2
Charles E. Falletta and Alfred Moy6 I Preparing Research-Oriented University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 I Doctoral Candidates to Teach About a year and a half ago, graduate students at t h~ University of Pittsburgh initiated dis- cussions within the Chemistry Department about their preparedness for teaching, especially a t two and four year colleges, at the completion of their research-ori- ented doctorates. In the absence of formal education courses, it was felt that there was need for some basic training in teaching which would make the transition from student to professor a lot smoother. Input from recent maduates served to substantiate thid feelina. In Gying to deal with the problems whichuwere raised, it was felt that whatever program was designcd had of necessity to be within the framework of our existing degree programs and that the integrity of our PhD must be maintained so that our graduates could remain competitive in the job market with applicants from other research-oriented institutions. Further- more, it was necessary to ensure that a student who was initially interested in teaching as a career could change his objectives and still be qualified as a candi- date for employment as a research chemist. With these guidelines in mind, we designed a voluntary 4- Phase program in Teaching of College Chemistry which is described herein. The program is for second year students and each phase lasts one trimester. Phase I consisted of weekly seminars in which stu- dents discuss topics pertinent to teaching. These in- 1) Gaeral Approach to Teaching Several outstanding faculty members with varying teaching styles from the chemistry and biology departments at the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh, chemistry professors from neighboring Chatham College and Carnegie-Mellou University, and one science educator discussed the mechanim of teaching. Some of the questions which were raised are: Is lecturing the best way to teach? How does one measure student response during a lecture? Whst techniques e m be used to emphasize a point? What is the proper bdrtnce between repeating material in a. text- book and introducing outside material? How does one spice up e lecture? How is s lecture prepared? What level of attain- ment should onestrive far? 2) Hislory and Philosophy of Science A chemist and a physici~t from the History and Philosophy of Science Center discussed the historv of chemistrv with one of our ddrr faculty m~ml,en who hnr; witn~wedmajor rhcmirnl de- vrlopuwnts rinre IWO. 111 n separate ber5ion the philojophy of chemistry wm explored by the same people. 3) Testing and Evaluation The Director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for the Im~rovement of Teachine and a. Dane1 of chemistrv facultv mem- and in one case results of a. computer-based exam analysis were discussed. Several methods of assigning grades and validity studies of eseh were considered. 4) Audio-Visual Aids The seminar unit toured the AudioVisual Services Department and obtained information on instruotional media available at the University of Pittsburgh. A Chemistry Department Audio- Visual Center has developed as a result of the awareness gener- ated by this visit. 5) Modern Approaches to Presenting Chemical Principles Several innovative faculty members discussed the use of pro- grammed textbooks, computer assisted instruction, computer generated repeatable examinations, and multi-media presenta- Up to thin point Phase I has been the most popular and most successful segment of the program primarily because the disseminated information could be applied to classes in which graduate students were assisting. In Phase I1 the students selected faculty members in the chemistry department to observe in the class- room for several class periods. Later the faculty who were observed were invited to discuss their teach- ing methods with the students. The interactions which took place proved to be beneficial to both faculty and students. The discussions were openly frank and uninhibited. St,udents evaluated class response and decorum, effectiveness of demonstrations and audio- visual aids, and the clarity of the lecture. As one might expect there was initially some skepticism on the part of the faculty and students, but this was soon dis- oelled as the oromam develoaed. Phase 111'is zesigned to'involve the student more directly in actual classroom situations. Under faculty supervision the student follows a course for one term and is given a limited amount of time for lecturing the course. He is involved in preparing and grading quiz- zes and exams for the course. In some cases, he is given responsibility for review sessions and, if he desires, for developing teaching aids. Since Phase I11 did not begin until September, 1971, we will not have the op- portunity to evaluate it until later. In Phase IV the Chemistry Department will attempt to place the participants in the classroom. Possibilities available to us are: (1) teaching at a junior or com- munity college in the area, (2) serving as liaison be- tween a laboratory coordinator and his teaching as- sistants, (3) assisting in graduate core courses, or (4) teaching courses within the department a9 the depart- ment sees desirable. One of the participants who skipped Phase I11 is currently teaching a course for non-majors who have no background in chemistry but who have decided to pur- sue a curriculum which requires a fundamental knowl- edge of chemistry. He has developed a set of instruc- tional objectives for the course which the Undcrgrad- uate Curriculum Committee may consider adopting Volume 49, Number 9, Sepfember 1972 / 621

Preparing research-oriented doctoral candidates to teach

  • Upload
    alfred

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Preparing research-oriented doctoral candidates to teach

Charles E. Falletta and Alfred Moy6 I Preparing Research-Oriented

University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 I Doctoral Candidates to Teach

About a year and a half ago, graduate students a t t h ~ University of Pittsburgh initiated dis- cussions within the Chemistry Department about their preparedness for teaching, especially a t two and four year colleges, a t the completion of their research-ori- ented doctorates. In the absence of formal education courses, it was felt that there was need for some basic training in teaching which would make the transition from student to professor a lot smoother. Input from recent maduates served to substantiate thid feelina.

