Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 21:20:24 -0400 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: adjuncts Dear Colleagues: Zvi Grauer makes an important point. Throughout industry and education there are more and more efforts at cutting costs and requests to do more with less. At one point the use of computers in teaching was thought to hold an answer to the problem of productivity of faculty. This promise has not been fulfilled except perhpas for the efficient recording of grades. As Zvi points out some real savings come from hiring adjuncts. This approach to teaching and education also points out the true value system of society and our campuses. The need for critical thinking skills and life long learning habits among students of all ages is one of the greatest needs that should be addressed by teachers. How this is accomplished may require a major paradigm shift in teaching and learning. We cannot continue to try to solve the problem piecemeal. We may need to use some really different strategies to reach the regular students and the non-traditional students. We may need to try things without worrying about content in order to see if alternative approaches work for majors and non-majors alike. We need repositories of tools and strategies for major's and non-majors courses as Zvi suggested in his second note today. These repositories need to be advertised and promoted. The WWW may hold an answer as more and more faculty post their materials on web pages at their home institutions. The number of these sites will proliferate and some duplicaton of effort is inevitable. However, after the initial burst of building there will be a time for reflection and collection of ideas by faculty involved. Just think what it would be like if just twenty faculty posted essays and accompanying learning materials on twenty different topics in Environmental Chemistry for example. That would be twenty different tools for a beginning faculty member or an experienced one teaching the course for the first time. Why use a text book at all. We will need to give up some of our individualism in order to be more productive and effective and in order to have time to do some of that research that some crave to do if only they had the time. Alternatively with the time saved some could write a teaching unit for a group of colleagues. There are some really innovative approaches to teaching being attempted in the K-12 grades especially in math. There is something called the geometry forum coming out of Swarthmore college I think. Here students do geometry on-line and annotate solutions of other students in other schools. Wouldn't this be a neat way to teach chemistry, organic for example. Then there is the possibility of loading up Mathcad examples on to a site for physical chemistry students. Teachers could choose a subset for classroom use. Students could create their own pages to upload to the Web. We could do away with reading our notes or having students listen to us read them. We could analyze discuss and understand instead. Wouldn't it be interesting to work through pchem with a group of carfully constructed Mathcad or Maple examples and then use the standard texts as resources for data and formulas. Class time could be spent doing discussion of real problems, assessment, and evaluation. Think of all of the time that could be saved if other physical chemistry faculty had access to these resources instead of needing to create them alone from scratch. If these materials came with annotations and questions to help students to learn the material they would be even more valuable. I must give credit to those who are already trying to deliver these materials to others in pchem. They are Sid Young from the University of South Alabama and Frank Rioux of St. John's University in MN I think (don't have my address book handy) to just name two. Other resource persons can be found in the pages of J. Chem. Ed. Other efforts include the up-coming on-line chemistry course scheduled for the spring. Reed Howald or George Long are two contacts for this project. There is stuff starting but we need to roll up our sleves and keep it moving. I hope this helps. (BTW I don't have a web page yet but will start working on one soon) Regards, Theresa > I was wondering how we can fit the increasing use of adjunct professors with > our ideals about teaching and research. > > Using adjuncts is becoming a popular way to cut costs, since their pay is > 75-35% that of tenure track faculty, they do not get benefits, and they are > disposable, allowing flexibility in staffing according to enrollment level. > > Due to the low pay, the adjuncts either teach 4-6 courses a semester to make > ends meet, or teach for "pocket money" in addition to social security or > wages from a full time job. They have little time and incentive to improve > teaching and practically no option to do research. > > I would appreciate comments from the distinguished presenters in this > conference and their learned colleagues who were so active at the first days > of the conference. > > Zvi Grauer. Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University FCHEZIELI@NIAGARA.edu Chemistry Department 716-286-8257 (campus office) Niagara University NY 14109 716-639-0762 (home office) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:06:51 -0400 From: Mary Swift Subject: jbellina's commments Colleagues: Most of the discussion in this conference would have found its' place correctly on the chemed-l. However a few have offered suggestions for 1) defining ourselves _ this is in contrast to having others define us. 2) defining our evaluation criteria and thereby our roles Dr. Reeves and Bellina have both recently made suggestions and observations in these areas which lead to the incorporation of the 'scholarship of teaching' as an important characteristic of our careers in academia. (I know Dr. Bellina takes issue with the latter statement, at least in part). Are these two models compatible? Would we like to recommend something like these to our college/university administrations? Mary Mary L. Swift Voice: 202-806-6289 Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Fax : 202-806-5784 College of Medicine Howard University E-mail: mswift@umd5.umd.edu Washington DC 20059-0001 Mary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:27:43 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: jbellina's commments >Colleagues: > >Most of the discussion in this conference would have found its' place >correctly on the chemed-l. However a few have offered suggestions for >1) defining ourselves _ this is in contrast to having others define us. > >2) defining our evaluation criteria and thereby our roles > >Dr. Reeves and Bellina have both recently made suggestions and observations >in these areas which lead to the incorporation of the >'scholarship of teaching' as an important characteristic of our careers in >academia. (I know Dr. Bellina takes issue with the latter statement, at least >in part). > Not at all -- I read his posting as emphasizing the importance of "schlarship of teaching" but he made the distinction, lost in part, during some of our discussions, between the "act" and "schlarship" of teaching. >Are these two models compatible? Would we like to recommend something like >these to our college/university administrations? > >Mary > >Mary L. Swift Voice: 202-806-6289 >Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Fax : 202-806-5784 >College of Medicine >Howard University E-mail: mswift@umd5.umd.edu >Washington DC 20059-0001 > >Mary Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:52:07 -0600 From: "M. B. Freilich" Subject: Summary: Authors of Paper #4 (long) Closing Thoughts On The Implementation Of The Scholarship Of Teaching J. Ivan Legg Mark B. Freilich On Oct. 16, Henry Welch reminded us that there are many among us, himself included, who are very capable chemists and engineers, but whose concomitant skills are those of the classroom, not the research laboratory. He has found a teaching institution that values and rewards these skills; that is how it should be. However, the focus of this conference is the institutional expectation that faculty be engaged in scholarship and publication and the role the scholarship of teaching should play. In response to our paper, Professor Howald's comments highlight important arguments. On October 24, he wrote that ". . . attempts to establish a way for universities to reward 'scholarship of teaching' in a way parallel to 'scholarship of research' are intellectually defensible, but are way off the mark if the aim is either to improve teaching or to improve the public image of the institution or the profession." We, of course, began with the belief that the scholarship of teaching in and of itself is worthy of reward, but we should remember that many who engage in the scholarship of teaching do so to gain insights that will enable better teaching. Though the essay quoted by Dr. Bellina (10/26) raises interesting questions, it appears to say that researching better ways of teaching, or a better understanding of the learning process, is TEACHING, whereas research into better chemistry or engineering (as recognized by peers) is RESEARCH. To say "faculty activity with students as the target audience is teaching [but] faculty activity with peers as the target audience is scholarship/research" is to imply an equivalent: Industrial/land grant university research with consumers/farmers as the target is something other than research, but "basic" research from which other researchers may benefit is "true" research. Scholarship is both the acts of accumulating new knowledge (about chemistry, engineering, teaching or anything else) and developing practical applications of that new knowledge. Peer review is the first important filter that distinguishes mere activity from scholarly activity. Therefore, communication of teaching scholarship to others, in chemistry and engineering education journals, science education journals, education journals, national meetings, workshops, textbooks and laboratory manuals, is essential. Its practical implications must be tested in the classroom, the equivalent of the laboratory or pilot plant within "traditional" scholarship. When teaching improves as a result of this