========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:04:18 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: research vs teaching We are two hours into the discussion of Rich Felder's paper and I have seen no traffic. This is unnerving to a program chair. (As a student in my last class said "Maybe noone did the homework".) Obviously, there is room on the system for your thoughts. I invite you to give them by replying to this message or by sending them to ChemConf@umdd.umd.edu. My own study of the research data on the "Does good research imply good teaching" confirms what Rich reported to us: there is effectively no correlation between successful research and good teaching. Research and teaching are two parts of our job that are quite separate. They need separate commitment and separate skills. May I pose two questions to start a discussion. 1. What fraction of your colleagues do not believe, or do not want to hear, this result? 2. Why are such data so hard for some academics to accept? My own answers are (1) about 30-60%. Reasons (2) might be that the findings complicate and call into question the decisions we need to make. Decisions like how do I budget my time? how do we evaluate each other? It may also be that administrators are afraid to look beyond the research model for running our institutions .... they fear the consequences of bucking a trend. Is that fear reasonable? Mike Pavelich - CSM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:26:08 CST6 From: "Henry L. Welch" Organization: Milwaukee School of Engineering Subject: Re: The Felder Paper As a professor at a primarily undergraduate teaching institution (Milwaukee School of Engineering) I find myself very much in agreement with Dr. Felder's comments. Between my couple of years in industry and my doctoral work it became clear to me that I was a very good problem solver and engineer, but a very poor researcher. I simply lack the key intellectual component that makes it easy for me to develop ideas for new research. This them spills over into many of the critical components of research such as applying for grants and the development of quality ideas and work for papers. I also found that I WANTED to teach and the best avenue for teaching would be to engineers. This presented a large problem for me; I lacked the skills and credentials to even get in the door at most institutions. In spite of having all the requisite academic credentials I was essentially out of the running for most of the teaching positions I applied for because of my weak research skills and track record. The question then becomes whether colleges are supposed to be teaching institutions or research institutions. It is clear that undergraduate education is the one of the chief goals of most colleges and universities and that research is also an important goal. Yet most faculty hiring decisions are based primarily on only one side of this equation. Is teaching important or not? If it is (and it MUST be) then colleges and universities are going to have to start recruiting and retaining more faculty who want to teach. I was lucky enough to find an institution that rewards me for doing what I do best. I enjoy developing new undergraduate courses, writing lab manuals, and teaching my three or four courses per term. I think its vitally important that the students have professors who are willing to pass on their knowledge and experience. And have the TIME to do it as well. Market trends seem to indicate that students and their parents are becoming dissatisfied with 200+ size classes and labs and recitation sections being taught by graduate students with questionable credentials or interest. Given the cost of tuition today I think that the students are entitled to better instructional services than is currently being provided by many institutions. There is a need for teaching specialists. In the long run, however, the treating of these individuals as second class citizens will and has taken its toll on the quality of undergraduate education. Good teaching must be rewarded on its own merits and these rewards must be similar to those for research. judged almost primarily ====> 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:20:41 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper >Good Morning Colleagues! > >The sunrise in Colorado is a brilliant orange, a beautiful >setting to begin our discussion of: > >Faculty Rewards: Can We Implement the Scholarship of Teaching? > >This message invites discussion of our first paper: > >WHO SHOULD TEACH IN COLLEGE > >by Richard M. Felder of North Carolina State University > One comment on the education only pathway --- yes we have had the industrial chemist taking early retirement as a very valuable colleague in situations as described. However, today with employment equity etc., it becomes almost impossible by law to hire someone like this without bringing them in as a full professor at top salary, and given everyone's funding cutbacks, the only new hirings being appproved are near the bottom end of the Asst. Prof. scale, and by law we have to pay on the basis of experience (though our provincial laws may be changed by the new government). 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:17:15 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper >Good Morning Colleagues! > >The sunrise in Colorado is a brilliant orange, a beautiful >setting to begin our discussion of: > >Faculty Rewards: Can We Implement the Scholarship of Teaching? > >This message invites discussion of our first paper: > >WHO SHOULD TEACH IN COLLEGE > >by Richard M. Felder of North Carolina State University > I would disagree with the statement that "In fact, there is no evidence" with reference to teaching and research -- all I have to do is look around me at my collegues here and at other institutions to see it in action, not only in my own discipline but in a wide variety of disciplines. A recent Ontario Gov't Commission on University funding, with a mandate to increase the importance of teaching, came up with a funding mechanism that would have supported more active researchers -- an interesting concept. They did attempt to decouple research from teaching, but the proposed changes to funding were research driven, rather than teaching driven! The report is likely to be rejected in part on this ground and in part on the complexity and cost of evaluation. Having served on and having Chaired our University Promotions and Tenure committee I have seen the whole spectrum of disciplines. Yes there are a few, very few, brilliant teachers who are not good researchers, but the vast majority of the best teachers were also the best researchers. Winners of national teaching awards from our institution have as often as not been researchers as well as teachers, and where primarily teachers late in their career, their teaching had been research driven for much of the time. We have turned down promotions of "brilliant" researchers who were terrible teachers, and who probably belonged in "Research Institutes". Universities are "teaching and research" institutions. Teaching only belongs in community colleges, and research only belongs in research institutes. I agree that teaching doesn't get its full reward, but this is not for lack of interest, but rather from the lack of any even semi-quantitative way of measuring it. Student evaluations are important but not the only story --- how does the student evaluate the professor a year or two later after they have taken other courses for which the material in the course "they really liked" was so cursory, or touchy feelie, that they felt good but learned nothinbg of use in the future. How does a student rate a professor or course after 5 years in the workplace -- response I've had to one of my courses invariably is very much higher after a couple of years in the real world, in other courses, there is no such correlation. Lastly, in a comment I made before the session opened --- if you are not doing research, getting the grants to get the advanced equipment, how can you teach state of the art chemistry to advanced students. The response that the university should redirect the funds misses the point that in most jurisdictions, basic university funding doesn't cover high priced research equipment --- this is competed for from other pools of $, not accessible, often for constitional reasons, to teaching, but accessible for research. How many have had the experience of graduate students who supposedly had something as undergrads, and then you find out after they nearly blow themselves up that it was a purely lecture/simulation based experience, with no hands on practice. Being from a small/mid sized university ~8,000 full time students, with only MSc programs, we believe in hands on use of research equipment by undergrads and our students are in very high demand by industry and PhD programs. I would not call us a "teaching only" institution as one of the papers implies for non PhD granting institutions. The majority of my colleagues hold research grants and that is as important as being a good teacher for gaining tenure. Neither one, nor the other, but BOTH. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:33:07 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: The Felder Paper >As a professor at a primarily undergraduate teaching institution >(Milwaukee School of Engineering) I find myself very much in >agreement with Dr. Felder's comments. > >Between my couple of years in industry and my doctoral work it became >clear to me that I was a very good problem solver and engineer, but a >very poor researcher. I simply lack the key intellectual component >that makes it easy for me to develop ideas for new research. This >them spills over into many of the critical components of research >such as applying for grants and the development of quality ideas and >work for papers. But are these any different from new ideas for teaching and applying either internally or externally for funding to do something new with teaching. My grant applications skills get me grants for developing new teaching tools as well as new research equipment --- e.g. I have received 2 recently for developing Dept. Web pages and for delivery of scientific data from the lab to students and faculty computers in their offices and at home. > >The question then becomes whether colleges are supposed to be >teaching institutions or research institutions. It is clear that >undergraduate education is the one of the chief goals of most >colleges and universities and that research is also an important >goal. Colleges may be in doubt, but for universities, by definition, both are essential components. Yet most faculty hiring decisions are based primarily on only >one side of this equation. Not true --- however it is easy to demonstrate research skills (people count papers, but if all you can offer is a clone of your research supervisor, 20 papers means nothing and you won't make a short list. However, unless you have taught, the only way you will be able to demonstrate your teaching skills is to have a CV that gets you an interview, since you have to be seen teaching to be evaluated on teaching. We use evaluation forms for the "research seminar" presented by candidates --- they have to be able to make their research interesting and understandable to 3rd and 4th year undergraduates if they are to be seriously considered. No matter how good the reserch if the research seminar puts faculty and students to sleep (yes it does happen) then a candidate has no chance at our institution. Is teaching important or not? If it is >(and it MUST be) then colleges and universities are going to have to >start recruiting and retaining more faculty who want to teach. As I said earlier this morning, if a facuty member only wants to do research or to teach graduate students then they belong in a Research Institute, not in a Univrsity. >There is a need for teaching specialists. In the long run, however, >the treating of these individuals as second class citizens will and >has taken its toll on the quality of undergraduate education. Good >teaching must be rewarded on its own merits and these rewards must be >similar to those for research. Agreed --- and at my institution the criteria for evaluation include tetaching related schlarship --- the thing is writing a lab manual for your won course gets you few brownie points , getting the manual (or textbook, or teaching software) published and having it adopted by other institutions is taken as evidence for "scholarship appropriate to the field" --- there is a product to be jusdged, just like research papers, but in my 30 year experience, most people claiming to be "teachers" have no record of writing stuff up, whether as a book or for J. Chem Ed. (I've had short papers there as well as my 160+ research papers). There is the same inertia in writing up "teaching" results or products as in writing up "research papers" - hence my argument that most people who display one quality will also display the other. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:21:42 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: Teaching vs Research We are two hours into the discussion time for Rich Felder's paper, and I have seen no traffic. That is unnerving to a program chair. (As a student in my last class said "Maybe noone did the homework".) Obviously, there is room on the system for your thoughts. I invite you to give them by just replying to this message or by sending them to ChemConf@UMDD.umd.edu. My own study of the research data on the "Does good research imply good teaching" confirms what Rich reported to us: there is effectively no coorelation between successful research and good teaching. A Prof good at one is not apriori good at the other. Research and teaching are two parts of our job that are quite separate. They need separtate commitment and separate skills. May I pose two questions to start a discussion 1. What fraction of your colleagues do not believe, or do not want to hear,this result? 2. Why are such data so hard for some academics to accept? My own answers are (1) about 30-60% might react against these findings. A reason (2) may be that the findings complicate the decisions we make. Decisions like how do I budget my time? how do we evaluate each other? It may also be that administrators are afraid to look beyond the research model for how to run our institutions...they are afraid to buck the trend. What are the risks? Maybe that is getting ahead of our discussion Mike Pavelich - CSM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:37:39 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: research vs teaching >We are two hours into the discussion of Rich Felder's paper >and I have seen no traffic. This is unnerving to a program >chair. (As a student in my last class said "Maybe noone did >the homework".) Obviously, there is room on the system for >your thoughts. I invite you to give them by replying to this >message or by sending them to ChemConf@umdd.umd.edu. > >My own study of the research data on the "Does good research >imply good teaching" confirms what Rich reported to us: there >is effectively no correlation between successful research and >good teaching. Research and teaching are two parts of our job >that are quite separate. They need separate commitment and >separate skills. > >May I pose two questions to start a discussion. > >1. What fraction of your colleagues do not believe, or do not >want to hear, this result? I think the majority of us committed to both schools, teaching and research do not believe this assertion. > >2. Why are such data so hard for some academics to accept? Because they don't fit the reality -- leave the sociology out --- look at, as I have done as a Chair of both Chemistry and on another occasion, Computer Science, or as a member of a university wide P & T committee, student evaluations and research evaluations. Now my definition of research and schlarship may be broader than the narrow focus of this discussion, but those active in promulgating their discipline in print will in the majority, be both good teachers and also good researchers. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:38:48 EDT From: "JAMES E. STURM" Subject: Re: research vs teaching To the Chem Teaching Conferees (Conferants?): The topic is large and diverse enough to render inadequate any one-sentence conclusion. The papers were chosen to encourage comment. My comments: - I find it hard to accept a categorical denial of any link between research and quality of teaching. My scholarship-related reading has often had relevance to topics brought up in courses or even affecting choices of course content. On the other hand, choosing and processing course assignments in ways that relate to the students' learning use up 180% of the usually available time. Students benefit from seeing effective practitioners in action and from interaction with them. Not to keep active in one's field tends to stagnate one's perspective. I believe that the system should encourage and respect the whole business of intellectual exchange. - That this conference has been opened is itself a statement that a large fraction of the academic community perceive inequities. To set up a second track to tenure encourages a caste system, though. I believe that the AAUP's up-or-out tenure policy is to avoid stratification of the ranks. - I'd like to see further documentation on studies of - assessment of teaching quality - even defining it! - correlation or absence thereof between teaching and research - help of support staff (lab managers, technicians, ...) in furthering the implementation of teaching and research activities. We can conceive of projects, exercises, which might be effective in teaching, but immediate course demands must be met first. Comments by those interested? James E. Sturm jesd@lehigh.edu Lehigh Univ. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:25:00 -0500 From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: research vs teaching In-Reply-To: from "Michael Pavelich" at Oct 16, 95 10:04:18 am > > My own study of the research data on the "Does good research > imply good teaching" confirms what Rich reported to us: there > is effectively no correlation between successful research and > good teaching. Research and teaching are two parts of our job > that are quite separate. They need separate commitment and > separate skills. > > May I pose two questions to start a discussion. > > 1. What fraction of your colleagues do not believe, or do not > want to hear, this result? 70% > 2. Why are such data so hard for some academics to accept? Because the parameters used for hiring faculty in Universities are strongly based on the research component. > for running our institutions .... they fear the consequences of > bucking a trend. Is that fear reasonable? It is very reasonable. -- Jose' L. Lage ph.(214) 768-4172 J. L. Embrey Assistant Professor fax(214) 768-1473 Mechanical Engineering Department email: JLL@SEAS.SMU.EDU Southern Methodist University www: http://www.seas.smu.edu/~jll 3160 SMU Blvd. Dallas, TX 75275-0337 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:40:23 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: research vs teaching >To the Chem Teaching Conferees (Conferants?): The topic is large and diverse >enough to render inadequate any one-sentence conclusion. The papers were >chosen to encourage comment. My comments: > > - I find it hard to accept a categorical denial of any link between > research and quality of teaching. My scholarship-related reading has > often had relevance to topics brought up in courses or even affecting > choices of course content. On the other hand, choosing and processing > course assignments in ways that relate to the students' learning use up > 180% of the usually available time. Students benefit from seeing > effective practitioners in action and from interaction with them. Not to > keep active in one's field tends to stagnate one's perspective. I believe > that the system should encourage and respect the whole business of > intellectual exchange. 