3
Closing the Gap between Interdisciplinary Research and Disciplinary Teaching Brian P. Coppola*, Mark M. Banaszak Holl, and Katrin Karbstein Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1055 A s Ph.D. students, and then as post- doctoral associates, future academi- cians spend 6 – 8 years getting ready to push hard on the boundaries and interfaces where traditional areas of science overlap. More than ever, however, this broadens the separation between what that faculty member is prepared to carry out in the laboratory and what is expected from a professor in the undergraduate teaching program, where there are—and al- ways will be—significant needs for faculty members who are equally comfortable with the subject matter at the dead-center core of the traditional disciplines. Because the leading edges of research are interdiscipli- nary and increasing numbers of Ph.D.s are granted in these areas, this disconnect be- tween a future faculty member’s scientific education and the needs for undergraduate and graduate teaching will continue to grow. One response to this disconnect might be, “Well, we should be teaching in the new interdisciplinary areas and not in the tradi- tional ones.” This is not a defensible posi- tion. First, understanding in the interdiscipli- nary areas generally relies on fundamentals drawn from the traditional areas. Second, at least in the U.S., the need for instruction in the traditional areas, mainly in the large, in- troductory service courses, is not going away, nor is the need for that content. These are service courses primarily, with only a small fraction of students who would be joining us in the discipline, so the needs of the majority must be paramount. Third, these courses truly pay the bills for depart- ments, so simply neglecting them is not a credible option. At the University of Michigan, we are at- tending to this gap between interdiscipli- nary research and the need for future fac- ulty to teach in core disciplinary areas by offering dual-mentorship postdoctoral op- portunities as a part of a program to im- prove the preparation of students for aca- demic careers. Our approach differs from the usual “teaching postdoc” in significant ways: faculty-centered research is still the main driver, and the teaching component is ex- plicitly structured as a training activity. In the chemistry department, faculty members re- cruit and interview potential postdoctoral associates in exactly the same way and with the same criteria as they always have. How- ever, the faculty members also know that they can add a teaching component to their recruiting efforts when they sense that this might be important to the potential new postdoctoral associate. From a practical perspective, the pro- gram works this way: a postdoctoral associ- ate who is a regular member of one of our re- search groups can also have a regular teaching assignment in the department as well as a faculty member who is their teach- ing mentor. The expectation is that, in the term in which the postdoc has a teaching assignment, his or her workload is 50% teaching and 50% research. During that se- mester, the department contributes a stan- dard, fixed-rate contribution to the stipend and benefits for this person and makes *Corresponding author, [email protected]. Published online August 17, 2007 10.1021/cb7001544 CCC: $37.00 © 2007 American Chemical Society In F OCUS ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY VOL.2 NO.8 www.acschemicalbiology.org 518

Closing the Gap between Interdisciplinary Research and Disciplinary Teaching

  • Upload
    katrin

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Closing the Gap between InterdisciplinaryResearch and Disciplinary TeachingBrian P. Coppola*, Mark M. Banaszak Holl, and Katrin KarbsteinDepartment of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1055

A s Ph.D. students, and then as post-doctoral associates, future academi-cians spend 6–8 years getting

ready to push hard on the boundaries andinterfaces where traditional areas of scienceoverlap. More than ever, however, thisbroadens the separation between whatthat faculty member is prepared to carryout in the laboratory and what is expectedfrom a professor in the undergraduateteaching program, where there are—and al-ways will be—significant needs for facultymembers who are equally comfortable withthe subject matter at the dead-center core ofthe traditional disciplines. Because theleading edges of research are interdiscipli-nary and increasing numbers of Ph.D.s aregranted in these areas, this disconnect be-tween a future faculty member’s scientificeducation and the needs for undergraduateand graduate teaching will continue to grow.

