Robert F. Watson Division of Science Education Development and Research National Science Foundat on Wasnington. DC 20550
I I
Faculty Development-An Prevention . . .?
In the past forty years the higher education community has underaone dramatic changes which have brought us to the present need for attention to faculty vitality and currency; changes in institutions, faculty, students, and subject matter. For example, since 1945the numher of 2-year colleges Nationwide has nearlv tripled. and their students and faculty have increased 20 fold (1 ). Today, nearly half of all students enrolled in college are enrolled in two-year colleges and high percentages take mathematics and science (2).Another serious change has been the fiscal plight of colleges, especially the smaller privately supported ones, which may worsen as the numher of Americans of traditional college age decreases. This is a threat to U. S. productivity, since these colleges have long been major sources of leaders in the nation's science and science education fields, as well as in business and government. All types of institutions-universities, liberal arts colleges, and two-year colleges, alike, emplby many faculty mainly to teach. Heavy teaching loads, lower faculty mobility, and possibly unionization, have created climates which weaken incentive and certainly leave little time or expectation for renewal hased on individual initiative. The state of our knowledge in science, engineering, and technology since World War I1 has changed in ways apparent to us all. Even so, to very recent Ph.Ds, and for that matter currrnt utlderpnduntes, it may come as a surprise to learn that those w g n i c t himists who are now in their mid I,, late furties. on,bahl\, mmnleted their Ph.l).'s in the 1 9 % ~without havine" heard of nuclear magnetic resonance, much less having used it as an analytical tool. If they learned it, they did so through continuing education! The Cornouter Todav. .. I believe that the area of areatest concern for iaculty development in the sciences is knowledge of comr~utersand all of their ramificurions. In chemical lahoratoriks the changes in control of instrumentation and in automatic processinp- of the data produced by the instrumentation kill eventually provide as dramatica contrast as did the change from wet methods of analysis to instrumenI'm safe. I had an analytical professor tation (3). who knew I'd go to hell in a handbasket if I didn't learn the theory of counting swings on a double-pan balance.] T h e power and potential of the computer as a teaching device is of eaual imoortance. With the advent of the microcomputer, individual faculty now have the opportunity to utilize these oowerful. versatile tools in individual classrooms and laboratories. Already, entire public school systems are acquiring microcomputers. In my own county, each elementary school has or will have shortly, its own microcomputer and many youngsters quickly became avid users! When a child brings an Apple to the teacher or has a P E T a t school, it does not mean what it used to. In this context, I would venture to say that any person engaged in science teaching a t any level, hut especially a t the undergraduate level and above, who is not now capable of
o ow ever,
This DaDer is based umn comments presented at the National ACS
Ounce of
utilizing the microcomputer as a teaching aid and/or to assist in processing scientific data is out-of-date, and neatly in need of wnewal training. Issuviofthe c~,mpitterandits implimtitrns for teaching are the suhject of a Fwntlntim puhlicnriun, "Technoloay in Science k:ducnt~ot~: The Xext Ten Yenrh" (4).
In considerine activities for facultv development. it is useful to outline both the problems and thk responses asthey relate to three factors: content. deliverv. and resoonsihilitv. Timine of the activities is a f&th fact% whichbears on ;be other three. Conrent. The first and obvious cbnrrrn ribred to t n c ~ ~ l t v ccmpetence is suhiect matter knomledae of one's iield -that is, the science content. However, I would also like to stress briefly a second area of knowledge-understanding the processes of teaching and learning-which relates to the skill of teaching the scientific content. To some of us, who had brief exposures in our younger days to the education methods courses taught in colleges of education, to mention the imuortance of method and content in the same breath. borders on blasphemy. But, as one who felt this way until recently, I submit that we who were trained traditionally in the sciences who seriously wish to assist people to learn science, especially the public and those for whom learning math and science does not come easily, have much to learn ourselves from recent findinas of the science education research and development comm;nity ( 5 ) . Delivery. I n order to correlate the delivery of faculty development programs with individual needs it is useful to construct a simple taxonomy of faculty types and situations. At one extreme is the self-motivator, the constantly inquiring and energetic person who can operate independently in maintaining and enhancing his or her qualities as a professional. If we assume a spectrum of faculty types based on their needs for continuing education this person is clearly a t one end (Category A), a position which is approached only asymptotically. His or her role would he to independently utilize the work of others or to he the developer or teacher of such materials as well as user. [This person-also leaps tall buildings a t a single hound and is more powerful than a locomotive.] Somewhat toward the middle of the spectrum is a more realistic model (Category B): A faculty member (1) who independently tries to keep up, has a reasonable workload, possibly is doing research or other individual work such as course develooment. . ~and (2) . .. who. with some incentives. is sufficiently aware of current activities in his or her field to act reasonahlv indeaeudentlv. A third category (C)"of faculty, is designated a place somewhat across the center of the spectrum. Here is found the person with a heavy teaching load, who is in a position or an institution where the time for scholarship or inde~endent work is limited or not available. one the less, th& group contains dedicated, talented people who with proper assistance and incentives can remain vital and productive. Ironically, this group may affect the largest numher of students, and those students who have the greatest learning problems. At the extreme right of this scale is the group of science faculty (Category D) who might be classified as near but not ~
