A Course To Prepare Future Faculty in Chemistry: Perspectives from

In the Classroom

A Course To Prepare Future Faculty in Chemistry: Perspectives from Former Participants

W

R. Dean Gerdeman and Arlene A. Russell* Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095; * [email protected] Rebecca A. Eikey Department of Chemistry, College of the Canyons, Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Effectively mentoring graduate students for the teaching, research, and service responsibilities of faculty is an important goal of graduate education. According to the ACS (1), however, “The Ph.D. in chemistry usually prepares individuals for careers in basic research. The degree does not typically prepare these highly skilled research professionals to be faculty members.” In looking at the postdoctorate, there is a growing sense that “the purpose of the postdoctoral experience should...prepare postdocs for professional careers that are not solely as faculty members at research-intensive universities” (2). One key issue is the lack of preparation for the teaching responsibilities of faculty. New hires are expected to be excellent teachers, who utilize innovative pedagogy, collaborative planning, and technology to contribute to growth in a diverse student population (1–4). Teaching experiences in graduate school are usually limited to teaching assistantships, which offer little practice in course planning, exam preparation, or lecturing (1). Even fewer teaching opportunities exist for most postdoctoral scholars. A 2001 national survey of Ph.D. students (5) revealed that only 36.2% of chemistry students interested in faculty careers felt prepared to teach a lecture course and 21.6% prepared to create inclusive classrooms for students. Though TA training programs are common, they provide graduate students with little substantive training in effective science education pedagogy (6). Graduate students in the sciences also have limited mentoring from faculty with respect to teaching and pedagogy (6–8). As noted by Mazlo and Kelter (8), learning to be an effective teacher “is too often viewed as something to be picked up along the way” rather than through formal training in graduate studies. Neither are graduates taught to be “academic citizens” (5). Faculty members are expected to be involved community members who participate in activities such as shared governance, department planning, and outreach and recruitment (1–4). Among Ph.D. students of all disciplines, only 19.1% felt prepared by their graduate education to provide service to the discipline, and less than 15% felt prepared for service to the university or to the community (5). Managing these responsibilities—along with teaching and research roles— presents several challenges to early-career faculty. The “multiple balls, swords, and dumbbells” an assistant professor of chemistry must juggle are often frustrating, challenging, and stressful (9). Compounding the problem associated with weak preparation for teaching and service is the fact that most graduate students who will pursue faculty careers will have positions that differ substantially from those of their mentors. “Those who mentor and educate most graduate students work in the

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

environment of large research universities that are radically different from the environments where most jobs are available: namely, small public and private colleges, public comprehensive universities, and community colleges” (3). Increasingly, “nontraditional” positions—such as part-time, non-tenure, and contract positions—with unique expectations for work and criteria for promotion (10) are being created at research universities. Only 14.0% of chemistry graduate students interested in faculty careers felt that it was very likely they would be employed in a research university, compared to 45.7% of graduate students interested in liberal arts colleges and 25.1% in community colleges (5). Graduate students also may have limited guidance on the academic job search, a source of “great anxiety” among new doctorate recipients (3). The application and interview process for academic jobs is complex, requiring expertise and knowledge that graduate students and postdocs in chemistry often do not have without seeking additional resources (9). Among all chemistry students surveyed (5), 49.0% reported opportunities for workshops on academic job searching. Only 22.5%, however, reported the opportunity to work on another campus, a lower proportion than respondents in nearly all of the other disciplines surveyed. Clearly, there is a need for additional mentoring and guidance for doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers interested in academic careers. Doing so, of course, is difficult, given faculty with heavy workloads and students focused primarily on completing coursework and thesis or grantrelated research. One successful approach for providing mentoring and guidance has been the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program instituted at doctorate-granting institutions across the U.S. This article discusses the PFF experience in chemistry at one university over ten years and a recent survey of former participants currently in faculty positions. Background of the PFF Seminar at UCLA The national Preparing Future Faculty program was launched in the early 1990s as a joint effort of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the Council of Graduate Schools, and the Pew Charitable Trusts. Doctorategranting institutions were awarded grants to develop “clusters” of local institutional partners to provide mentoring, teaching experiences, and career development workshops and seminars to Ph.D. students in a variety of academic settings (1, 11). The first two phases of the program were designed to develop new approaches and models for preparing future faculty (1993–1997) and to institutionalize these models (1997– 2001) (1). Evaluation of the PFF programs, based on surveys

