A faculty research and training program for undergraduates in the sciences WALTER Departments
C. RANDALL
AND STANLEY
L. BURDEN
of Biology and of Chemistry, Taylor University,
Randall, Walter C., and Stanley L. Burden. A faculty researchand training program for undergraduatesin the sciences.Am. J. Physiol. 263 (Adv. Physiol. Educ. 8): S3-S6, 1992. -Faculty enthusiasm,with actual hands-on involvement, is a critical factor in establishingstudent researchinterest and excitement in a university or collegescienceenvironment. Such faculty involvement is infectious to students and therefore key to restoring United States leadershipin scienceand technology in the next decades.Most scientistsacknowledgethat they were initially attracted into scientific careers through one or two notable teacherswho served as role models.However, with the introduction of so-called “big science” and its distraction of university faculty away from meaningful, direct student contacts, and with associatedwithdrawal of funding from “little science”in the collegeteacher’slaboratory, researchlanguishes in nearly all undergraduateteaching institutions. The inspiring college scienceteacher seemsessentially gone, tired or burnt out, unable to keep pacewith the rigorousdemandsof an active researchlab while simultaneouslymeeting the exhausting load of 15-18 (or more) contact teaching hours per week. With all of the associatedlecture preparations, student counseling, and Dean’s committee assignments,the teacher has little or no scholarly “think time” or opportunity to inspire even the bright students.Without the teacher’shonestand evident involvement and deep commitment, the student fails to experience the essential impact of a convincing role model. It is therefore necessary to restore the college scienceteacher’s opportunity and aspirationsto be personally involved in research.This can only be accomplishedby providing time, facilities, incentives, and encouragementto do what originally attracted the teacher into a careerin scienceand teaching in the first place. Releasedtime from someof the heavy teaching loads,and the providing of full, 12-mo appointments for the small collegefaculty with at least summersdesignatedfor research,would accomplishmany, and perhapsmost, of these objectives. undergraduateresearchtraining; teaching-learning role models IN RETURNING to an undergraduate
campus after nearly 50 years of teaching (medical and graduate school physiology) and research, and after many years’ experience in urging more favorable American Physiological Society membership attractions for college physiology teachers, I (WCR) encountered, firsthand, some of the very practical problems faced by the college-level scientist and teacher. I came into this environment with the firm conviction that every science teacher (whether in college or university) should be actively interested (involved) in research. I recognized the differences in time commitments inherent in teaching undergraduate courses with their relatively large classroom enrollments, paper grading responsibilities, laboratory setup requirements, and lack of experienced technical assistance. However, I did not understand the relatively large commitments to classroom lecture time, multiple course assignments, and remarkably heavy student counseling responsibilities associated with the typical college teacher’s daily routine, semester after semester after semester. I have learned through state academy of science organizations that the situation at Taylor University is not unique and
Upland, Indiana 46989
that it holds rather consistently in college science divisions across the country. Therefore, perhaps our recent thoughts and experiences in attempting to circumvent some of the serious obstacles to at least minimal research recognition and participation by college teachers will be useful. The constant preoccupation with teaching prompts many college teachers to ignore or even deny any obligation to be actively and personally involved in research. These teachers were reminded that to implement enthusiasm for science in the classroom, they must demonstrate a direct interest and concern for its daily role in the world around us. This means actively relating current developments in professional journals, scientific meetings, and their own research projects to their students in the classroom and laboratory. More often than not, at least a few interested students will express special interest in what is going on in the lab. Often they will eagerly contribute valuable time assisting in experiments, cleaning instruments and glassware, helping with library and reference files, performing computer manipulation of data, assisting with animal care, and, in short, picking up many of the things that the teacher simply does not have time for and that therefore discourage teacher efforts to be involved. I suspect such student interests enticed most of us into seeking ways to get to graduate school and eventually into full-time careers in our disciplines. This happened, however, only after we were first turned on by the exciting, challenging example and real-life modeling of an enthusiastic science teacher who convinced us that he or she was having fun and was also accomplishing something worthwhile in the research laboratory. There are many reasons and temptations to simply downplay or even delete laboratory from the curriculum. The naive student rationalizes, “It’s all in the textbook; why should I repeat what is already known?” He or she does not yet realize that textbooks are already out-ofdate at time of publication and that much remains to be learned through research in virtually all science disciplines. The conscientious teacher knows that his or her real learning came from the laboratory as a result of personal, perceptive organization and critical evaluation of experimental results. Without the highly individualized ingredients of thoughtful implementation, painstaking observation, critical collection, analysis, and interpretation of bench experiments, factual memorization is pure fluff. Even the thoughtful student realizes that textbook memorization is “here for the examination tomorrow” but gone for useful retrieval in the future. Without the teacher’s honest and evident involvement and deep commitment, the student fails to experience the essential impact of a convincing role model. It is therefore necessary to restore the college
1043-4046/92 $2.00 Copyright 0 1992 The AmericanPhysiological
Society
s3
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
s4
UNDERGRADUATE
