Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CHAPTER 16 Teaching and Research: Balance as an ~nperative Anne M.K. Vidaver and Arthur Kelman F`ranciZZe M. Firebaugh, First Rapporteur Mort H. Neafoi2Ze, Second Rapporteur A provocateur's objective is to stimulate thought, discussion, and debate. This can be achieved by proposing both conventional and unconventional approaches to the task of balancing teaching and research. Such a balance is desirable at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels. Where Are We Now? Concern for undergraduate education in the United States is much in the news these days. This concern covers the spectrum of educational institutions- from liberal arts colleges to land-grant uni- versities and is increasingly expressed as part of a larger con- tinuum of concern about our entire educational system. Thus, the deficiencies of our educational system have been identified per- haps in the starkest terms by the data indicating how low the test scores of our students are relative to those of students in other industrialized countries. Notwithstanding the recognition that such tests do not necessarily measure many traits that we hold dear, such as creativity, perseverance, and the ability to synthesize ideas, there is general agreement that the nation has a serious problem, especially in the sciences (Moyer, 1990). Students' lack of knowl- edge about the importance and nature of agriculture, forestry, and natural resources is an even greater problem. The search for reso- lutions to these problems was the mission of the conference on which this volume is based, from balancing teaching and research 125
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE to breaking traditions in curriculum design. The conference sought innovative ways to attract students to the areas of agriculture and natural resources and to involve colleges of agriculture in educating an increasingly urbanized citizenry about agriculture. The addition of the term natural resources to agriculture reflects the fact that both managed and natural ecosystems are valid areas of study and re- search in colleges of agriculture, even if they are not always so recognized. Factors That Adversely Affect Emphasis on Teaching Before suggesting some steps that can be taken to enhance the balance between teaching and research, it is important to examine the factors that adversely affect teachers. First, there are many forces at universities that serve to divert faculty from making the commitment that is necessary to motivate students in the learning process. The pressure on faculty to obtain grants from the federal government and private industry has increased in recent years. In part, this reflects the fact that base support at most institutions has been seriously eroded. In most grant programs that are open to research scientists, the competition has intensified as the number of scientists seeking funding has increased. In th e interval be- tween 1977 and 1987 there was a 60 percent increase in the num- ber of research scientists at universities in the United States (Abelson, 1991). Although funding for research increased, it did not keep pace with the increase in scientists and the increases for overhead and the basic costs for supplies and equipment. AS a result, in relation to the number of grant applications received, the percent- age of grants, particularly in the biological sciences, funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Competitive Grants Pro- gram of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has declined. It is currently between 1 S and 20 percent. Of particular concern for young faculty at the start of a tenure- track appointment is the need to obtain an initial grant. Often, at this stage, new faculty are assigned the responsibility for teaching the introductory course in their field. The broad background needed to teach such courses demands a major commitment of time. When tenure is at stake, it is not surprising that the tilt in allocation of time will be toward research and the preparation of grants at the ex- pense of teaching commitments. Although there is a tendency not to acknowledge this impediment to teaching, it is necessary to recognize the fact that the financial and professional rewards for excellence as a teacher are rarely equivalent to the rewards for outstanding contributions in research (sykes, 1988). In 1989, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach 126
TEACHING AND RESEARCH ing completed a survey of faculty at research, doctorate-granting, comprehensive, liberal arts, and 2-year institutions (Moyer' two). The survey presented a number of questions concerned with atti- tudes toward research and teaching assignments. Several of the questions related closely to the subject of balance and the recogni- tion of teaching versus research. The following statements and responses were obtained from faculty at doctorate-granting institu- tions, which would include all the research-oriented land-grant uni- versities with colleges of agriculture: 1. In my department it is difficult for a person to achieve tenure if he or she does not publish. Seventy-one percent strongly agreed and 18 percent agreed with reservations. 2. At my institution publications used for tenure and promotion are counted but not measured quantitatively. Fifty-three percent agreed. 3. At my institution we need better ways besides publications to evaluate the scholarly performance of the faculty. Seventy-seven percent agreed. 