One response to this disconnect mightbe, “Well, we should be teaching in the newinterdisciplinary areas and not in the tradi-tional ones.” This is not a defensible posi-tion. First, understanding in the interdiscipli-nary areas generally relies on fundamentalsdrawn from the traditional areas. Second, atleast in the U.S., the need for instruction inthe traditional areas, mainly in the large, in-troductory service courses, is not goingaway, nor is the need for that content. Theseare service courses primarily, with only asmall fraction of students who would bejoining us in the discipline, so the needs ofthe majority must be paramount. Third,these courses truly pay the bills for depart-

ments, so simply neglecting them is not acredible option.

At the University of Michigan, we are at-tending to this gap between interdiscipli-nary research and the need for future fac-ulty to teach in core disciplinary areas byoffering dual-mentorship postdoctoral op-portunities as a part of a program to im-prove the preparation of students for aca-demic careers.

Our approach differs from the usual“teaching postdoc” in significant ways:faculty-centered research is still the maindriver, and the teaching component is ex-plicitly structured as a training activity. In thechemistry department, faculty members re-cruit and interview potential postdoctoralassociates in exactly the same way and withthe same criteria as they always have. How-ever, the faculty members also know thatthey can add a teaching component to theirrecruiting efforts when they sense that thismight be important to the potential newpostdoctoral associate.

From a practical perspective, the pro-gram works this way: a postdoctoral associ-ate who is a regular member of one of our re-search groups can also have a regularteaching assignment in the department aswell as a faculty member who is their teach-ing mentor. The expectation is that, in theterm in which the postdoc has a teachingassignment, his or her workload is 50%teaching and 50% research. During that se-mester, the department contributes a stan-dard, fixed-rate contribution to the stipendand benefits for this person and makes

*Corresponding author,[email protected].

Published online August 17, 2007

10.1021/cb7001544 CCC: $37.00

© 2007 American Chemical Society

InFOCUS

ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY • VOL.2 NO.8 www.acschemicalbiology.org518

available a small amount of discretionarymoney for travel. In practice, the postdocsin this program teach for one or two semes-ters out of a two-year time period.

Our postdoctoral associates have hadteaching assignments that cover the rangeof courses in our undergraduate program.They are matched with courses by a combi-nation of their interests, the department’sneeds, and the availability of a teachingmentor for the course. A common teachingassignment would be as one of the 3–6 in-structors in one of our large introductorygeneral or organic chemistry courses. Thesemultisection courses are treated as onelarge course, and one of the experienced in-structors serves as the course coordinator.In this way, a postdoctoral instructor in thiscourse is essentially the same as any of ournew faculty members who are cycling intothis course for the first time. Our existingcourse infrastructure provides a great dealof the built-in mentoring that is expectedand available. The dual-mentorship post-doctoral associate is co-listed with his or herfaculty mentor as the instructors for thecourse, or a specific section of the course,although the postdoc handles the instruc-tional load. Every aspect of designing andimplementing a course that a new facultymember might be expected to do, fromcreating the syllabus to writing and scoringexams to assigning grades, is done inconsultation and collaboration with an ex-perienced faculty member.

As a department, we see the membersof our future faculty community, which in-cludes these postdocs as well as graduateand undergraduate students interested inacademic careers, as colleagues and col-laborators with us in our teaching programas much as they are in our research program(1–4). Consequently, we have an expecta-tion that these individuals will help us as wedevelop new courses, new teaching materi-als, and new teaching methods. They aremembers of “teaching groups” in the sameway they are members of research groups.

Broadening this sense of professional col-laboration, which is the cornerstone for howresearch is done, is the foundational con-cept for how we think about preparing fu-ture faculty for their teaching obligations. Asa part of our continued commitment tothese principles, the department has re-cently created a highly competitive postdoc-toral fellowship program to which individu-als may apply (see Box 1).

We also offer a seminar program of exter-nal speakers who address topics of interestto future faculty members, usually aroundthe areas of teaching and learning. We alsotap into the local strengths and experiencesof our faculty and administrators with aregular series of brown-bag panel discus-sions on a breadth of relevant issues, suchas interviewing for an academic job, under-standing the promotion and tenure process,running research groups, writing proposals,and interacting with journal editors and thepublication process. We invite faculty mem-bers from a variety of institutions to partici-pate as panelists so that the perspective onthese issues is broader than ours.