~
Volume 57. Number 12, December 1980 1 841
auite honeless. A nrincinal obiective of administrators. dedartmeni chairpersons, ktc. s h h d he (1) topreuent from falling into this cateaorv; - . and (2) to help those who are there to find more productive lines of work. Although this model is crude, it can help in correlating needs with responsei. I f the interest. is in dirrct impact m tkculty more at the right of the scale, several factors begin to dominate hut most notahly the need for the faculty to takeon to a greater degree the role of student That is, the furm of retraining for the recipient is more formalized instruction by othw t a r ~ ~ l tAlso y . the depth of the instruction and the length ofmstruction will be~ ereater. Thescale. then in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eifect.shows ~ a,trend from independent action on the left to dependent action on the right. Responsibility. In considering those national organizations with responsibility for science faculty development, I will outline only National Science Foundation programs and only those NSF nroerams which pertain to the topic of facultv . .. development. The perceptions are mine and do not necessarilv revreirnt an ofticial position of the W F . Other federal programs certainly existwhich are of great value, and other national organizations, in particular the ACS, have an excellent record in the area. All NSF support programs contrihute to faculty renewal and development. Some do so quite directly, others more indirectly. Some do sodeliberately on the part of the foundation, most coincidentally. TheNSF programs can be clustered with and related to the categories which were developed earlier. In the area of scientific (as opposed to science education) research activity three types of support seem most important to facultv develonment. First, the basic research grants which comprise the bulk (annroximatelv $900 million) of Foundation suoport. These m&ht be described as coincidental and indirkit but they clearly impact on category A faculty and to a significantly lesser degree category B. Second, "small College Faculty Opportunity Awards" allow a faculty person from a non-research oriented institution to associate with a n NSF research grantee. The Category B, perhaps more than Category C, fits here because the burden is on the small college person to make the initial contact and secure the interest of the grantee. The grantee then requests from the NSF supplementary funds to support the associate. These two activities are described in NSF 78-41 "Grants for Scientific Research" (6). Third. a relativelv new nroeram research eauin. - nrovidine . . . ment to colleges without significant graduate programs. As stated in the Foundation's FY 1981 Budget to the Congress, "The program is particularly concerned with the needs of well-trained recent Ph.D.s . . ." The grants ". . . will enable these young scientists to maintain and improve their research capabilities. . . ."Both "Young" category A faculty, as well as category B are strongly affected h y t h i s program. Request NSF 79-76 (6). In the Science Education Directorate of the Foundation. there are about 25 separate programs, excluding pre-doctoral fellowshins. Almost all awards are in direct sunnort .. of facultv activities, and in one or more ways contrihute to the maintenance and enhancement of facultv vitalitv. .. most indirectlv or coincidentally. In addition. the Directorate has moved in recent months to have a greater deliberate impact on faculty problems. In 1979 two formal studies were completed and a report was presented to the Congress concerning the problem of science facultv development nationally and the Foundation's proposed~espons&.Reprints of these reports are available from the Foundation (7). As a consequence, the FY 1981 NSF Guide to Science Education Programs (SE 81.1) (6) lists four objectives, one of them is to "Provide subject matter reuitalization of both pre-college teachers of science and undergraduate science faculty." Elsewhere in 81-1 is the statement ". . . the Foundation has proposed to give priority, as a new ~
842 / Journal of Chemical Educafion
thrust for FY 1981, to the updating of the subject-matter competence of college science faculty." In FY 1981 there will be 2 nroarams verv deliheratelv and . . explicitly sunstiruted for the purpose of undergraduate faculty develot,ment.'l'hat is. where individuals are identiiied to receive instruction as students in specifically planned educational settings. These are (1) The Science Faculty Professional Development Program (SE 80-28) (6),which provides essentially sabbatical leave-type support and should impact mostly on Category B faculty, and (2) The College Faculty Short Courses, or Chautauqua Program (SE80-29) (6) which provides brief double doses of classroom instruction, 2 days in the Fall and 2 days in Spring, to faculty participants. Because the participants receive only brief periods of instruction, I would guess that category B faculty would predominate in this program. In addition, the instructors would largely be Category A.
A third program, College Faculty Conferences (B), was initiated in 1980. and if the budget allows it will he continued. These are R or 4 week workshops, providing greater depth and cwernge and useful tu Caterur\, C facultv nd well as those in category B. These are compaiahle to the activities in the Pre-college Teacher Development in Science Program's Junior and Senior High School Teacher institutes. Again, the instructors are from Category A or B. Information on these is available from the Division of Scientific Personnel Improvement, NSF. It would be a mistake to consider onlv these nromams which are explicitly targetted a t faculty development There are several in the "coincidental" cateaorv - . which have serious implications for faculty development, although this is not their main or only