science teacher’s opportunity and aspirations to be personally involved in research. This can only be accomplished by providing time, facilities, incentives, and encouragement to do what originally attracted him or her into a career in science and teaching in the first place. Released time from some of the heavy teaching loads, and the providing of full, 12mo appointments for the small college faculty with at least summers designated for research, would accomplish many, if not most, of these objectives. TIME
TO
THINK
AND
DO
In the smaller liberal arts colleges of the United States, most faculty members are expected to teach from 12 to 18 (or more) contact hours per week, with all of the associated preparation work (revising and updating lectures for 3 or 4 different courses, setting up and supervising labs, making up examinations, grading papers, preparing grade reports to the college registrar promptly at the close of each semester, sitting on numerous faculty committees, attending local and national academic meetings) and perhaps occasional participation in important family and local community affairs. My first reaction to this plethora of expectations was, When do teachers have time to think? My ideas and ideals of a faculty member as a current and informed scholar were nearly shattered when I asked how one maintains an intellectual or scholarly tone in classroom interactions with students. In trying to arrange a departmental journal club or seminar series, I found it to be literally impossible to find a time when science faculty members could relax and professionally discuss academic or scientific questions on a regular basis. The only time available to most was during the two or three summer months when classes were not in session or when summer teaching schedules were reduced. Also, most faculty members are on 9 or IO-mo appointments; so they must scurry to find summer jobs that will keep bread on the table for their families. Lewis (1) recently captured the essence of this problem and clearly identified the academic science teacher as the key to restoring United States leadership in science and technology. She vividly and perceptively points out that teachers can make science classes as relevant and fascinating as they believe their own research to be. The current science illiteracy emergency in the general population is no surprise to the informed, competent teacher, given the large classes, restricted didactic lecture mode, and difficulties in generating enthusiasm and inspiration because of the overwhelming plethora of routine tasks. The teacher has no time for research and therefore has little incentive or energy to instill excitement for new knowledge. He or she knows that doing science means asking challenging questions and seeking accurate answers through active, personal involvement in designing, implementing, and performing the experiment that resolves the search for new knowledge. In this mode, students deduce (think about) answers to questions rather than memorizing definitions from textbooks. The teacher becomes the catalyst rather than the answer person. Given this combination, both teaching and learning can become fun again.
RESEARCH
TRAINING
TWELVE-MONTH
APPOINTMENTS
FOR
SCIENCE
FACULTY
When I inquired at the Dean’s office as to what expectations were maintained for individual faculty accomplishments to achieve advances in rank and tenure, it was confirmed that professional involvement, including publication, stands high on the list of priorities. As a former department chairman, I recognized the importance of research publication of course, but I asked how such could reasonably be expected in the college setting where faculty routinely encountered the daily agendas outlined above. No satisfactory answers were forthcoming. However, if the faculty member could be appointed on a 1%mo basis, with allocation of time for a reasonable holiday period, there could then be time designated for at least a modest research effort in the faculty member’s own departmental laboratory. This would be time when one could commit one hundred percent effort to thinking, reading, and writing, i.e., to doing research, with dramatic spillover of new and challenging information, cross-disciplinary relationships, and new ways of thinking into regular lecture and laboratory interactions with students. Although most modern university researchers would argue this is inadequate time for any significant volume of productive, meaningful research, many (most) college science teachers would counter that continuity through the teaching semesters could be sandwiched in, and the research effort maintained, if full time were available for two or three months in an appropriately equipped laboratory during the summer. The college library may have to add a few critically needed subscriptions, a few pieces of fundamental equipment would need to be purchased (these would also likely be used in regular course laboratory assignments), a few dollars would have to be added to the faculty member’s budget for research supplies, and perhaps the teacher might have to be released from one or two committee assignments to pull off this intellectual renovation at most institutions. But one should expect the happy outcome of more enthusiastic, intellectually stimulating, and productive faculty together with genuinely excited, highly motivated science students in the academic arena. The relatively small increment in salary budget would be overshadowed by the quality of faculty research and teaching as well as in quality and quantity of students aspiring to careers in science. If the government seriously wants to upgrade college outputs of potential young scientists, perhaps this avenue offers a uniquely focused starting point for financial assistance. It is likely that some faculty members prefer the traditional 9- or lo-mo appointment, using the summer months for travel, personal change of pace, or avocational outlets, and would not welcome full 12-mo commitments. Perhaps some academic disciplines do not require comparably active, hands-on participation to remain current in state-of-the-art teaching performance. In such situations, no change would be required. Many, perhaps most, institutions have both 9- or lo-mo and 12-mo appointments extending across business, academic, admissions, and administrative departments, so that only financial adjustments would be necessary in meeting these particular needs of science departments. Aside from the additional costs of salaries for those participating faculty, one can scarcely imagine serious
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
UNDERGRADUATE
