Tomorrow's Professor Listserve # 9

81 Student Evaluations: Gender Bias and Teaching Styles

82 Reactions to Posting on Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Faculty

83 Linking Teaching and Research

84 Faculty Videotaping For Self-Evaluation

85 Minimizing Mental Lapses During A Lecture

86 Suggestions for Teaching With Excellence

87 Must (Can) All Faculty Teach and Do Research?

88 The Life-Cycle of A Technology

89 Women Faculty Model New Values for Research Universities

90 The Three Revolutions in Higher Education — What do they Have in Common?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #81 STUDENT EVALUATIONS: GENDER BIAS AND TEACHING STYLES

Folks:

The following excerpt is from an excellent book, Career Strategies for Women in Academe: Arming Athena, Lynn H. Collings, Joan C. Chrisler, Kathryn Quina, editors, Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, California 91320, pp 151-152. The authors discuss fac tors impacting student evaluations of faculty performance and steps women faculty in particular can take to ameliorate negative biases.

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Matching Your Characteristics to The Institution

------------------ 760 words ------------------

STUDENT EVALUATIONS: GENDER BIAS AND TEACHING STYLES

Lynn H. Collings

Joan C. Chrisler

Kathryn Quina

Many of the factors that contribute to negative ratings of women faculty appear to be beyond our control. Certainly students come to college with gender-role expectations that are difficult to modify. Society as a whole needs changing. But the women fa culty member can do several things to arm herself against unfairly negative student evaluations. Some of these suggestions (esp. #1 and #2 below) may not fit an individual woman's personality or ideology. Indeed, it's not fair that women professors have to be concerned about gender-stereotyped expectations. However, because those expectations do exist, it might be helpful for those who want to build an academic career to know how to try to get around them.

(1) Educate others about the ways gender can affect student evaluations. If done early enough, especially with students and supervisors, such material is less likely to be seen as defensive. Many are able to learn of and overcome their own biases if th ey are made aware of them.

(2) Women faculty must signal that they are competent and knowledgeable. For example, you might talk about your qualifications on the first day of class-anything associated with status, knowledge, competence, and connections.

(a) Dressing in a professional way appears more important for women faculty than for men. A woman professor who dresses informally (e.g. jeans) may seem more approachable, but she does not get high ratings for respect or knowledge (Lukavsky, Butler, an d Harden, 1995).

(b) Women faculty also may gain respect by using their title (Dr. or Professor) and last names, rather than their first names. Because women are frequently thought of as possessions in the domestic sphere, using professional titles may help students br eak the gender stereotype set.

(3) Women faculty must appear nurturant and expressive, but not too much so. These traits must go along with competent behaviors or else the woman risks being seen as the "mother" and similarly devalued. For example, along with telling students your qu alifications on the first day of class, you might also want to inform them of your willingness to help students and some ways in which you do so ; for example review sessions, help with papers.

(a) Smiling and eye contact appear to be particularly important for women faculty, especially with male students (Kierstead et al., 1988; Martin, 1984). These signs may make a competent woman less threatening.

(b) It is also important to be accessible to students (e.g., post and keep= regular office hours). Do not, however, be endlessly available to your students. You will not get any other work done, and you will not be particularly appreciated or rewarded with high evaluations (Bernstein, Sumner, et al., 1995).

(4) Teach female students. Female students tend to give higher ratings than male students overall, especially to female professors.

(5) Avoid too much lecturing Women who use the lecture format are rated lower than men who do so. Encouraging active participation by students is a good predictor of student evaluations, especially for women professors (Bernstein, Blaisdell, et al.,199 5).

(6) Try to get your institution to adopt standardized and objective assessment instruments, especially those that tap different teaching factors. Beware of forms that emphasize only some aspects of teaching, or that only ask vague general questions.

(7) If your institution doesn't have a good evaluation form, you might be able to substitute or supplement with your own. Try to get students to focus on behaviorally based questions that relate to your course objectives rather than on vague, subjectiv e ones.

(8) Before handing out evaluations, review the course objectives and ask students to consider what they've learned during the term. This may help to focus students on your effectiveness as a professor rather than on your personality.

(9) Ask peers to observe your classes and evaluate your teaching using behavioral rating forms. Although peers may be as vulnerable to bias as students, they may also provide a different, more objective view.

(10) Document the student learning in your classes using a portfolio approach. If you teach one section of a multisection course, that has a common final exam, document how well your students did relative to those in other sections. Include your grade distributions in your personal file because women faculty may be penalized more

than a male faculty for being tough graders.

If you think the variables discussed in this chapter have affected your students ratings, include some of the research cited here in your personnel file or tenure packet. Encourage your Chair to read some of relevant literature before writing the reco mmendation to the tenure and promotion committee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #82 REACTIONS TO POSTING ON GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF FACULTY

NOTE: Because of my travel schedule and the end of quarter break this will be the last posting for 1998. Postings will begin again at the usual rate of two per week during the first week in January. Best holiday wishes to all of you.

