Comments on: We Invest in Research, But What About Teaching? http://scienceprogress.org/2010/05/invest-in-teaching/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Telemann http://scienceprogress.org/2010/05/invest-in-teaching/comment-page-1/#comment-7114 Telemann Wed, 12 May 2010 22:45:20 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=5719#comment-7114 Savkar is on target in saying that the structural incentives of the academy are in general stacked against teaching. He may not go far enough. The appointment, promotion and tenure process is based on credentials obtained through peer-reviewed publications. Moreover, most university curricula in the U.S. strongly influenced by faculty research directions - not criteria for preparation of students for careers. And the trends to change federal incentives are negative rather than positive. Did you notice the $7+ billion additional funds provided to NSF as a part of the ARRA budget? And America Competes has almost nothing to serve needs expressed by Savkar. Savkar is on target in saying that the structural incentives of the academy are in general stacked against teaching. He may not go far enough. The appointment, promotion and tenure process is based on credentials obtained through peer-reviewed publications. Moreover, most university curricula in the U.S. strongly influenced by faculty research directions – not criteria for preparation of students for careers.

And the trends to change federal incentives are negative rather than positive. Did you notice the $7+ billion additional funds provided to NSF as a part of the ARRA budget? And America Competes has almost nothing to serve needs expressed by Savkar.

]]> By: Monica Metzler http://scienceprogress.org/2010/05/invest-in-teaching/comment-page-1/#comment-7112 Monica Metzler Wed, 12 May 2010 20:19:51 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=5719#comment-7112 I don't disagree with message that teaching deserves more credit. I note, however, a frustratingly common reference to the "average citizen" when actually addressing academia -- "Who will vote for increasing national investment in research & development if the average citizen has a poor understanding and appreciation of science?" Face it, the "AVERAGE citizen" in America does not even have a college degree. And certainly not a 4-year degree from a research institution where there can be a battle between research and education priorities. The reason the average citizen, who will or will not vote for increased investment in science and technology, has a poor understanding and appreciation of science is due only in part to the K-12 teaching success. It is also due to the complete lack of science promotion to the public AFTER secondary education. NSF spends a comparatively tiny amount of its budget on outreach, and what is spent is dedicated primarily to programs aimed at the K-12 audience and not beyond. It's as if the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities were to commission projects and allow those pursuing degrees to study them but never send them out for the rest of the world to see and appreciate. THAT is why science doesn't get the attention and appreciation it deserves. Because it is not enough a part of the social discourse and not celebrated as the arts and humanities are. I don’t disagree with message that teaching deserves more credit. I note, however, a frustratingly common reference to the “average citizen” when actually addressing academia — “Who will vote for increasing national investment in research & development if the average citizen has a poor understanding and appreciation of science?”

Face it, the “AVERAGE citizen” in America does not even have a college degree. And certainly not a 4-year degree from a research institution where there can be a battle between research and education priorities. The reason the average citizen, who will or will not vote for increased investment in science and technology, has a poor understanding and appreciation of science is due only in part to the K-12 teaching success. It is also due to the complete lack of science promotion to the public AFTER secondary education.

NSF spends a comparatively tiny amount of its budget on outreach, and what is spent is dedicated primarily to programs aimed at the K-12 audience and not beyond. It’s as if the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities were to commission projects and allow those pursuing degrees to study them but never send them out for the rest of the world to see and appreciate. THAT is why science doesn’t get the attention and appreciation it deserves. Because it is not enough a part of the social discourse and not celebrated as the arts and humanities are.

]]> By: Chris V http://scienceprogress.org/2010/05/invest-in-teaching/comment-page-1/#comment-7111 Chris V Wed, 12 May 2010 18:37:09 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=5719#comment-7111 Good points. I would note however that "teaching" at universities is not limited to classroom lectures. In reality there is little division between a professor's responsibility as a researcher and their responsibility as a teacher. Professor's rarely conduct the experiments themselves, rather, they run a research group of students (grad and undergrad) and postdocs. Their role when conducting research is one of a mentor and the teaching they do is critical to developing the next generation of scientists and innovators. I think this sometimes goes unnoticed. Professors teach all the time, just not in classrooms. My guess is that professors value their classroom teaching less than their role as a mentor of their trainees. This may be just the way it is and always will be - after all, guiding students as they work on scientific questions that you find intriguing and helping them achieve those "ah ha" moments is pretty damn great. But, classroom teaching is essential as well and could be valued more highly during the tenure process. cv Good points. I would note however that “teaching” at universities is not limited to classroom lectures. In reality there is little division between a professor’s responsibility as a researcher and their responsibility as a teacher. Professor’s rarely conduct the experiments themselves, rather, they run a research group of students (grad and undergrad) and postdocs. Their role when conducting research is one of a mentor and the teaching they do is critical to developing the next generation of scientists and innovators. I think this sometimes goes unnoticed. Professors teach all the time, just not in classrooms.

My guess is that professors value their classroom teaching less than their role as a mentor of their trainees. This may be just the way it is and always will be – after all, guiding students as they work on scientific questions that you find intriguing and helping them achieve those “ah ha” moments is pretty damn great. But, classroom teaching is essential as well and could be valued more highly during the tenure process.

cv

]]>