4. During the past 2 to 3 years, financial support for work in my discipline has become harder to obtain. Sixty percent agreed. It is apparent from these responses that most faculty believe that research should be their first priority. In a survey of the chief academic officers at doctorate-granting institutions, the question was raised as to whether in the evaluation of faculty performance the balance in teaching, research, and service has shifted. Fifty-six percent of the respondents agreed that there had been a significant shift, with increased emphasis on research at the expense of teaching and service. These surveys provide additional evidence to support the perception that outstanding performance as a teacher is not rewarded to the same degree as an outstanding contribution in research is, notwithstanding the efforts to redress this situation. A second major factor that can affect teaching adversely is the service requirement, including extension-related activities, that can impinge directly on the time available to prepare for teaching courses. Most faculty involved in teaching undergraduates in colleges of agriculture have appointments that combine teaching with research and service commitments. There is constant pressure to respond to requests for advice from growers, industry representatives, and county and extension colleagues. Service, in the broad sense, also includes the need for faculty to be involved in faculty governance, with commitments to departmental responsibilities as well as col- lege and university assignments. Faculty are also expected to re- view papers and grants for colleagues and to serve as panel mem- bers for various granting agencies. In addition, as members of 127
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE professional societies there is the expectation of service on com- mittees, editorial boards, and related society functions. Senior fac- ulty members are often asked to serve on national advisory boards or committees of government and private foundations. A third major commitment of time is associated with service as a mentor for young colleagues and faculty in other disciplines and involvement in advising undergraduate and graduate students. When one considers the other demands on a faculty members time, it is necessary to decide not only how to balance teaching and research but how to balance these two activities with the service component as well. Another major effect on motivation for teaching is the lack of positive feedback, particularly for an individual at the start of his or her career. Excellence in teaching is rarely recognized until a teacher has taught for several years and students begin to spread the word that an individual teacher is outstanding. Once recognition comes via awards and other evidence of faculty support, such recognition is usually within a college or department and rarely extends to the national or international level. In contrast, a breakthrough in a specific research area may result in very rapid national and interna- tional recognition and professional advancement. More recently has arisen the prospect that a major advance in research can be pat- ented and royalties may be forthcoming, particularly in the area of biotechnology. Financial rewards also can come from consultant- ships and increased research funding. An additional negative impact on teaching is the fact that there is always a certain degree of ambiguity in defining the responsibilities of any faculty appointment. it often is not clear how much time a faculty member, especially a new member, should invest in teach- ing at the expense of research and service. When one considers all of the above factors that impinge negatively on teaching, it is perhaps surprising how many instructors are still willing to devote the time, energy, and thought needed to be outstanding teachers. Steps to Improve Balance Outlined below are some steps that can be taken to enhance the balance between teaching and research. 1. Reward both teaching and research. To ensure that teaching and research are seen as both essential and complementary activi- ties of all faculty, both must be rewarded if both are to be per- formed well. The impetus for reward must be implemented from above, and the promotion and tenure system, which is at the heart of the reward system in academy, must reflect this equity of em- phasis. Such concerns have emerged in various forums (Koshland' 1991; Pelczar, 1990). 128
TEACHING AND RESEARCH 2. Minimize teaching of ~how-to" courses. A debatable proposi- tion to balance time in teaching and research is actually to de- crease the teaching of training or~how-to" courses to a minimum. This recommendation is made because the pace of modern sci- ence continues to accelerate, which makes it even more difficult for university and college professors to keep up with their respective disciplines and take time to teach (Koshland, 1991 ). As noted above, added to this time crunch is a necessity to secure funds to support the research for which professors are employed. 3. Panel teaching should be explored. By panel teaching, we mean that there should be courses that are taught simultaneously not a sequence of individual lectures by a number of professors from the same department but lectures by several instructors from different fields. Such courses would emphasize the integration of ideas, consider differences in perspectives, consider how different disciplines interact, and simultaneously provide a forum for peer evaluation of teaching. This suggestion is proposed because it is curious that in real life, people such as farmers, small business people, producers of value-added products, or persons involved in global commodity trading integrate multiple inputs of information in their decision-making processes. However, students rarely observe such integration in college and universities. it is principally in sports that a team approach by the coach (teacher) and players (students) is rewarded in universities. Under a team system, all participants strive to reach a common goal. Interdisciplinary research by facul- ty, a form of integrated problem solving, is being tangibly rewarded in some universities, but students rarely witness such activity. For example, in the area of crop protection or sustainable agri- culture, it would be valuable to