Folks:

Msg. # 81, Student Evaluations: Gender Bias and Teaching Styles, generated numerous comments and exchanges, some of which are posted below. The author of the article from which the excerpt was taken is Susan A. Basow, the Charles A Dana Professor and Head of Psychology at Lafayette College in Easton, PA. "She has written a well-known textbook that is now in its third edition, Gender: Stereotypes and Roles, and is particularly interested in how gender affect our appraisals of self and others. She has published numerous articles on gender issues in student evaluations, as well as on attitudes toward women’s bodies. She served for seven years as Coordinator of the women’s studies program at Lafayette College, a program she helped found."

On request I will be happy to send you a hard copy of the full article.

Regards,

Rick Reis

--------------------------- 681 WORDS ----------------------------

REACTIONS TO POSTING ON GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF FACULTY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the background of the women editing this book? My personal perspective on many of the recommendations is that I tend to NOT agree with them, and/or the comments are not consistent with my own experiences. I wonder if these women have technica l (engineering) backgrounds and any practical professional experience. Don't know if you can tell from the book (if you have it), but I'm just curious.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aw fer cryin out loud! By following these rules/guidelines, don't we just perpetuate the whole problem? ("Make eye contact with male students....")

The whole thing sounds like a "how to" dating list! (Don't lecture too much, be available but not TOO available, smile.....don't tell him you're majoring in something "hard" like chemistry,)

There was a wonderful editorial in a recent woman's magazine (!) about how the best teachers aren't the most popular but these were the teachers that taught them to think, look, etc. (well duh!). These "evaluations" should be replaced by dept heads/ch airs/deans observing classes. Students should evaluate the text for readability, problems, comments on instructor's availability, room accommodations, what was helpful, what was not helpful, etc. Alternatively, I think that students should be required t o sign their name on a tear-away part of the form. Those evaluations without signatures would not be counted. I have large lecture classes and often the evaluations are not taken seriously or used as a platform for rude remarks (like chemistry sucks!). There is a wonderful correlation in my classes, the better the grade the student is getting the better the evaluation.

Many students do take the evaluations seriously but it's the crackpots that ruin ones week.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brava (X)! I was thinking exactly the same thing. We are essentially being told that if there is a gender bias in evaluations it is up to us to fix it, rather than having this bias taken into consideration when a persons' promotion, tenure or retention is at stake.

If you have to start out ESTABLISHING that you belong in front of the classroom, you are already quite a few steps behind. If after the bottom line is that your appearence, behavior and demeanor must be pleasing to a room full of 18-25 year old men --r egardless of your real competence that is truly insulting.

I know one young female instructor after trying her damnedest to really do a superb job in a class of 80 students (72 of whom were male) get the following comment on a teaching evaluation. "Prof. X really needs to make herself uglier. I am so overcome with desire that I cannot learn from her." Come on! If someone, male or female, said to a student "please don't sit in the front row. I find you so sexy that it distracts me from my teaching," it is my opinion that this instructor would be properly disci plined.

I understand the need for confidentiality in regard to students being able to speak freely without fear of retaliation, but there should also be some accountability to what they right. Just as instructors are held responsible for the manner in which th ey evaluate their students.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, those guidelines bugged me, too. I wonder how they were determined? I can see the point in some, and they certainly made me think about what I do when I teach. But I also feel just being yourself, and teaching in the style that feels natural t o you would be better.

But I also do know that female teachers are judged differently, and more harshly, than male teachers. Either way I'm not exactly looking forward to my first teaching evaluations.

One thing I'd like to ask the group, has anyone ever tried videotaping themselves giving a lecture or a seminar? I've considered it because I think it would really help me critique my own presentations and improve my technique. But I'm also mortified a t the thought of it! I'm not sure I want to see it. And I'm afraid that knowing that I was being taped would affect what I did.

Has anyone out there done this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's Professor Msg.#83 - LINKING TEACHING AND RESEARCH

Tomorrow's Professor Listserve

http://cis.stanford.edu/structure/tomprof/listserver.html

is a product of the Stanford University Learning Laboratory

http://sll.stanford.edu/

Folks:

Happy New Year to everyone! In 1997 a Brigham Young University faculty focus group issued a "Teacher- Scholar Report," dealing with, among other things, the linking of faculty teaching and research. Their goal was to go beyond studies that, "focused on either understanding the characteristics, values, and motivators of highly productive faculty or how effective faculty balance their activities in either teaching or research." The goal

of their study was, "to explore the particular strategies employed by faculty members to enable them to be successful in both teaching and scholarship." Below is an excerpt from their report, the complete version of which can be found at: http://www.b yu.edu/tmcbucs/fc/tsreport.htm#teachingresearch

