Commentary Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Beyond the Teaching Assistantship: CURE Leadership as a Training Platform for Future Faculty Barbara Cascella and Joseph M. Jez* Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: We advocate for use of the course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) as a training platform for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists interested in becoming faculty of primarily undergraduate institutions. Acting as a CURE leader and coteacher is an immersive teaching experience that allows future faculty to practice a range of teaching techniques, create instructional materials, and develop a teaching philosophy based on actual practice beyond that of a standard teaching assistantship. KEYWORDS: General Public, Graduate Education/Research, History/Philosophy, Professional Development, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, TA Training/Orientation
C
to reduce the time-intensive obstacle that discourages some faculty from implementing CUREs.14 The benefits of adapting and coteaching a CURE, in particular, the enrichment of one’s teaching portfolio, are incentives for future faculty to shape research experiences in the STEM curriculum. Herein, we discuss the cotaught CURE model, in which the CURE is overseen by a faculty member, but actively led and cotaught by an academia-minded postdoc or graduate student (the trainee), with the research question of the semester adapted to fit within the scope of the trainee’s research area. This immersive experience can aid future faculty in the confirmation of their career path while allowing for the integration of teaching and research, the practice of a range of teaching techniques, the development of course materials, and the opportunity to refine and reflect upon one’s teaching philosophy based on deeper skills that go beyond a typical teaching assistantship.
ourse-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as the premiere method for immersing large numbers of undergraduates in chemistry and biology research.1−14 Typically, the CURE is a semester-long discovery-based project that is iterative in nature and has an outcome unknown to both the students and the instructors,7 thus modeling an exploration of a traditional research question. Benefits of the CURE for undergraduates are well-documented and rival the gains of traditional undergraduate research experiences (UREs), including increases in analytical skills, content knowledge, interest in science, and clarification of educational goals.8,15−19 Implementing CUREs benefits faculty through teaching and research integration10 and allows exploration of topics that might otherwise be impractical due to scale.11 Coordinated research efforts of undergraduate researchers from CUREs have also yielded new scientific insights.20−22 In addition to aiding undergraduates and faculty, we see an untapped value of the CURE model as a training platform for advanced graduate students and postdoctoral scientists (postdocs) interested in becoming faculty of primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs), where they will be expected to teach two to three courses a semester while maintaining an active undergraduate research lab.23 Future faculty have limited opportunities for immersive experiences in pedagogical training and course design that could serve to better prepare them for tenure-track positions. While recent efforts to improve graduate teaching assistant (TA) training across the natural, physical, and life sciences are encouraging and necessary,24−28 they do not deviate from the traditional practice of the professor being the one responsible for crafting course content. We advocate for breaking from tradition and allowing graduate students and postdocs to gain curriculum development skills as CURE leaders and coteachers, an experience that has the benefit of enhancing research efforts of future faculty. Moreover, the shift of responsibility in developing course materials away from the professor and into the hands of the CURE coteacher can serve © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
THE COTAUGHT CURE MODEL Upon application for faculty positions at PUIs and other institutions where the scholarship of teaching is paramount and evidence-based teaching techniques are employed, candidates are finding requests for inclusion of a teaching portfolio to be more common. The teaching portfolio goes beyond the teaching philosophy statement to compile multiple aspects of one’s instructional endeavors. The components cover a broad range of teaching materials, such as syllabi, learning objectives and corresponding assessments, materials demonstrating student learning, course evaluations, and other measures of teaching effectiveness.29,30 Compared to the standard fare of a teaching assistantship, such as grading, recitation sessions, and help sessions, PUIs are looking for experiences that demonstrate a trajectory toward crafting learning goals and gaining independence in the classroom. PUI faculty hopefuls Received: September 13, 2017 Revised: November 29, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
The dynamic style of the CURE employs active learning and traditional lecture components, thereby enabling the trainee to practice teaching techniques both new and old, and setting a foundation for a future career in undergraduate STEM education. Employment of genuine scientific practices in the execution and discovery aspects of the CURE7 undoubtedly leads to roadblocks: It is in these moments that students participate in troubleshooting, revising, and repeating experiments. This demonstrable form of instruction is memorable for the students and helps them to learn science by doing science. This modeling of scientific inquiry and technique by the CURE leader (i.e., “expert”) with class involvement is a significant component of situated-learning theory,34,35 as these actions serve to legitimize the scientific work of the undergraduate researchers and contribute to their overall learning experience.9
