---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:10:27 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: non-science majors >By making our big classes so big, we have made them more difficult to >teach well. Perhaps we should consider teaching more, but smaller >classes. > > > >Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus Nobody would disagree except our political masters who provide the $ for both instructors and classroom space -- our solution for the big classes for the non-science major is to give them as well as their lectures, seminars with no more than 15 students per seminar, taken by faculty or senior experienced assistants, not grad student TAs. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:08:10 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Astin's data >This is the weakness of epidemiological research. If you have a large >enough data set and enough variables you can identify almost any trend, >especially where control experiments are either not obvious or possible. >The challenge is to disaggregate the data and identify explicit >relationships, as Astin tried to do in his recent article in Change >magazine. The problem in that paper is that it's not clear that the right >questions were asked. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Robert L. Lichter, Executive Director 212-753-1760 >The Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc. rlichter@panix.com >555 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022-3301 Exactly --- polling or questionaire data are only as good as the questions. Getting back to the dreaded anecdotal, -- in all my courses except one, on meeting students years after the comments don't really vary whether it is one year of many years since they took the course. However for one course there is a rising appreciation of what they learned with time out in the workplace. Sure its the nature of that couse, on Chemical Instrumentation, that I teach as what I facetiously refer to as a course in Applied Sales Resistance - that as they have to apply it for big bucks in the work place they find they can rapidly impress their bosses and realize its usefulness, as opposed to a more subtle grounding in basics that they would have received in more traditional courses. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:04:00 EDT From: to2 Subject: To much mail for you? Dear CHEMCONF subscribers: Some of may be surprised and dismayed by the large volume of mail on this list. Such is the nature of on-line conferences. Here are some suggestions for keeping up with the volume: 1. You can reduce the number of messages you get each day, *without* missing anything. Just send an e-mail message to the listserv host (e.g. listserv@umdd.umd.edu), with no subject line, containing the one-line message SET CHEMCONF DIGEST Thereafter you get only ONE BIG mail message each morning from CHEMCONF, containing all of the messages from the previous day. It will begin with an index of all the subject lines and the number of replies to each subject. You can tall at a glance what's hot and what's not, you can delete the whole mess with one press of the D key, or you can scroll through looking for interesting bits. The main benefit of this "digest mode" is that is prevents the different groups from be interleaved with you regular personal e-mail throughout the day. To return to the normal mode, send the message SET CHEMCONF MAIL to listserv@umdd.umd.edu. 2. If you "came in late" and missed some of the earlier traffic, you should know that all CHEMCONF messages are archived. The archives are compiled on a weekly basis. Each one has a name like LOG9510A, LOG9510B, LOG9510C, etc., meaning Oct. 1995, week A, B, C, etc. The most recent one is LOG9510C, which covers the week beginning 14 Oct. Accessing the log files is easy. Just send an email message to listserv@umdd.umd.edu in which the message body reads GET CHEMCONF LOG9510C The listserv host will return the weekly archive as a single (large) email message, so you can print out the whole thing in a single step. To get the next week's archive, specify LOG9510D, and so on. 3. If you want to turn off the flow of mail completely, send an email message to listserv@umdd.umd.edu in which the message body reads SET CHEMCONF NOMAIL and to turn it back on SET CHEMCONF MAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry University of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry College Park, MD 20742 Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation (301) 405-1831 to2@umail.umd.edu FAX: (301) 314-9121 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/toh.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:56:29 -0700 From: Kevin Karplus Subject: Re: [nave@SUN.MECH.UQ.OZ.AU: Re: research vs teaching] Responding to my comment that research tended to be more communal than teaching, Helen Nave asked "Anyway, I can discuss my teaching methods (admittedly I'm only a tutor) with many many people - isn't that what we're doing now?!?!?" The answer is no. I have not seen a single substantive discussion of teaching in this conference, nor did I expect to. If we had been discussing ways to explain "moment of inertia" or talking about the book "Bicycling Science" as a possible text to use in presenting elementary physics to non-science students, then we would have been talking about teaching. (To the chemists, sorry about the choice of examples, but Helen is in Mech E, and I don't know any chemistry---the "Bicycling Science" suggestion is a genuine one---I'm considering teaching a 2- 3-credit course based on it next year.) What we've been doing is talking about talking about teaching---whether it is antagonistic or synergistic with research, whether there should be more institutional rewards for teaching, and very lightly, how we might measure teaching for rewards and what sort of rewards might be appropriate. When we have discussions that include 700 participants with rather different backgrounds, the discussion tends to be very generic. This is like researchers whining about how hard it is to get grants, and how should get more of the funding, since they do a better job (i.e. are more likely to fund the whiner). We are no more talking about teaching than that is talking about research. EXAMPLE: I had rewarding research conversations today with 3 grad students, 2 other faculty, and a visitor who came in to give a seminar talk (say maybe 3 hours total in 3 or 4 different conversations). There is a meeting tomorrow which includes another 4 or 5 grad students talking about the details of a particular computer program we are jointly developing. Last Friday was a meeting with another faculty member and 3 different grad students to discuss the architecture for a computer we are designing. I can (and do) go to conferences where there are hours of substantive discussions in the hallways, bars, and coffee shops. I had a very productive sabbatical this spring and summer, visiting many labs and having long, substantive discussions about details of my and their current research. I got one co-authored journal paper out of the sabbatical, and a huge list of projects to try to complete this winter. I have been in the situation of being the only faculty member at my department interested in my research specialty---and I found it very frustrating. So much so that, after getting tenure, I changed my field of work considerably, so that I could be part of an active research group. (There were other reasons that my previous field was getting frustrating, but lack of colleagues was one of them.) For teaching discussions, there have been few opportunities---there was one meeting this week about defining more precisely the content of one of our lab courses so that subsequent instructors weren't faced with underprepared students (I did not attend, since I didn't teach any of the relevant courses, and didn't know the textbook being used). I have had two 5-minute conversations about new textbooks for a course I'll be teaching next quarter, with a faculty member who has been using the texts in a class with overlapping content. That's about it for this quarter. I have had detailed teaching