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Faculty Videotaping for Self-Evaluation

----------------------- 824 words -----------------------

LINKING TEACHING AND RESEARCH

As other studies of effective teacher-scholars have shown, we found that these faculty members perceived teaching and research as complementary —not competing- interests. They often found creative ways of integrating ideas from one arena (e.g., te aching) into the other (e.g., research). Furthermore, these faculty members looked for opportunities to build a nexus in teaching and research, often including students in the process. Strategies for optimizing efforts in both areas include the following:

TEACHING INFORMS RESEARCH

*Teachers who find it difficult to bring their research into the classroom will sometimes begin a line of research based on topics of discussion in the courses they teach. One professor shared the following example: "I started doing various little expe riments with my students to make sure that somehow my teaching and research weren't totally disconnected, because otherwise I just didn't feel whole. " Getting students to help ask questions and review early research ideas can help to better focus a resea rch agenda.

*Connecting research with course topics apparently offers the benefit of improving one's under- standing and mastery of difficult concepts. In this way, deliberate synergies can be created between one's research and the courses being taught.

RESEARCH INFORMS TEACHING

*Several faculty members try to teach courses which are in some way related to their course of research. The closer the class assignments are to their research interests, the more their research impacts teaching and vice versa: "The more you can use yo ur own research to explain concepts and trends in your courses, the less time you will have to spend preparing

lecture notes. I usually try each semester to take something that I'm doing in research and use that area in my teaching to really improve my teaching. If I feel like some chapter or some part of the content is weak, I develop a research focus in that area and bring the information learned over to the really increase both my research knowledge of that topic and my ability to present that to the students. "

*These teacher-scholars assign readings that are relevant to their research interests. Classroom discussions then become opportunities to receive feedback on their interpretation of the material. "Another benefit is that because the material is new, yo u are able to maintain a freshness and excitement that energizes the students."

AVOIDING THE VIEW OF TEACHING AND RESEARCH AS UNRELATED ACTIVITIES

*For many, teaching and research is an extension of the same activity, namely curiosity and creativity. "It seems as if both teaching and research are expressions of intellectual curiosity . . . I like to work with new and fresh ideas and test these wi th students. " By conceptualizing research and teaching as extensions of the same activity, faculty can avoid the tendency to try to manage tradeoffs.

*Exciting teaching experiences might lead to further research just as compelling research can be introduced into the classroom. "I get so excited about my research that I want to go out and teach it and share it with others. I've never felt compartment alized or that I needed to divide my time 1/3 for teaching and 2/3 for research." One faculty member said, "I believe that over the long run, if you're not an active researcher, and if you're not generating new ideas, you're eventually going to burn out i n your ability to do anything more than be an entertainer to students in the classroom."

*By integrating the two activities, these faculty members provoke interesting discussions which enhances classroom lectures. When research is integrated into the classroom, feedback on ideas and presentations can be obtained from the students.

EMPHASIZING AREAS THAT CORRESPOND TO A CAREER STAGE

*There are a lot of things valued at a university, but at different points in a faculty career. As junior faculty members, these teacher-scholars tried to keep in mind what the priorities were at that point in their career. Their view was, "doing the w rong things well can be worse than doing the right things poorly."

*Faculty members sometimes want to do too much when it comes to research. Several suggested starting modestly to get into the field with something that would be manageable. Later on, they would take on a couple of bigger projects. One professor comment ed, "Once I became full professor, I immediately launched into a very large project, which has now taken me four years. I'm still not finished, and it's an important project, one that I'm really proud of, but I think if I had done that at the beginning of my career, I wouldn't be here. What I did my first few years is every time I thought of the twenty things I could do, I chose the one where I could get the data in a fairly simple way, that would tell me something important, and I could write it up withi n a few months. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #84 FACULTY VIDEOTAPING FOR SELF-EVALUATION

Folks:

Below are two messages supporting the use of faculty videotaping for self-evaluation. The first posting is from Professor Timothy Law Snyder, dean of Science and the Wright Family Distinguished Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University. The second message is from Kris A. Kilbanda of Drake University. I suspect that with the increase in on-line and distance education formats, more of us will experience this phenomenon, but if you haven't yet done so, it is well worth the effort. As Snyde r

notes, "Our students see us (and they pay for it!)---why shouldn't we?"

Rick Reis

reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Minimizing Mental Lapses During a Lecture

--------------- 538 words--------------

FACULTY VIDEOTAPING FOR SELF-EVALUATION

----------------------

Timothy Law Snyder, Georgetown University

I think it is a fantastic idea to tape one's self in the classroom. As you note, one must prepare for a brutal vision, but, oh, does it ever help.