Most importantly, all of our participantsare still first and foremost the best scientistswe have and not a separate or segregatedsubset of faculty members and studentswho are the “educationalists”. Rather, theyare that subset of mainstream scientists inthe department who simply want to add thiswork to their portfolio. For postdoctoral as-sociates who have spent their formativeyears at the edge of their interdisciplinary re-search area, the teaching assignment in acore disciplinary area provides a unique andimportant experience in their educationthat will, in general, provide them with acompetitive advantage on the job market.

The experiences of University of Michiganchemistry professor Mark Banaszak Hollare indicative of someone who has takenadvantage of these resources. Mark had avision of studio-based instruction, wherethere was no separation between lectureand laboratory, just a series of learning

goals that would be addressed by the mosteffective teaching method that might bealigned with that goal. Mark has premier re-search programs in inorganic chemistry andnano-medicine, and his work spreads fromphysics to biology. Naturally, the only wayhe can involve himself in this degree of re-search activity is as a part of an interdiscipli-nary research team. The scope of this “stu-dio chemistry” idea represented exactly thesame challenge. To date, he has workedwith a steady-state team of a postdoctoralassociate, 3–4 graduate students, and 1–3undergraduates, as well as two faculty col-laborators, on the development, implemen-tation, and assessment of his vision ofstudio chemistry. Just as in any successfulresearch group, Mark’s postdoctoral associ-ate, Amy Gottfried, quickly took on the intel-lectual leadership of the studio project andhas been much more involved than Mark inits day-to-day details (5).

Between September 2002 and mid-2007, we have had 19 of these postdocs;11 of them are still in residence. Of the eightwho have completed their postdoc, five ofthem are currently in tenure-track positionsat a variety of institutions, two of them begintheir new positions in the fall, and one is,as of this writing, negotiating her offer.

The response to this program from ourpostdoctoral associates has been uniformlypositive and enthusiastic. One of our newpostdoctoral associates, reflecting on herchoice to accept the offer from our depart-ment (instead of one of her other offers) saidthat the dual-mentorship program made adifference: “I chose to pursue [this] postdocbecause of the combined teaching and re-search opportunities. I wanted to gain expe-rience teaching a college course while con-ducting research prior to obtaining anacademic position. The skills I am going tolearn (multitasking, curriculum develop-ment, public speaking, etc.) will benefit megreatly in a faculty position, since I believe itwill give me a head start in the transition toan academic position.”

InFOCUS

www.acschemicalbiology.org VOL.2 NO.8 • 518–520 • 2007 519

Another individual, who is in the middleof his postdoctoral period, has had a semes-ter of teaching: “The main benefit of theteaching postdoc program has allowed meto get a glimpse of what it would be like tobe a faculty member. Some of the perks in-clude learning how to balance research andteaching, which is not always easy, but defi-nitely worth the effort.”

Two students who had particularly ex-traordinary interdisciplinary educations,with individual research projects that in-cluded work from casting polymers to do-ing in vivo bioanalytical measurements,have shared their positive experiences. Thefirst said, “The biggest benefit has been todevelop communication skills outside myspecific disciple of study. I think that I havedeveloped the ability to both listen to otherpeople (and understand that their perspec-

tive and approach to intellectual projectsand problems are different than mine) andto explain myself—and my perspective—topeople in other disciplines. I think this wasintegral to my interview process in biomedi-cal engineering.” A second student from thissame research group, who ended up apply-ing for a position as an organic chemistryfaculty member, noted that having learnedabout the structure of universities (and howthings work) made a big difference in howshe was viewed during the interview: “Iknew these things already, so after the firstcouple of conversations, they stopped talk-ing down to me.” Because it is impossible tofake sincerity, it was clear during her inter-view that she had had a truly first-hand ex-perience as the instructor of a course, andher interviewers once again related to hermore as an experienced colleague than as

an inexperienced recruit. Insight into thepolitics of departments helped also: “I couldrecognize who were the ones who held thecards in the department and could answeraccordingly.”

