food or find the bathroom, and can develop a real senseof isolation. At a slightly higher level of understandingthevast majority of citizens in the developed world surrounded by amyriad of technologies are faced with discomfort caused by grossignorance of a functioning system in which they have no choicebut to participate as cogs. Such persons are not only"illiterate" in the native tongue, but cannot speak of understandit either.

A second group of tourists, in preparation for their trip,will have taken a crash course in the language, acquired a phrasebook, or taken the Berlitz course in it. While they are still..ot literate in the new language they are sugh more comfortablein their environment. They can "manage," without discomfort, butsince they cannot read signs or a newspaper still can have nosense of conpetence.

A third group has studied the language (or grew up with it)so that they.can be rather fluent in it. It is only they who canexperience VT. There is, of course, a fourth group which is asubset of the third. These are the writers or poets of thelanguage. They are sufficiently in control to invent newexpressions, altar naanings--shape the language itself.

0:11-11teb&BintILAILM/SMISZiggigailfUttnikeL

Science, Technology and SocietySTS --has become theflagship of the movement for integrative general education. Bydefinition STS is the most integrative subject matter one canfind in higher education- -it covers by far the widest range ofdisciplines. In many ways it is the reinvention of theUniversity within the "Multiversity." It represents the veryantithesis of the "distribution" requirements among thedisciplines. It is the structured unification of thesedisciplines into a new melded general education --which is whatthe university was all about in the first place! Figure 3attempts to portray this graphically.

Camesay helms

Everyday Empalme' sad Pveyfee fled"

Mars 3. al 1. kmorom tbil :wool Palmy:am roma sdecogive.taimg Lomas caw V* cm, hymn= ei Oho esimporest?dolas II wields Os assmrsity.

30

31

STS is an intellectual field which started as a responseto the questions raised by various critics of science andtechnology's effect on society. Ellul's seminal work 212gusimaggiriaLlswjera marked the kick-off of thiscampaign, but Ellul must not be conZused in any way withwhat SITS contains today. In the quarter century sincethat book was published (in English), STS has become afocal point in interdisciplinary general education inU.S. postsecondary education. STS pedagogy provides astructure to look at the grave problems that have arisendue to the compartmentalization of knowledge, especiallyseparating S/T from the rest of learning. Societalproblems always cut across academia's arbitrary divisionsof fields of knowledge. Addressing them requires inputfrom many areas. STS examines each problem utilizing allthe relevant odisciplines" needed.

From a pedagogical and epistemological viewpoint, STSrepresents a unique change in western acadeaicdevelopment. Instead of prolonging the fissiparoustendency built into academic science, STS attempts tosynthesise the widest possible range of disciplines."Macro-STS" is a new Gestalt or paradigm breaking downthe domination of the university paradigm ofspecialization and departmentalization of knowledge.

The emergence of the STS movement has created thepotential for a major pazadigm shift in education. Aradically new way of looking at the relationships betweenscience and technology is developing. This new look alsoputs science and technology into the historical contextof worldwide human society. Xhowledge is considered inintegrative interdisciplinary terms instead of thepresent rigid, ever more specialized disciplines.values, morals, and concerns for the larger society aredealt with along-side of scientific equations.

STS responds to a study of the real problems facing theworld by proposing an integration of knowledge. It isthe systematic study of the interactions of science,technology, and society outside of strict disciplinarybounds. It looks at science and technology as twoindependent but related social forces and examines howthey impact each other, government, policy-making,business, and everyday life in a myriad of ways. It usesbiology as well as business, art as well as physics,engineering as well as philosophy. It is assumed thatall disciplines have information of potential value tosociety.

31

3 2

STS constitutes a major advance in holistic thinking asit looks at societal implications as well as scientificlaws. It calls for moral guidance or humanisticunderstanding of all wurk in science and technology. Itreminds us that ignoring moral and humanistic standardsis itself a choice with far-readhing implications.Mindful of this, STS seeks a thorough reform ofscientific education as now practiced.

The rapid increase in interest and support of STS in theUnited States and abroad shows that the STS "paradigm shift" hasstarted and probably cannot be stopped. STS has grown intoformal progTams on over a hundred college and universitycampuses, and into courses at two thousand.

EM=IL2azagistaLfildittra_m_tim_t_nsuf_smiganaThe STS route to technological literacy is not merely the

addition of a few new courses in engineering required of liberalarts students. It is indeed in the best sense a paradigm shiftin the approach t. their education. To put the case starkly Ihave reduced it to a tabular form.

Tbe Rrese2X 'Wadi=

Science leads to technology (= prosperity!!).

We need science to do technology.

Science equals physics 4- chemistry ± kiology (PCB).

All (most?) citizens must have some PCB; the more the betterfor our economy. (The present science literacy approach whichhas led to the present science education crisis.)

Abstract science is "superior" (more general, the real stuff)than applied science or technology.

Specialization abber alles. Depth is what counts. Narrowerthe better.

The Xmergiltg Changes

Technologyleadsto (from Galileo to A-bomb).

Science is a minor and easily gotten component in successfultechnology.

We are embedded in earth, materials, medical, "applied"science. These are the true basic-to-human sciences,encountered daily.

3 2

Technology is met in the concrete reality of society that isthe only "science" every =igen needs.

'II

MAiLitandims

puts humans and their personal and collective concerns Atsmultsc

Is the re-creation of the uni-versitvwithin the multi-versity.

Stresses inteqration, (1) across disciplines, (2) knowledgeand values, (3) being and doing.

Restores technoloav and implied science to kcentral olace inr-l2 and the university.

Inxikluabletfor_w professionals.

It is the author's contention that having the entire studentbody exposed to STS will benefit them in several ways:

1. Students will be much more informed and aware of the mostsignificant current issues in our society; which involveS/T in some way.

2. They will have been exposed to a methou of criticallyanalyzing such issues.

3. They will have been made aware of how technology affectstheir lives, and how they may interact with techiology.

4. A higher percentage than at present may choose to enterengineering, some because they perceive it as a means ofcontrolling their own futures.

5. A higher percentage will become interested in thescientific background behind the engineering, and thiscould result in more candidates for science degrees. Butneither 4 nor 5 are mulls of the STS movement.

Thus the STS approach to "science" education has two separatebenefits; making better educated citizens and possiblyincreasing enrollments in science and engineering.

The STS route can be summarized thus:

33

33

The Munn Eyed-ence in 'cass-gualies'

=wars

suggvats need fcwTechnological LU

. tea

From time immemorial, communicating "techne" was the passingon fram generation to generation of the most important stored upknowledge and wisdom about the most obvious, most common, mostoften encountered human contacts with those parts of realitywhich affect humans the most.

Each generation learned as much as possible about food,shelter, security, and so forth and passed it on to the next.For the last century, and rapidly increasingly over the lastfifty years, school systems have attempted to teach all studentsabout reality viewed from the particular formalism and stance ofabstract science. This science is characterized by two keyparameters: abstraction and mathematicisation. These featuresare responsible for the power and rapid growth of science. Theyare at the same time responsible for its unintelligibility to,and lack of interest for, the vast majority of the population.Moreover, comson sense and widespread human experience shows thatthe vast majority of citizens do not need much abstract science,and only modest quantification, to function very effective3y,even in a highly technological society. The last President ofthe U.S., the chairpersons of most of our largest corporations,the leading playwrights, poets, and university presidents havevery little knowledge of the level of science some now demand ofall students.

A technology-focused curriculum would eschew abstraction forobviousness. Every citizen would be expected to know about thoseparts of contemporary human experience which are obvious to all,which affect all in daily living.

A simple algorithm to guide the choice of what to know,which can expand and deepen with advancing grade simply by goinginto greater detail, is to follow the activities of an averagepupil through an average day. From the alarm clock, to the lightswitch, to the clothes worn, the rubber in the sneakers, to thestove heating water for coffee, to the car being driven to work,there is an infinite opportunity to use these objects andexperiences for teaching technology and applied science, and

3 4

derivatively basic science. This "applied science" must becomethe necessary more for all students, prior to being exposed toany abstract science. The beauty of using the same common humanexperience--eating, getting dressed, driving--is that they can beupdated at each successive age level; and with increasing depthand sophistication, can form the connecting introduction to anypart of physics, chemistry and biology. This is thetechnological literacy necessary for all citizens; it is alsomuch better groundwork to make science more likely to beattractive to larger numbers.

The integration of several subject mattexm or disciplines,including engineering disciplines, combined with the purposivenature of the work, elevates applied sciences and engineeringaver the scientific disciplines on a hierarchical ranking.Technology is not a subject alongside physics and chenistry. Itincludes science as one among many inputs (see Roy's Two treetheory in Shapley and Roy, 1983).

The idea that learning science is the necessary pre-cursorto learning technology is absurd. Most human history is proof.Indeed, the U.S. Department of Defense has shown that specific,even "high tech" tasks can be taught well, without any science.Figure 4 shows different routes which may be employed.

Technologi es

Applied Sciences

Sci ences

Enerv. Resoust. . Agriadture. Medicine

Matenais Earth

Physics Chemistry Etiology'

route enters hereNew, Tectuwlogy route

Society (Issues. Values. Goals)

Technology andApplied Sciences

Sciences Social Studies Language Arts

Laditional mule enters and stops bi ihis box

4*

Figure 4. Possible STS and Technology Education &phases in the NewSequence

35

'3 ;

For the median learner, we believe that the SITS route--entering via the interest in the societal problem--is best.Moreover, it is the only innovation in contest proposed foralleviation of the so called math/science crisis. For thatreason alone we believe it is at least an essential component ofthe "science education" of the future. For a 10 percent minorityof the population, entering via science (the present tradition inthe U.S.) may be the most effective. But for a larger minority,the entry through hands-on technology may be the bast. The U.S.has been losing out an the "brains in the fingertips" of theworkers, the "techne-ologist," by overstressing the abstractconceptualization as the only way to learn the science which isrelated to technology, and technology itself.

In conclusion, my central thesis for college education intechnology and science is as follows:

Absolutely every college student must be introduced tothe most significant issues facing our culture in asystematic way. Since a large percentage involve SIT,this requires that they encounter technoloay, in thelarger context of STS, where they see it as a humantool to solve and/or create problems. Next, everystudent should have required courses in the appliedagismouLimiLtachnsassiga of everyday living.Finally/ some subset should be introduced to the beautyand power of abstract science.

3 6

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. Azio_glajushatatizatism_gf_thaEmalat_mind, North Point Press, 1988, 166p,

Stimulates the awareness; of the impact ofdevelopment of literacy on cultures.

Roy, Rustum. "Technological LiteracyClarifying the Concept andIts Relations to STS," Dull. Sci. Teck. Soc., Vol. 6, pp.131-137, 1986. Printed in the USA. 0270-4676/86.Copyright (c) 1986 STS Press.

Tbis pew provides a detailed analysis of themeaning of technological literacy.

Roy, Rustun. "STS: Managing the Commons of Human Education,billar...irraTeau.lers.i., Vol. 7 pp. 3.-8, 1987. Printed in theUSA. 0270-4676/86. Copyright (c) 1987 STS Press.

Role of STS in education today.

Foltz, Franz and Rustum Roy. "Postsecondary Science forNonscientists: STS, The New Approach to the LargestPopulation," fcience Education irILAbe United States:IREMMALA-MUNULJUMLIMLICLUBA. Edited by S. X. Majumdar, L.M. Rosenfeld, P.A. Rubber E.W. Miller and R.F. Srhmalz.Copyright 1991, The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.

A description of the development of ST'S in theUniversities of the V.B. and their institutionalpositioning and problems.

Roy; Rustum and Robert Berrettini. "New Roles for MaterialsEngineers and Scientists in X-12 Education," Session 1264,1990 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 219.

Gives the rationale for collaborative work by ailapplied scientists and engineers in fundamentallychanging the X-12 ',science aurrioulum.fl

Roy, Rustum. "The Relationship of Technology to Science and theTeaching of Technology," purnal of Technology ElOugotthn,Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1990.

Roy, Rustum, (1989). Natural allies - STS and technologyeducation. Tlicapainsaagy_Taagligx, 48(4), 13-17.

These two articles describe the importance ofemphasizing technology rather than science in X-12and college.

Shapley, D. and R. Roy, (1983). Lost At the Zronti,er.Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information Press.

First critical analysis of the failure of post WWII U.S.Science and Technology Policy.

37

3S

CURRENT EFFORTS IN TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACX

John G. TruxalSUNY-Stony Brook

The speakers opening the workshop yesterday afternoon andthe materials sant to you in advance of our meeting haveindicated clearly that there is recognition within highereducation that our graduates should be prepared for lifelonglearning in the technology which increasingly dominates theenvironment of work and leisure, of personal and politicaldecisions. While conferences of college faculty frequentlyinclude specific professors who emotionally question theimportance of technological literacy, I will assume that thisgroup is ready to accept the basic premise that we ars living ina time when we can use technology to influence significantly thefuture. Education should prepare our students to participate inthe social and political control of the evolution of thattechnology.

In the hope that we might agree implicitly on ourinterpretation of the term technological literacy, I would liketo start with a specific example--in particular, an example fromthe area of HSGT, high speed ground transportation. This is atopic which is not (within my knowledge) the focus of any collegecourse for general students, but it is a subject which motivatesstudents and allows teaching of science and technology.

Interurban Tratns

My senior senator, Pat Moynihan, has been urging the federalgovernment to launch a project to build a magnetically levitatedand propelled, 300-mile/hour train for passenger travel in theNortheast Corridor--initially from New York to Washington. Whileone might cynically view this as a way to ease Congressionaltravel between the two cities, Moynihan has even written forScientific Amertpan (an article unusually readable for thatmagazine) and makes several persuasive arguments. For example,

1) The technology was invented in the U. S. (atBrookhaven National Laboratory), but this countryhas not made the technology transfer. Indeed,France, Germany, and Japan now lead, and we areunable to bid on the proposed Korean system. Wehave another example where the U.S. is notcompetitive.

2) The system would be a major contribution to ourdecreased dependence on oil for energy with thereduction in auto and air travel (about half ofour petroleum use is for vehicles). Furthermore,

39

environmental effects would also be positive inboth air quality and the greenhouse effect, andthere would be lessened pressure for new airportsand expensive improvements in air trafficcontrol.

3) The project would represent a major economicboost for the region with the costs ofcr---mction, operation, and updating.

4) The project would be a showpiece of U.S.technological achievement--more dramatic than amanned mission to Mars.

These arguments are impressive, and it is easy to convincestudents that the government should move forward. To someextent, the tschnological imperative is at work. We know thatthe technology exists/ so let's move ahead.

First, though, we should think of some of the problems.

1) The current Amtrak right-of-way will not beadequate. When the speed rises from 100 to 300mph, allowable curvature is severely reduced.Furthermore, people will not ride in trainswithout windows. If the landscape moves by at300 mph, riders suffer nausea unless there is abroad swath around the track, as we know fromriding in a plane just before take-off. (Onecompany proposed artificial windows with moviesused to create the illusion the scenery wasmoving by at 50 mph.)

2) Safety is a critical constraint, as shown by theearly accident with the BART subway system in theSan Francisco area.

3) Economics must be considered. Relatively fewpeople want to travel between the centers ofWashington and New York City, so the train mustaccept and discharge passengers at intermediatespots (Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington/Baltimore, and others). With these stops totaltravel time versus maximum speed plots is shownin the figure below. With each stop we have todecelerate, load/unload, and accelerate, but theacceleration and jerk (rate of change ofacceleration) are severely limited for ridercomfort. Indeed, the train would probably reachmaximum speed only on the Wilmington-Baltimoreleg. (One company proposed a mini-train atPhiladelphia, for example, running alongside the

40

41)

main train to allow passengers leaving to jumpacross, with the mini-train then returning to thePhiladelphia station.)

sp.

4) There are other, major economic considerations.There are only 4 million travellers per yearbetween New York and Washington, so the trainwould have to capture the large majority if fareswere to be comparable to those for air travel.Success would require complete redesign of theareas around Penn Station in New York and UnionStation in Washington to provide the facilitiesnow available routinely at airportshotels,conference centers, parking, car rentals, etc.This item as well as 3) above raise the specterof the project displacing large numbers ofpeople; can we do this humanely and effectively?

When we consider both the opportunities and the problems,there is no clearly correct response to the Moynihan proposal.Perhaps other locations would be preferable (Los Angeles-LasVegas, or Niami-Orlando-Tampa)? Perhaps we are fighting a losingbattle in trying to move Americans away from the attachment totheir automobiles (U.S. has 1.9 people par car, Japan 4.4)?

This example illustrates one characteristic we hope thattechnological literacy encompasses - -the avoidance of the alwaysattractive, simplistic answers to questions. Bob Wheeler,originator of the Yale programs simply states that he wants hisstudents to become "nonsense detectors," able to recognize thatpolicy questions are rarely black or whits, that each of us mustweigh both sides of the argument.

Technological literacy goes beyond this, as the previousspeakers have indicated, to include:

a) Recognition that modern technology is inherentlysimple and understandable (it was designed byhuman beings). A television picture is just

41

41

300,000 dots each with appropriate amounts of theprimary colors red, green, and blue.

b) Recognition that technology is closely allied toscience and mathematics, but it is inevitablymultidisciplinary. In our HSGT example, ve canteach kinematics, dynamics, electricity andmagnetism, but evaluation must includeergonomics, economics, political science, andvalues.

c) Self-confidence that we can learn enough aboutany technological subject to be at least somewhatinformed in decision-naking.

While these may be features of technological literacy, Ibelieve there is no consensus on how it can be measured (any morethan we are happy with attempts to measure scientific or economicliteracy). A question such as "Do you know how the telephoneworks?" may actually yield counter-intuitive results--a "yes"response indicating that a simplistic explanation is accepted.If the U.S. is to meet the goal of the President and Governors toachieve U.S. leadership in mathematics and science by the end ofthe decade, we must either clarify the definitions or (as a sadalternative) find specific measures in which the U.S. does excel.

With this very cursory consideration of the definition oftechnological literacy, I would urge that in this workshop weaccept two premises:

1) Technological literacy is essential for"concerned citizens," those involved with publicdecisions and the state of our society. We alllike to think we are teaching concerned citizensof the future. (Actually, the estimate has beenmade that only 10% of adults are "concernedcitizens." Since 50% go on to higher education,some of us must be teaching the future"unconcerned.")

2) Undergraduate education is an important arena fortechnological literacy. In the long term, pre-college education may have responsibility forthis area, but for the foreseeable future highereducation must respond to the needs.

Constraints

As we discuss how to encourage education for technologicalliteracy, we should keep in mind the lessons from the past decadeof efforts in those colleges and universities which have

42

42.

successful programs. Educational change faces constraints infour primary areas:

I. glaitlacelan

In liberal education the curriculum is alreadycrowded, and most faculty members feel that theiracademic field is the most important. In the preface ofa recent anthology on technology studies, there appearsthe statement: "However, the readings are not allwritten by professional philosophers. Some of the moreseminal, if less careful, thinking has been done by thoseoutside tae discipline of philosophy." We all tend tocharacterize thinking in other disciplines as somewhatsloppy.

There are opportunities within the curriculum. Thegeneral educatian requirements may include technologystudies, but almost always include science &ndmathematics which, one can argue, are most effectivelytaught through technology. STS courses often involvesubstantive technology. Finally, almost every majorincludes at least some free electives, and we should bedelighted to compete here for student interest.

While a very few universities have establisheddepartments focussing on such themes as technologystudies or technology/public policy areas, the mostcommon way to ensure that technology studies has alasting place in the curriculum is for the technologycourses to be adopted as regular offerings by existingdepartments.

II. Students

The technology courses must be matched to studentinterests and backgrounds. Indeed, curriculum design issimilar to engineering design: we have a given input(today's students at our institution) and a desiredoutput (technologically literate graduates). Our task isto design the best possible system to change the input tothe output.

In the past decade, experiences at many collegeshave clearly demonstrated that students respond withremarkable enthusiasm to technology courses designed inthese terms. Students enjoy learning about familiar andfuture technology, and they perceive that such studieswill be important in their careers. As just one example,nearly all students will voluntarily elect computercourses even in the absence of reguirements--and even at

43

4 3

colleges where English and Modern Languages are verypopular majors.

The experiences of the 1960's have shown that verypopular courses can be offered on such themes as:

Reproductive technologyForensic technologyStructuresElectronic circuits

CommunicationsSpaceEnvironmental studiesErgonomics

Furthermore, such courses inevitably includesignificant segments of science and mathematics--topicsthat students find challenging and interesting in thisframework.

There is one other characteristic of studentresponse. These technology courses seem to appeal towomen almost as much as men. At my own university, forexample, the undergraduate student body is 54% women, andwe have about 46% women in the technology courses we,offer for general students. We still have not reachedparity, but we are much closer than engineering andphysical sciences.

Finally, our experience with the nationalminorities-in-engineering program since 1975 indicatesthat minority secondary-school students are stronglyattracted by technology and can be effectively drawn intothe study of the related science. my colleaguesdeveloped twenty-four technology modules (about two weekseach) to be used in secondary science, math, and Englishclasses, with over 800,000 modules delivered to schoolswith strong minority populations. One of the mostpopular was a unit on urban home fires, with studentsworking with family or neighbors to evaluate theirpersonal risk, and then determining why there aresections of East New York where the mean time betweenmajor home fires is five years.

III. Facglty

While the student constraint can be handled readilyby the choice of appropriate course themes, theconstraint imposed by faculty attitudes and behavior ismuch more difficult. The 1990 Sigma Xi report is justone of the many indictments of introductory science (andmathematics) courses. The National Science Foundationhas also placed primary enphasis on these basic courses.

4.4

In spite of these stirrings and, indeed, theindications that mathematics teadhing nay be promisingmajor changes, there are several problems for those of usinterested in technological literacy:

1) Many teachers are quite satisfied with theintroductory courses. Calculus 1 or Physics 1 arepretty much the same courses they took, and the U.S.has had excellent scientists. The high attrition ratesimply indicates that the later courses are not filledwith incompetent students. (The fact that so manystudents choose their major by a sequence of failuresdoes not seem to bother these faculty.)

2) Many teachers are really not interested in teaching,especially lower-division students. This emphasis onresearch and publication appears not only in theresearch universities; even some of the four-year,liberal arts colleges seem to base tenure andpromotion on "scholarly" publications more thanteaching.

3) Many faculty are unaware of the recent work inlearning and cognitive science; and do not realizethat students learn in very differantways.

4) Many faculty have greater allegiance to theirscientific/professional fields than to theirinstitution.

Fortunately, these problems have a positive side. Thefact that so many faculty have these characteristicsopens the way for others who are interested in students,in teaching/learning, And in educational innovation.

Finally, many of the STS and technology-studiescourses involve team teaching--often a professor inscience coupled with one in humanities or socialsciences. Experience with such an approach varies fromcollege to college. In our setting at Stony Brook, wehave found it preferable to have a single professor incharge of the course so that students have one individualto turn to for advice, even though we use visitinglecturers/discussers and we depend on consultation withfaculty from other departments.

IV g_o_p_tit

The last constraint on educational imnovation iseconomic. In today's academic environment (at least, inour institution), funds for experimentation are severelylimited, and faculty frequently defend their turf and

45

45

enrollment. As a result, laboratory work for a newcourse in technology must utilize existing equipment orinvolve inexpensive measurements on the real world.Graduate teaching assistants are usually not available,so we have used no-cost, undergraduate teachingassistants (students who have previously excelled in thecourse), who receive credit for working for the facultymember in advising, overseeing lab work, and the like.

The Futvirit

In view of these constraints, how can wit move forward,building on the past accomplishments in Science/Technology/Society programs, the New Liberal Arts, and the currant NSFinterests? Hopefully, the above comments indicate that there areseveral ways we can find a place in the curriculum. The optimumapproach depends strongly on the particular institution--itsacademic environment, faculty, curriculum, and students.

Two particularly promising approaches are:

1) Involvement of a small number of senior,excellent engineering teachers in the developmentof courses in technology for general students.For the faculty, the incentive is the varyrewarding feedback from such teaching; for theengineering college, the new role within theacademic environment and the significant teachingworkload can buffer against oscillations inengineering enrollment.

2) Modification of courses satisfying corerequirements in science. This approach isdescribed further in the brief appendix.

Regardless of the particular approach appropriate for aspecific institution, we are at an unusually exciting point inthe evolution of U.S. higher education. Confluent forces aremoving us strongly toward acceptance of technology studies as animportant element for all students of higher education.

46

4f;

An Introductory Seisms ComseFrom the NLA

Recem national rep= cm science education have enqAtasized that huroductory, college sciencecourses for all students are mu satisfactory. They often cover a large monk r of basic concepts in anencYcluPudiu fashion, they ere frequetulY Poorly taught, and they am m matched to either the badcgroundsm the interests of many =dews.

The NLA Prop= has gemmed a set of outstandingly sticcessful counts in this inooductmyscience azest. These courses possess certain common characteristics:

(1) While they come tinder the aegis of the traditirmal science departments, theyinclude mania' drawn from science offerings at several levels (ma just the usualcoverage of the first course).

(2) Mem topics are introduced through significant, r=i-worid examiges and problemsThe science =ceps ate introduced as needed bx the stuck:num understand themodel and pmblem. In this muse, a lust,in-eniew approach is used (e.g.. the=cep of energy appears when it is needed).

(3) The only matheamin pserequisite is algebra, and the math is taughtas needed.

(4) Ent/Oasis is placed on woblem and model formulation by the students.

Them MLA comses, however, are usually not useful directly at other colleges for three reason=

(1) The courses stmngly reflect the interests of the professor, who in many cases hasdevoted a major effort to learning in the area covered by the =rm.

(2) The comes frcan the prestigious liberal ans colleges me designed for relativelysmall classes.

(3) The musses require major faculty commitments of time, so are inappropriate whenteaching loads are heavy.

Widespread adopt= of these new approaches requites an addithmal step in educational ckvelopmentthe "educational transfer" analogous to the process of "technckgy minder." With the lessons learned

from the "research° stage, we now need to develop mums tailored to the constraints of the largerinstitutions the comprebensive and the reswrch wavenities which serve over 8551, of the students in four-year colleges

Thus, if we are to capitalize nn the numerous curricular innovations of the NLA Program, we needthe additional effort of converting these materials to match the market.

Plan

We propose development of fzve modules, with a suitable one-semesser course based upon theinstructor's selection of the three modules best matched to bis/ber own interest (or, in some cases. two

17 4 7

10 11 1:11 6,.- 4 11 I 4,-.14 --! i441/ 4 144141

1101 .4. 0... I r i D t11111.:* 11kit-,10_11_.

4. I--

- 4" I `L. 11 141

to 42. 41 4 II 11 .. ..,14 - 1110 nor 4.0of 6.'" 6 "6".. --6 I . ..1:L.6 1, - -fill 40 e. 4 iv"..4.....,:. . _ .4 41 le +1 _411w- : ' 0 4 I. 111111 11 I 4, 41 I 1t 'k2_6_.... Or ' --, t

4210...11.. 43 ft L. -... II '..et--I - 'n 1 4 0. - tv 1111.._20.0 ...42,,

t . I It 14_,-.* Is Ittt t 0 IL-. -6.

1111 ...41 /44.14 4, e11 11-.111. 4I 11 .441 4 :104

0 - Ito. 0,4 0-, 11.16 ... 6 V 4 4 ...IL 11.0 I, i 0 1.60 ...., a,.....1...10, 0. ',emit...14 4

I.. 11-111. :1.. 1a etr 161. ._ki It L..14, I, 4..1": 41. 1 ,1 fill. A lo ft1100 a 6,1 1st ".-snalr40 i -" ..... ta -146.1.VI .11 .. a 4 V 0,1 1 *416.0 - la s a._/_. t , 041 41

4 4,1111-' of ir n Irl ., 8 " I, 004 ...110 0 11. 4 4 ,4 .06414 V* ' 1.1 1

Igo ' I 0 141 ... Inn t , /11-1....0Li.. . 4 a. 61 6 I.-. 6 1 0 _M.. ILI., ur 1

If 10 11,......0116 III L4 VII 1 4 1 14 6.0.:41 4 0.! '... ... ' tqt -0t4

? .5. 144 4 I I Ilar -a 6.111:41 1,4 .1

- 0616 le V I 11 +1 0 0 11 r '14.4..at

+11 n1.1,014 11 I 110114.

. 0.111111 6 11

I ... ' 1 1 I 14 l f .0 0 I 4 441 II -V to.t

414 '04 014 _1,1:: - 0j4., et 6 I .0 - I 1.11 4 14

s...VA./2 ..... tIer 10111/. 7. .1111 ,111' 1 41 Illttr ft. Ort -tvo

4' ,644,to-14 . t - iikl 44 1, O....V{0.4140161,o

"....4.. j II - 1. 1 111.11 .±. 814 1* t 6- 4 -4 111.-.. 4 * -

3, Of 'of 4 +4 4 vjj 1441 : V 6 *41 001

4 -- t I .40116 11 11 ` I f ,_ 1 L,-.. .. 14itto I, 6 ,

I !..4.7.111.::._, 1111, 1111 * ! 4 .. 114 II -.4 0.611

own 111k it,.. 0 4 - .-61 r I A VW 1611 4 On...

I -111 111 - 4.t 11Ak_O SI i 16 0,61110

0/14!.........il. no - '166,6 not IIII. 14 11 4111,1.411.t4 1.1. .4.1 I .406 I I Inr Itloo

1 V. pit . . ti14. 4044 & -04 11 -6

' I I 1/11t ..0110. 0..1!

