BACK TO:

1. How do we address the extraordinary inter-disciplinary breadth of materials science today in courses and curricula? (reporter: Philip Ball)
   1. Keep the core strong--does not need radical change.
   2. Incorporate new areas via group assignments, team design-oriented projects on new materials. Shave students teach this material to their colleagues (their only exposure)
   3. Use historical perspective in intro. courses--save specialization for the next tier, explored using group assignments as above.
   4. As the courses progress, the required assignments are stepped up and include industrially and socially relevant issues, including cost, economics, environment, etc. Increase challenge of assignments towards real constraints and standards of engineering practice. Also, increase the focus on new/advanced materials as the curriculum progresses.

   ---

2. How do we introduce new materials (biomaterials, composites, polymers) into the standard introductory course and still do justice to the "basics"? (reporter: Blair London)

   We still must teach the strong relationship between STRUCTURE and PROPERTIES (almost everything else will follow from this). Many of us really do include information on new materials in the intro. course, the question/challenge is can we change our thinking around how/what we present in this course in light of these new materials? That is, along the lines of Philip Ball's book which really talks about designing in the properties we want as we process the materials. For example, MBE growth of multilayer structures. There was a lot of sentiment that to even in presenting something like MBE structures that the students would have to know quite a bit of background.
   Most of the groups time was spent on looking at the goals for the intro. course: are we teaching MSE majors, non majors, do we use this course for recruiting, do we present information so that they think like MSE people OR do we provide information on what they need to know for their major? The group became fairly splintered here... there was not a true consensus on what people needed to know in the intro. course. This led to our discussion about leaving out dislocations (or even steels or other "basic" materials things) in the course. We were dealing with the question: does the typical (blank) engineer really need to know about dislocations? Again, not much consensus, but lots of good discussion.

   ---

3. Should our introductory courses be doing more with soft/biological materials? If so, how and what? (reporter: Jordan Poler)

   Yes, need to cover these materials in the intro. course. Suggest trimming some older, less applicable topics. Soft and biological materials should be approached through their properties and their processing. Synthetic and natural fibers and membranes have special properties, that should be incorporated into discussions of mechanical, electrical and optical properties. Biological materials are even more interesting because of the ways they are synthesized--and this should be discussed in contrast to processing of hard materials. An effort to collect introductory instructional materials in this area would be helpful to all.
   Discussion: Should students need to take organic chem.? No, not needed--too detailed. Should students take biology? No, cant get enough biology to make a difference. However, both could be important in the students future career development.
   A coherent story line is important regardless of what is covered. Oscar Wlide said: Education is what you have left over after you have forgotten everything you have learned.

   ---

4. What strategy should be used to incorporate new instructional ideas and methods into our classes? What backup/training is needed to accomplish this? (reporter: Charles McMahon)

   Primary discussion had to do with the need of institutional support to enable faculty to participate in developing multimedia teaching materials. The recommendation was to urge institutions to set up funds for competitive proposals by faculty to develop such materials, along with setting up centers of expertise on the campus to facilitate in selection of equipment and applications software, as well as to provide instruction to get projects started.
   We also recommend that clustering of institutions could help those that were short of funds, but have faculty who have the time and inclination to develop such materials. Ideally, a cluster would include a larger institution that had the funds to get things started.

   ---

5. What new materials are needed for our new, enhanced introductory classes? Laboratories? Demonstrations? Other? What specific approaches should be used? Should there be a central source of experimental and demonstration materials? (reporter: Jim Clum)

   This group considered an intro. course for non-majors and concluded that a lab should be included. This could be done using experimental kits. A central repository is needed for kits and introductory experimental ideas, labs and demos.

   ---

6. How do we convince current faculty that using new ideas and new teaching materials and methods is worthwhile? How do we retrain them? (reporter: Chester van Tyne)
   1. Need top-down decisions to make a difference--post tenure review, promotions, pay/reward structure, awards, respect, prestige. Motivate using assessment tools which all parties agree are valid and reliable.
   2. Evolution, not revolution.
   3. Choose techniques and ideas for more efficient preparation (i.e., disseminate pre-prepared tools) [See also question 4]
   4. There needs to be ways to make people aware of deficiencies in their teaching. Use student evaluations, self and peer assessments, mentoring. Use external ratings--government ? underground evaluations. Must be aware of the link between teaching and research.