disadvantages of the 12-mo appointment from either an administrative or faculty member point of view. The system operates smoothly in major universities where scholarly research is expected and demanded of all active faculty, and it undoubtedly contributes to the significantly greater output of research in these institutions. RESEARCH
TRAINING
AT
UNDERGRADUATE
LEVEL
Four years ago at this institution, the science division faculty confronted these common problems that suppressed or totally prevented faculty research and that thus virtually eliminated student opportunity for active participation in research. Even bright students were missing any personal hands-on research acquaintance or exposure, as well as any vital, close, inspirational interaction with a faculty mentor. The state and national academies of science and numerous university-sponsored student research conferences, as well as great pressure from national and local media, all emphasized the need for more qualified and idealistic young scientists entering the prolonged training pipeline in mathematics and science. The hype of the media enlarged on the availability of funds for research and the marvelous improvements in quality of life resulting from expansions in research over the past few decades. However, they failed to relate how to build the impressive track record required to get into the game. To our knowledge, there have been equally few constructive suggestions from the trenches. After carefully documenting the need for time and facilities for faculty-student research, the administration at this institution enthusiastically granted the science division a start-up budget ($25,00O/yr) that was matched by a large foundation. One faculty member held a federal research grant that could purchase supplies and technician (student) time for research projects, so that a total of -$75,000 was marshaled for the first year’s research effort. Available funds were divided so that eight faculty members could receive -$3,600 each as summer stipend, and IO students were funded at $2,000 each for 8 wk of work, leaving --$26,000 for supplies and equipment required for the experiments. This did not permit purchase of major items of equipment (which were badly needed), but it did suffice to get preliminary protocols established with some good, clear research data accomplished. Thus the initial thrust (and the excitement and potential for further growth) allowed preliminary experiments and kept the group together for a weekly seminar throughout the summer and spring semesters. It brought together nine faculty members (one unsalaried), representing departments of chemistry, biology, environmental science, computer science, and physics, and 12 students (some working under other auspices, all science majors). A few intradepartmental journal clubs or research discussion groups, with concerted focus on specific research plans, ideas, and protocols, also evolved. Each faculty mentorstudent group was responsible for a separate seminar session during the weekly summer meetings, in which they first described their ideas, plans, and protocols. Each mentor then organized a second session later in the summer to report on progress, problems, frustrations, and successes in the actual experiments. Finally, during the fall semester, each small group continued to critique its experimental results and plan for presentation of its data
RESEARCH
S5
TRAINING
before the fall meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science or other appropriate student-oriented research symposium. Some Early
Tangible
Results
Instead of one or two occasional faculty papers at the Academy meeting, we had eight student-authored papers at the end of that first research summer (fall 1987) plus two or three additional papers at other student research forums in the Midwest. We have averaged more than eight such papers per year for each of the four years to the present time. A progressively improving level of productivity has characterized the program through each of the succeeding years to the present. Student interest is currently sufficiently high to warrant the continuation of the science seminar through the spring semester when students are enabled to present 40-min versions of their past summer’s research or, in several instances, their finished papers before submitting them for full journal publication. Faculty members also utilize the spring seminar opportunity to initiate literature searches, check supplies, or organize and critique protocol designs for the following summer’s research effort. The stimulated level of creative research has brought considerable recognition to participating faculty and students, who have responded very positively in both teaching and learning modes and scholarly productivity. Twelve students have achieved sufficient success to merit presentation of their research data at national meetings (American Chemical Society, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, state or national student congresses such as at Butler University or the Argonne National Labs). To date, at least 15 students have experienced the thrill of seeing their research published in refereed professional journals. An even more rewarding outcome of the program has been the number and quality of seniors progressing into graduate and professional doctoral programs. In the first three years after initiation of the program, 100% of the involved science seniors have elected graduate training in medicine or the sciences or have accepted full-time appointments practicing in their scientific specialty disciplines. Taylor University has trained a number of chemistry and biology majors for career work in environmental science during the past 10 years, many now occupying leadership positions in this rapidly emerging area of science. In 1991-92, a new, $2,200,000 building was constructed as a research and training facility in this specialty area. The exciting faculty-student research programs in environmental sciences provided foundational impetus for this initiative. The faculty and students in this field have been key members of the Research Training Program, and this facility will offer a magnificent new physical plant and academic plan implementing major expansion in opportunities for research in this important and rapidly emerging field. Funding
is a Major
Problem
Still, funding of the program continues to be a major problem. Student interest progressively mounts and involved faculty commitment is strong, the latter in spite of loss of faculty stipend funding (the original foundation grant was for 2 years only) during the summer months.
