Francis V . Scalzi
An Undergraduate-Graduate
Hiram College Hiram, Ohio 44234 and Peter Kovacic University of w i r c o n s i n - M ~ I w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
I
Research Collaboration Program
The training of college chemistry teachers and efforts to combat facultv ohsolescence.. ~articularly at undermad. uate institutions, are recognized as major concerns in chemical education today. Appeals have been made repeatedly in recent years for programs offering new approaches to establishing and maintaining competence among undergraduate chemistry teachers. For example, the r e ~ o r t sof the Snowmass-International Conference on ~ d u c a i i o nin Chemistry ( I ) , the American Chemical Society's 7th Biennial Education Conference (2). the ACs con.feience on the "Role of the Liberal Arts Colleges in the Education of Chemists" (3), and articles describing studies such as that of Linnell and Chapin of the National Science Foundation (4) all include strong recommendations for increased efforts toward assisting undergraduate institutions in improving their faculties and facilities. Particular stress is given to encouraging those programs which involve student-faculty research as an educational vehicle (2. . . 3) and co-ooerative Dromams between undergraduate and graduate ;nstitutiok 71, 3), especially when mutual henefits for the co-ooeratine schools can he realized. Prevalent factors currently exerting a strong effect on graduate education include the shift away from the proliferation of new Ph.D. . Dromams and a deem~hasison narrow research-oriented programs. The fact that the supply of Ph.D.'s in chemistry presently exceeds employment opportunities, coupled with the realization that priorities in chemical education must he reordered toward improving undergraduate training and directing attention to the social manifestations of science. has p r o m ~ t e dthe widespread reorientation of activities a t the graduate institutions. These changes are heing encouraged and financially supported by both the American Chemical Society (2) and the National Science Foundation (5), as well as other agencies. It is the firm conviction of the authors that with the deepening educational, social, and financial problems facing the educational establishment today, the gaduate ~ ~ i v e r s i t i eand s undergraduate colleges should no longer continue as non-communicating entities. Both types of institutions are experiencing difficulties, parti&Jarly in science education, which are similar in nature, mutual in effect. and should he addressed on a co-onerative basis. For example, decreasing enrollments, faculty ohsolescence. the overburdenine of the undereraduate chemistrv curriculum, demands for social and humanistic relevance,
-
-
-
Program sponsored by the National Science Foundation Special Projects in Undergraduate Education in Science Grant No. O/ 639-2989, Gy-7663. Reports presented at the 160th and 162nd National Meetings of the American Chemical Society, Division of Chemical Education, September 13-18, 1970, Chicago, Illinois and September 12-17, 1971, Washington, D. C., respectively. Copies of those reports are available from FVS upon request.
and 'diminishing educational and research funds are all mutual concerns best approached in concert. The Program described here embodies a co-operative approach and should, if employed on anationwide basis, serve to establish solid lines of communication between various colleges and universities on a wide scale. Program Description The Undergraduate-Graduate Research Collaboration Progam (UGRCP) was conceived in 1966 and developed for the purpose of estahlishing a numher of research collaborations between maduate professors and undergraduate teachers with students a t the undergraduate institutions and to nurture these relationships so they might grow into long-range associations. It is now in progress, in the form of a two-year pilot project, centered a t the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and receives its financial support from the National Science Foundation augmented by a contribution from the University. The Program was designed with a numher of goals in mind, most of which focus on chemical education a t the undergraduate colleges. It is based on the premise that undergraduate research has proven to he one of the most effective educational tools a t our disposal over the years and, at the same time. has sewed as a hiehlv " - successful techniaue for comhating faculty ohsolescence. The research is heing done largely during the summer months at each undergraduate institution by the college teacher and one of his students. Summer stipends support the two researchers. Modest funds are made available for chemicals and supplies, for several exchange visits of the collaborators. and for annual conferences attended by the entire Program personnel. While the major portion of the research is carried out at the colleges and the henefits of this activity with the financial support are felt there directly, the University, on the other hand, acts as a focal point for the Program, serving as a resource center for the use of major research equipment and library facilities, as a communications center, as a locus for meetings, and as home-base for the graduate collaborators. Modest funds for faculty release time, clerical expenses, and meeting costs are provided. The Program format is simple and flexible, encouraging frequent exchanges between the collahorator-pairs and focusing attention on the needs and desires of the indiuiduals involved as their research progresses. The financial support is provided where it is needed most, enough to sustain the momentum of the project for an extended period a t those colleges which are already fundamentally capable of supporting research. Contacts are also heing encouraged between the various participating institutions, hopefully stimulating co-operation in other areas such as curricular matters, community programs, or educational activities beyond the immediate aims of the Program itself. The Program began in September 1969, when the authors contacted orivate and state colleees . - - in the zeomavhic area around Milwaukee. After an encouraging initial reVolume 50, Number 3, March 1973 / 205