Vol. 84 No. 2 February 2007

•

Journal of Chemical Education

285

In the Classroom

List 1. Preparing Future Faculty Seminar Topics by Academic Term

Fall Quarter: Issues in Higher Education Overview of U.S. system of higher education Planning and assessment Scholarship of teaching Issues in higher education Development of teaching philosophies

Winter Quarter: Hiring, Promotion, Tenure Faculty promotion and tenure at various institution types Academic recruitment process Guest faculty speakers from local institutions

Spring Quarter: Preparing for the Job Market Preparing and reviewing curriculum vitae Effective proposal writing Strategies for effective teaching and mentoring Practice job talks

of participants and former participants, indicated many benefits of participation: a more mature understanding of faculty life, familiarity with the diversity of institutions, better preparation for job searching, increased knowledge about teaching and pedagogy, and expanded career options (11–13). In 1998, a third phase was developed in collaboration with the NSF and professional science and mathematics associations. The ACS selected five chemistry departments to serve as lead institutions in developing Preparing Future Chemistry Faculty clusters with local institutions (1). One of these lead institutions, the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) was selected in part because the chemistry department already offered a seminar course, Issues in Higher Education in Chemistry, which had similar goals to PFF. This seminar was designed to help participants make the transition from graduate student or postdoctoral researcher to new faculty member by introducing students to issues in higher education, academic life in various institutions, and tools for being competitive candidates for jobs. The two-year NSF– ACS grant expanded the program to allow participants to gain hands-on experiences through interactions with faculty at partner liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and comprehensive universities. In its current form, the UCLA program spans three quarters and attracts about 25 participants per year, up from a handful of participants in the early years. Due to the growth and success of the initial two-year PFF program, continuing administrative costs are funded by a grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the program is open to participants studying life sciences. A core group typically attends the full academic year; others join for a quarter, depending on their interests and schedules. Most participants are affiliated with chemistry or biochemistry, although the biomedical sciences comprise a sizable minority. Some students are at early

286


•

stages in their graduate careers, but most are near graduation or postdoctoral scholars. Interactions with faculty from other institutions remain a key part of the seminar and are arranged through individual faculty contacts rather than formal institutional or departmental partnerships. The current curriculum, which continues to evolve, reflects the lessons learned over the past ten years. PFF Seminar Curriculum The seminar content focuses on exposing participants to skills and knowledge for successful pursuit of faculty careers and providing a space for discussion of career-related matters. Weekly seminar classes involve strategies such as group discussions, in-class tasks, readings, participant presentations, and guest speakers, as well as conventional instructor presentations. List 1 highlights the typical three-quarter curricular content of the seminar. A bibliography of readings is available as Supplemental MaterialW in this issue of JCE Online.

Fall Quarter The initial goal is to have participants think about and discuss their understandings of higher education and faculty work, with a focus on teaching responsibilities. Seminar topics include an overview of higher education in the U.S., skills expected of faculty members, and issues that affect faculty work. Participants discuss and evaluate various approaches to teaching, as well as current issues in higher education identified from journals and periodicals. A key participant task of the fall quarter is to write (and revise) a teaching philosophy statement similar to what is expected in a job application. • Overview of the System of Higher Education. Information on higher education institutions in the U.S., such as the number of different types of institutions, student enrollment and student characteristics, faculty salaries and faculty characteristics, and national and statewide educational attainment spurs discussion of the various types of institutions. Participants complete a questionnaire to help match their interests with specific types of institutions. • Introduction to Planning and Assessment. Evaluating actual syllabi from undergraduate courses offers an opportunity to introduce curriculum planning and to address approaches to engaging students in learning and to assessing learning. Since learning theory is a novel topic to many participants, time is spent discussing the assumptions of broad learning theories such as behaviorism, cognition, and constructivism, as well as intellectual development of adolescents and young adults. For assessment strategies, participants prepare and discuss test questions attempting to assess various levels of understanding. This exercise serves as a springboard to discuss the purpose of various assessment approaches. Finally, participants are asked to prepare or modify an outline syllabus for a course they have taught or would like to teach. • Scholarship of Teaching. This topic draws from the wellknown 1990 book by Ernest Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered (14), and the subsequent discussions in academia about the role of teaching scholarship in the faculty reward sys-