4, iliet I

01 F I I .

00, 4 L.4. I

ez 1 ..11 4 1

O p a I L..-1 I : 11/6

regulations to protect worker heal& Audiometry ecniipment is oftenavailable on Ion from health maim

Energy the model of U.S. and global energy use emphasizes theimportance and menial of =nervation (this study can include apersonal audit of energy use). Itsw soma of electrical new pc=ant the critical importance of amonixed coms.

(2) Most of the class time is wen worldng problems udng alpine or discussing very basic=ceps. This is the normal situation ia introductory Kin= COMAS. it requires modest prepszation fa theinsnuenr, mid it heeds to aunctively straightforward nnasamment of student pmfortnance. While we mighthope that the new science comes wanld lead to very different =bin sayks. changes have to be gzadualmai evoluzionaty in light of the =maim within instinitkos,

(3) Economic, ethical, historical. awl psychological alp= me included in modem readings, sothe instr=or is free to consider in class these aspects only to the extent that hefshe is comfortable. Whenwe ultimately seek inchnion of snit topics centrally within die coase, there again must be the opportunityfor gradual dime.

(4) Classroom activities. demons:alias, movies or topes, and slides must be readily availableto the insmuctor.

(5) Addicts:maiindividual udy

materials art made available fa enriched learning by some nougats, or forst piojects.

Questions

We need to meet with key itenructors from a few comprehensive univasities to investigam mvetalquad= before mch cot= develop= is initiated

(1) Would sudi a course be asnactive to your faculty colleagues in minoring, tectmology, orscience? (The baA experience mans to indicme snoop/ that sox= 'merest will be high.)Clearly all teachhig materials would have to be available before the comae was offered.

(2) Would your academic enviromnent allow approval of such a coarse to sad* arequirenunt in genial education?

(3) Would you have one or two colleagues interested in working within such ceasedevelopment?

The answers to such questions are not simple. For example, the common yeariong physics covers nine orten major topics: the proposed course would be more limited in coverage. Would pysics faculty feel theloss to be catastrophic?

449

INVITED PERSPECTIVES

51

5

VIEWS FROM A_LIBERAL_ARTS alLiogpx

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY:VIEWS FROM A LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE

Thomas WasowStanford University

att24

The division between what C.P. Snow labeled "the twocultures"--that is, between the technical scientific disciplinesand the humanistic fields of study--is deeply ingrained in oursociety. This is indicated by the variety of colloquialisms usedto make the distinction: "techie" vs. "fuzzy", "hard" vs."soft", "neat" vs. "scruffy", etc. Many students classifythemselves at quite an early age--often well before college--asbelonging to one or the other of these cultures. All too often,such students concentrate their studies as heavily as possible inone culture, taking as light a load as they can get away withfrom the other culture.

I find this situation distressing. I majored in mathematicsas an undergraduate, switched to linguistics for graduate school,and have a joint appointment in departments of linguistics andphilosophy. My research and teaching overlap, on the one side,with philosophical issues in metaphysics and epistemology, and onthe other, with artificial intelligence.and formal languagetheory. On the more applied side, I have been actively involvedin the development of software for natural language processing.In short, my interests have always spanned the two cultures, andI firmly believe that a genuinely educated person must knowsomething about both.

Quite apart from my own predilections, there are practicalreasons for encouraging students to learn about both cultures.As technology comes to play an ever greater role in our dailylives--through the revolutionary developments of the last fewdecades in electronics, physics, chemistry, biology, andmedicine--it becomes increasingly important for informed citizensto have some basic understanding of science and technology. Wecannot maintain a democratic form of government if we surrenderto the experts all authority over such vital issues asenvironmental policy, product safety, computer privacy,appropriate choices of military technology, etc. While theopinions of the professionals must carry special weight, thefinal decisions should be made by a wider public. But this isonly possible if that public is technologically literate. And ifthis is an unrealistically optimistic goal, then it is especiallyimportant that students at institutions which produce a largeshare of society's leaders become technologically literate.

53

51

It is, of course, equally important that all of our studentsattain what we might call humanistic literacy. We have learnedfrom experience that technological advances almost always entailsocial and ethical consequences. Scientists and engineers musthave more than mere technical expertise. Otherwise, we and upwith, as Martin Luther King put it, "guided missiles andmisguided men." But, as has often been observed, there is anasymmetry: humanities students avoid the quantitativedisciplines to a far greater extent than the students in thosedisciplines avoid the humanities.

Courses in history, literature, philosophy, and art areregarded by science students as pleasurable diversions, so nospecial efforts are needed (at Stanford anyway) to gat them to docoursework in these subjects. Moreover, while it is regarded associally acceptable for humanists to be technologicallyilliterate, no educated person admits to humanistic illiteracy.My former colleague in the dean's office, Brad Efron, adistinguished statistician, has developed a pat answer to expresshis annoyance with people (of whom there are many) who tell himhow much difficulty they had with statistics in college. He asksthem, "Would you brag about flunking English?" This, in anutshell, epitomizes the asymmetry between the two cultures.

The asymmetry msrifests itself in the curriculum. Whilemost collegys offer Lourses of the "Physics for Poets" ilk, nonethat I know of offers "Poetry for Physicists." Science andengineering students are expected to study humanistic subjects inthe same classes with all other students, but special sciencecourses are provided for humanities students.

One reason for this (though by no means the only one) isthat the scientific disciplines are vertically structuxed, in thesense that topics build on one another in such a way as to definea relatively fixed sequence in which courses must be taken. Itis not possible, say, for an English major to take as his onenatural science course a quantum mechanics class designed forscience students. In contrast, a physics major can take as herone literature course a Shakespeare class designed for humanitiesstudents.

One alternative to courses like "Physics for Poets" is tohave every student take the entry level course in one of thesciences--the first term of physics or chemistry, for example.Many students take this option; at Stanford, for example, moststudents satisfy their mathematics requirement with the firstterm of calculus. But these entry level courses for sciencemajors are not generally very good one-shot introductions toscience. Courses designed for the student who will not go on inscience can do a better job, though their instructors must guardagainst the tendency to oversimplify to the point where thestudents are not challenged.

54

In the remainder of my remarks, I want to tell you a bitabout what we do at Stanford to induce our non-science stud^ntsto learn something about mathematics, science, and technolo.y.

Mani EllaaLtA

First, we have a system of distribution requirementsdesigned to guarantee breadth of study. It includes threerequirements whose objective is, at least in part, to enhance thetechnological literacy of our students. Every undergraduate musttake at least one approved course in each of the following threeareas: Mathematical Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Technologyand Applied Sciences. The last of these is clearly the mostdirectly relevant to the topic of this workshop, so I will quotein full the criteria a course must fulfill in order to satisfythis requirement:

Courses that satisfy the Distribution Requirement inTechnology and Applied Sciences normally nust:

a) give students an appreciation fortypical intellectual techniques andstyles used in technology and appliedscience,

b) give students an appreciation for someof the capabilities and limitations oftechnology and applied science,

c) give students an understanding of thefundamental theory, history, social orenvironmental impact of thediscipline%

d) be in technology and applied sciencerather than about it,

e) have an appreciable quantitativecontent, at an appropriate mathematicaland scientific level,

f) be taught by practitioners,

g) be reasonably accessible to peopleoutside the major.

'Mere has been some discussion of late as to whether thephrase "fundamental theory" should be deleted, to strengthen thecommitment to making courses satisfying this requirement sociallyrelevant.

55

O.)

This academic year, twenty-six courses have been certifiedto fulfill this requirement. Sixteen are from the School ofEngineering, six from the School of Earth Sciences, throe fromthe School of Humanities and Sciences, and one is cross-listed inEngineering and MIS. Topics are wide-ranging, includingManagement of Geologic Hazards," "Programming Mothodology,"Applied Mechanics-Statics," "Models and Applications orOperations Research in Society," and "Technology and MusicalAesthetics." Some are courses that are part of the normalsequence to satisfy a technical major; others are intended forscience and engineering students but are not part of any major;and a few are designed for students who will take only one coursein the general area of applied science.

The courses in this latter category are not merely watered-down versions of what anginettring students take. Rather, facultyhave sought out topics in applied science that can be treated ina substantive way with minimal technical background. An exampleis a course called "Automobile Technology" that deals with howcars work, why they are designed the way they are, how theyaffect air pollution, and aspects of engine design for improvingexhaust emissions.

The most widely taken course to satisfy the requirement isComputer Science 105A, "Introduction to Computers," which isdescribed as follows:

For non-technical majors to develop aworking knowledge of computers as utilized in oursociety. Two major components: programming andissues. Karel and Robot and Pascal are used toexpose students to the concepts of structuredprogramming. Topics: artificial intelligence,databases, spreadsheets, graphics, security andprivacy, computer systems, human factors,hardware, and networks. 105A requiresconsiderable interaction between student andcomputer, but is oriented toward students withoutstrong math and/or technical background, andassumes no previous computer experience.

About a third of our undergraduates take this course, and in manycases it leads them to do more course work in computer science.

Probably the most interesting means we offer for fulfillingthe applied science and technology requirement is a year-longcourse sequence entitled, "The Nature of Technology, Mathematics,and Science," which also satisfies the mathematics and naturalscience requirements. Co-taught by a mathematician, a physicist,and an engineer, this sequence introduces students to a widerange of topics falling under the following general headings:

56

5 .1

- NUmbers- Radio Astronomy- Energy and Engines- Relativity & Non-Euclidean Geometry- The Computer and the CT Scan- Physics - Quantum theory, Elementary Particles, and

Cosmology- Engineering Design

The treatment of this final topic includes dividing theclass into groups of five for a final project consisting ofdesigning a specified device (such as an electric 3-wheeledvehicle). The design teams must develop precise specificationsfor the device and research the availability and price of thenecessary component, though they do not actually build it.Students complain about how demanding this assignment is, buttake great pride in their accomplishment when it is completed.

As wonderful as "The Nature of Technology, Mathematics, andScience" is, it is not without its problems. It requires anenormous investment of time on the part of the three instructors,since they attend each other's lectures and work together tointegrate them. When one instructor goes on leave or takes onsome conflicting obligations, it is extremely difficult to staffthe course. This year, it is not being offered because onecrucial professor is on leave. Next year, it is being dividedinto three more discrete courses, in order to reduce the timerequired of the three teachers; I do not know whether this willbe a permanent change.

The science requirements are not the only ones that we useto try to instill sone degree of technological literacy. Oneespecially innovative effort is "Technology and Culture," one ofthe eight year-long courses designed to satisfy Stanford'sfreshman requirement known as "Cultures, Ideas, and Values" (orCIV for short). The other CIV courses deal almost entirely withthe history of politics, philosophy, literature, and art, largelyin Europe, but with some attention to the influences of othercultural traditions. Technology and Culture, on the other hand,gives special attention to the manner in which science andtechnology shape, and are shaped by, the other aspects ofculture. It deals not only with the development of science andtechnology in Europe, but also with the influence of Islamic andChinese ideas on European scientific progress. The latter partof the course deals with some of the major challenges facingtoday's world that have a technological component, such asnuclear weapons, the environment, and recombinant DNA.

This year, for the first time, students in Technology andCulture will be divided into groups to design a final project.They must research and recreate a significant technologicalartifact from the period covered in the first two-thirds of the

57

course (pre-18th century), writing a paper describing theresearch and construction of the artifact.

Technology and Culture is the most requested of the CIVcourses, though staffing problems make it impossible for us toaccommodate all of the students who request it.

IntaigiagialiaszY_SmazinalmGeneral education requirements serve the function of

motivating students to do coursework in particular areas ofstudy. They are, however, a rather brute-force source ofmotivation; other, more subtle, means are also available. AtStanford/ a particularly effective mechanism for encouragingstudents to explore new intellectual terrain is theinterdisciplinary program. Almost a quarter of ourundergraduates select interdisciplinary majors, many of them inprograms that integrate material from the humanities, the socialsciences/ the natural sciences, and engineering.

The largest and oldest of these programs is Human Biology.With the participation of faculty from at least ten departments,it gives students the opportunity to study human beings asnatural, evolutionary, and social organisms, and to explore humanissues from the perspectives of anthropology, biology,psychology, and sociology. Another well establishedinterdisciplinary program is values, Technology, Science, andSociety (VTSS), which draws on faculty from the Schools ofEngineering and HUmanities & Sciences to explore the socialimplications of scientific and technological development. Thisis the Stanford program that has been identified several times atthis workshop as being an STS program. It is the institutionalhome for two courses described above, namely, "The Nature ofTechnology/ Mathematics, and Science" and "Technology andCulture." Aside from these two courses, however/ VTSS'scurriculum is not directed at the issue of technologicalliteracy. Rather, it is concerned with educating engineeringstudents about the societal impact of technology. Tbe School ofEngineering requires each of its rtudents to take at least onecourse in VTSS.

Two additional programs that cross the boundary betweenscience and the humanities have recently been added to theStanford curriculum. The program in the History of Scienceinvestigates the social, political, and intellectual contexts inwhich scientific progress has occurred, revealing the profoundconnections between the two cultures. Last, but not least,Symbolic Systems is the newest of our interdisciplinary programs.It brings together philosophers, linguists, psychologists, andcomputer scientists to investigate fundamental questions aboutthe nature of information, intelligence, and communication--questions combining traditional epistemological issues with new

58

conceptual and technical problems raised by the computerrevolution. Symbolic Systems has been especially successful atinvolving researchers from nearby industrial research labs(especially the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center and SRIInternational) in the teaching of undergraduates. This has ledto the placement of many Symbolic Systems students in jobs inthose labs. For those students who come to the major withprimarily humanistic interests, this constitutes an especiallyeffective way of drawing them into the world of tee-Amology.

Yet another interdisciplinary program is currently underdevelopment. Earth Systems will bring together earth scientists,engineers, biologists, and economists to provide undergraduateswith a rigorous introduction to issues of environment. Thisprogram, even more than any of the others, seems likely to drawstudents from the humanities and social sciences into some depthin the natural and applied sciences. Given the strong interestin the environment among Stanford undergraduates, I expect thismajor to be quite popular, its daunting list of requirementsnotwithstanding.

Each of these programs promotes technological literacy bymotivating the study of science and techpology on the basis ofpolitical, philosophical, or historical concerns. Students whomay not derive intrinsic pleasure from studying quantitativedisciplines are led to gain some knowledge of technical fieldsthrough their desire for a better understanding of certainsocietal or ethical issues.

Conolgsion

I hope I have made clear that Stanford takes a many-facetedapproach to the problem of providing our students withtechnological literacy.

We are aided in our curric. efforts by our location inthe heart of the R&D portion of Silicon Valley, for the influenceof technology is even more obvious there than elsewhere in thesociety. Computers are in evidence everywhere on campus (thanks,in part, to generous donations from a number of corporations inthe neighborhood). Most undergraduate dormitories are equippedwith microcomputer clusters linked to a campus-wide network,givin$F students easy access to an array of facilities (e.g., thelibrarlos card catalog, on-line databases, and electronic mail).

Increasing numbers of faculty make use of courseware intheir teaching, which requires students to gain the minimalcomputer literacy needed to do their assignments in thoseclasses. Among the courses that have begun integrating the useof computers into their syllabi is Freshman English, which is adegree requirement for undergraduates. Other subjects usingcourseware include thermodynamics, logic, French history, awl

59

57

French language. It is now consequently virtually impossible fora Stanford undergraduate to avoid some hands-on experience withcomputers. This is an extremely useful step in breaking downtechnological illiteracy. Further steps are provided byrequirements, courses, and programs like those I describedearlier.

There is, nevertheless, considerable room for improvement.Too many of our seniors still graduate with the conviction thatthey have no ability or interest in science and technology. Ifear that some will, like Brad Efron's pet peeves, boast of thedifficulty they experienced in satisfying our sciencedistribution requirements. I am eager to do more to promotetechnological literacy at Stanford and am grateful for theopportunity to learn from leading experts in this field.

60

5S

Ingws FROM THE ENG1NEEMING AP/LEGE:MINIEHM_MRAMINITESZEI

Curtis J. TompkinsWest Virginia University

First of all, the title of my presentation, "Views from theEngineering College," is obviously presumptuous and naive. Theengineering college implies a singularity that must be put asideimmediately. In my eleven years as dean of engineering at acomprehensive, state land-grant university, six years of serviceas an officer of the Engineering Deans Council and five years onthe Engineering Accreditation Commission, and currently asPresident of the American Society for Engineering Education, Ihave gained an appreciation and understanding of the diversityand independent-minded nature of engineering educators andengineering schools in our country and, indeed, in many othercountries around the world.

And yet, I will presumptuously and possibly naively go rightahead and pontificate on the subject assigned to me thisafternoon. In doing so, I am reminded of the old story about theman who drowned in the great flood in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.Upon approaching the pearly gates, the man was told by St. Peterthat each new resident of heaven was required to be initiated andintroduced to the incumbent residents by giving a formal addresson the most significant and noteworthy event of his or her life.The man enthusiastically replied that he would tell the audienceabout his experience in the Johnstown flood, only to discover,sitting in the center of the front row, of the audience, a long-time resident by the name of Noah.

Now that man had it relatively easy, because there was onlyone Noah. In the case of today's participants I can only ask inadvance for charity on the parts of the veterans, the "old pros,"such as John Truxal, Rustum Roy, David Billington, and the greatmajority of you who have toiled in the vineyards of technologicalliteracy for many, many years.

The mission statement of the American Society forEngineering Education (ASEE) states that "ASEE should foster thetechnological education of society." We have not done much ofthat during the 98-year history of ASEE. A few of ourengineering schools have placed sone emphasis on providingengineering courses for non-engineering students, but we cancount the number of schools which have made sustained andsubstantial efforts on our fingers. A few faculty leaders, manyof whom are here today, have been articulating a vision forengineering and science faculty to provide more opportunities fornon-science and non-engineering majors to learn about science andengineering. More than 95 percent of our faculty have been

61

5 9

preoccupied with the education of those majoring in engineeringor engineering technology.

Our nation appears to be at a significant crossroads inshifting the paradigm of mathematics and science education fornon-scientists and non-engineers. President Bush and Secretaryof Education Alexander have impressed many of us with what I wantto believe is a very real and sincere commitment to improving Kthrough 12 education in our country.

As we approach this crossroads, what are some of the roles,realities, and responsibilities of our engineering schools inimproving technological literacy of non-engineers? While a fewpioneering institutions and individuals have been workingdiligently on this challenge for several years, and should beapplauded, as a nation, we have not made satisfactory progress inimproving technological literacy when measured against theunfilled needs in this regard. How do and should our engineeringand engineering technology schools fit into the enhancement ofscience and engineering awareness and knowledge of the generalcitizenry?

Consider the following five statements:

1. Less than 15 percent of the 3300 colleges anduniversities in the United States have accreditedengineering or engineering technology programs.

2. I believe that a large majority of the deans and facultyof our nation's engineering and engineering technologyschools agree that a technologically literate society isimportant, and probably essential, to U.S.competitiveness in the global economy as well as to anindividual's ability to make decisions --public policy,corporate policy, and personal decisions.

3. I further expect that most engineering technology andengineering deans and faculty members would say, in theideal, that each and every one of our nation'sengineering and engineering technology schools shouldmake significant contributions to the technologicalliteracy of our citizens, particularly of those studentsenrolled in non-engineering programs at theirinstitutions.

4. However, I am very confident that nearly everyengineering and engineering technology dean would bequick to point out that virtually every school ofengineering or engineering technology is saturated withdemands upon its faculty to teach undergraduate, and inmany cases graduate, students majoring in engineering orengineering technology, to conduct resea,:ch, and, in many

62

cases, to provide continuing education and other outreachservices. The enrollment of majors in engineering orengineering technology has generally been sufficient tooccupy our faculty; that is, engineering and engineeringtechnology faculty have not felt compelled to seek non-majors to populate our courses. Indeed, many, if notmost, engineering schools have limited, that is to say,controlled, their enrollments.

5. very, very few deans or faculty of humanities and socialsciences schools want their majors to take courses inengineering or technology.

Putting these five statements together, a summary of theopening portion of a conversation with engineering andengineering technology deans on my assigned topic, might be asfollows:

"While we recognize and support the need forimproving technological literacy in the U.S., ourplates are full. It is just not realistic to expect usto do much in this area. Besides, we only exist at asmall percentage of our nation's colleges anduniversities. Even if we did a bang-up job at ourinstitutions, more than 85 percent of the colleges anduniversities would not be served. And the faculty ofhumanities and social sciences don't want moretechnological content for liberal arts students."

In fact, such a conversation would probably parallel in manyways a conversation about improving K-12 education. Everyone isfor it or at least recognizes the need, but not many engineeringor engineering technology schools are doing much about it. Andapparently we have not been expected to do much about it.

I wrote to some of my fellow deans of engineering recentlyand asked them the following questions:

1. What is being done or is being planned at yourinstitution pertaining to the technological literacy ofnon-engineering and non-science students?

2. Should ASEE make this a high priority item?

Fifty-three engineering deans responded; post of them wrotelong, thoughtful letters. I view the responding schools to berepresentative and a statistically significant sample of ournation's engin3ering schools.

I want to share with you specific comments from some of theresponding deans as well as a summary of my findings from thissurvey. First, I found that more than 90 percent of the deans

63

f; 1

were positive and encouraging about ASEE playing a leaderthiprole in improving technological literacy in the United States.Many of them suggested that ASEE coordinate closely with thevarious technical and professional societies as well as withother organizations interested in this subject.

Second, most deans, even those whose schools have beenproviding engineering courses for non-engineers, felt that theirschools would not have much impact on technological literacy ontheir own campuses. By the way, twenty-six of the fifty-threeres,ponding schools planned to offer or did offer same courseworkfor non-engineering students. "Some" in most cases translates to"three or less" courses; enrollment in most of those courses atmost schools was smallless than fifteen students par section.

Permit ne to share some direct quotes from a few of theletters I received:

1. "Generally, I believe very strongly that my College ofEngineering and indeed any college within a universityshould play some reasonable role in providing for thegeneral education of all university students." (BobSnyder, University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

2. "It is interesting that our non-engineering colleagueson campus are very concerned about our engineeringstudents receiving a well-rounded education including anumber of courses in social humanistic areas, but theyare not concerned about non-engineering studentslearning about and developing an appreciation fortechnology." (Win Phillips, University of Florida)

3. "My discussions with the dean of the College ofBusiness and Economics indicates that the faculty ofthat college feel a lack of technology literacy intheir program, and they are planning to introducerequirements in both science and technology literacythat exceed the ones they have now." (Alan Pense,Lehigh University)

4. "There would have to be significant changes in thesupport by our central administration (both norally andfinancially) and by the faculty outside of pngineeringbefore we could substantially increase our'effort inthese areas." (Carl Erdman, Executive Associate Dean,Texas A & M)

5. "It is obvious that ASEE won't be able to make anyinroads by itself, and will have to work with othereducational organizations that represent the non-science and non-engineering degree students." (James0. Wilkes, Assistant Dean, University of Michigan)

64

f"

6. "Princeton has recently initiated a university-wideeffort to expand and strengthen the "Science for Non-Science Majors," and the faculty at the ncLool ofEngineering are actively involved in revisih; andcreating new courses." (Hisashi Kobayashi, PrincetonUniversity)

7. "There is no real reward or incentive for faculty(especially young faculty) to get involved and there isoften criticism of older (and more highly paid) facultyteaching small classes to non-engineering students."(Paul Hartman, Professor, University of CentralFlorida)

8. "I am not satisfied with the courses that are calledtechnology since they are too few in order to introduceany significant numbers of our students to the realworld of technology." (Otis Sproul, University of NewHampshire)

9. "A significant fraction of the liberal arts studentshave not taken the high school courses in mathematics,chemistry and physics that could serve as a basis fordeveloping meaningful courses." (7im Malone, EmeritusProfessor, University of Kansas)

10. "I believe that we have established an image ofinscrutability, impossibility, and insensitivity whichhas now come to haunt us. We frighten other collegestudents; we myopic nerds with pocket protectors andwing-tip shoes have created an unfortunate monster andin order to sell our stuff, we must first rebuild ourimage and even our credibility as concerned citizens."(Jim Cross, Old Dominion University)

11. "A position statement or policy from ASEE would bebeneficial for drawing attention to a serious concernthat faces the nation." (Eric Soulsby, Associate Dean,University of Connecticut)

12. "As you know, engineering education progresses throughthe phases of science, engineering science, antlysis,and design. Although these can be integrated somewhat,each phase basically builds upon that which haspreceded it. We have been unable to develop analternative that we consider meaningful. Without suchan alternative, too much time in the non-engineeringcurricula must be devoted to this to be accepted insuch curricula. This, we believe, is the fundamentalissue. If this can be solved, then we believe progresscould be made." (Paul DeRusso, Associate Dean,Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

65

63

At a recent annual Engineering Deans Institute, I had aconversation with several of my fellow deans on this subject.Here are sone of the questions raised and comments made by thoseengineering deans:

- "I haven't had the dean of arts and sciences ask forengineering courses for liberal arts students."

- "Yeah, and our university faculty senate wants morehumanities and social sciences to be taken by engineeringstudents, not more technological content for the liberalarts students."

- "Even if we wanted to provide more engineering coursesfor non-engineering students, I don't believe our centraladmdnistration would reallocate resources to support suchan activity. And anyway, if we did receive moreresources, I have several higher priority activities inwhich I would invest them."

- "What do we mean by technological literacy? Is itpossible to provide sufficient technological course workin a non-engineering degree program to be able to claimthat a student is technologically literate? When isenough, enough?"

- "Are science courses prerequisite for engineering coursesfor non-engineering students? If not, wouldn't ourengineering faculty have to teach science background aswell as engineering? What should the content ofengineering courses be for non-engineering students? Canwe get our faculty to agree?"

"Is a little knowledge dangerous?"

- "Is a person with a Ph.D. in science or engineeringtechnologically literate if he or she doesn't know aboutor understand environmental or computer or manufacturingor life sciences issues?"

- "And besides, what do most of the schools of medicine,law, dentistry and nursing do for non-majors? Verylittle or nothing, that's what. So why should we feelguilty about not doing more for non-majors?"

I will not go on quoting from that part of the conversationbecause I expect that you have an adequate flavor. Let me hastento a much more constructive, hopeful and upbeat portion of ourconversation. (Deans, by the way, like many people, tend to geta few things off their chests, at least when they are with fellowdeans, especially if they feel someone may be thinking aboutimposing something unreasonable on their faculty.)

6 6

1;

I am pleased to report that we arrived at severalfundamental concepts on which most of us could agree:

a. We need to distinguish between someone who is motivatedand prepared to learn on his or her own abouttechnological matters and someone who is not. Ourprimary goal should be to increase substantially thenumber of individuals, particularly young people, whoare motivated, inspired, and prepared to learn an theirown on a continuing basis about technological matters.

The ways many science, mathematics and engineeringcourses are taught would not be particularly stimulatingto students who are not majoring in science, mathematicsor engineering.

C. More students will be interested in finding out aboutreal world problems and opportunities than about thedetails of the underlying science, mathematics orengineering. For example, liberal arts students may bemotivated to learn about solid waste disposal, acidrain, global warming, international competitiveness,applications of advanced materials, alternative fuels,applications of artificial intelligence, transportationproblems, applications of autonomous robots and dozensof other technological challenges and opportunities. Onthe other hand, fewer students would be immediatelydesirous of learning about free body diagrams, materialbalances, energy balances, fluid ;mechanics,thermodynamics (at least the way it is usually taughtfor engineering students), and many of the otherengineering science subjects required of engineeringmajors.

d. Once motivated by an interest in a problem (such as, forexample, acid rain), the student should be providedinformation on basic principles that pertain to theproblem, realizing that the objective is to increaseawareness of the important basic principles andknowledge about where and how to find out more if thestudent is so inclined.

e. This a different perspective than most engineeringfaculty have employed in teaching engineering majors,although it might be a good perspective for doing thattoo. Some faculty would be very good at this; someprobably would not.

f. The United States should have a citizenry with a highdegree of technological understanding and capability.This ideal is achievable if we make a high prioritycommitment to assure that it becomes reality.

67

i;

g. Like many ideals yet to be accomplished, widespread,adequate technological literacy in our nation will notbe realized unless sufficient commitments are made andkept. We need to define what we mean by the terms"adequate technological literacy" and "sufficientcommitments" in this context. And we should specify whoneeds to make those commitments.

h. We need a widely shared vision, and we need to make acommitment to that vision. Absent such a unifyingvision, we may never accomplish satisfactorytechnological literacy in our nation, at least not inthe next dozen generations.

i. We also must be realistic about the impediments,barriers and hindrances to the achievement of the sharedvision--not to be preoccupied with those impediments--but to be aware of what stands in the way ofaccomplishing our ideals.

j. Engineering and science faculty ahould be involved indesigning undergraduate courses which prepare andstimulate students to continue to learn abouttechnological matters.

k. Our schools of engineering, the National ScienceFoundation, the American Society for EngineeringEducation and the Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology should work together with otherinterested parties, including state and federalgovernment, to make significant contributions towardimproving the technological literacy of our citizens.

1. We need a national strategy for accomplishing widespreadtechnological literacy, and we must have coordinatedlocal, state, and regional activities to make it happen.

At a fairly practical level, I believe that we Should focuson the primary goal of increasing substantially, the number ofindividuals, particularly young people, who are motivated andprepared to learn on their own on a continuing basis abouttechnological matters.

The relevance of the subject matter will provide significantstimulation, and, therefore, we must stress relevance. And thereare two other factors that I view as equally important: theapproach that is taken (i.e. good pedagogy) and the teachingskills of the faculty. These three factorsrelevance, pedagogy,and teaching skills--are so obvious that they may be taken forgranted. I believe strongly that they must not be assumed; theymust be assured. These three legs are important if the table weare talking about building is to stand the real test. That test

68

C

is simply whether individuals will be stimulated and motivated towant to continue to learn about science and engineering. Insummary, assurance of widespread technological literacy dependson assurance of perceived relevance, interesting methods oflearning, and the skills and enthusiasm of those who provide thesubject matter.