sponse, further correspondence and screening of applicants, ten collaborative teams were established at a conference at UWM in June 1970. Each was comprised of a UWM chemistry faculty member and a college teacher who later brought the third participant, a capable undermaduate student. into the team. Since this is a ~ i l o ~t r o i ect, variation in'the collaborative structure was soGght. The teams re~resentall the maior fields of chemistw: four in organic chemistry, two in analytical, two in physical, and one each in biochemistry and inorganic chemistry. Of the college teachers, three teach in the University of Wisconsin system a t Oshkosh and Lacrosse, respectively (formerly Wisconsin State University schools). The remainder are at liberal arts colleges, namely, Carroll College, Carthage College, St. Norbert College, and Lawrence University in Wisconsin, Lake Forest College in Illinois, and Hiram College in Ohio. Four of the college teachers are senior men who wish to become more deeply involved in research or desire closer contact with UWM. All but one of these is a department head. Three are younger men who are getting underway in their academic work. Most of the UWM facultv ~ a r t i c i ~ a nare t s a t the lower academic are generally juniors who ranks. The student will remain with the ~ i l o~t r o i e cthrough t its comdetion. The period from Skptekh& 1970 t o - ~ a197i ~ was spent in general preparation while the bulk of laboratory work for the first year was carried out the following summer. Research reDorts of the vear's Dromess were submitted bv each partic$ant and oral summaries presented a t the seiond conference in Octoher, 1971 along with a discussion of other aspects of the Program. The research then continues part-time through the 1971-1972 academic year and fulltime the following summer until the finalconference in the Fall of 1972. Comparison with Other NSF Programs The National Science Foundation already has two educational research programs which are collaborative in nature, and are intended primarily as aids to the undergraduate colleges; namely, the Research Participation for College Teachers (RPCT) Program and the Undergraduate Research Participation (URP) Program. However, one must recognize some very significant differences between RPCT/URP, on one hand, and UGRCP, on the other. In the Participation Programs the college personnel travel to the graduate institution and do the research there. All funds for equipment and supplies go to the graduate department. The Program activity takes place there along with all the stimulation and excitement that accompanies it. Hence, the college participant takes back to his own institution what is essentially only a residue of that experience. The Academic Year Extention phase of the RPCT Program represents a desirable variation, in this respect. In this case, support for supplies is alloted to the undergraduate school for research done there during the academic year. Yet, fewer than half of the participants are granted these extensi0ns.l In any case, the Participation Programs suffer an obvious limitation, that of termination. Furthermore, after the college participant returns to his own department, often a t a great distance, the collaboration usually is not continued on a long term basis. In contrast, the Collaboration Program is designed to foster associations of indefinite duration. It is geared so that nearly all the activity occurs in the undergraduate department. Hence,, the effects are felt directly where
'According to a private communication with R. L. Korgen, former Program Director, College Teacher Programs, National Science Foundation, the actual figure is set at about 35% annual'
ly. 206
/ Journalof Chemical Education
they are most needed. Furthermore, among all the requirements necessary for a fledgling collaboration to survive, one of the most critical is that of distance. Propinquity fosters increased convenience of communication which, in turn, strengthens the association. This is particularly important in the early stages and is one of the essentials of the Collaboration Program. Examination of a map locating colleges and universities reveals that most of the undergraduate colleges are clustered around urban centers where universities are often located. One may therefore envision similar programs centered at graduate chemistry departments all over the country and involving a great many colleges. Benefits of the Collaboration Program For the college teacher the Program provides motivation to combat obsolescence by bringing him out of comparative isolation. makine available to him the resources of a nearby gradiate department, and affording him the opportunity of updating his knowledge. He and his students are able to conduct a research project tailored to their needs, but of graduate quality, since the problem is