Cell Biol Educ 2(4): 228-232 2003
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.03-03-0016
© 2003 American Society for Cell Biology
Balancing Teaching and Research Experiences in Doctoral Training Programs: Lessons for the Future Educator
Michael J. Wolyniak
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York 14853
Submitted March 31, 2003;
Revised August 15, 2003;
Accepted September 5, 2003
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
While a variety of alternative careers has emerged for Ph.D. life
scientists in industry, business, law, and education in the past two decades,
the structure of doctoral training programs in many cases does not provide the
flexibility necessary to pursue career experiences not directly related to a
research emphasis. Here I describe my efforts to supplement my traditional
doctoral research training with independent teaching experiences that have
allowed me to prepare myself for a career that combines both into a combined
educational program. I describe the issues I have come across in finding and
taking part in these endeavors, how these issues have affected my work in
pursuing my Ph.D., and how my experiences translate into my hopes for a future
education-based career in molecular and cell biology.
Key Words: graduate training • teaching experiences • doctoral programs • independent teaching • outreach
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
It is no secret that American universities have produced an abundance of
life science Ph.D.'s in the last 15 years and that this abundance has
fundamentally changed the way in which newly minted cell biologists perceive
the way in which their careers will unfold. Indeed, a 1998 National Research
Council (NRC) study showed that the number of Ph.D.'s awarded by American
universities rose 42% between 1987 and 1996
(Wadman, 1998). During this
same period, the rate of job growth was a meager 2.5% in academia and 7% in
industry and government (Smaglik and Russo,
1998). These statistics were dire enough to encourage the NRC to
advocate a freeze in future growth in both new and existing life science Ph.D.
programs. The last 15 years, however, have also brought with them a wide
variety of novel career options available to new cell biology Ph.D.'s. Many
recent Ph.D. graduates now pursue what are commonly known as
"alternative" careers in law, business, medicine, and education,
and the number of recent doctoral graduates that pursue a traditional
postdoc-assistant professor career pathway declines on a yearly basis
(Horn, 1999). This increase in
career options has done much to provide an outlet for the increase in American
life science Ph.D. production, as seen in the minimal rise in the overall rate
of biomedical Ph.D. unemployment, from 0.9% in 1973 to 1.9% in 1995, as more
and more recent Ph.D.'s find permanent employment outside academia
(Amidon, 1998). It would seem,
therefore, that Ph.D. programs and the principal investigators affiliated with
them must adapt to the changing realities of the Ph.D. job market and the fact
that the ivory tower is no longer the likely final destination of their
products. This need to adapt has been recognized through the formation of
consortia between higher education institutions under the umbrella of, for
instance, the Preparing Future Faculty program
(http://preparing-faculty.org)
and the Re-envisioning the Ph.D. project of the University of Washington,
Seattle
(http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision).
In both cases, the object is to study the changing Ph.D. job market of the
21st century and to pinpoint its impact on how Ph.D.'s are trained and advised
during their educations. Most individual principal investigators also
recognize this shift in the Ph.D. job market and the explosion of varying
career possibilities available to new doctoral degree recipients. However,
they are in many cases unable to advise their students as to how to approach
such alternative careers. This is largely due to the antiquated assumptions
made by doctoral training programs with regard to the career objectives of
their students and the pervading mentality within these programs as to what
constitutes an "acceptable" or "useful" career upon
completion of a Ph.D. Indeed, alternative careers are still referred to as
alternative in most academic circles since doctoral training programs are
structured around the assumption that one will ultimately pursue a
research-based career in an academic setting.
If a research-based career is not the ultimate plan for doctoral
candidates, then they must consider ways to supplement their education with
experiences that directly complement their career goals. It seems, though,
that current methods of doctoral training, while fundamentally sound in
preparing students for research-based careers, in many cases do not expose
students to careers beyond traditional pathways or how to approach becoming a
part of them. How, then, can one adequately prepare for a career requiring a
Ph.D.-level education in which research is not necessarily the primary focus?