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
S6
UNDERGRADUATE
RESEARCH
TRAINING
trustees, and administrative officers. Given a small but Although several additional independent research grant productive effort such as we have described through the applications have been submitted, none has, as yet, paid off. Time and demonstrable productivity are required to initial 5-yr investment of college funds and a single founconvince granting agencies that a solid program exists. dation ($50,00O/yr), such local funding can often be established. The important concept, which is highly attracNational Science Foundation (NSF) matching grants have been extremely helpful in updating student laborative to successful local business leaders and which must tory equipment for teaching, electronic and machine shop be established in their overview, focuses on competence of science faculty who have ideas and facilities, and a few specialized items of equipment. It and commitment would seem that our case illustrates precisely what the are willing to strive effectively to make such arrangeNational Institutes of Health (NIH) had in mind when ments work. introducing its Academic Research Enhancement Award Once a program is started and both faculty and stu(AREA) grants, and indeed, our applications have been dents achieve initial success (polished presentations on However, with biomedical given excellent priorities. campus and/or at student research conferences, presenagency reviewers having backgrounds and/or orientations tations by faculty or students before national professional almost exclusively in molecular or cellular biology and society meetings, publication in refereed science journals, chemistry, it is difficult for them to assign high enough and favorable publicity in local news media), individual priority to actually fund applications in broad spectral faculty members will begin to connect on their applicaareas of science. The problem needs a permanent solution tions for outside research funding. Such success will not locally, perhaps from one or a combination of the followcome overnight, nor will it come easily, but when it does ing potential sources. come, it should be recognized and applauded appropriPotential sources for funding. Strong, positive results ately within the local “town-gown” community. As each in the form of increasing numbers of well-trained, highly such funding occurs, it will replace that previously commotivated, enthusiastic graduates accepted for advanced ing from the research-training pool and thus allow other training in the sciences (graduate schools or medical -faculty members to get started, purchase much needed and other professional schools) should prove attractive equipment, or expand ongoing projects. for specifically designated contributions from alumni/se It is our opinion that the results of a 5-yr experience (particularly those in medicine, environmental science, with this program will result in such dramatic improveand the professions) and friends to an endowment fund ment in the teaching and inspirational influence of parestablished explicitly for this purpose. Such a source of ticipating faculty members that college administrative funding would provide for student and faculty stipends officials will be convinced that the added costs (particufor the summer months, supplies and equipment pur- larly faculty salaries for full I2 mo) are well worth the chases, scientific meeting travel, and publication costs for investment. For those faculty members who do not wish successful projects. to give up the relatively relaxed freedom of an uncommitIn most instances, individual science faculty members ted summer, such participation should not be required. will have close personal and professional relations with Perhaps these people need to paint houses, sell vacuum industrial laboratories, which can result in extensive col- cleaners, or perform hard physical labor to unwind after 9 laborative exchanges (lab analyses, consultations, re- or 10 mo of demanding book work. Surely, 1%mo apsearch development). In our case, expertise in the then pointments are not for everyone, and such faculty should new concept of artificial intelligence led to development not be required to participate. Perhaps the shift from of techniques for rapidly and accurately identifying ab- classroom lectures to “wet labs” is too demanding, or the normal cells in Pap smears as routinely performed in the background in modern laboratory instrumentation is so pathology services of a major hospital center. The device radically changed since one’s own dissertation research saved hundreds of hours of professional time for highly that prospects of reentry are overly intimidating. Prospecialized pathologists and improved every aspect of vided their classroom performance as evaluated (by stuidentification and accuracy, even record keeping, in this dents, faculty colleagues, and outside authorities) is deservice area. Completion of the project brought increased termined to be adequate, these faculty should not be interest and proposals for additional research projects. forced to participate. However, for those who have ideas Major representatives of the computer industry have and want opportunity to keep pace at the fringes of made overtures in hiring graduates with this kind of knowledge in their fields, the institution really cannot background experience, have loaned valuable (expensive) afford not to encourage them and to provide this kind of equipment permitting extension of the research, and have scholarly support. offered longer term contractual arrangements in support of research. The concept is adaptable to almost any inW. C. Randall is Professor Emeritus in Physiology, Loyola Univ., dustrial use of fundamental research ideation and bench Chicago, IL. His research support is from National Heart, Lung, and application. Blood Institute Grant HL-27595 and from the James DePauw Heart Research Fund, Loyola Univ. Although small liberal arts colleges have not generally Address for reprint requests: W. C. Randall, Biology Dept., Taylor established the kind of reputation that commands interUniv., Upland, IN 46989. est and attention of major foundations, large industrial Received 2 March 1992; accepted in final form 6 July 1992. organizations such as those in the pharmaceutical industry, or even governmental agencies such as NIH or NSF, most will have important links with local business and REFERENCES science-related industry. Such links exist or can be ex1. Lewis, R. Better college courses are key to raising science literacy. Scientist 6(l): 19 and 22, 1992. tended through favorable relationships with alumni/se, Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