The first thing you notice is that your voice is "not me." We are used to this on audio tape, but it seems to be even odder on video. That strangeness melds with the way we look: not good. My guess is, we are used to seeing ourselves through a mirro r (1) straight on; (2) making our best face; and (3) "backwards" (left and right are switched). All this changes

on video, so the person we are watching looks less like us, and I do mean "less" here, in an evaluative way.

But that's also a key to using the tape: You can watch it as if it were another person, somebody from whom you are learning. You will notice important things: The person is looking only to the right side of the room. The person is allowing two individ uals (usually men) "run" the classroom discussion. The person is not modulating pitch, volume, or pace of speech, becoming boring in Minute 5. The person is remaining in one place in the

room. (I'm the person is running about the room, frantically.) The person is in the way of presentation materials. The person is looking frequently at the ceiling, or out the window. The person has a habit of placing their hand against the side o f their nose when contemplating...

Just a simple notice of some of these items gives you a huge start in becoming better. And I've seen the improvement happen, even without the instructor consciously attempting to remedy the observed "ills." Furthermore, one will notice a lot of good i tems, as well, strategies and behaviors that can be amplified to become yet better.

There is nothing to fear here. Our students see us (and they pay for it!)---why shouldn't we?

------------------------

Kris A. Kilibarda, Drake University

In response to the question about videotaping. Yes, I have done a lot of taping of myself and of colleagues. It is a wonderful way to evaluate your style of lecture and presentation. A couple of points to consider:

*Don't tape just one time - you will want to have the camcorder in several places around the room so you see not only yourself lecturing but also the expressions and behaviors of the students. Also the first time you tape the students will be intimidat ed and may not ask their normal questions for fear of looking "stupid" on tape.

* Make sure you tell the students this is for your own use only - in this day of litigation you don't want any of them to think you will be publishing their picture or remarks without their permission.

* Be aware that the first time you watch the tape you will be distracted by how "bad" your voice sounds and how "funny" you look. Note mannerisms you might have that are distracting to students. However watch the tape several times before you are too h ard on yourself.

Anyway I hope this doesn't sound too preachy, if you couldn't tell I think videotaping is terrific.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #85 MINIMIZING MENTAL LAPSES DURING A LECTURE

Folks:  

The following excerpt provides some valuable insights on how to minimize student mental lapses during a lecture.  It is from an excellent book, Mentor in a Manual, Climbing the Academic Ladder to Tenure, Madison, WI, Magna Publications, Inc., 1994 , pp.173-174, by A. Clay Schoenfeld and Robert Magnan.

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Suggestions for Teaching With Excellence

-------------- 439 words ----------------

MINIMIZING MENTAL LAPSES DURING A LECTURE

Most instructors are aware that students don’t always follow every single word; in fact, they may get lost for considerable lengths of time.  Students may experience four kinds of mental lapses during a lecture, according to Mary Budd Rowe, a chemistry professor [1]:

SHORT-TERM MEMORY OVERLOADS.  If new ideas come too fast, short-term memory- the mental buffer zone for temporary information storage — may overflow. Researchers estimate it takes between five and 10 seconds to transfer  information from short-term to long-term memory.

MOMENTARY MISUNDERSTANDINGS.  If a student doesn’t immediately grasp an idea, confusion results.  The student must make sense of the new idea, ift it into what he or she already knows and understands, or it can’t move into long-term memory.

TRANSLATION TROUBLES.  When instructors use terms other than those used in the text or previous lectures, students may have difficulty making the necessary translation.  They may struggle to integrate familiar and unfamiliar terms, to determi ne what they mean.

SIDETRACKS.  Something is said that leads the student into another train of thought, distracting him or her from the lecture.

Rowe recommends a two-minute pause every eight to 12 minutes, to let students review their notes with each other, fill in missing material, clarify unclear concepts, and briefly discuss what they’re learning.  Short breaks not only lessen the damage of mental lapses, she says, but they also seem to help prevent them.

Three other strategies are helpful in minimizing mental lapses.  Keep your terminology as consistent as possible.  If you need to introduce new terms, put them on the board, an overhead, or a handout, and define them.  When presenting a new idea, moving to another phase, or changing direction, try to make contextual connections: "Now, in the case of XYZ — which, as you recall, is a variant form of ABC sued for…"

Finally, a brief comment by Page Smith [2]:

"I must confess that my own attitude toward lecturing was deeply influenced by my experience in teaching Dante’s "Divine Comedy" in a seminar.  When I suggested to my students that they devise some modern hells for professors-who-neglected-th eir-students.  They proposed that the professors be required to listen to lectures for all eternity.  The only point of dispute between them was whether it wold be worse torment for professors to have to listen to their own lectures or to those of an especially dull colleague.  I have never been able to feel the same way about lecturing since."