The answer to this question lies not only within the need to seek out advice
and guidance from principal investigators but also with the necessity to seek
out educational enhancement opportunities for oneself.
|
LIMITED TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHING IN MOST DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
|
|---|
I have long held a passion for teaching and for pursuing a career that
allows me to incorporate innovations in learning and education as a
significant component. In addition to teaching, I discovered an interest in
the pursuit of knowledge through hands-on research. These combined interests
pointed me in the direction of a career in which I could combine the best of
both worlds, a career that would focus on education but would also allow
research work to be an extension of an innovative educational program. It was
with great excitement, then, that I entered a Ph.D. program immediately
following completion of my undergraduate degree that would allow me to
strengthen myself not only as a scientist but also as a teacher.
My naivete about the realities of graduate training became evident in short
order, as it does for the majority of entering students. I was not ready for
the demands of time and mind and the numerous scientific setbacks that define
a normal graduate career. I had made it a point to affiliate with a program
that required multiple semesters of teaching from its students and eagerly
anticipated my teaching appointment, looking forward to it as an opportunity
to build my teaching skills. To a limited extent, my expectations were met. I
taught laboratory sections of introductory genetics where I delivered
laboratory lectures as well as advised students on their laboratory work and
projects, held office hours on both laboratory and lecture material, and
graded papers and examinations. The experience allowed me to develop my
teaching and lecture skills at the university level and to develop a stronger
classroom presence. However, it left little room for innovation or variation
from rigid prepared lectures that, by necessity, were common to all laboratory
sections.
This teaching assistantship, while providing me with invaluable lecture
experience and confirming my passion for a career in the education field, was
typical of the experiences available to many graduate students at American
research universities. Most, if not all, doctoral programs profess to stress
the importance of required teaching opportunities to the development of a
successful scientist, and an experience such as the one just described would
be more than adequate for those students who do not wish to pursue teaching
careers. However, it is evident that students who are indeed interested in a
career in the classroom would greatly benefit from instructional training
above and beyond what is required by their Ph.D. programs. While Cornell and
most other institutions offer resources and workshops in training teaching
assistants and in fortifying overall teaching skills, these resources are
geared primarily toward the general satisfactory completion of teaching
requirements by all students as opposed to more specialized, long-term
training for future teachers.
|
WHY ARE OPPORTUNITIES SO LIMITED?
|
|---|
As the economic realities of the university have changed in the past few
decades, an alarming trend has developed in which full-time faculty are
replaced upon retirement by temporary adjunct faculty or by the taking-in of
additional graduate students to perform the necessary teaching duties
(Benjamin, 1997). Such a
system, while saving the university money in the short run, is illustrative of
the secondary importance teaching has taken in many cases within academia. In
many cases, teaching has become viewed not as a central mission to the
university or as a critical arm of doctoral training but rather as a
commodity, a necessary evil and distraction that must be fulfilled as quickly
and cheaply as possible. How else can one explain the fact that unprepared
graduate students bear the burden of over half the total teaching load at many
research universities while teaching loads for tenured faculty have dropped
off over the past two decades (Benjamin,
1997)?
There is also the matter of one's laboratory research, the necessary
primary focus of a Ph.D. program. In many instances, teaching is viewed by
graduate student advisors as an unnecessary distraction from one's thesis
research and, ultimately, timely graduation. Under the traditional structure
of doctoral training programs, they are correct in this assessment. This leads
to discouragement from principal investigators for their students taking on
additional teaching opportunities, even if such opportunities could further
their students' interests and development as competent teachers.
The current structure of doctoral programs will not change significantly in
the near-future; nor should it, since they continue to be serve their original
purpose of providing the next generation of great researchers to the academy
and industry. As career opportunities outside the research laboratory increase
with each passing year, however, it is apparent that alternative careers need
to be seen by doctoral programs and advisors as less alternative. This
requires increased flexibility and acknowledgment of the full litany of career
opportunities by doctoral programs and an increased knowledge of the resources
necessary to help students pursue these careers by their faculty. Also, it is
important for graduate students like myself considering nontraditional careers
to remember that it is not entirely up to our programs and advisers to provide
for our needs. If an exact doctoral program for what we ultimately wish to
pursue as a career does not exist, then we must seek out opportunities to
augment the traditional Ph.D. curriculum with career experiences that shape us
and allow us to confirm our passions for the career in question. In my case, I
have sought to supplement the mandatory teaching requirements of my program
with educational experiences both on and off campus that will allow me to
become a more skilled teacher. These experiences, in combination with the
traditional research training of my dissertation, give me greater confidence
to ultimately pursue a career in which both teaching and research can be put
to use as arms of an innovative educational program.
