An environment for learning should be established thatreflects an informed awareness of how people learn, onethat prepares all students for life and work in a societydominated by science and technology and is based on theexpectation that all students can learn science andmathematics.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 119, Fall 2002 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 15

2

New Truths and Old Verities

Judith A. Ramaley

America’s future—its ability to create a truly just society, sustain its eco-nomic vitality, and remain secure in a world torn by hostilities—dependsmore than ever before on the character and quality of the education that thenation provides for its children.

To prepare all young people for lives of citizenship and social respon-sibility as well as success in a workplace increasingly shaped by science and technology will require some convictions. They are unlikely to under-stand any complex thinking unless during formal education they acquire adeep understanding of the ways of knowing of different fields and of theworld. If during their education, they are never required to examineassumptions, acquired early, deeply embedded, and applied withoutthought to the challenges of daily life, they will not be responsive to theinsights and knowledge generated by any discipline, including the sciencesand mathematics. I am convinced that in a world where knowledge of sci-ence and technology is increasingly the passport to success, this limitationcan mean a loss of opportunity and a barrier to any hopes for a reasonablequality of life. This need leads to the things that academic leaders shouldkeep in mind in shaping the future of the institutions for which they areresponsible. Science and mathematics must be a central part of a twenty-first-century liberal arts education. Scientists, mathematicians, engineers,and technologists have their own way of thinking about and talking aboutthe nature of our world, man-made and natural. They have their own vocab-ulary, their own ways of talking about ideas and problems, their own stan-dards of proof, and their own methodologies. All undergraduates, no mattertheir career aspiration, should become acquainted with these ways of know-ing as approaches that are complementary to the insights offered by other

16 BUILDING ROBUST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

fields. Students should not be asked to abandon these other ways of think-ing when they cross the threshold of a science or mathematics department,but rather should be challenged to see how different ways of looking at theworld can help them connect what they are learning in the classroom andlab to the world they will experience beyond the campus. We must prepareall students for lives of creativity, citizenship, and social responsibility, aswell as for success in a work environment increasingly shaped by scienceand technology.

Not only must every student become familiar with the ways of know-ing and the insights of science and mathematics, but every student mustmaster these ideas and concepts. The mantra that has emerged in K–12 edu-cation—that no child be left behind—applies with equal power to studentsat the undergraduate level. Our greatest vulnerability as a nation rests in theextent to which we limit the participation of all of our young people in sci-ence and mathematics and, more important, fail to expect that all studentscan succeed.

Learning is doing. Students who never do any science but simply read about it or are lectured about it are likely to acquire only a sense of cer-tainty about what is known; they will gain a false impression about the sci-entific way of knowing: how scientific and numeric and technologicalunderstandings are attained. Those who think that science is a productrather than a process—a messy process of inquiry—can become profoundlyuncomfortable when they are brought face to face with the uncertainties andarguments in the scientific arena that surface in daily life, including thosethat expose science and technology at the frontier. All students need toknow, from firsthand experience, the strengths and limitations of scientificand mathematical reasoning.

Students learn this best by being immersed in a discovery-based learn-ing environment. It is important to provide genuine experiences of doingscience throughout the educational experience, from preschool throughgraduate education; link the questions addressed in this learning environ-ment to issues that students care about; and integrate scientific explorationwith other disciplines so that all students can see how understanding thedifferent ways of knowing lead to a deeper understanding of their world andtheir place in this world. When science is meaningfully connected to thingsyoung people care about, it becomes a process of learning that shapes theirthinking and their lives rather than a product merely to be memorized andforgotten.

This learning by doing works best in a research-rich learning environ-ment in which faculty are as passionate about the quality of student learn-ing as they are about their own personal research. These faculty create aresearch-like environment for lower-level students, recognizing that suc-cess in learning at this stage motivates students to persist and considercareers in these fields. They also see involvement in research as the key to

NEW TRUTHS AND OLD VERITIES 17

success for those pursuing graduate studies or technical careers. Thereshould be tangible support for research-active faculty, at all career stages,recognizing that faculty who remain active as scholars and can share thatpassion with their students make a difference on campus.

We are learning about how people learn but do not often use what weknow. We know much about learning from the theoretical perspective, butthere is a significant gap between what the education research and the cog-nitive science communities have learned about learning and how scientists,mathematicians, and engineers apply these theories in their scholarly workas teachers and curriculum designers. We need to find creative ways to closethat gap by encouraging faculty to approach educational questions with thesame habits of inquiry, rigor, and discipline that they bring to their researchin the lab. It is particularly important that faculty who work with graduatestudents prepare them to address critical educational questions: Whatworks? How does it work? For whom does it work? and How do we know?Campuses should establish and support learning-teaching centers throughwhich faculty become acquainted with advances in cognitive science andlearn how those understandings can inform the selection of appropriatetechnologies, pedagogies, and assessment practices.