are aware of the benefit of having substantial teaching experience, but may be unable to acquire this experience due to demanding research and laboratory schedules. Merging one’s research interests with teaching is an attractive attribute of the CURE for faculty,10 and in the cotaught CURE model, the research question explored is derived from the trainee’s area of study. In contrast to the nested community of practice that is the framework of many CUREs,12 the postdoc or graduate student is the primary guide of the cotaught CURE’s curriculum development, with the professor of the course helping the CURE leader to adapt a research project into the framework of the course and maintaining oversight on the trajectory of the project (Figure 1). In this way, the
■
BUILDING A TEACHING PORTFOLIO WITH THE COTAUGHT CURE MODEL
Course Materials
Development of course materials is a major component of the trainee’s teaching experience in the cotaught CURE model. At our institution, trainees modify an existing protein biochemistry CURE framework36 by selecting a protein relevant to their research efforts and designing a research question for the CURE (for examples of course materials from our CURE, see the Supporting Information). During the course design process, which begins in the semester before the CURE is offered, the professor guides the trainee on how to adapt the research project into the course flow and how to anticipate logistical issues, such as specialized equipment and lab materials, and the timing of planned experiments. If necessary, experimental modules of the CURE can be altered to match the semester’s learning objectives. Because course content is revisited annually by the CURE faculty and that semester’s trainee, projectspecific lab protocols require the writing of new lab manual sections. This provides valuable writing experience as the trainee translates methods used by graduate students and postdocs for employment by undergraduates with varied laboratory skills. In parallel to the “lab-centric” work, the trainee also defines the learning objectives and develops assessments to answer the following questions:37 • What skills should students learn in the CURE? • Are the learning objectives student-centered, measurable, and specific? • How will we help students develop these skills? • How will we assess student learning? Finally, organization of course content follows the refinement of learning objectives and corresponding assessments. Lectures provide background on experimental methods. In the cotaught CURE model, the professor delivers the majority of lectures, while content that falls within the trainee’s area of study is reserved for their instruction, such as project-specific background, the research question, and methods needed for the semester’s work. The trainee is responsible for crafting homework assignments to practice problem-solving, tutorials to lead students through unfamiliar software, and rubrics for student presentations and laboratory notebook checks to determine fulfillment of the learning objectives. Further responsibilities of the trainee are in the giving of the prelaboratory lectures, wherein new experimental techniques are demonstrated, proper use of personal protective equipment is modeled, and overviews of research activities are given, and
Figure 1. Division of responsibilities in the cotaught CURE model.
cotaught CURE model is akin to traditional apprenticeships, in which a postdoc or graduate student is the primary supervisor of an undergraduate’s laboratory research. Coteaching of a CURE is intended to be an advanced teaching experience for students and postdocs with a demonstrated interest and investment in teaching. Adapting and coteaching a CURE allows future faculty to gain a significant, supervised experience in instruction that not only strengthens the teaching portfolio, but also coincides with and enhances their research interests.
■
THE CURE PROVIDES A DYNAMIC TEACHING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT While any teaching experience will aid academia-minded graduate students and postdocs in their professional development, the distinction of being the lead instructor in a classroom as opposed to a TA cannot be understated. As a TA, there is a lack of ownership of the teaching material simply because the student likely did not help develop the curriculum and/or has a limited pedagogical role in the course.31 As a CURE leader and coteacher, the trainee plays an integral role in the selection and development of instructional and assessment methods. Importantly, the gains in curricular and pedagogical knowledge will occur in an environment in which the trainee is inherently comfortable (the laboratory) and through teaching students in the area of the trainee’s immediate expertise and research question. Indeed, we learn so much from teaching a class because the preparation for and delivery of instruction embodies active learning.32 The growing body of literature on CUREs,1−14 as well as the course-based undergraduate research experience Network (CUREnet),33 a National Science Foundation-supported program, serve as valuable resources for the CURE leader in the development and revision of the CURE curriculum. B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
technique. Using a CURE to provide graduate students and postdocs with an immersive, small-class teaching experience that emphasizes the development of new course content, the building of an educational portfolio, and the refinement of a teaching philosophy helps future faculty build on fundamentals gained in teaching assistantship.