---------------

[1] Mary Budd Rowe, "Getting Chemistry Off the Killer Course List," Journal of Chemical Education Nov. 1983: 954-956.

[2] Page Smith, Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America (New York: Viking, 1990) 214.

Tomorrow's Professor. #86 SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING WITH EXCELENCE

Folks:

Below is an excerpt from a terrific Web site posting, "A Berkeley

Compendium of Suggestions for Teaching with Excellence,"

[http://uga.berkeley.edu/sled/compendium/]. The site is a collection of

suggestions gathered from 150 faculty members from the University of

California, Berkeley and is produced by Barbara Gross Davis, Lynn Wood, and

Robert C. Wilson.

I present below the cover page listing the complete list of topics,

followed by two examples from Section Two: "Discussing Recent Developments."

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Teaching and Research - Is There Really a Connection?

--------------------- 705 words ------------------

(Copyright 1983 by the Regents of the University of California)

by

Barbara Gross Davis

Lynn Wood

Robert C. Wilson

1. Acknowledgments

2. How to Use the Compendium

3. Organization of the Suggestions

4. Source of the Suggestions

5. Suggestions for Teaching Excellence (Complete list)

Section One: Discussing Points of View Other Than Your Own

Section Two: Discussing Recent Developments

Section Three: Giving References

Section Four: Emphasizing Conceptual Understanding

Section Five: Explaining Clearly

Section Six: Being Well Prepared

Section Seven: Giving Lectures That Are Easy to Outline

Section Eight: Summarizing Major Points

Section Nine: Identifying What You Consider Important

Section Ten: Encouraging Class Discussion

Section Eleven: Inviting Students to Share their Knowledge and Experiences

Section Twelve: Inviting Criticism of Your Own Ideas

Section Thirteen: Knowing If the Class Is Understanding You

Section Fourteen: Having Students Apply Concepts

Section Fifteen: Giving Personal Help to Students

Section Sixteen: Relating to Students

Section Seventeen: Being Accessible Outside of Class

Section Eighteen: Having an Interesting Presentation Style

Section Nineteen: Varying Speed and Tone of Voice

Section Twenty: Motivating Students' Best Work

Section Twenty-one: Giving Interesting Assignments

Section Twenty-two: Giving Exams Demonstrating Student Understanding

Section Twenty-three: Keeping Students Informed of Their Progress

Section Twenty-four: Making the Most Effective Use of Teaching Assistants

Section Twenty-five: Developing an Impressive Introductory Large Lecture

Course

Appendix A: Student Description of Teaching (Questionnaire)

Appendix B: Faculty Self-Description of Teaching (Questionnaire)

Index

------------------------

SECTION TWO: DISCUSSING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

1. Telephone colleagues conducting state-of-the-art research (Number 7)

2. Require students to read current journal articles (Number 8)

3. Require students to read current newspapers or periodicals (Number 9)

4. Share your professional "junk mail" with your students (Number 10)

5. Let your students know about relevant events and resources (Number 11)

Suggestion 7. Telephone colleagues conducting state-of-the-art research

IF YOU WANT TO:

* Discuss recent developments in the field

* Convey a sense of the open-ended nature of research

YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER:

Telephoning colleagues who are conducting state-of-the-art research on key

course topics to get the latest information.

For example, before giving her lecture on the heart, a physiology professor calls researchers at Stanford and UCSF to get the most recent statistics and findings on heart transplants. Similarly, a law professor directly contacts attorneys involved in i mportant cases pending or under adjudication, making her lectures even more up-to-date than the Advance Sheets which give the first printed results of court decisions.

A professor in geography routinely calls his contacts in Washington to get the latest information on environmental legislation which he incorporates into his lectures.

This type of up-to-the-minute reporting on a few major developments relevant to the course content can help you convey a sense of the excitement of research to students. Limitations on Use of Suggestion

Discipline: Subjects with recent developments

Course Level: None

Course Size: None

Mode: None

Suggestion 8. Require students to read current journal articles

IF YOU WANT TO:

* Discuss recent developments in the field

* Help students to understand technical or professional literature

YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER:

Requiring students to read current journal articles.

"It's important for students to be exposed to state-of-the-art ideas and materials even in a lower division course," says one political science professor. "I try to make sure that the reading list contains at least a few recent publications or journal articles, even in the introductory course."

"Actually, in some ways it is easier to introduce recent developments in the field to lower division students than to graduate students," according to a faculty member in the biological sciences. "I do this by over-generalizing. Usually this involves translating the abstract of a journal article in terms a layman can understand and presenting the basic findings or conclusions in a narrative fashion, using little or no actual data."

"I want students to become excited by the open-ended nature of science. I want them to understand that almost nothing that they are learning is the final word, that there is still much that we don't know. Even the best textbook cannot convey that; you have to do it with supplemental materials."