discussions with other faculty in my department only when they were teaching a course I had designed, we were team-teaching, or I was teaching a course they designed. Except for the team-teaching, the discussions tended to be fairly short and to concentrate on just the syllabus. I have had substantive teaching discussions with faculty outside my department only when I have taken their courses, and then not for very long. I get more time in research conversations in an average day than I get about teaching in an entire year. >From what I have heard from faculty at other research universities, this difference is normal. Departments usually work pretty hard at attaining "critical mass" in sub-fields when recruiting so that this sort of collegial interaction at the research level can take place. Research grants normally have multiple principal investigators. But teaching is still very solitary. When the institution does try to provide for teaching discussions, they tend to be so generic that they are not very interesting. Even the interaction with students in traditional teaching is much more formal and ritualized than the interaction with students as junior colleagues on a research project. Tutoring is a much more personal interaction than classroom teaching---especially the sort of large-group teaching that gets funded in the sciences. Don't expect the same sort of interaction with students once you start teaching larger classes. Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:30:05 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: contract research Several people have commented that contract research took professors away from their students. Au contraire -- I hire undergrads for the summer to do part of the work on the contracts --- great experience for them -- we even have a scheme whereby students can get a course credit for summer research, marked based on notebooks, supervisors input and on a seminar prersentation at the end. Having jobs for ones students over the summer is a great way to attract and keep the better students --- other universities also try to hire our students and convince them to move. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 07:34:34 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: discuss the Feisel paper Good Morning from Colorado - Our sinrise is once again full of color, may yours be as awesome. That was a productive and energetic two days of discussion. The co-chairs thank you all. With this message, we invite discussion of paper #2 SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED - - A REALITY CHECK by Lyle D. Feisel - SUNY at Binghamton At this point, let us put aside the discussion of whether colleges should change. That question will be the focus of the next paper. On this paper, Lyle has given us a framework in which to discuss HOW we would effect change - what would work, what would hamper change. Dean Feisel's suggested reward-induced-change model, lends itself to four lines of discussion. (1) Are there ways to measure teaching besides student and peer evaluations and portfolios? or are these sufficient? What about the distinction between process and product that was raised on Monday? What is the measurable scholarship in teaching? (2) How do you get faculty to "buy into" these any new measures? (3) Are rewards besides P&T acceptable? (4) Would the reward of promotion and tenure be sufficient to effect change? (We would include our answers here, but we co-chairs disagree on at least the first question. We will contribute in the general discussion) LOGISTICS Please try to keep your conributions to <200 words per submission. Please include only brief segments of previous messages. Please limit yourself to five submissions per day. Arlene Russell (UCLA) Mike Pavelich (CSM) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:00:24 -0500 From: "Venkatesh M. \"Vic\" Shanbhag" Subject: Re: non-science majors On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Kevin Karplus wrote: > John Hogg said > "It is not easy to enter a room with over 300 students whose collective > opinion is that "science sucks" and try to convince them that they > need to know science to be informed citizens." > > Perhaps the mistake here is in trying to teach a group of over 300 > students. Why are the non-science majors being treated like cattle? > Perhaps this has something to do with their antagonism toward science > and scientists? If science students take a literature or history > class, are they confronted with enormous lecture halls? > > By making our big classes so big, we have made them more difficult to > teach well. Perhaps we should consider teaching more, but smaller > classes. > > > > Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus I guess we fail to acknowledge the fact that the decision to pack 300 students in a classroom is normally not made by the faculty teaching the course but the administrators trying to cut costs but greedy to collect tution from students. On large campuses this is rampant. I am amazed by the comments of Dr. Kevin Karplus assuming that teachers have the option of picking the class size. A couple of years ago, when I indicated the noble fact that a sophomore level organic chemistry class of 150 students in a room of 160 capacity is too large to be effective, guess the response from the administrator? Vic, split them in to two and teach at times convenient to them. And, for the sake of students, I did. I have not expressed my opinion about teaching v/s research debate. Some of you participating in the debate are far more over-worked and underappreciated than me. Just a sample of responsibilities that I have been bestowed upon. I teach a freshman chemistry course of over 200, teach an organic chemistry course of over 125, train (god only knows) and supervise over 25 teaching assistants in freshman (chem I,chem II, baby chem) and organic (baby organic, organic I, organic II) lab courses (usually a total of 45 lab sections each holding about 28 students in each sections), serve on three departmental committees, serve on three university wide committees, and for remaining 50 percent of my duties, I am supposed to write grant proposals for research in chemical education, get grants and publish. I will not get tenure if I only did the first 50% of my scholarly activities (which I have maintained almost spotless record, I am nominated by the students for the Teacher of the year award). Is this true of every one in the department ? NOOO, Here we hire a faculty with 100K startup and the teaching load for that person is one course per semester, because that person needs time to write proposals and get grants. I have seen a faculty teaching one(1) student as the full time load. This is what happens when department/school places emphasis on collection of overhead from grants. I singlehandedly generate over 75% of FTE credit hours for the department that has 17 faculty members. You know what hurts the most? When the so called "experimental research" faculty actully say that the distribution of responsibilities is fair. They actually believe that there are two streams of faculty. Whether we like it or not, faculty that love to teach (if they are not tenured) are caught up in this vicious cycle. Definitely I did not earn a doctorate degree to be considered as a third class citizen in the university by my colleagues. Sometimes the options left to us are stay and enjoy what you do(you dont get to stay beyond 6 years then) or open up a corner market to sell beer & cigarettes. Sorry for the tartness/bitterness. Gotta go to teach a class!! Vic Vic Shanbhag, Asst. Prof. & director of Labs Mississippi State University (601) 325-8452 vms1@ra.msstate.edu http://www.msstate.edu/dept/chemistry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:23:53 -0500 From: "Dr. David Ritter" Subject: Re: scholarship of teaching, listserve delays Kevin Karplus wrote: >I believe that MANY of us are having a lot of difficulty with the >concept of the scholarship of teaching---even those who view >themselves primarily as teachers. I keep reading suggestions, not >that we have a scholarship of teaching, but that we all