|
AUGMENTING TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE WITHIN MY DOCTORAL PROGRAM
|
|---|
I had hoped that my mandatory teaching experience would allow me more
opportunity for innovation and curriculum development. As I learned, however,
the role of the graduate student in teaching assistantships is in many cases
that of a cog in a wheel, a role that develops lecture prowess but little
else. In this light, it is imperative to take advantage of other teaching
opportunities that present themselves within the department and to take
advantage of traditional department activities such as journal clubs and
seminars to build on teaching skills. For instance, I am a member of a dynamic
cell biology journal club that covers a wide range of topics largely based on
the research interests of the presenter. Over the years, I have found that my
teaching skills are best served by selecting a topic not researched in my
department, performing some rudimentary research on the topic based on current
literature, and preparing a comprehensive introduction to the paper for an
audience with a knowledge of basic concepts but not the specific topic. In
this sense, the journal club becomes a teaching experience and an opportunity
to prepare a "class" on a foreign topic to a group of
"students" in a way that captivates their interests. This also
transforms the journal club from a required mundane activity into a
challenging project that hones all the skills necessary for a successful
teaching experience. Likewise, seminars and presentations to the department,
in addition to their obvious importance to one's graduate career, can be
perceived as a challenge to present one's research in a compelling manner and
at a level that is able to be understood by all with a molecular biology
background yet still be provocative.
In certain cases, sporadic teaching opportunities may present themselves in
the form of guest lecture opportunities in established department classes. Our
department's undergraduate cell biology survey course offers an optional
"Explorations" session in which each class is taught by a
representative of one of the department's laboratories based on the material
covered in the class that week. I received the opportunity to deliver this
lecture for our laboratory and treated it as my first chance to truly teach a
college classroom in an independent manner. The same educational challenges
mentioned before applied to this experience as well: preparing a comprehensive
introduction, teaching the material at the appropriate level of difficulty,
and producing a class that would make the material compelling to the students.
The class was small, as could be expected for any optional exercise, but the
experience of being the sole instructor to a college class with material
entirely of my own design was truly exciting and invaluable.
|
SUPPLEMENTING GRADUATE TRAINING WITH NONTRADITIONAL TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES
|
|---|
While the experiences mentioned above have allowed me to further hone my
teaching skills, I have also looked outside traditional department channels
for opportunities that would provide me with greater independence and the
ability to develop my own teaching style. One potential outlet for this sort
of independent experience has been found by many graduate students via adjunct
teaching appointments or PFF fellowships at local colleges or community
colleges. Such an independent experience is obviously topnotch in getting
first-hand experience managing a university classroom but can in many cases be
difficult for the graduate student to manage simultaneously with a full
research schedule.
For students preparing for careers in teaching, a variety of fruitful
opportunities exists within the K–12 outreach programs available on most
research campuses. The value of K–12 educational outreach has been
recognized for some time as an invaluable tool for bringing the resources of
the university to the K–12 classroom
(Bonnen, 1998). While there are
obvious differences between the dynamics of K–12 and university
classrooms, it is also apparent that the same fundamental teaching skills of
time management and development of a challenging yet appropriate curriculum
apply to both situations. Therefore, an independent K–12 teaching
experience can help the future teacher master skills critical to successful
university teaching as well. The boldly innovative Graduate Student School
Outreach Project (GSSOP)
(http://www.psc.cornell.edu/gssop),
a program of the Cornell Public Service Center, is a prime example of a
program that provides for such a teaching experience. The GSSOP matches
graduate students with the K–12 teachers of Tompkins, Tioga, and Seneca
counties of New York State. In this partnership, graduate students do not
merely prepare a guest lecture but are expected to develop a compelling eight-
or nine-session minicourse in a subject of the student's choosing. Within this
framework, schoolchildren have the opportunity to explore a variety of
long-term projects with the graduate student teacher that would not be
possible in a one-time guest speaker setting. Graduate students apply and are
selected for the GSSOP program on the basis of showing an enthusiasm for
teaching combined with the motivation to develop, in collaboration with the
K–12 teacher with whom they are paired, a curriculum that is rigorous
yet appropriate for a target audience that can range from the kindergarten to
the advanced placement (AP) level. Teachers, in turn, apply to the program to
be paired with a GSSOP student in the hopes of establishing a fruitful
partnership that will lead to the enhancement of the curriculum. The graduate
students are also expected to document their work for publication on the GSSOP
Web site so that their course concepts will be available to all interested
teachers who may not have had the opportunity to be paired with a graduate
student as a result of the limited resources of the program.