Working together, we can overcome impediments and accelerateachievement of our shared goal to have a citizenry with acontinually improving technological understanding. Our nationwill benefit greatly from accomplishment of this goal.

As suggested by several of my fellow deans, ABEL ABET, andour engineering and engineering technology schools cannot "go italone." We need to work with others who Should be interested andwhose influence and power are necessary to Shifting thetechnological literacy paradigm. Perhaps a first step is toassess and then strengthen the interest of these other essentialparties. And I expect that we need to be prepared for a long-term, ongoing caepaign to induce appropriate change in thethinking and priorities of those who influence and decide thecontent of educational programs for non-engineers and non-scientists.

Having said all of that, I must hasten to add beforeclosing, that ASEE has taken a very hard look at its prioritiesduring the past twelve months and determined that there are fivetop priority strategic categories on which it should focus:

Vitality of engineering education through restructuring thefuture

Improving engineering education through innovations andtotal quality leadership

Globalization and internationalization of engineeringeducation

Outreach to youth to encourage pursuit of engineeringeducation

Research dimensions of ASEE to reflect the realities ofmodern engineering education and educators

As we restructure and innovate and improve our outreach toyouth we should (and I want to say must) focus on that part ofthe ASEE mission statement which I quoted at the outset of mypresentation, namely, that "ASEE should foster the technologicaleducation of society." Given that the great majority of theengineering schools in our country are members of ASEE, I believethat there is a solid basis for being optimistic about prospectsfor the involvement of engineering colleges and engineering

69

faculty in achieving this element of ASEE's stated mission. Theguidance and impetus provided by this workshop could beinstrumental in making this happen.

70

G

ENGINEERING AND THE LIBERAL ARTS

David P. BillingtonPrinceton University

This lecture seeks to present some general ideas, severaldefinitions that help clarify the ideas, and a brief outline oftwo courses which illustrate how general ideas can be a frameworkfor the teaching of engineering to liberal arts students.

General Idess

First, the term "Technological Literacy" is so vague thatany discussion of it needs a narrow focus to achieve any lastingresults. Such a focus provides a discipline within which theteacher can present a broad integration of academic material.Second, the best teaching has always been done by individualteachers. While I know of some successfUl experiments in teamteaching, they rarely survive economic pressures. Although notrequiring team teaching, integrated instruction does requireclose collegial cooperation in which we instruct each other, readcritically the lecture notes of each other, and even at timescarry out joint scholarship. Third, teaching technologicalliteracy requires the use of historical case studies based uponscholarship but written expressly for student use. Finally,until there is a strong tradition of widely used studies, thewriting of new historical case studies needs to be done incollaboration with a network of teachers from a variety ofschools in higher education. In this way, as the Sloan Programlf the New Liberal Arts illustrates, the teaching materials willoe disseminated quickly to other schools. But before any suchteaching can have a national impact there needs to be a commonlyunderstood definition of Technological Literacy.

Den/449ns

It is a widely accepted fact that the industrial revolutionhas radically transformed the rural, agrarian world of the early18th century into an urban industrial one of the late 20thcentury. The prime mover in that transformation has been modernengineering, and it is that modern development which raised theissue of technological literacy. Therefore, the word techm*.tmyin our present context is the same as modern engineering, butwhat is that? Here, as engineers we have an obligation to oursociety to present a simple credible and convincing definition.We have no business talking about technological literacy if wecannot define it in a way that the general public will see to beattractive, essential, and reasonable. This comes down todefining modern engineering, the product of 200 years ofurbanization combined with industrializationthe unique outcomeof the industrial revolution.

71

Two key events established that revolution (literallyturning points): industrialized iron and the indmetrial steamengine. Symbolized by the 1779 Iron Bridge and the 1787 RotarySteam Engine, these events began a transformation that led to thegreat structmres of iron and the vehicles of steam that opened upthe United States continent and laid the basis for a second pairof transforming events roughly one hundred years later: theproduction of electric power and the gasoline powered vehicles onroadways and in airways. In turn, these events led to a thirdpair of engineering turning points that we can identify in thelate 20th century: the present dominance of information throughhigh technology and the persistent deterioration of theinfrastructure for low tuchnology. Out of these centraltransformations come four defining ideas for engineering:structure, machine, network, and process. Each idea requires atreatise in itself, but in summary one can observe that eachstands for one of the four main branches of modern engineering:civil, mechanical and aeronautical, electrical, and chemical. Aclose study of any one of these four will reveal in each oneelements of all four ideas, but as defining symbols each catchesone major aspect of modern engineering, and together they leaveout very little. Examples of each would be the bridge, the car,the power grid, and the refinery; the first two ideas areembodied in separate objects, while-the second two are systems.The structmre is static, while the machine is dynamic; thenetwork transmits, while the process transmutes.

Taking these ideas for a definition of technology as modernengineering, we next turn to the word "literacy" and ask what dowe expect students to learn in order to be "literate" in modernengineering. It is best, of course, to ask what we meanordinarily by literacy and the answer is simply: facility withwords (vocabulary), word construction (rules of grammar), andwriting (arguments, essay, reports, poems, and novels). Thereare, therefore, individual facts (defined words), connected facts(sentences and paragraphs), and finally meanings (stories). Aliterate person, we normally say, must have some minimumcompetence in reading and in writing, that is to say in thepassive and the active sides of literacy.

Carrying over this argument into modern engineering requiresus to identify or define the necessary facts, the rules forconnecting those facts, and finally the meanings of sets ofconnected facts. Since we will use literacy metaphorically notliterally, there is a freedom in how to translate these ideasinto engineering. I shall take what seems to fit wall with thefour main ideas of engineering. The facts of engineering areexpressed symbolically in formulas by which we predictperformance; the rules by which we connect those facts come fromthe social context: politics, government regulation, economiczand what is required to bring engineering works into being and tomaintain them. Finally the meanings of engineering lie in how

72

7

individual people respond to its works as characteristic ofculture through aesthetics, ethics, and symbolism.

Each Of these three components of literacy stand for one ofthe three liberal arts. The facts stand far natural science, therules stand for patterns of group behavior typical of socialscience, and the meanings interpreted by artists, philosophers,historians, and critics represent the humanities. Therefore, inseeking technological literacy, we are really trying to show thatmodern engineering, being embedded in the liberal arts, is adefining feature of modern life and that liberal arts studentscan make sense out of it by seeing its place in their own fieldsof study. But what specifically should be taught in the name oftechnological literacy?

Sentaltt-MILIEMARIECLIALAWINICI

The formulas which embody the facts of modern engineeringare simple, involve no college-level mathematics, and containideas that cannot be easily expressed any other way. Ne beginwith the steamboat, America's first major contribution to modernengineering. Its motion came from a reciprocating steam enginewhose power we define as

PLAN"P =33,000

where P = steam pressure in pounds per square inchL = stroke (length of movement of the piston in the

cylinder) in feetA = area of the piston head in square inchesN mis number of power strokes per minute

and the number 33,000 represents 'vanes Watt's estimate of theability of one horse, one horsepcwer allid being equivalent to33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute. To get greater speed forthe boat, the engineer must either increase the steam pressure(P), the cylinder size (L x A), or the engine speed (N). Buteach increase has its price. Greater steam pressure requires alarger boiler, greater cylinder size means a heavier engine to becarried by the boat, and greater speed means quicker wearing outof the moving parts and more vibration of the boat's structure.

Each of these terms can in turn be explored in more detail.For example, horsepower can also be Impressed as

TVHP =375

73

7 1

where T = thrust of the paddle wheels against the water inpounds

V = velocity of the boat in miles per hour

and the number 375 simply converts miles-pounds per hour intohorsepower units. The power of the engine mmst be transmitted tothe paddle wheels and thrust must overcome the drag, or theresistance to motion caused by the water. This study will leadus quickly into fluid mechanics as well as into ideas related topower transmission.

One farther study, of central significance to steamboathistory and to present-day problem is boiler safety, expressed bythe ring stress equation

f =P7

where f = the stress in pounds per square inch in the boilerwall that can lead to straight longitudinalcracks in the cylinder.

P = steam pressure in pounds per square inchradius of the boiler cylinder in inches

t = thickness of the boiler shell wall in inches

It is easy to realize that greater velocity (V) requires greaterpower om which can be achieved by higher steam pressure (P).It also ?equires more steam (used up more rapidly as N increases,thus a greater boiler volume (usually high r). On the other handthe cost of the expensive boiler can be decreased by using lassmaterial (smaller t). Each of these desirable changes (higher P,greater r, smaller t) increase both the useful power and thedanger of boiler overstress contributing to boiler explosions.

Such analyses lead directly to the social issues surroundingmodern engineering: public safety, private enterprise incompetition, economy of operation and in the cost of fabrication,and public acceptance of new facilities. The goal of thesescientific studies is to carry over into the social context somereasonably precise ideas about the potentials and the physicallimitations of modern engineering so that the potential andeconomic debates can be better informed. Historically theseequations explain the origin of government regulations forprivate enterprise, and for the late 20th century they provide astarting point for any intelligent discussion of modern vehiclesand future possibilities. Power generation and transmission,thrust and drag, drag and velocity, pressure and stress, economy,and safety are all .issues central to the present and futuredecisions about modern engineering.

7

74

2

It is of course possible to discuss such things withoutformulas and numbers, but that is not technological literacy. Wemust not claim that all discussion needs to begin in formulas.Rather the new dimension to be added to the old discussion is thequantitative one, and that is central to the literacy of modernengineering.

7 5

73

BROAD ISSUES IN SCIENCE._ TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY

George HugliarelloPolytechnic University

liztalms-40-2111;1111211791-11114-aglareduLatarnstita

Each one of us may have a different view of why we doscience or why we do technology, indeed a different view as towhat is science and what is technology. Let me simply suggestthat science is about knowing nature--including ourselves--whereas technology in its broadest sense is about modifyingnature. As such it includes not only engineering, but also art,medicine, surgery and, what is perhaps the most camplex of allmodifications of nature, educatinn.

The most powerful intellectual instrument of science isverification--the insistence on verifiable truths. Hence thegreat importance of science literacy. It provides us as citizenswith a concept and at least same rudimentary tools that can helpus separate the wheat from the chaff in the myriad of issues towhich we are exposed each day and about which we need to developan opinion and make a decision. If nothing else, scientificliteracy enables us to ask: how do I know that what I hear istrue?

What we have come to call technology literacy is actually,to a considerable extent, engineering literacy, and whatdifferentiates engineering from other activities that modifynature is a specific set of methodologies. The importance oftechnology literacy stems from the fact that modifications ofnature by technology are acts of immense daring by our speciesand thus require intelligent directions and controls, lest theybecome acts of hubris and destroy the very nature they areintended to utilize, safeguard, improve or correct. They alsorequire that an understanding of the key tenets of technologybecome an essential part of the intellectual core of theUniversity.

Let me not belabor these fundamental points, other thanstressing that the understanding of why we do science ortechnology is fundamental to education and educational reform.Rather, in the short confines of this paper, let me addressderivative issues.

Science and Technology in Society.

A number of issues stem from the fundamental importance ofscience and technology in our lives and underscore it. Some ofthese issues are universal, the same the world aver, while otherissues, like the maintenance of our competitive industrial

77

74

position or the need to improve science education, are morespecific to our country. I will be able to touch only upon afew; thus, I shall not be able to discuss, in spite of theirimportance, issues like the environment/ natural resources,population growth, or privacy.

It is obvious that, in the past few decades in particular,science and technologyfrom medicine to energy totelecommunicationshave had great impact on our lives. Perhapsless recognized is that some of the major problems or issues oftoday's society occur at the interface of science and technologywith the rest of society. They are, generally, challenges totraditional values (as in the birth control controversy),problems of society's inability to take advantage of science andtechnology, and problems of our misuse of science and technology.

I shall not dwell on the challenges to traditional values/because these are constantly and widely discussed, throughout oursociety, in schools, in colleges, in business, in the media, andin families. Rather, let me talk about the other two sets ofproblems: in the first place, the fact that, in spite of ourtechnological prowess in building, in generating power, intransmitting and manipulating information, and so on, we arestill facing, the world over, immense problems of poverty, healthcare, education, and of real as well as functional and scientificor technological illiteracy. And, secondly, the fact that we arealso facing a series of problems such as anvironmentaldegradation or congestion that stem directly from our technicaland economic success.

vet

Take health care, for instance. The problem is both costand access. Technology has a big part in both. In terms ofcost, in the U.S. health care uses more that 12% of our GNP--afigure projected to exceed 16% by 1996. Although thisoutrageously large slice of our GNP is due to several causes, aconsiderable part is associated with technology--a technologyfocused on the high cost or repair end of health care, ratherthan on prevention and maintenance (Bugliarello, 1984). As toaccess/ some forty million Americans are today without directaccess to health care, because of cost.

Technology/ in effect, has provided technological fixes fora system for the delivery of health care that needs, instead/ tobe fundamentally restructured. Engineers, it seems, are usuallymuch more comfortable working within a social system andaccepting the status quo, rather than challenging it andproposing change.

The same situation prevails in education, where, in spite ofall our technology, our system of education is performing

78

75

miserably. Again, technology, rather than challenging thesystem, has operated within its confines in piecemeal fashion,without pressing for reform--for an intelligent integration ofteaching and technological capabilities.

Poverty is another example of society's inability to takeadvantage of technology. We certainly have the technical meansto produce enough food and shelter and education for all the poorin our country, but there is a major iMbalance between ourproductive capacity and our ability to use that capacity. Theproblem of poverty, of course, is not only American. It is amassive global problem. Unless it is solved, the whole globe isat risk, with the potential for major disasters and destructivesocial instabilities.

There are no easy solutions to the problem of poverty, whichis perhaps the most complex and baffling of all social problems,as the world has learned from the massive failure of seventyyears of the communist experiment. But any solution has as anecessary condition the wide understanding of the productivypotential of science and technology.

Poverty is tied to health and to education--and hence againto technology. It is also tied to hunger and nutrition. One oftoday's great tragedies is that in some parts of the world averhalf of the harvest rots for lack of storage or timelydistribution that is an inefficient interface between socialsystems and technology.

The problem of poverty is also tied to employment. We haveseen, in the U.S., the loss of a great deal of our manufacturingcapacity, particularly in sectors that offered employment to theless educated, who have now sunk below the poverty line. Thecompetitive success of the Japanese industry has truly become amatter of life and death for our economy. A key element of thatsuccess has been, as we well know, quality. The problem we faceis that we tend to look at quality only as a technique--as anissue exclusively for our engineering schools and our industry--rather than something that needs to become widely embedded in ourculture. This is what makes the Japanese challenge so seriousfor us, and this is where the challenge of technological literacygoes far beyond the providing of knowledge about technology orscience; technological literacy is also about the development ofhabits of precision, and reliability among all the citizens.

Generating or retaining industrial jobs requires a carefulindustrial policy--another complex issue that a technologicallyilliterate citizenry is ill-equipped to address.

79

7"

The Citiegt

Many of the major social problems in our country andabroad- -poverty, disease, unemployment, and crime come togetherin the cities. And so do many of our opportunities. Thequestion of cities is another of the complex and crucial issuesin which science and technology have a major role to play.

I recently had the privilege of chairing the New York CityMayor's Commission on Science and Technology. The Commissionundertook a systematic study of the role of science andtechnology in the future of the city. The conclusions werebasically two:

In the first place, an intelligent use ofscience and technology has much to offer tovirtually every aspect of the city'soperation--traffic, housing, waste disposal,competitiveness, and employment, etc. The city is acomplex socio-technological system, but fey in themanagement of a city have a sense of system and asense--a clear and guiding sense--of complexity.

The second basic conclusion is that thecities represent a huge market, hungry for newtechnologies. Think, for example, of the needto provide the handicapped with means to climbsteps, or of the possibility of having far moreinformative "active" street signs, or of theelectronic augmentation of highway capacity asan alternative to more cement. Or, think ofnew urban vehicles. It is important that inthe U.S. we do not lose the opportunity thisimmense new market offers and do not repeatwhat lost us consumer electronics, or asubstantial portion of our automotive industry.

nekaliaatim

Globalization affects virtually every aspect of our societyand has been made possible by science and technology --bytransportation and telecommunications in the first place. It isa compelling demonstration of the power of science and technologyadvances to leap-frog obsolete political and social ways ofthinking and of functioning--to leap-frog political boundaries,academic philosophies, or industrial organizations and to forcechange.

Paradoxically, the slowest institutions to truly espouseglobalization have been the very citadels of science andtechnology - -the universities that still continue to operate asislands wedded to one place. Teaching at a distance is just

SO

77

beginning to emerge, and it is still far from representing atruly globally integrated operation, with worldwide teams ofteachers, worldwide assemblies of students, worldwide access tolaboratories for experiments at a distance, and worldwide realtime interactions among researchers. This is far beyondMcCluhants global villagetruly the era of what I callhyperintelligence.

ant,

Infrastructure, the environment, and international securityare three further aspects of a globalising world which depends onscience and technology and draws some of its greatest dangersfrom science and technology.

A weak, inadequate infrastructure not only makes lifemiserable, but it also has a major impact on employment andeconamic development, as business now can locate wherever itfinds the most favorable and pleasant environment. Our limitedand ill-quided national investment in infrastructureboth thephysical infrastructure and the infrastructure of services suchas schools or advanced university laboratories--puts us at adisadvantage in the international competition for jobs.

The environment is becoming a major preoccupation and pointof contention between developed and less developed countries.What should be the levels of environmental protectioninvestments? What are the responsibilities of differentcountries? (We should not forget, for instance that thiscountry is by far the major single consumer of ihe environment inthe world.) What should be the timing of environmentalprotection actions (e.g. by when should we stop all noxious caremissions)? These are all major social and technologicalproblems. They place unprecedented demands on the judgement ofall citizens and on a science and technology community that isfar more comfortable and knowledgeable with regard to scientificresearch than to policy formulationparticularly policyformulation with the potential for immense costs or socialdislocations.

Lastly, international security, always a major science andtechnology arena, has become far more complex than during thecold war as a result of the development of cheap weapons of massdestruction--whether nuclear, chemical or biological--that arerelatively accessible to smaller countries. Again, this presentsmajor science and technology challenges not only in counteractingthose weapons, but also--and far more essential in the longrange--in finding ways through science and technology to enhanceeconomic and social development and hence stability in regionssuch as the Middle East or Central America.

8 2,

'7S

Biotechnology

This brief and spotty overview of the new challenges toscience and technology with relation to society cannot overlookbiotechnology, because of its fundamental revolutionary potentialto change our own biology and to drastically transform the way wego about producing things--whether drugs, plants, or new highwaypavements. But each of these revolutionary potentials must dealwith the fact that technical and scientific prowess has faroverrun society's ability to transform itself by accepting newideas and new paradigms.

Some Gimemslisations

In terms of the kind of broad social problems that I have sobriefly touched upon, the specific questions for the community ofthose concerned with science and technology, whether they comefrom the science and engineering or from the humanities side, arebasically two: What do these problems have in common? How canthe science and technology community best contribute to theirsolution?

Let me start with the question of commonalities. These aretypically issues or problems in which science and technology arenot sufficient for the solution, but are involved together withmany other factors such as economics or politics that often havea daminant role. For instance, in education, in the U.S. it isessential to consider the role of school boards, PTA's, and stateand federal governments. Similarly, in the case of theinfrastructure, questions of sociology, politics, financing,jurisdiction, urban planning, or population policies flank andactually overshadow the purely technical issues--even though theinfrastructure is a technical set of structures and devices.

As a correlate of the previous point, these are all problemsthat require a systemic view which is hard to come by. Consider,for instance, the reconstruction of a major airport like J.F.Kennedy. While billions of dollars are being spent on greatlyincreasing its capacity, little attention is being paid to thehighways that connect it to the city, let alone to the buildingof rail links. Or, consider the manned space station program.It needed two components to achieve its objectives--a vehicle forreaching orbit and an orbiting station. The cost for bothcomponents first proposed to President Nixon was so great that itwas decided to build first the vehicle--the very costly shuttle.But we are now facing a lopsided situation with an old shuttleand grave doubts that a manned space station will be built--hardly an ideal system!

A systemic view is even more important in dealing with thefar more complex problems of the cities, or of poverty, education

82

7 L.4

or health care. These are all problems for which technologyfixes can go only so far and actually at a certain point becomecounterproductive and exacerbate the problem. For instance, aswe have discussed in the case of health care, teChnology hashelped drive costs sky high, supporting a system that iswasteful, uncoordinated and inefficient.

Finally, many problems, such as the cities, education, orhealth care, offer major opportunities for new technologies andnew industries, if we know how to identify these opportunitiesand develop systems for commercializing them.

These are all problems for which a new vision cannot bedeveloped without a technologically educated public, not in thesense of understanding in detail the nuts and bolts oftechnology, but the choices and possibilities that technologyoffers and the implications of scientific discoveries for ourlives. We need a public capable of making decisions about thosechoices and of supporting those decisions through politicalaction.

Let us now consider the second general question: what do weneed to do? How can our society better use science andtechnology in the solutions of its major problems?

I would like to suggest, first of all, that the science andtechnology community must develop its own sense that it islegitimate and, indeed, that its duty is to take a leading rolein addressing societal issues. It must not be satisfied onlywith developing new scientific knowledge and technical systems.It must also become active in seeing to it that they are appliedwith intelligence and wisdom.

Secondly, the science and technology community must betterprepare itself through education. This will require therethinking of curricula. We need to create more courses onsocio-technology, so as to better understand the socialenvironment in which science and technology operate. We alsoneed to develop more courses on the philosophy of technology, toparallel those on the philosophy of science, so as to acquire aclearer view of why we do technology and of the role of scienceand technology as instruments for the extension of our humanabilities.

Thirdly, engineers and scientists must learn to become farmore involved than they are today in the political process, so asto have a say in policies about the use of science and technologyto address broad social issues. We always remark about the veryfew scientists and engineers in the U.S. Congress, but thus farthe science and technology community has done nothing to redressthe balance--as it must be if we are going to have an industrial

83

bu

policy, or a policy for the cities, or for the other great socialproblems.

Scientists and engineers also need to become more involvedin management--but not of the MBA kind, where the connection wlthtechnology is generally ignored. They need to become involved inthe management of technology, in the study and practice of how tobetter manage and direct technological enterprises andtechnological processes, from energy to information, but alsofrom hospitals to schools.

Lastly, and most directly tied to the theme of thisconference, the science and technology community must becomedeeply involved in the development of technological andscientific literacy. It is not enough to preach the need for it.We need to make a coordixated effort (because there are today toomany subcritical and overlapping initiatives) to reach andeducate the entire population.

There is, indeed, a better way to address many urgent anddifficult problems of our society. But that way requires ascientifically and technologically literate citizenry and ascience and technology community willing and able to lead, notonly by knowledge, but also by action.

84

SI

Sugliarello, G. "Health-Care Costs: Technology to the Rescue?."IZELIpastaLun, June, 1984, pp. 97-100.

Bugliarello, G. "Bioengineering: Merging the Artifact and itsMaker." HarijignicaLzugingardng, Vol. 111, No. 9, September1989, pp. 46-48.

Bugliarello, G. "Science 6 Technology in New York City for the21st Century: A Report by the Mayor's COmmission forScience 6 Technology." Polytechnic Press, December 1989.

Bugliarello, G. "Hyperinta:ligence: HUmankind's NextEvolutionary Step." in BalLinliing.thiLaIntegrated. Interdisciplinary Colinas Educatign. MA!. Clarkand S. A. Wawrytko, eds. Greenwood Press, New York, 1990,pp. 25-37.

Bugliarallo, G. "Engineering and Its Social Function: A CurrentAssessment." in Bnainrina as a Social Enterprise,presentation at the 26th Annual Meeting Symposium of theNational Academy of Engineering, preprint volume, NAE, 1990.

McGinn, R.E. Science. Technoloav and Society. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.

85

52

DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC ISSUES

87

53

SUMMARY OF BREAEOUT SESSIQNS

This section presents a summary of each of the eightbreakout sessions held during the Technological LiteracyWorkshop. The first four sessions were devoted to specificissues in current technological literacy education. JosephJohnston chaired the session on generation of issues to beaddressed in each of the four categories under the headingscurriculum development, courseware available, attraction ofstudents, and faculty issues/logistics. The second set of foursessions were focused on specific elements of an agtinda on whatneeds to be done in the future for technological literacy. DavidReyes-Guerra chaired the session to identify issues to beaddressed. These were grouped under courseware needed,consortium approach, funding directions, and stimalation ofprograms.

SuxxiculmaAmalmant

Curriculum development has been a central focus of thetechnological literacy movement. However, after two decades ofserious efforts, several issues pertaining to curriculumdevelopment are still unresolved. Some of the major issuesdiscussed at the Workshop were:

What is technological literacy?

What are appropriate objectives for technologicalliteracy programs? What measures should be used toevaluate them against such objectives?

- What are the essential curriculum elements of anappropriate technological literacy program cn a givencampus? What instructional formatr are most effective?

The curriculum development group discussed the issue oftechnological literacy as a design problem. As with many designproblems, it is easier to recognize failures than success.Technological illiteracy is more easily described thantechnological literacy. The group also agreed that atechnological literacy curriculum requirement for liberal artsstudents should, at a minimum, serve a parallel function to theABET requirement of humanities and social sciences forengineering students. One of the objectives of any technologicalliteracy curriculum would thus be to increase knowledge andunderstanding of engineering among non-engineering students. Asfar as the difference between technological literacy andengineering literacy is concerned, there was animated discussionwith some people arguing the importance of understandingtechnolocr- 2r -oader sense, ..ine that includes but is notlimited Lc Pnc.aleering, while others argued the importance of not

89

S .1

diluting the thrust of technological literacy by including toomuch. In the discussion group itself there was an implicitassumption that technological literacy was equivalent toengineering literacy or literacy about engineering. There wasalso a general consensus that the communication of procesa wasmore important in any technological literacy curriculum than anyparticular gpntent.

cammumma_Amailibls

Availability of courseware is one of the key factors for thesuccess of any technological literacy program. This is evidentfrom the Sloan Foundation's materials development which was basedon the belief that success of the New Liberal Arts Programdepends on the availability of written materials to serve ascurriculum material,: for new courses. Major questions discussedin this session were:

- What materials are available to provide background tofaculty members starting to work in this area?

- What materials are currently available for use in cciursesand laboratories in this area?

- What institutions now have courses and/or programs thatmight be considered mcdels?

The discussion group identified design process, criticalthinking, and problem solving as the three major aspects oftechnological literacy course content but believed that these arenot helpful in defining it. The discussion on forms of teachingmaterials focused on historical case studies (like NLA Programmonographs), and business school decision making units andconcluded that such case studies should include numericalcalculations, social contexts, and aesthetic, ethical, orsymbolic meanings. The engineering-oriented teaching materialsso far published in the New Liberal Arts Program are an essentialstarting point for the planning of any new courses intechnological literacy.

AttnatimslAtadanta

Several studies now indicate that the student enrollments intechnological literacy courses are relatively small when comparedto total number of students. Furthermore, students of differentacademic backgrounds select technological literacy courses atrandom, leading to several implications. Within this context,the discussion group focused on the following questions andissues:

90

55

- How can students be attracted to such programs? Whattarget populations should be pursued?

- How to reach out to selected groups of students (e.g.those preparing to be pre-college teachers).

- What preparation should students have? How can we ensurethat they have it?

The group began by focusing its discussion on thedifferences between engineering and Science-Technology-Society(STS) courses. The group believed that at present there arecourses on how technical things work, but no course specificallyidentified as technological literacy. This makes it difficultfor students to identify and select technological literacycourses. Furthermore, STS courses offered at various collegesare tailored to the local environment, hence liberal artsstudents generally have difficulty accessing them. Engineeringstudents enroll in humanities and social science courses becausethey find some relief in them. The reverse is not as true forliberal arts students. The group also agreed that more coursesat the 100 level are needed since more students enroll in them.To attract the students, the group balieved that course contentshould be aimed at specific target populations and needs to belinked with social environment.

Faculty Issues/Loaketics

Currently there is little recognition for facultydevelopment of technological literacy programs by universitiesand colleges. Faculty have problems sharing their time betweenliteracy curricula and departmental obligations. Furthermore,faculty members are under pressure from their departments tomaintain research and publications. In most of the colleges,technological literacy courses have been added to a list ofelective course offerings, rather than integrated into degreeprograms. This session focused on the following issues:

How to stimulate collaboration between liberal arts andengineering units on a given campus re technologicalliteracy offerings.

- How to stimulate/reward faculty participation in thetechnological literacy area. How to prepare facultymembers or teams to work effectively in this area.

- How are logistics best handled: organizationalstructure, faculty appointments, funding...?

- How to assure availability of appropriate books, casestudies and other courseware.

91

SE;

- How can necessary funding be obtained for suchtechnological literacy programs?

The discussion group felt that for colleges with anengineering unit, it is necessary that the engineering faculty beinvolved with the development and teaching of technologicalliteracy courses to have a successfUl program. The projecteddecline in engineering enrollment through the mid 1990's wasconsidered as a favorable environment for offering technologicalliteracy courses to satisfy faculty teaching loads.

