Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars: Undergraduate and Graduate Education 0841232083, 9780841232082

Table of contents :
Content: V. 1. Undergraduate and graduate education --
v. 2. Professional development and outreach.

Citation preview

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Professional Development and Outreach Volume 2

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1259

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Professional Development and Outreach Volume 2 Rory Waterman, Editor University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont

Andrew Feig, Editor Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan

Sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Waterman, Rory (Rory M.), editor. | Feig, Andrew L., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education, sponsor. Title: Educational and outreach projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative / Rory Waterman, editor, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, Andrew Feig, editor, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2017] | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1248, 1259 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: volume 1. Undergraduate and graduate education -- volume 2. Professional development and outreach Identifiers: LCCN 2017030580 (print) | LCCN 2017035698 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841232075 (ebook, v.1) | ISBN 9780841232419 (ebook, v.2) | ISBN 9780841232082 (v.1) | ISBN 9780841232426 (v.2) Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Study and teaching (Secondary) | Chemistry--Study and teaching (Higher) Classification: LCC QD455.5 (ebook) | LCC QD455.5 .E38 2017 (print) | DDC 540.71/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017030580

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984. Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society Distributed in print by Oxford University Press All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of $40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification, chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture, reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of keen interest to the chemistry audience. Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection, and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format. As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Contents Preface .............................................................................................................................. ix 1.

Mutual Mentoring To Promote Success and Satisfaction of Women Faculty in STEM .................................................................................................................... 1 Jeanne A. Hardy and Lynmarie K. Thompson

2.

A Professional Development Handbook for New Faculty .................................. 13 Dave Z. Besson, Penny J. Beuning, and Scott A. Snyder

3.

The Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop: Early Lessons for Change in Teaching .......................................................................................... 23 Rory Waterman and Andrew L. Feig

4.

Leadership Training for Teacher-Scholars .......................................................... 35 Rigoberto Hernandez, Marilyne Stains, Karen S. Bjorkman, Ashley Donovan, Peter K. Dorhout, Andrew L. Feig, Philip W. Hammer, Jennifer L. Ross, Jodi L. Wesemann, and Srikant K. Iyer

5.

Establishing an Interdisciplinary Outreach Program at the Interface of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science .......................................................... 51 Jeffery A. Byers, Eranthie Weerapana, and Abhishek Chatterjee

6.

From the Research Lab to the Classroom: A Multi-Faceted High School Chemistry Outreach Program .............................................................................. 69 Timothy B. Clark, David G. Emmerson, and June Honsberger

7.

Introducing High School Students to Chemical Research through Science Ambassadors .......................................................................................................... 85 Matthew M. Bower, Samantha M. Harvey, Adam J. Richter, and Sara E. Skrabalak

Editors’ Biographies ...................................................................................................... 95

Indexes Author Index .................................................................................................................. 99 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 101

vii

Preface This second volume shifts focus to professional development in the broadest sense. About half of these contributions examine various ways in which faculty can be supported at all stages of their careers. The latter chapters outline several interventions with high schools to promote STEM education and literacy in support of national workforce needs as well as a strong interest in fostering a scienceliterate public. Like the first volume, there are examples that are both large in scale as well as those that can be implemented immediately. Members of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative have been leveraging their experiences to aid in new and maturing faculty members as they embark on various stages and aspects of their careers. The idea of undertaking a professional development project may seem out of reach for a pre-tenure faculty member, but the need of many faculty for peer mentorship demonstrates how a little help goes a long way. Thompson and Hardy outline the mutual mentoring program that they developed for female STEM faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, about eight years ago (Chapter 1). Much of their work follows from Ellen Daniell’s book Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists. The program that Thompson and Hardy developed, UMass Mutual Mentoring, leveraged these ideas in a simple, easy-to-implement, no cost program that benefits women across disciplines and academic rank. The chapter outlines their development process and the core features of their program. The chapter is rich in practical advice and strategies. For example, they built groups of 8–10 participants, but the meeting times varied to accommodate various personal and professional obligations. Similarly, participants were initially assigned a chapter from Daniell’s book as a prompt for discussion at early meetings, but once the groups were sufficiently comfortable to engage in impromptu discussion, that practice was discontinued. The value of the program is evident from the tremendous growth in female faculty at UMass Amherst as well as the inclusion of women from non-STEM disciplines in UMass Mutual Mentoring. Beuning and fellow Cottrell Scholars Besson and Snyder report on the process of developing their handbook for new faculty, Teach Better, Save Time, and Have More Fun: A Guide to Teaching and Mentoring in Science (Chapter 2). The volume, free to the public courtesy of Research Corporation for Science Advancement, has been tremendously successful in providing help, guidance, and wisdom with some 500 print copies distributed already and countless views and downloads digitally. The book’s authors recognized that the excellent and copious literature on the practice of science teaching is a rich, though intimidating, resource for many new faculty with little to no formal training in pedagogy. ix

Their method was to provide a bridge to that information through the anecdotal experiences of current faculty. They tapped into the expertise of a wide group of faculty, relying heavily on interviews with Cottrell Scholars and their expertise in the execution of high quality teaching. Beside the view from the trenches of what works and what doesn’t, the book also features a trove of resources in a deep, well-annotated bibliography. Part of the success of the book has been its successful integration into workshops and trainings at all levels. Feig and Waterman share lessons learned from the now five-year-old Cottrell Scholar Collaborative New Faculty Workshop in chemistry (Chapter 3). The workshop is a collaborative effort of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative and the American Chemical Society that provides new hires and faculty with up to one year of experience information on instructional practices, mentoring, time management, cultural competency, and other topics that are frequently omitted from most faculty members’ training. The workshop has demonstrated success in helping participants gain familiarity with and execute vetted instructional practices (i.e., active learning) in their classrooms. The workshop facilitators have targeted broad change in the community, a process as difficult to measure as it is to realize. Some discussion of their anecdotal observations provide context for how departments and institutions may affect change among their faculty. Hernandez and coworkers, including a core team of Cottrell Scholars, developed and executed the Academic Leadership Training (ALT) Workshop in 2016 and report the details of that initial workshop and results (Chapter 4). The workshop was designed around five learning outcomes, enhanced preparation and motivation, provide tools and skills, improve leadership strengths, understand leadership roles and duties, and provide interview preparation, for participants. These outcomes were addressed in panels, mock interviews, 360-degree leadership feedback, and work products at ALT in a program that targets mid-career faculty for positions including center directors, department chairs, and deans among other administrative roles. Critical to the execution and success of ALT was partnerships with the American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Physics. Impact of the initial offering of the workshop, which was run for the second time in early 2017, was measured through pre-and post-survey of participants. A significant area that faculty consider for impact beyond research is outreach. While the classic notions of community outreach still have significant merit, many Cottrell Scholars have demonstrated that it is easy and appropriate to tie outreach efforts more directly to research activities and have yet greater impact on the target communities. Byers and coworkers report on their Paper to Plastics (P2P) Program at Boston College (Chapter 5). The program is a summer experience for high school students that emulates the discovery process associated with genuine research but is reliable, reproducible, and topical for participants. The team’s experiences and challenges with issues of topic selection, activities, timing, and evaluation are those faced in any outreach program. Thus, the experience with P2P and the spin-off program “You Evolve a Protein!” provide an excellent basis to describe the challenges and an example solution in designing a high-impact outreach program. Much of the chapter provides a roadmap (well-illustrated in Figure 3!) x

to execute any similar program. Byers and coworkers further provide data to illustrate some of the impacts of P2P, showing that these lessons derive from both their frustrations but also their successes. Clark and coworkers report on their efforts to develop a research-centered outreach program to local high schools that aims to promote student engagement in STEM in higher education and beyond (Chapter 6). The foundation of the program provides high school teachers with summer research experiences. They describe some of the well-documented benefits of providing research experiences to teachers. In this context, however, the teachers are well-grounded in the research associated with the university partners. Following that research experience, Clark and a team of undergraduates visit the high school classrooms and discuss chemistry, STEM careers, and the educational pathways to those careers with students. The students also tour academic and industrial laboratories to view the first-hand the career paths in chemistry. Finally, they provide self-reported data that indicate these interventions yield students with positive perceptions of STEM careers and their educational opportunities. Skrabalak and coworkers describe a simple, low cost strategy to engage high school students with research via the Science Ambassadors program (Chapter 7). Science Ambassadors are undergraduate students who, after at least an academic year of research, return to their high school alma mater to engage with current high school students about research opportunities. The visit includes a personal introduction with information about their interests in- and outside of science, an overview of the research project and its significance, a demonstration or hands-on activity with the class, and a short survey about interest in STEM fields, research, and higher education. The program is low cost because Science Ambassadors are going home and do their high school visits outside of the semester. The potential pool of Science Ambassadors is deep, but it is noted that outgoing students with enthusiasm for science and research are most successful. Data from more than 300 high school students shows that the Science Ambassadors have a positive impact on their perception and interest in science. It is clear that this program is easily exported to any institution and will likely have similarly high success. In closing, we would like to reiterate our thanks to Research Corporation for Science Advancement for its unwavering support of the integration of research and education. The symposium was supported by the Division of Chemical Education at the American Chemical Society, and the efforts of the Division leadership were critical to the success of the event. Finally, we thank ACS Books and the Symposium Series for providing this venue and supporting the publication of these activities that often escape traditional means of dissemination. Rory Waterman Department of Chemistry, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA

[email protected] (e-mail)

Andrew Feig Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202-3489, USA

[email protected] (e-mail) xi

Chapter 1

Mutual Mentoring To Promote Success and Satisfaction of Women Faculty in STEM Jeanne A. Hardy* and Lynmarie K. Thompson* Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 710 North Pleasant St., Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (J.A.H.); [email protected] (L.K.T.).

Mutual mentoring groups that have been meeting regularly for the past eight years have been supporting the success of women faculty in STEM disciplines. Participants gather to each “work” on career and life challenges they face, by exchanging ideas with faculty from different departments and career stages. The community and shared experience of the mentoring group also combats the sense of isolation women faculty face in male-dominated departments. We describe how to foster the grass-roots formation of successful mutual mentoring groups. Additional groups that have formed among female STEM faculty, female STEM graduate students, and non-white STEM faculty are providing a supportive environment for individuals from under-represented groups to thrive in STEM careers.