100% in agreement with these sentiments > > - That this conference has been opened is itself a statement that a large > fraction of the academic community perceive inequities. To set up a > second track to tenure encourages a caste system, though. I believe that > the AAUP's up-or-out tenure policy is to avoid stratification of the > ranks. > The teaching only faculty member referred to, if they are to teach 4 or 5 courses as has been suggested will have no time for innovative teaching --- they will be, as someone earlier suggested, a paper pusher doing jobs nobody wants to do -- administrative assistants etc. This is how I perceived such people when I was a student 30 years ago and it is how students perceive them today. > - I'd like to see further documentation on studies of > - assessment of teaching quality - even defining it! > - correlation or absence thereof between teaching and research > - help of support staff (lab managers, technicians, ...) in furthering > the implementation of teaching and research activities. We can > conceive of projects, exercises, which might be effective in teaching, > but immediate course demands must be met first. I'd like to see some form of long term evaluation --- has anyone questioned students some years after they have graduated. We've done a study on general university services as perceived by graduates, but never specific courses some years downstream of the student taking the course or having a particular professor. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:22:36 -0400 Reply-To: Larry Brown Sender: Conferences on Chemistry Research and Education From: Larry Brown Subject: Re: research vs teaching In message <199510161638.MAA153062@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> Conferences on Chemistry Research and Education writes: > - I find it hard to accept a categorical denial of any link between > research and quality of teaching. Several comments of this flavor have appeared today. What is interesting about them is that they seem to imply that Felder has simply expressed an opinion that "good research" and "good teaching" are not correlated. In fact, Felder has cited studies which come to this conclusion. Granted, one has to go to Felder's full paper in Journal of Engineering Education, and even to its references, to find the actual studies, but it is crucial to realize that these _data_ do exist. One might then choose to confront the data and argue that the studies are flawed. This is, after all, how we do science. But it seems less than scientific to simply assert that the result is invalid because it is difficult to accept. I should hasten to add that nothing in Felder's paper is contradicted by specific cases of individuals who excel at both teaching and research. It is reasonable to assert that both teaching and research are important roles for the university and its faculty as a whole. The real question is whether it is necessary or desirable for individual faculty members to be deeply involved in all of the roles of faculty. Larry Brown ****************************************************** Larry Brown Department of Chemistry Texas A&M University College Station TX 77843 brown@chemvx.tamu.edu PHONE (409) 845-3755 FAX (409) 845-4719 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:22:41 -0400 From: John Hogg Subject: Felder's paper Given an infinite amount of time, infinite resources, and a perfect reward system, there is no necessary conflict between teaching and research. However, none of these conditions exist and time and resouces devoted to one effort that is often most rewarded (research) subtracts from the time and resouces one can or is willing to commit to the other. Some of the best teachers in our department are the most active researchers and some of the worst do no research. However, the reverse is also true and some of the best teachers do no research while some of the worst are the most active researchers. In most cases, I really think the effort goes where the reward is greatest and even the outstanding researchers/teachers would do an even better job in certain classes if they had more time to devote to teaching. However, the conflict between devoting more time to an undergraduate or graduate class or to grant proposals, research publications, talks at meetings and other institutions is very real and the latter almost always wins out in the crunch. Been there, done that! However, as someone who has chosen to concentrate my efforts in the areas of students advising and teaching, I can without a doubt say that my interest in teaching and my performance in the classroom and outside has dramatically improved now that I know this is my number one priority. I will admit, however, that I would think the lack of an active research program probably does detract from one's ability to teach some advanced undergraduate and graduate classes. I believe that most colleagues will admit to the conflict above if they are honest in their evaluation of their efforts. It's not that many of the weaker teaching efforts put in by some active research faculty come about not because of lack of ability but because of lack of time and interest. I'd be interested in discussion of this point from very active research faculty. Do you feel the strain? John Hogg Professor and Undegraduate Advisor Department of Chemistry Texas A&M University John Hogg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:37:38 -0600 From: "Gary L. Bertrand" Subject: Re: Teaching vs Research >From Mike Pavelich >My own study of the research data on the "Does good research >imply good teaching" confirms what Rich reported to us: there >is effectively no correlation between successful research and >good teaching. Research and teaching are two parts of our job >that are quite separate. They need separate commitment and >separate skills. > >May I pose two questions to start a discussion. > >1. What fraction of your colleagues do not believe, or do not >want to hear, this result? > >2. Why are such data so hard for some academics to accept? > I think the answer to question #1 may depend to some extent on the relative commitments to research and teaching of the responder and their institution. I would agree with Mike's 30-60%. Part of the problem is the quantitation of "good" research and "good" teaching, which does not necessarily correlate with successful. We have all seen "good" researchers, "poor" researchers, and non-researchers who did a "good" job of teaching as well as those in each category who did a "poor" job of teaching. Here at UMR, we have had student evaluations of teaching for 20+ years, and people still argue over "why" some are rated high and others are rated low. Many differentiate between "good" and "popular". Our admissions people have conducted followup surveys of teacher evaluations by alumni 5 years and ten years after graduation, and report no substantial change in the ratings. A couple of correlations can be observed: teachers with the highest ratings are biased toward departments with less pressure for research, and to small class sizes. One indisputable criterion for research pressure is the existence of a graduate program, and we have a number of departments in humanities and social sciences which have no graduate program, though some of their faculty are actively involved in research. In some cases, there is an internal correlation between class size and research pressure, as departments with higher pressure for research tend to have larger class sizes in order to generate more "free" faculty time for research. I have observed one consistent trait in the people I consider "good" at either research or teaching, and that is the energy they devote to the task at hand. Certainly there are some who devote the energy and are not yet "good" (I like to think they will be eventually), but I can't recall any that I have considered "good" without that characteristic. I have talked to quite a few of my colleagues who I regard as both good teachers and active researchers, with the specific question "Are you doing the best job you can in teaching and in research?" and the answer has always been "No". They generally say that they wish they had more time to devote to their teaching - I can't recall any of them ever saying they wish they had more time to devote to research. In this small group of "good" teachers, I firmly believe that research pressure detracts from their teaching - but I am also convinced that the research pressure comes from within, and they would not be teaching if not for the ability to do research. Gary ********************************************************** GARY L. BERTRAND, DEPT OF CHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA ROLLA, MO 65401. (314)341-4441 FAX (314) 341-6033 BITNET- GBERT@UMRVMB INTERNET- GBERT@UMR.EDU "In this house, the laws of thermodynamics will be obeyed!" Homer Simpson ********************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:45:10 -0600 From: david kauffman Subject: Re: Teaching vs Research In-Reply-To: Some thoughts, not necessariy related, on Rich Felder's paper and its connections to Boyer's model: First, I have to disagree with the implied claim that there is no positive correlation between research and teaching, though I don't doubt his claim that hard data are lacking. By doing a quick, and admittedly subjective, rating of the 18 faculty in my own department. I find that the correlation between effective teaching and research is positive, but small. Perhaps it's too small to be statistically signifiant. (And I haven't run all the tests to find out.) What it does say, however, is that the correlation isn't negative, at least in this one case. If anyone cares to play with the data, here they are: I rated each faculty high, medium or low in teaching and in research. The matrix looks like: Research Low Med High Teaching High 1 2 3 Medium 1 3 0 Low 3 2 2 Second, in my department, it has been made clear in promotion and tenure reviews that only the first and last of Boyer's functions really count. Integration and application (e.g., writing texts and helping solve real-world problems) don't count. And, of course, research counts more than teaching. Third, Boyer suggests that individual faculty can/would/should move from one of his four functions to another at different times in their careers. Looking at the 18 faculty in my own department, and at the 100+ in my entire School of Engineering, I don't see this happening. Once set on a vector path defined in the four-dimension "Boyer Space", the vast majority of faculty seem to stay headed in the same directions. They may incorporate more than one of the functions, but they