In most colleges and universities, the faculty reward systemis based upon research publications and funding and teachingcourses for majors. It was pointed out that this is especiallytrue in a small liberal arts college where the number of facultyin an engineering and/or science department is small. Many ofthe participants recommended not getting young faculty involvedin the technological literacy movement as it was a perfect way totorpedo a young faculty member's career and to make tenureunlikely. Experienced senior faculty members with establishedresearch careers are good candidates for offering technologicalliteracy courses, perhaps especially if they ars interested in acareer change. Selected retired industrial engineers could alsobecome involved. These individuals would bring a wealth ofexperience and knowledge into the classroom.

There were limited discussions on the availability offunding for technological literacy programs and on the availablecurriculum material. It was pointed out that the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) funded the Workshop and had severalrepresentatives in attendance. NSF funding is available forcurriculum development and laboratory equipment for technologicalliteracy courses. During thc past decade there has been a wealthof curriculum material for technological literacy courses. TheSloan Foundation's New Liberal Arts Program has developed amonograph series and book series which can be used as textmaterial for technological literacy courses. Reports from theOffice of Technology Assessment and the National Academy ofEngineering have been used as text material in many courses.

Courseware Needed

In most of the programs, courses are based on an individualinstructor's area of science/technological interest. This leadsto narrowly focused courses with wide gaps in the range of issuesdiscussed or materials produced. Within this context the groupfocused on:

- Gaps in presently available materials, which should befilled.

92

87

- New types of coverage needed, or newcombinations/formulations.

- Multiple formats (books, monographs, expanded syllabi,slide sets, video tapes, computer software,...).

- Information clearinghouse needed.

The group felt that well done, bodk-length case studieswould provide all the complexity of: teChnical needs; social,economic, and political constraints; and cultural reception.The ideal teaching arrangement, in a technological literacycourse or program using complete case studies, mould beinterdisciplinary. An engineering faculty member would be thebest sort of person to convey to typically naive students thetechnical demands of an engineering or other technologicalproject. Fez the rest, to present issues of cultural, social,and political complexity, not just any humanist or socialscientist or manager will work out well. It probably should besomeone accustomed to team-teaching and preferably accustomed toteaching in a team that involves scientists, engineers, or othertechnically-trained people. One member felt that both positiveand negative case studies are needed, and liberal arts studentscan learn a great deal about the complexities of engineering andtechnological development from either sort.

Also the group recognized the importance of films, videos,remote-site TV presentations, and computer software. In a sense,a well done film, television series, or video on technology is acase study. A more important caveat has to do with the qualityof the production of visual presentations of engineering andtechnology ventures. It is extremely important that theproduction be in the hands of competent professionals. But it isalso extremely important that the producers, actors, etc., reallyknow engineering and technological work.

Another new approach that has been considered is thetransmission of a successful classroom experience from onelocation to another where technological literacy education is nototherwise feasible. It has been suggested, for example, that oneof David Billington's presentations might be made available ontape or by interactive TV to classes at schools across thecountry.

CmautimaAmmuk

The breakout group assigned to discuss possible mechanismsfor enhancing technological literacy, including the idea ofconsortia focused on the following issues:

- How can institutions with current efforts intechnological literacy work more effectively together--in

93

ss

support of current efforts, and in stimulation of newones?

- What organizations and structures are currently availablefor collaborative work between institutions intechnological literacy? How effective are they atpresent? What can we learn from their efforts?

- Are new structures or mechanisms needed? If so, whatcharacteristics should they have?

The group began by agreeing that it was important "not toreinvent the wheel." The group also agreed, however, that thewheel needed to be "trued up" somewhat and the current impact oftechnological literacy multiplied. As the discussion developed,individual suggestions and ideas fell into three main areas--theidentification of organizations currently active in technologicalliteracy, suggestions for groups that should be encouraged tobecome involved in promoting technological literacy, andproposals for actual mechanisms and activities for encouragingtechnological literacy.

After singling out those organizations already involved atone level or another, the group focused its attention onidentifying target groups which might be encouraged to becomeactive or perhaps more extensively involved in the technologicalliteracy area. Among those organizations that might assist inpromoting technological literacy are the National Association ofState Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASUIGC), theAmerican Council for Academic Deans (ACAD), the Council ofColleges of Arts and Sciences (CCAS), the National Conference ofAcademic Deans (NCAD), state government education departments,and the National Governors Association (NGA). The PublicBroadcasting System (PBS) was also identified as a potentiallyimportant vehicle for spreading technological literacy awarenessthrough programming focused on engineering and technology. Thediscussion on suggestions for mechanisms both for promotingtechnological literacy and for actually incorporating it into thecurriculum focused on common core curriculum requirements, topdown CEO approach, state and regional consortia, press coverageand public outreach. Following the identification of the abovewide-ranging ideas, the group concluded its discussion bysuggesting three short-term action items:

1. 1993 should be declared the year of technologicalliteracy and that technological literacy should be amajor theme for all professional society annual meetings.

2. ABET, NSPE and other appropriate engineering societiesshould promote technological literacy as a worthwhileactivity by 1) encouraging engineering deans to havefaculty develop and offer appropriate technological

94

59

literacy courses and 2) working to make technologicalliteracy a general education requirement for allundergraduate programs.

3. A short 1-2 page executive summary of the conferenceshould be sent with an appropriate cover letter to theheads of all appropriate engineering and academicsocieties and organizations. In addition, the reportshould be circulated to all appropriate universityadministrators, including presidents and provosts andboth engineering and liberal arts deans.

lunding Directions

Many programs depend upon external funding, and if funds arewithdrawn, these programs most likely will be canceled. Onerecent study indicates that the major universities do not haverelatively large budgets for technological literacy relatedprograms, and if external funding is withdrawn these programssuffer significantly. The breakout session on funding directionsfocused on the following:

What funding programs have been at work on technologicalliteracy, and what have been their strengths andweaknesses?

What funding mechanisms are currently available forsupport of technological literacy?

Are new funding efforts needed? If so, whatcharacteristics should they have?

With respect to funding sources, the group identified fourmain categories: 1) government, 2) private foundations, 3)industry, and 4) colleges and universities.

The leading player under the government funding sources isthe National Science Foundation. Within the NSF Directorate ofEducation and Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Science,Engineering and Mathematics Education (USEME), there are twoprograms particularly relevant. Undergraduate Curriculum andCourse Development; and Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement. Theformer supports improvements in introductory courses and includesa concern for scientific and technological literacy of thenonspecialist student and the general public. The latteremphasizes short courses, workshops, and other hands-onexperiences for participants.

After identifying the role of the Sloan Foundation, thegroup also discussed small local private foundations, andtechnology-based companies and their associated foundations. The

95

group felt that the leadership of engineering colleges is crucialin any project emerging from the workshop.

Stimulation of Programs

The group focused on the following issues?

- Are additional programs in technological literacy needed?

- If so, what national level stimulation would assist intheir initiation and growth?

- How can the technical and liberal arts faculty on a givencampus be encouraged to work together to generate suchprograms?

After agreeing that additional programs are needed, thegroup focused its attention on ways to stimulate the initiationand growth of additional programs. The various issues discussedinclude holding annual conferences, publishing articles injournals/magazines such as the Chronicle and Liberal Learning,approaching funding agencies, arranging meetings with engineeringdeans and the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences to discussissues of technological literacy, and creating an exciting videoseries on technological literacy, the history of technology, andengineering, to be shown on PBS.

The group also discussed the possibility of arts and sciencefaculty fellowships in engineering colleges, retraining liberalarts faculty to teach technological literacy courses based ontheir areas of specialization and initiating a program of facultydevelopment to persuade engineers to become involved intechnological literacy courses.

96

9 1

CLOS ING REMARKS

9 7

92

MAJOR FINDINGS

The Technological Literacy Workshop successfUlly identifiedthe major issues in technolog:.cal literacy for non-engineers, andclearly established the critical dimensions of those issues. Inaddition, a thorough review of current programs was particularlyhelpful in identifying the progress made so far in technologicalliteracy education and in setting promising directions for thefuture. Some of the findings discussed below are clearly basicones surrounding the initiation of any new field of study, butothers are more specific to the field of technological literacyeducation.

As a result of the Workshop and the studies done inpreparation for it, it is clear that sufficient ground work onwhich to build effectively has already been done by someindividuals and institutions. At the individual level,distinguished contributions have been made by Professor JohnTruxal of SUNY Stony Brook and Professor Rustum Roy ofPennsylvania State University. At the institutional level,efforts of the Sloan Foundation and the NLA Center at SUNY StonyBrook are most commendable. In addition, valuable efforts havebeen made by several individuals with wide ranging backgrounds atvarious institutions in the country.

In spite of these previous and current efforts, however, anexamination of key issues clearly indicates that much nore needsto be done. One major finding of this Workshop is that moreeffort is needed in several critical areas of technologicalliteracy education.

Currently there are only a few institutions offering coursesthat can be identified as clearly dedicated to technologicalliteracy for non-engineers. Even though technological literacyis considered as part of the "Science, Technology and Society"(STS) field by some individuals, it is becoming increasinglydifficult to identify the technological literacy component inmany STS programs. Hence, there is a need for more programs andcourses with sharp focus in the technological literacy field.

The Workshop discussions clearly indicate that enoughmaterials are available for the program administrators andfaculty members to initiate or start new programs and courses intechnological literacy. However, current efforts in coursewaredevelopment are fragmented and incomplete, and, hence, there aregaps in the areas of technology covered in the curriculummaterials developed so far. For example, as pointed out byProfessor Truxal, areas such as energy, environment, andtransportation are not yet major themes of coursewaredevelopment. For balanced technological literacy education,

99

93

curriculum materials encompassing all major areas of technologyneed to be developed.

Currently, there are only few engineering faculty membersinvolved in technological literacy education. This is evidentfrom our survey of the faculty involvement at variousinstitutions and the curriculum materials developed so far. Itis one of the major issues that received serious attention fromthe Workshop participants. They clearly established the need forengineering school leadership in initiating and supportingtechnological literacy programs, in addition to coursewaredevelopment.

100

RECOMMENMISMS FROM THE BREAEDUT SESSIONS

Specific recommendations were made by each of the breakoutsessicm groups, relevant to their assigmed discussion topics.Common elements from these sets of recommendations have beenincluded in the previous Major Findims section. Full reportsfrom the breakout sessions are contained in the Appendix.

Curripulum Dcvelopmeult

A technological literacy curriculum requirement forliberal arts students should, at a minimum, serve aparallel function to the ABET requirement of HUmanitiesand Social Sciences for engineering students.

In any technological literacy curriculum, communicationof process should be given more importance than anyparticular contmt.

More 100 level courses are needed on technologicalliteracy.

Courseware available

Course content for technological literacy should includeexposure that will help develop student pleasure inengineering along with some ability to solve simplifiedengineering problems and to think critically aboutengineering objects and systems.

Case studies should includc numerical calculations,social contexts and aesthetic, ethical, or symbolicmeanings.

The engineering-oriented teaching materials so farpublished in the New Liberal Arts Program are anessential starting point for any planning of new coursematerials that wishes to focus on technological literacy.

attraction Qf gtudens

Technological literacy should not be part of thetraditional "turf battle" over too much materialconcentrated into too little time. Instead,technological literacy can become a "binding force" thathelps to unify the entire curriculum.

Teaching technological literacy in the classroom can beenhanced by a practical, emphasis on "the way thingswork," particularly for the non-science and non-engineering student.

101

There is an urgent need for data on why students findsome courses and subjects more attractive and others lessso. An outcomes assessment is essential to identify howsuccessful we are in creating technological literacy inthe classroom.

Faculty Issues/Loaistics

For colleges with an engineering unit, it is necessarythat the engineering faculty be involved with thedevelopment of and the teaching of technological literacycourses to have a successful technological literacyprogram.

Predicted decline in engineering enrollments in the mid1990's may be a favorable environment for offeringtechnological literacy courses to satisfy facultyteaching load.

Experienced senior faculty members with establishedresearch careers are good candidates for offeringtechnological literacy courses. Selected retiredindustrial engineers could also become involved. Becauseof career problems, young faculty members should not beasked to be involved in the technological literacymovement.

The Sloan Foundation's NLA Program materials can be usedas text material for technological literacy courses.Reports from the Office of Technology Assessment and theNational Academy of Engineering can also be used.

Courseware Needed

Technological literacy =curses using case studies need tobe team taught.

Case studies should include positive as well as negativeaspects of technology. Proper balance is needed toconvey the complexities of technological development.

Film and video presentations are more useful thanclassroom-oriented materials in presenting the scope andcomplexity of engineering, especially to out-of-schooladults.

Colsortium Approach

Recommendations for mechanisms both for promotingtechnological literacy and for actually incorporating itinto the curriculum include a common core curriculum

102

requirement, "top down" CEO approadh, state and regionalconsortia, and press coverage and public outreach.

The year 1993 ahould be declared as the year ofTechnological Literacy, and it should be a major themefor all professional society annual meetings.

ABET, WSPE, and other appropriate engineering societiesshould promote technological literacy as a worthwhileactivity by 1) encouraging engineering deans to havefaculty develop and offer appropriate technologicalliteracy courses and 2) working to make tedhnologicalliteracy a general education requirement for allundergraduate programs.

Funding Directions

Any proposal for funding needs to be fairly sharplyfocused and should have support from the highest levelswithin the university.

The leadership of engineering colleges is crucial in anyproject emerging from the Workshop, and there should besome means of demonstrating the serious commitment ofcolleges and universities to its aims.

To maintain momentum and keep the interest of the manyconstituencies represented in the Workshop, it would bewell to plan for continued consortial activitiesincluding development of a resource center for thegathering and dissemination of relevant information.Periodic meetings, workshops, and conferences to help thenetwork of interested and informed participants growwould also likely be part of such .ong-term arrangements.

Engineering colleges in a few major universities shouldjoin with other colleges in their campuses to develop acampus-wide technological literacy program for students.This should be a major short-term project.

Stimula_ton of Programs

Additional programs in technological literacy Ars needed,but it is not clear that every undergraduate should beexposed.

National level efforts are needed to stimulate theinitiation and growth of technological literacy programs(e.g. specialty conferences, journal and news articles,sessions at appropriate society meetings, televisionprograms, etc.).

103

97

Technical and liberal arts faculty must be encouraged towork together on technological literacy programs, withspecific mechanisms such as faculty development fundingutilized as motivation.

Special incentives are needed to encourage faculty andstudents to become involved in technological literacyprograms (e.g. core curriculum requirements).

Support of college and university CRO's should beenlisted, to stimulate technological literacy programs ontheir campuses.

104

9S

All of the above findings lead to two major conclusions,which ware presented at the end of the Workahop. In order tocoordinate the currently fragmented efforts of individuals andvarious institutions involved in technological literacy, we needa technological literacy center with national visibility to serveas a clearing house for technological literacy information andmaterials, building upon the base already developed.FUrthermore, a demonstration project to initiate the growth ofnew programs at liberal arts colleges with engineering sdhools ontheir campuses, by utilizing experts from current programs asconsultants, and providing necessary start-up funding is needed.

It is suggested a national technological literacy centermight be developed at the headquarters of the Accreditation Boardfor Engineering and Technology (ABET) in New York City.Activities of such a center, funded by grants and contracts,might include the following:

Information clearing house (database on programs, people,books, courseware, etc.)

Newsletter

Umbrella proposal generation and funding for projects,such as:

- Courseware/curriculum development,- Faculty development,- Conferences/workshops.

Promotion of technological literacy efforts andactivities, such as:

General education component on college campuses,Teacher preparation for pre-college positions,Programs for K-12 education,Generation of support for technological literacyefforts among several key constituencies,including government, industry, education, andprivate foundations.

As a major next step beyond the 1991 Workshop, it Is furthersuggested that significant funding be sought for a TechnologicalLiteracy Demonstration Project. Such a project would be aimed atthe stimulation of new technological literacy programs at severalcolleges and universities, perhaps ten, with umbrella grantfunding provided as an incentive. The grant funding wouldsupport campus based efforts at faculty development and

105

9 9

course/curriculum development, and would provide oonsultants framcurrently successful programs to guide each campus effort.Activities of this project would include:

Stimulate interest in development of technologicalliteracy programs at colleges/universities,

Conduct competition to select demonstration programinstitutions (approximately 10),

Obtain consultants to work with selected schools,

Conduct workshops

bidders conferenceselected institutionsprogress reportsfinal results report to broad audience (at end of3 years).

Manage the grant

- interface to schoolsinterface to sponsor

The final workshop at the end of the three year demonstrationproject would be aimed at attracting many more schools intotechnological literacy efforts.

Outline proposals for these two follow-up projects arecontained in the Appendix of this proceedings volume. Thesponsors and leaders of the Technological Literacy Workshop arepursuing these directions.

106

11 0

r

APPENDIX

107

19 1

Madamacatagatatil400 p.m.

5:00 p.m.

TECHNOLOGICAL Linutacr WORKSHOP

6-8 May 1991Georgetown University Conference Center

Washington, DC

Registration, check-in

Introduction to Technological Literacy Project, Charge to Workshop(Russel Jones)

Greetings from sponsor=ABET - Leslie DenmarkAAC - Paula BrownleeNSF - Wilbur Meier

5:30 p.m. Review of past efforts in technologkal literacy(Rustum Roy and Barrett Hazeltine)

6:30 p.m. Reception

7:30 p.m. Buffet dinner/ open discussion

Tuesday. May 7

7:30 a.m. Continental breakfast

8:30 a.m. Review of ongoing efforts in technological literacy(John Truzal

9:30 a.m. Generation of issues to be addressed(Joseph Johnston and Russel Jones)

10:30 a.m. Coffee break

10:45 a.m. Breakout sessions on specific issuesCurriculum - Carl MitchwnCouneware available - David BillingtonAttraction of students - John OpieFaculty issues/logistics - Marian Visich

12:00 noon Buffet lunch/break

1:15 p.m. Plenary session, reports back from Breakout sessions(Russel Jones)

2:15 p.m. Views from the Liberal Arts College(Thomas Wasow)

3:15 p.m. Break

Ditsfigav. May 7 famthwed

330 p.m. Views from the Engineering College(Curtis Tompkins)

4:30 p.m. Engineering and the Liberal Arts(David P. Billington)

6:30 p.m. Reception

7:30 p.m. Banquet

&30 p.m. Speaker on broader issues in Science. Technology, and Society -(George Bugliarello)

Wedffesday. Mav 8

7:30 a.m. Continental breakfast

8:30 a.m. Development of agenda for what needs to be done in technological literacy -(David Reyes-Guerra)

9:30 a.m. Breakout sessions on specific elements of agendaCourseware needed - Paul DurbinConsortium approach - Stephen CutcliffeFunding directions - Samuel GoldbergStimulation of programs - Bethany Oberst

10:30 a.m.

10:45 a.m.

Coffee break

Plenary session, reports b from Breakout sessions(Wilbur Meier)

1200 noon Buffett lunch/break

1:30 p.m. Final plenary session: De% elopment of Plan for Next Steps in TechnologicalLiteracy Project - (Russel' Jones

3:30 p.m. Workshop adjourns

110

1

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTSMay 6-8,1991

Denmark, Leslie F., PresidentAccreditatka Board for Engineering

and Technoksgyc/o E. L da Pont de Nensoun & Co.2141 Hickory Run, CRPBox 80723Wilmington, DE 19880-0723302/999-4919

Ellington, Ihsvq1 P.Department of ayii EngineeringOperations ResearchSchool of Engineering/Applied SciencePrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 085446091258-4613

Brownlee, Paula, PresidentAssociation of American Colleges1818 R Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20009202/387-3760

Bugliarello, George, PresidentPolytechnic University333 Jay StreetBrooklyn, NY 11201718/260-3500

Cherno, MelvinVaughan Prof. of HumanitiesUniversity of Virginia223-A Thornton HallCharlottesville, VA 22903804/924-6093

Cutcliffe, Stephen H., DirectorScience, Technology & Society Program327 Maginues Hall #9Lehigh UniversityBethlehem, PA 18015215/758-3350

DeLoatch, Eugene, DeanSchool of EngineeringMorgan State UniversityCold Spring & Hines RoadCarter Grant Wilson BuildingRoom 318Baltimore, MD 21239301/444-3231

111

Devon, Richard F.Associate Program ManagesNational Space Grant College

and Fellowship ProgramNational Aeronautics and

Splice AdministradonUniversity Programs BranchNASA Headquarters Code X1UWashington, D.C. 20546202/453-8344

Durbin, Paul T., ProfessorPhilosophy DepartmentUniversity of DelawareRoom 303 Philosophy BuildingNewark, DE 19716302/451-8208

Dustin, Jack, Research AssociateUrban and Public AffairsWright State University062 Rike HallDayton, OH 45435-0001513/873-2382

Fallon, Daniel, DeanLiberal Arts CollegeTexas A & M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-1246409/845-5141

Fein', Lyle, D., DeanCollege of EngineeringSUNY at BinghamtonVestal ParkwayBox 6000Binghamton, NY 13902-6000607/777-2871

Glanniny, 0. Allan, Jr.Professor of HumanitiesSchool of Engineering & Applied SciencesUniversity of VirginiaA218 Thoroton HailCharlottesville, VA 22903804/924-6115

Goldberg, Samuel, Program OfficerAlfred P. Sloan Foundation630 Fifth AvenueSuite 2550New York, NY 10011216/774-8081

4

Gorenstela, Shirley, Professor/ChairDept. of Science & Technology Studies

School of Humanities & Social SciencesRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

5508 Sage LabTroy, NY 12180-3590518/276-6574

Hazeltine, Barrett, Associate Dean

CiALsge of EngineeringBrown University182 Hope StreetProvidence, RI 02912401/863-2673

Herkect, JosephAsst. Professor of Civil Engineering

Lafayette CollegeEaston, PA 18042215/250-5427

Hickman, CharlesDirector of Projects & ServicesAmerican Assembly of Collegiate

Schools of Business605 Old Balla: Road, Suite 220St. Louis, MO 63141314/872-8481

Hutchinson, Charles: E., DeanThayer School of EngineeringDartmouth CollegeHanover, NH 03755603/646-2238

Jensen, J. Charles, DeanCollege of EngineeringClemson University109 Riggs HailClemson, SC 29634-0901803/656-3202

Johnston, JosephVice President for ProgramsAssociation of American Colleges11118 R Street, NAV.Washington, D.C. 20009202/387-3760

Jones, Russel C.University Research ProfessorUniversity of Delaware205 McDowell HallNewark, DE 29716302/451-6074

Kline, Stephen Jay, ProfessorDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringRoom 50014 Bnikling 500Stanford UniversityStanford, CA 94305-3030415/723-2176

Kulacki, Francis, DeanCollege of EngineeringColorado State University111 Engineering BungFort Collins, CO 80523303/491-6603

Kumar, Thulasi, Research AssociateUniversity of Delaware260 Elkton Road, D-7Newark, DE 19711302/454-7422

Liebman, Judith S.Vice Chancellor for Research and

Dean of the Graduate CollegeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign601 East John Street420 Swaniund Administration BuildingChampaign, It 61820217/333-0034

McGee, Henry, DirectorChemical and Thermal Sciences DivisionNational Science Foundation1800 G Street, N.W., Room 1228Washington, D.C. 20550202/357-9606

McGinnis Hay, CarolDean of Humanities & Social SciencesUniversity of South Carolina-ColumbiaColumbia, SC 29208803/777-7161

Meier, Wilbur L., DeanCollege of Engineering

North Carolina State UniversityBox 7901Raleigh, NC 27695-7901919/513-2311

Mitcham, Carl, Interim DirectorsTs programThe Pennsylvania State University133 Willard Building

University Park, PA 16802-2800814/865-9951

112 ic5

Morpn John Dera Id, DeanCollege a EntwiningNew Mexico State UnivesityP. O. Box 30001 - Dept. 3449Las Cmces, NM 88003505/5264758

Motet, Bethany S.VW President for Academic AffairsJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburg, VA 22807703/568-6616

Opie, John, DirectorSelma, Technologr& Society ProgramCenter for Technology StudiesNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyUniversity HeightsRoom 501MNewark, NJ 07102201/596-3270

Rathbone, Donald E., DeanCollege of EngineeringKansas State University146 Duriand HailManhattan, KS 66506913/532-5590

Reyes-Guerra, David R., DirectorAccredtadon Beard for Engineering

and Technology345 East 47th StreetNew York, NY 10017-2397212/705-7176

Roy, Rusturn, DirectorScience, Technology & Society ProgramEvan Pugh Professor133 Willard BuildingPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802814/865-3041

Saul, William E.Professor and ChairpersonMichigan State UniversityDept. of avu and

Environmental EngineeringA349 Engineering BuildingEast Lansing, MI 48824-1226517/355-5107

Scholz, Charles B., Research AssociateUniversity of Delaware56 Welsh Tract Road, e212Newark, DE 19713302/456-9891

Tossitkins, Curtis j., PresidentMichigan Technological Univasity1400 Townsend DriveHoughton, MI 49931-1295906/487-2267

Traxal, John G.Distingalehed Teaching ProfessorDepartment cd' Techsokogy and SodityCollege of Engineering & Applied SciencesSUNY at Stony BrookSkony Brook, NY 11794-2250516/632-8760

Vieth Hermann, DeanCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Rhode IslandBliss HailKingston, RI 02881-0805401/792-2186

Visich, Marian Associate DeanColleP a Engineering & Applitd SciencesDepartment of Technology & SocietySUNY at Stony lkookStony Brook, NY 11794-2200516/632-8380

Walker, M. Lucius, DeanScimol of EngineeringHoward University231* 6th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20059202/806-6565

Wasow, Thomas A., DeanUndergraduate StudiesStanford UninnityBuilding OneStanford, CA 94305-2070415/723-9786

GREETINGS FROM SPONSORS

115

107

Leslie BenmarkAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

ABET is pleased to be a co-sponsor of the TechnologicalLiteracy Workshop along with the Association of American Collegesand the National Science Foundation. Technological literacy intoday's society is a must. A vast majority of the criticaldecisions which affect each person's daily life is based on someform of technology.

Etsvinaming attiria .airriautuss

Dewlap WSW Wei MOMto the psalm

anglinodeg lapaptamdellal mem&

Ow yaw osaammadaabasis mimosa

Otaw yew Ingiossaing saiamma

Oaupdadt yaw aogiamisgdemo

Oviphie veer tfinamnidas andsdal anianciaaa

For many years, ABET has maintained a curricula requirementin the engineering criteria of one-half year of humanities andsocial sciences. The exponential growth of needed technicalsubject matter to cover the requirements of entry into theengineering profession has not diminished ABET'S emphasis inhumanities and social sciences.

ABET is not only conscious of the need for technicallyeducated persons to be whole persons with a broad educationbeyond technical subjects but is also keenly aware of the needfor technological literacy for all persons.

117

1 C

The first key recommendation of the Council onCompetitiveness, a private, non-profit, non-partisan organizationof chief executives from business, higher education, andorganized labor, was

In order to enhance united Statescompetitiveness, the President should actimmediately to make technological leadershipa national priority.

A crucial component of this technological leadership is thebroadening of the education of all students by creating a betterunderstanding of technological subjects.

118

112

Following the 1989 Education Summit, the President arGovernors established six national goals for improving edu....cionin the United States. Perhaps no goal is more critical toAmerica's future in international competitiveness than Goal #4.

By the year 2000, United States students willbe first in the world in science andmathematics achievement.

Elk

a

Achieving this goal during the next decade is no minor task.A recent education study examined the mathematics and scienceskills of thirteen year old students in thirteen industrializednations. The United States students ranked ninth in physics,eleventh in calculus and chemistry, twelfth in geometry andalgebra and last in biology.

Building on this significant strengthening of mathematicsand science in the early grades, technological literacy for allstudents during their post-secondary education would help toincrease their recognition of competitiveness issues and improvethe position of the United States as we compete on a globalbasis.

The Technological Literacy Workshop can make a significantstep toward making the United States "first in the world inscience and mathematics achievement." ABET is pleased to be partof this endeavor and look forward to the results achieved byleveraging the efforts of engineering and liberal arts collegeson various campuses so that movement toward the goal of atechnologically literate public can be achieved.

119

WEILCOMiNG REMARKS

Paula P. BrownleeAssociation of American Colleges

It is such a pleasure to bring you greetings from AAC, ourassociation whose 630 members take pride in commitment to liberallearning in all its manifestations--and they are myriad.

At AAC we are in the midst of a study concerning theundergraduate major in conjunction with twelve learned societies;these include mathematics, physics, and biology. Interestingly,the very nature of the major has not really been researched andpondered, and at AAC we find ourselves in the midst of afascinating discussion. The importance of study-in-depth andsequential learning in certain majors is of groat significance.Other majors are showing us that there is another aspect oflearningthat of connectedness, to other disciplines and othermethodologies, that should be intentionally developed also.

I am reminded, as I speak, of a lovely mobile sculpture thatwe have in our home, the result of two persons' work--an artistand a physicist. Entitled "TUmbleweed," it is made up of anintricate series of cogs, wheels, and pulleysbeautifullycrafted in wood. It is both kinesthetically and aestheticallylovely. In it, two ways of thinking and creating are combined tocome up with something quite new. Each artist alone simply couldnot have produced this imaginative creation.

At Union College, where I arrived in 1976 as Dean of Faculty(and engineering), I was delighted to work directly with ourEngineering Division to design a new curriculum, incorporating atechnology course requirement for All students. I believe,still, that the conversation of students from all majors, witheach other and with their faculty, is a vital part of theireducation. In combination of the perspectives that the separatedisciplines confer on us can come new understandings and newknowledge.

This is a large part of the mission of AAC--to further andto develop strong liberal learning on our campuses. Thecentrality of technology and the work of engineers in ourcontemporary society, and in fact in history, compels us toaddress the issues this workshop raises. Even with amovercrowded undergraduate curriculum, we must be sure thatstudents engage in the kind of interdisciplinary study thatincludes technological literacy education. This particularconnectedness is essential to a truly liberal education.