Our Inspiration This article is intended to complement scholarly work on mentoring (1–4) by providing an anecdotal account of recent mutual mentoring groups at one institution, to illustrate the ease of implementation and value of this approach. Eight years ago we became interested in mutual mentoring to support the success of women faculty in STEM disciplines. The objective was to find a way for women faculty, who were often isolated within their STEM departments, to connect across departments and help each other thrive. The challenge was to imagine what activity people would want to add to their already very busy © 2017 American Chemical Society

schedules. What would provide enough benefit to be worth the time invested? We found our inspiration in the book Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists, by Ellen Daniell (5). This book describes a group of highly successful female scientists who met every other Thursday for over 20 years to “work” on issues related to navigating their careers and lives. This account makes it clear that such a group can provide important support that makes it worth the time that it takes. The EOT Group described in Every Other Thursday included members of the National Academy of Science, demonstrating that such an activity is valuable to very busy and successful scientists. We reasoned that if it worked for female scientists of this caliber, and was valuable enough for them to spend their time on, then why not try it? We decided to start UMass Mutual Mentoring (UMM) Groups, modeled after the EOT Group. At the time, we counted 69 women faculty in 18 UMass STEM departments, but 2/3 of these departments had 3 or fewer women. One objective of our Groups was to connect women across STEM departments, which would create a feeling of critical mass and combat a sense of isolation. We also wanted our UMM Groups to exchange ideas and best practices from participant’s experiences in different departments and at different career stages, to help ourselves navigate challenges with our careers, colleagues, and work/life balance. And we hoped that these connections and shared insights would help participants to combat additional challenges that come with being part of an under-represented group, such as dealing with implicit bias and discrimination from others, and dealing with imposter syndrome in ourselves. The catalyst for starting these groups was the Mellon Mutual Mentoring Program at UMass Amherst, which offered small grants that fund mutual mentoring projects initiated by faculty individuals and groups (4). Our proposal was funded in 2009 and we launched two mentoring groups. Mentoring groups can be run with little or no cost, so we used the grant primarily to host a visit from Carol Gross, a member of the EOT Group, who presented both a science seminar and a mentoring talk. Her visit culminated with a wonderfully inspiring dinner with her and both UMM Groups.

Organizing the Original Groups Although there were at least 69 female STEM faculty on our campus when we were awarded a Mellon Mutual Mentoring Grant in spring of 2009, many STEM departments had just one or two female faculty. We invited all female tenure system faculty in departments involved in life science research to participate, which constituted 38 women in all. Initially 17 female faculty (from Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Chemical Engineering, and Polymer Science & Engineering) expressed interest in joining the group. At the initial meeting in July 2009 we described the approach taken in Every Other Thursday, quoted excerpts from the book and laid out our vision for these mentoring groups – that they would aid advancement of female faculty, fight feelings of isolation, provide a sounding board for addressing one’s own challenges, and serve as a 2

clearing house of alternative approaches to solve problems that arise in academic mentoring, publishing, and grant writing. We were uniformly met with interest and excitement. Every Other Thursday suggests that the ideal size for this type of mentoring group is 8-10 participants. With 17 interested faculty, we naturally needed to organize into two independent mentoring groups. We chose what seemed at the time to be an arbitrary divisor. At the initial meeting we simply asked when women would like to meet: in the evening at the home of a group member, as had been done in Every Other Thursday, or on campus during lunch. Approximately half of the group preferred evenings and half preferred lunch, so we divided along those seemingly arbitrary lines. In retrospect, perhaps those dividing lines were more significant than they appeared at first glance. We (Hardy and Thompson) both participate in the evening Group. I (Hardy) feel personally like there are never enough hours in the work day, so the idea of taking time out of my work day for mentoring felt like an added stress in an already stress-filled life. Those in the lunchtime Group found it more difficult to carve time from their evening responsibilities, and were willing to prioritize mentoring as a work-day activity they could squeeze into a one-hour lunch. Perhaps this was an important distinction, indicating something about the needs and personality of the participants, which may have contributed to the longevity of our two groups. Or perhaps, any arbitrary divisor – hair length, alphabetically by last name, birth month – would have worked equally well. At the organizational meeting we noted that the time preference divisor yielded good diversity, with Full, Associate and Assistant Professors from multiple departments in each group. We reasoned that a mix of both junior and senior faculty would add valuable perspective. As an Assistant Professor at the time, I (Hardy) was hoping to gain insights from the experience of more seasoned Group members. At the time of my tenure and promotion, the insights of one Group member who had served on the college tenure and promotion committee were incredibly helpful both in formulating my package and understanding the inner workings of that committee. In turn I (Thompson) was seeking to learn from the fresh perspectives of junior colleagues, and found that I gained valuable ideas regarding time management and lab management approaches. Our Group included more than one faculty member from some departments. Although this could have stifled some frank discussions or led to potential conflicts, for our own Group we have found that having two people from the same department can be synergistic for advancing initiatives within departments in which women are underrepresented. It is our experience that having all members of the mentoring groups be fully invested, active participants is an important component of the success and longevity of the groups. From the beginning all members of the Group “worked” regardless of their seniority and no members of the Group were ever expected to participate as a “service project” to help junior members. As with all aspects of life, UMM Group members vote with their feet. The fact that seven of the nine original members are still active participants after eight years suggests that this model of mentoring is valuable to all of us. 3

Procedure and Process of the Group At our early meetings we selected, read and discussed chapters from Every Other Thursday. The first chapter we discussed was entitled “Off Balance and Out of Control: Managing Time and Establishing Equilibrium.” This theme in particular seems to resonate with academic female faculty, so even at the first meeting every member had some work they wanted to do on this theme. Having a chapter to discuss was a useful starting point to break the ice at the first meetings of our UMM Group. After three or four meetings, Group members were comfortable enough with the format that we discontinued the practice of assigning a chapter, but still find many of the themes of the original EOT Group and related themes emerging. To this day, one or two members often come to Group without a concrete idea of the work they want to do, but a theme that resonates with them often emerges, prompting a new or continued line of work. We believe that having most of the Group members read at least some chapters of Every Other Thursday as we launched our UMM Groups was critical to our success. Reading this book establishes the important concept of the “work” that we do. Each member “works” by articulating a problem and participating in discussion that ultimately leads her to arrive at her own solution. Importantly, this concept prevents Group from becoming a complaint session and prevents participants from asking the Group to “tell me what to do.” Instead everyone is empowered to actively compare the ideas and experiences of others and then pursue their own strategic choices. At the beginning of each semester our Group renegotiates the day of the week we will meet, we set up a calendar of meetings every third week, and each member selects a date to serve as host. As we arrive at the host’s home, we each sink into a couch, our feet curled beneath us, a bowl of chocolate covered almonds or sesame crackers within reach of our perch as we prepare to set to work. The host asks each Group member how much time they need. Two minutes indicates a minor issue, five minutes a substantive topic, and a request for 10 or 15 minutes suggests that the Group member has a significant issue. For a while, our Group was particularly bad at sticking to time, and each discussion lasted much longer than the requested time, but recently we have made a greater effort to stay within our stated time limits. This is important so that everyone feels they can participate without committing to a four-hour event. On average our evening meetings are about three hours long. During Group, the major focus is the “work” of each member. We have had members work on difficult PhD student mentoring relationships, dealing with sexual innuendo in the lab, strategizing about collaborator tensions, coaxing co-authors to cooperate, responding to negative paper reviews, difficult tenure and promotion cases, challenges in obtaining grant funding, department chair interactions, less than collegial colleagues, balancing time between children and work, managing anger and frustration, motivating disillusioned lab members, negotiating for increased resources and space, managing conflict within lab teams, teaching challenges, uneven college and university policies, gender inequity in salaries and salary increases, approaches to the current political climate, balancing work and new babies (of which there have been four) and many other issues. 4

After the host has heard the time requests, she asks “Who would like to work first?” The first Group member to volunteer describes the issue she is working on, then states what she is hoping to get from the Group: to simply talk about the situation, to hear about relevant personal experiences, to gather ideas, opinions, and suggestions from the Group, etc. One of the central tenants of this approach to mentoring is that each member is able to find her own best plan for moving forward, and she alone is responsible for deciding what to do. While other members may provide input when asked, ultimately the plan of action is the sole of purview of the speaker. After the speaker concludes, she states that she is done and typically reports what she plans to do. Her plan may be something concrete like “buy a new laptop and software that allows efficient voice transcription” or “set up a meeting with my department head before talking to my stonewalling collaborator.” Other times, the plan may be more ethereal like “I want to try to take note of my reactions when I interact with that student.” Some of us bring a journal and write down the plan or “contract” we have formulated. Each member in attendance has the chance to speak if they like. Often there are members who don’t have a topic they want to work on at that meeting and do not speak. Typically the host is the last to “work”. Due to its nature, the work that goes on in Group must be maintained in strict confidence. This is part of the collective agreement that allows us to work on topics from all facets of our life. We try not to disclose the identities of individuals involved, but because we are all members of the same College in allied departments, the identity is often obvious. This makes confidentiality all the more critical. We are aware of no breaches of confidentiality, underscoring the respect with which all the Group members hold the importance of being able to do the work that we do. After each member who wishes has had a chance to “work,” we often have a drink or dessert and talk about our personal lives. It is also a time when we can give each other a “stroke”. Strokes are compliments or positive reinforcement. Praise like “I am impressed with how well you are dealing with such a difficult situation” is common. The recipient must accept the praise without demurring. Particularly early on, many of us found it hard to accept strokes. I (Hardy) remember one night when I gave a stroke to a Group member about her standing in the field. She looked startled, gulped back her reflexive desire to balk, blinked hard a few times and finally came out with “Well, thank you?” As with the original EOT Group, we find that our members don’t receive as many accolades as they deserve, so we, like many women professionals, do not have a well-developed ability to accept praise gracefully. After years of training we are all better at simply saying “Thank you.”

Value of Groups The value of these Groups to their members is demonstrated by their longevity: both the lunchtime and evening UMM Groups have been meeting regularly for over 7 years. What have we gained? We have forged professional connections across departments that have helped us to navigate the professional challenges of tenure, promotion, research grants, collaborations, classroom 5

dynamics, research group management, and more. We have formed friendships and shared insights to address personal challenges with work/life balance, the needs of our growing children and aging parents, and our own health. In each Group we have a sense of community and shared experience. Our confidential discussions make it clear that all of us face similar challenges. We draw on diverse experiences in different departments and career stages to share ideas for what works and what doesn’t. As each individual faces and ultimately overcomes each challenge, it inspires everyone with confidence for meeting future challenges. Many examples illustrate the benefits we have gained. Members sometimes end their “work” on an issue with a “contract” – a statement of the plan she will implement to address the issue. This approach, which was suggested in Every Other Thursday, can help drive action. The perspective and reassurance of Group has helped members allow themselves necessary time to deal with health issues for themselves or family members, and helped others not blame themselves for difficult interactions with students or collaborators. Group members have shared valuable ideas that empowered us, for example, sharing effective approaches for carving out time to efficiently complete manuscripts. Group has connected us to larger networks that have helped for navigating unusual career issues. Since most of us work in male-dominated departments, we have enjoyed having time and space to work and interact with other women who face the same challenges about career advancement, student mentoring, grant-seeking, parenting, and teaching. Mentoring groups are not for everyone. A few people came to the first few meetings and then stopped, presumably because this type of interaction was not valuable for them. Others left after a year or two, presumably because they entered a new career/life phase with different needs. Thus we have self-selected for those who value the Group community and approach. The value of this work has been attractive to more colleagues than we could accommodate in our original Groups. Our experience confirms that, as for the EOT Group, 8-10 members is a good size – large enough to tolerate the inevitable absence of a few people from each meeting due to scheduling conflicts, but small enough that everyone present has time to “work” on an issue in the meeting and benefit from the shared ideas of the others. In the early years, as a few people left each Group we were able to invite new faculty to join. But then our membership stabilized, and we found ourselves in the frustrating situation of telling new colleagues that this activity is extremely valuable, but that we could not include them because the Groups were already full. This was difficult, as we did not intend to be exclusive. We considered splitting the Group into new groups with additional new members, but found that we all valued our Group community too much to give it up. Luckily, the UMass College of Natural Sciences was inspired by the success of our Groups and decided to facilitate the genesis of additional UMM Groups, as described below.