don't change their general vector heading. The only major exceptions might be found among us poor souls who move into administration. David Kauffman Professor, Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Associate Dean, School of Engineering The University of New Mexico Farris Engineering Center 107 phone 505-277-5522 fax 505-277-1422 e-mail kauffman@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:45:48 -0400 From: "W. Robert Midden" Subject: Re: research vs teaching I agree with the point made in Felder's paper that the qualities and characteristics that are likely to contribute to good teaching are distinctly different from those that contribute to good research. I believe that I have good research skills. In fact, there was a time when I spent nearly all of my time on research and I made good progress, published and obtained grants. But I have a limited amount of time. And I have found that to teach well I must spend time preparing classes and thinking about the problems associated with teaching and learning. To help students comprehend a subject easily and efficiently I think a lot about how to best explain complex concepts, how to organize information and I consider carefully which topics will be most useful to students. To do the best job at teaching takes time. I can always find more things to do to improve my ability to help students learn. When I don't spend time on this, for instance, when I am spending most of my time preparing a grant proposal to meet a deadline, I find that my students don't do as well. With the requirements for obtaining grants it is difficult for me to believe that one can be very successful without devoting most of one's time to research. This is all anecdotal but it is consistent with the research results reported by Astin as cited in Felder's paper that instructor's devotion to research correlates negatively with overall academic achievement of undergraduates. Bob Midden _____________________________________________________________________ Center for Photochemical Sciences * Internet: midden@bgnet.bgsu.edu Department of Chemistry * Bitnet: MIDDEN@BGSUOPIE Bowling Green State University * Voice: (419) 372-6889 Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA * FAX: (419) 372-9809 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:43:48 -0400 From: Rich Lemert Subject: Felder discussion - reply to J M Miller #1 > I would disagree with the statement that "In fact, there is no evidence" > with reference to teaching and research -- all I have to do is look around > me at my collegues here and at other institutions to see it in action, not > only in my own discipline but in a wide variety of disciplines. > I agree that teaching doesn't get its full reward, but this is not for lack > of interest, but rather from the lack of any even semi-quantitative way of > measuring it. Student evaluations are important but not the only story --- > Jack Martin Miller > Professor of Chemistry > Adjunct Professor of Computer Science > Brock University, > St. Two comments in response to Prof. Miller. 1) In the first quote above, I believe you are saying that good teaching and good research go together (indeed, require each other). I don't see how. We have recently undergone a change in administration, with the new admin. emphasizing research. I've been so busy trying to satisfy them that my teaching is now limited to "walk into class, open my notes, lecture on the same things I lectured about last n years, leave students dissatisfied." I don't have time to do both! As a corrollary, you imply that one cannot teach a subject unless one is "on the cutting edge of research". This may be true for a graduate (or even advanced undergraduate) course (I would want someone up on the latest developments in a microchip design course for example), but I don't believe its true for the fundamental basic courses in any discipline. For example, I don't think there has been any changes in "F=ma" in the last 50 years or so. What changes are occuring will show up in textbooks fairly quickly, so you should be able to keep up with no difficulty. 2) I STRONGLY disagree with your assessment that there is no way to evaluate teaching effectiveness, and would ask what research (including checking the literature) you have performed to justify this statement. Wankat and Oreovicz ("Teaching Engineering", McGraw-Hill 1993, ISBN 0-07-068154-6, pp. 312-321) discusses the literature on this subject. There conclusions include a) that student evaluations have a positive correlation with other measures of teaching effectiveness, and 2) a variety of other evaluation tools are readily available, each of which is effective but has a different ease of applicability. I would further put the question to you this way: You have stated that in your experience good teachers are also good researchers. If teaching cannot be evaluated even semi-quantitatively, how do you know this???? Richard M. Lemert Asst Prof - Chem Eng Univ of Toledo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:45:44 -0400 From: Rich Lemert Subject: Felder discussion - reply to J M Miller #2 > Lastly, in a comment I made before the session opened --- if you are not > doing research, getting the grants to get the advanced equipment, how can > you teach state of the art chemistry to advanced students. The response > Jack Martin Miller > Professor of Chemistry > Adjunct Professor of Computer Science > Brock University, You're making a big assumption here --- that students will get access to this fancy equipment. Every place I've been, the only way an undergraduate had any access to the fancy research equipment was if they were working on an undergraduate research project for a professor - i.e. doing research. If they were just in a class, they had to make do with whatever equipment was available in the "teaching" labs. Richard M. Lemert Asst Prof - Chem Eng Univ. of Toledo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:54:22 -0400 From: Rich Lemert Subject: Felder discussion - food for thought A question to the various participants - Consider the hypothetical case of a young assistant professor who is a brilliant theoretician. Publishes on average one high-quality paper in a top journal every 6-8 weeks. Accepts as research assistants only students who either have a fellowship or are self-supported. Since he has "no" research expenses, he wastes no time writing research proposals - he doesn't need to. The question is - Would this person get tenure in your institution? In my college, I have serious reservations that he would under the current administration. He is not bringing in any "overhead", nor is he "demonstrating that there is an interest in his field of study in the outside community." This, I think, reflects the comments of one of the "pre-conference conferees" that teaching will not be valued until it brings in the bucks. I don't think its limited to teaching - research won't be valued (by administrations) unless it brings in the bucks. (Quality publications - that's for your department to determine.) Anyone care to comment? Richard M. Lemert Asst Prof - Chem Eng Univ of Toledo p.s. This does not describe me - I'm very much an experimentalist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:01:09 CST6 From: "Henry L. Welch" Organization: Milwaukee School of Engineering Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper > Jack Martin Miller writes: > Universities are "teaching and research" institutions. Teaching only > belongs in community colleges, and research only belongs in research > institutes. I completely disagree with the notion that teaching only belongs in the community college. It is quite possible to provide quality state of the art teaching without the presence of a research program. Good teaching faculty are remaining current and relevant through industry sponsored projects and consulting work. You do not need a big budget research project or leading-edge research to make this possible. The Milwaukee School of Engineering is proof of that. We produce high quality work-ready engineering graduates without the benefit of a research oriented institution. ====> 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:14:30 CST From: "William H. Bassichis" Subject: Re: Teaching vs Research Perhaps it would be helpful to ask the question a different way. Assuming no increase in the total support for teaching and research, is the quality of undergraduate education sufficiently high or is improvement needed? If improvement is needed can it be achieved without increasing support for it? If not, would taking support away from research mea that there is a large imbalance in favor of education? My own answers: We are doing a fairly abmismal job now. We will not do better without more support. The balance now is so much in favor of research that it is hard to The balance now is so much in favor of research that it is hard to imagine an actual reversal. Note I spelled abysmal wrong for effect. I may not be doing research but that does not necessarily imply stupidity. Bassichis Physics Texas A&M ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:19:21 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper The "zero correlation between research and teaching" does not mean that research doesn't help some of us teach better. It means that for the whole group of us college teachers, the two are not interdependent. A good reseacher is as likely to be a good teacher as is a nonresearcher. A good reseacher is as likely to bomb in the classroom as is a nonresearcher. A point to get from Felder is that we must open our modes of operation to getting the best researchers and best teachers into our institutions. These may not always be the same people. Only a handful of us can handle heavy teaching and heavy research responsibilities well, but that is what the current university model calls for. The question is, if our reward system were more realistic, could the universities do their jobs better? A citation of research vs teaching data that I find easy to follow and compelling is J.R.Hayes, SCIENCE, vol 172, pg 227-230 (1971). The fact that the study is 25 years old is not an issue, we haven't changed much of what we do in that time Mike Pavelich - CSM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:34:05 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion - reply to J M Miller #1 > > Two comments in response to Prof. Miller. > > 1) In the first quote above, I believe you are saying that good teaching >and good research go together (indeed, require each other). I don't see how. I said that they go together if a university is to fulfill its role --- if your admin is "research only" then it is not behaving as a university admin, but rather that of a "research institute". > > As a corrollary, you imply that one cannot teach a subject unless one is >"on the cutting edge of research". I said active, not cutting edge > 2) I STRONGLY disagree with your assessment that there is no way to evaluate >teaching effectiveness, and would ask what research (including checking the >literature) you have performed to justify this statement. Wankat and Oreovicz >("Teaching Engineering", McGraw-Hill 1993, ISBN 0-07-068154-6, pp. 312-321) >discusses the literature on this subject. There conclusions include a) that >student evaluations have a positive correlation with other measures of >teaching effectiveness, and 2) a variety of other evaluation tools are readily >available, each of which is effective but has a different ease of >applicability. > I said "no way" in the context of the discussion, i.e. of having something tangible to present to an administration -- course evaluations are useful and I've been using them since I started teachng over 30 years ago -- the documentation of people getting teaching awards etc. that I have been involved inpreparing or evaluating is lengthy and anecdotal -- this does not devalue it but it makes it difficult to put a number too -- In a P & T environment, the research dosier of an active researcher may occupy a thick binderor two, the teaching dossier, several cardboard boxes to transmit the same type of info. In this discussion there is as plea for teaching being taken seriously -- it is the duty of the committed teacher to devise ways of getting measurements of the teaching (i.e. at the classroom level) across to the admin --- the published textbook, just as the published research paper is much easier to see and quantify). > I would further put the question to you this way: You have stated that in >your experience good teachers are also good researchers. If teaching cannot >be evaluated even semi-quantitatively, how do you know this???? By having spent years wearing an admin hat part of the time digging through boxes of course evaluations and student comments -- what we'd all like is something easier and as or more informative. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:35:33 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion - reply to J M Miller #2 >> Lastly, in a comment I made before the session opened --- if you are not >> doing research, getting the grants to get the advanced equipment, how can >> you teach state of the art chemistry to advanced students. The response > >> Jack Martin Miller >> Professor of Chemistry >> Adjunct Professor of Computer Science >> Brock University, > > > You're making a big assumption here --- that students will get access to >this fancy equipment. Every place I've been, the only way an undergraduate >had any access to the fancy research equipment was if they were working on >an undergraduate research project for a professor - i.e. doing research. If >they were just in a class, they had to make do with whatever equipment was >available in the "teaching" labs. > >Richard M. Lemert >Asst Prof - Chem Eng >Univ. of Toledo Send your students to Brock --- our second year students use research IR, NMR equipment and even get some contact with mass spec tho not hands on. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:38:42 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion - food for thought > A question to the various participants - > > Consider the hypothetical case of a young assistant professor who is a >brilliant theoretician. Publishes on average one high-quality paper in a >top journal every 6-8 weeks. Accepts as research assistants only students >who either have a fellowship or are self-supported. Since he has "no" >research expenses, he wastes no time writing research proposals - he doesn't >need to. > > The question is - Would this person get tenure in your institution? > > In my college, I have serious reservations that he would under the current >administration. He is not bringing in any "overhead", nor is he "demonstrating >that there is an interest in his field of study in the outside community." > As a theoretician he'd be eligible for grants to buy computers or computer time. However, here his eligibility for tenure would be based equally on whether he could teach --- if he/she couldn't or wouldn't handle first or second year classes then probably not. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:44:19 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Teaching vs Research I think part of the problem with this discussion is those who are members of the discussion group. If you weren't interested in teaching and good teaching you wouldn't be part of the discussion. I wonder what the distribution is between participants who are researchers as well as teachers is vs those who classify themselves primarily at teachers. The research only people will be far more adamant that I was in my statements, but they presumably will not have subscribed. We hear about the time committment of the committed teachers, committed researchers and committed "boths". Unfortunately, in the university wide context I know of all too many who identify themselves as "teachers" with no time for research (and for that matter, some who consider themselves primarily researchers)who put in half the hours/week of those of us who try to do both, and are thus less effective at either. 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: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:55:55 CDT From: John Henry Wells Subject: Teaching IS Research In-Reply-To: <199510161845.OAA27942@falcon.bgsu.edu>; from "W. Robert Midden" at Oct 16, 95 2:45 pm Bob Midden in part wrote ... > > I have found that to teach well I must spend time preparing classes and > thinking about the problems associated with teaching and learning. To help > students comprehend a subject easily and efficiently I think a lot about > how to best explain complex concepts, how to organize information and I > consider carefully which topics will be most useful to students. To do the > best job at teaching takes time. In fact this approach to teaching IS research. Research not only into course/curricula content but also the pedagogy that motivates students or that illustrates fundamental concepts important to the curricula. I submit that developing and implementing undergraduate curricula are among the most important of all activities for college and university educators. For me the issue is not research or teaching performance, but embracing my responsibility as a PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR to pursue knowledge and diseminate this knowledge through scholarly publications, (both teaching and research publications) and curricula. I suspect that for most of us (likely because of our own training) it is easier to elucidate a physical or biological phenomena through experimentation that it is to elucidate the phenomena of learning through observation or written interpretation of the linguistics of teaching and student response to teaching. Two telling questions for engineering educators to consider are: As faculty do your consider yourself a Professional Engineer or a Professional Educator? And what credentials do you have to consider yourself a Professional Educator? John Henry Wells Assoc. Professor Biological Engineering ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:13:59 -0400 From: Mary Swift Subject: Felder discussion It seems that most of the respondants who disagreed with the findings cited by Dr. Felder did so based on their own biases. At the risk of repeating a comment by another...what kind of science is this? Why do some look down on the teachers, as mentioned by Jack Martin Miller? those who take on a larger teaching load are in fact doing a service to/for their colleagues. If not for them you would have to be more involved in the 'scut work' and not in seeking more glory for yourself through your research. 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 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:24:30 -0400 From: Wendy Lou Elcesser Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Subject: Re: Felder discussion The description of teaching courses (particularly service courses) as "scut" work is an unfortunate statement of the second-class status that teaching has. "Why do we look down on teaching?.....