I will end with an anecdote of something that happened to meyesterday. I do it to illustrate just how narrowly educated we

120

111

perceive each other to bei I was giving a commencement addressin which I quoted some lines of poetry. After the address atrustee of the college expressed amazement that "a chemist wouldactually dare to quota some poetry." It seems to me that thereinlies the challenge: to educate our students in many fields ofendeavor, and certainly including technology. Thus endowed, theymay become wise and creative professionals and citizens of oursociety.

121

112

WELCOMING RENAME

Wilbur L. MeierNational Science Foundation

It is indeed a pleasure to be here and to have anopportunity to welcome you to this meeting. It is also quite achallenge to be third welcomer in a session sandwiched betweenthe organizer of the conference and two pre-billed scintillatingspeakers. One immediately knows, from the organizer's comments,that the welcomers are the minor speakers because he talked aboutthe major speakers, and one also knows that these are the non-scintillating speakers because he also talked about thescintillating speakers who are to come later. It is, in fact, achallenge to welcome you to a meeting like this. But, undauntedI will plunge on and welcome you nonetheless.

We are, in fact, pleased to have an opportunity in theNational Science Foundation to be a supporter of this workshop,and it is, in fact, supported by both the Engineering Directorateand the Directorate for Education and Human Resources.

When we think about the topic of literacy, to begin with, Ithink we have all been saddened to see the sad state of literacyin this country in the broad sense. Twenty to thirty percent ofour people are functionally illiterate and, in fact, this is oneof the more serious issues that American industry faces in ternsof fielding their team in trying to be competitive.

But even more serious than that, I believe, is that when onelooks at the general population one finds the great majority ofour citizens to be illiterate technically. When one looks at thelongitudinal studies that the Department of Education has done,and looks at the champagne glass curve that describes educationstarting with sophomores in higt school and seeing those whofinally get degrees in either science or engineering, one isconcerned even more about the part of the curve that is outsidethose fields. For the most part, that group is technologicallyilliterate.

That issue is what this conference is to address. That isthe critical issue, and in fact, is the second major issue thatU.S. industry must deal with in trying to be competitive in thisworld. So this is a critically important workshop. It is onethe National Science Foundation is delighted to support, and I amdelighted to welcome you here.

122

113

BREAKOUT SESSION REPORTS

123

114

Joseph S. JohnstonAssociation of American Colleges

Like a number of others in the room, I am here as a learner,both persona4y and professionally. Personally, I cannot haveother pretensions. The first article I picked out from thebackground reading was Rustum Roy's. I found there two words Ihad never seen before--"fissiparous" and "negencentric." Thesewere not part of my supposedly liberal education.Professionally, I represent the Association of American Collegeswhich has worked closely and well with ABET in the past. We arein a sense friendly listeners to this conversation antechnological literacy, and we are weighing whether we ehouldjoin in any project the conversation might produce. A majornational project to promote technological literacy? Clearly, aworthy goal. But on what terms, and to What ends? Driven bywhat educational philosophy? God, as they say, is in thedetails.

Since I have questions like these, it is appropriate, Isuppose, that Russel Jones has asked me to help him set out someof the issues that would be raised by any technological literacyinitiative. Russel and I have talked, and he has grouped some ofthe likely questions into four categories under the headings"curriculum," "courseware," "faculty issues/logistics," and"attraction of students." What I will try to do here is brieflycomment on a number of the questions that fall within eachcategory.

gurrwthava

- What is technological literacy?

- what are appropriate objectives for technologicalliteracy programs? What measures should be used toevaluate them against such objectives?

- What are the essential curricular elements of anappropriate technological literacy program on a givencampus?

- How does the study of technological literacy differ fromstudy of engineering?

- What claim does it have to be a part of generaleducation?

- How do we ensure that the study of technology advances toliberal education?

125

1 15

- How do we integrate technological literacy offerings intoundergraduate liberal arts programs?

- What have previous efforts accomplished? What have welearned from them?

The first of these questions are definitional. What istechnoloaical literacy? There is more to this innocent questionthan an outsider might think. There are a number of perspectiveson that question represented in this room. The three questionsthat follow remind us that at least three different kinds ofdefinitions are possible. The first of these asks about thepurposes of technological literacy programs. The second asksabout the essence of the thing--the essential curricularelements. Are there cora methods and concepts? To pose aquestion much heard in teacher education these days, is there a"knowledge baps" that is distinctive? The third of thesequestions tries to define technological literacy bydistinguishing it from engineering. How does what we mean bytechnological literacy differ from the intended product of studywithin Science, Technology and Society programs, or New LiberalArts programs.

If these are questions that disinterested faculty andadministrators can be expected to ask of any initiative tointroduce technological literacy into the curriculum so too, isthe next question: what claim does technological literacy haveto be part of a general education? Is this thing, too, reallyessential, one can hear them asking? General education isalready crowded, and there are many claimants to more time andattention within it. There are, of course, many who are urging agreater attention on the part of all students to values and tointernational and multi-cultural concerns and to mathematics andscience. The accrediting agencies, engineering among them,continue to limit the amount of tine available to generalstudies. John Truxal is certainly correct in pointing out in theconclusion of his article, "Technology in the NLA," that "toaddress the issues which technology raises is a step which isonly possible if we learn the basic concepts, capabilities andlimitations of that technology." Rustum Roy is also right whenhe refers to the lack of technological literacy studies in thecurriculum as "mind-boggling." But it is similarly strange tomany that we do not have other professional areas representedthere, as well. Some would say that business and economicsshould, at some level, be a part of everyone's collegeexperience. Others would even argue that all should have someexposure to the study of education. After all, they point out,everyone at the university is involved in the enterprise ofeducation, and all should be more self-conscious about it.Virtually everyone who graduates will go on, if not to furtherstudy, to life as a school-supporting taxpayer. Most will, as

3.2.6

116

mothers and fathers, have children in the schools. Most will, asvoters, elect those who will make policy about public education.

The next question seems to be a critical one. How do weensure that the study of technology advances liberal education?A liberal education is defined less by the subjects that arestudied than by the spirit of the inquirythe kinds of questionswe ask. There is no reason why the study of technology cannotprovide an appropriate, a very rich and strong liberal education.However, like the dry, specialized history course that is taughtilliberally, the technological literacy course can fail toadvance liberal education.

The question of how one would integrate technologicalliteracy offerings into an undergraduate liberal arts program isnot an easy one either. It is a substantive as well as astrategic question. How does the study of technology relate toother fields? I am reminded of the old definition of a scholarlycenter on a university campus as an entity that is by definitionon the periphery. How can we integrate technological literacy sothat it is not peripheral? my sense is that we are approaching apoint where those students and faculty who might have beenpredicted to be interested in technological literacy have been,and that substantial progress from here--the claiming of a placein the center, versus on the periphery--may be difficult toachieve. Are we at a kind of natural limit?

I might at this point have introduced an additionalquestion: Where should technological literacy be introduced intothe curriculum? Should it be general education, and if sorequired general education? Should it be an elective sequence?Is it a major? Should it take any of the above formsperhapsseveral on the same campus--depending on local circumstances?

The final question in this first set, asking what previousefforts have accomplished and what we have learned from them, istimely. I think I have reached professional middle age--thatpoint at which one begins to see a fair amount of repetition. Irecently say that in 1982 a report on technological literacyurging the importance of technological literacy emerged from awingspread conference held under the auspices of . . . theAssociation of American Colleges. We need to do better. We needto capture what we know. We need to keep it alive. MA need tomake sure that we learn from what we have already been able todiscover. There are many fine programs whose experience can beshared. Of course we need imagination. We need :rash thinking.But we need not re-invent the wheel.

Courseware Available

- What institutions now have courses and/or programs thatmight be considered models?

127

117

What materials are avail:mole to provide background tofaculty ambers starting to work in this area?

What materials are currently available for use in coursesand laboratories in this area?

The name of this category provides proof-positive thatRussel Jones proper* these slides. "Courseware" is not a termthat has nuch currency within the arts and sciences. A few therewould even consider it a barbarian. The term itself is an .

example of the little discontinuities that would need to benegotiated to get an impartial hearing for technological literacyamong many liberal arts faculty.

The bibliographical work that Russ and his colleagues havedone in preparation for this conference should be a big help inanswering all throe of these questions. We all need to bear inmind, however, that we cannot simply give people their materialsand wait for ignition. If substantial numbers of faculty andinstitutions are to embrace technological literacy as a centralsubject, it will be as the result of a comprehensive effort inwhich "courseware" is only one element.

laculty punwilioaistica

How do we stimulate collaboration between liberal artsand engineering units on a given campus re: technologicalliteracy offerings?

How do we stimulate/reward faculty participation in thetechnological literacy area. How do we prepare facultymembers or teams to work effectively in this area?

How are logistics best handled: organizationalstructure, faculty appointments, funding...?

How do we assure availability of appropriate books, casestudies, and other courseware?

How can necessary funding be obtained for suchtechnological literacy programs?

A few years back AAc published a report entitled Integrityin the College Curriculum. It pointed out how few incentivesfaculty have to work outside their specialties especially asteachers. It contained the memorable observation that thefaculty speak of teaching "loads" and research "opportunities."It is against the background of this reality that we need toconsider the first two questions here, having to do withstimulating collaboration around the teaching of technologicalliteracy. my colleague Alan Gianniny is right in pointing outthat the success of AAC's and ABET's joint efforts to improve the

128

1 1

humanities and social sciences component of engineering educationhas had everything to do with "firm encouragement"--to use Alan'snice phrase. ABET promoted these efforts by glowering over AAC'sshoulder in a way that was visible to the engineering deans. Isit possible to stimulate cooperation between liberal arts andengineering units without this kind of help? Certainly a clearconclusion of our jointly sponsored mus that much of thebest engineering-liberal arts collabigergon is in thosehumanities and social sciences departmmmts that are "captive:In--that is to say, that are contained within technologicalinstitutes, unlike say, French and philosophy and politicalscience department; in multi-purpose universities. Thesedepartments do their work within an over-erching institutionalmission and structure of authority that ensures theirconsciousness of and attention to the needs of engineeringstudents. Technological literacy prvogmams, however, need tooperate outside of technological institutes--mhere one might notbe sanguine with the possibility of lasting progress on a purelyvoluntary basis. Since unfortunately AAC has no power comparableto ABET's cooperation will be in large part left up to the goodwill of educational priorities of faculty and administrators inliberal arts.

These facts give some appeal to a strategy (to use a phrasefrom another of the background papers) of "infiltration." TOrefer again to the AAC/ABET study, we found the best examples ofinnovative, imaginative, and effective programming in thehumanities and the social sciences for engineers in two kinds ofsettings. I have already mentioned one--the technologicalinstitute. The other kind of setting was that in which someindividual faculty member had taken it as his or her personalresponsibility, and sometimes life's work, to create this kind ofprogram. It was not clear in these latter cases that there was abroad institutional base of support for what was done, thoughtypically enrollments were high, as was student enthusiasm. Itwas not clear that the particular offerings would outlive thefaculty members. Nonetheless, for a period of time great thingscan be achieved by the eccentric faculty member who decides toaccomplish something. It may be that continuing to encouragethose who have an interest and expertise in technologicalliteracy to take it, missionary-like, to those who could profitfrom it is and will remain one of our best strategies. Those whodo this "infiltrating" need to remember the words of the TammanyHall ward heeler, George Washington Plunkett: "I seen myopportunities and I took 'am."

The other questions here deal with logistics and funding.With respect to the first, we really need to take a hard look atwhat is effective and what is not. Team teaching comes to mind,for instance, but so does Harland Cleveland's definition of it as"that favorite academic device for avoiding interdisciplinarythought." How can we really ensure that the arrangements by

129

119

which it operates not only enable a prograi to be offered but tobe educationally effective for the students in it.

The great lesson, I gather, of some previous SloanFoundation efforts and certainly of the Ford MAT program has beenthat change can be rented, but it can not be bought. It is oftenextremely difficult, that is, to sustain the changes that fundingmakes possible once that funding disappears. So the questionasked here about funding really needs to be expanded: how, weshould ask, can these programs be funded and institutionalized?

Attzactigkstf ftudents

- How to reach out to selected groups of students (e.g.those preparing to be pre-college teachers).

- How can students be attracted to such progrars? Whattarget populations should be pursued.

- What preparation should students have? How t7.ri we ensurethat they have it?

We have heard this morning from John Truxal abwit theinfectious enthusiasm of students who were well taugnt abouttechnological literacy. John is a gifted teacher. Eut I getmixed reports on the general quality of teaching in engineeringschools, as indeed in business and liberal arts programs. Theinterest of the subject is never enough to ensure the interest ofthe course. And indeed, in talking about technological literacyfor liberal arts students, it is important to remember a set ofissues that have been receiving more and more attention latelyhaving to do with the intellectual accessibility of certain kindsof subject matter for certain kinds of students. We are gettingmore sophisticated now about the contextual relativity of goodteaching. What is very effective instruction for engineeringstudents may not be for certain humanities or social sciencesstudents, and vice versa. Some of the most interesting work onthis issue has been done recently by Sheila Tobias, author of aseries of studies on math anxiety, peer observations on teaching,and most recently a book entitled, malmajult_pumb.,_TftalraDifferent.

The issue is raised of reaching out to particular groups ofstudents. Doing so successfully may depend to a great deal onreaching out to their faculty, who in turn advise those studentsand decide their program requirements and recommend cognatecourses to their majors. The particular instance of pre-collegeteachers is given, and I think wisely. John Truxal has referredto triage by ability level as one principle of selection fortechnological literacy students. Another might be leverage.What groups of undergraduates would we choose to target fortechnological literacy education if we wanted to ensure that

130

1211

through them technological literacy would reach the largestnumber of others? Surely by the measure of levarme pre-collegeteachers would be our choice. They will go into the schools, andwhat they know or do not know about technology will have animpact on what their students learn or do not learn about it.

One final observation on the question of how students can beattracted to such programs. I am not sure we have done as muchas we can to articulate the usefulness of technological literacyto a variety of careers. Today's students are motivated bycareer concerns, and subject matter that is congruent with theircareer needs can engage them. At the same time we should beresponsible in making the case for technological literacy. It ismuch more than an asset in one's career. It is an essential partof a broad foundation for informed citizenship in a rapidlychanging world.

In his piece on the "New Liberal Arts" John Truxal suggeststhe engineers' central function is to break a complex probleminto a large number of simple problems. My fear this morning isthat we have only managed to break a complex problem into a largenumber of complex problems. But Russel Jones and I do hope thatthis parsing of some of the issues that we face, and the briefcomments that we have offered here on them, will be helpful insetting up the sub-group discussions that follow.

131

121

CURRICULUM DEVELOMMT

Carl MitchamPennsylvania State University

The curriculum discussion group began by noticing that theissue of technological literacy was a design problem. As withmany design problems, it is easier to recognize failure thansuccess. Technological illiteracy is more easily described thantechnological literacy.

Technology is also easier to define than technologicalliteracy. Technology, according to one participant, includeshardware or artifacts, socio-technical systems of manufacture,skills/processes/procedures for accomplishing tasks, and socio-technical systems of use. Another participant immediately notedhow the acronym STS can stand for socio-technical systems, andthat in this sense clearly technological literacy is part of STS.

As part of a preliminary attempt to define the objectives oftechnological literacy curricula, it was pointed out thatengineers are required to take more humanities and socialsciences courses than humanities and social science students arerequired to take engineering courses. A technological literacycurriculum requirement for liberal arts students should, at aminimum, serve a parallel function to the ABET requirement forengineering students. One of the objectives of anytechnological literacy curriculum would thus be to increaseintelligence and understanding of engineering among non-engineering students.

In subsequent discussion a question was raised about therelation between technological literacy and engineering literacy.Are they the same or different? There was animated discussion onthis issue with some people arguing the importance ofunderstanding technology in a broad sense that includes but isnot limited to engineering, while others argued the importance ofnot diluting the thrust of technological literacy by includingtoo much.

In the discussion group itself there was an implicitassumption that technological literacy was equivalent toengineering literacy about engineering. One participant, forinstance, pointed out the importance of visual thinking inengineering; another suggested problem solving as equallycentral. Any technological literacy curriculum ahouldcommunicate an appreciation of both to liberal arts students.There was also a general consensus that the communication of=mem was more important in any technological literacycurriculum than any particular content. At the same time,process cannot be presented separate from content.

132

122

Following some disparaging comments about 100-level courses,one liberal arts dean ventured the opinion that he would love tosee a few good 100-level courses on technological literacy. Thisshould not be the end of a technological literacy curriculumacurricmlum includes more than one coursebut it would be a goodand necessary beginning.

There was also animated discussion about whethertechnological literacy courses require as prerequisites a certaindegree of scientific and mathematical literacy. Some members ofthe group felt strongly that scientific and mathematical literacycould themselves be taught by means of technological literacycourses.

Returning to the issue of a technological literacycurriculum itself, the group distinguished VITO levels ofcurriculum analysis. Level one emphasizes the importance of bothcontent and process or method. This content and process can becommunicated Ipdirectiv in courses about teChnology, but moreeffectively and directly by courses in which students actually 42technology, (meaning engineering problem solving and design).Courses about technology are typically entitled "The History atTechnology" or the "Sociology Q. Technology," whereas courses inwhich students sig technology are typically entitled "Problems oftransportation/communication/etc." As part of this first levelof analysis, it was also noted that for students technologicalliteracy can be a means to science and mathematical literacy.For faculty, especially engineering faculty, technologicalliteracy can be a means by whidh they contribute to generaleducation.

At a second level of curriculum analysis, the question wasraised about Wm technological literacy should be promoted.There are two answers. First, it is useful to society, and canhelp students to get jobs. Second, it is personally usefUl,because it provides understanding and knowledge. Technologicalliteracy contributes to a general or liberal education.

It was also argued in relation to this second level ofanalysis that the faculty in any institution of higher learningshould come together to reflect on the nature and meaning oftechnological literacy. Such reflection ahould beinterdisciplinary in character. For instance, it would be varyuseful for each department in the university to present what thefaculty of that department thinks are the core concepts or ideaswhich all students should know if they are to be well educatedgenerally. Each discipline should identify what part of itselfshould be included in a core, interdisciplinary, generaleducation.

It is also necessary for a truly liberal education formembers of all disciplines to reflect upon the strengths and

133

123

weaknesses of disciplinarity itself. In relation totechnological literacy, it is crucial for faculty and students atthe senior level to become aware of the frameworks that anginas=and scientists use in thinking about problems and the world. Itis necessary, argued one member of the group, to recognize theneed for nulti-disciplinarity to deal with truly complex problemsand complex systems. It is also necessary to recognize that anyproposition is true only within some linited domain or system.It is reflection on such issues that makes interdisciplinarydiscourse possible, and this should be the capt.tmne oftechnological literacy.

A summary of these two levels of analysis is provided in thefollowing diagram.

17,4

124

Faculty reflection on Afivan admit". oflidinterdisciplinary/multidisciplinary reflection:

Gen. Ed. core if each discipline It coreknowledge about disciplinarity itself.

Why? usefulto technology (job) aud to self (liberal educ)

Students ---

can be meansto science6 math

About technology

history of ...

sociology of ...

TECH - LIT

CONTENT PROCESS/METHOD

135

25

Faculty ---can be meansto contributeto General Education

Doing technology

problems of ...

COURSEWARE AVAILABLX

David P. BillingtonPrinceton University

This session dealt with general views on course content, onthe forms of teaching materials, and on the results obtained sofar. The people attending were Benmark, Billington, Devon,Durbin, Dustin, Frair, Granning, Hutchinson, Liebman, Morgan,Tompkins. Some of the major issues discussed ware:

ien__Immsn__se_ftntinteraLV Cour

First, how do engineers think or what is the design prapvssin engineering and what ware the historical origins of presentday engineering objects or systems. A second theme for contentwas embodied in criO.cal thinking as an educational goal whichincludes technological assessment, the potentials, and thelimitations of technology. A third idea was expressed by thetendency to define engineering through poblemsolvin and thusto develop course content focused on ideas and examples from thesolution of engineering problems. Parallel to problem solving isdimign as another prime characteristic of engineering; and alongwith both comes the bov and excitement of engineeringsomethingwhich has been partially lost in the public mind in recent years.Also partly the emphasis on institutional forces as shapingtechnology has tended to make the activity of engineering seesless appealing. Some renewed stress on the role of individualsand their joy in engineering would help redress a loss of balancein the image of the profession. Another factor raised was theperception that engineers and scientists do not do well inteaching their own majors, let alone in teaching liberal artsstudents.

Aspects such as critical thinking, problem solving, and joyand excitement are all essential to good course content but theyare no help in defining it. The engineering design process andthe stories of individual engineers, on the other hand, aredefining aspects as are the social (which include institutional)constraints peculiar to engineering work. This course contentfor technological literacy seems to require exposure to definingaspects as well as experience with them that will help developstudent pleasure in engineering along with some ability to solvesimplified engineering problems and to think critically aboutengineering objects and systems.

Our discussion focused on case studies in engineering whichcan involve either historical content or other sorts. Thehistorical case studies need to be based upon original

136

2 2G

scholarship and can thus be relatively permanent additions to theliterature. The form for these studies can be full-length books(such as Natnaa_a_mgm by Hughes), monographs (such as ligZLlgrgtzttigiLttszn_gf.jgg_Anstgim by Copp and Zanella), or shorterunits (such as the Steamboat unit in the Zoisodes Monograph).Another sort of case study are the business school decisionmaking units which can give students same experience with problemsolving and critical thinking in a contemporary context. Thiscontext is also crucial for the historical studies; they shouldillustrate present day problems (such as containment vessels andgovernment regulation for reactors). Whatever the length ofthese studies they should include numerical calculations, socialcontexts, and aesthetic, ethical, or symbolic meanings. Suchstudies are integrated in the sense of illustrating howengineering works must perform in the natural world, must comeinto being in the social world of politics and economics, andwill change the perception of individuals.

Results Otained so liar

Some general questions were raised about available materialsand those that might be developed: are they integrated in a wayto appeal to or make sense to liberal arts students? Can they beused at schools other than the ones at which they were developed?and will they be merely watered-down engineering? Bare the Sloanresults provide a basis for some reasonably firm conclusions.First, the New Liberal Arts Program put in a few engineeringfaculty into close contact with many liberal arts faculty to thebenefit of both. Second, the program brought together faculty inresearch universities and those in liberal arts colleges; andthird, it supported scholarly research aimed at producingteaching materials. The results to data show that integratedteaching units can interest liberal arts students, that unitsdeveloped at one institution can be used at other places, andthat historical case studies quite naturally use simplifiedmathematical formulations for difficult engineering designsbecause pioneering engineers often did just that themselves.

The engineering-oriented teaching materials so far publishedin the New Liberal Arts Program are an essential starting pointfor any planning of new course materials that wishes to focus ontechnological literacy.

137

1 27

bTTRACT1ON OF STUDENTS

John OpieNew Jersey Institute of Technology

As far as students are concerned, the group agreed thattechnological literacy, belongs in a general or core curriculumrequired of all undergraduates. But technological literacyshould not be part of the traditional "turf battle" over too muchmaterial concentrated into too little time. Instead,technological literacy can become a "binding force° that helps tounify the entire curriculum. That is, it can provide a threadthroughout many core courses that can help students findcoherence in their diverse courses, and to see the relevance ofthe courses for their careers and future lives. Technologicalliteracy, after all, is not the "property" of one discipline orfield alone, but is inherently cross-disciplinary. The groupnoted that such curriculum tracking is explored in the recentAAAS engineering student's guide on the humanities and socialsciences.

Other important subjects were:

1) We must recognize that the "two cultures" debate overdifferences between the humanities and the sciences isstill commonplace among students and their courses.Students who are comfortable with math often feelinadequate in verbal skills, and vlce versa. Thispolarization is unaccettable and unnecessary, but notunusual. Technological literacy is a particularlyeffective means to overcome the two cultures division.One attempt to resolve the conflict exists in the SloanFoundation's New Liberal Arts programs.

2) Teaching technological literacy in the classroom can beenhanced by a practical emphasis on "the way thingswork," particularly for the non-science and non-engineering student. There is often too much emphasisupon abstract principles, e.g., "nuclear energy," and notenough about the ways in which science/technology *pactsdaily life, e.g., nuclear energy powerplants.

3) Technological literacy ought also to emphasize hawscientists and engineers solve problems, particularly (a)the effectiveness of scientific reductionism to breakdown large problems into more manageable smaller parts,and (b) the emphasis engineers place on pragmatic problemsolving, rather than the intellectual debates of thehumanities.

138

12S

4) One igportant observation was that scientists andengineering students tend generally to be optimisticabout the future. Sorial criticism and reform lumeinntstend more to come from the humanities and socialsciences, while engineers are more likely to believe thatspecific problems can have successfUl specific solutionswhen enough time and effort is put to them. Theimplications of this observation were not explored butthe subject seems to have potential.

5) Technological literacy is a particularly good point ofentry into other major core educational subjects, notablyglobalism and multiculturalism. Today's world is boundtogether primarily through a scientific and technologicalculture that is becoming universal. As technologica4literacy makes students aware of the power of technologyin their lives, they can also better understand the placein global and diverse world for their nation, theirculture, their communities and themselves.

The group also agreed that there is an urgent need for dataon why students find some courses and subjects more attractiveand others less so. And outcomes assessment is essential toidentify how successful we are in creating technological literacyin the classroom. More data is essential.

139

12 9

ymuLTY ISSUES/LOGISTICS

Marian Visich, Jr.SUNY-Stony Brook

The breakout session on faculty issues and logisticsdiscussed the problems associated with getting faculty interestedin teaching courses in technological literacy and the logisticsof introducing technological literacy courses into the curriculumon a given campus.

For colleges with an engineering unit, it is necessary thatthe engineering faculty be involved with the development of andthe teaching of technological literacy courses to have asuccessful program. The technological literacy programs atBrown, Penn, .Stanford, Stony Brook, and Yale were initiated inthe engineering colleges in the early 1970's when engineeringenrollments declined. This provided the engineering college theopportunity to teach non-engineering students and to increase thestudent FTE taught by the engineering faculty. In the late1970's and early 1980's, engineering enrollments increaseddramatically, resulting in large class sizes and increased workload for the faculty. Engineering enrollments peaked in 1983-84and have declined since then. It is projected that engineeringenrollments will decline through the mid 1990's. This may onceagain lead to a favorable environment for offering technologicalliteracy courses to satisfy faculty teaching load. It waspointed out by several Deans of Arts and Sciences that it wasdifficult to get cooperation from their engineering deans, at thepresent time, to develop technological literacy courses tosatisfy general education requirements. The problems ofstimulating cooperation between departments in the typicalCollege of Arts and Sciences were also discussed.

In most colleges and universities, the faculty reward systemis based upon research publications and funding, and teachingcourses for majors. It was pointed out that this is especiallytrue in a small liberal arts college where the number of facultyin an engineering and/or science department is small. Many ofthe participants recommended not getting young faculty involvedin the technological literacy movement as it was a perfect way totorpedo a young faculty member's career and to make himunemployable. Experienced senior faculty members withestablished research careers are good candidates for offeringtechnological literacy courses if they are interested in a careerchange. Selected retired industrial engineers could also becomeinvolved. These individuals would bring a wealth of experienceand knowledge into the classroom.

Two of the critical factors in developing the technologicalliteracy course for liberal art students are that the faculty

140

130

member is interested in the subject matter of the couree and thatthe material be presented at a level to match the background ofthe students. Based upon the professional background of theindtvidual faculty member, successfUl courses have been developedin communications technology, biomedical engineering,microelectronics, bridges and etructures, and the exploration ofspace. Nany of the courses were initially team taught to reducethe course development time. Yale University has a unique schemefor teaching technology literacy courses. Time is scheduled fora three-credit course in the morning and tar one in theafternoon. The semester is divided into three parts and a totalof six one-credit courses are offered during the available tineslots. This has attracted many junior and senior faculty membersto participate as their time commitment is for only 1/3 of thesemester. A student is required to take any three of the one-credit courses to get credit for the course.

There were limited discussions on the availability offunding for technological literacy programs and on the availablecurriculum material. It was pointed out that the NationalScience Foundation funded the workshop and bad severalrepresentatives at it. NSF funding is available for curriculumdevelopment and laboratory equipment for technological literacycourses. Williams College was successful in recetving NSFfunding for Larry Kaplan's course on forensic science for thedevelopment of curriculum materials and laboratory equipment.

During the past decade there has been a wealth of curriculummaterial for technological literacy courses. The SloanFoundation's New Liberal Arts Program has developed a monographseries and book series which can be used as text material fortechnological literacy courses. Reports from the Office ofTechnology assessment and the National Academy of Engineeringhave been used as text material in many courses.

141

131

REFIXCTIONS ON TECKNOLOGICAL LITERACY

David R. Reyes-GuerraAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology(ABET) and its predecessor, the Engineering Council forProfessional Development (ECPD), have been concerned with"technological literacy" for many years. This topic did not havea high priority, however, because ABET concentrated its limitedresources on matters that affected its main concern:accreditation. Under the leadership of Russel Jones, 1987-88ABET president, ABET elevated the issue of technological literacy,,to its immediate priority list. Although this issue is ancillaryto straight engineering practice, we consider it vital to theunderstanding of the engineering profession. Thanks to generoussupport from the National Science Foundation and the continuedinterest and dedicated leadership of Russel Jbnes we were able tohold this conference and provide an opportunity to investigatehow best to serve the public and the engineering profession byincreasing the technological literacy of everyone, especiallythose in higher education institutions who are pursuing programsthat eventually impact on technology.