Limitations on Use of Suggestion:

Discipline: Subjects with recent developments

Course Level: None

Course Size: None

Mode: None

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #87 MUST (CAN) ALL FACULTY TEACH AND DO RESEARCH?

Folks:

Here is a thoughtful commentary from Professor Richard Felder (North Carolina State University) in response to posting Msg.#83: Linking Teaching and Research (1/2/99). I believe this issue is central to the future of the professorate and needs much fu rther discussion. You comments, even informal, are most welcome.

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: The Life Cycle of a Technology

----------------- 629 ----------------

MUST (CAN) ALL FACULTY TEACH AND DO RESEARCH?

Just a quick reaction to the message you sent out on January 2 arguing for the inextricable link between teaching and research. Statements like this appear in print all the time. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them--certainly research and t eaching can complement each other, and bringing research into the classroom when appropriate is a fine idea.

The problem is that the authors of the message are tilting against an enemy that doesn't exist, namely, people who argue that teaching and research are always in conflict. I don't think I ever met anyone who believes that teaching and research can't p ossibly be complementary, and so arguing persuasively that the possibility exists serves little purpose. The real issue is whether research and teaching MUST be done by all faculty members--that you cannot be a good teacher unless you're also a good resea rcher. This illogical axiom is the basis of the faculty incentive and reward system at most universities with research programs. It's inimical to the cause of good education. It's responsible for those stories we constantly read about people winning uni versity outstanding teacher awards and then being denied tenure because their research is judged inadequate.

I wrote a paper several years ago called "The Myth of the Superhuman Professor." In it, I acknowledge the potential synergism of teaching and research, but offer several observations drawn from a variety of published studies:

1. The attributes that make for a successful researcher and those that make for a successful teacher are not the same, and some are contradictory

2. First-class teaching and first-class research are each full-time jobs, and there are just so many hours in the day. Generally speaking, time spent on one activity is time taken away from the other. Some faculty members (the "superhuman professors" ) manage to excel in both domains, but there aren't enough of them to populate all our faculties. (The myth is that there are.) In consequence, most faculty members must compromise, doing whatever it takes to be outstanding at either teaching or research and to be adequate at the other.

3. Given the relatively low ranking of teaching in the incentive and reward structure at most universities, there is little choice about which activity to compromise on. We therefore get a lot of inadequate teaching, much of it by people who could do much better and would like to, but who feel that they just can't afford the time.

4. A number of published studies correlate research performance as measured by numbers of papers and grants and teaching performance as measured by student evaluations. (While both of those metrics leave a lot to be desired, they are the ones we gener ally use to evaluate faculty members.) The studies show that the supposed inextricable link between excellence in teaching and excellence in research doesn't exist--the correlations are negligible or very weakly positive. Moreover, if you look only at pr ofessors with a truly outstanding record of research scholarship-being first authors of books and monographs, for example--the correlation between research performance and teaching performance is negative. Again, there are only so many hours in the day.< /P>

I wish, therefore, that the defenders of the teaching/research linkage (I'm not particularly singling out the BYU people here) would practice what they preach and check out the literature--including Boyer's "Scholarship Reconsidered" and "Scholarship A ssessed"--before issuing declarations. Talking about how the two functions can complement each other is fine, as long as you don't hide the fact that there is another deeply troublesome side of the story.

Rich Felder

P.S. Anyone interested in looking at the "Myth" paper can find it on my Web site. Go to < http://www2.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/ >, click the link to "Education-related papers," and then click on "The Myth of the Superhuman Professor."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #88 THE LIFE CYCLE OF A TECHNOLOGY

Folks:

Below is an interesting excerpt on the life cycle of a technology taken from a fascinating new book , The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, by Ray Kurzweil, Viking Press, 1999. The comment should be of interest to al l academics. Note in particular the case of the "phonograph record, cassette tape, and CD sequence." More information on the book cam be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kurzweil-machines.html

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Women Faculty Model New Values for Research Universities

----------------------- 743 words -----------------------

THE LIFE CYCLE OF A TECHNOLOGY

From Chapter 1 - The Law Of Time And Chaos: A (Very Brief) History of the Universe:Time Slowing Down by Ray Kurzweil,

Technologies fight for survival, evolve, and undergo their own characteristic life cycle. We can identify seven distinct stages. During the precursor stage, the prerequisites of a technology exist, and dreamers may contemplate these elements coming tog ether. We do not, however, regard dreaming to be the same as inventing, even if the dreams are written down. Leonardo da Vinci drew convincing pictures of airplanes and automobiles, but he is not considered to have invented either.

The next stage, one highly celebrated in our culture, is invention, a very brief stage, not dissimilar in some respects to the process of birth after an extended period of labor. Here the inventor blends curiosity, scientific skills, determination, an d usually a measure of showmanship to combine methods in a new way to bring a new technology to life.