switch from >being researchers in our current fields to researchers in education. > >THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF A SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING! >(sorry for shouting) > >I don't mean to belittle research in science education---that is >clearly a field in which more research is needed. But the point Boyer >was trying to make is that there are other forms of scholarship than >research. It is a scholarly activity to teach, to write textbooks, to >create lab demonstrations---even if NO research is involved. Some of >us seem to be unable to break the scholarship=research equation, even >when specifically invited to talk about other forms of scholarship. > >Let's start talking about teaching, and not about research in science >education. > >------------------------------ >Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus > I am very concerned with how this perspective fits into the promotion/tenure/merit-pay reward system at my institution. For example, I am told that publication of such "non-research" items is seen as negative because they are "outside of my specialty area," and are "detracting from my primary resposibilities" (to put it into the administrative jargon with which I am confronted). How does one persevere when yearly performance must meet such expectations? David Ritter c617scc@semovm.semo.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:28:12 -0500 From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: non-science majors > > John Hogg said > "It is not easy to enter a room with over 300 students whose collective > opinion is that "science sucks" and try to convince them that they > need to know science to be informed citizens." > > Kevin Karplus said > Perhaps the mistake here is in trying to teach a group of over 300 > students. Why are the non-science majors being treated like cattle? > Perhaps this has something to do with their antagonism toward science > and scientists? If science students take a literature or history > class, are they confronted with enormous lecture halls? > > By making our big classes so big, we have made them more difficult to > teach well. Perhaps we should consider teaching more, but smaller > classes. > You certainly have a point! But that is not all. Even small classes of non science majors might be very difficult to teach if you insist in using the same strategies that seems to work so well when teaching science majors. I have taught Energy, Technology and the Environment recently. A group of 21 non science students (english, theater, journalism, music, business, etc.). Writing equations in the black board does not appeal to them -- they do not like math! ...but they like theater, business, writing, reading, music, etc.. so, that was the way to learn. On nuclear power issue, the journalism majors were given the task to find information about building, operating, and dismantling a nuclear power station. The english studends were asked to write a script for a play in which some businees people try to convince the mexican goverment to buy a nuclear power station (there were some students taking spanish besides two mexican descendents in class). The theater majors produced the play, with music majors helping the accoustic. I am sure they will never forget how a nuclear reaction occurs!...they even know what REM is! ======= THAT'S IS TEACHING ======= You measure its efficiency (my efficiency) by verifying how much has been learned by the students, with exams, quizzes, homework, etc.. It is that simple! You do not need "faculty portfolio", survey of alumni after 5yrs of graduation, etc.. ..teaching is measured by how much the student has learned!! ..research is measured by how original your work is = number and quality of papers produced!! -- 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:41:00 PDT From: "Rice, Jim Chem" Subject: Reply to Comments of active researchers? Dear Dr. Hogg: I guess I fit your description of an active researcher: I am an Associate Professor of Chemistry who has 8 graduate students (2 MS & 6 PhD), a postdoc, 2 undergrad research assistants. I have currently have grants from the USGS, USEPA and NSF. I consider myself a good teacher (I taught high school chemistry and earth science for 2 years before going to graduate school, and enjoyed the experience) and work very hard to interactively involve students in the process of learning through a Socratic-type discovery process. I consistently receive average student evaluation scores of less than 2 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating instructional excellence) for the courses that I teach in analytical and environmental chemistry. I place as high a priority on my teaching as I do my research. Perhaps I am lucky in the respect that my institution, while a land-grant school (or perhaps because of it), clearly acknowledges the importance of undergradute education in our mission. I have no profound comments on why or how it is possible to combine a committment to both research and teaching in an academic life. It takes organization, discipline and a lot of work - but it is possible if you as an individual are willing to commit yourself to this goal . And if you have a family it is even more of a balancing act. But again you can achieve excellence in research and teaching, and still have a full personal life, if you are willing to make the committment. However, I disagree with your assertion that it is not necessary to be active in research in order to be a good teacher. Being active in research means being an active learner. I personally think that this is a major problem facing chemical education, and perhaps other technical disciplines as well. I see it in my students constantly: they want to be "taught" (passive) rather than "learn" (active self-involvement). I see it in some of my colleagues who teach from the same yellowed notes semester after semester after semester; that is not teaching. I have a quote from Willy Oelsen, who was head of the Max Planck Institut fur Eisenforshcung at Dusseldorf, that continually challenges me in this respect: "It is shameful when a man [person] who has the privilege of teaching forgets the duty to learn." Jim Rice South Dakota State University Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:36:16 -0500 From: "P.C. Wankat" Subject: Feisel paper Thank you Lyle for a very thoughtful paper. I very strongly come down on the need for two different evaluation systems. The formative evaluation system would be owned and operated by the professors. Nitty-gritty questions such as the usefulness of the text can be asked. A Center for Teaching Improvement can help the professor both with the evaluation, but also with improvement afterwards. This follow up is essential for formative evaluations to have a major impact on teaching effectiveness. These formative evaluations should look at student learning as well as attitudes. Other methods of formative evaluation can also be used such as videotaping lectures, visits to class by peers who are trained in what to look for, and reviews of syllabus, homework, tests and so forth. The administrative evaluation would be run by the administration. For the student evaluation part of this evaluation, global measures (e.g. overall this course was ...) would be used since global measures correlate best with student learning. The professor would not be in the room when student evaluations were administered. Other evaluation measures would also need to be used. In engineering a combined peer and industrial review of course content is very appealing. Centra's book (Reflective Faculty Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, S.F., 1993) talks about all these evaluation methods including portfolios, and cites relevant research. Value: I think Huber got it only partly right. Students and parents value teaching very highly as long as the school's reputation does not drop. Like it or not, the U. S. News and World Reports ratings have a big effect on reputation. Undergraduate school ratings should be based on student learning and growth. A major effort to improve the U. S. News and World Reports' rating procedure would be as worthy as improving evaluation in the University. Phil Wankat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:43:17 -0400 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: class size Dear Colleagues, It was asked why there are 300+ students in a non-science class. We could ask the same question about some first year classes for science and engineering majors. I have heard that some class sizes can be 500 and that a separate room is assigned for the overflow. The economics of education require large classes and we must learn to deal with the situation. Those of us who teach in small private institutions may be somewhat shielded from these realities imposed by state budgets. Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University FCHEZIELI@NIAGARA.edu Chemistry Department 716-286-8257 (campus office) Niagara University NY 14109 716-639-0762 (home office) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:02:52 -0400 From: "W. Robert Midden" Subject: Who Should Teach/Who Should Research? The biggest problem that I have with the coexistence of research and teaching is the highly competitive nature of current research funding. In order to be able to support my graduate students and to provide adequate resources for their training I need external funding. But to get external funding I must compete with scientists who devote nearly all of the time and energy to research. That means that I am competing with those who publish frequently and have the time to prepare several grant proposals to increase their chances of funding. The standards by which grant proposals are judged depend in part on the fact that there is an abundance of scientists for whom research is the highest priority. I would like to do research part of the time and teach part of the time but I find it difficult to succeed in research in the current climate unless I devote nearly all of my personal resources to it. I'm not arguing that this should necessarily be different. Perhaps the research funding should go to those for whom it is the highest (and virtually the only) priority. But this certainly makes it especially difficult to do both teaching and research well. So who should teach? And who should do research? If the answer is that some faculty should do both then we need a better way to support those for whom research may not be the highest priority but perhaps is nevertheless a significant priority. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:30:22 -0400 From: John Hogg Subject: Reply to Lage about class size >> I just returned from teaching two classes and haven't kept pace with the flow of conversation but I do agree it would be best to teach small classes of 15-20 students. However, we had 3000 people enrolled in chemistry 101 last fall in 12 sections that average 250 students. Therefore, we don't herd the non-science majors into large classes like cattle. Our size "forces" us to do that with all students and it's not just science classes. Even lots of history, political science, business, etc. classes are that large. Innovative suggestions for teaching 3000 students in small classes are welcome but 150 sections of 20 students each is not practical. I like your innovative teaching ideas and I'm trying some of the same things this semester in my small (175 students) Molecular Science for Citizens class. I'd love to be able to teach classes of 20 and we do offer some small sections (40-60 students) for majors and honors. However, many people consider these to be large classes. Money and teaching loads tolerated by faculty with large research groups dictate what can be done to a large extent at mega-universities. John Hogg Texas A&M University >> John Hogg said >> "It is not easy to enter a room with over 300 students whose collective >> opinion is that "science sucks" and try to convince them that they >> need to know science to be informed citizens." >> >> Kevin Karplus said >> Perhaps the mistake here is in trying to teach a group of over 300 >> students. Why are the non-science majors being treated like cattle? >> Perhaps this has something to do with their antagonism toward science >> and scientists? If science students take a literature or history >> class, are they confronted with enormous lecture halls? >> >> By making our big classes so big, we have made them more difficult to >> teach well. Perhaps we should consider teaching more, but smaller >> classes. >> >You certainly have a point! But that is not all. Even small classes of non >science majors might be very difficult to teach if you insist in using the >same strategies that seems to work so well when teaching science majors. >I have taught Energy, Technology and the Environment recently. A group of >21 non science students (english, theater, journalism, music, business, etc.). >Writing equations in the black board does not appeal to them -- they do not like >math! ...but they like theater, business, writing, reading, music, etc.. >so, that was the way to learn. On nuclear power issue, the journalism majors >were given the task to find information about building, operating, and >dismantling a nuclear power station. The english studends were asked to write >a script for a play in which some businees people try to convince the mexican >goverment to buy a nuclear power station (there were some students taking >spanish besides two mexican descendents in class). The theater majors produced >the play, with music majors helping the accoustic. I am sure they will never >forget how a nuclear reaction occurs!...they even know what REM is! > ======= THAT'S IS TEACHING ======= >You measure its efficiency (my efficiency) by verifying how much has been >learned by the students, with exams, quizzes, homework, etc.. It is that simple! >You do not need "faculty portfolio", survey of alumni after 5yrs of graduation, >etc.. >..teaching is measured by how much the student has learned!! >..research is measured by how original your work is = number and quality of >papers produced!! >-- >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 > John Hogg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:36:02 EST From: Howard Kimmel Subject: FELDER'S MODEL I know that we are supposed to discuss a second paper today, but in light of postings that i did not see until this morning, i would like to submit this response to Rich Felder's entitled "Second-Class Citizenship". I think that the point is being missed; but is contained in a couple of following messages. First, Jack Miller writes: >One must distinguish between the "act of teaching" which is only one part of >what we are paid to do, and scholarship associated with that teaching which is >to bring a new light to the subject and in that sense is "research" whether >you like to call it that or not. I use the term "scholarship appropriate >to the discipline". Anyone who takes a tenure-line/or tenured job at a c should be participating in the "act of teaching". If they wnat to just do research, there are usually "research professor" titles that do not necessarily carry tenure with it. But we can not expect so-called "teaching faculty" to carry on scholarship and still carry on a heavier teaching load, compared to so-called "research faculty". Both groups are doing scholarly work, and as Jim Reeves commented: >I would comment that you cannot know whether new instructional methods and >materials, etc. are "improved" unless we do the research to find out. >Someone needs to be looking at the results of all of these "educational >improvements". I still maintain that any institution that instructs large >numbers of undergraduates in introductory courses in chemistry should have >"research active" faculty studying the effectiveness of the instruction, >especially in light of the new materials (hypermedia, CD-ROM textbooks, >etc.) that are being produced and used today. Both types of research activity are scholarly, can bring in funds (th money issue), require innovation and similar skills, and are time consuming. Yet, the model proposes that one carry a heavier teaching load than the other. There is no justification that i can see for that. There is no equality in that model, reegardless of the rhetoric regarding pay and tenure. The one in educational research is being treated as a second class citizen compared to the person in so-called "disciplinary research". Science and engineering education must be consdiered a discipline and the educational research is therefore also "disciplinary research". Everyone should be sharing the load in a dept. and the same criteria should be applied to all in determining teaching loads, tenure, and pay, regardless of which area the person is pursuing scholarship, as long as he/she is pursuing scholarship. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Kimmel New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, New Jersey e-mail: kimmel@admin1.njit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:36:49 -0400 From: John Hogg Subject: Re: Rice's comments >Dr. Rice: I once did all of that too and I admire you for your efforts. I'd be interested to know your class sizes, grading responsibilities, etc. Just because I no longer do "research" doesn't mean I don't learn. I've learned far more teaching that I ever learned while doing research because I'm more interested in making my teaching innovative and interesting. I admire people who can do everyhting (teaching, research, and service) exceptionally well and still maintain a normal lifestyle. I will always contend that by spreading yourself over more tasks you inevitably diminish the effort and resutls of any single task, however. It's been my experience in over 25 years in the business that teaching and meeting with undergraduate students always takes second place to grant proposals, graduate students, and research travel. John Hogg Dear Dr. Hogg: >I guess I fit your description of an active researcher: I am an Associate >Professor of Chemistry who has 8 graduate students (2 MS & 6 PhD), a postdoc, >2 undergrad research assistants. I have currently have grants from the USGS, >USEPA and NSF. I consider myself a good teacher (I taught high school >chemistry and earth science for 2 years before going to graduate school, and >enjoyed the experience) and work very hard to interactively involve students >in the process of learning through a Socratic-type discovery process. I >consistently receive average student evaluation scores of less than 2 (on a >scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating instructional excellence) for the >courses that I teach in analytical and environmental chemistry. I place >as high a priority on my teaching as I do my research. Perhaps I am lucky in >the respect that my institution, while a land-grant school (or perhaps >because of it), clearly acknowledges the importance of undergradute education >in our mission. > >I have no profound comments on why or how it is possible to combine >a committment to both research and teaching in an academic life. It takes >organization, discipline and a lot of work - but it is possible if you as an >individual are willing to commit yourself to this goal . And if you have a >family it is even more of a balancing act. But again you can achieve >excellence in research and teaching, and still have a full personal life, if >you are willing to make the committment. > >However, I disagree with your assertion that it is not necessary to be >active in research in order to be a good teacher. Being active in research >means being an active learner. I personally think that this is a major >problem facing chemical education, and perhaps other technical disciplines as >well. I see it in my students constantly: they want to be "taught" (passive) >rather than "learn" (active self-involvement). I see it in some of my >colleagues who teach from the same yellowed notes semester >after semester after semester; that is not teaching. > >I have a quote from Willy Oelsen, who was head of the Max Planck Institut fur >Eisenforshcung at Dusseldorf, that continually challenges me in this respect: >"It is shameful when a man [person] who has the privilege of teaching forgets >the duty to learn." > >Jim Rice >South Dakota State University >Dept. of Chemistry & >Biochemistry > John Hogg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:05:13 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: non-science majors Re: Karplus 17 Oct 1995 22:41:29 >By making our big classes so big, we have made them more difficult to >teach well. Perhaps we should consider teaching more, but smaller classes. I didn't realize that (quantity of teaching) is inversely proportional to (class size)! At the moment, I am sitting 100 yds from construction of a 1 kilo student and two 500 student lecture halls (not auditoria, but lecture halls). These will be used for teaching via lecture (with appropriate choices among the media of multi-media). Yes, teaching will be going on; whether learning takes place is dependent upon the individual student. The lecture is only one part of their learning process. Hopefully (as with all parts of their courses), it will be an enlightening, useful, and effective part of their learning. Question: what is the optimal size for teaching, learning, and/intellectual growth (the first is instructor oriented, the latter two student oriented) for: A: Lecture B. Class C. Discussion D. Seminar E. Student(s)/teacher discussion F. Cooperative 'learning' groups G. 'Teaching' laboratories Why? (and why not more or less?) This question is for individual reflection only. Please do not chew up bandwidth (and the patience of others) by replying to the Conference. If you have to get it off your chest, send it to me. Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:20:59 -0500 From: "J. Keith Nisbett" 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:30:25 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: are we working? We are seeing no traffic on the ed conference. I think there is a server problem. Will anyone in New York or the Carolina's who sees the current message between 2:45 and 2:55 pm edt please send a "got it" reply back through the server? Mike Pavelich ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:21:20 -0500 From: "J. Keith Nisbett" 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:21:12 -0500 From: "J. Keith Nisbett" Subject: Re: Teaching vs Research 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:44:47 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: teaching only model Vic is an example of the teaching only or teaching plus research into education model gone wrong -- It is a miracle that he appears as teacher of the year given what his chair has dumped on him and has been the basis of my objection to the model based on teaching a double laod and not doing "research", If doing research prevents one from being a good teacher, then a double dose of teaching does exactly the same thing -- "teaching is their lab" as someone suggested is not the point --- if as claimed good teaching doesn't allow time for research then simply put it doesn't allow time for a double teaching load. The argument doesn't hold up. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:47:10 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: scholarship of teaching, listserve delays >> >I am very concerned with how this perspective fits into the >promotion/tenure/merit-pay reward system at my institution. For example, I >am told that publication of such "non-research" items is seen as negative >because they are "outside of my specialty area," and are "detracting from my >primary resposibilities" (to put it into the administrative jargon with >which I am confronted). How does one persevere when yearly performance must >meet such expectations? >David Ritter >c617scc@semovm.semo.edu You have an archaic admin --- virtually none of my current research is in the areas for which I was trained. Its far more fun to move as technology changes as ideas develop etc. One becomes self taught in new areas of the discipline continually --- even with a digression in my part from Chemistry to Chair Computer Science for two years. 