The Tough Road to Better Science Teaching
An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses the reluctance with which university professors in the sciences incorporate proven science instruction methods into their classroom. This short report focuses upon professors at research universities and discusses the reasons why professors at research universities are called upon to change their instructional methods as well as why there is resistance to change in this science community. Important quote from the article by Jeffrey Brainard:
“About 30 percent of entering freshmen plan to earn bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, or engineering, but only about 15 percent of all baccalaureate degrees are awarded in those fields. The percentages are even lower among black and Hispanic students, who make up a growing share of the undergraduate population. While many science instructors have prided themselves on using introductory courses to “wash out” students who are lazy or lack aptitude, in reality many student who drop their science majors are academically well-prepared and motivated. “
There are many programs and efforts sponsored by the National Science Foundation to help change the landscape of instructional techniques used in undergraduate science courses. For example, a program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison works with graduate students to incorporate inquiry-based activities and real-life examples into their teaching practice. During the evaluation of the program, however, it was obvious that graduate students enjoyed the program but still felt pressure to ‘conceal’ their work from their professors, who viewed it as distracting from their research.
The conclusion of the article is that if young researchers try delaying implementation of the new teaching methods until their careers are established, they may put off the attempt for good. At nearly all universities, the tenure system rewards good research over good teaching, and since faculty members have the final say over their own courses and are often resistant to change the status quo rules. Even those professors who are up for new things are often unaware of the new research-backed methods, partially because there has been limited funding for ‘getting the word out’.
The point is in order to keep students engaged and pursuing science careers, professors need to branch out from the traditional lecture format – which has been shown to be inefficient compared with newer methods of teaching. Laboratory sections that accompany the class cannot make up for the lack of engagement in lecture sections.
As I like to remind everyone, just because you had to sit through the boring lectures as an undergraduate and graduate student doesn’t mean you should make the next generation do the same. 
The article, titled “The Tough Road to Better Science Teaching” is in the Chronicle of Higher Education Vol 53, Issue 48.
Thanks for this review! This coincides exactly with something i’ve been struggling with lately. For me (and others, i believe), the overall difficulties in budgeting time for non-research activities is the biggest obstacle to implementing non-lecture formats in the classroom. Heck, this very blog hasn’t had as much input from me as i’d like because of the backlog of research responsibilities that have built up. Likewise, i want to do more research into teaching methods – and strongly believe in adopting them – but publication pressures (both internal and external) work strongly against that.
So how do you think we best address the issue? Separating teaching and research responsibilities further by hiring more full-time instructors at the collegiate level? Do we do it by changing the tenure process to allow more time for teaching and less pressure to do research? Or do we just spend more energy as a community on making the transition to these methods easier and less time-consuming?
Another question, on this quote:
“The percentages are even lower among black and Hispanic students, who make up a growing share of the undergraduate population.”
Is that to say a lower percentage of these students receive a degree in science, math, or engineering than their peers, or that the drop-off from their incoming intentions is greater? (Or both?) In other words, is the problem that they enter college less interested in these fields than their peers, or is is that academia dissuades them from these fields to a greater degree than their peers? (Or both?)
I think the solution lies in changes in priorities to an extent but also by educating future professors (graduate students) in how these newer teaching methods can enhance and improve student success. In the long run it does save time, but does requires modifying the graduate education experience in the sciences. Making a person’s teaching ability/pedagogical methods used impact one’s quest for tenure might also help.
If there were more higher-education curriculum materials (textbooks) that were written with these types of research-based approaches in mind rather than the string of facts and highlighted vocabulary words currently contained in the texts the situation would be less of a problem. Then again, many professors write the books (or know the persons who wrote the text) they use to teach. The current approaches assume that laboratory sections are the hands-on, practical component, when in actuality the entire approach should be pragmatic and engaging – not just the lab section.
In regards to minority students, on average a disproportionately low number of minorities decide to pursue careers in the sciences to start – they feel unprepared or are actually unprepared, or even don’t realize it’s an actual option (the ‘I don’t look like a scientist’ feeling.) Less are starting out and even fewer finish and persist to graduate school. The problem is particularly troubling in the geosciences and astronomy where only 1-2% of the Ph.D. degrees awarded (on average) are awarded to minorities.
The reasons for this discrepancy depend upon who you are talking with. Some chalk it up to public schools which do not prepare minority students sufficiently for example, because of poorer teacher quality in lower-income schools. Some cite cultural differences that influence students into more well-known areas for them. Biology seems to be the exception to this, however – the majority of minority students pursuing the sciences in college are in biology programs, but most intend upon becoming physicians via medical school.
Of course, I could go on and on about this, but this is my answer in a nutshell.
I think you’re right, that we have to do a better job of educating our future educators. This will make them more capable to educate, and will instill a higher valuation of education, leading to more time spent on refining one’s teaching practices.
Fortunately, I think things are moving in the right direction. I’ve noticed more formal efforts in my department to train graduate students to teach. The requirements for this when I entered my Ph.D. program were non-existant, and now they’re there.
The data on minority students is troubling. Numbers such as these have shocked and troubled me ever since my first year as a Ph.D. student.
[...] check the full story here [...]
qzelite » The Tough Road to Better Science Teaching said this on October 23, 2007 at 5:14 am |