The next stage is development, during which the invention is protected and supported by doting guardians (which may include the original inventor). Often this stage is more crucial than invention and may involve additional creation that can have greate r significance than the original invention. Many tinkerers had constructed finely hand-tuned horseless carriages, but it was Henry Ford's innovation of mass production that enabled the automobile to take root and flourish.

The fourth stage is maturity. Although continuing to evolve, the technology now has a life of its own and has become an independent and established part of the community. It may become so interwoven in the fabric of life that it appears to many observe rs that it will last forever. This creates an interesting drama when the next stage arrives, which I call the stage of the pretenders. Here an upstart threatens to eclipse the older technology. Its enthusiasts prematurely predict victory. While providing some distinct benefits, the newer technology is found on reflection to be missing some key element of functionality or quality. When it indeed fails to dislodge the established order, the technology conservatives take this as evidence that the original a pproach will indeed live forever.

This is usually a short-lived victory for the aging technology. Shortly thereafter another new technology typically does succeed in rendering the original technology into the stage of obsolescence. In this part of the life cycle, the technology lives out its senior years in gradual decline, its original purpose and functionality now subsumed by a more spry competitor. This stage, which may comprise 5 to 10 percent of the life cycle, finally yields to antiquity (examples today: the horse and buggy, the harpsichord, the manual typewriter, and the electromechanical calculator).

To illustrate this, consider the phonograph record. In the mid-nineteenth century, there were several precursors, including Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville's phonautograph, a device that recorded sound vibrations as a printed pattern. It was Thomas Edison, however, who in 1877 brought all of the elements together and invented the first device that could record and reproduce sound. Further refinements were necessary for the phonograph to become commercially viable. It became a fully m ature technology in 1948

when Columbia introduced the 33 revolutions-per-minute (rpm) long-playing record (LP) and RCA Victor introduced the 45-rpm small disc. The pretender was the cassette tape, introduced in the 1960s and popularized during the 1970s. Early enthusiasts pred icted that its small size and ability to be rerecorded would make the relatively bulky and scratchable record obsolete.

Despite these obvious benefits, cassettes lack random access (the ability to play selections in a desired order) and are prone to their own forms of distortion and lack of fidelity. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the digital compact disc (CD) did d eliver the mortal blow. With the CD providing both random access and a level of quality close to the limits of

human auditory system, the phonograph record entered the stage of obsolescence in the first half of the 1990s. Although still produced in small quantities, the technology that Edison gave birth to more than a century ago is now approaching antiquity.< /P>

Another example is the print book, a rather mature technology today. It is now in the stage of the pretenders, with the software-based "virtual" book as the pretender. Lacking the resolution, contrast, lack of flicker, and other visual qualities of pap er and ink, the current generation of virtual book does not have the capability of displacing paper-based publications. Yet this victory of the paper-based book will be short-lived as future generations of computer displays succeed in providing a fully sa tisfactory alternative to paper.

Tomorrow’s Professor Msg. #89 WOMEN FACULTY MODEL NEW VALUES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Folks:

Below is a summary by James Yao at Texas A&M University of an interesting article on women in research universities. The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute can be found at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.html

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: The Three Revolutions in Higher Education - What do They Have in

Common?

------------------------ 419 words ----------------------

Women Faculty Model New Values for Research Universities

Women Faculty Model New Values for Research Universities, Women in Higher Education, January 1999, p. 35 (Referred by Jan Rinehart)

Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, Texas A&M University 1/6/99

Based on "a database of nearly 6,000 female and male faculty across the country," Helen Astin (Associate Director and Professor) and Christine Cress (Research Analyst) of the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute presented a paper at the November 19 98 conference on Women in Research Universities at Harvard University. Their paper will be published in the proceedings. [JTPY note: the actual numbers (e.g., number of female faculty members) is not given in the article.]

"While some institutions such as Portland State University, in Portland, Oregon, have changed their reward and tenure structure to promote humanistic values, most research institutions still affirm "male" values at women's expense. Faculty oriented tow ard prestige and status still earn more and reach tenure faster than those oriented toward students and society." "Salaries above $70,000 go to nearly a quarter of the men but only 6% of the women. By 1996 women made up 47% of the people in the US with do ctorates but only 35% of college and university faculty and just 28% at research universities. ..."

"The same top reasons attracted both women and men to an academic career: intellectual challenge, freedom to pursue interests, intellectual freedom, and autonomy. But lower in the list, gender differences emerged. Women were more influenced by the poss ibility of balanced lives and service to others:

Women Men

Flexible schedule 72% 63%

Teaching opportunities 66% 59%

To influence social change 27% 15%

Women were less interested in self-advancement:

Women Men

Research opportunities 60% 68%

Prestige and status 18% 21%"

"Nearly half the women at research institutions said they'd felt extreme stress in the last two years, compared to barely over a quarter of the men. While time pressures and the demand for research and publication seriously stressed all faculty, some f actors showed a big gender difference. Perhaps most disturbing is the huge gap in the form of subtle discrimination."