In Gying to deal with the problems whichuwere raised, it was felt that whatever program was designcd had of necessity to be within the framework of our existing degree programs and that the integrity of our PhD must be maintained so that our graduates could remain competitive in the job market with applicants from other research-oriented institutions. Further- more, it was necessary to ensure that a student who was initially interested in teaching as a career could change his objectives and still be qualified as a candi- date for employment as a research chemist. With these guidelines in mind, we designed a voluntary 4- Phase program in Teaching of College Chemistry which is described herein. The program is for second year students and each phase lasts one trimester.

Phase I consisted of weekly seminars in which stu- dents discuss topics pertinent to teaching. These in-

1) Gaeral Approach to Teaching Several outstanding faculty members with varying teaching

styles from the chemistry and biology departments a t the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh, chemistry professors from neighboring Chatham College and Carnegie-Mellou University, and one science educator discussed the mechanim of teaching. Some of the questions which were raised are: Is lecturing the best way to teach? How does one measure student response during a lecture? Whst techniques e m be used to emphasize a point? What is the proper bdrtnce between repeating material in a. text- book and introducing outside material? How does one spice up e lecture? How is s lecture prepared? What level of attain- ment should onestrive far?

2) Hislory and Philosophy of Science A chemist and a physici~t from the History and Philosophy of

Science Center discussed the historv of chemistrv with one of our dd r r faculty m~ml , en who hnr; witn~wed major rhcmirnl de- vrlopuwnts rinre IWO. 111 n separate ber5ion the philojophy of chemistry wm explored by the same people.

3) Testing and Evaluation The Director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for the

Im~rovement of Teachine and a. Dane1 of chemistrv facultv mem-

and in one case results of a. computer-based exam analysis were discussed. Several methods of assigning grades and validity studies of eseh were considered.

4) Audio-Visual Aids

The seminar unit toured the AudioVisual Services Department and obtained information on instruotional media available a t the University of Pittsburgh. A Chemistry Department Audio- Visual Center has developed as a result of the awareness gener- ated by this visit.

5) Modern Approaches to Presenting Chemical Principles

Several innovative faculty members discussed the use of pro- grammed textbooks, computer assisted instruction, computer generated repeatable examinations, and multi-media presenta-

Up to thin point Phase I has been the most popular and most successful segment of the program primarily because the disseminated information could be applied to classes in which graduate students were assisting.

In Phase I1 the students selected faculty members in the chemistry department to observe in the class- room for several class periods. Later the faculty who were observed were invited to discuss their teach- ing methods with the students. The interactions which took place proved to be beneficial to both faculty and students. The discussions were openly frank and uninhibited. St,udents evaluated class response and decorum, effectiveness of demonstrations and audio- visual aids, and the clarity of the lecture. As one might expect there was initially some skepticism on the part of the faculty and students, but this was soon dis- oelled as the oromam develoaed.

Phase 111'is zesigned to'involve the student more directly in actual classroom situations. Under faculty supervision the student follows a course for one term and is given a limited amount of time for lecturing the course. He is involved in preparing and grading quiz- zes and exams for the course. In some cases, he is given responsibility for review sessions and, if he desires, for developing teaching aids. Since Phase I11 did not begin until September, 1971, we will not have the op- portunity to evaluate it until later.

In Phase IV the Chemistry Department will attempt to place the participants in the classroom. Possibilities available to us are: (1) teaching at a junior or com- munity college in the area, (2) serving as liaison be- tween a laboratory coordinator and his teaching as- sistants, (3) assisting in graduate core courses, or (4) teaching courses within the department a9 the depart- ment sees desirable.

One of the participants who skipped Phase I11 is currently teaching a course for non-majors who have no background in chemistry but who have decided to pur- sue a curriculum which requires a fundamental knowl- edge of chemistry. He has developed a set of instruc- tional objectives for the course which the Undcrgrad- uate Curriculum Committee may consider adopting

Volume 49, Number 9, Sepfember 1972 / 621

Page 2: Preparing research-oriented doctoral candidates to teach

permanently. So far 15-e have been extremely pleased with his performance and we are looking forward to involving more of our participants in Phase IV.

It is too soon to give an overall evaluation of the program but the initial reaction is good. We feel our studcnts will have a tremendous advantage over graduates without this kind of training. Participation in the program is restricted to 2nd year (or more ad-

vanc~d) students with the option that one can discon- tinue his involvemrnt whenever he chooses. Although the program is voluntary, it is given a course number so that a student's participation will bc recorded on his transcript. The program involves the department only in the appointmrnt of a faculty coordinator and in informing area schools of its existence so that imple- mentation of Phase IV is facilitated.

622 / Journal of Chemical Education