= 'Scut' work" in the same posting suggests to me that we have all been brainwashed to believe that research is more important than teaching regardless of what we do or would like to believe. We may be looking down on teaching because this is what we have been taught to do! Wendy Elcesser Department of Chemistry Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:26:53 -0400 From: "W. Robert Midden" Subject: Re: research vs teaching There are at least three cases in my department of faculty with weak research records (short publication lists & few grants) who are considered to be outstanding teachers by students and peers (have received awards) and at least four cases of faculty with strong research records (longer publication lists and more grants) and who are considered to be less effective teachers (for undergraduates) by students and peers. And there are some who fall between these extreme examples. My observations suggest that there is not a strong correlation between research ability (dedication) and teaching ability (dedication). But it seems a little ironic that we chemists so often use anecdotal evidence like what I've given above, when it comes to forming opinions about chemistry education practices whereas we require more objective evidence that is less subject to bias when we form opinions about chemistry concepts and theories. It's not for a complete lack of more objective or factual evidence. See for instance, the careful and thorough analyses of evidence that is relevant to this question reported by Astin as cited by Felder in the paper that is the topic of today's discussion. What other reasonably objective evidence is available on this topic? Bob Midden _____________________________________________________________________ Center for Photochemical Sciences * Internet: midden@bgnet.bgsu.edu Department of Chemistry * Bitnet: MIDDEN@BGSUOPIE Bowling Green State University * Voice: (419) 372-6889 Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA * FAX: (419) 372-9809 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:33:52 -0400 From: "W. Robert Midden" Subject: Re: research vs teaching I reject the premise that there is no valid measure of teaching effectiveness. It is possible to measure what students have learned in a class and it is possible to evaluate their attitudes toward the subject as well as their learning skills. There is some evidence that student evaluations are nearly as good as most other methods of measuring teaching effectiveness although it is useful to be aware of how various factors can alter the results. William Cashin at Kansas State carefully examined the effects of various factors on student evaluations and reported the results in a paper titled "Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of the Research" published by the Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development at Kansas State (Idea Paper No. 20). According to John Woolcock who summarized this article on the Chemistry Education Listserve last December, factors that had little effect on student evalutions are: sex of the instructor, age and teaching experience, personality (execpt the traits of self-esteem and energy/enthusiam which do have an effect), research productivity, class size, time of day the course is taught, etc. The biases that do affect student evalutions are: the style of presentation used rather than content, student motivation (higher ratings if students were previously interested in the subject), level of course (higher level 100, 200, 300, etc means higher ratings), academic field (science and math courses are typically lower than social science courses), workload (students give *higher* ratings to more difficult courses where they work harder!). Cashin concludes that "In general, student ratings tend to be statistically reliable, valid, and relatively free of bias, probably more so than any other data used for faculty evaluation. Nevertheless student ratings are only one source of data about teaching and must be used in combination with multiple sources of data if one wishes to make a judgement of all the components of college teaching." Bob Midden _____________________________________________________________________ Center for Photochemical Sciences * Internet: midden@bgnet.bgsu.edu Department of Chemistry * Bitnet: MIDDEN@BGSUOPIE Bowling Green State University * Voice: (419) 372-6889 Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA * FAX: (419) 372-9809 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:32:36 -0600 From: "Preston J. MacDougall" Subject: training in teaching AND research Much of the discussion has focused on the ACTIVITY of teaching VERSUS the ACTIVITY of research. The balance and distribution of these activities can not be separated from the enormously influential reality of VERY large research grants. Money talks. Dr. Felder's paper mentions that most Professors haven't received five seconds worth of teacher training. Most people that I have talked to agree that this is a regrettable fact. I haven't yet heard anyone say that Professors should NEVER take any formal training in teaching. I wish to draw attention to the currently available degree that more-or-less evenly TRAINS its recipients in teaching AND research. This is the Doctor of Arts (D.A.) degree, and it is available in Chemistry at my home institution, and others as well. It is also available in other disciplines. Essentially half the course work is through the school's Department of Education, and the remainder in the Department of the candidate's research discipline. An original research dissertation is required for the D.A. degree. Currently, most of our D.A. candidates have teaching positions at Community Colleges, and wish to obtain a terminal degree for professional advancement. I can see no reason why the D.A. degree should be of so limited appeal. Especially considering the universal feeling that Professors ought to have more training in the art of teaching. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Preston J. MacDougall Assistant Professor Department of Chemistry Box X-101 Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 ph: (615)898-2741, FAX: (615)898-5182 e-mail: pmacdougall@mtsu.edu <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:39:30 -0600 From: Doris Kimbrough Subject: Felder paper, fallacy at the junior faculty level I was bothered by what I consider to be a fallacy in the Felder model as it would relate to junior faculty. The paper states: "New Ph.D.'s with no industrial or teaching experience would as a rule not enter the education pathway directly but would switch to it only after demonstrating their potential to meet the performance criteria listed above." I agree that it would make no sense that a junior faculty with no teaching experience be allowed to follow a "primarily teaching" track; however, that then puts her/him in the position of proving her/himself in the research arena. Suppose s/he then is successful and achieves tenure; one can assume that it was primarily on the basis of research. Would s/he then be allowed (encouraged?) to switch over? And how is s/he ever going to "meet the[se] performance criteria" if in order to succeed s/he has focused efforts on research? I don't mean to sound cynical, but except for the outside industrial chemist/engineer who has already established her/himself and can be hired with tenure (or as someone else pointed out as a full professor), I just don't see how this would work in the current RTP system. Doris Doris Kimbrough phone: 303-556-4885 Chemistry Department Box 194 fax: 303-556-4776 University of Colorado at Denver Denver, CO 80217-3364 dkimbrough@castle.cudenver.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:47:27 MDT From: Reed Howald Subject: Re: RR -- October Education Conference It is Monday October 16 and time to discuss the first paper. I presume that the proper paper for discussion is the one by Richard M. Felder, but the conference amterials are not consistent in numbering papers 1 and 2. Dr. Felder proposes that each college and university devote up to 20% of its salary budget to highly qualified individuals concentrating of teaching. It is true that the slack in our current tenure system allows this, but I see three really serious problems: 1. The outstanding and innovative teachers I have seen have not been those on a self proclaimed teaching track. 2. There are not enough outstanding teachers to go around. and 3. A department will operate more smoothly if the individual distinctions are not emphasized. The fourth problem is that 15 % of a small (20 member or less) department is 3 or fewer individuals, not enough for a critical mass. It is quite possible that current technology with nearly instant e-mail communication, has this difficulty solved. The best teachers can cooperate and communicate without regard for place and distance. Local teaching awards are determined by an interdisciplinary political process, and are quite rightly not considered very seriously by department heads and deans in salary and tenure decisions. One simple way for a national scientific society to foster and support teaching in a particular field would be to establish a large outstanding teaching award program in their own discipline. The possibility of a bidding war among universities for recognized teaching talent would be sufficient that no great financial committment would be required for individual awards. What would be required is a system of 50 to 500 annual awards, administered by experts in the field, in which the academic community has faith. Sincerely, Reed Howald Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 "uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:57:34 -0400 From: John Hogg It seems to me that we must make the best possible use of the talents of each person on the faculty. Surely, especially in larger schools, this means we will allow, at certain points in a person's career, mutual decisions to focus one's creative efforts in areas where the return to the educational process is greatest. This may be in research, teaching, service or a combination of these. The point is that we exploit the talents of many people in many different areas for the common good. It is not necessary to hide behind the platitudes about the importance of teaching if all of your instruction is being done as well as is possible. Too often though, I find that faculty members find acceptable for other students teaching of a quality that is unacceptable for their own children or friend's children. This is something that really irks me. We should find the outstanding role models and ask our young faculty (or older faculty) to emulate them, but realize that there are only 24 hours in a day, that grant funds are hard to obtain, and that, regardless of the classic examples to the contrary, some people still regard home and family as important. One measure of the importance of a person's contributions to the total effort would be the effect her/his departure would have on the overall program. Each person should strive to make a contribution to the program that would be immediately noticeable by its absence. John Hogg Professor of Chemistry Undergraduate Advisor John Hogg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:00:17 -0500 From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper In-Reply-To: from "Michael Pavelich" at Oct 16, 95 01:19:21 pm >From my own lab: I do NOT get net energy out nuclear fusion! Any correlation (or no-correlation) between teaching and research is by simple coincidence. These are two independent professions. Like being a football player and a wrestler, whoever manages both equally well MIGHT have a chance of performing either one, individually, better. I might do research on NMR and teach Environmental Pollution Control. Will one help the other? Maybe no, maybe yes! It depends on how smart who is teaching and doing research is. I say for sure that I am the best teacher I could be having two professions. I try to relate them to become more efficient (e.g.,I should offer an NMR course to use knowledge acquired during my research, instead of teaching another subject!!). No, without research grant you would not get tenure at SMU. No, without at least ten papers during your six years (top journals, no conference) you have no chance. No, without being at the top half of our department in terms of student evaluation, no tenure! Here neither outstanding teaching nor outstanding researching are sufficient coonditions, they are both necessary conditions for tenure. This was what my chairman told me during my interview here. I know what it takes... As student: my best teachers liked to teach -- nothing to do with being good researchers or not! My final comment: if you can not do both you must make sure the organization you work for value the one you do best. -- Jose' L. Lage ph.