generally suggested by the graduate counterpart. This approach obviates the college teacher's strueele to devise his own original research &oblem. On the'kher hand, a college teacher with an idea already in mind may bring it to the collaboration. This is the case with three of the teams now in the Program. The college teacher also has at hand experienced assistance in preparing puhlications, new proposals, and other reports. The probability of research publication should therefore he increased. The cumulative effect of these benefits would be to enhance professional growth and recognition. Exposure of the college participants to the activity and spirit of the graduate department should be especially beneficial and, hopefully, these effects would be transmitted throughout their own departments. For the graduate professor the collaboration provides additional research involvement. Perhaps more importantly, he has a colleague with whom he can become closely allied and develop new ideas. The tie also provides him with the opportunity to observe, fairly closely, the workings of an undergraduate department a t another location. Program Evaluation An extensive evaluation program was planned as an integral part of the UGRCP pilot project. It was set into operation at the end of the first summer's research activity. In addition to written research progress reports and oral summaries delivered at the first annual research conference, questionnaires regarding the operation of the Program were completed by all of the participants, both graduate and undergraduate. Each of the college participants was also personally interviewed at his campus by one of the Program co-directon. A strong effort has been made to foster a free exchange of opinions and suggestions for improvement between the collaborators and the co-directors. An opportunity for such an exchange was incorporated in the program of the annual research conference in October, 1971 and proved very fruitful, not only for the. functioning of the pilot project, but also for suggesting activities heyond the immediate concerns of the Program itself. Without exception, the project has enjoyed the unqualified enthusiasm of its participants from both types of institutions. In five cases the Program has been directly responsible for the resumption of researchactivity by college collaborators after an extended period of inactivity. In four more, research activity being pursued on a very modest or sporadic basis has been considerably enhanced.
Nearly every collaboration has made substantial research progress during the first year. In a t least two cases, some form of research publication should result in the early stages. The UWM resources have been used to great advantage by some of the college participants. Perhaps the most convincing statement affirming the value of the Program was made by one college participant In my estimation, this is an outstanding program. After receiving my Ph.D. same years ago I almost immediately became involved in a major writing project which kept me involved . . . for a number of years. Later I assumed the chairmanship of a department which has undergone an expansion . . . . The duties connected with these projects took me away from research at a time when research was becoming of much greater importance in chemical education. For some time now I have been wanting to launch a project, but the hiatus of research inactivity had made it difficult. The area of my doctoral research . . . was not one that was feasible for me to take up again because of the excessively expensive instrumentation necessary. Therefore, the UGRCP program, with its opportunity to become involved with a collaborator having an on-going project, was ideal for me. It has made it possible to take up work in an area new to me, with the opportunity to consult with an experienced collaborator when difficultiesarise. My taking up research again has contributed to my professional status within mv own deoartment. where mv eolleames were already engaged in research projects of their own, and has strengthened this aspect of my leadership in departmental affairs. ~~~~~
With respect to the administration of the Program, careful detailed planning has been necessary, particularly a t the initial stages of the project. Prior screening of applicants was necessary to insure high potential for successful matching of collahorator-pairs a t the first conference. This was a crucial process and required a considerable amount of correspondence during the nine months preceding that conference. A good fit between collahorative pairs requires mutual understanding regarding a numher of critical questions such as the degree of dependenceof the college teacher on his graduate associate, the pace of the research, and research priorities. Open and frank discussion of these and other questions was encouraged and carried out both a t the conferences and on a personal basis. It is a pleasure to report that, to date, very few problems have arisen that were not anticipated and addressed earlier. Literature Cited (1) Rdiminary Report-l"temationa1 Conference on Education in Chemistry. SOO J. CHEM.EDUC.. 48.3(19711. 12) '"Problems Beset Graduate Chemistry Education;' Chsm. Eng. News, 47. 52 (March22.19711. (3) Advisory Council on College Chemistry Sedal Publication No. 45, Oetobcr 1969. (4) Linnell.RobertH.. andChapin.DovglasF., J.CHEM.EDUC.. 46.71 (1969). ( 5 ) "NSF c h a n g e ~ h r v s tof ~ducationsl~ f f o r t , "chem. Ens Nems, 46. 48 (January 12. 19701.
Volume 50.Number 3. March 1973
/
207