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom tem. Seminar participants read work from several authors on the topic and discuss what the scholarship of teaching might encompass in their professional futures. • Issues in Higher Education. Graduate students and postdocs in chemistry typically have limited exposure to the various current issues and debates in higher education that will affect their work as faculty. Throughout the fall quarter, they read and discuss current articles on topics such as admissions, pedagogy, diversity, and faculty workload from sources such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and Science. • Development of Teaching Philosophies. Participants develop a teaching philosophy, which is read and criticized by the instructor. The topic is introduced by explaining the purposes of a teaching philosophy, discussing ideas for teaching philosophies, and highlighting the role teaching philosophies play in the academic interview process.

Winter Quarter The winter quarter provides participants with a broad understanding of the faculty recruitment process and reward system through a series of faculty guest speakers representing several types of institutions. These speakers share the expectations of their jobs and insights into hiring, promotion, and tenure from both early-career and veteran perspectives. • Faculty Tenure and Promotion Process. Tenure and promotion guidelines from several types of institutions demonstrate the range of expectations for teaching, research, and service in the faculty reward system. • Faculty Guest Speakers. Early-career and veteran faculty from research universities, comprehensive universities, predominantly undergraduate institutions, and community colleges share their perspectives on the recruitment process, tenure and promotion, and the nature of their work. Speakers invariably encounter a PFF audience eager for insights and full of questions. A field trip to a teaching-oriented institution that uses studio-classrooms gives participants an opportunity to experience first-hand the teaching and research facilities in a different type of institution.

Spring Quarter The spring quarter aims to help participants be effective candidates for faculty positions. Participants prepare and criticize CVs, discuss proposal writing, and review and present strategies for successful teaching and research. Participants may also practice job talks and use the seminar to get advice and feedback on other job-search related issues. • Preparing and Reviewing CVs. Participants criticize each other’s curriculum vitae in small groups, make revisions based on the feedback, and hold a group discussion on what makes an effective CV for specific types of jobs in higher education. • Effective Proposal Writing. This topic is introduced through a presentation and examples of successful and unsuccessful proposals from faculty members in the sciences. A series of readings guide the discussion on tips and pitfalls of proposal writing.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

• Effective Teaching and Mentoring. Each week, participants read, present, and discuss ideas on different aspects of effective teaching, such as mentoring undergraduates, establishing a student research program, course management, engaging students, and measuring success.

Summer Quarter A recent addition to the program invites participants to serve as mentors for summer undergraduate researchers from community colleges. Interested participants submit proposals detailing their research goals and management plans. Feedback from some of the first PFF summer mentors indicates that they gained experience in teaching and successfully managing undergraduate research. One mentor felt that the summer mentoring experience “offered me a unique teaching experience and an excellent opportunity to learn more about how students learn in the lab setting”. Another mentor recalled: “I learned that in order to explain the general ideas about the project, I had to divide the project into a series of laboratory routines. This allowed the student to master a particular technique and thereafter work independently, which was an ultimate goal.” These comments echo statements about teaching and mentoring from faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions (15). Evaluating the Seminar Despite anecdotal evidence indicating that the PFF seminar is a valuable experience for understanding job expectations, focusing career interests, and most commonly, being prepared for applications and interviews, no formal efforts to evaluate the impact of the PFF seminar existed. There was little information about the extent to which the various experiences of the seminar prove useful to early-career faculty. In an effort to evaluate the seminar, we sent a brief questionnaire in 2004 to former participants for whom contact information was still available. This target sample offered a likely source of people currently in faculty or other academic positions. The questionnaire contained items on academic background, current position and responsibilities, and views about their PFF seminar experiences. Respondents rated the importance of eight of the common seminar topics with respect to their postgraduate work experience: (1) the application–interview process for current position; (2) the work responsibilities of current position; and (3) the expected work responsibilities for probable long-term career position (if applicable). Ratings used a three-point scale (1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important). The respondents also provided open-ended comments on PFF experiences, work responsibilities, and level of preparation for work responsibilities. Of 91 people contacted, 37 responded with completed questionnaires. We analyzed data only from respondents working in faculty (N = 24) or postdoctoral (N = 8) positions. The faculty respondents represented a diversity of institutions: 42% in comprehensive universities, 29% in research universities, 17% in undergraduate institutions, and 13% in community colleges. The majority of faculty (67%) had


