provocative opinion The Teaching Versus Research Controversy Is There More Than One Model To Examine? John T. Gupton University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 Those of us who try to stay abreast of what is happening on our wllege and university campuses have seen a number of recent commentaries published on the so-called incompatibility of good teaching and good research a t our large and comprehensive research universities. These commentaries have appeared in the June 3, 1992 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the August 28 issue of Science and the June and August 1992 issues of The Journal of Chemical Education. Whether some of these articles are totally accurate or not, there is definitely a real concern that a t our major universities vew little attention or priority is sometimes given to the teaihing of the undermaduates. The rationale that is eiven for this behavior is that the reward system for facuky is skewed in favor of those who are awarded large, Federal grants and are prolific publishers of new and important science. For this reason it is assumed that the faculty member focuses most of his or her attention on the graduate students who are to a large extent responsible for the new scientific discoveries and subsequently the successful grant proposals. Therefore, the undergraduates are not involved in the loop for the reward svstem and are considered a low ~rioritv. My intent is not to focus on whether this model of'chemical education a t research universities a s denicted in these articles is accurate, but to suggest t h a t our system of higher education has other models that have yet to be examined a s part of the debate. The model that I wish to address i s that found in primarily undergraduate institutions (PUI) irrespective of whether they are public or private. Many of these types of institutions have att e m ~ t e dover the vears to have a healthv balance of teaching i n d research and many faculty a t s l c h schools believe that research when conducted in the Droner wntext serves a s just another form of instruction. I n 1979 Federal and private funding available for research a t these schools reached a n all time low. As a result of these hard times and the foresight of Brian Andreen a t Research Corporation and a few, highly visible chemistry faculty members from PUI schools, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) was born. CUR a t this time has in excess of 2000 members from over 650 colleges and universities. Among CUR activities are the nublication of a newsletter and undergraduate research directory, sponsorship of a biannual conference on undergraduate research and the establishment of a grant program to support undergraduate re-
..
36
Journal of Chemical Education
search in the Summer. Some of the basic philosophy of CUR is described in one of our fliers: Student participation in the actual process of discovery is an essential component of undergraduate education in science and mathmatics. By its very nature, undergraduate research challenges students to think in new, demanding, and wholly unanticipated ways, strengthing and expanding their independence, intellectual flexibility,and imagination. A sustained research experience provides an opportunity for learning unmatched bv formal courses. Effectiveteachen are insatiable learners themselves. They are energized not only by their own discoveries, hut by watching others experience the excitement of discovery. For obvious reasons the teaching versus research issue has become very important to CUR, and we feel obliged to contribute our thoughts and insight to the debate. Sheila Tobias, who is a social scientist a t the University of California a t San Diego, has undertaken a long-term study of science education and chemistry in particular. She has completed her second report on this subject, which has been published by Research Corporation and is entitled "Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Others Don't". In her report she describes the chemical education climate a t several PUI schools. The programs that were evaluated were a t Trinity University (San Antonio), Fort Lewis College, and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, which are also heavily populated by faculty members who are CUR members and elected councilors. These schools represent both public and private educational systems. The following are some excerpts from Tobias's report: 1. For the students that I am meeting, the research lab is a
key attraction of the Chemistry major (Wisconsin-Eau Claire). As at other institutions with established undergraduate research programs, it is a different kind of expe rience from class, they tell me, providing hands-on science and a place where they can work with both professors and classmates. When I wandered with them ta their lah station earlier that morning, I was struck by their understanding of the research they were doing and by their ability to explain it ta me, a nonchemist. 2. Because students can work on a project for several conseeutive years, their experience is cumulative. By junior or senior year, many are presenting poster sessions or papen at conferences. Not surprisingly, students who do eallaborative research with faculty attend graduate schools
at a higher rate (about 75%) than those who do not (about 55%). As the faculty views it, it is in their laboratories that students learn for themselves that science is interesting and that they have some ownership of the subject. And because they are working on real world projects, they gain first hand knowledge of the scientific process. Faculty find that in the one-on-one setting they can encourage their young research collaborators to pursue careers in science. 3. There is nothing unusual about the chemistry cumculum at Wisconsin-Eau Claire, I am assured. In their minds, the faculty aren't doing anything new; rather they are doing things well. 4. Thnt the
denartment (Ft.Lewis1 is dedicated to teachine
provided majors and the mmmittment to continuous improvement ... 5. A concern and reverence for teaching pervades departments where programs work. Every faculty member feels responsibility ifany m u s e (and not just their own) is not going well. 6. Most people can be good teachers on their best day. We want people who are good even on a had day (Ft. Lewis)... 7. The factors that contribute to successful recruitment and
retention of students at Eau Claire were found at other colleges and universities that focus attention on their un-
dergraduates. The chemistry department a t Eau Claire, Fort Lewis, and Trinity all have recruited faculty over the years who consider themselves to he dedicated teachers, as well as active in research, and on all these campuses faculty and student collaborative research is an essential component of the major. 8. Research is a strong catalyst for students at Trinity as it is at Fort Lewis and Eau Claire. But perhaps even more important is the attention they receive from faculty in the research lab, in their courses, and in the extracurricular activities that the departments provide.
If Tobias's appraisal of such programs i s correct, and I believe t h a t i t is, what conclusions can we draw regarding t h e teaching versus research debate? Good teaching and good research a r e not only compatible, they a r e both necessary for a successful program. I n fact i n the September 1990 issue of the CUR Newsletter, Gary Sojka, President of Bucknell University, likens learning science to learning to play soccer a n d points out t h a t if all the instruction involved blackboard work a n d no kicking of t h e ball, there would be little interest i n t h e sport. Perhaps t h e debate we should be having i s how can we convince university administrators a n d other faculty to be concerned enough about their undergraduates to provide both a good teaching and a good research experience?
Volume 70
Number 1 January 1993
37