I entered the GSSOP program as a first-year Ph.D. student in genetics who
was looking for a teaching experience that would provide me with both the
freedom to make my own intellectual contributions to the curriculum and the
collaboration and feedback necessary for me to improve my classroom presence
and teaching abilities. I have since offered a course in basic genetics in
each of the past 5 years. The course has evolved significantly over that time
in response to progress in genetic and cell biology research as well as the
grade level to which the course has been taught. Each experience was a unique
product of extensive collaboration between myself and the K–12 teacher
with whom I was paired.
With GSSOP, I entered into an equal partnership with a K–12 teacher
who understood much better than I did how to work with a group of students in
a coherent and effective manner. The teacher was excited to have access to
Cornell's resources and I was excited to have the opportunity to present a
curriculum that I designed according to the educational goals of the teacher.
In each instance, I benefited immensely from the unique mentoring I received
from each of the K–12 teachers with whom I worked. It allowed me to
assimilate the teaching ideas from multiple mentors into my own teaching
philosophy and style. These partnerships were indeed effective: The teachers
were able to incorporate the innovations I presented into their curriculum,
while I learned more about classroom management than I thought was possible
within eight classroom visits. Most important to my work in GSSOP, however,
has been the satisfaction I have felt from seeing the spark of excitement
about biology in the face of a student. Whether it is from observing DNA
firsthand after an extraction protocol, participating in a gel electrophoresis
exercise, or working with crossing fruit flies, the look of excitement and
intrigue is unmistakable and reminds me that the work that partnerships such
as the GSSOP do is indeed vital for engendering excitement about biology among
K–12 students.
Another unique opportunity for teaching is available here at Sciencenter
(http://www.sciencenter.org),
Ithaca, New York's children's science museum. The museum recently completed an
expansion that tripled its exhibit space and produces an outstanding range of
exhibits and programs for a relatively small community. I came to Sciencenter
in 2000 as a volunteer and found an amazing and unexpected teaching
opportunity. It is a fundamental teaching rule that if one expects a group to
understand a basic concept or idea, it should be able to be broken down in a
way that children will understand as well. Sciencenter has provided me the
opportunity to participate in countless science demonstrations on the exhibit
floor as well as to develop my own sessions for their Saturday Showtime
series, in which local experts deliver presentations on their area of
expertise. This experience provides me with a great challenge: How should I
approach the presentation of compelling science concepts to a casual audience
of young children? The museum is founded on the principle of a hands-on
educational experience, and the presentations I have developed on DNA, cell
biology, and genetics seek to embrace this philosophy. By having the children
at my presentations assemble giant models of cells or DNA, observe their own
cells under the microscope, or extract DNA from raw wheat germ, they can
appreciate firsthand the excitement that can be found in science that extends
much farther than what can be found in textbooks.
|
SUMMER TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES ON AND OFF CAMPUS
|
|---|
Opportunities for further teaching experience are also available through
summer experiences. Most major research universities have a summer school that
requires teaching assistants in a variety of subjects. In addition,
institutions such as Duke
(http://www.tip.duke.edu)
and Johns Hopkins
(http://www.jhu.edu/cty)
offer summer programs for gifted middle- and high-school students that require
motivated instructors in the biological sciences among other disciplines. I
recently completed teaching a 3-week summer course in genetics as a part of
the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY) program, an endeavor that
proved to be my most challenging teaching effort to date. In this program, I
was responsible for designing the curriculum and laboratories, choosing the
textbooks, and ordering the relevant supplies for the course. For the 3-week
session, I saw one group of students for morning, afternoon, and evening
sessions. This experience provided me with the challenge of producing an
extensive and rigorous curriculum for a talented group of individuals,
devising innovative means of student assessment and learning modes, and
devising a classroom community that was inclusive, compelling, and able to
recognize the differences in learning styles between students. In effect, this
was my first long-term independent class, and though it was an intense
experience, it has prepared me like no other teaching opportunity I have found
for a future career in the classroom.