(214) 768-4172 J. L. Embrey Assistant Professor fax(214) 768-1473 Mechanical Engineering Department email: JLL@SEAS.SMU.EDU Southern Methodist University www: http://www.seas.smu.edu/~jll 3160 SMU Blvd. Dallas, TX 75275-0337 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:16:57 -0400 From: JOHN WOOLCOCK Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Subject: Re: research vs teaching There are other ways to evaluate teaching besides student evaluations. One may is to create a "teaching portfolio". In the last few months I have been impressed with one particular source. It is a workbook by Laurie Richlin and Brenda Manning entitled "Improving a College/University Teaching Evaluation System. A Comprehensive Developmental Curriculum for Faculty and Administrators." I have been using it to create two course portfolios that focus on creating an "enhanced syllabus", critiquing a videotape of my teaching, analyzing student evaluations, identifying course goals, etc. It has been very helpful for me since it channeled my reflections about the courses I teach into a set of documents that illustrate my teaching philosophy and practice int he classroom. The second half of the book are two sections on how to develop a workable evaluation of teaching system. I have not examined these sections but if it is like the first half of the book it should also be an excellent way to create a thoughtful peer evaluation system for teaching. The authors claim that: "The assignments and conversations in this course will enable you and your colleagues to finish this task (develop a peer evaluation system for teaching). You will come to know how you prefer to be evaluated. And you and you colleagues will make the necessary decisions about how evaluation will be done in your academic unit" A rather ambitious statement but one that I believe they can pull off based on my experience with the first half of the book. I will be out of the discussion for the next few days so before I go here is the address for this book: Alliance Publishing, 414 S. Craig St., Suite 313, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Tel:(800) 718-4287; Richlin@vms.cis.pitt.edu John Woolcock IUP Chemistry Department Indiana, PA 15705 woolcock@grove.iup.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:20:01 -0500 From: "P.C. Wankat" Subject: Felder's paper A few comments: 1. See Astin's book: What Matters in College? Jossey-Bass, 1993. His data clearly shows that for the institution increasing research reduces undergraduate teaching quality. Several of the correspondents have listed very probable reasons: time, energy, and committment. 2. Fundamental Canon 2 in the ABET code of ethics (and in many other engineering societies) is: "Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence." Is it unethical to teach if you do not know how to do so? 3. Let us start to teach professors and PhD students how to teach. Then they will know they are in an area of competence. I highly recommend Felder and Stice's Effective Teaching Institute held at the ASEE Annual Conference. 4. Many professors are not exactly whizzes when it comes to efficiency and time management. The 80-20 rule says that we can usually obtain 80% of the benefit from 20% of the work. The last 20% of polishing takes an enormous amount of effort. Let's teach people to teach well, have them do a few class at 100% so that 100% is quite high, and then apply efficiency principles to do a good job with less effort. 5. Let's be gentle with each other. There are multiple ways to try and cope and do our jobs. Phil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:25:13 -0400 Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: "Stephen R. Bondeson" Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper I am one who recoils at the notion that there is no correlation between teaching and research. That's because in my department, at least, we do research largely because we are professors of chemistry, not only classroom teachers. We model the inquisitive mind through our research (as well as other ways) and demonstrate the wonder of discovery. Now, this isn't the research of the Research Universities, but it _is_ research and to remove this from my job description and requirements would be a disservice to me and to my students. We need, I believe, to continue to maintain the union between research and education. We may not be developing better handouts or presentation styles while we're in the lab or library. (We do that, too,.) But we are staying abreast of our fields and we are definitely contributing to the education of our students. Undergraduates desperately need to be directly involved in the dynamics of science. If that is true, their mentors have the same need. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prof. Stephen R. Bondeson (715) 346-3714 (voice) Department of Chemistry (715) 346-2640 (FAX) University of Wisconsin-SP sbondeso@uwspmail.uwsp.edu Stevens Point, WI 54481 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One must learn by doing the thing, for though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try." Sophocles -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:38:59 EDT From: Richard Felder Subject: Discussion of my paper (so far) I'll later summarize my responses to the responses to my paper. At this point, however, I'd like to reiterate the point that Larry Brown and other contributors have noted that my arguments on the teaching/research controversy are based on research. In the paper, I cite Astin's study involving 25,000 students at 309 institutions which led him to the unequivocal conclusion that research and teaching are NOT synergistic, and in fact are in conflict. You can find similar conclusions in the reference by Feldman, also cited in my paper. I also note the illogic of pointing to professors who are good at both teaching and research to prove that you can't be good at the first unless you're actively engaged in the second. And yet the main pro-research argument advanced so far begins with the statement "I would disagree...that `in fact, there is no evidence' with reference to teaching and research -- all I have to do is look around me at my colleagues..." and so on. The other argument made to justify requiring research of everyone is the tired old saw that "There's no good way to evaluate teaching." This one has been well addressed by other responders, who point to extensive studies of validity of student ratings and teaching portfolios. I hope that in the remaining debate, the defenders of the "Research should be mandatory for all university professors" credo will apply the same rules of inference that they presumably use in their own disciplinary research. I've cited abundant research evidence and a variety of other arguments in support of my point. Let those who differ either point out my logical flaws or offer research evidence--REAL research, not "Everyone knows" and "All You Have To Do Is Look Around" and "Research makes ME a better teacher, so everyone should have to do it"--that contradicts my arguments. Rich Felder felder@eos.ncsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:06:39 -0400 From: JOHN WOOLCOCK Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Subject: Re: Discussion of my paper (so far) I agree heartily with Richard Felder's last message. One positive benefit of the downsizing of universities that is going on throughout the US is that departments are being asked to *prove* that their faculty are making a difference in the classroom as well as in the research lab. The fact that universities are adopting a more consumer-oriented approach (whether you like the approach or not) means that "outcomes assesment" will figure to be a larger component when funding of departmental programs is decided. Those that can demonstrate that they do make a difference will be more likely to be rewarded. So, even though many believe that research enhances teaching, they will be actually asked to prove it does. They will be asked what groups of students are benfiting and in what specific ways their education is enhanced. Unsupported assertions don't make it past the peer review process in the publication of scientific papers and soon it won't pass muster when local, state, regional or national accrediation groups come to call. State and Federal agencies are being held more accountable by the taxpayers and they are going to start (or are already doing) the same to us. John Woolcock Indiana University of PA Woolcock@grove.iup.