C. RANDALL
AND STANLEY
L. BURDEN
of Biology and of Chemistry, Taylor University,
Randall, Walter C., and Stanley L. Burden. A faculty researchand training program for undergraduatesin the sciences.Am. J. Physiol. 263 (Adv. Physiol. Educ. 8): S3-S6, 1992. -Faculty enthusiasm,with actual hands-on involvement, is a critical factor in establishingstudent researchinterest and excitement in a university or collegescienceenvironment. Such faculty involvement is infectious to students and therefore key to restoring United States leadershipin scienceand technology in the next decades.Most scientistsacknowledgethat they were initially attracted into scientific careers through one or two notable teacherswho served as role models.However, with the introduction of so-called “big science” and its distraction of university faculty away from meaningful, direct student contacts, and with associatedwithdrawal of funding from “little science”in the collegeteacher’slaboratory, researchlanguishes in nearly all undergraduateteaching institutions. The inspiring college scienceteacher seemsessentially gone, tired or burnt out, unable to keep pacewith the rigorousdemandsof an active researchlab while simultaneouslymeeting the exhausting load of 15-18 (or more) contact teaching hours per week. With all of the associatedlecture preparations, student counseling, and Dean’s committee assignments,the teacher has little or no scholarly “think time” or opportunity to inspire even the bright students.Without the teacher’shonestand evident involvement and deep commitment, the student fails to experience the essential impact of a convincing role model. It is therefore necessary to restore the college scienceteacher’s opportunity and aspirationsto be personally involved in research.This can only be accomplishedby providing time, facilities, incentives, and encouragementto do what originally attracted the teacher into a careerin scienceand teaching in the first place. Releasedtime from someof the heavy teaching loads,and the providing of full, 12-mo appointments for the small collegefaculty with at least summersdesignatedfor research,would accomplishmany, and perhapsmost, of these objectives. undergraduateresearchtraining; teaching-learning role models IN RETURNING to an undergraduate
campus after nearly 50 years of teaching (medical and graduate school physiology) and research, and after many years’ experience in urging more favorable American Physiological Society membership attractions for college physiology teachers, I (WCR) encountered, firsthand, some of the very practical problems faced by the college-level scientist and teacher. I came into this environment with the firm conviction that every science teacher (whether in college or university) should be actively interested (involved) in research. I recognized the differences in time commitments inherent in teaching undergraduate courses with their relatively large classroom enrollments, paper grading responsibilities, laboratory setup requirements, and lack of experienced technical assistance. However, I did not understand the relatively large commitments to classroom lecture time, multiple course assignments, and remarkably heavy student counseling responsibilities associated with the typical college teacher’s daily routine, semester after semester after semester. I have learned through state academy of science organizations that the situation at Taylor University is not unique and
Upland, Indiana 46989
that it holds rather consistently in college science divisions across the country. Therefore, perhaps our recent thoughts and experiences in attempting to circumvent some of the serious obstacles to at least minimal research recognition and participation by college teachers will be useful. The constant preoccupation with teaching prompts many college teachers to ignore or even deny any obligation to be actively and personally involved in research. These teachers were reminded that to implement enthusiasm for science in the classroom, they must demonstrate a direct interest and concern for its daily role in the world around us. This means actively relating current developments in professional journals, scientific meetings, and their own research projects to their students in the classroom and laboratory. More often than not, at least a few interested students will express special interest in what is going on in the lab. Often they will eagerly contribute valuable time assisting in experiments, cleaning instruments and glassware, helping with library and reference files, performing computer manipulation of data, assisting with animal care, and, in short, picking up many of the things that the teacher simply does not have time for and that therefore discourage teacher efforts to be involved. I suspect such student interests enticed most of us into seeking ways to get to graduate school and eventually into full-time careers in our disciplines. This happened, however, only after we were first turned on by the exciting, challenging example and real-life modeling of an enthusiastic science teacher who convinced us that he or she was having fun and was also accomplishing something worthwhile in the research laboratory. There are many reasons and temptations to simply downplay or even delete laboratory from the curriculum. The naive student rationalizes, “It’s all in the textbook; why should I repeat what is already known?” He or she does not yet realize that textbooks are already out-ofdate at time of publication and that much remains to be learned through research in virtually all science disciplines. The conscientious teacher knows that his or her real learning came from the laboratory as a result of personal, perceptive organization and critical evaluation of experimental results. Without the highly individualized ingredients of thoughtful implementation, painstaking observation, critical collection, analysis, and interpretation of bench experiments, factual memorization is pure fluff. Even the thoughtful student realizes that textbook memorization is “here for the examination tomorrow” but gone for useful retrieval in the future. Without the teacher’s honest and evident involvement and deep commitment, the student fails to experience the essential impact of a convincing role model. It is therefore necessary to restore the college
1043-4046/92 $2.00 Copyright 0 1992 The AmericanPhysiological
Society
s3
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
s4
UNDERGRADUATE