•


287

In the Classroom

Table 1. Distribution of Participants’ Ratings of PFF Seminar Components’ Importance and Relevance Seminar Component (with abbreviation codes)

Importance for Application and Interview Process

Importance for Work in Current Position

Importance for Work in Probable Future Position

Meana

Rankb

Meana

Rankb

Meana

Rankb

Overall Mean

MDeveloping a teaching Mphilosophy (Phi)

2.6

1

2.4

2

2.5

2

2.5

MLearning about the system of Mhigher education (Sys)

2.4

2

2.4

2

2.7

1

2.5

MDiscussing learning theory M(Thy)

2.1

4

2.7

1

2.7

1

2.5

MDeveloping and evaluating a Msyllabus (Syl)

2.0

5

2.4

2

2.5

2

2.3

MDiscussing different types of Mtests and assessments (Tst)

2.0

5

2.4

2

2.5

2

2.3

MProviding opportunities for Mteaching experience (Tch)

2.2

3

2. 1

3

2.3

3

2.2

MDiscussing faculty recruitment Mprocesses (Rec)

2.4

2

1.9

4

2.3

3

2.2

MDiscussing grant and funding Mprocesses (Fnd)

2.0

5

2.1

3

2.2

4

2.1

(Sample size ranges: N = 22–32)

a Ratings based on three-point scale: 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important. bRank is based on mean ratings for each seminar component. Rank is included in the table to provide an easy way to compare the relative ratings within and across the three aspects.

tenure-track positions and 75% identified chemistry (or a related subdiscipline) as their primary field, with the remaining 25% in life sciences. All postdoctoral respondents worked at research universities, predominantly in a chemistry field. Survey Findings: Ratings of PFF Components Respondents rated all eight seminar components (see Table 1) as “somewhat important” to “very important” in their postgraduate working experiences. The three most highly rated seminar components were Developing a teaching philosophy; Learning about the system of higher education; and Discussing learning theory. Understandably, Discussing faculty recruitment processes also had high relevance to the application–interview process. More interesting, however, is the value of these topics in early-career work responsibilities. Ratings by respondents in “long-term” academic positions (N = 16), that is, tenuretrack faculty, regarding their current work responsibilities were compared with those in “short-term” positions (N = 16), which included some of the faculty and all postdocs regarding their expected future work responsibilities. The two groups depicted in Figure 1 exhibited several similarities in ratings of PFF components. Developing a teaching philosophy (Phi) and Learning about the system of higher education (Sys) were rated high for the application–interview process and for work responsibilities. Both groups also ranked the components Developing and evaluating a syllabus (Syl), Discussing different types of tests and assessments (Tst), and Discussing learning theory (Thy) as moderately important for

288


•

the application–interview process and more highly important for work responsibilities. These three components obviously apply to teaching work, but the relatively high ratings for the application–interview process suggest that having some knowledge of approaches to planning, assessment, and student learning was also helpful in obtaining a faculty position. Differences between the long-term and short-term groups were observed in relative ratings of the other three seminar components. For example, respondents in long-term positions rated Providing opportunities for teaching experience (Tch) and Discussing faculty recruitment processes (Rec) as primarily important in the past (for applying and interviewing) while those in short-term positions expected these components to be more important once they were in longterm jobs. The long-term respondents also rated Discussing grant and funding process (Fnd) as somewhat more important for current work than short-term respondents expected in future work. These differences are probably the result of experience, with short-term respondents having a more idealized or hypothetical view of the work requirements of tenure-track faculty. Overall, the respondent ratings reveal first that the various seminar components addressed in the survey are all perceived as valuable for applying for academic jobs and working in academic jobs. The long-term respondents rated the seminar components as more important in the application–interview of their current position than did those in short-term positions (i.e., the long-term group ratings were more to the “right” in Figure 1). The short-term respondents rated the seminar components as more important for future work responsibilities