scholarship, the entire academic community benefits, but the authors believ this improvement in teaching should be evaluated as teaching, not research, and rewarded as such. It is our concern that the scholarship itself be recognized and rewarded as scholarship. That is what we are implementing at The University of Memphis. This implementation can only result when the scholarship of teaching is formally recognized as valid by academics outside a college, school or division of education, and that requires a commitment from both faculty AND administration. The initiative for implementation may come from within the administration, as at our institution, or from within the faculty. Its source is not important; its acceptance by the institution is. What qualifies as scholarship must be argued by faculty before faculty. Concerns must be recognized and addressed. Implementation must be seen as an expansion of scholarship, allowing for greater scholarly participation by an active, vital and thoughtful faculty, not as a diminution of the value of "traditional" scholarship. If there is no general agreement among faculty and administration, recognizing that there may always be some who are not convinced, attempts at implementation are likely to be stillborn. Even with general agreement, implementation must be policed, within departments by chairs and committees, within colleges or divisions by faculty committees and deans and within the institution by the senior administration. Arriving at an institutional consensus may be a long and difficult task, but the evidence is that many institutions are ready to welcome just such an opportunity. Both an institution's educational and scholarly missions are likely to benefit. Excellence in education cannot be achieved without scholarship and our great institutions of higher learning are filled with fine scholars. Theresa Zielinski (10/26) is correct. She says, "I think we can and we do implement the scholarship of teaching. The degree to which this is done is not [yet] assessed effectively." "I am become binary, communicator among worlds." [To paraphrase Dr. Oppenheimer.] Mark B. Freilich, Ph.D. Off. Ph. (901) 678 4445 Department of Chemistry Off. Fax (901) 678 3447 The University of Memphis freilichm@cc.memphis.edu Memphis, TN 38152-0001 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:56:22 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Summary: Authors of Paper #4 (long) >Closing Thoughts On The Implementation Of The Scholarship Of Teaching > >J. Ivan Legg >Mark B. Freilich > >Though the essay quoted by Dr. Bellina (10/26) raises interesting >questions, it appears to say that researching better ways of teaching, or a >better understanding of the learning process, is TEACHING, whereas research >into better chemistry or engineering (as recognized by peers) is RESEARCH. That is not what it said as I read it. The application in front of your students is TEACHING, the communication to your colleagues of what you have learned and what worked on testing it out in "the lab" if you wish, i.e. before students, is the "scholarship of teaching. If it is nothing but style --- then my Newsreader analogy holds, if it is new content or new ways of presenting old content, the presentation is TEACHING but the communication to ones PEERS of this NEW approach is SCHOLARSHIP. I don't see why this is found to be a difficult concept to understand. >To say "faculty activity with students as the target audience is teaching >[but] faculty activity with peers as the target audience is >scholarship/research" is to imply an equivalent: Industrial/land grant >university research with consumers/farmers as the target is something other >than research, but "basic" research from which other researchers may >benefit is "true" research. There has been no discussion of pure vs applied research in these sessions, and most P & T committees deal with them together. > >Scholarship is both the acts of accumulating new knowledge (about >chemistry, engineering, teaching or anything else) and developing practical >applications of that new knowledge. Peer review is the first important >filter that distinguishes mere activity from scholarly activity. >Therefore, communication of teaching scholarship to others, in chemistry >and engineering education journals, science education journals, education >journals, national meetings, workshops, textbooks and laboratory manuals, >is essential. And this is what has been defined as the schlarship of teaching to which you objected above. Its practical implications must be tested in the classroom, >the equivalent of the laboratory or pilot plant within "traditional" >scholarship. When teaching improves as a result of this scholarship, the >entire academic community benefits, but the authors believ this improvement >in teaching should be evaluated as teaching, not research, and rewarded as >such. If it has not been communicated to peers it cannot be jusdged, and why jusdge it as "teaching" when it is a different form of schlarly work -- if I get a research idea while teaching a class of undergrads should that go on my CV as "teaching". If I learn something worthwhile about the pedagogy of my discipline while teaching, or in the process of preparing to teach, that is scholarship and may be valid as such even if I am a lousy teacher who insists on mumbling into my notes kept in an inside jacket pocket (as one professor of thermodynamics I had used to do). It is our concern that the scholarship itself be recognized and >rewarded as scholarship. That is what we are implementing at The >University of Memphis. But you seem to argue against this above. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:00:05 -0700 From: Kevin Karplus Subject: Re: Teaching and Research I am disturbed by both Joseph Bellina's comments and M.B. Freilich, both of whom seem to support teaching, but who equate "scholarship" with "research" so firmly that they reject as "scholarship" anything that isn't research (Bellina more strongly so than Freilich). I agree with Bellina that "the only real solution to this is to stop placing activities in categories and, instead, to judge the individual's contribution as a seamless whole." I believe that was the intent of the "scholarship of discovery, teaching, application, synthesis" paper---to provide an umbrella term "scholarship" to encompass ALL aspects which are appropriate to judge faculty on. If we insist on restricting this term just to the research (the scholarship of discovery), then we have lost the vocabulary we need to talk about the whole. Since there is already a term for that specific type of scholarship, I would really like to see the word "scholarship" used for the whole thing. In short, TEACHING IS SCHOLARSHIP. We may have difficulty evaluating the act of teaching, just as we have difficulty evaluating the act of research. For research, we have accepted the peer evaluation of papers describing the research as a reasonable proxy for evaluating the research itself. Our task in evaluating the other forms of scholarship is to adopt similarly acceptable proxies. For teaching, several proxies have been proposed or used o student comments on the teaching o student outcomes (in standardized exams or subsequent classes) o classroom visitation by peers o classroom visitation by "trained observers" o course portfolios o reflective essays by the teachers o faculty "observers" who don't just visit once, but take a full course o published papers about teaching o published textbooks o artifacts of teaching: lab manuals, workbooks, software o published research into teaching methods I believe we should be debating which of these (or other proxies) we want to see used for evaluating teaching, what the strengths and weaknesses of each method are, and how we (as present or future evaluators of faculty) should interpret the different proxies. I think this e-mail conference has focussed too much on the competition between research and teaching, and not enough on how we evaluate scholarship (broadly viewed) fairly. --------------------====================-------------------- Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus Due to budgetary constraints the light at the end of the tunnel is being turned off. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:57:46 -0400 From: Stanley Pine Subject: Some final thoughts Dear Colleagues: In this summary discussion of the ChemConf, let me first thank Arlene Russell and Mike Pavelich for the organization and Tom O'Haver for the electronics. Also to the four "speakers" who provided the stimulus for our responses. I share Bob Lichter's early comment that it seemed as if we were at a conference with everyone talking at once. I hope that will improve as we all learn this relatively new approach to conferencing. From the marked reduction in messages after the first few days, I am afraid that many were discouraged from continuing. Although we all have the common goal of educating our students in chemistry, the rewards will be quite variable depending on individual faculty and their wide range of institutions. That was clearly reflected in the wide variety of opinions during this conference. I think that the most important thing that is happening, and this conference is an example, is that faculty and institutional leaders are talking; Ivan Legg's contribution is just one such example of a changing environment. And, be it good or bad, the public and legislators are also getting involved. Hopefully each of us can use some of these ideas as we take the opportunity to help make changes within our own environment that accomplish our personal and professional needs and ultimately lead to maximizing the benefits to our students. Stanley Pine California State University, Los Angeles email: spine@calstatela.