6

Mentoring 8 Days a Week: Expanding to All Interested Underrepresented Faculty In 2013 we were approached by the then newly appointed Associate Dean for Faculty and Research about expanding the use of this mentoring approach more broadly for female faculty in our college. Several members of UMM Groups were involved in an organizational meeting where we shared our experiences with other STEM faculty women interested in starting new mentoring groups. Most of the more recently organized mentoring groups meet for one hour twice a month during lunch. Similar themes have emerged in these newer UMM Groups. For instance, junior faculty find it extremely valuable to have the input of senior women, particularly those in leadership positions. One colleague who participates in one of these groups has found it very helpful to get perspective from outside of her own department and college. She also notes that in the frenetic life of faculty members, having a standing commitment and setting aside protected time every other week to work on various aspects of career development in a thoughtful supportive environment has had a positive impact on her career. The original EOT Group described in Every Other Thursday was predominantly female, but also had one male member. In their case the male member dropped out after a year or so, and their group continued as all women. It is clear to us that this type of mentoring does not need to be all female to succeed. In fact, a number of men have mentioned that they too would benefit from such a group. In 2016, two senior faculty from our college, Nilanjana “Buju” Dasgupta and S. “Thai” Thayumanavan (another Cottrell scholar) adopted the Every Other Thursday approach to create a mixed gender mentoring group of non-white faculty. The fact that this group has persisted for a year now suggests that this approach is working well in this demographic as well. We appreciate being in an environment where so many scientist are benefitting from mentoring that there must be a mentoring group meeting somewhere in or on the UMass campus eight days a week.

Mutual Mentoring the Next Generation: STEM Graduate Women Carol Gross, one of the members of the group described in Every Other Thursday, visited campus in 2010 and gave a talk entitled “Strategies for Success in Science”. During the introduction to this talk, we described how reading about Prof. Gross’ group had encouraged us to form a similar mentoring group on our campus. In the weeks following that seminar, two graduate student women, one chemist and one chemical engineer, approached us asking for advice on how to start a group. We (Hardy and Thompson) attended the initial organizational meeting of about 35 engaged and energetic graduate students from half a dozen different graduate programs. Over take-out Chinese food served on paper plates, we related our experiences of starting our mentoring group and noted specific ways that our own participation had been valuable to us. When we finished our presentation, it was tempting, as faculty members, to pass around a clip-board, organize the students and split them into groups that made sense to us. Luckily we 7

resisted that temptation. It has been our observation that starting a group works best when it is initiated in a grass roots manner and every member of the group is invested in the process. We left the room not knowing if anything would come of this meeting, but trusting that if something meaningful was to come out of it, the students needed to organize it for themselves. We were so pleased to hear that starting a week or two later four new groups of 6-8 female graduate students each had formed. Like us, they organized themselves based on what time of day fit best with their schedules. For example, one of these groups met in the evening over dinner in the same building as the laboratories, so that they could check an ongoing experiment if needed. Intriguingly, the themes these women encountered were extremely similar to those discussed in Every Other Thursday and in our mentoring groups. Women who participated in these graduate student groups reported that feeling a sense of community and breaking the sense of isolation were important components of their mentoring work. One woman wrote “The conversations that stand out are the ones we all had about trying to balance what we wanted out of life (getting married, kids, geography) with what we wanted in our careers. Even though I don’t know if any one of us had more answers than others, it helped just to know that I wasn’t the only one thinking about it (5).” Participants reported that having protected time to interact with other individuals at a similar life stage was valuable. One participant reported “It was a stressful time for many of us, so it was good to have a specific time to get out of the lab and talk to other women about everything we had going on (5).” The graduate students found that accountability was key to making their mentoring work valuable. For example, during a period when one student participant was “working” on issues with lab mates, at the subsequent meeting she reported on the outcome of implementing the suggestions of her group mates. As was a theme for faculty women, graduate students reported that it was helpful to hear about different experiences in various graduate programs, and to get advice for dealing with difficult situations in lab with other grad students or with their research advisors. Finally, students who were close to graduating appreciated getting advice from each other on job talks and looking for post-docs/jobs. In many ways, the themes and broad topics discussed by the graduate women mirrored those of the female faculty. A unique challenge for the long-term health of graduate student groups is that members graduate and leave campus after five years, so the groups naturally go through transitions and turn over. For this reason, having a campus culture of mentoring is critical to encourage more groups to form as new students join the campus. Our campus is fortunate to have resources from our colleges focusing on student support, diversity and faculty success, all of which recognize the important of mentoring. In addition, our campus has been the recipient of a grant from the Mellon Foundation to enable awarding of microgrants to faculty for mutual mentoring projects. Because of these resources and the programs they support, periodic mentoring events have helped to spark new groups every few years for new students, postdocs and faculty. We are aware of more recent graduate student mentoring groups organized in a grass roots manner by the GWIS (Graduate Women in Science) chapter as well as graduate women mentoring groups organized by our college. As was the case for us, normalizing the idea of 8

needing/wanting/valuing mentoring and talking about it openly has changed the dynamic on our campus and encouraged a great deal more mutual mentoring to occur.

Mentoring across the Miles: Taking Mutual Mentoring On-Line The Every Other Thursday approach to mutual mentoring has been so successful that new variations on this theme are also being implemented. Prof. Sandy Petersen has been the long-term force behind many minority support initiatives at UMass, particularly due to her work with the 22 institution Northeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (6). Prof. Petersen noticed that isolation is an issue for women faculty from underrepresented groups, many of whom are so rare that there are not enough peers at their home institution with whom to form a mentoring group. Prof. Petersen has initiated a project funded by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network for a Diverse Biomedical Workforce. As the abstract for her “NEAGEP Minority Mutual Mentoring Project: Amplifying Voices” describes, the new initiative “provides virtual mutual mentoring to groups of 5-8 women faculty from underrepresented groups (7). The groups meet every other week using conferencing technology with the intent of dealing with challenges they encounter in academia… The project currently has four active groups that meet virtually every other week.” This is a promising approach to combat isolation and create supportive communities for women faculty from underrepresented groups in STEM.

How To Start a Mutual Mentoring Group One of the greatest aspects of starting a mutual mentoring group is that it is free. We had money to start our groups, which did help to buy refreshments and bring in a fabulous speaker, but in reality mentoring groups can start with no additional resources whatsoever. A reminder of some basic principles is important to anyone seeking to start a Group of their own. Mutual mentoring is self-driven: participants find their own answers among the brainstorm of ideas discussed. Mutual mentoring is bidirectional: junior and senior faculty benefit equally from the exchange of ideas. Senior faculty do not view their participation as a “service” to help junior faculty succeed, but instead believe they gain equally from the fresh ideas and energy that junior faculty bring to the discussion. Junior faculty do not participate as a means to get “answers” from senior faculty, but instead realize there are a myriad of possible strategies and solutions, and only they can choose which course of action is best for their careers and lives. A key to starting a successful group is for faculty interested in such mutual mentoring exchanges to self-select, in a grass-roots, bottom-up fashion. This will foster the self-driven, bi-directional “work” of mutual mentoring. An important decision that the group organizer(s) need to make is the desired composition of the group. The goals for the group will determine the relative merits of including individuals with shared experiences vs diverse perspectives. 9

For example, restricting the group to all women would address isolation of women in STEM, but including men would promote communication and understanding of gender differences in addressing challenges. A group consisting of all tenuresystem faculty would all understand the challenges of research, but a group that includes lecturers would foster understanding of the unique challenges faced by each. The EOT Group was diverse; at various stages it included university faculty, administrative assistants, and both men and women. We chose a narrower focus for the first two UMM Groups, which consist of tenure-system female faculty in UMass departments involved in laboratory life-sciences research. The newer UMass mentoring groups have included both lecturers and tenure-system faculty, but have excluded multiple members from a single department. Each of these choices has its advantages and disadvantages, which should be weighed in light of both the goals and the practical constraints for starting a mentoring group. Every Other Thursday provides a great model for how to conduct a mentoring group. Reading this book will help the organizer(s) to envision their goals for the mentoring group and also to convey these to potential participants. Interested individuals can self-select by responding to an email message that explains the philosophy and benefits of mutual mentoring groups, ideally with a link to the book. The number of respondents will determine how many groups of 8-10 can be formed, and the group compositions can be determined based on practical issues such as the desired time, place, and frequency of meetings. It will take several meetings before the new Group feels comfortable and cohesive. It is important for all participants to read Every Other Thursday, in order to set the appropriate tone and expectations. Group is not for complaining about problems or for asking others to fix your problems. Participants are expected to “work” on an issue in their careers and lives, by describing a challenge and then participating in a discussion of ideas and perspectives that ultimately helps her to choose her own course of action. Participants are expected to listen when others “work” and then to contribute ideas respectfully (not declare the “right” answer), and also to keep everything confidential. During the initial meetings of a new group, when participants are likely to find it hard to start discussing issues, a good alternative is to discuss chapters from Every Other Thursday. As time builds trust and confidence in the group, discussion of challenging topics becomes easier and participants come to value the opportunity to lay out their concerns and collect ideas that empower them to move forward and choose the best course of action.

Summary The number of women faculty in the UMass STEM departments we counted has grown from 69 in 2009 to 99 in 2017, which represents a 43% increase. During this time period two longstanding mutual mentoring groups have been of tremendous value to STEM women faculty, and this model has expanded to form additional groups that serve all women faculty who wish to participate. Furthermore, this mentoring climate has led to the formation of mutual mentoring groups among STEM women graduate students. We are pleased to see so many 10

colleagues benefitting from mutual mentoring, and optimistic that these groups are helping the growing number of women in STEM to thrive in their careers.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Zellers, D. F.; Howard, V. M.; Barcic, M. A. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008, 78, 552. Stenken, J. A.; Zajicek, A. M. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 396, 541. Feldman, M. D.; Arean, P. A.; Marshall, S. J.; Lovett, M.; O’Sullivan, P. Med. Educ. Online 2010, 15, 5063. Yun, J. H.; Baldi, B.; Sorcinelli, M. D. Innovative Higher Educ. 2016, 41, 441. Daniell, E. Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 2006. Quotes, which are used with permission but not attributed to protect confidentiality, are from an email exchange with one of the authors. NEAGEP: Northeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate. http://neagep.org (accessed March 7, 2017).

