English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Most universities employ graduate students (Teaching Assistants) as laboratory instructors, but little is done to teach them how to conduct laboratory classes. A number of useful manuals on this topic are available, and the paper makes a strong case for a formal program of instruction, with academic credit for its completion. Details are given of a recommended course consisting of a two—week intensive introduction prior to the opening of the academic year, with weekly seminars throughout the year. INTRODUCTION While the inservice training given to laboratory instructors seems to vary in amount and substance from country to country and even within countries, one common fact seems evident. None of us do enough In my own country, the preparation of laboratory personnel for their instructional responsibilities is definitely deficient. I have verified this as recently as December when I wrote to professors of chemistry in major departments across the United States and queried them about their program for training laboratory instructors at present. The response varied from no training or a brief one—two day orientation (most common) to a formal inservice course (least common) but to a man (and they were all men) they stated that they were not doing enough. As I have had opportunity to travel during the past decade and to observe practices in a substantial number of other countries, the same shortcoming is apparent. There is little or no attention being given to the type and extent of inservice training necessary for high quality instruction in the laboratory. Hence, at this UNESCO International Congress I will attempt two goals: 1. To describe what presently is being done in my country, the United States, as an example of current inservice practices, and 2. To describe what I, as a chemical educator, believe could and should be done in essence, a blueprint for action. Let me hasten to state that I am fully aware that both needs and practices differ from country to country. In outlining inservice training a plan for action I will deal with principles not specifics and ask each of you to think in terms of your own situation and apply those ideas that are relevant and useful to you. PART I PRESENT PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES In the U.S., the graduate teaching assistant, a Ph.D. candidate, is the laboratory instructor in most universities. This is frequently a required part of his/her doctoral program as well as a source of financial support. The arrangement is, however, a source of a problem. The Teaching Assistant, known as the T.A., is under heavy pressure to accomplish three major responsibilities simultaneously: 1. Graduate course work 2. Research 3. Teaching Since it is difficult to serve three masters, something always suffers as priorities are set. Often it is the quality of teaching since success in course work and research are required for graduate degrees and success in teaching, while paid lip service, too frequently is ignored in fact. High quality laboratory instruction is all too often 'low man on the totem pole' in the reward system of our universities. 564 MARJORIE GARDNER If inservice training is given, what is it like? Two general sources of help for inservice training are available and used in chemistry departments, particularly in the larger universities. The one most widely used is "The Handbook for Teaching Assistants" , a small 27-page document produced by the Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society. The first edition was developed in 1951 and the most recent edition in 1974. The coverage includes such topics as relationships with students, conducting recitations and laboratory classes, safety and first aid, and teaching tips and aids. Each of these topics is treated very briefly. Another more recent source of help for chemistry departments is the material developed under Project TEACH.2 This source of inservice assistance consists of eight modules concerned with objectives, questioning skills, reinforcement techniques, testing, tutoring, nicroteaching and interaction analysis. These modules are packaged in 100 pages of printed material, 6 videotapes and one audiotape. The development work was done during the summer of 1975 by a group of experienced chemistry professors from ten of our large universities under the direction of David Brooks of the University of Nebraska. In addition to these two general sources of help, the ACS Handbook and Project TEACH, some universities have developed their own materials in the form of manuals for the instructors. As an example, Cornell University has produced a Manual forTeaching,3 that is used by teaching assistants in departments across the campus. It contains an extensive treatment of topics such as instructional objectives, teaching methods, evaluations and the sociology of the classroom. At the University of Maryland, teachers' guides to complement the Laboratory Manuals for both general and beginning organic chemistry were developed and published in the early 1970's. These manuals, designed to be used in conjunction with the ACS Handbook and the department's own inservice program is directed to a specific series of laboratory experiments. They attempt to assist the laboratory instructor in achieving two aims: 1. To guide students successfully through the experiments in order to produce maximum learning of techniques and concepts, and 2. To integrate the meaning and purpose of each experiment with the lecture or theoretical phase of the course. Now, let me cite some specific examples of inservice programs conducted by chemistry departments in the U.S. to further illustrate current practices. A common practice is a 2-3 day intensive orientation workshop or seminar prior to the opening of the academic year followed by weekly or bi—weekly meetings throughout the year. Often a handbook,5'6 specific to the local situation is produced for the laboratory instructors. In some instances, the T.A.'s are being enrolled in a course where they receive credit for their inservice training. Brief descriptions of some of these inservice programs appear in Appendix I. More careful planning and evaluation of inservice training are on the minds of many professors responsible for the introductory courses as the importance of formal preparation for laboratory instruction is increasingly recognized. Within the Division of Chemical Education and the ACS Council Committee on Chemical Education, concern has been expressed about the training of teaching assistants. To determine current Btatus a questionnaire was circulated during the 1975-1976 academic year to 194 institutions granting Ph.D.'s and 120 institutions granting M.S. degrees in chemistry. The questionnaire sought information on 1. Training required 2. Service required 3. T.A. responsibilities 4. Data on training programs. The results7 indicate that less than 50% of Ph.D. -granting institutions have a T.A. training program. The average work load for T.A.'s (preparation and instruction) is 15 hours/week. The most common requirements as preparation for teaching are attending lectures, doing the laboratory experiments and first aid and safety training. Little attention is given to such important aspects as instructional objectives, communication and interpersonal relations, teaching strategies or evaluation. The amount of training provided ranges from 6 to 100 hours but the average is about 20 hours. The most common approaches to inservice training include practice or microteaching, evaluation vists by senior professors, lecture attendance, the ACS Safety8 and T.A. Handbooks and Project TEACH Materials. Inservice training for laboratory courses 565 One can conclude that the inservice training program in the U.S. for those who instruct in the laboratory is neagre and spotty at best. Colleagues in Canada report sinilar circumstances and problens. G.F. Atkinson of Waterloo University in Ontario points out that research supervisors tend to be very jealous of the time graduate students spend on demonstrating and the T.A.'s themselves perceive other activities as competing more strongly for their time and attention. Senior demonstrators have much of the responsibility of whipping T.A.'s into shape but there is no formal program. E.B. Robertson from Calgary University in Alberta reports that although members of the staff profess an interest in setting up a training program, to date nothing concrete has been done beyond a brief orientation session. As I have talked with colleagues around the world, I find that there is little or no formal inservice training in effect. What is done at my University, Maryland, and generally in the U.S. seems to be at the upper limit of present day inservice training and yet we have barely scratched the surface of what could and probably should be done. PART II INSERVICE TRAINING: A BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION In setting the stage for Part II of this paper and to help establish why it is important for laboratory instruction to be improved, I quote from a recent letter from Henry Bent, Chairman of the Division of Chemical Education, and an articulate spokesman for Chemical Education: "Students in general chemistry learn about chemical facts and theories, which soon they'll forget, and how to get a good grade, which soon becomes relatively unimportant. They do not learn much about honesty, perseverance, dependability, and how to communicate clearly traits society desperately needs. More and more I'm coming to feel that the main message that ought to emerge from the laboratory in university teaching is that in science no mean means (lying, cheating) justify any ends (an elegant theory, a good grade, a big profit). In science, The Method is the Message. Astonishingly, it was not a scientist but a U.S. Senator, Edward Kennedy, who was recently quoted in Science [198, 1227 (1977)] as saying that 'Inaccurate Science, sloppy science, fraudulent science —— these are the greatest threats to t