Strengthening the K–16 science and mathematics community is aresponsibility and an opportunity for undergraduate institutions. Attentionto the preparation of the generation of K–12 science and mathematicsteachers so urgently needed by our nation is one potential arena for K–16engagement. Campuses should give careful consideration to the appropri-ate roles for their STEM faculty in the development of teacher preparationprograms, forging connections between the disciplinary departments andthe education department or school. There should also be tangible supportfor programs that provide opportunities for current undergraduates towork in supervised settings in K–12 classrooms and for elementary andsecondary teachers to advise and learn from undergraduate faculty. For col-lege and university faculty in STEM, the experience of working with colleagues in the education field and those from the K–12 community canopen up new avenues of thinking about educational issues—how peoplelearn—as well as develop a broader understanding of the experience ofundergraduates and how to promote deeper learning of science and math-ematics for all students.

A deeper understanding of the ways of knowing within different fieldsleads to more profound learning. Samuel Wineburg (2001) offers a helpfulinterpretation of the problem of public understanding of any discipline.Although he examines this question from the perspective of history, hisinsights apply with equal cogency to the study of science and mathematics,engineering and technology. He makes the case that “historical thinking, inits deepest forms, is neither a natural process nor something that springsautomatically from psychological development” (p. 143) and argues that it

18 BUILDING ROBUST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

is much easier to memorize facts, dates, and names of historical figures thanit is “to change the basic mental structures we use to grasp the meaning ofthe past” (p. 146). History, in his hands, becomes an example of the chal-lenge of any form of disciplined thinking, any process of seeking to getbeyond the surface of a subject to its underlying warrants for truth.

Students are unlikely to understand the complex thinking of any dis-cipline unless, during their formal education, they acquire a deeper under-standing of the ways of knowing of that field. If they are never required toexamine those deeper assumptions acquired in early years and applied with-out thought to the challenges of daily life, they will not be responsive to theinsights and knowledge generated by any discipline, including the sciences,mathematics, and engineering.

The education of STEM majors must foster the desired qualities of aliberally educated person. In addition to learning the habits of mind andforms of expression and inquiry of science and mathematics, studentsmajoring in a STEM field should be expected to demonstrate the qualitiesof a person prepared to live a life that is productive, creative, and responsi-ble. There are many approaches to articulating the purpose of education atthe undergraduate level. All involve bringing together concepts of intellec-tual engagement and cognitive development with the fostering of emotionalmaturity and social responsibility. A college graduate should be informed,open-minded, and empathetic. These qualities are not engendered solely bygeneral education courses during the first two years of college. Science,mathematics, and engineering departments must build these expectationsinto their conception of the work of the major as well. It is helpful to thinkof an undergraduate education as a continuum of increasingly complexintellectual challenges, accompanied by increasingly complex applicationswith consequences of increasing significance for oneself and for others.

We know a lot about what works. As a scientist turned universityadministrator turned federal official, I am well aware of the problems thatacademic leaders face in thinking through, perhaps in reorienting, certainlyin building and sustaining an environment for learning that serves their stu-dents well. What I also know is that there is a rich and stimulating set ofexperiences within this nation’s undergraduate STEM community that canserve as a solid foundation for broader and more sustained efforts on indi-vidual campuses in all parts of this country.

As trustees, presidents, and other senior administrators make harddecisions about limited resources, they should take advantage of the lessonslearned in other settings and shape the future of the programs on their cam-pus based on those experiences. In industry, this would be called bench-marking: learning what works in other settings and adapting best practicesin ways that respect local circumstances. In the not-too-distant past, suchexchanging of ideas and information was difficult. From the practical per-spective, it was not easy to discover colleagues doing similar work becausethere was no community of practice within the educational community

NEW TRUTHS AND OLD VERITIES 19

such as that within the research communities. From the intellectual per-spective, faculty seemed disposed against adapting, convinced that localexploration and invention of programs and practices that work was the onlyway, skeptical about ideas that were not home grown.

Yet we are now seeing collaborations, partnerships, and networks thatserve the dissemination of best practices, most enabled by the sophisticatedtechnologies now ready at hand. Academic leaders, in administrative andfaculty offices alike, must take notice of the emerging National ScienceDigital Library, supported by the National Science Foundation. This librarywill be a tool by which to achieve excellence in science education at all lev-els, pre-K to gray.

Science is everybody’s business. This goes for presidents and provoststoo. The only way we can be sure that all of our nation’s undergraduates willgain mastery of the ideas and ways of thinking of science and mathematicsis to involve all leaders at all levels in all of our educational institutions.College and university presidents, trustees, and chief academic officers mustembrace the need for a more timely and coherent conception of the under-graduate curriculum for all students. They must encourage meaningful part-nerships between their institutions and K–12 communities in their region.They must connect with business and political leaders in shaping an agendafor action.

In doing this, academic leaders must come to understand why con-structing undergraduate experiences for all students that incorporate agenuine involvement in science and mathematics is central to their respon-sibility to preserve the long-term distinctiveness and viability of their par-ticular institution and to make a significant contribution to the good of oursociety.

Reference

Wineburg, S. Historical Thinking. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.

JUDITH A. RAMALEY is assistant director of the Education and Human ResourcesDirectorate at the National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia.

PART TWO

The Curriculum and theSequences of Learning