11

Chapter 2

A Professional Development Handbook for New Faculty Dave Z. Besson,1 Penny J. Beuning,*,2 and Scott A. Snyder3 1Department

of Physics and Astronomy, 1082 Malott, 1251 Wescoe Hall Dr., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, United States, and National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moskva, Russia 115409 2Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, 360 Huntington Ave., Northeastern University, Boston, Massachsetts 02115, United States 3Department of Chemistry, 5735 S. Ellis Ave., University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

New faculty and those who aspire to be faculty in the sciences may feel unprepared to teach and mentor students effectively. This issue motivated the writing of a handbook with the goals of offering advice to new faculty as well as summarizing some of the current research on effective teaching and pedagogical approaches. The text was compiled from our own experiences in developing and leading various courses with a diverse array of students as well as a survey of Cottrell Scholars, who are early-career faculty who have been recognized for high-quality research and education programs, on their experiences in teaching, mentoring, and outreach. Our overarching goal was to improve the experience for faculty and their students by conveying effective teaching and mentoring practices in a succinct, easy-to-digest format, and in a style that was intentionally personal. The book addresses issues such as developing new courses, teaching large lecture classes, engaging students, addressing misconceptions about teaching, and recruiting and effectively mentoring students at all levels. This chapter provides an overview of the book, a recapitulation of the original motivation and main points, and outlines some of the ways in which the book can be integrated into professional development activities. © 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction By way of introduction, we offer the following vignette from one of the authors (D.Z.B.), which is similar to many of the vignettes that make up a portion of the text and provides context for the motivation for writing this book: I very distinctly recall, just after being hired at my current position, speaking during a coffee break at a conference with an individual who was five years my senior. This person had just gotten tenure and was describing to me her impressions of the job – “It’s almost absurd - the job combines two largely unrelated tasks (teaching and research), one of which you have basically no experience in and the other of which, despite what you may believe as a postdoc, you have only very limited relevant experience. The first day of my teaching, when I stepped in front of a large class, I suddenly and immediately had a sense of being woefully under-prepared. It’s gotten better since then - now I live in a state of constantly feeling only slightly under-prepared.” In truth, the job of being a faculty in the sciences at a university is somewhat more complicated than the description above, and, beyond teaching and research, also encompasses skills such as group management (i.e., leading others in their research), the art of gentle persuasion (i.e., grant-writing) and motivation on a large-scale, particularly when one is teaching a large, introductory lecture class. Given that gamut of responsibility and skillset, and recognizing that many new faculty feel overwhelmed and unprepared to teach and mentor effectively, especially while they face the concomitant pressure of establishing independent research programs, we sought to develop a succinct resource focused on effective teaching, mentoring, and outreach (1). Although there are a number of books on science teaching, some of which are focused on new faculty (2–6), few are directed towards these specific goals or provide advice in the form of the collective wisdom of this text in a format that is concise (i.e. can be read in the course of just a few hours). In addition, for those desiring more in-depth information on specific topics, the book includes an annotated bibliography of more than 100 references. Our own experiences have shown that teaching in the sciences presents some unique challenges. For instance, many science classes are organized as large lectures, a format that presents particular difficulties in terms of student engagement. Such large classes are often populated with students from a wide variety of majors possessing disparate backgrounds; many of these students might also be taking that science course to fulfill a requirement and, thus, may be resistant to the course goals or fail to see readily the relevance of the course. Finally, science courses often are paired with laboratories that ideally should be integrated with lecture content, adding another challenging element to an already crowded board of moving pieces and varied players. Thus, among the key goals of this book is to navigate these issues, in hopes of not only providing more effective teaching, but also increasing student engagement and interest in the subject at hand. 14

Motivation Although the training of Ph.D. students is often referred to as an apprentice model, in reality this training period does little to prepare science Ph.D. students to be college or university faculty. Unlike professions that actually follow a true apprentice model with close shadowing of practicing professionals, in our case, the situation is much different - one doesn’t apprentice or “shadow” a professional faculty member before entering the guild in all of the various roles that we play. This book was, therefore, an attempt to at least provide some type of a roadmap or “how-to” guide to junior faculty, offering both a general introduction as well as potential organizational avenues intended to increase efficiency. The book was also written realizing that the parameters defining the profession are currently changing at an unprecedentedly rapid pace. Taking advantage of the conveniences offered in this wiki age, we imagined this enterprise to be dynamic, with the ability for others to add impressions, corrections, and updates. Even over the limited time-scale required to write the book, the number and power of advertised teaching aids, for example, grew considerably. Collectively, we realize that many of the references to websites and technologies contained in the current text will likely be obsolete on a ten-year timescale; avoiding obsolescence for this effort will thus require similar updating. In surveying the body of literature that purported to have similar goals, we found many studies that measured, for example, the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches. However, as one quickly realizes, such statistical analyses, although vitally important in their own right, paint only a partial picture. The in-class effectiveness of “clickers” or other student response systems in large lectures has, for instance, been studied and documented extensively over the last twenty years. What is generally missing from these studies is the personal experiences of teachers focusing on practical matters of implementation and lessons learned from new practitioners in their own inaugural attempts. This text was specifically intended as a complement to those statistical measures in hopes that it would provide a useful and personalized narrative that could speak directly to faculty of all stripes. The first, and most obvious question was how to organize and define the text material. To develop the content, we drew on our own experiences, those of our colleagues, and we surveyed Cottrell Scholars, who are faculty in the sciences who received Cottrell Scholar awards recognizing their excellence and leadership in both research and in education at primarily large, research-focused institutions. This program has recently been broadened to include faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions. We chose the Cottrell Scholars in part because they were familiar to us and with the project, and so were expected to be more likely to respond to a rather lengthy survey than a general group of college and university science faculty. Second, the Scholars represent a faculty cadre that have been selected, in large part, on the basis of their efforts to improve college-level education. Given the maturity of their collective thinking on the subject, we considered this group to be one with particularly valuable insights. As such, we had access to a select group of educators, ones who had already been identified by their exceptional classroom and laboratory skills. That fact 15

notwithstanding, approximately half of the survey respondents reported that they received no advice or mentoring regarding teaching before they taught their first class.

Focus, Content, and Benefits Following the model outlined above, in terms of teaching for the first time, a good way to learn useful strategies is to watch effective teachers and to attend teaching workshops. Many professional societies offer rich resources, short courses, and hands-on workshops related to pedagogy. A number of other books provide concrete, practical advice with examples that can easily be incorporated into classes (2, 4). Once this groundwork is laid, courses should be designed around learning goals, which may be mandated by the institution, an accrediting body, or may be the goals of the faculty members. Such learning goals help provide structure and a clear framework to students, and provide a central theme that helps ground the course as a whole. Learning goals may go beyond mere content, such as communication skills, or developing scientific literacy in an era when it is perhaps more essential than ever to provide a broader context to the immediate course content. Assessments and benchmarks should be developed to determine how well learning goals are being met – there are now many online tools that are available in this regard. Effective teachers recommend being transparent about learning goals and strategies with their students, which generally increases student buy-in to the goals of the course. Instructors can also increase student buy-in and engagement by conveying enthusiasm and relevance. The importance of this last point cannot be overemphasized, as students will sense listlessness from the instructor in its absence. In this vein, giving real-world examples and showing the relevance of a course to other fields is essential, as it can also help engage non-major students. Large lectures present specific challenges in terms of keeping students engaged, managing classroom dynamics, and managing demands on the time of the instructor. Specific advice includes commanding respect by developing stage presence, dressing professionally, and practicing lectures in advance, including even recording portions of a few lectures and viewing them privately in order to work out problems a priori. Some institutions offer the capability of recording lectures and posting them on course management websites, which can be useful for students who may need to miss class. It has been definitively demonstrated that active student engagement with course material produces better learning outcomes (7). Although there are numerous ways to teach with technology that can lead to active learning by students, there are also many low- and no-tech ways to achieve the same ends. Students can work problems in class while instructor(s) circulate and answer questions, or can vote with their hands or a show of fingers for multiple-choice questions. The main advice is to use active learning methods seamlessly within a class; the instructor should actively engage and be positive about the classroom environment, and not try to make too many changes to a class or introduce too many active learning activities at once. There are many resources for activities 16

that can adapted for specific classes; one excellent resource is the Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College (8). The “Teach Better” book also contains an extensive annotated bibliography to point the reader to additional teaching resources in the literature; nearly all of the references included are from the primary, peer-reviewed literature (1). The main time-saving tips for teaching include taking good notes throughout the term about what worked and what should be changed, as well as any errors that should be corrected. In addition, administrative support, potentially in the form of teaching assistants or even peer mentors or work-study students, can help find resources, plan activities, maintain course web sites, take care of other administrative tasks, and, in very large introductory classes, provide a buffer between the faculty and the clientele. Instructors should also take advantage of the vast resources available for incorporating active learning into classes, rather than trying to invent every idea and activity de novo. Surveying effective teachers about their teaching revealed a number of creative practices that would not be obvious to many, even to experienced teachers. For example, inviting students to give feedback on the syllabus or to design their own grading scheme within certain parameters leads to better student buy-in. Allowing students to re-do the exam question on which they performed the worst rarely changes a grade but provides for deeper learning and increased student satisfaction. Having students debate specific experimental or instrumentation approaches to solve specific scientific problems can be fun and highly educational. Another example is a series of modules of “Facts that were Problems” in which ideas that are presented in textbooks as facts are actually probed as worked example problems in class; using data and figures from the primary literature adds a historical aspect and can be used to show students that science is in a constant state of flux. Additional examples, more details of these examples, and credit to the originators can be found in the full text (1). Assessment In general, several different types of assessments are better than one or two high-stakes exams during the semester and minimize student stress associated with single events, as well as providing opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency and effort. Having multiple assessments will generally encourage better study habits. Similarly, incorporating multiple assessments of instructor effectiveness, in particular mid-course evaluations, but including others as well, allows the instructor to assess what is working and address problems early. Student-Faculty Relationships Among the misconceptions that were highlighted was the expectation that students will automatically respect faculty. Faculty should set the tone for a positive, respectful environment by doing such things are being on time and prepared for class, returning work and giving feedback promptly, and explicitly stating expectations for classroom behavior. Another common misconception is that students are just like the faculty were when the faculty were students. Faculty 17