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

Figure 1. Ratings of the importance of seminar components for the job application–interview process versus work responsibilities. (See Table 1 for description of three-letter codes.) A = rated high for both aspects; B = rated high for work responsibilities, moderate for application– interview; C = rated high for application–interview, moderate for work responsibilities; D = rated moderate for both aspects. The left graph represents respondents in “long-term” academic positions (N = 16); the right, respondents in “short-term” academic positions (N = 16).

than the long-term respondents did for current work responsibilities (i.e., the short-term group ratings were more to the “top” in Figure 1). These findings make sense given the employment situations of the two groups. The long-term respondents were in tenure-track positions, typically the result of an involved, indepth, recruitment process in which many of the issues addressed in the PFF seminar came into play. This is less likely to be true for short-term faculty appointments or postdoctoral positions. On the other hand, those in short-term positions will likely be seeking future appointments in which they expect to draw on the various PFF seminar experiences, while those already in long-term positions have gained enough experience that some of the seminar components are less applicable. Survey Findings: Open-Ended Comments from Faculty Themes emerged in the comments in the open-ended items on the questionnaire. Comments by faculty respodents indicated that they perceived the PFF experience helped to prepare them for seeking a faculty position and provided information that has been valuable for faculty work. Figure 2 illustrates the three primary supporting themes, each based on comments by at least one-third of the faculty respondents. The themes are also briefly discussed below. • Exposure to Academic Job Options. First, participating in the PFF seminar increased exposure to the variety of academic job options. According to one respondent, “The PFF course exposes participants to a wider variety of career opportuni-

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

ties, whereas most grad programs provided limited preparation for a career in industry or at an R1 institution.” This new information helped the respondents focus their personal interests, or in the words of another, “the best match of type of institution of higher education to one’s professional strengths”. • Improved Preparation for Job Searching. Second, the PFF seminar prepared participants for the academic job search and recruitment process. Participants had little prior information about was expected in the recruitment process or strategies to succeed in the process. One respondent recalled: “I would not have been prepared at all for a career in academia or the job search for an academic career without this class….This course was vital in explaining the job application process, the different stages involved.” Interestingly, several participants also noted that mentioning their past participation in PFF was in itself a benefit in the recruitment process. For example, one noted that including the seminar on her vita “definitely got potential employers’ attention and led to good conversations during interviews”. • Exposure to Knowledge Valuable for the Reality of Faculty Work. Third, participating in PFF improved preparation for the reality of faculty work. Experiences in graduate school did not adequately prepare respondents for the requirements of faculty work, aside from research responsibilities, as noted by one respondent: “Graduate school training is focused on research, which is necessary to keep the high quality education in higher education. However, graduate students…should be taught other skills such as teaching.” The PFF experience helped fill this gap by providing


•


289

In the Classroom

Figure 2. Themes illustrating the perceived career benefits of PFF participation. Quotations come from open-ended comments on the questionnaire. (RU = research university; CU = comprehensive university; UI = undergraduate institution; Lect. = Lecturer; Instr. = Instructor)

participants with “a much better idea of what would be expected in a teaching position”, in the words of one respondent, and to “point out the content areas I needed to explore, and introduce ideas and resources that have been useful”, in the words of another.

It is apparent that the PFF seminar was a valuable step in the transition into a faculty position, a transition requiring a multi-faceted set of skills for which the respondents previously had little exposure. The only consistent area for improvement in the PFF seminar revealed in the surveys was a desire for even greater exposure to the reality of faculty work and expectations. Four respondents emphasized the need for

290


•

more opportunities to interact with practicing faculty. Ideas included “panel discussions of recently hired faculty”, “shadow an undergraduate professor at a small college”, and continuing to get “firsthand information” from faculty at nonresearch institutions. Eight respondents highlighted a need for covering one or more specific work-related issues, such as “using computer technology and software in education”, “understanding what [assessment] tries to achieve and measure”, “writing an actual grant proposal”, and “alternative teaching methods and techniques...and about the research that supports them”. Generally, the respondents indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the PFF seminar. All faculty and postdoctoral