have students exposed to a prob- lem from the merged perspectives of the plant breeder, entomolo- gist, plant pathologist, soil scientist, agricultural meteorologist, weed scientist, ecologist, social scientist, and/or biochemist working as teaching teams or panels, all of whom should be familiar with the latest thinking and developments in their respective fields. Stu- dents should be exposed to the process of integrating and synthe- sizing knowledge based on different viewpoints and should not have to learn to integrate knowledge solely through postgraduate experience. Such panels would also serve the dual purpose of encouraging research and encouraging teaching coordination and communication among faculty. Such a panel approach could affect the total teaching time of faculty, either positively or negatively. Faculty need increased time for the assimilation and synthesis of knowledge; the amount of new information is overwhelming. The panel approach for certain advanced courses ideally could alleviate that constraint. In many situations, such a panel approach has proven to be highly effective. For example, the longest-running program on pub 129
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE kc television in Nebraska, Backyard Farmer, has had a panel format throughout its 39-year history. 4. Specify teaching roles for adjunct faculty. Each adjunct faculty member should have a specified teaching role. Many campuses are fortunate, for example, to have USDA personnel who may su- pervise graduate students in research. However, it is unfortunate that these scientists must teach on their own time, if they so desire and if their own and affiliated administrations approve (we know of only one exception). Cooperative agreements nationwide should be modified to allow for a teaching role for USDA and other scien- tists, and if congressional approval is required for such action, it should be sought. Such a role for adjunct faculty will lead to increased professionalism and improve the prospects for U.S. com- petitiveness and the future education and training of students in the sciences and technology. Thus, the teaching burden on state-funded faculty would also be lessened. 5. Teaching schedules should be flexible. Teaching should be flexible with respect to the times and credit offered. Such flexibility could permit a reduction in a particular faculty members teaching time by fewer credit hour requirements or at least offer more effi- cient use of time. All the courses in colleges of agriculture seem to be tied to a standard daytime regimen. Where are the weekend or evening courses that might be attractive to instructors and that might also attract students7 As we vie for nontraditional students, courses need to be presented at nontraditional times. Also, minicourses should be identified, and courses should be presented as short modules. Both individual and panel instruction could potentially equalize teaching loads and would be adapted to the needs of the clientele students, many of whom work part- or full-time. This could improve science literacy, one of the goals for the year 2000 of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology~s Committee on Education and Human Resources. 6. Students should participate in teaching. In at least some ad- vanced courses, students should participate in teaching, with the instructor as guide or mentor. This suggestion could potentially lessen the burden of preparation time for faculty. Such participa- tion occurs in some graduate courses. This may rekindle the en- thusiasm of undergraduates in some cases, a characteristic that is considered by some critics as being in short supply (sanoff, logo). 7. Learn to value good teaching. Universities may need to learn from other sources how to value good teaching and aim for more coordination between subjects and disciplines in teaching. There seems to be a general opinion, justified or not, that small liberal arts colleges are doing something right. Furthermore, projects such as the Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post- Secondary Education can serve to improve teaching at research universities. At the University of Nebraska, for example, this in 130
TEACHING AND RESEARCH valves critical self-evaluation by faculty, with administrative support, that leads to specific rewards for effective teaching (Narveson' 1990~. Still missing from all materials and analyses, however, is what we can learn from the industrialized nations that have a better record in science and technology education than we do. What can be used or modified that would be useful to the U.S. educational system? 8. lmproue the ways to prepare teachers. We need to improve the ways in which we prepare graduate students and young faculty for their roles as teachers. Many innovative approaches have been suggested recently (Barinaga, 1 also; Lee, l also; Palmer, l also; Pool, 1991). In addition, good teachers recognize that effective teaching requires application of basic well-defined skills in communication. There are very effective guidelines for success in communicating ideas in the classroom and in evaluating success in teaching by testing students for their knowledge and comprehension of the sub- ject matter as well as ability in synthesis, application, analysis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). All instructors can gain from personal contact with the master teachers in a department. This type of mentor supervision is often lacking and may be preferable to re- quirements for a short course in teaching methods for those indi- viduals who have never had the opportunity to benefit from super- vised guidance in a teaching position. 