should be prepared for a range of preparation and motivation, and recognize that there are many things faculty can do to provide motivation and enthusiasm for learning on the part of students. Mentoring Again, there are many excellent resources available related to mentoring students and other researchers (9–11). Recruiting and mentoring students is such an integral part of the faculty role and so crucial for faculty success that the book includes brief sections on mentoring researchers at all levels, from postdoctoral scholars to high school students, including staff such as technicians. This topic is especially important because many faculty have had no explicit training in mentoring, although more opportunities are becoming available for faculty professional development regarding mentoring tied to national initiatives (for example, National Research Mentoring Network, NRMN) (12). Our book includes discussion of recruiting students and other personnel as a new faculty member, establishing a research group environment and mentoring style(s), and dealing with difficult issues. Outreach For new faculty, engaging in outreach provides yet another outlet in which to share their excitement and enthusiasm for their field, and for many faculty, outreach activities are some of the most rewarding aspects of their professional responsibilities. In addition, outreach is a common way to fulfill requirements of some granting agencies such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. Thus, the book includes discussion of different types of outreach in which faculty might engage, ranging from K-12 to local businesses, as well as suggestions for maximizing effectiveness of outreach activities. In addition to satisfying a condition for a proposal, such programs often have dual benefits - for the precocious junior researcher, such programs can present an opportunity to explore opportunities otherwise not available at the K-12 level. For the PI, such programs present an opportunity to interact with a highly-motivated, and often exceptionally talented, student. Consequently, strategies for outreach are now generally required for faculty success. Moreover, such K-12 outreach, as well as outreach to the community-at-large serves to enhance scientific literacy and appreciation for scientific discovery at a time when an understanding of basic science and development of critical thinking skills are important to foster an informed citizenry. Finally, the book includes an extensive annotated bibliography of primary, peer-reviewed discipline-based education literature and review articles. The topics addressed range from cooperative learning to homework and other assessments of student learning to demonstrations and virtual laboratories. These resources provide further reading on a number of topics as well as distillations of the work cited. By design, the text clearly has use for faculty at all levels. Perhaps one of the most important uses for this book lies in the opportunity it presents to compare 18

one’s own experience and impressions with those of colleagues - in particular, colleagues who have a well-deserved reputation for giving detailed consideration to their profession. For example, simply seeing in print that other science faculty, at all levels and in all sub-disciplines, similarly struggle with balancing teaching and research, or being able to objectively interpret course evaluations, or properly weighing their non-professional needs with faculty demands, provides some sense of shared experience and grounding. This facet, again, is one we hope is readily apparent in the personalized and anecdotal tone we intentionally set for the text. For those faculty with some experience, one ancillary benefit of the text is seeing the roadmap, touching on all the facets of a faculty job, fully laid out in detail. Many of the ideas that occur to one person likely have already been considered, and perhaps experimented with by another. Knowing that some particular strategy is likely to be a dead-end can be invaluable in saving time down the road.

Foundation for Professional Development A number of programs are available to help prepare graduate students and postdoctoral scholars for faculty careers (13) as well as to provide professional development for graduate students and new faculty. We have found the “Teach Better” book to be a useful tool to be used in these programs. The book can be used as part of the curriculum or simply be provided to participants as a resource. The full text of the book is available as a PDF download from the Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA) web site (http://rescorp.org/about-rcsa/books). Hard copies are also available by contacting RCSA. Student Teaching Workshops/Teaching Assistant Training Although targeted to faculty, the book contains useful information for graduate teaching assistants as well. For example, whenever one of us (S.A.S.) is about to teach a large lecture class, the chapter on that section is passed out from the perspective of highlighting to students some of the concerns and objectives that the main instructor has, so that the teaching assistants can think about their own role and some of the same issues and challenges in properly engaging their students. In a recent session that supplemented part of the University of Chicago’s TA training program (14), copies of that same chapter and the entire book were provided in the same spirit. Future Faculty Workshops Workshops designed to prepare graduate students and postdoctoral scholars for the academic job search process and for faculty positions are sponsored by a number of universities and professional societies. These often focus on aspects of the job search process, such as preparing an effective curriculum vitae and research statement, and succeeding in the interview process. Many workshops also address issues important for success once the candidate has taken a position, addressing 19

topics such as managing research and researchers, obtaining funding, and teaching. The “Teach Better” book can be an integral part of these workshops, with its focus on teaching as well as on recruiting and mentoring researchers.

Faculty Professional Development Workshops Many campuses and professional societies organize professional development workshops for faculty, often focusing on new faculty. One example is the New Faculty Workshop organized by the Cottrell Scholar Collaborative and the American Chemical Society (see Chapter 3 in this volume on the CSC New Faculty Workshop) that targets chemistry faculty in the first year or two of their faculty appointments. Local efforts can be just as useful. For instance, as part of its faculty development programming, Northeastern University sponsors an annual workshop on Establishing a Research Program, co-led by P.J.B., which incorporates many of the issues related to recruiting and mentoring students in the “Teach Better” book (each participant is also given a copy of the book in the course of the workshop). Similarly, in lunch-based meetings and local workshops on the faculty experience and the particulars of initiating a research laboratory, S.A.S. has provided copies to participants, as well.

Future Directions This book was written, in part, to recognize the dynamism apparent in the multiple aspects of the faculty role in teaching, research, and outreach, and to anticipate how, generally speaking, these demands might evolve in the future. As noted above, the rate at which the teaching profession evolves is likely to continue to accelerate in the next 5–10 years. This suggestion is, in part, a result of the increasing scrutiny being given to, and the growing number of tools available for, assessment of teaching effectiveness in STEM fields, which has resulted in a growing recognition of science teaching as a sub-discipline unto itself. The skill set required for success in research and teaching, and attracting, retaining, and mentoring students, not only requires adaptation to and rapid assimilation of new technologies, but is also subject to understanding changing priorities and adapting to new research. Within the last 1-2 decades, increasing numbers of dedicated faculty positions, funding opportunities, and journals devoted to discipline-based pedagogy have emerged. In concert, and given the inevitable evolution of research directions, methods and priorities, the dynamic challenges associated with faculty (in all disciplines) imply that, to avoid obsolescence, this handbook will, in some form, require periodic updating. The ease of access to a myriad of online tools should facilitate this task in the future. To date, about 500 hard copies of the book have been distributed. We encourage continued use of, and feedback about, the book in interactive workshops for graduate students, postdocs, and faculty.

20

Acknowledgments We thank Research Corporation for Science Advancement and especially Silvia Ronco, Richard Wiener, and Kathleen Parson for support of this project. Ingrid DeVries Salgado contributed the majority of the annotated bibliography in the “Teach Better” book.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

Beuning, P. J.; Besson, D. Z.; Snyder, S. A. Teach Better, Save Time, and Have More Fun: A Guide to Teaching and Mentoring in Science with an annotated bibliography by Ingrid DeVries Salgado; Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, AZ, 2014. Ambrose, S. A.; Bridges, M. W.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M. C.; Norman, M. K. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010. Davidson, C. I.; Ambrose, S. A., The New Professor’s Handbook: A Guide to Teaching and Research in Engineering and Science; Anker Publishing, Wiley: Bolton, MA, 1994. Handelsman, J.; Miller, S.; Pfund, C., Scientific Teaching; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2006. Noor, M. A., You’re Hired! Now What?; Sinauer Associates, Inc.: Sunderland, MA, 2012. Wankat, P. C., The Effective, Efficient Professor: Teaching, Scholarship, and Service; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, 2002. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410–5. The Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College. http:// serc.carleton.edu (accessed December 28, 2016). Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1997. Barker, K., At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory, second ed.; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 2010. Handelsman, J.; Lauffer, S. M.; Pribbenow, C. M.; Pfund, C. Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists; W.H. Freeman: New York, 2009. National Research Mentoring Network. https://nrmnet.net/ (accessed December 28, 2016). Heller, R. S.; Mavriplis, C.; Sabila, P. S., Forward to Professorship in STEM: Inclusive Faculty Development Strategies that Work; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2016. Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Zhao, M. An Intensive Training Program for Effective Teaching Assistants in Chemistry. J. Chem. Ed. 2016, 93, 1204–1210. 21

Chapter 3

The Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop: Early Lessons for Change in Teaching Rory Waterman*,1 and Andrew L. Feig*,2 1Department

of Chemistry, University of Vermont, 82 University Place, Burlington, Vermont 05045, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, 5101 Cass Ave., Detroit, Michigan 48202, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (R. Waterman); [email protected] (A.L. Feig).

In 2011, The Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop (CSC NFW) was conceived to address deficiencies in pre-service professional development as individuals assumed their roles as chemistry faculty members. The workshop design arose from professional development literature and national workshops in other disciplines. Over the past five years, the CSC NFW has been successful by a variety of measures. Reflecting on the strengths and weakness of the CSC NFW, the workshop provides some lessons to promote change in teaching practice.

Introduction In 2011, Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA) decided to try something new. With a cadre of more than 200 Cottrell Scholars, RCSA gave the Cottrell Scholars impetus to self-organize and tackle the pressing problems at the interface of research and education. Thus, at its annual meeting, RCSA announced competitive awards for groups of Cottrell Scholars. It was an idyllic situation: Good money to address a problem of personal interest with a dream team of like-minded people. It was easy to find a group of individuals who were keen to address the shortfalls in pre-professional training for chemistry faculty, and the

© 2017 American Chemical Society

team wrote a successful proposal that year. The plan to initiate a Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop (CSC NFW) in chemistry was born. The workshop team built two critical partnerships at that initial meeting in Tucson. The first was with the American Chemical Society. Naturally, the ACS would support an effort to improve chemistry instruction and aid in the success of new faculty—indeed, those motivations are borne out by a variety of ACS-initiated and ACS-sponsored activities to meet those exact aims. However, this kind of activity had not been attempted at ACS, and somewhat surprisingly, the ACS, from executive leadership down, expressed confidence in a group that was not trained in professional development to develop and execute such a plan. ACS has hosted the event at its headquarters since its inception and provided logistical support. That support was well and thoroughly augmented by the technical expertise provided by our primary contact, Dr. Jodi Wesemann, Associate Director for Educational Research in the Division of Education. Dr. Wesemann’s familiarity with these issues and understanding of the various factors at work was essential for success. The second critical partnership was developed with Prof. Marilyne Stains, a chemical education researcher at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Prof. Stains studies the barriers chemistry faculty face as they choose to adopt (or fail to adopt) evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). She developed a protocol, a longitudinal, mixed methods quasi-experimental design, to study the workshop and its impact on faculty participants. While many may accept that the intervention itself is important, the data Prof. Stains and her team would collect was the basis for actual validation of the plans and a roadmap to greater efficacy. The focus of the initial iterations of the workshop was on faculty at R1 institutions. That decision arose from the finite number of institutions and faculty as well as the personal experience that the initial team had in this area. It was a limitation. We would turn away faculty from other types of institutions for this reason, but it was also meant to be temporary. A goal in the entire project was scaling it to faculty nation-wide, and to meet that goal, we needed a successful model from which to grow.