"... About the same proportions attach great importance to raising a family.

... 'While some have suggested marriage and family interfere with women's progress, we find this is not the case.' they wrote. Instead, what slows women's progress is the academy's failure to reward their commitment to education and service. To benefit from the best women have to offer, even research universities need to promote teaching and service as well as the more traditional research."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's-Professor Msg. #90 THE THREE REVOLUTIONS IN HIGHER

EDUCATION - WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON?

Folks:

Stephen C. Ehrmann, of Teaching, Learning, and Technology group (http://www.tltgroup.org/) has written a very interesting paper, "Technology in Higher Learning: A Third Revolution," (November 26, 1998) in which, among other things, he compares three re volutions in the history of higher education. The first revolution was the movement from the Socratic small group dialog to reading and writing. The second revolution was the organization of students and scholars around shared facilities, i.e.,

university campuses. The third revolution is one we are now experiencing in the use of computers, video, and telecommunications. Here is an excerpt from the article. Let me know if you want a complete copy of the paper.

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Matching Your Characteristics to The Institution

-------------------------- 729 words -----------------------

THE THREE REVOLUTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION - WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON?

Excerpt from article by Stephen C. Ehrmann, Ph.D.

The most exciting revelation of this inquiry is the striking similarities between the gains and losses associated with the reading-writing revolution, the campus revolution, and the changes we're seeing right now in higher education because of the ways we are using computers, video, and telecommunications. For example, all three revolutions used their

technologies to:

* help more scholars teach and more learners learn than would otherwise have been possible;

* raise questions of literacy and access;

* enable new kinds of scholarship and specialization (both a gain and a loss when the specialization becomes excessive);

* change the relationship of scholars and society. The Ivory Tower can be both good and bad. The revolutions often strengthened but sometimes weakened that distinctive culture;

* create questions about whether you can believe what you're learning (is information completely reliable simply because it's on paper? Because a faculty member says it in a lecture? Because it's on the Web?

* increase the distance between a student and any one mentor. That's one of those shimmering questions, something that's been both good for students (time for reflection, more choices among resources) and not so good;

* create new possibilities and new problems around the interaction of learners with one another;

* make certain resources available in a more consistent fashion (both a gain and a loss);

* change the character of academic conversation, e.g., change its pace, change the role of body language, change who takes part in that conversation…;

* create larger scale forms of learning with efficiency gains and worries about mismatches between learner and learning opportunities;

* unite or divide different types of people (e.g., young with old, young from old);

* change the power balance between town and gown;

* create and threaten jobs for teachers;

* create jobs for a variety of non-teachers and attendant controversy about whether that money was well-spent;

* increase the resources (money, time) that can be drawn to education (i.e., increasing the cost of education to society while sometimes reducing the costs per learner of certain functions).

This is just the beginning of a list of important parallels among the three revolutions. The length of the list is startling because the three revolutions depend on such different technologies:

1. For reading-writing, the technologies of paper, pen, and later printing presses as well as changes in organizations such as the routinized copying of manuscripts and the creation of libraries;

2. For the campus revolution, a huge number of technologies such as lecture halls, chalkboards, dormitories, laboratories, and libraries;

3. For the Third Revolution, key technologies include silicon chips, a globe-spanning network of optical fibers and satellites telephone, fax machines, video cameras, and the agreements about communications and data storage that undergrid the World Wid e Web.

All three revolutions were also characterized by changes in what people do: a variety of changes in roles played by scholars and students, as well as the emergence of new roles and new working processes. For example, as reading became more common, org anized processes for copying manuscripts emerged. With the growth of the university came the invention of administrative roles. Some of these new roles and organizational structures are "inside" education and some, like textbook companies, are outside. Some are specific to education and others, like computer companies, are used by education but are not of education.

The first big question raised by our inquiry is this, "With technologies as different as paper, buildings and silicon chips, why are the consequences of their use so similar?"

Educational research and common sense both answer that question is the same way. The consequences of technology use result from HOW the technologies are used. That's especially true of empowering technologies such as these. Knowing that paper is used in a school tells us nothing about its consequences. If we know it is used for mathematics, or are, or spitballs, then we can talk about consequences. If we know that both computers and paper are used for mathematical calculation, we can guess that the gains and losses will be similar, though not he same.

So answering one question leads to another" "What uses of technology - what means of reorganizing education based on such uses of technology - should define an educational revolution?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:  Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to Tomorrows-Professor Listserver by sending
the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

    subscribe tomorrows-professor
 

To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail message
to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

    unsubscribe tomorrows-professor
 
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------