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:07:05 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: discuss the Feisel paper 2 > >SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED - - A REALITY CHECK > >by Lyle D. Feisel - SUNY at Binghamton >Dean Feisel's suggested reward-induced-change model, lends >itself to four lines of discussion. > >(1) Are there ways to measure teaching besides student and peer >evaluations and portfolios? or are these sufficient? What about the >distinction between process and product that was raised on >Monday? What is the measurable scholarship in teaching? Not only "what" but who does the measuring. Student evaluations run by someone who is not the instructor are far more valuaboe and are the norm here. But the other point being made in this discussion has been "what has the student learned" Again, perhaps the same evaluative model should be applied as for course evaluation surveys --A teaches the couse and B evaluates what they learned. Many English and former English Colony universities use an external examiner system to vet examination questions and a ramdom samples of teh marked answers (and even lab books in the old days). How you measure schlarship depends on how you define it --- if defined as the disemination of ideas, and for example the adoption of them in the form of use by others outside the institution of the textbook, program, multimedia package etc. then it is evaluated like any other form of reserch or scholarship --- acceptance by one's peers. However, if you define scholarshp simply as preparing for and teaching your classes then there is no measure and I would argue that this is not schlarship, but simply teaching. Scholarship implies peer and not just self evaluation, and that is needed if it is to be a measure used in P & T. Student evaluations alone, unless externally run, don't meet this need since the professor is in a power relationship to the class. To be useful to the professor the evaluations should be available to he/she during the term, to be totally unbiased by any power relationship they must be run after the course is over and the exam marked, and preferably before the student knows their final grade. >(2) How do you get faculty to "buy into" these any new measures? I think there would be a revolt at independant or outside evaluation of what the student learned. >(3) Are rewards besides P&T acceptable? presumably few would give up the tenure option, and wouldn't care about promotion if rank and $ were separate --- so $ rewards are real, as perhaps is course relief other than sabbatical for inovative teaching development. >(4) Would the reward of promotion and tenure be sufficient to effect change? It depends how you modify the criteria for P & T - a radical departure rather than an evolutionary one is unlikely to get through a University Senate, Faculty Association or whatever the appropriate governing body is. > >(We would include our answers here, but we co-chairs disagree on at >least the first question. We will contribute in the general discussion) > > >LOGISTICS > >Please try to keep your conributions to <200 words per submission. >Please include only brief segments of previous messages. >Please limit yourself to five submissions per day. > >Arlene Russell (UCLA) >Mike Pavelich (CSM) 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: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:49:12 -0700 From: Rob Scheer Subject: Who Should Teach/Who Should Research? Abolish tenure, pay teachers to teach, and pay researchers to research. If someone does well at both, pay them what they're worth. That is simple. The questions then become.... 1) What is a good teacher worth, and what is a good researcher worth? 2) How can we measure what is "good"? Please comment. ********************************************************************** Robert J. Scheer Research Instructor Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering University of Utah Phone: (801)585-5313 FAX: (801)581-4816 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:49:00 -0700 From: Kevin Karplus Subject: Re: class size Theresa Julia Zielinksi said "The economics of education require large classes and we must learn to deal with the situation. Those of us who teach in small private institutions may be somewhat shielded from these realities imposed by state budgets." Vic Shanbhag (Mississippi State) said "I singlehandedly generate over 75% of FTE credit hours for the department that has 17 faculty members." I was the one who asked about large class sizes. I don't teach at a small private school, but at the University of California. I'm very aware of the economics of education. (You may have heard about the 5% one-year pay cut they imposed on us a few years back.) Generally, state schools are funded based on student enrollment. It is generally at the campus and department level where decisions are made about how the funding is used to support teaching. In most cases the large class sizes are not a necessary consequence of funding (as evidenced by the lack of large classes in other disciplines), but a deliberate choice to "free up" professors' time. In some cases (apparently at Mississippi State), this is taken to ridiculous extremes. UC Santa Cruz has made deliberate campus-level decisions to keep class sizes small, in part by not building many large class rooms. This means our teaching loads tend to larger (in terms of course numbers) than our colleagues at other UC campuses, but also means that we end up having to hire more temporary faculty to cover all the courses. The number of courses taught varies between disciplines here, but my department's load of 3.5 semester courses a year is considered fairly normal (some of the sciences do fewer, some of the humanities do more). The largest course I have taught here is 65 students (for a junior-level techinical writing course, and I had a co-instructor). I think the largest service course our department (or our sister department Computer and Information Sciences) has taught is about 200. This is the most basic sort of tradeoff---if you (department, campus,...) get resources based on student class hours, you have the option of teaching a few large classes, or many small ones. The big danger of the two-track system is that the "researchers" will dominate the decision-making, will chose to fund a few large classes, and then expect the "teachers" to take on the load---blaming them when the system results in poor learning. Kevin Karplus karplus@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus Due to budgetary constraints the light at the end of the tunnel is being turned off. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:11:38 CDT From: John Henry Wells Subject: Incentives? What are the real incentives to change? Change requires one to do something different from that which they are comfortable. One must risk failure if they are unprepared. One may not even know that they are unprepared until they attempt change. The question I have is: What is the supporting infrastructure (people, policy, training, and physical services) needed to support those who would engage in the process of change. In my own quest to become a better engineering educator, esp. a better teacher, I have found no supporting infrastructure, but for the few books mentioned in the discussion. Perhaps I am just outside of the loop; but where are the centers of engineering education? What resources can they offer to help me the common faculty seek to become a better teacher? Where is the honest discussion of teaching? John Henry Wells jwells@gumbo.bae.lsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:39:07 -0500 From: Joe Vitt Subject: Re: Reply to Comments of active researchers? On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Rice, Jim Chem wrote: > > However, I disagree with your assertion that it is not necessary to be > active in research in order to be a good teacher. Being active in research > means being an active learner. I personally think that this is a major > problem facing chemical education, and perhaps other technical disciplines as > well. I see it in my students constantly: they want to be "taught" (passive) > rather than "learn" (active self-involvement). I see it in some of my > colleagues who teach from the same yellowed notes semester > after