A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Goals for the Meeting

SENATOR GLENN: Our goals for the meeting. To understand the goals for this meeting, which will be the rest of today and all day tomorrow, it might be helpful to briefly recap the previous meeting. I think we?ve reached a number of things that we can say are good insights -- that teaching is a skill, it can be learned, there are things that one can do to improve one?s teaching. There are a variety of approaches to high quality teaching, just as there are a variety of learning styles. A professional knowledge base about high quality teaching in math and science is sorely needed, albeit not yet well developed.

Lastly, teachers must contribute with other professionals to the development of this knowledge base. We also realize that we have to carefully focus on teaching quality, among a whole host of related and important issues. One, our focus should be governed by our expertise and our charge. We should be informed by, but not necessarily duplicate, the work of other groups in math and science education. And our final message must be compelling and concise. Now I?m not too sure about Dan Goldin?s admonishment, as you may recall, to use only five words, but we?ll try to come close to that anyway.

The final product will consist of a short list of recommendations with corresponding action strategies for each, addressed to various stakeholders to put those recommendations in place. And we would like the report to garner significant attention so that it becomes something that?s an action item for the future, not just to sit on somebody?s shelf some place. With all this in mind, the Commission agreed to focus on math and science teaching quality at this meeting, teacher quality at the next meeting, action strategies at the fourth, and fine-tuning the final products at the fifth.

Teaching quality can be described as the interaction between teacher and his or her students in facilitating the learning process. Teachers may be highly qualified on paper. Do they, however, have the knowledge base and skill to ensure that all students learn important math and science? What happens when teachers, figuratively, close the door to their classrooms to practice their craft? Are they able to take advantage of learning opportunities and to deal with learning challenges?

We kept using the phrase "professional knowledge base" at the first meeting. And the fact is, not much as might be known about teaching quality as we would hope. And we agreed to defer the discussion of the continuum of a teacher?s career, recruitment, teacher preparation, retention, job satisfaction, professional development for the next meeting. Teaching and teacher quality are, of course, linked in many ways. But let?s try to keep the distinction as we move through this meeting.

So, we have two major goals for today and tomorrow. First, identify a set of core premises about high quality teaching in math and science that will form the basis of our message come next September. You probably notice on the agenda that we?ll do some preliminary work on this as today?s session draws to a close and pick up again tomorrow to create such premises. Secondly, draft two or three recommendations that might emerge in our final report related to teaching quality. I think it?s important that we get that process of the recommendations started as early as possible.

If we leave tomorrow with a solid draft of these two products, we?ll have made significant progress. I must also take a moment to thank some of our fellow Commission members who have worked closely with the staff to plan this meeting. I want to recognize Deborah Ball, Diane Briars, Alice Gill on behalf of Sandra Feldman, Anne Jolly, Maria Lopez-Freeman. I do know from Linda that these people put in considerable time and effort since our last meeting.

Now a Commission member shared the following quote with me. "Teachers hold in their hands the malleable minds of the nation?s children. But despite the immense importance of what they do, or should do, they are wretchedly over-worked, under-paid, and disregarded. And a discouraging number of them are incompetents." Now I don?t know whether you recognize who said this or where it might have come from, or when it might have been said, I guess is the most important factor. It was in an article in Life magazine back in 1958. Now that?s 41 years ago, obviously, coming up on close to be 42 years ago. Could we say that that still is a statement that is still exactly applicable today? And I think we probably can. That?s what we?re dealing with, is to try and deal with some of these things so that we make teaching much better.

This may be a good segue into something I?ve been asked to talk about. I might say that Linda, this was not my suggestion. But nor I would say right here, I want to disassociate myself from the materials that were put out in advance for this meeting. I want you to know I had nothing to do with all that biographical stuff that is, that Linda put in there. I was as surprised as anyone else when I saw it in the notebook that she sent to me, but so I disassociate myself from that.

