E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Jo Handelsman, Diane Ebert-May, Robert Beichner, Peter Bruns, Amy Chang, Robert DeHaan, Jim Gentile, Sarah Lauffer, James Stewart, Shirley M. Tilghman, and William B. Wood EDUCATION: Scientific Teaching Science 2004; 304: 521-522 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Teaching and/or research

Shoaib Ahmad   (17 March 2005)

Cultural change takes more than faculty

Michael L. Sierk   (3 September 2004)

This Requires a Fundamental Culture Change

Donald N. Langenberg   (30 July 2004)

Teaching and/or research 17 March 2005
Shoaib Ahmad, Pharmacy Teaching Lecturer, Faculty of Pharmacy, Hamdard University, New Delhi 110062 India Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Teaching and/or research	The teaching and research at the institutions primarily imparting undergraduate science education, particularly the applied sciences such as medicine, pharmacy, and nursing, are two different activities. The fact seems to have been taken into consideration by Cech (2003) and Wood & Gentile (2003). No doubt, research is an activity that has significantly contributed much to the quality of life in all spheres. The science graduates are not trained solely for taking up research jobs. It has been correctly (and indirectly) pointed out by Cech that today's university faculty places research above teaching. Good teaching is the backbone of the institutions that deal primarily with undergraduate eduction. The role of a professional teacher (such as the one in medical or related health sciences) can be clearly seen by the "generations" of his/her students serving the people. If teaching is sacrificed or compromised, who will produce, for example, quality health and engineering professionals? How often does one come across teaching excellence at research universities? Claims of research at teaching institutions and its recognition in terms of promotions and awards (for teaching) are rather common. The situation can't be blamed entirely on the teachers. Teachers nowadays are judged on the basis of publications, patents, and grants. Teaching ability does not seem to be credited. It would be worthwhile to read the article published by Rehman (2005) and the responses it has attracted. These responses give an indication for the need of prioritizing between research and teaching or establishing a balance between the two. The implications of giving too much weight to either of the two may not be in the good interest of the society. References 1. Cech TR; Science 299, 165 (2003). 2. Wood WB and Gentile JM; Science 302, 1510 (2003). 3. Rahman A; BMJ 330, 153 (2005).
Cultural change takes more than faculty 3 September 2004
Michael L. Sierk, Postdoc University of Virginia Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Cultural change takes more than faculty	I, too, was heartened by this article, and I mostly agree with what Dr. Langenberg has to say. It will, indeed, require a cultural shift in order to change attitudes about teaching, and such a change will take a long time to be realized. I don't disagree that (tenured) faculty are critical for driving the situation forward, but I think he dismisses the institutional aspects too easily. One of the reasons that teaching is undervalued in research universities is the fact that universities have inverted the relationship between scholarship and raising money. It used to be (I think, although I wasn't around) that the focus of the institution was on scholarship and teaching, and raising money was a means to that end. Now it appears that raising money is the primary goal, and hiring high-profile researchers who can bring in lots of grant dollars is a means to that end. In the current system, even graduate students are judged primarily on their productivity (namely, number and importance of publications), let alone postdocs and junior faculty. People that succeed in that environment tend to be highly focused on their research. It's a bit unrealistic to ask someone who has been guided by a particular mindset and particular incentives to suddenly switch gears once they gain tenure and focus on teaching better. The whole incentive structure, which includes universities and funding agencies, needs to change so as to more evenly balance research production with other aspects of scholarship. As long as individuals have to sacrifice their career ambitions in order to make teaching a priority, those pioneers who do are going to have a tough time convincing others to follow them.
This Requires a Fundamental Culture Change 30 July 2004
Donald N. Langenberg, professor University of Maryland, College Park Respond to this E-Letter: Re: This Requires a Fundamental Culture Change	I was delighted to see "Scientific Teaching" in Policy Forum. It is a very useful contribution to the growing chorus of voices calling for increased attention to the science of learning and teaching -- of science and of everything else. In their second paragraph, the authors point to the fundamental challenge. Most professorial researchers take for granted that they must have a deep understanding of their disciplines and that their research must be informed by broad knowledge of the current status of research in their disciplines and by skeptical critical analysis of all existing information coupled with creative questioning. However, when it comes to their other primary function, teaching, they commonly base their pedagogical practices on opinion uninformed by any substantial knowledge of the science of learning and teaching, and thus on evidence that is about as rigorous and reliable as that used by the proponents of intelligent design. This bizarre situation is deeply imbedded in faculty culture and must be addressed as such. That observation causes me to take issue with the first sentence in that paragraph, "....it may seem surprising that change has not progressed rapidly nor been driven by the research universities as a collective force." It is not at all surprising. Cultural change is a slow process requiring decades, even centuries. Confronted by such a challenge, "research universities as a collective force" are essentially impotent. (Witness, for example, their difficulties in dealing collectively with the evils of big-time intercollegiate athletics in their roles as NCAA Division I institutions.) We should expect little from the research universities collectively. Hope lies in the fact stated in the paragraph, "reform has been initiated by a few pioneers." Such pioneers, some in research universities and some not, are growing in number and influence. We should look to them for leadership in converting their faculty colleagues to the cause. Individual institutions can encourage and support them, but real cultural change can only be driven from the faculty level. The article includes promising examples, which also raise questions. The University of Wisconsin-Madison "has rewritten tenure guidelines....and required departments to distribute at least 20% of merit -based salary raises based on teaching contributions." As a long-time academic, I applaud this remarkable achievement. As the grandfather of a potential UWM student, however, I can't help wondering why teaching is assigned such a small fraction of professorial merit. The article claims that in the past 6 years, 47 physics departments have hired tenure-track faculty specializing in education. As a physicist, I'm proud, but I wonder how many of those departments are in research universities. The road to the wonderful benefits described in this article is long and difficult. As we press forward we need to keep in mind the impediments depicted in the following two bits of wisdom: (1) Q: How many professors does it take to change a light bulb? A: Whad'ya mean, "change"? (2) From my maternal grandmother, "Always remember that the world is full of people who know for sure things that just ain't so!"