science teacher’s opportunity and aspirations to be personally involved in research. This can only be accomplished by providing time, facilities, incentives, and encouragement to do what originally attracted him or her into a career in science and teaching in the first place. Released time from some of the heavy teaching loads, and the providing of full, 12mo appointments for the small college faculty with at least summers designated for research, would accomplish many, if not most, of these objectives. TIME
TO
THINK
AND
DO
In the smaller liberal arts colleges of the United States, most faculty members are expected to teach from 12 to 18 (or more) contact hours per week, with all of the associated preparation work (revising and updating lectures for 3 or 4 different courses, setting up and supervising labs, making up examinations, grading papers, preparing grade reports to the college registrar promptly at the close of each semester, sitting on numerous faculty committees, attending local and national academic meetings) and perhaps occasional participation in important family and local community affairs. My first reaction to this plethora of expectations was, When do teachers have time to think? My ideas and ideals of a faculty member as a current and informed scholar were nearly shattered when I asked how one maintains an intellectual or scholarly tone in classroom interactions with students. In trying to arrange a departmental journal club or seminar series, I found it to be literally impossible to find a time when science faculty members could relax and professionally discuss academic or scientific questions on a regular basis. The only time available to most was during the two or three summer months when classes were not in session or when summer teaching schedules were reduced. Also, most faculty members are on 9 or IO-mo appointments; so they must scurry to find summer jobs that will keep bread on the table for their families. Lewis (1) recently captured the essence of this problem and clearly identified the academic science teacher as the key to restoring United States leadership in science and technology. She vividly and perceptively points out that teachers can make science classes as relevant and fascinating as they believe their own research to be. The current science illiteracy emergency in the general population is no surprise to the informed, competent teacher, given the large classes, restricted didactic lecture mode, and difficulties in generating enthusiasm and inspiration because of the overwhelming plethora of routine tasks. The teacher has no time for research and therefore has little incentive or energy to instill excitement for new knowledge. He or she knows that doing science means asking challenging questions and seeking accurate answers through active, personal involvement in designing, implementing, and performing the experiment that resolves the search for new knowledge. In this mode, students deduce (think about) answers to questions rather than memorizing definitions from textbooks. The teacher becomes the catalyst rather than the answer person. Given this combination, both teaching and learning can become fun again.
RESEARCH
TRAINING
TWELVE-MONTH
APPOINTMENTS
FOR
SCIENCE
FACULTY
When I inquired at the Dean’s office as to what expectations were maintained for individual faculty accomplishments to achieve advances in rank and tenure, it was confirmed that professional involvement, including publication, stands high on the list of priorities. As a former department chairman, I recognized the importance of research publication of course, but I asked how such could reasonably be expected in the college setting where faculty routinely encountered the daily agendas outlined above. No satisfactory answers were forthcoming. However, if the faculty member could be appointed on a 1%mo basis, with allocation of time for a reasonable holiday period, there could then be time designated for at least a modest research effort in the faculty member’s own departmental laboratory. This would be time when one could commit one hundred percent effort to thinking, reading, and writing, i.e., to doing research, with dramatic spillover of new and challenging information, cross-disciplinary relationships, and new ways of thinking into regular lecture and laboratory interactions with students. Although most modern university researchers would argue this is inadequate time for any significant volume of productive, meaningful research, many (most) college science teachers would counter that continuity through the teaching semesters could be sandwiched in, and the research effort maintained, if full time were available for two or three months in an appropriately equipped laboratory during the summer. The college library may have to add a few critically needed subscriptions, a few pieces of fundamental equipment would need to be purchased (these would also likely be used in regular course laboratory assignments), a few dollars would have to be added to the faculty member’s budget for research supplies, and perhaps the teacher might have to be released from one or two committee assignments to pull off this intellectual renovation at most institutions. But one should expect the happy outcome of more enthusiastic, intellectually stimulating, and productive faculty together with genuinely excited, highly motivated science students in the academic arena. The relatively small increment in salary budget would be overshadowed by the quality of faculty research and teaching as well as in quality and quantity of students aspiring to careers in science. If the government seriously wants to upgrade college outputs of potential young scientists, perhaps this avenue offers a uniquely focused starting point for financial assistance. It is likely that some faculty members prefer the traditional 9- or lo-mo appointment, using the summer months for travel, personal change of pace, or avocational outlets, and would not welcome full 12-mo commitments. Perhaps some academic disciplines do not require comparably active, hands-on participation to remain current in state-of-the-art teaching performance. In such situations, no change would be required. Many, perhaps most, institutions have both 9- or lo-mo and 12-mo appointments extending across business, academic, admissions, and administrative departments, so that only financial adjustments would be necessary in meeting these particular needs of science departments. Aside from the additional costs of salaries for those participating faculty, one can scarcely imagine serious
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
UNDERGRADUATE