Reflections on Two Missions

But Linda asked me to say a few words about the two space missions I?ve been on, and what the different science and math requirements were between those two missions, just to show where we?ve come since ?62 to 1999. I?ll be glad to take just a couple of minutes to do that, and then maybe if I have a couple of minutes here maybe we could answer any questions some of you might have.

Changes in computer technology

But back in those days, we were?this was pre-computer time back in 1962, now some of you may have been dealing with computers then, but as you also may recall, computers back in those days were rare enough that they each had a special name. When we went up to work on the big human centrifuge up in Johnsville, Pennsylvania, the computer that was running that centrifuge at that time was, had its own name. It was computer Typhoon. That certainly was not a laptop, and it was not even one that had transistors in it. It filled a size about half of a gymnasium in size, and literally was run with vacuum tubes back at that time. And if something would happen to it, why, we sent the technicians out and they?d be up and down the rows on these, going through these things on ladders, going up and down trying to find out which vacuum tube had blown.

Now contrast that with the flight I was on last fall. And I might add, on Friendship 7, that some of you may have seen over in the Air and Space Museum, there was not a single computer on board that spacecraft. There were some on the ground helping control things. Now in our work, and most of us as astronauts back then, our work on it was with slide rules still. In preparation for this -- I forgot when I left home today, I have a little collection of my slide rules clear back to one I first had in high school. And they kept getting bigger. That?s the only thing I can say about them. The last one I had was about that long, and I must say I could work that thing pretty good. It could get almost overheated to work with it.

But contrast that, then, to the flight last fall that went up not just a little over a year ago. We had not only the main computers that controlled the attitude and the flight of the spacecraft itself that were built right into the spacecraft, but we had 83 different experiments on that one flight. I believe I can say it was the most research-rich flight that NASA?s ever sent up, 83 different projects, and we had 20 laptop computers ? 20 of them on board. There were two of them we kept as spares in case something happened to one of them, but we had the other 18 plugged in on various ones of these experiments and we were working those in using, actually running some of the experiments off of the computers and using the computers to report, to record all the data, in some cases bring it back on a data dump back to earth during the flight. So that?s how the technical matters had increased.

Also during that time, of course, we?d gone up into space, we actually had available inside the spacecraft on Friendship 7 over in the Air and Space Museum, when I was in that I could put a hand out on each side and touch the sides of the spacecraft on both sides. Now, of course, the size is about -- it?s roughly the same as a DC-9 airliner stood on its tail when you?re getting ready to launch, which means climbing into your seat is a little different than climbing into a DC-9. But you climb on a number of things to get back and lay back into your seat. But, so the size has changed tremendously also.

Flight objectives and research

The objective of the flights changed tremendously in that time period. When we were getting ready to go up back in 1962, some of the biggest questions to be answered were those raised by the doctors concerning just what would happen to the human body. One of the big concerns back in just before the flight of Friendship 7, was whether my eyes would change shape. When the eyes no longer had to be supported by the structure under the eyes, would --over a several-hour period -- would they change shape? If you look on the, over in the Smithsonian again, up on the instrument panel, there?s a little eye chart that I was to read every 20 minutes during flight to see whether my eyes actually were changing shape.

Another big concern was when the fluid in the inner ear would move around more randomly than normal with the, when you?re in a 1G condition here, would you get such nausea and vertigo that you just wouldn?t be able to function, you?d be so out of it that you just wouldn?t be able to do anything? Could you swallow? Some of the doctors thought that you might not be able to swallow in zero G. Now I didn?t believe that one going in because I remembered when we were kids once, debating whether you could swallow uphill, and we stood on our heads in the corner and tried to swallow water. I don?t know whether you ever tried that, but you can swallow uphill, but you also get a lot out your nose at the same time. That?s a mess. So I didn?t have any doubt about being able to swallow.

The type, that was the type -- well, we had some research projects on that very first flight. Nevertheless, it was nothing to compare with the 83 different research projects on the second flight. And on the second flight they varied all the way from the 1,800 pound Spartan spacecraft that was put out, that was on its own then for two days before we rendezvoused with it again and brought it back in the payload bay, and it was making observations of the sun?s corona and the solar winds coming from the sun that affect our communications and everything right here on earth, of course.