The engineering profession must be involved in the effort toincrease technological literacy in this country. It is vital notonly to the health of the profession but to our continuingnational competitiveness, as well.

Let us be simultaneously cynical and truthful for a moment.Engineers work with facts; let us consider some of those facts.The engineering profession cannot take on the technologicalliteracy campaign alone. We simply do not have the numbers offaculty or the funds to do a major public relations oradvertising campaign. If only we had the resources of Ford orsome of the beer manufacturers!!! All the engineering colleges,325 at the latest count, 290 with accredited programs, accountfor 30,000 faculty members who run the full spectrum frominstructors to tenured full professors. These men and women arealready addressing a student population in the millions. Howmuch time could they dedicate to this effort? There are morethan 3,500 colleges and universities with millions of students.We are a very small force in the total spectrum of highereducation.

We must find new ways of disseminating the information andmaterials already collected. The populations we would like toinfluence immediately are the liberal arts community and the non-technological populations in higher education. Later, we wouldlike to focus on the National Science Teachers Association andthe large number of students who are coming up through the high

142

132

schools. We want to reach them! Our student population exceeds40 million, and there are over 18,000 high schools. Mink of thenumbers we are talking about. How can we realistically handlethis volume? How can we multiply ourselves to cover allconcerned publics? How many of our colleagues could and would beinterested in participating in helping to carry out atechnological literacy campaign?

I would like to nave David Billington's lecture given to amillion high school students, and another million in college--not just one lecture but a series of lectures illuminating whatwe mean by technological literacy. Who can we get to sponsorsuch an event? How realistic is it to expect one issue, such as"structures" or "bridges," to represent the entire field oftechnology?

It is very difficult even to conceptualize the magnitude ofthe field we are trying to impact. That tells us that the self-imposed load on the engineering profession to addresstechnological literacy is tremendous. Can we expect to handlethis vital issue with our present resources? Haw can we impactthe publics we need to relate to, and how prepared are they togive their own time and effort to become technologicallyliterate?

Thanks to committed individuals like Dr. Goldberg andorganizations like the Sloan Foundation, millions of dollars (anecessary, but proverbial grain of sand) have been infused intothis project. A lot of people have given tremendously of theirmoney, resources, commitment, and effort for technologicalliteracy. Has the effort been successful? Where do we go fromhere?

Yes, the effort has been extremely successful in spite ofthe overwhelming odds. Humans, it is said, can move mountains,and some of you are moving the mountain of illiteracy.

Look at the reality of the numbers I mentioned to you.Then, envision the task of bringing the technological literacyissue to the general public and the project shows itself as amonumental, mind boggling Iffort. Do we have the funds, can weget the funds, do we have the people, can we get them to dedicatethemselves to this enterprise? All these are questions we mustpose. We have simply taken the first step; there are many moreto take, but we cannot wait, we must follow. Same of you haveshown the way and have taken that first step. It is up to therest of us to move ahead and help you in furthering your scope ofinvolvement.

For myself, I liken bringing the world technologicalliteracy to a religious crusade. The zeal and commitment of afew, sometimes a handful, can change the world.

143

133

We must rely on others from other disciplines andprofessions to help you carry the message and assist with thework. You in the engineering education community may develop thecourses, you may develop the material, but someone else with someother kind of vehicle must be found that is sufficient to carrythe message to the vast numbers that mist be reached. Let us berealistic about what we can do and what we are going to do. Letus set realistic goals. It is hoped that this workshop will setthe tone, help delineate the problem, and set us on a path topositive accomplishments. I would give you the charge to reallylook at the total picture and how we can realistically influencethe rest of the world to understand the technological outlook orpoint of view concerning the problems that beset humanity. Manyof those problem have a technology base.

ABET recognizes the promotion of technological literacy asboth the mandate and the duty of the profession. In ABET,twenty-six engineering societies come together to share commonproblems related to education. ABET'S main responsibility isaccreditation, and those of you in engineering colleges are veryfamiliar with ABET through the accreditation process.

Our membership is the entire profession through thecurricula-responsible engineering societies, and you, aseducators, have a part in ABET through your membership inprofessional or technical engineering societies. Me must awakenthe engineering societies to their responsibility for carrying apublic message not only about the value of their own disciplinesbut on the value of technological literacy itself. Ourengineering societies are not really as involved as we would liketo see them.

You, as educators who are working in the area oftechnological literacy, should call upon the technical andprofessional societies to enlist their commitment totechnological literacy. Your own faculty is not enough. Look atthe large numbers we must make aware of our new "religion"technological literacy. The colleges add up to over 3,500, andthat is one of the publics we must influence.

Can we imagine some way to multiply at least a hundredfoldthe effect of the efforts made by Steve Cutcliffe, DaveBillington, John Truxal, and so many others? How can we multiplythe commitment and the activity of all of you? Perhaps we shoulddeclare a new world crisis, a global war, and get 24-hourcoverage by CNN!!!

At today's session let us devise a way of working on theseissues. Let us abandon the old way of doing things. Let us setthe agenda for the future....

144

134

Let me call your attention to President Bush's message oneducation. It is a very comprehensive paper which addresses,among other things, technological litexacy. Those of you inleadership positions in engineering education will find severalconcepts he expresses that will be usefUl to you during yourconversations with wtate legislative bodies and othergovernmental agencies. I also recommend a paper, "Towards a USTechnology Strategy," published by the NSF, Eric Bloch, thedirector of NSF, that describes what measures can be taken todevelop a U.S. technology strategy. Many of the issues centralto technological literacy can be discussed in terms of nationalcompetitive strategy, and you will find them in this paper.

Let us think in terns of what I said earlier. WO have toimagine new methodologies, new ways of communication. ABETPresident Leslie F. Benmark, who spoke earlier, said that what weneed in engineering is an "L.A. Law"--in reference to the appealof TV and its great communications ability--and, of course, ECPD(the fore-runner of ABET) said that years ago. We need atelevision show that portrays engineering. Television is apowerful medium, and a good way of communicating. However, noteverythone I know conveys a good image or communicates well oncamera.

I know a very, very powerful and fascinating individual whoaddressed some of us a couple of days ago. I and others in theaudience were enraptured. His colleagues subsequently told methat although he is a fantastic live lecturer, his videotapes arenot as effective. He himself, agrees with that evaluation.

Perhaps instead of using professors in our videotapes, weshould use trained actors to deliver our message. Instead of youspeaking, use an expert who is really good at communications. Hecan read your script.

One of the best films I have seen recently that illustratesthis situation is on Escalante, a high school mathematics teacherin South Los Angeles, California. He is from Bolivia and hasworked miracles in his school mathematics program. I have methim and WAS very impressed with his approach to motivating youngpeople to "like math." He was praised by the President, andnamed outstanding teacher in the United States. They made a filmon his teaching. The actor selected was not Mr. Escalante but anactor, Edward James olmos. Even though the film wasbiographical, Mr. Escalante could not play himself in hiseveryday activities. Why? He projects differently on film. Howmany cases do we know of others portraying the person beingfeatured, even though that person is able to play himself?

After seeing the amount of work and research Russel Jonesand some of you put into this conference (demonstrated by thelarge lists of reference material), I am certain we need a

145

"clearinghouse." There is a vast amount of material that we mustcatalogue, review, and classify. We not only need aclearinghouse, we need to create a group that is able to look atthe exiWting material and objectively evaluate and criticize themany items. We need a group to look at different parts of theentire bibliography we have available and decide which are mostfavorable and proper for 'helping with technological literacy. Wemust be able to catalogue based on age and education of intendedaudience on area or field of coverage. We must look at gapsthat must be addressed.

Many years ago a national effort with a high school coursewas developed, "The Man-Made World." This cane froa BellLaboratories and AT&T. Dr. Ed Davis and Dr. John Truxal were theprincipal authors. This effort was followed by the series on the"World of Manufacturing" and the "World of Construction" fromOhio State University.

Neither of the above efforts, for one reason or another,ever accomplished its objectives. There is a move to generatesome course material that can be given in the seventh or eighthgrade that will substitute for the industrial arts (shop) or homeeconomics course. This is intended to bring about a respect andunderstanding of technology in the students. We can call this anattempt to promote technological literacy. The other purpose ofthese courses is to develop a liking for science and mathematicsstudy.

In New York we have done the same thing. We now have amandated program in the seventh grade on technological literacy.All youngsters in the State must take this special course whichhas been put together by course specialists. I understand sameengineering professors helped to develop this course. Althoughit is a mandated course, it has not been adopted by New YorkCity.

We must identify instruments by which we can communicatewith the world at large. Possibly the most difficult task isproviding vehicles by which others--not necessarily we--can dothe work. With high schools and other schools we must help bydeveloping the material that others can use. Sufficient numbersof engineers are not available to do this work. We must prepareto have others deliver "our" message.

consider the limitations I have been talking about allalong. The numbers game controls our effectiveness. We cannotcommunicate with the entire world in the same way we customarilyteach engineering in the classroom to our own students. We neednew structures, new methods, new paradigms. Dr. Sugliarelloreminded us last night of the health situation in this country.The numbers were staggering, and worst of all he was talkingabout life and death. He did a thorough job. He talked about

146

136

the technology involved in the health field and the millions, ifnot billions of dollar* and millions of people involved. Istechnological literacy something we should push for the fortymillion Americans who cannot afford health insurance? Should veworry about technological literacy for the large retired segmentof our population? Should we teach technological literacy tomiddle-aged students returning as adults to college?

When we talk about the NSF and Sloan, we are considering thecurrent funding sources in this country for this vital concern.Should the Conference Board and other such organizations beforums in which we talk about what technological literacy means?The Conference Board is made up of the chief executive officersof leading manufacturing concerns in the U.S. Should GeneralElectric, Chrysler, General Motors, IBM, Xerox, Lutron, or any ofthe others who have a lot of trouble with the level oftechnological literacy among their employees be interested inhelping us help you to bring these ideas to fruition? We keeptalking about the need to have a technologically literateworkforce. Should we rely entirely on the valiant efforts madeby the foundations that always help the engineering educationeffort? Should ve not think in terms of letting the largecorporations which rely on a technologically literate work forcecontribute financially to this effort? What you are doing is ofgreat benefit to these companies. The results are not immediate,but they will show longstanding, permanent results after ageneration of young people have gone through the experience ofeducation for technological literacy.

Industry complains about our workforce. They do not simplymention the selfish work ethic of most employees (the proverbial"union" problem with innovation), but over and above that is thecomplaint that most workers are not able to do the work in anintelligent way simply because they do not understand the basicprinciples; they are not technologically literate.

The education of most members of the labor force is notgeared to being in the skilled or semi-skilled workforce.Education from kindergarten through the senior high school levelis oriented toward a liberal arts background. Evenvocational/trade schools are not geared to answer the needs ofindustry, and, filrthermore, there are very few of them relativeto the "academic" or "comprehensive" schools. We eagerly copiedthe European model of education but failed to adopt theirvocational/trade education. Workers in this country have to bereeducated in the major industrial concerns and other companies.Technological literacy would make the difference in all segmentsof our population as we freely compete with the rest of the globein our technological world.

Good questions for you to answer in the next hour. Thesenext points are very germane to what we are talking about.

147

137

How can the technical and liberal arts components on campusbe encouraged to work cooperatively with you and together togenerate appropriate programs in technological literacy? Youmust stress the fact that even though they do nct realize oraccept it, the liberal arts and sciences have a technologicalcomponent.

One of the prompters to our involvement and why we soughtthe help of the NSF and leaders such as John White to support usand Russel Jones to take the leadership of this conference is thesuccess ABET/ECPD had with getting the liberal arts andhumanities to help engineering. We thought that that successcould also be replicated with engineering influencing liberalarts, the humanities, and the social sciences.

The Association of American Colleges (LIC) undertook a majorresearch program to determine "clusters" in the social sciencesand humanities (SS&H) that would give the depth and breadth thatthe ABET engineering accreditation criteria demanded and satisfythe SS&H representatives. ABET was seeking guidance for theengineering programs with regard to the sixteen semester credithours or the one-half year in SS&H that are specified in thecriteria.

The SS&H experts that AAC brought together agreed to designvarious clusters. They all agreed to this exercise even thoughthey felt that sixteen semester credit hours provided a veryshort window to attempt "breadth and depth." To them, twenty-four to thirty hours was a minimum.

Dr. Joseph S. Johnston, Jr. from AAC guided this work. Twopublications came out, one entitled Unfinished pgaign and theother Stud t, G$ciences. The former is a comprehensive book containing all theresearch information, and the latter is a guide for generaldistribution among students. Over 70,000 copies of the Guidehave been distributed and successfully utilized.

Based on the needs of society and of the world to answer thesense of national competitiveness, should not we in engineeringand those in liberal arts and sciences urge the adoption oftechnological literacy as a requirement in their curricula?

The regional institutional accrediting agencies should alsorequire that all undergraduate educational programs have atechnological literacy component. We live in an era oftechnology, and our citizenry should be technologically literate.We are committed to prepare a more informed citizen to addresscongressional and political leaders at both federal and stategovernments on matters relating to everyday life. It would behelpful if those leaders were more technologically literate. Weshould make all necessary efforts to convince the people in

148

13S

=1 I

liberal arts that they need to give their students samebackground in technology if they are ta be properly prepared forthe leadership positions of tomorrow. The college level is wheremost work needs to be done in technological literacy as thecollege graduate is geared to occupy positions of intellectualleaderahip.

I spoke a while ago with Stephen Cutcliffe, and I asked himif historians look down at him and at other historians who dealwith technological literacy subjects much as history oftechnology. He said no, and that these areas are well respected.I wonder how the other faculties in a comprehensive universityfeel about their peers being interested in areas that reflect ontechnology.

Haw many philosophers, politicians, writers, artists, andsages from the past reflected upon technology and its effect onhumanity? Research on this topic should be attractive .:41 facultymembers from a number or fields. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, tomention two opposites, dealt with technology in many of theirwritings.

The timeliness of courses and subjects is essential to asuccessful curriculum. The attractivemess of engineering shouldbe manifest to all students, especially our own, if they receivea course in technological literacy early in their collegecareers. We should offer technological literacy material to ourown students as they join the engineering college. Just-in-timeeducation should involve this area and should be an incentive forthe student to remain in our programs. The attrition rate inengineering, of highly qualified students in many cases, canoften be attributed to the deception of their not being taughtany engineering subjects for one or two years. The student, whois eager to become an engineer, wants to be exposed toengineering from the very beginning. An introduction through atechnological literacy course would answer this real need.

We have a tremendous challenge ahead of us. Let us gettogether and pool our efforts to show the rest of academe that itis true that HUMAMS ChN :mon 1OONTA1213 but that you needgmainumacia =MACY to get started.

149

1 3

CQUEAMAREAUMPaul T. Durbin

University of Delaware

This report assumes, and builds upon, a workshop on existingcourseware. That earlier workshop, conducted by DavidBillington, put on display once again Billington's brilliance inelaborating the ideal for technological literacy courses. .

Elsewhere, Billington has spelled out the foundatian for anexcellent technological literacy course (or program):

An engineering work, such as a bridge, must bedesigned in accordance with scientificprinciples, and the goal of such design isefficiency, the greatest safety with a minimum ofmaterials. But a bridge makes no sense unless wesee it also in terms of the society that causedit to be built. The social imperative of abridge is economy, the greatest utility for theleast cost. We need as well to see such works interms of the humanistic impact as revealed by theresponses of painters, poets, and social critics.Do these structures spir our imagination and giveus a sense of wonder?'

A significant part of the workshop an existing coursewarefocused, on

5the package put together by the New Liberal Arts

group,""° of which Billington has long bean one of the mostinnovative and prolgic members. Also mentioned, however, wereNASTS publications, thq Lehigh curriculum newsletter, Science,.Zeralanolsay_ancLutralty,13 and the Society for the History ofTechnology's published collections of syllabi.'4

With so much already available in terms of technologicalliteracy courseware, someone might wonder what we had to talkabout in a second workshop on courseware needs. Hut as thingsturned out we had plenty to talk about--and not only conplaintsabout existing courseware. In the renainder of this report, Igive my personal impressions of some of the needs people likeourselves have been talking about.

NP-Kg---41A-M-ttar-g-ana---11-"1"-g

A nunber of case stAkep.pexist that are useful in teachingtechnological literacy,1'''°'",'" and there am even sometangentially-related case study textbooks,''' but in my opinionthere could never be too many good booklength case studies. Ifthey are well done they provide all the complexity of technicalneeds, social, economic, and political constraints, and culturalreception that we saw David Billington hold up as the ideal,above.

150

14o

The ideal teaching arrangement, in a technological literacycourse or program using complete case studies, would beinterdisciplinary. An engineering faculty member (or a workingengineer, biomedical engineer, etc., as the case demands) wouldbe the best sort of person to convey to typically natve studentsthe technical demands of an engineering or other technologicalproject. For the rest, to present issues of cultural, social,and political complexity, not just any humanist or socialscientist or manager will work out well. It probably should besomeone accustomed to team-teachingand preferably accustomed toteaching in a team that involves scientists, engineers, or othertechnically-trained people.

Even in this ideal situation, there can still be problemswith the utilizing of full-length case studies in a technologicalliteracy course. There are tensions of all sorts: betweenhumanities professors' interests and students' needs, between andamong faculty members (or pre-college teachers) with differentbackgrounds, between students with varying career orientationsand the "undeclared" who have not yet decided what to do withtheir lives, and between and among the various organizations andinstitutions which may end up employing the students or beinginfluenced by their votes as citizens in the future.

One final note about the case studies that night bedeveloped for teaching in this mode. Some advocates oftechnological literacy worry that case studies of technologicalcatastrophes or of misuses of technology will give students thewrong impression. Most bridges do not fall down; mosttechnological ventures are reascnably well managed (and some areeven exemplary in ethics terms): and so on. In my view, bothpositive and negative case studies are needed, and liberal artsstudents can learn a great deal about the complexities ofengineering and technologicatl. development from either sort. Ifnegative impressions are conveyed to the student, it may be thatthat comes from the biases of tte professors rather than from awell done case study.

Filps and Videos

A few visual presentations of technological developments,engineering projects, technical disasters, and legally orethically ambiguous cases involving engineers or other technicalpersonnel are beginning to be produced and distributed--forexample, in the Nava series (ancng others) on TV. Some membersof the technological literacy mcvement feel strongly that ourgreatest need lies here--that film and video presentations willgive non-engineering students a more effective picture of thescope and complexity of engineering in the modern world thananything else could.

151

141

I would not disagree with the need for sudh productions; inparticular, they might be more useful than classroom-orientedmaterials in helping to achieve technological literacy among out-of-school adults. (The same is true for other visual or dynamicmedia presentations--for example, in the best science museums,which often do a better )ob of presenting technological processesand gadgets than of presenting complex scientific developments.)But I would propose two caveats, and the first is related to thecase study approach dealt with above. In a sense, a well donefilm, television series, or video on technology j a case study.It is simply a matter of a different medium (possibly moreeffective for some audiences?).

A more important caveat has to do with the quality of theproduction of visual presentations of engineering and technologyventures. It is extremely important that the production be inthe hands of competent (and preferably imsginative and creative)professionals. But it is also extremely important that theproducers, actors, etc., really know engimearing andtechnological work. Presenting stiff Characters or caricaturesin stylized, and unrealistic plots or situations or settings cando as much bad as good. In my view, theesame standards should beheld up for media presentations as for print case studies--and inboth cases the standards should be professional, and they shouldbe high.

Interactive and Remote-Site TV Presentations

Another new approach that has been considered is thetransmission of a successful classroom experience from onelocation to another where technological literacy education is nototherwise feasible. It has been suggested, for example, that oneof David Billington's presentations (even one of his courses or asimilar course taught by someone else) might be made available ontape or by interactive TV to classes at sdhools across thecountry. Other similar suggestions have been put forward/especially to multiply the successful experiences of the smallnumber of outstanding teachers (engineers and others) availablefor technological literacy courses.

This innovative idea has its problems, however. And themost obvious problem is the one that holds back innovations ofthis sort in other areas of education as vell. That is theproblem of loss of the intangibles involved in good teacher-student interaction in the classroom. Interactive TV and otheringenious technological gimmicks may partly make up for thisloss, but outstanding teachers (including outstandingtechnological literacy teachers) have so far shown only limitedinterest in the distance-teaching idea (and especially indistance teaching without an excellent on-site assistant of somesort), presumably for this reason. still, it is a possibility.

152

142 c_

g2MBIAME_MMISKI

Finally, among this limited set of new ideas fortechnological courseware, there is the possibility of utilizingan increasing (?) base of computer skills among liberal artsstudents to improve technological literacy. One example,possibly far-fetched, might be to involve at least some non-engineering students in a computer-assisted-design course(probably one specially designed for them rather than a regularcourse already in the curriculum for engineering students). Iffeasible, such a course might give non-engineering students someidea of what engineering design is all about (if not of thecomplexities of the rest of modern engineering and technology).And imaginative engineering professors may come up with betterexamples of software useful for educating non-engineeringstudents in technological literacy.

Conclusion

Some of the ideas discussed here may strike the reader aspurely speculative as well as far-fetched. In any case, it isnot up to a group of workshop participants at a technologicalliteracy conference to come up with the materials that will beneeded for successful technological literacy courses. In allprobability, future innovations will come from innovativetechnological literacy teachers. That is what has happened, forinstance in the New Liberal Arts experience as well as in theexperience of those who have contributed syllabi to the Lehighcurriculum newsletter (and similar ventures). Good courseware isdeveloped by good teachers. That is the way it has always been,and that is likely to be the way it will be in the technologicalliteracy movement.

153

113

1. Anderson, R., et.al., Divided Loyalties (Wast Lafayette,Ind.: Purdue University, 1980).

2 . Beauchamp, Tom L. QuisAtudigaJa_ilaiinfmas_tialistz_andSthjcs. (Englewood Cliffs, MS.: Prentice-Hall, 1983;excellent introduction to case study approach).

3. Billington, David P. "An Integrated Vision: Engineeringand the! Liberal Arts." licifansuu_TIGnn,(see no. 17, below), no. 82 (February 1991, pp. 1-6.

4 Bulletin pf Science. Technoloov. and Society. (Science,Technology and Society Program, Pennsylvania StateUniversity).

Herring, Susan. nom the Titanic to the Challenger. (NewYork: Garland/ 1989); includes fifty or so book lengthcases).

6. Hughes, Thomas P. petworke of Power. (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1983).

7. Kidder, Tracy. 220LigHLALA-22kLaargbin (Boston:Little, Brown, 1981.

8. Merritt, Raymond H. The Corps. the Environment. end theUpper Miepissippi River Basin. (Washington, D.C.:Historical Division, Office of Chief of Engineers;available, Government Printing Office, 1983).

9. Nelking, Dorothy, ed. Controversy: Poli4qp gf TechniselDecisions/ 2d ed. (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984).

10. pew Liperal Arts Educational Materials. (Pamphlet; AlfredP. Sloan Foundation, March 1991).

11. /ILA News: Information about the New Liberal Arts Proaram.(Department of Technology and Society, State Universityof New York at Stony Brook).

12. Reynolds, Terry S. Thlatagiling_in_tglift.izaiximaitra_ABsplaCourse Syllati for the History of Technology andTechnolooy nudles, 2d ed. (Available from STS Program,Lehigh University; a 3d edition is expected outshortly).

13.Lehigh University STS Proaram and_Technoloav StudieskResource Center.

154

141

14. Stress, Anselm, et.al. Social Orgginiution of Medical WorX.(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).

15. The Weaver: Of Information and Perspectives on11=2122igAl_LitarAgX. (Contact STS Program, LehighUniversity).

155

143

COMETIDELAUMACK

Stephen H. CutcliffeLehigh University

The breakout group assigned to discuss possible nechanisnsfor enhancing Technology Literacy, including the idea ofconsortia, began by agreeing that it vas igportant "not toreinvent the wheel." The group also agreed, however, that thewheel needed to be "trued up" somewhat and the current impact ofTL sultiolied. As the discussion developed, individualsuggestions and ideas fell into three main areas--theidentification of organizations currently active in 714suggestions for groups that should be anomuraged to becomeinvolved in promoting TIA, and proposals for actual mechanisms andactivities for encouraging TL. The group concluded the breakoutsession with a proposal for a three-pronged action agenda.

211EglatiaitilltuthLIWAXERT--latiOlactani

We began our discussion by identifying key organizationsalready involved in technology literacy and STS-type activities.Included were:

ABET - Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology

AAC - American Association of CollegesASEE - American Society for Engineering EducationNASTS - National Association for Science, Technology &

SocietyNSPE - National Society of Professional EngineersNSTA - National Science Teachers AssociationCUTHA - Council for the Understanding of Technology in

Human AffairsNLA - New Liberal Arts Program (Sloan Foundation)

Engineers for Education

Also included among the groups already involved in theTechnology Literacy/STS area are those policy and historicallyoriented divisions of the professional societies, e.g. theSociety for the Social Implications of Technology (SSIT) of theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the LiberalStudies Division of the ASEE, and the Center for the History ofChemistry (CHOC) of the American Chemical Society and theAmerican Institute of Chemical Engineers, Committee 120, Historyof Concrete of the American Concrete Institute, and the HistoricLandmarks Program.of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Target TL Groups

After singling out those organizations already involved atone level or another, the group focused its attention on

156

146

identifying target groups which might be encouraged to becomeactive or perhaps more extensively involved in the technologyliteracy area. Among those organizations that might assist inpromoting TL are the National Association of State Universitiesand Land Grant Colleges (NASUIGC), the American Council forAcademic Deans (ACAD), the Council of Colleges of Arts andSciences (CCAS), the National Conference of Academic Deans(NCAD), and the state government education departments and theNational Governors Association (NGA). Organizations that mightbe approached for financial support as well as promoting TLinclude the National Science Foundation (NSF), the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Foundation for theImprovement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE). The PublicBroadcasting System (PBS) was also identified as a potentiallyimportant vehicle for spreading TL awareness through programningfocused on engineering and technology.

Xechmnisms

Following the identification of target groups for supportingand extending TL awareness, the discussion shifted to suggestionsfor mechanisms both for promoting TL and for actuallyincorporating it into the curriculum.

A. Common core Curriculum Requirement.

One of the broadest based approaches would beincluding a TL requirement within the notion of acommon core curriculum as suggested by the BoyerReport of the Carnegie Foundation.

B. "Top Down" CEO approach.

For an effective impact, the group also felt it wasimportant to approach the problem from the "top down"as well as from the "bottom up" through individualfaculty. If college and university presidents andprovosts can be convinced of the importance of TL,this will facilitate its incorporation into thecurriculum. For example, if ABET as part of its exitinterview were to suggest to college/universitypresidents the importance of TL and to inquire whattheir engineering colleges were doing to promote TLamong non-technical students, this would go a longway toward promoting TL activities.

C. State and Regional Consortia.

Another important area for concentrating attention isat the state and regional educational level. Anumber of states such as New Jersey already havefocused programs often utilizing consortiaarrangements in the TL/STS area. By working through

157

147

the National Governors' Association and stateeducation departments, it eight be possible to expandthis level of activity.

D. Press Coverage and Public Outreadh.

For TL to become effectively understood, it will beimportant to expand educators' and the public'sawareness through more extensive publicity. It wouldbe helpful to have TL both promoted and covered atall major professional and educational meetings.Hare organizations like the NOM through itspublicity staff, would be particularly well suited toassist promoting and providing coverage of technologyliteracy-related sessions and events. Similarly at amore local level, individual college and universitydepartments of journalism (psehaps especiallyscience/technology writing programs) could assist inpromoting awareness of technology literacy generally,as well as of specific activities and events.

BUMMAXY_Regol'ti9ns

Following the identification of the above wide-rangingideas, the group corc'.uded its discussion by suggesting threeshort-term action items:

A. 1993 should be declared the year of TechnologyLiteracy and that TL should be a xajor theme for allprofessional society annual meetings.

B. ABET, NSPE, and other appropriate engineeringsocieties should promote TL as a worthwhile activityby 1) encouraging engineering deans to have facultydevelop and offer appropriate TL courses and 2)working to make TL a general education requirementfor all undergraduate programs.

C. A short 1-2 page executive summary of the conferenceshould be sent with an appropriate cover letter tothe heads of all appropriate engineering andacademic societies and organizations. In addition,the report should be circulated to all appropriateuniversity administrators, including presidents andprovosts and both engineering and liberal artsdeans.

158

4S

Samuel GoldbergThe Sloan Foundation

Let me begin with some general issues raised during oursession:

1. Before funding there has to be a decision made on whatone wants to do. Our workshop discussions have covereda very large number of issues and possibilities forfuture activities. Any proposal for funding will needto be fairly sharply focused. There is much work yet tobe done in answering the question: Funding for what?

2. Whatever is proposed, it should have support from thehighest levels within the university. Engineeringcolleges and others, including funding agencies, need tobe confident that the program being planned has theapproval and support of key university administrators.

3. Decisions need to be made about who will do the work ona given campus. Are these projects, pedagogical andcurricular in nature, appropriate for junior as well assenior faculty members? Here, as at other suchgatherings, we have heard much about teaching andresearch, criteria for tenure, and the university rewardsystem. A proposal will need to be realistic and notassume that there is likely to be a major shift in theway universities and colleges of engineering see theirmission or conduct their business. Luckily, onlyrelatively few committed and excellent faculty membersare needed to get things started on campus and even tohave a significant inpact.