9. Reuise the current concept of scholarship. in his excellent treatise entitled Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professo- riate, Coyer (1990) emphasized the need to revise our current con- cept of scholarship that places research as the preeminent activity of a university professor. Foyer advocates a broad definition of scholarship that would place teaching as well as integration and application of knowledge on the same plane as research or discov- ery of new knowledge. He also outlines in some detail how this can be accomplished. The question is often raised as to whether an active research program enhances the ability of a faculty member to teach in a more competent and effective manner than if he or she had no research experience. Most faculty would agree that the opportunity to engage in research does enhance the quality of teaching. How- ever, it is often not evident to young faculty members that the reverse may be true. Needs for Coor~iination and Communication In balancing research and teaching, one of the most difficult challenges to solving problems and generating new knowledge in this age of complexities is the need for increased coordination and communication among faculty. This leads to both commendation 131
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE and criticism from the Alliance for Undergraduate Education, en- compassing 16 major universities, whose main goal is TO foster mayor innovations in the way undergraduate science is taught, and to forge more intimate links between research and teaching (Cer- tain, 1990:2). The alliance, which has the role of leadership in science and engineering education, has not clearly included agri- culture within its purview. The alliance has identified areas of concern and produced an agenda for revitalizing freshman-level courses. Some of these objectives are particularly applicable to agriculture because of its historical development apart from the other sciences dating back to the nineteenth century. The alliance recognizes the importance of collaboration among the different dis- ciplines, as does the National Science Foundation: "Future agricul- tural scientists will need skills and knowledge outside traditional agricultural disciplines" (National Science Foundation, 1 989:4). Furthermore, we must find a way to involve colleagues in indus- try in the education and training of both faculty and students. There is something fundamentally wrong in our educational system when senior officials in industry claim that, with the possible exception of biotechnology, innovation and incremental advances in knowledge most often occur in industry (National Academy Press, 1991). We need candid assessments of how to change the conditions that foster this perspective, if we consider that this is incorrect, as well as how to improve the training aspects of both faculty and students to solve the problem. In some areas of agriculture, such as biotechnology, we should take to heart the recommendation of the National Research Council report that says "highest priority should go to increasing the retrain- ing opportunities available to university faculty and federal scien- tists to update their background knowledge and provide them with laboratory experience" (National Research Council, 1987:107). Strategies for Management of Time In addition to the approaches discussed above, it is helpful to consider how individual faculty members can manage time more effectively in their search for balance. It is essential to recognize the critical importance of time management when dealing with competing demands. The concept that needs to be emphasized is the neces- sity of recognizing that one must "invest" his or her time rather than Spend" it on daily assignments. The ability to organize one's time is the most precious of all skills. Priorities need to be established on a daily basis; this enables one to avoid the so-called drippy faucet syndrome, in which attention is given to minor doable as- signments in preference to dealing with major or long-term projects that warrant priority for completion. Many faculty would profit from a short workshop on time management. 132
TEACHING AND RESEARCH Conclusion There is much that can be changed. Although this chapter has dealt principally with faculty issues, consideration also needs to be given to what balance means to students relative to how they learn, what they learn, and their programs of study. We have suggested a few possibilities that can add to the consideration of how to improve undergraduate education, including how to balance teach- ing with research and service. References Abelson, P. H. 1991. Federally funded research. Science 252:1765. Barinaga, M. 1990. Bottom-up revolution in science teaching. Science 249:978-979. Bloom, B. S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classi- fication of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay. Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professori- ate. Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Certain, P. R. 1990. The Freshman Year in Science and Engineering. A brief report of the Alliance for Undergraduate Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Koshland, D. 1991. Teaching and research. Science 251:249. Lee, M. W. 1990. Turning teachers on to science. Science 249:979. Narveson, R. 1990. From regard to reward: Improved teaching at a research-oriented university. Teaching at UNL 11(4):1-4. National Academy Press. 1991. Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities. Summaries of Interviews with Senior In- dustrial Officials. Government-University-lndustry Research Roundtable and Industrial Research Institute. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1987. Agricultural Biotechnology: Strategies for National Competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Science Foundation. 1989. Profiles Agricultural Sciences: Hu- man Resources and Funding. NSF Report No. 89:319. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Palmer, P. J. 1990. Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change 22:10-16. Pelczar, M. J., Jr. 1990. Microbiology education: The issue of balance. American Society for Microbiology News 56:516-517. Pool, R. 1991. Science literacy: The enemy Is us. Science 251:266-267. Sanoff, A. P. 1990. The university in chaos. U.S. News & World Report, May 7, 1990, p. 16. Sykes, C. J. 1988. Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Educa lion. Washington, D . C.: Regnery Ga teway. 133