semester after semester; that is not teaching. > > I have a quote from Willy Oelsen, who was head of the Max Planck Institut fur > Eisenforshcung at Dusseldorf, that continually challenges me in this respect: > "It is shameful when a man [person] who has the privilege of teaching forgets > the duty to learn." I must respectfully but strongly disagree with my colleague from SDSU. It not only IS possible to be an EXCELLENT teacher without being active in research, it is done all the time. Why is it that the liberal arts colleges consistently have a much higher percentage of graduates going on to receive doctorates in science (at least in chemistry) than the research universities? Because they devote all or most of their energies to teaching and interacting with students, they teach to small classes, and oh, OK, they start out with better students (in most cases). As an example, the undergraduate school I attended (St. John's, MN) ranked 21st out of 914 schools producing baccalaureate graduates who have gone on to earn doctorates in the last decade (1993 Franklin and Marshall College report). And then look at the really good undergrad chemistry programs, like Carleton or St. Olaf and many others. They always beat most of the research universities. And how active in research are these schools? Certainly getting more active, but when I was at St. John's (I hope no one from there is listening), no one was what I would consider active in research (grants, students with summer salary, publishing other than J Chem Ed). But they were almost all EXCELLENT teachers and advisors. Sure, being an active researcher means being an active learner, but aren't there other ways of learning?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:13:49 +1000 From: Helen Nave Subject: Re: [nave@SUN.MECH.UQ.OZ.AU: Re: research vs teaching] On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Kevin Karplus wrote: > funded in the sciences. Don't expect the same sort of interaction > with students once you start teaching larger classes. Granted the maximum size of class I have tutored is about 80 (incidentally, before one of you attacks this and says that is too many, this is one of the problems that the research project into engineering education I'm involved in is aiming to solve). I have read the account of some of your experiences with interest. (keeping in mind that one person's experience does not a trend make). There are many academic staff in our department, and indeed at our university, and I can think of one particularly strong example, who love the ACTIVITY OF TEACHING (I am not referring here to the activity of talking about teaching methods, nor am I referring to sharing teaching difficulties with colleagues). This particular person is a lecturer with many years experience (in fact, he lectured some of the lecturers). He manages to be very interactive with the students, and the students appreciate all the guidance he gives on both a class, group and individual level. He knows the name of everyone in his class, and some that aren't, within the first couple of weeks of the semester. His areas of research are engineering design and, more recently, engineering education. I only hope that if I choose to become an academic, I continue to appreciate the importance of the educational role that thousands of young students that enter university every year assume is what the universities are there for. I guess if you look at a large class and see the only means of education as a traditional non-interactive lecture, then that is what you will do. Some people see many more opportunities, and push the bounds of the definition of the traditional lecture. Thanks, though for the warning. If I only liked teaching because of the interaction with the students, and the mere self-satisfaction, I would be turned away from it. But that it not the case. I believe in the teaching activity as a valuable necessary part of scholarship, and the professional development of both the teacher and the students IF it is done the right way. I also notice that all the mention of "interaction" has been with colleagues or postgrad students. I re-iterate that I was referring to interaction with undergraduates AS WELL (not instead of). I was stating a possible explanation for the existence of people who enjoy teaching, but don't particularly like research (and I know they exist), and that reason was a difference in personal qualities. It is obvious that a few people disagree with this suggestion. Perhaps they have a better one? It seems that what these same few people are saying is that the personal qualities possessed by researchers are by and large the same as those required and possessed by teachers. And that the teaching activity doesn't require any specific training other than being good at research, and that if you don't like research and like teaching, you are either scared of research or don't understand what it is. Well, with the overwhelming evidence being presented here, who can argue?!?! And with a research record of only 4 years, with only three conference papers to my credit - one on acoustics and two on engineering education -, tutoring experience of only four years, and no lecturing experience except for speeches to high-school students and a few technical seminars, I would have to bow to those far more experienced than I. However I thought the idea of this conference was to express opinions, substantiated if possible by experiences and facts. Let's keep the discussion to the common goals of working out the best university rewards for the two activities to perform each of them in the best way, and to the maximum benefit of those receiving the products of the activities - the community at large and the students (both postgraduate and undergraduate) - and not use it as a means of attacking one another's career choices, or personal qualities. Helen Nave, Dept Mech Eng, University of Qld, St Lucia, 4072, Brisbane, Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:41:50 +1000 From: Helen Nave Subject: Re: The scholarship of teaching I couldn't agree more. I have perhaps not expressed myself as fluently and clearly as this in reply to some of the letters I have been receiving, but I agree wholeheartedly with this letter!! Helen Nave On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, JBELL wrote: > "Teaching VS research" is an artificial dichotomy. As many have pointed > out, there are examples of people who SEEM to be able to do both well. > This begs the issue, however, as to what the SCHOLARSHIP of teaching > entails and this is what Boyer (and Felder, in part) is talking about. > Meeting a class well-prepared to lecture at an appropriate level from > the students' perspective is not NECESSARILY good teaching, if that > class would benefit more from some other form of presentation. The > scholarship of teaching implies an examination (involving > experimentation, data analysis, and publication of results) of issues > like the most effective (in terms of student outcomes as well as > evaluations) methods of presentation. Without this retrospection and > research, Jack Miller is correct (one of our few points of agreement) > that the presenter is "akin to a News Anchor". Likewise, authorship of > a textbook is not necessarily pedagogical scholarship unless the > approach taken in the text can be shown (research again) to be more > effective for student learning, than some other approach. Are the same > people going to be good at both traditional bench/theoretical research > and pedagogical scholarship? Probably not. In research intensive > universities, should "teaching" faculty be judged on the basis of the > scholarship of teaching? Surely. But the sufficient condition, being a > good and dynamic lecturer/presenter/demonstrator, is not enough; the > retrospection is also required. > > Jerry A. Bell > Director > Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Programs > American Association for the Advancement of Science > jbell@aaas.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:50:15 +1000 From: Helen Nave Subject: Reply to J. Miller Re: research vs teaching At last, a carefully considered reply. Thank you. I have as much, if not more to learn from this sort of conference than to contribute. Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Jack Martin Miller wrote: > >Helen Nave, wrote > >because they like the life of solitary discovery - maybe even a bit of a > >loner. > > That is not how research works for most researchers that I know --- it is > usually a group activity and in a graduate student "tetaching" environment, > even more so. I can see that I shouldn't have used the word loner, or even solitary in such a blase way! It appears it has caused a great deal of defensive behaviour. But research as a group activity is a good idea, and I have admitted before that my research seems to be more solitary than others I know. However my meaning (obviously erroneous) was as opposed to being surrounded by students all day, and the discussions being the actual teaching, whereas often I think the discussions of researvh are in addition to, and increase the quality of the actual research. > >Surely this is merely specialisation by preference, and needn't be in any > >shape or form a caste system??? > > Based on the discussion I wonder if "research" has a totally different > meaning in Engineering schools -- it seems to be the engineers who have > been making the greatest distinction. I have a university wide perspective > from our P & T committee and my work subsequently with a Faculty > Association Committee providing advice on P & T documentation, including > the teaching dossiers mentioned by other participants, but we have no > Engineering School. It could be the case, I'm not sure. But I think that the dissention here is probably from different perceived definitions of teaching and research. Some people seem to be referring to the total life of a researcher as the research, whereas some are referring to it as made up of research, continuing education, teaching administration, and networking with colleagues etc. Some refer to the teaching activity as standing in front of a class, and others call teaching the whole life of an educator - including research into teaching methods and improvements etc. > > I note also in the discussion that researchers are being offered by some > the quid pro quo of -- have "teaching profs" and they'll do all the paper > work the researchers don't like .. this proposal an the part of the > "teaching only" side of the argument is degrading to teachers, and in any > case assumes "teachers" are good at or like paper work and "researchers" > are bad at it or don't like it. If one were to accept the argument for lack > of correlation between teaching and research, then where is the correlation > between either of these and effectiveness at paper pushing. If it is > menial, it doesn't require a faculty member. If it does, then it requires > one competant in the particular task and one who will get their paper work > out on time. This is no more necessarily the teacher than the researcher. Absolutely. Helen Nave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:04:16 -0400 From: Larry Brown Subject: evaluating teaching/research I seem to be receiving only some messages, so I apologize if I am repeating anything. One of the central points of Feisel's paper is that we don't have in place a system to evaluate teaching very well, and I think that is undoubtedly true for most schools. While many people seem to think that this is due to some intrinsic diffciulty in evaluating teaching compared to evaluating research, I am not so sure. It seems to me that we have better means of evaluating research largely because we (institutions, departments, and faculties) have long been more interested in evaluating research. Consider the standard tenure review process. Several faculty from other institutions are asked to read a file and critically evaluate the candidate, and by most accounts they do so very carefully. This is volunteer work of a sort, and it is not easy. So the fact that it is undertaken by busy people imply that we all place great value on the review process and its significance. But in that same process, few, if any, faculty from the candidate's own school will visit a class or do anything to gain some insight into teaching skills. If we believe that we could identify good teaching if we saw it, than such visits could presumably be used. Would they be subjective? Yes, but the same could be said of the peer reviews of the research portfolio. I think that much of the talk about how it isn't possible to evaluate teaching is more a reflection of the fact that we don't value it enough to make a good effort at evaluation. I agree that right now we don't have mechanisms in place to judge teaching well, but I think we could find them if we were willing to make a strong effort. I guess that puts me somewhere in Feisel's "feedback loop" diagram. 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: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:13:53 +1000 From: Helen Nave Subject: Re: teaching and/or research On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Kevin Karplus wrote: > > My personal conjecture, backed only by anecdotal evidence, is that > research and GRADUATE education are highly correlated, but that > research and UNDERGRADUATE education are only slightly correlated. Yes!! This is where, I think, the discussion has perhaps gone a little awry! Helen Nave. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:18:25 +1000 From: Helen Nave Subject: Re: Correction: Revision of paper by Richard M. Felder On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Howard Kimmel wrote: > Let me offer an outlandish suggestion. Since we look at chemistry, physics, > engineering, etc., as fields of study, in which we do scholarly work thru > research, why not look at science education or engimeeromg edicatopm as fields > of study, in which one can (and does) pursue scholorly studies. Then we This is in fact done in our department - we have a group whose postgraduate and academic research is in the area of engineering education. We have university-wide grants for teaching-learning projects - anyone may present a proposal. In fact, that's what myself and my colleague did, and why we are aorking on a research project to do with changing the culture of tutoring, and professionalising the activity of tutoring within the department. And before anyone says this is only tutoring, it requires a huge shift in attitudes in the undergraduate students, the postgrad tutors, AND the academic staff. This project is different from my individual tutoring, however. We also have workshops and seminars on the topic. However, I understood this as included in what is termed research in this discussion. I did not include this as teaching. Here I include developing courses, improving the quality of small group teaching, giving thought to and perhaps changing the tutoring structure, or the lecturing load for a subject etc, and the actual activity of helping a student develop learning skills, no matter what form this takes. There is a subtle difference - in our department anyway - each can be done without the other, although sometimes they go hand in hand - for those educators who care. Helen Nave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:28:44 -0700 From: Kathy Munderloh Subject: Re: non-science majors Dear Vic, Your load is even worse than mine. As a part timer extrodinaire, I have only 178 students in a total of five classes. However, I only make about $ 18,000 a year necessitating quite a bit of other work to support my family and mortage. I share your bitterness. I do a lot of work, my students request me for further courses, de better in their advanced courses with other teachers, pass the courses they are in with higher grades and I hope I am contributing to their ability to respect their own potentials to think and reason and to apply these. We are focusing so much on the difficulties and rewards of teaching that we gloss over the difficulties and rewards of learning. This is what must be made valuable to our students so that they can take over the world we leave them with some confidence and care. Good luck, Kathy ------------------------------