   ---

7. How do we convince current faculty that using new ideas and new teaching materials and methods is worthwhile, at least for younger faculty? How can we be sure that teachers using new methods and ideas with not be punished at tenure time? Can we make this a real scholarly exercise that will be recognized as such? If so, how? (reporter: Jed Lyons)

   Young faculty are not the problem--just older faculty. Need to make tools available and reward their use. We cannot be assured that faculty using new methods wont be punished by tenure time unless such use is written into the reward structure. The need is for good mentoring to insure that the appropriate amount of time is spent developing new methods. We can make sure that real scholarly activity in educational materials development is rewarded by making sure that we have peer review and publications. Need to establish other assessment methods than those used by US News and World Report. Assessment needed for rigor in publication--need quantitative assessment data. Prestige of journal is important. In research universities, young faculty need to be careful in spending too much time on education vs. research--need a good mentor for guidance.
   Discussion: Should there by a separate teaching tenure track in research universities? Response: no, teacher types would be second class citizens.

   ---

8. How do we excite the best students to study MSE? Should we start earlier with outreach programs? If so, what type? How can we best reach the students at the incoming college level? (reporter: Bob Hilborn)
   1. Short term approaches-- Improve MSE 100. Recruit first year students in ENGR 100 by providing MSE design problems, demos, guest lecturers. Careful with calculus. Work also on transfer students. Use scholarships as incentive.
   2. Long term approaches-- Outreach to HS teachers--a multiplier effect. Also K-8 teachers. HS student activities include visits to campus, demos, movies; MSE Olympiad; distance learning; science fairs. Find ways to get to pre-service teachers. Continuing Ed--look at NTU, masters program in materials education.

   ---

9. How can we effectively communicate the new ideas discussed and developed at this conference to our peers (both within the standard MSE community and those in related, peripheral areas)? (reporter: Jacqueline Issacs)

   Audience should include educators for engineering and MSE as well as K-12, jr. college, 4 year non-majors. Available resources should be sold as ways to motivate student interest. Includes traditional MSE as well as newer materials, lab modules, in class demos, group excursions, improved lecturing techniques, use of multi media as appropriate. Need a repository from which information can be accessed. Dissemination of new ideas via the resource center needs to be as broad as possible, with ads in professional journals on a continuous basis, faculty workshops, short courses at annual meetings, exhibitor booths at national conferences. We all need to make sure that word of mouth works too!!
   Discussion: How does a resource center and related activities survive in the long term? Use publishers? The materials community must provide leadership!

   ---

10. What sort of long range strategy can we recommend that will encompass all of the above and effect real change in the materials education community? Can we make this a national agenda? (reporter, Gerald Liedl)

    This discussion involved developing the identity of MSE as a field, coordination of professional society activities, and marketing of MSE.

    1. Sloan foundation has funded a careers brochures and web site, with interviews and information on MSE careers. Well done. Brochure available from TMS for $2 each--check their web site or call them at (724) 776-9000. The careers web site is given below; a CD ROM will also be available.
    2. Coordination of educational activities among the various professional organizations is essential. This will be facilitated by Linda Vanasupa (who will develop a web site for this purpose) and representatives from the various organization.
    3. Ideas presented on marketing include developing a MSE toolkit for outreach to present a coordinated picture of MSE whenever the opportunity is available; developing a set of faculty who would provide lectures and information, "Experts on Call;" K-12 outreach program coordination and development of an outline on how best to proceed in this manner; and outreach to the general population on MSE. Sign-ups and appropriate web sites for these activities are given below.
    4. A collection of MSE curricular materials has been funded recently by NSF. PIs are Tom Stoebe, Rustum Roy and Gerald Liedl. This will provide a web site listing available curricula with a classification system to make it easy to use. A request for submissions will be sent out in the Fall; current and former NSF and other educational projects will also be listed if useable curricula were developed. This will include both college-level and secondary level curricula.