With respect to funding sources, the group identified fourmain categories:

GovernmentPrivate FoundationsIndustryColleges and Universities

Government

The leading player here is the National Science Foundation.Within the NSF Directorate of Education and HUman Resources,Division of Undergraduate Science, Engineering and MathematicsEducation (USEME), there are two programs particularly relevantfor our interests: Undergraduate Curriculum and CourseDevelopment; and Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement. The former

159

149

supports improvements in introductory courses and includes aconcern for scientific and technological literacy of thenonspecialist student and the general public. The latteremphasizes short courses, workshops, and other hands-onexperiences for participants. From what we have heard, NSF isparticularly interested in proposals that involve under-represented minorities and women, develop continuing cooperativerelationships among universities, fourP and two-year colleges,industry and other concerned groups, encourage research facultyto become engaged with K-12 issues in our schools, and payattention to dissemination so that good ideas can be spreadbeyond the grantee institution.

The Department of Education and the National Endowment forthe Humanities should also be approached. Governmental agencies/such as NASA and EPA, may be particularly interested in thedevelopment of courses on special topics, for example, spacetechnology and waste management. Finally, mention vas made ofstate and local governments. They do not have much money thesedays, but their interest in improving science, mathematics, andtechnology education in the public schools (and in the educationof school teachers) may lead then to consider support or at leastsome level of cooperation in an appropriately targeted project.

Private/4,11;4410one

This gives me an opportunity to say a few words about theSloan Foundation's New Liberal Arts (NLA) Program. Now almostten years old, it has involved grants totaling about $22 millionto thirty-six undergraduate colleges and a dozen universities.Faculty workshops, conferences, course development, writingprojects, and nany other activities have been supported, alldesigned to increase the attention paid in the undergraduateliberal arts curriculum to technology and quantitative reasoning.A Resource Center for the NLA Program, located at SUNY-StonyBrook and directed by John Truxal and Nike Visich, publishes anddistributes a morthly newsletter, collects and disseminatessyllabi, teaching modules/ and other course materials, and servesto bring news of NLA activities to the wider public.

Given the technology thrust of the program and the fact thatmost undergraduate colleges do not have engineering departments,the involvement of dedicated university engineering faculty hasbeen an important feature of the program. Four such persons whohave contributed in major ways to the NLA program areparticipating in this workshop: John Truxal, Mike Visich, DavidBillington, and Barrett Hazeltine. Although not as many as wewould like, there are nevertheless quite a few engineeringfaculty members interested in the pedagogical and curricularproblems associated with bringing a knowledge of what engineersdo and how they do it to undergraduate non-engineering students.The liberal arts colleges appear to be interested, although it is

160

1 5 i)

always difficult to get new courses into an already crowdedcurriculum. Student interest is not a problem at all, and thisShould be an encouraging fact for those planning next stepsfollowing this workshop.

Grant-making in the NLA program has come to an end for theSloan Foundation. We are now focusing on dissemination ofresults. In that connection, I want only to mention the value ofestablishing networks involving both engineering and liberal artsfaculty members and the crucial importance of having effectivewritten materials that can be put in the hands of those who wouldlike to experiment and develop general education technologycourses on their own.

Those of you who would like to learn more about the NLAprogram and NLA publications (syllabi, monographs, and books) areencouraged to write or call directly to John Truxal or MikeVisich at the SUNY-Stony Brook Resource center.

It is our hope that what has been done within the NewLiberal Arts program will prove useful as a foundation on whichto build. There is much yet to be done and this workshop is animportant step along the way.

There are, of course, many other foundations besides Sloanthat are interested in science and technology and could well beapproached once decisions are made about next steps. In ourdiscussion, mention was made of the many small local foundationsthat could be helpful and therefore should not be forgotten.

intiMatne

That industry has a stake in technology education is clear.Imaginativy projects promoting technological literacy maytherefore attract some level of support from technology-basedcompanies and their associated foundations. The group felt thatthis was a source of funding worth pursuing.

galftWilICERiXtrairgirit

Two main points were made during our discussion. First, itis necessary as this technological literacy project develops tofind some means of demonstrating the serious commitment ofcolleges and universities to its aims. Tangible financial orother support is one way to do this. Second, the leadership ofthe engineering colleges is crucial in any project emerging fromthis work3hop. However, the involvement of engineering facultycannot be perceived merely as a temporary reaction to a dip instudent enrollment, only to be abandoned as soon as the number ofengineering applicants increases.

163.

151

Let me take this opportunity to make one final renark aboutlong-term arrangements and shart-teria action following thisworkshop. To naintain momentum and keep the interest of the manyconstituencies represented at this workshop, it would be well toplan for continued consortial activities. These could includedevelopment of a resource center for the gathering anddissemination of relevant information, perhaps via an electronicbulletin board. The sponsorship of writing projects for thepreparation of new course materials could be an importantactivity. Periodic neetings, workshops, and conferences to helpthe network of interested and informed participants grow wouldalso likely be part of such long-term arrangements.

Short-term action is also necessary. One possibility is fora few large universities to make commitments for a major project.The engineering college an each campus would not act alone, butwould join with arts and sciences, medicine, nursing, business,education, and other parts of the university to develop a campus-wide technological literacy program for students. Two-yearcolleges and even the public schools in the region could beinvolved, especially if the university school of education wereconvinced that such a program would serve an important role inteacher training. The development and funding of at least onesuch project would serve as an important existence theorem forthe entire community, thawing that what we hope will turn out tobe a wide-ranging national movement is feasible and worth thesignificant effort it will require.

162

152

STiNULAT

Bethany S. OberstSouthwest Missouri State Utiversity

The participants who attended this session were Menlo,DeLoatch, Feisel, Gorenstein, Jennett, Kulacki, Meier, Oberst,Scholz, and Wasow.

ddressQuestion,

Are additional programs in technological literacy needed?

If so, what national-level stimulation would assist in theirinitiation and growth?

How can the technical and liberal arts faculty on a givencampus be encouraged to work together to generate suchprograms?

Are special incentives needed to encourage faculty/studentsto become involved?

How should we package what we are ca:ling technologicalliteracy so that the converted can sell it on their owncampuses?

How can we reach the CEO's of various colleges anduniversities to enlist their support?

Five over-arching concerns emerged during the session:

1) We should all be awar- that this project to encouragethe study of technol,. in the undergraduate curriculumof colleges and universities is nothing less than aneffort to change the cultural climate in the UnitedStates. While many people in this country are viewingtechnology with reservations and sometimes evenhostility, we are suggesting that technology is anappropriate and critically important area which urgentlyneeds to be addressed in the undergraduate curriculum.

2) In thinking about shaping activities designed to promotetechnological literacy we need to be aware that we arein fact working with three potentially distinctaudiences: the general public; teachers and studentsin K-12 education; and the world of higher education.

163

153

3) When working to promote the study of technology on anindividual campus, two strategies should be weighed inlight of the general environment of the institution.One approach is to work to chanae aeneral educationrequirements by the addition of courses in technologicalliteracy/ and the second is to promote grassrootsefforts by even a small number of enthusiastic anddedicated faculty.

4) The first professional degree in engineeringunlike theother professions--is the baccalaureate. This uniquepattern makes issues of parity and comparison betweenthe engineering undergraduate curriculum and that ofliberal arts majors problematic.

5) There is a lack of clear consensus about who shouldactually do the work of designing and teadhingtechnological literacy courses: engineering faculty orarts and sciences faculty. A team approach may be themost effective in the long run.

aulatima_maA.Ananatigna

1) Are additional programs in technological literacy needed?

Yes.

2

We must determine whether we can defend additionalprograms as a needed/required component of theundergraduate education of every student.

What national-level stimulation would assist in theinitiation and growth of additional programs intechnological literacy?

Hold a yearly conference of approximately fiftyinvited guests to discuss central issues.

Organize a nation-wide cr.mmemoration of an eventrelatEd to technology. This would be in the mid tolate 1990$ and be used as a vehicle to raise publicawareness of the role of technology in the UnitedStates, past, present, and future, and the need forgreater technological literacy.

Work hard to gain the backing of the Association ofAmerican Colleges. Other organizations whoseendorsement would be useful are the Association ofAmerican Universities, the Council of Colleges ofArts and Sciences, the American Council onEducation, the National Association of StateUniversities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the

164

1 54

American Association of State Colleges andUniversities.

Write an article for publication on the back page ofThe Chropigle or for the AAC's publication LiberlaLSI

Write a monthly column for The ChroniglA onninterdisciplinarityn in higher education.

Arrange for the Council of Colleges of Arts andSciences to invite the engineering deans to meetwith them in a session organized around the issue oftechnological literacy.

Approach the National Science Foundation(particularly the Social Science and the Educationand Human Resources directorates) for funds topromote team approaches to technological literacy.

Aim at finding a charismatic national leader whocould stimulate change.

Creatd an exciting video series on technologicalliteracy, the history of technology, andengineering, to be shown on PBS.

Develop the model of John Leehart's series ofminute-long programs on PBS aimed at technologicalliteracy.

How can the technical and liberal arts faculty on a givencampus be encouraged to work together to generate programsin technological literacy?

Seek dollars for arts and sciences facultyfellcwships in engineering colleges.

Encourage grassroots initiatives by individualfaculty members interested in technologicalliteracy.

Initiate a program of faculty development topersuade engineers to become involved intechnological literacy courses.

Retrain liberal arts faculty so that they can teachtechnological literacy based on their areas ofspecialization.

Arrange for liberal arts faculty to be in moredirect contact with engineering faculty.

165

4

Deal directly with deans who can effect change antheir level.

Are special incentives needed to encourage faculty/studentsto become involved in technological literacy?

Yes.

Make six-to-nine hours of coursework intechnological literacy required for thebaccalaureate degree.

Work through institutional committees to effectchange.

Stress the art of engineering through professionalassociations.

Create two-to-four engineering fellows, recruitedfrom arts and sciences faculty, to develop programsmodeled on David Billington's program at Princeton.

5) How should we package what we are calling technologicalliteracy so that the converted-can sell it on their owncampuses?

Consider changing the term "technological literacy"using value free language in order to make theconcept more palatable across broad audiences oncampus.

Be aware that the general public has growingconcerns about the issue of sustainable technology.

6) How can we reach the CEO's of various colleges anduniversities to enlist their support?

Do a survey of presidents and provosts who arethemselves engineers to find out what they have beenable to accomplish in technological literacy ontheir own campuses.

work through national associations where campusCEO's congregate.

Aim at getting the support of provosts throughconferences.

166

151;

RESOURCES AVAILABLE

167

157

Programs Survey Report

During the 1960$ Americans recognized that they needed abetter understanding of the impact science and technology had onsociety in order to protect the environment, to limit the discordcaused by change, to sustain political and cultural values, andto insure the full participation of citizens in the economic andpolitical system. In the following years, universities andcolleges, foundations, professional and higher educationorganizations, and state and federal governments have engaged ina wide variety of innovative activities to improve the scienceand technological literacy of a broad range of individuals. Atthe academic level, these activities led to the introduction ofnew programs and courses at many colleges and universities. Thegrowth of interest and actions to improve scientific andtechnological literacy can now be viewed as a national movementfor educational reform.

Technological literacy involves an understanding of basictechnological systems and processes, the matheratical andscientific foundations of technology, and the use of thisknowledge to make intelligent, well-informed decisions andchoices about technological issues. In particular, it includesan understanding of technology innovation; technology assessmentand risk-benefit analysis; interaction between technology,science and industry; and related environmental, economic,social, agricultural, military, and international issues.

Thus far, the literacy programs that have bean developed arediverse, often divergent, and normally focused on science.Technol.)gical literacy has not received the same emphasis, study,funding, or curriculum development as science literacy. Over thelast five years, efforts to overcome this serious shortcominghave come from individuals and organizations loosely identifiedwith "science, technology and society" (STS) curricula andprograms. While credit should be given to those involved in STS,technological literacy continues to be a relatively unknownquantity in higher education curricula.

Ela...MR-121C-MENT STUD !

In the early part of the last two decades, a number ofcolleges ard universities in the United States started newprograms under the broad title "science, technology and society."Only a part of the STS programs were devoted to technologicalliteracy aspects. The degrees offered, faculty and studentinvolvement, and funding at various institutions varied greatly,based on the objectives of individual institutions.

169

155

Based on the various definitions and the institutionalperspectives on technological literacy, it is clear thatboundaries of the field are frizzy and there is no agreement onhow to define the technological literacy and hence, to identifythe institutions offering technological literacy to individuals.Ample evidence of this is the growth of divermified programs andthe large volume of research and articles produced in the lastdecade under the title technological literacy, whildh can only beidentified remotely with technological literacy objectives.

It can be argued that academic programs serve many purposes.But the aim of the technological literacy movement is to imparttechnological literacy to liberal arts or humanities majors.However, the SITS movement focuses on enriching the education ofengineering/science students with knowledge about the historical,social, and political dimensions of technology. The underlyingassumptions of these programs may be that we cannot separate thetechnological literacy and social aspects of technology.

In spite of pedagogical activities over the last twodecades, little has been done in a systematic way in thetechnological literacy field.

FUrthermors, from a review of pr experiences andobservations made by faculty involvedogastlechnological literacycurricula, a number of serious problems can be identified thatdeserve further study and improvement. Some of the major issuesare discussed below.

= f !I ..L.t

aranting.

In most cases the courses have been added to a list oftraditional caurse offerings, rather than integrated into adegree program. As such, science and technology courses forliberal arts majors depend upon attracting students with popularsubjects and flexibility in degree requirements. Students selectscience and technology courses at random, and this has severalimplications: 1) the courses are poorly integrated, resulting ina survey of science, technology and society issues; 2) thecourses can have little relation to the student's degree; 3) thecourses stay on an introductory level, avoiding in depthinvestigation or thinking; 4) no specific number of courses arerequired, and therefore, evaluating literacy is impossible; 5)courses are based on an individual instructor's area ofscience/technology interest, and are thus often narrowly focused;6) courses are unrelated to the students' standing, lower orupper level.

170

15 9

If science and technology programs are not integrated intothe organizational hierarchy, several consequences are possible:1) the intellectual contribution of the program to theinstitution is marginal; 2) few take the program seriously; 3)

the decision making process disregards the program and canundermine the legitimacy and purpose of science and technologycourses for liberal arts students.

inatsziwislA jaAansifaxgragsirs

Faculty members often must be re-educated in order toeffectively communicate with students from various degree tracksor their colleagues in the program. In addition, teachingmaterials must be processed to integrate the ideas, concepts, andskills necessary for science/technology curricula. Programfaculty must learn to coordinate and communicate acrossdisciplinary lines.

STUDY cmaEcTivIrs

In order to answer various issues raised about the status oftechnological literacy programs, this study, supported by theNational Science Foundation has the following main objectives:

To know the current status of technological literacyprograms;

To identify the principal objectives of these programs;

To assess tl-e extent to which these programs are trainingthe students in the technological literacy field:

To know about the enrollment of students and the facultymembers involved in these programs;

To know at what level technological literacy is impartedand;

To identify the major problems faced and prospects forthe future.

METHODOLOGY

To explore the various issues involved a general literaturesurvey of the STS programs, seminar and workshop activities, andthe research materials published in the field was carried out.

171

1 GO

Based on the literature survey, major institutions involved inthe STS field were identified. These institutions were asked tosend the information related to STS programs offered by them.From the information received and the earlier literature survey,an acceptable definition of technological literacy wasformulated. This intensive library roman& was conducted toidentify colleges and universities that offer major or minorprograms, or at least a few courses in the field. To maintain afocus on the technological literacy component, this did notconsider programs that can be identified as policy ornentificliteracy oriented. The main emphasis was also placed on collegesand universities that have both liberal arts and engineeringschools on their campus. From the library research andinformation received from the colleges and universities, twenty-eight institutions involved in the technological literacy fieldwere identified. Appendix 1 gives the list of the institutionsand their major characteristics.

Data Collection

To collect the information about technological literacyrelated programs, a questionnaire was prepare"! requestinginformation about the objectives, degrees offered, fields ofstudy, credits required, student's strength, faculty and theiracademic background, areas of research interest, funding issues,publications, and future plans of the program. Questionnaireswere mailed to the program coordinators of the twenty-eightselected institutions. A sample copy of the programquestionnaire is contained in Appendix 2. Of the twnety-eightprograms, thirteen program heads completed and returned thequestionnaire. Five program heads replied that either they hadwithdrawn their programs, or that they do not come under thescope of technological literacy programs.

Analysis

The information asked in the questionnaire was classifiedinto various headings as follows: 1) Origin and organizationalstructure; 2) Program objectives; 3) Academic programs offered;4) Student and faculty participation; 5) Funding issues and; 6)

Areas of research concern. Since the collected data has asignificant portion of descriptive information, the data were notcoded and tabulations were done manually. The followingdiscussion focuses on the analysis of the data by subjectheadings as discussed above.

Objectives of Pr9arams

In spite of the diversity among the programs inorganizational structure, courses offered, student and facultyinvolvement, and research conducted, there is considerablesimilarity among them in terms of their stated objectives.

172

161

However, some universities have broad based objectives likeproviding and/or examining social, economic, political,philosophical, and environmental aspects of technologicaldevelopments, while some others have sharply focused objectiveslike providing quantitative, problem-solving, and technologicalliteracy skills to its students. A critical examination of thevarious program objectives indicates three main overlappingobjectives. They are:

To study and examine the social, economic, and politicalimplications of technological developments;

To understand the ethical, and value dimensions and ideasinvolved in science, technology and society;

To promote an understanding of concepts, processes, andproducts of technological developments and to enhance thequantitative and problem-solving capabilities tounderstand and evaluate the impacts of new technologicaldevelopments.

At this stage it is important to recognize the fact that thelast objective is considered to be the main focus of thetechnological literacy movement. However, most of the programssurveyed heavily emphasize the first two objectives, and someeven do not include the third objective in their programs.Nonetheless, some of the liberal arts colleges, such as GrinnelCollege and Wellesley College that received large grants from theSloan Foundation under the New Liberal Arts program have varysharply focused technological literacy objectives. The mainobjective of Sloan's New Liberal Arts program is to include samekind of study of technology and the technological process intoliberal arts education.

2EigiaLfing_carsug

It is interesting to note that the major universities havebeen the first to recognize the importance of science andtechnological literacy and also to establish programs broadlytitled "science technology and society" (STS). Within the studygroup, Cornell University's program for studies of science andtechnology, established in the year 1969, was the first in theleading American universities. This was followed by PennsylvaniaState University in 1970, Stanford University in 1971, SUNY in1972, and Lehigh University in 1972. NJ1T established a programas early as 1977, but later it was modified, and a new versionwas started in the year 1987. In addition, there were severalliberal arts colleges that established science and technologystudies programs in the early 1980s and later years. Unlike themajor universities, most of the liberal arts colleges introducedtechnological literacy courses or programs with the help of majorNLA program grants from the Sloan Foundation.

173

162

The organizational structure of the programs clearlyindicates the broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of STSprograms. Most of the programs established in the early 1970sare now independent programs/departments. However, STS provamsat some colleges and universities are joim4y offered by two ormore traditional departments. Furthermore, some programs arehoused in engineering departments (as in Lafayette College),while others are housed in history departments (as in ReedCollege). STS programs at most of the small colleges ars part ofthe existing traditional departments and ars headed by a facultyin the regular department.

AgAilemisLizaanalLinslAzimarati2nWith respect to the academic programs offered, there is a

wide gap among the various institutions surveyed. Same of theuniversities offer the highest possible degree, that is thePh.D., while some otliers have only a few courses listed under theprogram for students from other traditional departments. Basedon the objectives of the individual programs, some offer socialscience degrees, some science, and some others even engineeringdegrees.

Irrespective of the above differences, a few institutions(for example, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) focuses anethical and value issues in their programs. Most other programsemphasize the social, historical, and political aspects oftechnology, and only a few have courses that can be exclusivelyidentified as technological literacy oriented. The majority ofthe courses offered at all levels have less technologicalliteracy component in them. It may be surprising to note thatsome courses developed for liberal arts students are now enrolledin by engineering students. Some programs offer STS degrees forengineering majors. This may indicate the need for engineerswith additional skills to deal with various aspects of newtechnology. Similarly, social science based programs may serveAs a technical complement to the increasing influence of scienceand technology on all aspects of human life. However, themajority of the courses/programs were developed to cater to theincreasing needs of liberal arts students.

Science and technology studies at Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute is the only program that offers degrees in STS from thebaccalaureate to the doctoral level. However, this program isdesigned for students who have academic backgrounds in such broadareas like natural sciences, social sciences, engineering,humanities, or science and technology studies. Furthermore, aspointed out earlier, this program has a strong emphasis on theethical, value, and political dimensions of technologicaldevelopment.

174

163

The STS program at Pennsylvania State University offers anundergraduate minor as well as a doctoral degree. Introductionof a bachelors degree in STS in the next two years is in theplanning stages.

Other major universities, namely, Cornell University,Stanford University, Lehigh University and NJIT offerundergraduate degrees in the STS field. However, individualprograms focus on diversified issues like biology and society,history and philosophical aspects, and human values intechnological development. In addition to the above; Cornellhas an undergraduate concentration in STS, Lehigh has an STSminor, Stanford has a Ph.D. degree offered through regulardepartments, and NJIT has an M.S. policy studies listed under itsSTS program.

SUNY offers an M.S. degree in Technological SystemsManagement and a minor in Technology and Society, as well asexclusive courses that can be identified as technologicalliteracy oriented. SUNY's department of Technology and Society,through its NLA Center, devotes a significant portion of itsacademic activities to technological literacy curriculumdevelopment.

Other colleges, namely, Lafayette, Grinnel, and ColbyCollege have minor programs in science and technology studies.Dartmouth and Wellesley Colleges offer only a few courses in STSas part of their undergraduate curriculum.

The total credits required at various institutes forbachelors degree varies from 72 to 124 with the average being 110credits. An average of twenty-seven core credits are requiredfor a bachelors degree. For minor programs at the undergraduatelevel, an average of eighteen credits are required in the variousinstitutions surveyed. Most of the programs surveyed encouragetheir students to take courses in other departments to fulfillthe degree requirements.

Student An4 Faculty participation

Unlike the traditional programs, fewer students are enrolledin STS programs at various colleges and universities. Only SUNY,NJIT, Stanford, and Cornell universities have a relatively largenumber of students enrolled in major programs. During 19900forty-seven students enrolled in the BA program at Cornell,twenty-four at NJIT, and twenty-five at Rennselaer PolytechnicInstitute. SUNY had the highest number (120 students) enrolledin its Master's program in the year 1990. However, the totalnumber of students enrolled in one or more of the technologicalliteracy related courses is significant even when compared withthe total university strength. For example, at LehighUniversity, out of a total of 6,500 students, approximately 1,000

175

are enrolled in technological literacy related courses. AtRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2,000 out of 5,500 students areenrolled in these technological literacy related courses. Othersmall colleges like Lafayette and Grinnel have lass than tenstudents in their programs.

Due to the interdisciplinary mad interdepartmental nature ofthe STS programs, the total number of faculty involved inteaching and research is difficult to ascertain. However, fromthe analysis it is clear that no program has moxe than six full-time faculty members based in the program. SUM' has the largestnumber, followed by Stanford and Pennsylvania State Ubiversitywith faculty numbers six, five, and four respectively. In termsof total faculty (full-time + Joint), Pennsylvania StateUniversity has more than 54 faculty followed by Lehigh Universitywith forty and Stanford University with twenty.

Funding Isspeg

Of all the programs surveyed, SUNY has the largest budgetwtich is $1.5 million, followed by Cornell University with $0.75million, and Pennsylvania State University with $0.5 million.WIT, Wellesley, Grinnel and Colby Colleges have funding levelsless than $150 thousand.

Except for Wellesley College (75%), most of the programsreceive less than 50% of its grants from outside sources. SUN!receives 40% of its grants from non-profit organizations. It isinteresting to note that most of the programs responded that itwill be possible for the department/program to continue allessential activities even if the external funding sources arewithdrawn. However, major programs like SUNY and PennsylvaniaState University felt that it is not possible to continue all oftheir essential activities without external funding.

Astms_21Amimumb_InSusat

Research interests of the programs surveyed can be mainlyclassified into four different areas. They are: 1)

Energy/environmental policy; 2) Historical/social aspects ofscience/technology; 3) Ethical and value issues inscience/technology and; 4) Communications.

Cornell University, NJIT, and Lafayette College focuses onall of the above four identified areas. Most other colleges haveresearch interests in historical/social aspects of science andtechnology. Besides the philosophical and policy aspects oftechnology, Pennsylvania State University focuses on technologyliteracy for citizens. Similarly SUNY is engaged in researchactivities leading to curriculum development in the technologicalliteracy field.

176

165

Conclusions

Today, the importance of technology in the daily lives ofindividuals and in society is growing at a rapid rata. In aworld already reshaped over recent decades by nuclear weapons,new technologies of transportation and communication, and a hostof innovmtions in agriculture, medicine, and many other fields,the pace of change gives no sign of slackening. The capabilitiesof our political, social, and economic institutions will belimited if a large portion of its citizenry are not aware of the

_implications of these changes.

After two decades of technological literacy activities,several colleges and universities are now offering teaching andresearch programs to a wide range of individuals. No course orprogram can boast success unless it fulfills the needs of itsstudents in particular, and society in general. Even thoughthere is no single institution that has technological literacy asits only objective, most of the programs' objectives overlap intothis area. It is clear that the whole technological literacyfield is embedded into loosely identified "science technologyand society" (STS) curricula and programs. This study wasconducted with the hope that a critical examination of STScurricula and programs along with other related courses andprograms at various universities in the United States will helpto identify the progress made, problems ahead, and futureprospects for technological literacy programs. The majorfindings of the study are summarized below.

This study clearly indicates the wide range of institutionsinvolved and the diversity of science and technological literacyprograms offered by them. Even though a broad title like"science, technology and society" (STS) does not place emphasison any one area of concern, the individual programs surveyed haveplaced heavy emphasis on science literacy, as well as, on thesocial, historical, and political implications of technologicaldevelopments. Though the importance of science and technologywas equally recognized in the early 1970s and l980s, even aftertwo decades, technological literacy has not received the sameemphasis as scientific literacy. If technological literacyinvolves an understanding of technological systems, processes tomake well-informed decisions and choices about technologicalissues, than most of the programs surveyed, to a large extent, donot fulfill this objective. An understanding of social,historical, or philosophical aspects of technology w.thout anunderstanding of mathematical and scientific foundations oftechnology does not contribute to the technological literacy ofan individual.

If technological literacy is mainly for liberal artsstudents, then most of the programs surveyed offer littleopportunity in this direction. Because of the small number of

177

166

students involved in these programs, it clearly indicates thatthere is a need to increase the number of courses and programsoffered in this field. An examination of faculty involvementclearly indicates the need for greater participation byengineering faculty at all of the institutions surveyed.Although funding from external sources appears to be a problem,most of the programs depend on university or state funding.

Based on the present study, the following recommendationscan be made:

There is an urgent need to recognize technologicalliteracy as a field and to clearly define its objectives.

To enhance the quality and quantity of the technologicalliteracy component, new courses and programs that have avery sharp focus may be developed.

There is a need to restructure the existing programs thathave broad and overlapping objectives.

Technological literacy courses might best tie introducedat the undergraduate level in the liberal arts program.

As far as possible, technological literacy programs thathave a sharp focus need to be housed in engineeringschools. This not only helps to focus, but alsoencourages faculty participation fkom engineeringschools.

Wherever possible, faculty from engineering schoolsshould actively participate in the interdisciplinary STSprograms to have a greater impact on the technologicalliteracy component.

There is an immediate need to identify new areas ofresearch along with differentiating the technologicalliteracy areas of research from the current areas ofresearch. This helps to identify and strengthentechno'-ogical literacy as a field.

External funding sources need to be explored in order tohave practical implications of the technological literacyfield.

To encourage student participation, incentives in theform of assistantships at the graduate level orscholarships at the undergraduate level, need to beprovided.

178

167

Tat* 1 Programs and their Major PharacteristIcs

College/University Department/ Degrees Field Areas of ResearchProgram Offered

1. Colby College

2. Cornell University

3. Dartmouth College

4. Grinnell College

5. Lafayette College

6. Lehigh University

7. &la

8. PennsyWania StateUniversity

9. Reed College

10. RensselaerPolytechnic

Institute

11. Stanford University

12. SUNY

13. WellesleyCollege

Science andtechnology

studies

STS

Technologystudiesminor

STS

STS

STS

Historydepartment

Science andtechnologystudies

Minor Scienceand tech.

studies

BASS Biala lgy

andsociety

Few courses

taw

Minor Technologystudies

BArninor

BSMS

BNBSMinorPh.D

Few courses

BSMANSPh.D

Values, technology BNBSscience and

society

Technologyand Society

KnorMS

Technology Few coursesstudies

STS

1. Computer aickid music2. Pristory of science3. History of techrobgy

1. Agriculture and society2. Ethical Issues in scienceAechnology3. Risk mgnt. and communications4. Science and technology policy5. Social studies of scieneMechnobgy

1. Technology transfer2. Tektcommunications

1. Energy policy2. Engineering ethics3. Risk analysis and communications

1. History/ phkisophy of scienceitech.2. Sociology/politics of sdence/tech.

STS 1. CommunicationsPolicy studies 2. Environmental policy

3. Ethics4. History of technology5. fAidia and technology

STSSTSSTS

STSSTSSTS

STS

T and STechnological

systemsmanagement

1 79 168

1. Philosophy of technology2. Technology fiteracy for citizens3. Technology policy

WSW

1. History of science and technology2. Public policy3. Politics of STS4. Science policy5. Values studies

1. History of technology2. Philosophical and ethical issues3. Technology and aesthetics4. Technobrgy and third scrid develop.