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:14:00 EDT From: Robley Light Subject: Re: research vs teaching, and evaluation thereof On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:16:57 -0400, JOHN WOOLCOCK wrote: >There are other ways to evaluate teaching besides student evaluations. One may >is to create a "teaching portfolio". In the last few months I have been >impressed with one particular source. It is a workbook by Laurie Richlin and >Brenda Manning entitled "Improving a College/University Teaching Evaluation >System. A Comprehensive Developmental Curriculum for Faculty and >Administrators." I have been using it to create two course portfolios that >focus on creating an "enhanced syllabus", critiquing a videotape of my >teaching, analyzing student evaluations, identifying course goals, etc. It has >been very helpful for me since it channeled my reflections about the courses I >teach into a set of documents that illustrate my teaching philosophy and >practice int he classroom. The second half of the book are two sections on how >to develop a workable evaluation of teaching system. I have not examined these >sections but if it is like the first half of the book it should also be an >excellent way to create a thoughtful peer evaluation system for teaching. The >authors claim that: We, too, have developed a "teaching portfolio" method supposedly to evaluate teaching as part of a teaching incentive awards program funded in the state of Florida by the legislature. Having served on the university committee for this award two years ago, I can say that it is still difficult to make fine distinctions even using this method. Both student evaluations and the teaching portfolio are pointed to evaluating the "activity" of teaching, rather than the "product" of teaching. In evaluating research, we evaluate the product. We look at the published paper, or the grant application, which are the products of long and involved activity. Peer review panels don't go into the laboratory and watch "how" someone carries on his or her research, or into the office to watch "how" someone puts together the research grant proposal. So what is the "product" of teaching? I would submit it is the increase in knowledge, understanding, etc. that the student gains from the experience, no matter how enjoyable or charismatic the "activity" had been. The product is not often really capable of evaluation until one sees what the student can do with the learned material in later applications. How can we devise systematic and thorough ways to assess and compare these products, rather than just evaluating whether the student is enjoying the experience? I'll admit to not having read the literature that some refer to which presumably says that student questionnaire's correlate well with "other methods" of evaluation. Could someone cite the best couple of articles leading to this conclusion? I'd like to see if they really address the "product assessment" question. Robley Light ************************************************************* Robley J. Light Phone: (904) 644-3844 Department of Chemistry email: rlight@sb.fsu.edu Florida State University Fax: (904) 644-8281 Tallahassee, FL 32306-3006 home page: http://www.sb. fsu.edu/~rlight ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:40:25 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper I do like Dr. Lage's last statement ---- if you can not do both (well) you must make sure the organization you work for value the one you do best. ---- The point of this conference and discussion is to determine how we can get more institutions to value both and to allow either in a given individual. Mike Pavelich - - CSM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:27:35 -0400 From: Jack Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion >It seems that most of the respondants who disagreed with the findings cited >by Dr. Felder did so based on their own biases. At the risk of repeating a >comment by another...what kind of science is this? > >Why do some look down on the teachers, as mentioned by Jack Martin Miller? >those who take on a larger teaching load are in fact doing a service to/for >their colleagues. If not for them you would have to be more involved in the >'scut work' and not in seeking more glory for yourself through your research. > I don't "look down on teachers" -- I am one. However if the thrust of the argument in this conference is that good teaching is to be recognized in the same way as good research there has to be time for the scholarship that goes along with dissemination of knowledge --- as I said inmy postings pedagogical schlarship is legitimate to one's discipline --- to do it takes time --- if the argument is "I'm not going to do research so will teach twice as much" then there is no time for thepedagogical scholarship being touted in these papers as an alternative to research papers. The senior demonstrators and administrative assistants are very valuable to our programs -- but if you are to make a case for teaching in a university as opposed to another setting as being a form of schlarship then itmust be judged as scholarship. If it is simply as a presenter in a classroom -- then it becomes akin to a News Anchor --- a talented individual in diseminating information, but usually information of others. Jack M. Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont. Canada. L2S3A1 (905) 688 5550 ext. 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@spartan.ac.brocku.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:29:33 -0400 From: Jack Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion Mary Swift writes, If not for them you would have to be more involved in the >'scut work' and not in seeking more glory for yourself through your research. > When I chaired my dept for 4 years I had the heaviest teaching load and also had MSc students and post docs and was pseudo-Dean of Graduate Studies. Don't tell me about avoiding "scut work" Jack M. Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont. Canada. L2S3A1 (905) 688 5550 ext. 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@spartan.ac.brocku.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:31:12 -0400 From: Jack Miller Subject: Re: Felder discussion >The description of teaching courses (particularly service courses) as "scut" >work is an unfortunate statement of the second-class status that teaching has. >"Why do we look down on teaching?.....= 'Scut' work" in the same posting >suggests to me that we have all been brainwashed to believe that research is >more important than teaching regardless of what we do or would like to believe. >We may be looking down on teaching because this is what we have been taught to >do! > Interestingly the term was used by someone identifying themselves as a "teacher". Jack M. Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont. Canada. L2S3A1 (905) 688 5550 ext. 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@spartan.ac.brocku.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:38:26 -0400 From: Jack Miller Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper >I am one who recoils at the notion that there is no correlation between >teaching and research. That's because in my department, at least, we do >research largely because we are professors of chemistry, not only classroom >teachers. We model the inquisitive mind through our research (as well as >other ways) and demonstrate the wonder of discovery. Now, this isn't the >research of the Research Universities, but it _is_ research and to remove this >from my job description and requirements would be a disservice to me and to my >students. We need, I believe, to continue to maintain the union >between research and education. > Perhaps this should be themodel for the "Research Universities" as well. Jack M. Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont. Canada. L2S3A1 (905) 688 5550 ext. 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@spartan.ac.brocku.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:00:49 -0400 From: Jack Miller Subject: Re: Discuss the Felder Paper >I do like Dr. Lage's last statement >---- >if you can not do both (well) you must make sure the organization >you work for value the one you do best. >---- > >The point of this conference and discussion is to >determine how we can get more institutions to value >both and to allow either in a given individual. > >Mike Pavelich - - CSM I agree -- I've been deliberately blunt to provoke discussion, but interestingly I note a certain tone of --".. defenders of research devalue teaching..." or somehow good researchers cannot be good teachers. If the aim of this discussion is how to get teaching greater consideration in the hiring, P & T equation, then it is in the interests of those desiring the change to get the cooperation and support of those who are both teachers and researchers, and even those who are basically researchers -- (those I'm afraid you won't find on this group) --- but interestingly, for defending research and the importance of the synergy between teaching and research I'm defined as a researcher who puts down teachers, rather than a good (I hope and my students seem to think so) teacher and a not unreasonable researcher, doing both pure and applied (industrial contract) research. That type of attitude towards potential supporters can only impede the stted goals of this discussion. Interesting, observation and evaluation of several hundred faculty dossiers (research and teaching, for hiring, P & T etc. with thousands of course evaluations and tabular evaluation data) is considered "anecdotal" while published data is "sacred". I thought that was what part of this discussion is about --- how teaching and research is treated administratively -- and I have seen both sides. By the way - I've publsihed stufflater proven wrong (sometimes by me sometimes by others) or misinterpreted --- in fact a 20 year research odessey that started when I was an undergrad 34 years ago and asked my prof a question, formed the subject of my third year lecture today ---how easy it is to second guess in retrospect. No I've not publsihed my observations on dossiers and the outcomes of P & T decisions, but is that any less valuable, since it is not a sample of one, than some of the arguments put forward about the efforts putinto teaching. Obviously it hasn't the same status as a refereed report, but given the confidential nature of the files, it couldn't be used in apublished paper even if I had the sociological/pedagoical expertise to putit into an appropriate form. Jack M. Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont. Canada. L2S3A1 (905) 688 5550 ext. 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@spartan.ac.brocku.ca =========================================================================