in the guiding of the class in designing a poster for the Undergraduate Research Symposium, which is the culmination of the CURE. By semester’s end, the trainee in the cotaught CURE will have developed a range of tangible instructional materials that will hold value in the trainee’s future teaching endeavors; additionally, the trainee will have demonstrated their ability to adapt a course to integrate their research interests. Showcasing of these instructional achievements in the trainee’s teaching portfolio provides evidence of the preparedness of the trainee for a PUI faculty position.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information S
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705. Syllabus and alignment of learning objectives (PDF, DOCX) Examples of laboratory protocols (PDF, DOCX) Examples of homework assignments (PDF, DOCX)
Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
Teaching effectiveness is another component of the teaching portfolio, and can be documented in several ways in the cotaught CURE model. Course evaluations completed by students at semester’s end can be reflective of the relationships fostered between the CURE leader and students; as near-peer mentors, graduate students and postdocs can talk about career and life experiences with students in the class, while learning about the students’ goals and expectations. Customization of course evaluation questions offers an opportunity to obtain specific data on the quality of the CURE coteacher’s instruction. The CURE survey38 is an assessment tool that can be administered pre- and post-course; the report gives an analysis of learning gains and student attitudes toward science, and compares the gains of students with the national pool of CURE participants. Finally, in-class observation of the trainee by the professor of the course yields an objective account of the former’s teaching ability, and includes the benefit of identifying areas in which there is room for improvement. Thus, by coteaching a CURE, the trainee can collect multiple pieces of evidence of teaching effectiveness to enhance their teaching portfolio.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Barbara Cascella: 0000-0002-9144-025X Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This program was supported in part by a grant to J.M.J. at Washington University in St. Louis from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute through the Science Education Program and by the National Science Foundation (NSF-MCB-1614539 to J.M.J.).
■
Teaching Philosophy
Even if a teaching portfolio is not requested during the application for a faculty position, a teaching philosophy statement is almost universally required. This is unique for each applicant, as it describes one’s individual approach to instruction. Having an immersive teaching experience, like that of a cotaught CURE, aids the writer in the description of their teaching style. Detailing reflections of the teaching experience, determining the high and low points and knowledge gained through critiques from the CURE professor, and describing how feedback from students in the course evaluations will be used to improve instructional methods all enrich the teaching statement.
REFERENCES
(1) Carpenter, N. E.; Pappenfus, T. M. Teaching Research: A Curriculum Model That Works. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (8), 940−945. (2) Ashraf, S. S.; Marzouk, S. A. M.; Shehadi, I. A.; Murphy, B. M. An Integrated Professional and Transferable Skills Course for Undergraduate Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (1), 44−48. (3) Tomasik, J. H.; Cottone, K. E.; Heethuis, M. T.; Mueller, A. Development and Preliminary Impacts of the Implementation of an Authentic Research-Based Experiment in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161. (4) Clark, T. M.; Ricciardo, R.; Weaver, T. Transitioning from Expository Laboratory Experiments to Course-Based Undergraduate Research in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 56−63. (5) Danowitz, A. M.; Brown, R. C.; Jones, C. D.; Diegelman-Parente, A.; Taylor, C. E. A Combination Course and Lab-Based Approach to Teaching Research Skills to Undergraduates. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 434−438. (6) Kerr, M. A.; Yan, F. Incorporating Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences into Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Curricula. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 658−662. (7) Auchincloss, L. C.; Laursen, S. L.; Branchaw, J. L.; Eagan, K.; Graham, M.; Hanauer, D. I.; Lawrie, G.; Mclinn, C. M.; Pelaez, N.; Rowland, S.; Towns, M.; Trautmann, N. M.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Weston, T. J.; Dolan, E. L. Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 29. (8) Lopatto, D.; Alvarez, C.; Barnard, D.; Chandrasekaran, C.; Chung, H.-M.; et al. Genomics Education Partnership. Science 2008, 322 (5902), 684−685. (9) Corwin, L. A.; Graham, M. J.; Dolan, E. L. Modeling CourseBased Undergraduate Research Experiences: An Agenda for Future Research and Evaluation. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14 (1), es1−es1.
■
SUMMARY Engaging large numbers of undergraduates in scientific research is certainly the biggest benefit of the CURE from an educational standpoint, while the integration of teaching and research is the primary benefit of the CURE for faculty. Adding to these, we propose a further value of the CURE, as a training platform to teach educational skills to graduate students and postdoctoral scientists interested in becoming faculty at PUIs. Adaptation of an existing CURE to embody the cotaught CURE model, with the research question stemming from the trainee’s area of research, is an excellent way to be introduced to curriculum development and learning assessment. Importantly, this introduction will occur in the laboratory, a setting in which the budding educator is inherently comfortable and a place where the trainee can model scientific inquiry and C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
(29) Kaplan, M. The Teaching Portfolio. CRLT Occas. Pap. 1998, 11, 1−7. (30) Rodriguez-Farrar, H. B. The Teaching Portfolio: A Handbook for Faculty, Teaching Assistants and Teaching Fellows; Harriet, W., Ed.; Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, Brown University: Providence, RI, 1997. (31) Luft, J.; Kurdziel, J.; Roehrig, G.; Turner, J. Growing a Garden Without Water: Graduate Teaching Assistants in Introductory Science Laboratories at a Doctoral/Research University. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41 (3), 211−233. (32) Huba, M. E.; Freed, J. E. Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning, Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA; 2000. (33) CUREnet. http://curenet.cns.utexas.edu (accessed Mar 2017). (34) Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1991. (35) Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educ. Res. 1989, 18 (1), 32−42. (36) Jez, J. M.; Schachtman, D. P.; Berg, R. H.; Taylor, C. G.; Chen, S.; Hicks, L. M.; Jaworski, J. G.; Smith, T. J.; Nielsen, E.; Pikaard, C. S. Developing a New Interdisciplinary Lab Course for Undergraduate and Graduate Students: Plant Cells and Proteins. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2007, 35 (6), 410−415. (37) The Teaching Center at Washington University in St. Louis. Course Design Institute. https://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/coursedesign-institute/ (accessed Nov 2016). (38) Lopatto, D.; Tobias, S. Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Student Learning; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2010.