1. Curriculum development2. Educational computing3. Environmental and waste mgnt.4. Technology assessment

ers

I. Program Information:

1. Name of the university/college

2. Mame of the department/program

3. Address of the program

UNIVERSITY Of DELAWARE

Newark, DE 19716

TECHNOLOGICAL Limns Roam

atELFsiend.C.2

4. Name of the department/program head

S. Nam of the person completing this questionnaire

6. When was the department/Program started

7. What are the goats and objectives of your program?

8. What degrees does your program offer?

Degree

f

Field Total Credits

Required

Total Credits

Required inTechnology

LiteracyRelated

Courses

Credits of

Required CoreCourses If Any

Year the Program

Wes Started

SA/SSi

MA/MS

Ph.D.

Others

(Please

Specify)

f

i

1

i t

180

169

2

9. Row many technological literacy related courses are listed in your department/progrem?

(Including core, electives)

10. What are the admission requirements of your program?

I Degree Required Degree Field Other 1

Requirements

If Any

8A/8S

MA/RS

Ph.D.

Others

(Please

SP= i fy)

11. what are the future plane of your department/program? (Please indicate the new coursesplanned, programs proposed, and changes in the existing programs.)

11. Student Information:

1. What was the approximate total enrollment of the university during the academic year 1988-89?

8A/8S Ph.D.

Other CoursesNA/MS

2. Now many students are enrolled in your program?

i Tear

iF.T.

IM/BS

P.T.

RA/NS

F.T. P.T.

J

Ph.D.

F.T. P.?.

Other Courses

F.T. P.T.

F.T.: Full-time P.T.. Port-time

1811 70

3

3. What percentage of applicants for your degree Vora= are generally accepted for aditission?

21-Awseng

4. Meese indicate the roster of students with undergraduate degrees in the following fields:

Field NA/MS Ph.D.

Humanities,

,

Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

,

P11_12ysiscitoiceli_______

Engineering

Others

W. Faculty 1nfprmatir:

1. What was the number of faculty at the beginning of the program/

Full-time

Joint faculty

Research faculty

Others

2. Please indicate the number and discipline of the faculty involvedin the program during the 1989-90 academic year.

Qualification FulltimeEnsr. Non-Engr.

Joint-facultyEngr. Non-Engr.

Research

Engr.

faculty

Non-Engr.Others

Engr. Non-Engr.

Masters

Doctorate

182171

4

;V. Grants/Fyn*:

1. What is the current budget of the department/program/

2. What percentage comes from outside grants/contracts?

3. Please indicate the percentage of external funds from each of the following sources:

State Profit Organisation Other

(Please Specify)Federal Non-profit Organization

4. Will it be possible for the depertment/program to continue all essential activities if theexternal funding sources are withdftwn?

Yes No

5. Please indicate the total number of students financially supported by your program during theacademic year 19019-90.

Type of Support RA/BS NAAS Ph.D. 1

Full assistance

Partial assistance

(Tuition Support)i

1

+No assistance

I

6. Do you expect there to be a significant increase in student financial support fin the following

years?

Yes

V. Research Activities:

No

1. Please indicate the number of faculty involved in technological literacy related researchactivities.

Full-time Research faculty

Joint-faculty Others

2. Please list the major areas of research interest in the department/program.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

183172

3. What was the total amount spent on research activities during the year 1988-897

4. Do you expect a substantial increase in the research funds in the following years?

Yes No

5. Please list the major research grants received during the academic year 1989-90.

VI. Publication:

1. Please list the faculty publications during the 1969-90 academic year in the technologicalliteracy field. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

Title Faculty

(Author)

Source of PUblication(Journal, pUblisher etc.)

2. Does your program have any regular publications such as newsletters, magazines, etc.?

Yes No

If yes, please list them by title.

3. Does your program meintain any special collections, libraries or other resources relating tothese fields of study? CPlease describe).

184

173

5

FLA WRITTEN MATERIALS

The New Liberal Arts (NLA) Program of the Alfred P. SloanFoundation has the goal of assisting in the introduction ofquantitative reasoning and concepts of modern technology withinliberal education. The program is based on the conviction thatcollege graduates should have been introduced to both areas ifthey are to live in the social mainstream and participate in theresolution of policy issues.

The Sloan Foundation made major grants under the NLA Programto thirty-six colleges and eleven universities to conductseminars and workshops, and for the development of curriculummaterials. The Foundation believed that the success of the NewLiberal Arts Program would ultimately depend upon theavailability of written materials to serve as curriculummaterials for new courses.

Grants were given to faculty at Princeton, Stony Brook, andother schools, to prepare monographs from their courses. Thesemonographs were intended to present a few case studies or to makea presentation of specific technological concepts of themes.Other faculty members who had developed successful new liberalarts courses began to prepare textbooks. Eventually, theFoundation worked with MIT Press and the McGraw Hill PublishingCompany to publish a series of books on the New Liberal Arts. Areview of textbooks published under the NLA Program can be foundin the annotated bibliography section of this report.

A listing of monographs published under NLA support follows.Those with greatest applicability in technological literacyprograms are reviewed. NLA monographs are available from theResearch Foundation of the State University of New York, StonyBrook, NY 11794. Also following is a listing of extended syllabiavailable through the NIA program.

NIALMIMENZIM

1. Alfonso M. Albano, William Case and Newton H. Copp. Forcesand Forms in jiarge Structures. Bryn Mawr College, GrinnellCollege and the Claremont Colleges respectively, 1990. 122pages.

This monograph introduces the basic techniques used bystructural engineers in the analysis and design of bridges.Part One presents the design concepts such as stress,strain, bending moment, and shear force in experimentalform. Application of these concepts in the design of the

185

Eiffel Tower and the George Washington Bridge are discussed.Included are a number of exercises for the students to solvein order to understand the design of Salginatobel Bridge.Part Two is a structural study of the Felsenau and GanterBridges. In addition to analysis of forces it giveshistorical dimensions in the design of concrete bridges.Part Three discusses the need for freeways and introducesthe basic principles of design such as various loadingconditions, bending moments at various sections, andprestressing.

All sections of the monograph are presented withdiagrams and photographs of the various structuresdiscussed. It is a very useful volume for the introductionof the basic principles of design and the challenges facedby engineers in the design of bridges.

2. David E. Henderson. Air Pollution and Risk Analysis.Trinity College, 1990. 103 pages.

3. David P. Billington and Alfonso M.American Inventkm The SteamboatPrinceton University and Bryn Mawr

Albano. Episodes inand the Telegreph.College, 1990. 81 pages.

Presents the technical and scientific view of thesteamboat and the telegraph in the early years, and themajor roles they played in transforming the nation into atechnological society. The first part focuses on thehistorical developments of the steamboat, from the 1780s tothe 1820s, as an engineering object. Some basic ideas aboutreciprocating engines, horsepower, boiler explosions, andmotion of the ships through the water are also presented.The second part of the monograph presents the development ofthe telegraph. A major portion is devoted to topics likeVolta' batteries, Ohm's law, Oersted's experiments, andHenry's works on electromagnets and telegraphs. It alsoevaluates the social impact of this invention.

4. John G. Truxal. FeedBack Automation. SUHY at Stony Brook,1989. 84 pages.

This monograph introduces the concept of feedback andits applications in automation. It describes how engineersuse feedback to force the system to behave in the desiredway. Some of the examples used to illustrate feedbackinclude the control of tunnel traffic and the economicsystem. Another section presents historical perspectives onthe development of feedback. Also included is theapplication of feedback in cases like the cardiac pacemakerand in supermarket automation. A number of problems fromall walks of life is also included in the monograph as partof student exercises.

1861 75

5. John G. Truxal. Probability ,Examples. SUN"' at Stony Brook,1989. 87 pages.

6. Jonathan Hallstrom and George B. Todd. finersoui

Colby College and Middlebury College, 1990. (Only indiskette form (2 diskettes).

7. Joseph D. Bronzino and Ralph A. Rorelli. Plowledge BasedIIIMAXIAlmitsms. Trinity College, 1989. 122 pages.

This nodule presents the basic concepts underlying thefield of artificial intelligence, and highlights thetechniques employed in the development of knowledge-basedexpert systems. It provides a brief history of AI evolutionand discusses the three major branches within it. A majorportion of the monograph deals with organization of expertsystems, their impact in commercial, scientific, medical,and industrial domains, knowledge representation approaches,and the knowledge engineering process. Finally, itaddresses the advantages and disadvantages in the use ofexpert systems.

8. Kirk Jeffrey. Pacing_ the Heart. Carleton College, 1991.116 pages.

9. Marian Visich, Jr. Bar Codes and Their Applications. SUNYat Stony Brook, 1990. 56 pages.

This monograph presents the development of the six mostpopular bar code symbologies. In particular, it deals withbar code symbols, their applications, and working principleof optical scanners. Brief descriptions of Wand Scanners,Fixed Beam Scanners, and Moving Beam Scanners are alsoincluded. The six bar codes covered in this module areUniversal Product Code, European Article Numbering,Interleaved Two of Five Code, Three of Nine Code, Codabarand the United States Postal Service Code.

10. Morton Tavel. Information Theory. Vassar College, 1989.54 pages.

11. Newton Copp. Vaccines: An Introduction tq Risls. ClaremontColleges, 1989. 78 pages.

12. Newton H. Copp and Andrew W. Zanella. TM Electrificationof Los Anaeles:Enoineerino. Science. and History. TheClaremont Colleges, 1990. 84 pages.

This is a case study of technologies introduced in LosAngeles between the 1880s and the middle of the twentiethcentury to provide electricity for the growing population of

187

176

that city. Specfic fossil fuel-powered plants andhydropower plants are selected and studied for theirhistorical and technical significance.

This monograph introduces selected scientificprinciples associated with major technological advances inelectric power production. In particular, it deals withdifferent forms of energy, concepts of power and efficiency,laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, and a generaldescription of steam engines, generators, and turbines. Adiscussion about the search for alternative energy sourcespresents the key issues such as recent advances in scienceand engineering, the abundance and limitations of energysources, and our value system. An interesting feature ofthe monograph is a list of visual materials available tosupport the lectures.

13. Vincent H. Smith. The Economics of Tec4nology. MontanaState University, 1990. 125 pages.

14. Victor A. Stanionis and Hugh Berberich. ComputerAftsic:Science and, Techpploav of a New Art. Iona College, 1989.114 pages.

15. Warren Rosenberg. End_Staae Renal_PiseAse. Iona College,1990. 84 pages.

EXTENDED SYLLABI

Arthur Steinberg and Christopher Craig. "Technologies andCultures: Technologies in Historical Perspective."Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

David H. Roberts. "Introductory Astronomy." BrandeisUniversity.

Donna Jo Napoli. "Phonetics and Phonology." Swarthmore College.

Edward W. Sloan. "The Shock of the Machine: Technology andWestern Culture in the Industrial Age." Trinity College.

Harriet Pollatsek and Robert Schwartz. "Case Studies inQuantitative Reasoning: An Interdisciplinary Course." MountHolyoke College.

Haim H. Bau. "Introduction to Technological Concepts ThroughKitchen Experiments." University of Pennsylvania.

Jack S. Goldstein. "Technology and the Management of PublicRisk." Brandeis University.

188

177

John Tomsich. "Technology in America, 1820 to the Present: ItsDevelopments, Social Shape and its Effects." Reed College.

John P. Brockway. "Bioengineering and Health Technology: AnInterdisciplinary Approach to Five Machines of Medicine.Davidson College.

Lyle H. Ungar. "Expert Systems: Applications of ArtificialIntelligence." University of Pennsylvania.

Lawrence J. Kaplan. "Chemistry and Crime: From Sherlock Holmesto Modern Forensic Science." Williams College.

Michael S. Mahoney. "Technologies and Their Societies:Historical Perspectives." Princeton University.

Solomon R. Pollack. "World of Bioengineering: A Top Down Viewof Engineering for Freshmen." University of Pennsylvania.

Victor A. Stanionis. "Commercial Systems: An InterdisciplinaryApproacn to Teaching Science and Technology to Business Students.Iona College.

*For more NLA course syllabi, please refer to the list of the NLAcourse syllabi published by Stony Brook Center.

189

178

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY PROGRARM. ISSUES AND PROSPECTS

Adams, David L. et. al. "Science, Technology and Human Values:An Interdisciplinary Approach to Science Education."journal of College Science Teaching. 15 (February 1986):254-258.

Associattgnot American Colleges. "Science and TechnologyEducation for Civic and Professional Life: TheUndergraduate Years." Racine, Wisconsin: WingspreadConference, June 1982.

Baron, Naomi S. "Computers and Carburetors: The New CognitiveDissonance." Bulletin of Science. TechnoAggy kflociety. 8(No. 4, 1988): 390-396.

Bauman, M. Garrett. "Liberal Arts for the Twenty-First Century."The Journal of Higher Education. 58 (January-February1987): 38-45.

Billington, David P. "Structures and Machines in Urban Society."We4yer of Information and Perspectiveg on TechnplogicalLiteracy. 4 (Fall 1985): 2-3.

Boyer, Carol M. and Andrew Ahlgren. "Assessing Undergraduates'Patterns of Credit Distribution." amminAl_glAlgagrXducation 58 (July-August 1907): 430 441.

Bugliarello, George. "The Science-Technology-Society Matrix."Eu,Uer&j,xLsLf_,ggjjLncegbnooay & Society. 8 (No. 2 , 1988) :125.

. "Empowering Citizens Through TechnologicalLiteracy. Bulletin_of_Science. Technolcqv & Society. 10(No. 4, 1990): 187-190.

Casaregola, Vincent. "Literacy, Technology, and "Mediacy" --Redefining Our Terms for a Post-Literal Age." Bulletin ofscience. Technology 6 Society. 8 (NJ. 4, 1988): 378-383.

Cheney, Lynne V. "Humanities in America." Washington, D.C.:pational_Endowment for the Humanities, September 1988.

Clinton, William. "The Common Agenda: Liberating Undreamed ofTalent." Journal of State Government 60 (No. 2, March-April1997): 61-63.

Conference on the State of Science. Technology and Society.Worcester, Massachusetts: Worcester Polytechnic Institute,November 1987.

191

179

Council for the Understanding of Technology in Human Affairs."Technology for the Liberal Arts Students." Rep=Ptesented, at Pie "Curriculmm Workshop." College Park,Maryland: University of Maryland, JUne 1982.

Cutcliffe, Stephen H. and Steven L. Goldman. "Science,Technology and the Liberal Arts." Sc,ience. Technoloav andHuman Values. 10 (Winter 1985): 80-87.

. "Technology Studies and the Liberal Artsat Lehigh University." Bulletin of Science Technology &Society. 7 (Nos. 1 & 2. 1987): 42-48.

Daugs, Donald R. "Technology Process Skills." Bulletin ofScience. Technoloav & Society. 10 (No. 4, 1990): 197-200.

Deloughry, Thomas J. "Study of Transcripts Finds LittleStructure in the Liberal Arts." Chronicle of Highergducation. 18 (January 1989): p. Al.

DeVore, Paul W. "Measuring Technological Literacy: Problems andIssues." Bulletin of Science. Technology & Society. 6(Nos. 2 & 3. 1986): 202-209.

Dunathan, Harmon et. al. "Discourse Science Instruction."Liberal Education. 74 (No. 2, 1988): 23-31.

Dupuis, Mary M. "Reading, Thinking, and STS." Bulletin ofScience. Technoloav & Society. 8 (No. 51 1988): 490-497.

Fallow, A. "Levitating Trains and Kamikaze Genes-TechnologicalLiteracy for the 1990s." gmithEmaian. 21 (No. 2, 1990):153-155.

ders' Weekends -40 I f 1 11 I? .1

Alt = AP- _At

Potsdam, New York: State University of New York at Potsdam,November 1984.

Goldberg, Samuel. "The Sloan Foundation's New Liberal ArtsProgram." Change. 18 (March-April 1985): 14-19.

Kanigel, Robert. "Technology as a Liberal Art: Scenes from theClassroom." Change. 18 (March-April 1986): 20-27.

Koerner, James D. editor. "The New Liberal Arts: An Exchange ofViews." New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 1981.

Lindauer, George and Joseph Hagerty. "Technology and Society -An Upper Level Course." gngipeering Education. 74 (April

7-668.

192

Logsdan Tom. "Future Technology: Its Effects on You." VitalSpflieches. 53 (No. 23, September 1987): 716-722.

Lubbers, James D. rUsing STS as an Advance Organizer in Pre-Service Elementary Methods." Bulletin of Science.Techpology & Society. 8 (No. 5, 1988): 503-504.

Mathews, John et. al. "Towards Flexible Skill Formation andTechnological Literacy: Challenges Facing the EducationSystem." economic and _Industrial Democracy (UK). 9 (No. 4,November 1988): 497-522.

Miller, John D. "Technological Literacy: Some Concepts andMeasures." Bulletin of Science. T. ology & Society. 6(Nos. 2 & 3, 1986): 195-201.

Moss, Jerome et. al. "Forum on Technology Education Curriculum."Journal otialasilon Pi Tan. 13 (Winter/Spring 1987): 40-66.

Murchland, Bernard. "CitizenshipProblems and Possibilities."34 (November-December 1983):

La a Technological Society:Journal of Teacher EftgatIon.21-24.

O'Connor, John E. editor. "The Machine in the Garden State:Technological Literacy and STS Curriculum Development in NewJersey." Newark: itilLizarame_Insliatmte_21.211amasagy4.Center for Technology Studies. 1988.

Page, Ray et.al.Technology'Education.

"The School Council's 'Modular Courses inProject." Research in Science and Technological1 (No. 2, 1983): 239-245.

Peterson, I. "Knowing Little About How Things Work." ScienceNews. 22 (February 1986): 118.

Prewitt, Kenneth. "Civic Education and Scientific Illiteracy."2ournal_sol2amgher_education. 34 (November-December 1983):17-20.

Reaven, Sheldon J. "Using Science and Technology News Issues toDevelop Scientific and Quantitative Literacy." Bulletin ofScience. Iechnoloqy & Society. 8 (No. 3, 1988): 265 268.

Roy, Rustum. "The Science/Technology/Society Connection."Curri,guXum Review. 24 (January-February 1985): 12-14.

"STS: Re-Inventing the University withinthe Multi-versity." Bulletin of Science. Technology &Aociety. 8 (No. 3, 1988): 253-254.

. "Ten Years Young." Balletin of SciencetTrahaugs. 10 (No. 1, 1990): i-ii.

193

18I

Rutherford, F. James. "STS - Here Today and ...?." Bulletin of$ciance. T#chnglogy & Society. 8 (No. 2, 1988): 126.

Segal, M.P. "The Several Ironies of. Technological Literacy(Educational Standards and Liberal Arts)." MichiganQuaxpalv Review. 27 (No. 3, 1988): 448-453.

Stonebarger, Bill. "The Learning Power Index." BulletlA 9tficiange. 8 (No. 5, 1988): 506-511.

"The New Liberal Arts - Curriculum in Transition." AslactsdConference Papers. (June 1984 through September 1985).State University of New York, 1986.

Tobias, Sheila. "Peer Perspectives on the Teaching of Science."Change. 18 (March-April 1986): 36-42.

Truxal, John G.and How?."

Walks, Leonard J.Education."(Nos. 2 & 3,

"Learning to Think Like an Engineer: Why, What,ghann. 18 (March-April 1986): 10-13.

"Critical Theory and Curriculum Practice in STSJournal of_Businews_Ethics (Netherlands). 8February-March 1989): 201-207.

Maks, Leonard J. and Prakash Madhu-Suri. "STS Education and ItsThree Step-Sisters." Bulletin of Science. Technology and$ociety. 5 (No. 2, 1985): 105-116.

Watkins, Beverly T. "Mixed Results Seen in Universities' Effortsto Reform Teacher Education." The Chronicle of HigherEducation. 22 February 1989, p. A-13.

Weaver, Gary R. "Technology Studies in a Liberal Arts Context:"Bullsin of Science.Technoloav & Society. 7 (Nos. 1 Et 2,1987): 55-60.

Wiens, A. Emerson. "Technology and the Liberal Arts."2:1=2.12gY_TRAghgr. 45 (November 1985): 13-14.

Yehudit, J. Dori and Jerome M. Yochim. "Learning Patterns ofCollege Students Using Intelligent Computer-AidedInstruction." ;nurnal of College Science Teaching. 2

(November 1990): 99-103.

194

182

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECTED BOOKS

The following is an annotated bibliography of selected bookspublished recently and useful as ready references to thetechnological literacy field. The list includes all the books sofar published jointly by the MIT Press and MCGraw.Hill under theSloan Foundation's New Liberal Arts Program. Several of thebooks were written as part of the Science, Technology and Society(STS) movement and hence, approach their subject matter from abroad interdisciplinary perspective. RiChard P. Brennan's bookis particularly useful in providing a solid background in basicprinciples of science and technology.

Brennan, Richard P. lexitatina_inuna_sinasallizardLastima. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1990. 262 pages.

Intended to provide technical knowledge, this book gives asolid background on basic technological concepts and systems. Itsets out to define vhat technical literacy is and explains basicconcepts in space exploration, biotechnology, computer science,energy technology, and super conductivity. It also exploresinnovations and concerns in medical, environmental,transportation, and defense technologies. One interestingfeature of this volume is the wide range of issues covered, someof which are hard to find in the current technological literacyliterature. This is very useful as a textbook for theunderstanding of basic principles of science and technology.

Bronzino, Joseph D., et.al. Medical Technology gnd Society: AnUtUdiEgiaLMUCLIEIELEMMiliEg. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. 571pages.*

This book explains the technological base of some of themost important innovations in medical techno2ogy and discussesthe economic and ethical issues associated with their developmentand use.

It is divided into three parts. The first part deals withmajor technological, economic, and ethical issues associated withthe changes tIlat have taken place in the American health caresystem since the turn of the century. In particular, it dealswith topics like how changing economic conditions, and federaland state programs affect development and adoption of new medicaltechnologies. It also discusses cost-benefit analysis,assessment techniques for social costs, and analysis of the typesof moral arguments that surround debates concerning the use ofnew medical technologies. The second part of the book examinesthe specific areas of medical technology such as cardiovasculartechnology, critical care technologies, computers in health care

195

133

systems, and fundamental principles of several medical imagingmodalities. The last part of the book focuses on contemporaryethical and social concerns raised by the highly technologicalcharacter of modern health care.

Haskins, Loren and Kirk Jeffrey. Understandipg OgantitatiyeHistory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. 366 pages.*

This book is mainly intended for historians and apprenticehistorians who have little background in mathematics, and forundergraduates who are taking history courses, whether they arellistory majors or not. It presents the various terms and symbolsused by quantitative historians and teaches one how to analyzestatistical charts and tables. In particular, it deals withstatistical techniques like sampling, regression, and tests forstatistical sjignificence. Several practical examples are used todemonstrate the applications of quantitative techniques. Thisbook is particularly useful for students interested instatistical applications in history.

Mark, Robert. Light, Wind. and Structure: The iltchnology ofHistoric Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. 209 pages.*

This book covers the technological underpinnings ofdevelopment of new large-scale building types during the threehistoric eras: ancient Rome; the period of structuralexperimentation in High Gothic architecture; and the era of thegreat Renaissance domes. All of these periods had lastingimpacts on architectural planning. It reinterprets technologicalprecedents that are often misunderstood in contemporaryarchitecture. It also presents some of the basic concepts ofstructural engineering such as tension, compression, stress andstrain, conditions of support and shear failure etc. This textis aimed at the general reader as well as students ofarchitecture and architectural history.

McGinn, Robert E. Sciencefl Technology and_Societv. Englewoodcliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991. 302 pages.

This is an introductory study of science and technology insociety with particular attention to the contemporary era in theWest. Part One develops foundation materials useful foranalyzing science and technology in society. It introducesscience and technology as a field and discusses the generalnature of science and technology in society. Part Two presentsthe influence of scientific and technological innovation onmodern society. In particular, it deals with changes inindividuals, institutions, and social groups, values and worldviews, and the international order. Part Three is an interesting

196

194

discussion on how modern society has influenced scientific andtechnological developments. Issues of particular interestsdiscussed include central agents of societal influence, types ofinfluences, and the impacts of societal agents on modern scienceand technology.

Truxal, John G. The Aae of Electronic Messaaeg. Cambridge: MITPress, 1990. 487 pages.*

Presents the ideas which underlie the technology ofcommunication. It shows what scientific principles drive moderncommunications systems, what their potential danger are, and howthey impact our lives. In particular, it provides accounts ofthe origin and utility of bar codes like those used insupermarkets and the postal system. It also describes the wayelectronic signals are formed and used in such systems as radio,television, navigation, and medical imaging. Not only is this auseful text for its mathematical and physical explanations, butalso valuable for presenting the fundamentals and sociology ofcommunications technology.

Volti, Rudi. torcialm_and_Terchnsa2gical_cluangs. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1988. 279 pages.

Intended to be for use in courses about technology andsociety, this book presents perspectives, theories, and factsthat will help the reader understand the consequences oftechnological change, as well as the forces that produced it.

It is divided into six parts based on specific dimensions oftechnology. Part One introduces the nature of technology, itssettings and its limitations. Part Two describes the process oftechnological change. Specific issues discussed includeinvention and diffusion as social processes. Part Three presentsthe role of technology in the transformation of the work place.Parts Four and Five deal with communication and militarytechnologies. They describe the basic techniques involved, andtrace the economic, social, political, and religious consequencesof these technologies. Some of the specific technologiesdiscussed include printing, radio, and television. Part Sixexplores the interrelationship between technology andorganizations, and the governmental control of technology. Thisbook is practical in approach while discussing general processes.It is very useful as a general introductory textbook fortechnological literacy courses.

197

185

Wattengerg, Frank. Personal Mathematics and Courating: Toolsfor the _Liberal jkrts. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. 556 pages.*

Intended to teach students how to use mathematics to reasonabout a variety of real and important problems and how to usemathematics as a tool rather than as a concept to be studied inthe abstract. It presents applications of personal computing inareas like politics, economics, environment, public health, andecology.

The first part of the book contains eight programmingprojects whose aim is to teach, by example, True BASICprogramming. Each project introduces several elements of TrueBASIC and several progranming techniques. Together theseprojects provide a basic introduction to True BASIC programmingand illustrate a variety of interesting applicationsiand methodsof computer-based quantitative reasoning. The second part dealswith a number of applications of mathematics and computing toreal problems. Student exercises are included.

Westrum, Ron.Things. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991. 394

pages.

1. IDA !. t!

In recent times many textbooks and booklength case studiesthat approach technology from a historical perspective have beendeveloped. There are a few published materials that approachestechnology from the sociological perspective. This work isintended to fill that gap. Written to serve as an educationalresource for undergraduate and graduate courses in "Science,Technology and Society" (STS), it covers basic concepts in thetechnology and society fields. Divided into five parts/ contentsare arranged in logical sequence to enable the reader to refer tohis area of interest without the loss of continuity. Part Onedefines what is meant by technology/ examines the interaction oftechnology and social systems, and presents basic definitions andissues. Part Two reviews two major schools of social theoryabout technology and four contemporary viewpoints. Part Threediscusses the way technology is invented, designed, implementedand managed. Part Four presents the technological adaptation andthe external effects of technology. Part Five addresses theethical and value issues involved in technology and socialchange.

Wolfson, Richard. Nuclear Choicec, ALCitigen's Guide to NuclearTechnology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. 467 pages.

Written to provide the background needed to make wellinformed choices about nuclear technology, it introduces thebasics of nuclear energy and radiation, nuclear power and nuclearweapons.

The book is divided into three parts. Part One deals withthe nature of the atom and its nucleus, with nuclear radiation,and with the fundamentals of nuclear energy. Part Tim examinesnuclear power, including our use of energy, the operation ofnuclear power plants, nucluar accidents, nuclear waste, andalternatives to nuclear power. Part Three describes nuclearweapons, including thear operation, their destructive efforts,delivery systems fol- getting them to their targets, strategiesfor their use or non-use, the feasibility of defense againstthem, and the prospects for controlling these weapons andprevianting nuclear war.

*These were part of the NLA Program written materials

199

187

PROPOSALS

2 01

188

PROPOSAL FORTECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY CENTER _AT ABET

- To be funded by external (non-ABET) grants and contracts

- Activities to include:

Information clearinghouse (database on programs,people, books, courseware, etc.)

Newsletter (successor to the Weavex?)

Ongoing efforts of NLA Center?

Stimulation/guidance of appropriate projects (e.g.textbook development)

- Personnel

Center director or co-directors (part-time)

Secretarial/staff support from ABET (% of time ofspecific individuals)

Advisory committee, with external chairman

Newsletter editor

- Budget estimate (per year):

Stipends for director(s), editor

ABET support personnel (including OH)

Operations (publications, mail,phone, travel, etc.)

203

1S9

$100,000

PROPOSAL FORTECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

- Three-year project, grant funded

- Activities to include:

Stimulate interest in development of technologicalliteracy programs at colleges/universities

Conduct competition to select demonstration programinstitutions (approximately 10)

Obtain consultants to work with selected schools

Conduct workshops

-- bidders conference-- selected institutions-- progress reports-- final results report to broad audience (at end

of 3 years)

Manage the grant

-- interface to schools-- interface to sponsor

- Personnel

Project director

Secretarial staff, graduate students

Consultants

Advisory committee

- Logistics

Grant to ABET/AAC, with funding to include support forABET and AAC activities

RCJ as PI, funded part-time, withsupported part-time, and graduate

Seek support from NSF and private

204

190

his secretarystudents

foundation(s)

- Budget estimate (3 year project)

Demonstration projects (10)

Consultants, advisory committee

ABET (indluding staff time,contract administration, OH)

AAC (staff time, OH)

Workshops

PI, Secretary, Graduate Students(including benefits)

Operations (phone, mail, travel,printing, supplies, etc.)

205

I PI

$ 1,800,000