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE FIRST RAPPORTEUR'S SUMMARY Throughout Anne M. K. Vidaverts and Arthur Kelman~s opening comments, observations and generalizations about agriculture were made. They were often made as statements without rebuttal or discussion, so they should be taken in that light. The definition of the domain of agriculture is critical to determin- ing the balance of what is taught and researched and the future of colleges of agriculture. Much of the discussion about agriculture concerns its maintenance as a field, without addressing the basic issue of the domain of agriculture. Science is rapidly moving ahead of many colleges of agriculture; one participant felt that only by eliminating most current departments would the needed radical changes in colleges occur. Agriculture will have fewer resources in the future, and colleges must downsize. They must also develop new approaches and at- tract new students. To remain viable, colleges will have to change. Professional societies create barriers to change through accredita- tion requirements that more often reflect current status rather than future directions. The historical base of organization of profes- sional groups and their lack of response to change may not impede changes in colleges of agriculture, but it may also not contribute to a climate for change. Agriculture needs to be concerned about minority issues and to encourage minority students to study science. Although some ad- vances in gender balance have been made within colleges of agri- culture, the enrollment of more undergraduate and graduate minor- ity students and their graduation are critical to achieving diversity. Instruction The need to broaden course content and to make courses of greater interest to more students was expressed by several partici- pants. More courses that are not strictly discipline based should be available; The problem is finding courses to teach," reported one participant. It was suggested that a basic conflict exists in hiring discipline-based scientists with a focus on production agriculture problems and in expecting them to teach broad-based interdiscipli- nary courses. Agriculture should capitalize on the current interest in the environment. Flexibility in course schedules, including weekend and minicourses, should be increased to better serve nontraditional students. The possibility of teaching a course by a panel of several instructors from different fields should be explored, emphasizing integration and the interaction of different disciplines and giving students the advantage of observing differences in faculty perspectives. 134
TEACHING AND RICH The importance of having the best teachers offering introductory courses was stressed. Courses that include writing requirements and regular feedback on papers and exams as well as cohesive capstone courses were described as time intensive in nature but as having a great potential to better teach and integrate course con- tent. Vidaver and Kelman urged that teaching of training or How-to" courses should be kept to a minimum; others commented on the benefits of providing students with hands-on experiences. They felt we should better relate courses to the needs of students. Teaching and Rewards for Teaching a The faculty reward system should (l) be consistent and based on clear expectations, (2) reflect the assessment of both teaching and research as complementary and essential activities, and (3) provide incentives for teaching excellence and curriculum innova- tion. Promotion and tenure guidelines may actually be disincen- tives for teaching. Guidelines that specifically engender a greater emphasis on teaching are needed. It was noted that teaching evaluation should be at the level of research evaluation and that we need more peer review of teaching and review of course examinations. A suggestion that did not receive general support was to require and reward excellence in teaching before requiring and rewarding excellence in research. A recognized problem is that new faculty (indeed, many faculty) reduce their teaching involvement by Buying out" of courses to increase the time they can devote to research. It was attributed directly to the promotion and tenure system of re- wards. Recognition should be given to the importance of teaching, in- cluding the option of devoting sabbatical leaves to developing inno- vative teaching methods and courses. Structured programs for the improvement of teaching should be encouraged, and adequate support should be made available. Recognition and rewards for attracting additional students in courses should be given to faculty in areas where there are declining enrollments. Vidaver and Kelman indicated that it would be advantageous to have adjunct faculty, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel, with teaching responsibilities. No response to the idea was made. The merit of assigning faculty to teach areas closely aligned with their research focus and methodologies was stressed. The need for teachers who themselves have the ability to assimi- late and synthesize ideas and who challenge students to develop these skills was recognized. We need to integrate undergraduates more fully into the department and disciplines through participation in research, in teaching, and through opportunities for social ex- changes with faculty. Students who participate in teaching, with the 135