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

respondents reported that they would recommend the seminar to graduate students or postdocs interested in a faculty position. A few noted they would recommend PFF with certain limitations, such as only people in the field of chemistry or those interested in teaching-oriented institutions, but the majority indicated enthusiastic recommendations. As revealed in the survey comments, the respondents found value and appeal in an experience that helped fill an unmet need in their graduate and postdoctoral experiences. They were provided an opportunity to learn about teaching, the nature of academia, and securing a job, and importantly, a space to discuss these things. The Challenge The former participants in the PFF seminar clearly feel that their experiences in the seminar were valuable both for obtaining their academic positions and for the work required in these positions, findings consistent with other research on the impact of PFF programs (4, 7, 8, 13). The components of the seminar rated as most valuable were those that had apparent benefits for faculty work, such as reflecting on teaching philosophies and learning theory, evidence that the most important impacts of PFF may be those that manifest on time scales beyond the initial search and entry into faculty positions. Comments from the participants reflect a need for greater mentoring in graduate education, as many had few opportunities outside of PFF to learn more about teaching, academic life, and searching for a job. The comments also reveal a desire for authentic, hands-on experiences with teaching mentors, a key component of the national PFF programs, but opportunities for these experiences are apparently still too limited. What is most important, of course, is a dedicated faculty member (or faculty team) to coordinate a seminar class and be resourceful and creative in incorporating meaningful seminar components. The findings from our survey of former participants offer endorsement and validation of PFF efforts in chemistry, in the words of those who have benefited. We hope that the experience shared in this paper will provide insight to others who are interested in better preparing their graduate students and new doctorate-recipients to enter the faculty ranks. Acknowledgments We thank Andrea L. Zechman, a former graduate student in the UCLA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, for her initial work in documenting the history of the PFF seminar, which provided the background and impetus for this paper. This work was supported by a joint grant from the American Chemical Society and the National Science Foundation (DUE 98-13876) and by a grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Grant #52003751).

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

W

Supplemental Material

An annotated bibliography of readings from the Preparing Future Faculty seminar is available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. American Chemical Society, Education and International Activities Division. Preparing Future Chemistry Faculty; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2001. 2. Lichter, Robert. L.; Frechtling, J. Postdoctoral Appointments: Policies and Practices: A Report on an NSF Workshop; Merrimack Consultants, LLC: Great Barrington, MA, May 2005; Available online at http://www.merrimackllc.com/2003/Resources/ Postdoc_report.pdf (accessed Dec 2006). 3. Adams, Kathryn A. What Colleges and Universities Want in New Faculty; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2002. 4. Bogle, Enid E.; Blondin, Jo Alice; Miller, Jane Lindsay. A Memo to Graduate Students: Preparing To Be the Faculty of the Future; Association of American Colleges and Universities, Council of Graduate Schools: Washington, DC, 1997. 5. Golde, Chris M.; Dore, Timothy M. At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education; The Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, PA, 2001; See the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation Home Page. http://www.phd-survey.org (accessed Dec 2006). 6. Luft, Julie A.; Kurdziel, Josepha P.; Roehrig, Gillian H.; Turner, Jessica. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 211–233. 7. Cody, Jason A.; Hagerman, Michael E. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 525–528. 8. Mazlo, Johanna; Kelter, Paul. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1175–1177. 9. Schwartz, A. Truman; Archer, Ronald D.; El-Ashmawy, Amina K.; Lavallee, David K.; Eikey, Rebecca. And Gladly Teach: A Resource Book for Chemists Considering Academic Careers; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2003. 10. Finkelstein, Martin. Peer Rev. 1999, 1 (2, Spring), 4–8. 11. Pruitt-Logan, Anne S.; Gaff, Jerry G.; Jentoft, Joyce E. Preparing Future Faculty in the Sciences and Mathematics: A Guide for Change; Council of Graduate Schools, Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2002. 12. Nameroff, Tamara. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 729–730. 13. DeNeef, A. Leigh. The Preparing Future Faculty Program: What Difference Does It Make?; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2002. 14. Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Princeton, NJ, 1990. 15. Gourley, Bridget L. Picking Research Projects for Success with Undergraduates. Presented at the 223rd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Orlando, FL, April 8, 2002, as part of the joint Young Chemists Comittee (YCC) and Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) symposium, How To Get Started in Research at a Predominately Undergraduate Institution.


•


291

A Course To Prepare Future Faculty in Chemistry: Perspectives from

Recommend Documents