(10) Shortlidge, E.; Bangera, G.; Brownell, S. Faculty Perspectives on Developing and Teaching Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences. BioScience 2016, 66 (1), 54−62. (11) Elgin, S. C. R.; Bangera, G.; Decatur, S. M.; Dolan, E. L.; Guertin, L.; Newstetter, W. C.; San Juan, E. F.; Smith, M. A.; Weaver, G. C.; Wessler, S. R.; Brenner, K. A.; Labov, J. B. Insights from a Convocation: Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, fe2−fe2. (12) Mordacq, J. C.; Drane, D. L.; Swarat, S. L.; Lo, S. M. Development of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Using a Design-Based Approach. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2017, 46 (4), 64− 77. (13) Bascom-Slack, C. A.; Arnold, A. E.; Strobel, S. A. StudentDirected Discovery of the Plant Microbiome and Its Products. Science 2012, 338 (6106), 485−486. (14) Shaffer, C. D.; Alvarez, C. J.; Bednarski, A. E.; Dunbar, D.; Goodman, A. L.; et al. A Course-Based Research Experience: How Benefits Change with Increased Investment in Instructional Time. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13 (1), 111−130. (15) Weaver, G. C.; Russell, C. B.; Wink, D. J. Inquiry-Based and Research-Based Laboratory Pedagogies in Undergraduate Science. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008, 4 (10), 577−580. (16) Wenzel, T. J.; Larive, C. K.; Frederick, K. A. Role of Undergraduate Research in an Excellent and Rigorous Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 7−9. (17) Richter-Egger, D. L.; Hagen, J. P.; Laquer, F. C.; Grandgenett, N. F.; Shuster, R. D. Improving Student Attitudes about Science by Integrating Research into the Introductory Chemistry Laboratory: Interdisciplinary Drinking Water Analysis. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (8), 862−868. (18) Harrison, M.; Dunbar, D.; Ratmansky, L.; Boyd, K.; Lopatto, D. Classroom-Based Science Research at the Introductory Level: Changes in Career Choices and Attitude. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2011, 10 (3), 279− 286. (19) Ward, J. R.; Clarke, H. D.; Horton, J. L. Effects of a ResearchInfused Botanical Curriculum on Undergraduates’ Content Knowledge, STEM Competencies, and Attitudes toward Plant Sciences. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13 (3), 387−396. (20) Leung, W.; Shaffer, C. D.; Reed, L. K.; Smith, S. T.; Barshop, W.; et al. Drosophila Muller F Elements Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties over 40 Million Years of Evolution. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genet. 2015, 5 (5), 719−740. (21) Pope, W. H.; Bowman, C. A.; Russell, D. A.; Jacobs-Sera, D.; Asai, D. J.; et al. Whole Genome Comparison of a Large Collection of Mycobacteriophages Reveals a Continuum of Phage Genetic Diversity. eLife 2015, 4, e06416. (22) Freshman Research Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin. https://cns.utexas.edu/fri/about/fast-facts (accessed May 2017). (23) Sandquist, J.; Romberg, L.; Yancey, P. Life as a Professor at a Small Liberal Arts College. Mol. Biol. Cell 2013, 24 (21), 3285−3291. (24) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Zhao, M. An Intensive Training Program for Effective Teaching Assistants in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1204−1210. (25) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Black, R.; Heaps, C. W.; Kamm, J. M.; Olechnowicz, F.; Raybin, J.; Rombola, M.; Zhao, M. Development of an Advanced Training Course for Teachers and Researchers in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1211−1216. (26) Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A.; Luft, J. A.; Roehrig, G. H. Graduate Teaching Assistants and Inquiry-Based Instruction: Implications for Graduate Teaching Assistant Training. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1206−1210. (27) Schussler, E. E.; Read, Q.; Marbach-Ad, G.; Miller, K.; Ferzli, M. Preparing Biology Graduate Teaching Assistants for Their Roles as Instructors: An Assessment of Institutional Approaches. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar31. (28) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Whitworth, B. A. Characterizing Teaching Assistants’ Knowledge and Beliefs Following Professional Development Activities within an Inquiry-Based General Chemistry Context. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 19−28. D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