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE professor serving as a mentor for the student teacher, increase their identification with the goals of the department and the discipline. Pleas were made for coordination and communication between and among such groups as the Alliance for Undergraduate Educa- tion, colleagues in industry, and other university faculty with faculty of colleges of agriculture. One participant noted the potential for faculty from colleges of agriculture to learn from faculty in U.S. liberal arts colleges and from other industrialized nations about good ways to teach science and technology. SECOND RAPPORTEUR'S SUMMARY Anne M. K. Vidaver and Arthur Kelman presented an overview of the basic issues confronting higher education in agriculture as ad- ministrators and faculty attempt to create and ensure a balance between teaching and research. The paramount question is how to ensure that the two are complementary and not divergent. In attempting to address the question, Vidaver and Kelman out- lined four issues that are basic to the resolution of the problem. Factors That Influence the Duality of Teaching There are pressures of competing forces teaching versus re- search versus service. We sometimes neglect the service function, particularly the on-campus service function. The pressures result from a competition for time, including time for university gover- nance, professional activities, and mentoring. The mentoring as- pect involves a tremendous time commitment, not only for students but also for young faculty, and it is often overlooked. Creativity and effectiveness are often difficult to evaluate in teachers. The rewards for good teaching are never equivalent to those for excellence in research. We are the problem in believing that there is a problem in evaluating or rewarding teachers. No one prevents us from effectively doing it. Reference was made to the possibility that teachers hinder the creativity of students. Outstanding students prefer to be challenged and not stymied. The following question was also raised: Are we prepared for the challenge of teaching a class of students with diverse backgrounds? In addition, doctorate-level students who teach sometimes lack training in the art of communications, for example, techniques in managing a class and the actual teaching process. We have a responsibility to mentor our peers and create internal structures to improve and reward teaching so that faculty can effec- tively respond to these challenges. 136
TEACHING AND RESEARCH Factors That Favor an Emphasis on Research We tend to instill in our students the idea that the path to gaining preeminence is research rather than teaching. This is somewhat related to the ready accessibility of tools for measuring creative and effective research. The mentoring rewards are evident in research endeavors and through funding, publications, and graduate assistantships; but it is not evident in the teaching program, where there is a pattern of delayed recognition and a lack of positive feedback. It was pointed out that there is an ambiguity of expectations. Faculty paid exclusively out of the teaching budget are also ex- pected to consult and do research. Researchers who are paid exclusively out of the research budget, however, are not required to teach. Strategies to Enhance Balance Is involvement in research essential for effective teaching? The response was that more of an impact is made on students" lives through their involvement in active learning experiences. For ex- ample, the experiences of a student working alongside a bench scientist can be an effective stimulus to creativity and knowledge assimilation. Teaching and research are integrative processes that contribute to the genuine overall education of students and teachers. There are grants in the teaching profession, and there are grants in re- search. We should not track students on the basis of their interest but, rather, try to truly educate them and not create clones after our own image. The numbers game is rather pervasive on our attitude toward teaching and research: We generate so many publications and teach so many students without any reference to the effective- ness of our teaching or our research endeavors. The pressure to publish is being driven by the tenure system, and all educators are a part of that system. This must change so that equal recognition can be given to excellence in teaching. During the discussion, individuals were asked to respond to the issue of enhancing balance from the perspectives of a dean, a department head, and an assistant professor. Dean's Perspective · Strong administrative support for the integration of teaching, research, and service is the original spirit and mandate of the land- grant university philosophy. 137
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE · There must be advocacy for and commitment to excellence in teaching as well as research and service and a strong emphasis on quality among students, faculty, and support staff. · A comprehensive program of teaching awards, enhancement grants, salary enrichment, faculty teaching development programs, and recognitions should be emphasized. · There should be a strong and challenging undergraduate re- search and scholarship program. · One of the problems associated with teaching is that it is done and evaluated locally, which is not true of research and, to an even lesser extent, extension. This leads to issues related, first, to how evaluation is done locally and, second, the difficulty for a teacher to become established nationally among his or her peers. Many faculty respond to these forces by deciding to emphasize research. This situation needs to be addressed by good local evaluation and reward systems for teaching. For example, at the end of the year, when raises are given, there should be clarity on the impact of the contributions or lack of contributions in teaching, research, or ex- tension on that raise. Too many raises are attributed to the re- search efforts of the faculty when, in fact, it may have been due to the teaching efforts. · Prospective