And it varied all the way from that down to micromolecular biology studies, as well as studies on me. And the reason I was on the flight was not just to go up and ride around and have a good time, which I would have loved to do anyway, but it was to do research, basic research on aging that we had there was almost a two-year study period went on as to whether this would be advantageous from a science standpoint. We have a number of things happen in the natural process of aging right here on earth that are very similar to what happens short-term to the younger astronauts up there from which they recover when they come back to earth.

There?s no recovery from old age right here, on such things as osteoporosis, on the body?s immune system changes so you have less protection against disease and infection. Muscle systems changes. Protein turnover, they call it, PTO, which the body does not re-assimilate proteins in the same way up there that keeps the muscles in good shape even though you?re exercising. You have different cardiovascular changes that occur. These are things that occur as part of the natural -- oh, sleep patterns change dramatically up there, and sleep patterns change for about one-third of the people over 65 here on earth, enough that it could be injurious to their health. And we have about 34 million Americans over 65 right now, and that figure is supposed to go up to almost 100 million by the year 2050.

So my purpose in being up there was to see if we couldn?t, through all these experiments they had, through the blood and urine samples and all the things that we had to do in pre-flight and during the flight and post-flight analysis, comparing it with younger people, can we?The objective ultimately is to find out what turns these systems on and off in the human body so that hopefully, eventually, we can make not only longer space flight possible for the younger astronauts, but maybe even prevent some of these frailties of old age right here on earth. And that was the purpose in being there.

Now so far we have a data point in this area, a data point of one -- that?s me. Now I?m hoping that when they release all the data, which is supposed to be, I think, some time in January now, we?ll compare the results on the things they did on me with the other astronauts and with previous space flights, that it will show that there was nothing bad happened that would prevent them from sending more people up so that maybe five or six or seven years from now we have begin to build a data base of 8 or 10 people maybe by that time of my age bracket that will also have been up there. So that was what we were all about.

Just a couple of other words. It?s quite a way from the scientific project, scientific aspects of the trip. It was just a great personal experience to be back up there again and look out and just see things and float. The first time the most I could do was loosen the straps a little bit and just be a little more free in the seat, the couch that I was in. This time, of course, you could just pull your legs up, push off a little bit and float across the room. And that?s a new experience. I tell you, it?s a lot of fun. I recommend it for everybody. And food. The food has improved in the meantime. Back in the early days the only reason I took food was to see whether I could swallow it or not. I wasn?t up long enough, five hours on the first trip, three orbits, to see whether. But I didn?t really have to take food, but I took tube food. It was about the, emulsified, like baby food. It was in a tube like a toothpaste tube. You put a little extension on and put it through the helmet and squeeze that in and swallow it.

But this time you have some 42 different foods prepared, most of it freeze-dried, food and beverages, and you have a sampling luncheon ahead of time and decide what your menu is going to be, and each person can set their own menu for the whole flight. The shrimp cocktail is very favored, I can tell you that. And it was very good food and so we enjoyed it very, very much. And just looking out and seeing things was a real pleasure to be up there again.

The conformation of the spacecraft, we not only -- the flight deck and the mid-deck right down below it, where I was, was stationed on launch and re-entry. We had some experiments there but most of the research was done back in the space hab, where you floated through about a 25-foot tunnel, back into this space habitation in the middle of the bay. And that?s where we did most of our research work there. So just from size there were a lot of major, major differences in the whole, in the two flights in the ensuing years.

So anyone has any questions, we?ll take one minute, two minutes of questions or go on with our business. Yes, go ahead.

SENATOR GLENN: I recommend it highly. And Dan Goldin is an ex officio member. Now if we can just get him to a meeting, maybe you can get a commitment, I don?t know.

Any other questions? Okay, on with our meeting.

This page last modified March 3, 2000 (sab)