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:51:54 EDT From: "JAMES E. STURM" Subject: Summary comments on CHEMCONF My $.02 worth: To me these weeks of CHEMCONF have included exchange of views on what is valuable besides research in academicians who also conduct courses. Some policies may be modified as a result, but there remains much that is cloudy. While reading & thinking on the theme, I've thought of academicians at the extremes of edification in their non-research practice. We can cite, happily, those whose writings have contributed to recognized difficulties in teaching of concepts. I expect that these contributors have been recognized appropriately by their institutions. Inequities arise with those in the broad middle when their moderate contributions aren't recognized in the P and T structure. I feel that this omission of recognition is at the heart of the overall problem. Corresponding measures of their accomplishments are imprecise. While some mention was made of abolishment of the tenure system, strong reaction indicated that this route wouldn't help to solve the problem and would generate much disruption. A colleague here is aware of the suggestion of an intermediate scheme: make the term of the academician's contract limited to, say, 6 years but with annual review. Favorable annual review would renew the 6-year contract, but unfavorable review would reduce the contract by one year. Thus, a spate of unfavorable reviews would give the message of termination to come but with some chance for rebound. Did I miss any suggestions of similar schemes? James E. Sturm (jesd@lehigh.edu) Lehigh Univ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:08:23 -0400 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: Re: Reeves and Bellina suggestions Dear Colleagues I too think that the suggestions and remarks made by Drs. Reeves and Bellina are very important suggestions. Some draft proposal should come from this meeting as Dr. Swift suggests. Perhaps someone would volunteer to draft the findings of this conference with respect to rewards for teaching and recognigiton that would be appropriate to the valuable contribution made by those who are primarily doing the instructional arm of our discipline Sincerely Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University FCHEZIELI@NIAGARA.edu Chemistry Department 716-286-8257 (campus office) Niagara University NY 14109 716-639-0762 (home office) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:56:03 CST6 From: "Henry L. Welch" Subject: Re: Summary comments on CHEMCONF > JAMES E. STURM wrote: > would generate much disruption. A colleague here is aware of the suggestion > of an intermediate scheme: make the term of the academician's contract > limited to, say, 6 years but with annual review. Favorable annual review > would renew the 6-year contract, but unfavorable review would reduce the > contract by one year. Thus, a spate of unfavorable reviews would give the > message of termination to come but with some chance for rebound. Did I miss > any suggestions of similar schemes? This has a lot of similarities to the non-Tenure system here at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. Length of contract is actually related to current rank with 4 years for Assistants, 6 years for Associates, and 8 years for Full Professors. We do not shorten the length based on bad annual reviews, but do try to take this into consideration. ====> Henry <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Dr. Henry L. Welch, P.E. Phone: 414/277-7326 (W) Associate Professor 414/375-8763 (H) EECS Department Fax: 414/277-7465 Milwaukee School of Engineering 1025 N. Broadway welch@warp.msoe.edu Milwaukee, WI 53202-3109 "Life's a bitch and then you're reincarnated." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:35:40 -0400 From: "Lyle D. Feisel" Subject: Re: any final thoughts? Colleagues, One final thought. Due to my travel schedule, it must be done in haste, and may therefore be a bit fragmentary. For that I apologize. I would like to suggest that the title of this conference could lead us astray. "Can We Implement the Scholarship of Teaching?" might suggest that there are several kinds of scholarship and that we are debating which one we should choose to implement. That is NOT Boyer's message. Boyer said - and I find his arguments very compelling - that a faculty person should lead a life of scholarship and that this life has four distinct but inseparable components: teaching, discovery, integration, and application. Our problem in the past is that we have tended to separate those areas and, as a consequence, have neglected or overemphasized one or the other. I would guess that most of us think that teaching is the one that has been neglected (I believe Boyer thinks that) but I know full well there are people who think that one or more of the others is not receiving the attention it should. Our goal should be to to encourage, facilitate, and reward this broadened concept of scholarship in every faculty member, recognizing that "there are varieties of gifts" and that "for everything there is a season". At 07:13 AM 10/26/95 PDT, you wrote: >Welcome to the final two days of the ACS - ASEE Conference > >Faculty Rewards: Can We Implement the Scholarship of >Teaching? > > >At this point we open the electrons to general discussion and >concluding thoughts. We co-chairs have found the papers and discussion >to be thought provoking and useful. At the very least we have >helped each other get a far better handle on the issues and the data. >We will thus be able to contribute more effectively to such >discussions/decisions on our individual campuses. > >We invite each