Conceptual Framework of the Workshop The workshop was designed to address the fact that few chemistry faculty receive training in the broad range of skills necessary to excel in faculty positions. Graduate and post-doctoral programs typically do an excellent job providing the skills necessary to select important research problems and personally tackle them at the bench. Faculty quickly realize, however, that their own two hands are a limiting reagent and that their success hinges on other skills from budgeting to personnel management and everything in between. Thus, the workshop covers a range of critical issues including cultural competency, time management, grant writing, and safety while providing networking opportunities. In addition, most faculty must devote substantial effort toward teaching. Given that the lack of pedagogical training for most chemists is their largest pre-service deficiency, addressing that deficiency is the core content of the workshop. 24

What new faculty do not need is a boot camp in traditional, didactic lecture. Contrary to recent anecdotal reports (1), repeated study has revealed that active learning is not only more effective for students to meet learning objectives, it also provides greater gains to underrepresented groups in science (2). Given the tremendous pressure to adopt more effective or evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) (3–5), it was clear that a critical way to serve these faculty was through an introduction to practices that have been vetted in the educational literature. The decision to target new faculty was considered. One key rationale for delivery to this group stems from the understanding that senior faculty have resisted changes to passive lecture, and that group most commonly cites lack of time and incentive, as a result of university rewards structures, as the reasons for their reticence toward instructional change (6–9). An intuitive notion is that new faculty would be more receptive to EBIPs before they develop habits in their own teaching. Indeed evidence supports the idea that interventions are most effective for faculty before they develop a teaching style (10, 11). It was fully anticipated that the workshop and its ancillary activities would impact the participants’ professional identity (12) and help participants adopt a teacher-scholar model receptive toward understanding instructional practice rather than that of a researcher who teaches out of necessity. The first resources for the workshop’s development came from the literature on instructional change in both organizations and at the undergraduate level (6, 7, 13, 14). We also looked toward workshops in other disciplines for guidance. There is a rich list of disciplinary workshops that cover various aspects of professional development (15). Among the potential candidates, we considered two events, the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop organized by American Association of Physics Teachers, American Astronomical Society, American Physics Society and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute/National Academy of Sciences Summer Institutes, to be close models for our efforts. These are successful events. For example, the AAPT workshop has reached approximately 25% of all new domestic physics and astronomy faculty since 1996 and has made significant gains in participants awareness of EBIPs (16). There are two ways in which the CSC NFW differs from the AAPT/AAS/APS workshop. First, the CSC NFW is shorter, approximately half the length of the AAPT/AAS/APS workshop. While this limited time with participants risked less robust outcomes (though, time has proven both workshops afford similar gains for participants), it was a calculated risk: It was felt that new chemistry faculty, particularly from R1 institutions, would elect not to attend a workshop longer than two days. Second, the CSC NFW targets “newer” new faculty. The CSC NFW audience is approximately half pre-service faculty and half one-year veterans in their independent position. Our aim was to intervene before teaching habits begin to solidify but also have some peer voice of experience as well during the event. The AAPT/AAS/APS workshop requires faculty have had at least one full year in their faculty to be eligible, and the Summer Institute program is open to faculty at all levels. Another critical feature for our design was the incorporation of EBIPs as the mode for content delivery in the workshop. This was a structural decision. It 25

provides the participants models of the methods that they could adopt, experience with EBIPs from a student’s perspective, and opportunity for reflection about on their perceptions of EBIPs—and possible misconceptions—to make more informed choices about personal instructional practices. Lastly, participants were provided the opportunity to practice with peers to develop comfort with implementation and receive constructive feedback on their efforts. This was a critical piece adopted from the Summer Institute program. To be able to practice these techniques, the participants would need to devise a lesson with one or more EBIPs, and that process—the development and execution of a lesson—would form the core effort of the workshop.

Workshop Structure The structure of the workshop has been summarized elsewhere (17). A simplified schedule for the 2016 workshop is provided in Table 1, which shows an intense schedule to cover the range of EBIPs targeted, provide structured working time, and include content in non-teaching areas of interest. The core activity of the workshop is the development of a “teachable tidbit (18),” or lesson. The tidbit is constructed in parts, starting with learning objectives and ultimately utilizing any active learning practices that the participant wishes to employ. The process contains both delivery in which participants receive information about instructional practices as well as lesson design and assessment.

Table 1. Schedule for the 2016 CSC New Faculty Workshop Day 1 3:00 pm Workshop Check-In: Just-in-Time Teaching exercise due 3:30 pm Opening Session: The Difference between Teaching and Learning 5:00 pm Panel: Writing Proposals and Managing Grants Day 2 8:00 am Breakfast at ACS: Welcome and Introductions 8:45 am Session: Just-in-Time Teaching 9:00 am Session: Introduction to Scientific/Research-Based Teaching 9:30 am Break 9:45 am Exercise: Active Learning 11:00 am Teachable Tidbit, Part 1: Learning Objective, Backward Design – Syllabi and Selection of Content 12:00 pm Teachable Tidbit Report 12:15 pm Lunch Session: Learning Taxonomies 1:30 pm Teachable Tidbit, Part 2: Making a Content Element Active Continued on next page.

26

Table 1. (Continued). Schedule for the 2016 CSC New Faculty Workshop 3:00 pm Teachable Tidbit Report 3:30 pm Break 3:45 pm Session: Assessing Student Learning 4:15 pm Teachable Tidbit, Part 3: Developing Formative Assessment to Assist Student Learning 5:15 pm Teachable Tidbit Report 5:30 pm Self-select Sessions: Teaching Large Lectures, Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences, or Peer Learning 6:30 pm Dinner at ACS 7:00 pm Session: Addressing Student Diversity 7:45 pm Session: Mentoring and Group-Building 8:30 pm Adjourn Day 3 8:00 am Breakfast at ACS 8:15 am Teachable Tidbit, Part 4: Trial Run – Try out Your Project in Small Groups 10:15 am Teachable Tidbit Feedback 10:45 am Break 11:00 am Session: Managing a Safe Laboratory 11:30 am Session: Time Management 12:30 pm Workshop Wrap-Up and Evaluation

Workshop Data There are three critical outcomes from the workshop. 1) Participant faculty are more aware of EBIPs, particularly those described in the workshop; 2) participants self-report a higher likelihood of using these methods in their classrooms; and 3) observational data shows that participant faculty have classes with a more studentcentered learning environment. Of course, all data were collected and analyzed by Prof. Stains and her team (17, 19). The workshop participants were aware of more EBIPs than they were prior to the event. On first glance, this finding may appear obvious. After approximately two days of exposure, the participants should have greater familiarity with EBIPs. However, this is the first finding in which the utility of the control group in Prof. Stains’s study is illustrated. By identifying a group of peers who were not attending the workshop, Prof. Stains was able to identify that the gains in EBIPs are a result of the workshop as intervention rather than personal interests of the participant faculty (Figure 1) (11).

27

Figure 1. Average number of evidence-based instructional practices that the CSC NFW participants (i.e., treatment) and the control group knew on the pre, post, and delayed survey. Error bars represent the standard errors of the mean. Reprinted from ref (17). Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society. These results illustrate the power of the longitudinal component of Prof. Stains’ study. What can be seen from the “delayed post-treatment” data, surveys collected one year after the original intervention, is that the gains in EBIPs are maintained—if not slightly increased—for workshop participants. The persistence of the participants familiarity with these practices is important as is observation that faculty not engaged in an intervention are not acquiring familiarity with EBIPs in their routine practices. Workshop participants reported greater instances of EBIP use after participation in the workshop. For example, Figure 2 shows the responses of workshop participants who were asked about the frequency of group work in their classrooms before and after the workshop. To measure if this is a change in behavior, only data for workshop participants who completed one year as an assistant professor before attending the CSC New Faculty Workshop is shown.

Figure 2. Frequency of implementation of group work before and after participation in the workshops for participants who were entering their second year as assistant professor. Reprinted from ref (17). Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society. 28

These data have limits. For example, some workshop participants indicated having utilized an EBIP that is based on group work, but these individuals failed to indicate that they use group work in their course. This disconnect and other limitations are known and have been described for self-reported data in prior studies (20–22). More than the self-reports, study of participants attitudes and beliefs about teaching were assessed through the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) for both groups. The workshop participants demonstrated significant increase on the student-centered scale as compared to the control group after the workshop (Figure 3; data for control not shown here). However, these data also show that the gains are limited. Delayed post-survey assessment, or observation one-year after the workshop, shows some loss on the student centered scale. It is an unfortunate loss but consistent with the notion that a single intervention is not sufficient for long-term change.

Figure 3. Changes on the student-centered and teacher-centered scale of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory over the course of one year based on matched pre/post/delayed post surveys. Reprinted from ref (17). Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society. Using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (23), Prof. Stains and her team have assessed participant and control faculty member’s classroom practices. The observations were conducted from video recorded classes that were sent to the Stains group and analyzed remotely. The most striking observation (Figure 4b) is the decrease in didactic lecture practiced by the workshop participants (i.e., control vs. treatment post). The greatest gain from that change is substantially more Socratic classrooms, but some peer instruction and collaborative learning is also observed. For reference, Socratic instructional style is typified by a high frequency of lecture (>80% of time is two minute intervals of lecture), but the intervening time involves student questions and students addressing instructor questions in a distribution that demonstrates short interactions between the students and instructor at regular intervals (24). 29

Figure 4. (a) Average RTOP scores and (b) classification by types of COPUS profile of the video recordings collected in the fall semester following the CSC NFW program (22 treatment faculty and 5 control faculty) as well as two years later (3 treatment faculty). Reprinted from ref (19). Copyright 2015 American Chemical Society. Both Figures 3 and 4b illustrate a critical problem: Gains from the workshop erode over time. To remedy this problem, the workshop is part of an evolving, year-long program. At present, participants are connected with the teaching center on their respective campuses at the time of the workshop, and throughout the year following the workshop, monthly virtual meetings between the organizers and workshop participants are convened on topics of interest. For example, meetings on assessment, homework, and tenure process are commonplace. The data above are from earlier workshop iterations, so continued monitoring of these data and adjustment to post-workshop programming is critical to sustain the gains made. Post workshop surveys, which is the most common assessment among faculty workshops (15), show high satisfaction with the program. Indeed, the workshop has been meeting participant expectations for content and delivery with an increasing degree of satisfaction over the past five years (25). Some of that improvement in participant impression is doubtlessly the results of the workshop moving from an unknown program to one with some reputation in the community (26, 27). Regardless, the organizing team has sought to be cognizant of the participant feedback to optimize the content that high perceived value and minimize that which is perceived unnecessary within the objectives of the workshop.