In the end, the department thinks thatgetting this kind of experience can only ben-efit the future of these students from a quitesimple and practical perspective. In what-ever setting they end up in for their own in-dependent faculty careers, they will nothave to waste time, their most valued com-modity, dealing with their first-ever teachingassignments from a position of complete ig-norance. According to the reports of thosewho have gone on, the dual-mentorship ex-perience provides them with one of the win-ning characteristics of any successful fac-ulty member: efficiency. They are able tomore successfully manage their teachingobligations, earlier on, and with less effort,freeing time for research or other tasks de-manding their attention during those tumul-tuous first years as a faculty member. Wethink this is a more responsible way to servethe educational needs of not only our post-doctoral associates but, by proxy, all of thestudents who are in their classes.

REFERENCES1. Coppola, B. P., and Roush, W. R. (2004) Broadening

the existing intergenerational structure of scholarlydevelopment in chemistry, Peer Rev. 6, 19–21.

2. Coppola, B. P. (2007) The most beautiful theories...J. Chem. Educ., in press.

3. Coppola, B. P. (2007) Faculty roles and rewards, inCreating a Culture/Climate That Supports Undergrad-uate Teaching and Learning in STEM, New Direc-tions in Teaching and Learning series (Baldwin, R.,Ed.) Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, in press.

4. Caserio, M., Coppola, B. P., Lichter, R. L., Bentley,A. K., Bowman, M. D., Mangham, A. N., Metz, K. M.,Pazicni, S., Phillips, M. F., and Seeman, J. I. (2004) Re-sponses to changing needs in U.S. doctoral educa-tion, J. Chem. Ed. 81, 1698–1705.

5. Gottfried, A. C., Sweeder, R. D., Bartolin, J. M., Hes-sler, J. A., Reynolds, B. P., Stewart, I. C., Coppola, B. P.,and Banaszak Holl, M. M. (2007) Design and imple-mentation of a studio-based general chemistry courseat the University of Michigan, J. Chem. Ed. 84, 265–270.

Box 1. Michigan Fellows in ChemistryRecognizing that world-class scientific achievements are required but not suffi-cient for obtaining faculty positions at top institutions and becoming a successfulfaculty member, the chemistry department at the University of Michigan has takena number of steps designed to strengthen training of graduate students and post-doctoral associates, as well as mentoring of young faculty members. As a result, thedepartment has been able to successfully recruit and retain many top young scien-tists, including women and minority faculty. To further strengthen the postdoctoraltraining program, the department has recently created a new postdoctoral fellow-ship program. This program provides both a competitive salary ($50,000/year andbenefits), as well as an outstanding future faculty preparation program, to recruit toprecent graduates to Michigan for postdoctoral research. The faculty preparation pro-gram is built on the opportunities provided and tested by the dual-mentorship post-doctoral program described in this article and as such includes faculty preparationseminars and the opportunity to teach small workshops on an area of interest andexpertise, among other opportunities. In addition, the new Michigan Fellows inChemistry program provides the fellows with shared office space. An office gives fel-lows a quiet space to write papers and develop their research plans and fosters in-teractions among fellows from different disciplines. Monthly lunches, introducedsuccessfully to support the early careers of assistant professors in the chemistry de-partment, are also encouraged, with the goal of creating a peer group of postdoc-toral fellows. Further, the program provides the opportunity to host and meet semi-nar speakers in their office, and this helps connect future faculty applicants. Thus,this program is designed to help the fellows obtain excellent faculty positions on thebasis of their outstanding scientific accomplishments. For further information onthe program, visit www.umich.edu/�michchem/fellows/index.html.

520 VOL.2 NO.8 • 518–520 • 2007 www.acschemicalbiology.orgCOPPOLA ET AL.

Some of the perks include learning how to balance research and teaching, which is not

always easy, but definitely worth the effort.