of you to share your final thoughts with the whole group. >Possible approaches are: > >> What were some of the ideas, insights that caught your interest? > >> What issues were clarified for you? > >> What issues remain undiscussed? > >> What would be your answer to the Title Question? Reasoning? > > >The paper authors are invited to contribute their summary thoughts >on Friday about mid-day. The Chairs will distribute a conference >evaluation form late Friday or early Monday. > >P.S. We do have another awesome sunrise working in downtown Golden > >Mike Pavelich - CSM >Arlene Russell - UCLA > ****************************************************************************** Change e-mail address to feisel@binghamton.edu ****************************************************************************** Lyle D. Feisel, Dean Tel (607) 777-2871 Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science Fax (607) 777-4822 State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:40:41 -0800 From: "Arlene A. Russell" Subject: Conference Close The co-chairs (Mike Pavelich and Arlene Russell) thank all of you for your participation and attention in this conference. Particularly we want to acknowledge Tom O'Haver at the University of Maryland who set up the list, resolved the initial "spamming" difficulties, and has managed the correspondence throughout the past few weeks. Thank you Tom. We now ask all of you, whether you "said" anything in the conference or not to complete the brief evaluation questionnaire below. Then send it SPECIFICALLY to russell@chem.ucla.edu PLEASE!!!! DO NOT SEND YOUR ANSWER BACK AS A GLOBAL REPLY. THIS WILL SEND IT TO EVERYONE AND WE WILL ALL ONCE AGAIN BE INUNDATED WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF JUNK MAIL. Only the co-chairs deserve this amount of mail now. ________________________________________________________________________________ Evaluation Questionnaire On a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 highest please evaluate (1) What is your overall rating of this conference? (2) The appropriateness of the topic "Faculty Rewards and the Scholarship of Teaching" for an electronic-format conference. (3) How interesting did you find: Paper 1, by Felder? (10 = very interesting) (4) Paper 2, by Feisel? (5) Paper 3, by Doyle? (6) Paper 4, by Freilich and Legg? (5) How valuable did you find bringing the Engineering Education and Chemical Education communities together? (6) How appropriate was the lenghth of time set up for each paper? (1 = too short, 10 = too much) (7) How convenient was October for you for the conference? (1 = terrible, 10 = as good as it will ever be) (Please give your preferred month for such a conference.) (8) For this conference did you read: all the papers (Yes, No) all the discussion (Yes, No) (9) Would you sign up for another electronic mail conference? (Yes, No) (10) What other topics would you like discussed in this format? (11) What did you like most about this conference? (12) What did you like least about the conference? _______________________________________________________________________________ Thank you, Arlene Russell (UCLA) Mike Pavelich (CSM) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 07:43:00 EDT From: to2 Subject: Re: Conference Close I wish to thank co-chairs Mike Pavelich and Arlene Russell for organizing this most interesting electronic conference. For most of us, electronic conferencing is a new and unfamiliar experience. This is only the second conference that has been carried over CHEMCONF and the sixth electronic conference overall in the chemistry community. We still have a lot to learn about how to make the best use of this new medium. I thank all of you for your patience in dealing with some of the difficulties that arose during the conference. If you missed the evaluation form distributed by Arlene Russell, a copy of the form is available on the WWW page at: http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Faculty_Resources_and_Support/ ChemConference/FacultyRewards/Form.html If your Web browser supports "mailto" links (as does Netscape), you can send in your completed questionnaire from this Web page. Click on Arlene's email address at the top of the evaluation questionnaire page, click on the "Quote Document" button, fill the your answers in the appropriate places, and click on the "Send" button to send in your response. I hope to see you online again at one of our future online conference events. For a list of past and planned chemistry-related electronic conferences, see: http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/ MCTP/Technology/Chemistry.html Finally, I wish to thank the Computer Science Center of the University of Maryland at College Park for providing the host system resources that made this conference possible. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry University of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry College Park, MD 20742 Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation (301) 405-1831 to2@umail.umd.edu FAX: (301) 314-9121 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/toh.html ------------------------------