The Elephant in the Room: Change The CSC New Faculty Workshop was conceived to promote change. According to a summary of change strategies in undergraduate education (28), the design of the workshop and subsequent interventions is directed primarily toward change in the personal domain. Because there is high personal ownership of the efforts in the workshop and the participant faculty are nominated and supported by their chairs, the workshop has both emergent and prescriptive characteristics. Thus, as an activity, we would ask, can we inform and promote decisions about teaching that lead to greater student-centered learning? That is, of course, a measurable objective. The degree to which participants have familiarity 30

with more EBIPs can be measured as well as the degree to which a classroom is a student-centered learning environment (vide supra). Impacting a faculty member’s professional identity is more complex. Our premise that experience with EBIPs as well as peer feedback on one’s own practices may help initiate a more reflective attitude toward teaching. Further, the structure of post workshop meetings, meant to promote discussion, is an effort to foster the workshop cohorts as learning communities around issues of teaching (29). If changing professional identity is difficult to measure, our more subtle goal to promote change broadly would be impossible to measure. We continue to operate under the assumption that providing new faculty with an early exposure to vetted instructional practices and effective alternatives to didactic lecture will create a bottom-up acceptance of these methods. When these faculty accept the methods, they will be more receptive and supportive of colleagues who are adopters. Furthermore, the workshop participants will, one day, lead departments and drive the direction of teaching at their institutions. Perhaps this is already happening. In a few anecdotal instances, some of the workshop participants, as junior faculty, have been asked to serve on campus-level committees on education largely due to their participation in the workshop. In the meantime, however, the discourse and the nature of that discourse is critical. The value structures at universities will not change unless the issue of quality teaching over competent lecturing is addressed. That discourse will be more successful if it starts in departments because if it does not, then suggestions of change will appear forced or mandated and doubtlessly not succeed. A discourse in departments is also more likely to be collegial. Considering how best to achieve learning outcomes for students is something that colleagues are well equipped to do and likely to consider alternative instructional practices, if these are available to them and straightforward to implement. That kind of conversation requires a leap into a reality wherein the quality of student’s learning rather than one’s “teaching” is the key indicator. Across the lifetime of the workshop, the nature of the discourse has been changing. In the first years, some participants would argue—literally argue—that lecture is equivalent, if not superior, to EBIPs, despite the data that was presented (2). In more recent years, there is simple acceptance. Armed with the data, new faculty recognize the success of EBPIs—if they did not arrive at the conclusion already. This past year was the first in which several participants had sufficiently extensive experience with implementing EBIPs that they deemed the workshop content too basic for their needs (25). Thus, there is diminishing need to convince new faculty of the need for EBIPs, rather it is the content and opportunity for development and practice that are needed. It is unlikely that the CSC New Faculty Workshop has been the driver for significant national change yet. However, it is reasonable to anticipate that the workshop has been accelerating a process that has been ongoing, and our continued observation of new faculty will better inform how the dialog could be managed in years to come.

31

Future for the Event We have two long-term objectives with the workshop and affiliated programming. First, we would like to expand to serve all chemistry faculty. As such, the CSC New Faculty Workshop is evolving. In 2016, Research Corporation sponsored an expansion of the model to include faculty from primarily undergraduate (PUIs), masters grating, and comprehensive institutions, which was held at ACS Headquarters in Washington, D. C. This effort is the tip of the iceberg. We have yet to address faculty across all institution types, particularly two-year and community colleges. Worse still, the word ‘faculty’ in the title excludes lecturers as well as the nebulous population of adjunct instructors. While it is gratifying to expand this year with a level of success similar to that of the R1-only events (25), there is much more work to be done than has been accomplished. The second objective is to obviate ourselves. By expanding the number of faculty aware of EBIPs, empowering them to try EBIPs, facilitating a national conversation about these methods, and fostering networks to support change, we should eliminate the need for this workshop. If faculty embrace EBIPs and share the value of these with Ph.D. students, who are instructed in their use as teaching assistants, the loop would be closed and new faculty would no longer need the workshop. While that objective seems perhaps as distant as the first, the inaugural cohort of CSC New Faculty Workshop participants will soon be graduating their first Ph. D. students. We can truly start to close the loop.

Conclusions The CSC New Faculty Workshop has helped more than half of new R1 hires to develop and execute a more student-centered approach toward their teaching. Those successes are tempered by the loss of some gains made among participants over time. Regardless, the workshop does broadly inform efforts to change instructional practice nationally and across disciplines. The success of the workshop results from the participants understanding of the value of modern, vetted pedagogy. Armed with that understanding, the workshop provides the participants with two critical ingredients for success. First, they have time—albeit it limited—to develop experience and comfort with EBIPs. Second, they make connections with peers over teaching to support that growth. Thus, the ingredients that we have identified as important are exportable and scalable.

Acknowledgments We owe the current and past facilitators of the workshop (Profs. Lane Baker, Penny Beuning, Linda Columbus, Chris Douglas, Rigoberto Hernandez, William Jenks, Casey Londergan, Gina MacDonald, Jill Millstone, and Tehshik Yoon) a tremendous debt of gratitude for their diligent and thoughtful service to our new colleagues. The workshop itself has been funded by Research Corporation for Science Advancement since its inception with support from the American Chemical Society. At ACS, we are particularly grateful for the technical and 32

logistic support from Drs. Jodi Wesemann and Ashley Donovan. We thank Prof. Marilyne Stains and her group for data collection and analysis, which has afforded a highly fruitful collaboration. Her research was funded by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This manuscript was produced with partial support from the NSF through CHE-1306063 (to A. L. F.), DUE-1524878 (to A. L .F.), and CHE-1565658 (to R. W.).

References 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

Gross-Loh, C. Should Colleges Really Eliminate the College Lecture? The Atlantic 2016July14. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111, 8410–8415. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, 2012. Mehrotra, S.; Schwarz, E. We Need All Hands on Deck for Science Education. Forbes 2013, April 22. American Association of Universities American Association of Universities Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative. https://www.aau.edu/policy/ article.aspx?id=12588 (accessed August 13). Austin, A. Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education. In A White Paper Commissioned by the National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education, 2011. Gess-Newsome, J.; Southerland, S. A.; Johnston, A.; Woodbury, S. Educational Reform, Personal Practical Theories, and Dissatisfaction: The Anatomy of Change in College Science Teaching. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2003, 40, 731–767. Henderson, C.; Dancy, M. Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics. PRST-PER 2007, 3, 020102. Cech, T. R. Rebalancing Teaching and Research. Science 2003, 299, 165. Derting, T. L.; Ebert-May, D. Learner-Centered Inquiry in Undergraduate Biology: Positive Relationships with Long-Term Student Achievement. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 462–72. Ebert-May, D.; Weber, E. P. FIRST--What’s Next? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2006, 5, 27–8. Brownell, S. E.; Tanner, K. D. Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and…Tensions with Professional Identity? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 339–346. Kezar, A. J. Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2001. 33

14. Henderson, C.; Beach, A.; Finkelstein, N. Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 952–984. 15. The Role of Scientific Societies in STEM Faculty Workshops; Hilborn, R. C., Ed.; American Association of Physics Teachers: College Park, MD, 2013. 16. Henderson, C. Promoting Instrcutional Change in New Faculy: An Evaluation of the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop. Am. J. Phys. 2008, 76, 179–187. 17. Baker, L. A.; Chakraverty, D.; Columbus, L.; Feig, A. L.; Jenks, W. S.; Pilarz, M.; Stains, M.; Waterman, R.; Wesemann, J. L. Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop: Professional Development for New Chemistry Faculty and Initial Assessment of Its Efficacy. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1874–1881. 18. Handelsman, J.; Miller, S.; Pfund, C. Scientific Teaching; W.H. Freeman & Company, in collaboration with Roberts & Company Publishers: Englewood, CO, 2006. 19. Stains, M.; Pilarz, M.; Chakraverty, D. Short and Long-Term Impacts of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1466–1476. 20. Ebert-May, D.; Derting, T. L.; Hodder, J.; Momsen, J. L.; Long, T. M.; Jardeleza, S. E. What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluation of Faculty Professional Development Programs. Bioscience 2011, 61, 550–558. 21. D’Eon, M.; Sadownik, L.; Harrison, A.; Nation, J. Using Self-Assessments to Detect Workshop Success: Do They Work? Amer. J. Eval. 2008, 29, 92–98. 22. Kane, R.; Sandretto, S.; Heath, C. Telling Half the Story: A Critical Review of Research on the Teaching Beliefs and Practices of University Academics. Rev. Educ. Res. 2002, 72, 177–228. 23. Smith, M. K.; Jones, F. H. M.; Gilbert, S. L.; Wieman, C. E. The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 618–627. 24. Lund, T. J.; Pilarz, M.; Velasco, J. B.; Chakraverty, D.; Rosploch, K.; Undersander, M.; Stains, M. The Best of Both Worlds: Building on the COPUS and RTOP Observation Protocols to Easily and Reliably Measure Various Levels of Reformed Instructional Practice. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar18. 25. Stains, M. Personal Communication, 2016. 26. Arnaud, C. H. Boot Camp for Professors. Chem. Eng. News 2012, September 3. 27. Wang, L. ACS Hosts New Faculty Workshop. Chem. Eng. News 2016, October 3; p 55.. 28. Henderson, C.; Beach, A.; Finkelstein, N., Four Categories of Change Strategies for Transforming Undergraduate Instruction. In Transitions and Transformations in Learning and Education; Tynjala, P., Stenström, M.-L., Saarnivaara, M., Eds.; Springer: Dortrecht, 2012; pp 223−245. 29. Cox, M. D. Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2004, 2004, 5–23. 34

Chapter 4

Leadership Training for Teacher-Scholars Rigoberto Hernandez,*,1 Marilyne Stains,2 Karen S. Bjorkman,3 Ashley Donovan,4 Peter K. Dorhout,5 Andrew L. Feig,6 Philip W. Hammer,7 Jennifer L. Ross,8 Jodi L. Wesemann,5 and Srikant K. Iyer1 1Department

of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States 2Department of Chemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, United States 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, United States 4American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, United States 5Vice President for Research, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1005, United States 6Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, United States 7American Institute of Physics, 1 Physics Ellipse, College Park, Maryland 20740, United States 8Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, United States *E-mail: r. [email protected].