faculty members should not only give a research seminar but should also give an introductory class lecture and be seriously evaluated on both during the interview process. This sends a signal to everyone in the department that teaching and research are important. · Evaluations of each area must be objective; that is, evaluators should be wary of student evaluations. Performance criteria should be set at the beginning of the evaluation period. · In cases in which split teaching appointments are in place (two or three way), the evaluation should be balanced accordingly. · Evaluations should be ongoing, not once per year. · Teachers must become directly involved in creative activity (not necessarily original research). New ways to teach information should be developed. Researchers must be involved in teaching at some level. · Organizational philosophy must be clearly delineated by the dean. · There should be encouragement and support for good teach- ing and/or good research (scholarship). · The nonpriority service responsibilities of junior faculty should be minimized. · Departments should be provided with the funds to do the job, not to micromanage full-time equivalents, for example, a 404~20 split. ~ There should be uniform teaching, research, and service as- signments for all faculty in a department. Teaching, research, and extension should not be micromanaged. 138
TEACHING AND RESEARCH · Teaching should be built on a variety of approaches: advise- ment of individual students with individual faculty, mentoring, indi- vidual research assignments, laboratory efforts, field trips, summer internship experiences, classroom teaching, student clubs, and guest lecturers from industry, government, etc. Department Head's Perspective · When the undergraduate is integrated into the research enter- prise, excellence in teaching and research will tend to be parallel. · There is no fundamental premise that deficiencies in under- graduate education occur because professors are tOO busy doing research. · Student evaluation of teaching is an effective tool both for the evaluation of teaching and the modification of techniques. It should be supplemented by collegial evaluation. · There is a richer diversity of teaching situations than just class- rooms. A good teacher who researches in an academic setting is always teaching by example. We should broaden the publicts per- ception of what teaching is. · The academic senate (faculty) should have a powerful voice in the academic personnel process. · The idea that time is best spent in the laboratory should not be promoted. Rather, balanced programs should be developed. · Faculty should be encouraged to share research findings (in- cluding mistakes and problems) with their classes. · Special-problem courses should be developed so that under- graduates can be exposed to research techniques, concepts, and attitudes. Assistant Professor's Perspective · A young assistant professor should be able to choose two of the categories on which he or she would be judged for promotion and tenure. Excellence in" could describe the first category, and "highly competent" could describe the second. · The categories should be realistically evaluated. · A "mid-term" evaluation with the department chair is essential. · The department head and colleagues should visit the class- room and the laboratory to authenticate the value of what the assis- tant professor is doing. · There should be agreement that the amount of time spent reviewing grants and manuscripts should carry the same weight as the time devoted to creating materials to support classroom instruc- tion. · Professional societies should honor outstanding teachers. · Articles extolling faculty who give the extra energy to teach 139
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE undergraduates should be published: Who are they, what moti- vates them, and how do they get their rewards7 · Every faculty member should be expected to teach, participate in scholarship, and serve. · It should be recognized that support of excellence in teaching does not necessarily mean less time or effort on research and extension but a commitment to raising the quality of instruction and teaching programs to higher levels. · A teaching foundation that parallels the research foundation found on most campuses should be set up. · Research excellence is currently viewed and valued as bringing in money to run and enhance a department or college. Therefore, the value placed on research is in part due to a "greed" factor. if there were some way that research achievement could be divorced from indirect costs, it might be viewed in a more equitable light. Strategies for the Management of Time Vidaver and Kelman used their fourth point, strategies for man- agement of time, as a summation of the various perceptions of conflict between teaching and research. The discussion group agreed that as colleges of agriculture in land-grant colleges and universities continue to debate the balance of teaching and research as being imperative, we must ask our- selves, "Are the problems real or just a figment of our imagination, and are our perceptions pervasive throughout the university or just unique to the college of agriculture?" In order to resolve the problem, we must do the following: de- velop clear expectations of faculty who teach, focus on synergistic activities that promote both teaching and research, and encourage classroom visitation to complement the student evaluation. Define the responsibilities of the job. Have a formal commitment to all responsibilities without assigning labels; for example, require each faculty member to spend lo percent of his or her work time in public service. Have and demonstrate an organizational philoso- phy that is clear and concise, one that supports good teaching and/ or good research and scholarship, and one that provides good mentoring for new faculty and effective leadership. 140