disadvantages of the 12-mo appointment from either an administrative or faculty member point of view. The system operates smoothly in major universities where scholarly research is expected and demanded of all active faculty, and it undoubtedly contributes to the significantly greater output of research in these institutions. RESEARCH
TRAINING
AT
UNDERGRADUATE
LEVEL
Four years ago at this institution, the science division faculty confronted these common problems that suppressed or totally prevented faculty research and that thus virtually eliminated student opportunity for active participation in research. Even bright students were missing any personal hands-on research acquaintance or exposure, as well as any vital, close, inspirational interaction with a faculty mentor. The state and national academies of science and numerous university-sponsored student research conferences, as well as great pressure from national and local media, all emphasized the need for more qualified and idealistic young scientists entering the prolonged training pipeline in mathematics and science. The hype of the media enlarged on the availability of funds for research and the marvelous improvements in quality of life resulting from expansions in research over the past few decades. However, they failed to relate how to build the impressive track record required to get into the game. To our knowledge, there have been equally few constructive suggestions from the trenches. After carefully documenting the need for time and facilities for faculty-student research, the administration at this institution enthusiastically granted the science division a start-up budget ($25,00O/yr) that was matched by a large foundation. One faculty member held a federal research grant that could purchase supplies and technician (student) time for research projects, so that a total of -$75,000 was marshaled for the first year’s research effort. Available funds were divided so that eight faculty members could receive -$3,600 each as summer stipend, and IO students were funded at $2,000 each for 8 wk of work, leaving --$26,000 for supplies and equipment required for the experiments. This did not permit purchase of major items of equipment (which were badly needed), but it did suffice to get preliminary protocols established with some good, clear research data accomplished. Thus the initial thrust (and the excitement and potential for further growth) allowed preliminary experiments and kept the group together for a weekly seminar throughout the summer and spring semesters. It brought together nine faculty members (one unsalaried), representing departments of chemistry, biology, environmental science, computer science, and physics, and 12 students (some working under other auspices, all science majors). A few intradepartmental journal clubs or research discussion groups, with concerted focus on specific research plans, ideas, and protocols, also evolved. Each faculty mentorstudent group was responsible for a separate seminar session during the weekly summer meetings, in which they first described their ideas, plans, and protocols. Each mentor then organized a second session later in the summer to report on progress, problems, frustrations, and successes in the actual experiments. Finally, during the fall semester, each small group continued to critique its experimental results and plan for presentation of its data
RESEARCH
S5
TRAINING
before the fall meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science or other appropriate student-oriented research symposium. Some Early
Tangible
Results
Instead of one or two occasional faculty papers at the Academy meeting, we had eight student-authored papers at the end of that first research summer (fall 1987) plus two or three additional papers at other student research forums in the Midwest. We have averaged more than eight such papers per year for each of the four years to the present time. A progressively improving level of productivity has characterized the program through each of the succeeding years to the present. Student interest is currently sufficiently high to warrant the continuation of the science seminar through the spring semester when students are enabled to present 40-min versions of their past summer’s research or, in several instances, their finished papers before submitting them for full journal publication. Faculty members also utilize the spring seminar opportunity to initiate literature searches, check supplies, or organize and critique protocol designs for the following summer’s research effort. The stimulated level of creative research has brought considerable recognition to participating faculty and students, who have responded very positively in both teaching and learning modes and scholarly productivity. Twelve students have achieved sufficient success to merit presentation of their research data at national meetings (American Chemical Society, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, state or national student congresses such as at Butler University or the Argonne National Labs). To date, at least 15 students have experienced the thrill of seeing their research published in refereed professional journals. An even more rewarding outcome of the program has been the number and quality of seniors progressing into graduate and professional doctoral programs. In the first three years after initiation of the program, 100% of the involved science seniors have elected graduate training in medicine or the sciences or have accepted full-time appointments practicing in their scientific specialty disciplines. Taylor University has trained a number of chemistry and biology majors for career work in environmental science during the past 10 years, many now occupying leadership positions in this rapidly emerging area of science. In 1991-92, a new, $2,200,000 building was constructed as a research and training facility in this specialty area. The exciting faculty-student research programs in environmental sciences provided foundational impetus for this initiative. The faculty and students in this field have been key members of the Research Training Program, and this facility will offer a magnificent new physical plant and academic plan implementing major expansion in opportunities for research in this important and rapidly emerging field. Funding
is a Major
Problem
Still, funding of the program continues to be a major problem. Student interest progressively mounts and involved faculty commitment is strong, the latter in spite of loss of faculty stipend funding (the original foundation grant was for 2 years only) during the summer months.
Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
S6
UNDERGRADUATE
RESEARCH
TRAINING
trustees, and administrative officers. Given a small but Although several additional independent research grant productive effort such as we have described through the applications have been submitted, none has, as yet, paid off. Time and demonstrable productivity are required to initial 5-yr investment of college funds and a single founconvince granting agencies that a solid program exists. dation ($50,00O/yr), such local funding can often be established. The important concept, which is highly attracNational Science Foundation (NSF) matching grants have been extremely helpful in updating student laborative to successful local business leaders and which must tory equipment for teaching, electronic and machine shop be established in their overview, focuses on competence of science faculty who have ideas and facilities, and a few specialized items of equipment. It and commitment would seem that our case illustrates precisely what the are willing to strive effectively to make such arrangeNational Institutes of Health (NIH) had in mind when ments work. introducing its Academic Research Enhancement Award Once a program is started and both faculty and stu(AREA) grants, and indeed, our applications have been dents achieve initial success (polished presentations on However, with biomedical given excellent priorities. campus and/or at student research conferences, presenagency reviewers having backgrounds and/or orientations tations by faculty or students before national professional almost exclusively in molecular or cellular biology and society meetings, publication in refereed science journals, chemistry, it is difficult for them to assign high enough and favorable publicity in local news media), individual priority to actually fund applications in broad spectral faculty members will begin to connect on their applicaareas of science. The problem needs a permanent solution tions for outside research funding. Such success will not locally, perhaps from one or a combination of the followcome overnight, nor will it come easily, but when it does ing potential sources. come, it should be recognized and applauded appropriPotential sources for funding. Strong, positive results ately within the local “town-gown” community. As each in the form of increasing numbers of well-trained, highly such funding occurs, it will replace that previously commotivated, enthusiastic graduates accepted for advanced ing from the research-training pool and thus allow other training in the sciences (graduate schools or medical -faculty members to get started, purchase much needed and other professional schools) should prove attractive equipment, or expand ongoing projects. for specifically designated contributions from alumni/se It is our opinion that the results of a 5-yr experience (particularly those in medicine, environmental science, with this program will result in such dramatic improveand the professions) and friends to an endowment fund ment in the teaching and inspirational influence of parestablished explicitly for this purpose. Such a source of ticipating faculty members that college administrative funding would provide for student and faculty stipends officials will be convinced that the added costs (particufor the summer months, supplies and equipment pur- larly faculty salaries for full I2 mo) are well worth the chases, scientific meeting travel, and publication costs for investment. For those faculty members who do not wish successful projects. to give up the relatively relaxed freedom of an uncommitIn most instances, individual science faculty members ted summer, such participation should not be required. will have close personal and professional relations with Perhaps these people need to paint houses, sell vacuum industrial laboratories, which can result in extensive col- cleaners, or perform hard physical labor to unwind after 9 laborative exchanges (lab analyses, consultations, re- or 10 mo of demanding book work. Surely, 1%mo apsearch development). In our case, expertise in the then pointments are not for everyone, and such faculty should new concept of artificial intelligence led to development not be required to participate. Perhaps the shift from of techniques for rapidly and accurately identifying ab- classroom lectures to “wet labs” is too demanding, or the normal cells in Pap smears as routinely performed in the background in modern laboratory instrumentation is so pathology services of a major hospital center. The device radically changed since one’s own dissertation research saved hundreds of hours of professional time for highly that prospects of reentry are overly intimidating. Prospecialized pathologists and improved every aspect of vided their classroom performance as evaluated (by stuidentification and accuracy, even record keeping, in this dents, faculty colleagues, and outside authorities) is deservice area. Completion of the project brought increased termined to be adequate, these faculty should not be interest and proposals for additional research projects. forced to participate. However, for those who have ideas Major representatives of the computer industry have and want opportunity to keep pace at the fringes of made overtures in hiring graduates with this kind of knowledge in their fields, the institution really cannot background experience, have loaned valuable (expensive) afford not to encourage them and to provide this kind of equipment permitting extension of the research, and have scholarly support. offered longer term contractual arrangements in support of research. The concept is adaptable to almost any inW. C. Randall is Professor Emeritus in Physiology, Loyola Univ., dustrial use of fundamental research ideation and bench Chicago, IL. His research support is from National Heart, Lung, and application. Blood Institute Grant HL-27595 and from the James DePauw Heart Research Fund, Loyola Univ. Although small liberal arts colleges have not generally Address for reprint requests: W. C. Randall, Biology Dept., Taylor established the kind of reputation that commands interUniv., Upland, IN 46989. est and attention of major foundations, large industrial Received 2 March 1992; accepted in final form 6 July 1992. organizations such as those in the pharmaceutical industry, or even governmental agencies such as NIH or NSF, most will have important links with local business and REFERENCES science-related industry. Such links exist or can be ex1. Lewis, R. Better college courses are key to raising science literacy. Scientist 6(l): 19 and 22, 1992. tended through favorable relationships with alumni/se, Downloaded from www.physiology.org/journal/advances by ${individualUser.givenNames} ${individualUser.surname} (129.186.138.035) on January 21, 2019.