|
CHALLENGES FACING THE PROSPECTIVE TEACHER IN A DOCTORAL PROGRAM
|
|---|
I have described a myriad of teaching opportunities that I have discovered
in my time as a graduate student both inside and outside my program. The goal
of these experiences has been, of course, to improve my independent teaching
skills, innovation, and curriculum development and to fill in the gaps that I
felt existed in my education as a teacher. It is important, however, to remind
myself from time to time that while I build my teaching portfolio, my research
portfolio must grow as well. The establishment of an appropriate balance of
time between teaching and research is challenging, since every minute spent
preparing for or teaching a class is a minute in which my research lies
stagnant and my graduation time is potentially delayed. The maintenance of
such a balance requires the development of a strong sense of time management,
with long-term experimental planning necessary to ensure that my research
continues to move forward during periods when I am frequently in the
classroom. Another critical consideration is the relationship between student
and adviser. When I selected a laboratory for my dissertation research, one of
the central considerations for me was to be able to work under an adviser
sympathetic to my teaching endeavors and tolerant of my taking the time to
pursue them.
In a sense, my teaching endeavors have allowed me to consider the dilemma
faced by many professors at small liberal arts colleges: How can one
simultaneously be an inspiring teacher and a successful research scientist?
How may teaching and research be best balanced in a career? In my experience
both as a graduate of a liberal arts college and as a researcher/teacher in a
doctoral program, it seems that the best model is to strive to integrate the
two as closely as possible. What better way to introduce students to the idea
of biology as a science of inquiry than by integrating the concepts of
research into the laboratory component of the classroom? By not simply
lecturing but by assigning projects that allow students or groups of students
to arrive at their own conclusions based on research and current literature?
By encouraging a journal club setting where original research can be presented
in the classroom? In my hopeful future career, I will strive to bring the
fundamentals of teaching and research together, to present my future students
with coursework in which research is a cornerstone to effective learning and
educational innovation.
The system of American doctoral training in the biological sciences is
fundamentally sound. It merely needs to adapt to the changing face of the
Ph.D. job market and mold itself into a model that is better able to advise
its students on the wide range of opportunities available after graduation and
to provide them with the resources necessary for the attainment of these
goals. With this acceptance, I am certain that future Ph.D. candidates will
have the greater freedom necessary to explore all their career options in the
rapidly expanding and exciting realm of career opportunities for Ph.D.
biologists.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
I am grateful to my research adviser, Dr. Tim C. Huffaker, who has
recognized my teaching interests and given me extraordinary freedom to pursue
them. I am also indebted to all the GSSOP K–12 teachers I have worked
with, especially Ms. Nancy Ridenour, Ithaca High School (NY), who have taught
me the fundamentals of being a successful teacher.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Monitoring Editor: Kimberly Tanner
Corresponding author. E-mail address:
mw78{at}cornell.edu.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Amidon, G.L. (1998). Abundance of Ph.D.'s? Consider
pharmaceutical sciences. The Scientist
12 (23 Nov.).Benjamin, E. (1997). Some implications of tenure for the profession
and society. In: Casual in Blue: Yale and the Academic Labor Market.
http://www.yaleunions.org/geso/pubs/cb/casual.htm
(accessed 19 May 2003).
Bonnen, J.T. (1998). The land grant idea and the
evolving outreach university, In: University-Community Collaborations
for the Twenty-First Century: Outreach to Scholarship for Youth and
Families, eds. R.M. Lerner and L.A.K. Simon, New York: Garland,25
–70.
Horn, M. (1999). A practical turn in Ph.D.s.
U.S. News and World Report, 29 March
114 (29 Mar.).
Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A. (1991).Science for All Americans
. Cambridge: Oxford University
Press.
Smaglik, P., and Russo, E. (1998). NRC report: Cap
life sciences graduate student enrollment. The Scientist
12 (28 Sept.).
Wadman, M. (1998). Job crisis sparks call for freeze
in number of Ph.D. students in U.S. Nature
395, 103.[Medline]
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