The Cottrell Scholars Collaborative (CSC) Academic Leadership Team (ALT) staged its first leadership workshop in February 2016. Its objective is to provide teacher-scholars with the theory and tools for effective leadership as well as exposure to the practice of being a leader in academia. Academic leadership is here defined to include research center directors, department heads, deans, or related institutional administrators. Our hypothesis is that this intentional approach to train future leaders will enable them to be more effective in such roles. In this article, we report the details of the first workshop, and its effectiveness as determined from pre- and post- assessments.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction Academic leadership takes many forms. It may include formal roles in university administration such as those of a department head, a college dean, and a university president or as a member of their leadership teams. It may include directors of research centers whose scope can fit within a department or extend across a college, the entire university, or even many universities. It may also include many other formal or volunteer roles both within the university and in one’s professional service. The principle of shared-governance suggests that professors should be the ones who take on most, if not all of these roles. They hold subject matter expertise in their discipline and have an understanding of the professional culture and practice necessary to provide vision and steer the mission of academic organizations. Unfortunately, one concern about academic career tracks is that they do not typically offer the requisite formal or informal leadership training to help emerging faculty leaders be most effective. Of course, there are several programs such as HERS (1), ELATE (2), and ELAM (3) that have also stepped in to bridge this gap. A second concern about the state of academic leadership hinges on the question over how the mission of colleges and universities is driven towards advancing and creating new knowledge (through research funded by the accompanying extramural research funds) or toward disseminating knowledge (in the classroom funded by the accompanying tuition and public funds.) It is the philosophy of the Cottrell Scholar faculty model that a strong integration of both of these threads is critical for the success of modern primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) and research intensive (RI) universities (4, 5). One approach for nudging these institutions towards integration is to motivate young faculty through research grants that require it, such as the National Science Foundation’s CAREER award and the Research Corporation’s Cottrell Scholar Award. As teacher-scholars rise through the faculty ranks, they should assume leadership roles in which they are able to impart a vision that integrates, rather than segregates, research and education. The Academic Leadership Training (ALT) (6) Workshop was conceived at a Cottrell Scholars Collaborative workshop and designed by a core group of Scholars in partnership with the American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Physics to provide targeted leadership training for emerging academic leaders who embrace the philosophy of the scholar who is committed to the integration of research and education. It is complementary to existing leadership programs in that it provides the foundation of knowledge of leadership in the context of academic culture and practices. The practical approach is highlighted through the use of targeted case studies and a mock interview to simulate the experience of an academic leader. All workshop modules are taught using effective teaching practices—such as active-learning— that have been validated and promoted by the discipline-based education research (DBER) community (7). The expected outcomes for the participating teacher-scholars are that they will be in a position to (a) be more competitive for those positions that they are applying for, (b) be more effective when they are in these positions, and (c) be effective in future leadership roles in advancing education and research at a RI or PUI institution. 36

Figure 1. A screen shot of the entry page on the ALT Workshop Web pages, now housed at oxide.jhu.edu/ALT. In this article, we report the structure and outcomes of the first ALT workshop held on January 31, 2016 to February 2, 2016 at the headquarters of the American Chemical Society and rooted in the web portal displayed in Figure 1. The use of the backronym “ALT” is intentional as it is meant to remind leaders to stay above the details that elevated them to their leadership position so that they can do more by leading collective action. The unique structure of the workshop is summarized below. Assessment of our efficacy at increasing awareness and knowledge with respect to course objectives is also provided. In short, the workshop was successful at providing all 24 participants a significant leadership training experience. We reported on this effort at the ACS National Meeting in San Diego on March 13, 2016, shortly after the first workshop, and recapitulate that presentation with modifications here. One of us also wrote a Comment in C&E News in March 2016 advertising this effort and incorporating our support for the importance of the teacher-scholar model and the importance of teaching leadership intentionally (8).

Background The workshop was primarily aimed at mid-career teacher-scholars. In recruiting associate or recently-promoted full professors, we asked them: “You just got tenure or you got recently promoted, what do you do now? ”One might ask whether there is a need to provide additional training to this cohort, because 37

they have already been proven as researchers and their tenured position is already sufficiently privileged that they might not need additional help. However, the driver is that tenure comes with the responsibility of leadership. Even without taking additional roles, emerging senior professors lead not just their research group, but also their discipline. The problem is that they have not really been trained to lead broadly, and they might not even realize that they need to learn to be better leaders. The business community understands that leadership is gained through training and mentorship, and this is why business schools and leadership programs have an important role generally. We can make a further analogy to teaching; it is also a skill that one is not born with, and consequently many assistant professors struggle to master it as they begin their careers. That is, just as faculty (and others) need to learn how to teach, they also need to learn how to lead. A teacher-scholar could learn leadership skills by working with mentors, by reading books, or by taking classes. The latter offers an economy of scale for both the learner and the teacher. Unfortunately, while such classes are taught by leadership institutes around the country, they are often very generic in that they teach students about leadership skills with little connection to what one does in a university setting. For example, while the case studies used in these classes are useful and informative, they are often tied to business scenarios that are not easily transferable to the academic setting. Admittedly, one strategy for resolving this disconnect is to assume that students brings their own examples with which to provide specificity to the tasks. That is why business schools typically expect students to work for a period of time between college and the start of an MBA program. In so doing, their students are able to build “real-world” business examples from scenarios through which they or their colleagues struggled. This also provides context through which to interpret the management skills and techniques that they learn in the business program, in addition to the content-matter necessary to understand technical business practices such as accounting. Thus, learning how to manage and lead is not something that one is born with; rather it must be deliberately learned through training and practice. In turn, this suggests a need for leadership programs that are tuned to the specific practices of future academic leaders using targeted case studies and materials. What does an academic leader lead? Research-active professors lead a research group and direct undergraduate, graduate and, postdoctoral students. They may hold roles in an academic administration such as those of a department head, a dean, a provost, an assistant department head, a vice provost or an executive vice president. In parallel with the tiers of college/university administration, they may serve as research center directors leading teams comprised of only a few faculty members in a department, teams that span across many departments within an institution, or teams that run across an entire campus or multiple campuses. There are other leadership roles involved in, for example, leadership in a professional society, a national or international conference, or scientific panels. The skills transecting all of these leadership roles are somewhat transferable. However, for the purpose of a workshop targeted to provide job-specificity, we narrowed our focus exclusively to leadership roles in university administration and research centers. 38

The vision driving the ALT workshop is thus to train the next generation of academic leaders by providing them with tools, connections, and skills to advance the teacher-scholar model beyond tenure. This is a subversive vision because we are deliberately trying to reshape research centers and universities by populating their leadership positions with successful teacher-scholars as change agents. To this end, the selection criteria for participants involved verification that they had already excelled in both teaching and research, and that they were interested in advancing models for integrating teaching and research. In addition to providing content, the workshop also enables the expansion of participants’ professional network to include each other and the facilitators. The latter were professors who are presently in academic leadership positions. They are referred to as Experienced Academic Leaders (EALs), and comprised a cohort of more than 10 individuals who also benefited and contributed from exposure to each other’s networks. We hypothesize that the combination of the participant and EAL network with the training in applied leadership and interviewing techniques should make the participants more effective as academic leaders and more likely to be tapped for those roles earlier in their careers. Thus the learning objectives of the ALT workshop were for participants to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

enhance their motivation and preparation academic leadership roles be able to use skills and tools from ALT2016 to be more effective academic leaders focus on improving their leadership strengths towards being extraordinary leaders know the range of duties and obligations required of academic leaders and be prepared to undertake them be prepared for interviews and their start as an academic leader

Together, these objectives provided a scaffold through which all of the workshop components were constructed. In passing, it is notable that the use of learning objectives is an effective teaching practice that has gained significant attention as a driver for how and which content is to be delivered and through which the effectiveness of a course can be measured (9). The ALT workshop is a teaching exercise that also deliberately modeled this effective practice both to drive the content and to engage participants from the start.

Logistics: The Workshop The workshop took place over three days at the American Chemical Society headquarters. We were pleased to see that we received more applications than we could accommodate (although this sadly meant that we had to decline several outstanding and deserving participants), and that they ranged across our target group of chemists, physicists, and astronomers. We limited our span of disciplines to those that our primary external sponsor (the Research Corporation for Science Advancement) supports, and correspondingly also to those of our facilitators and EALS. The solicitation for participants was open from September to October 39

2015 on our website and promoted through e-mails to department heads, the community of Cottrell Scholars, social media, and other platforms. Successful participants were asked to cover their travel to the meeting and the registration fee of $750, thereby indicating their commitment to the workshop’s goals from the outset. Once they were on site, we covered their hotel rooms and meals. They also underwent a 360-degree feedback exercise conducted by Zenger-Folkman following the principles discovered by Zenger & Folkman (10) on the attributes that make great leaders. This module (discussed in detail in the Methods Section), together with the costs of supporting the travel and lodging for all of the EALs facilitating the workshop, easily cost more than $1500 per participant, which was funded through the generous support of our sponsors and the willingness of the EALs to volunteer their time. Any attempt to replicate this program would need to account for the large direct and in-kind expenses required to make it successful. On the other hand, all of the EALs reported that they had enjoyed the experience and that they had learned from the experience. This is also partially substantiated by their willingness to return as EALs in the second workshop. An early sign of the success of the workshop came from the fact that more than 40 individuals applied to take part. The attendees were, however, capped at 25 participants. At the last minute, one participant cancelled, reducing the actual participant count to 24. This cohort was diverse along many vectors. There was a nearly equal split between PUI and R1 faculty. Although aimed at mid-career faculty, one assistant professor did participate. Among the rest, there was a nearly equal split between associate and full professors. Participants represented both public and private institutions, and split between those who had never served in a formal role as an academic leader and those who were relatively recent in such a role. The gender and ethnic diversity of the group was reflective of the corresponding academic departments (11). Although there exists significant evidence that diversity generally makes working groups stronger (12–14), one of our hypotheses was that the breath in academic roles and institutions would also improve learning outcomes.

Methods: The Workshop The workshop consisted of a series of interwoven components: topical sessions, breakout activities, simulated interviews, a 360-feedback exercise, and networking events. The latter included meals and receptions in casual settings at ACS headquarters and the workshop hotel. These informal networking events included no specific content, but were deliberately built-in to allow for organic dialogue between and across participants and EALs. Such intentional socialization to enable the expansion of professional networks is typical of leadership and business school courses. The remaining components are described below in order to highlight possibly unique aspects in their implementation.

40

Breakout Groups Participants were assigned to five groups in which they remained for all breakout activities and the mock interviews. Prior to the workshop they were asked to rank which of the four leadership positions they would be interested in applying for: A) Department Head, B) Dean, C) Provost/VP for Research or D) Research Center Director. Our first finding was that this particular cohort was most interested in Department Head positions. This is perhaps not surprising as roughly half of the participants were associate professors for whom this would be the most accessible, if nevertheless aspirational, academic leadership role. Consequently, the fifth group (E) was also assigned to Department Head positions. Each group was charged to respond to every breakout scenario—see below for examples—as if they were approaching it in the role of their assigned group. So when they reported out, each breakout reporter had a different contribution, because they had approached the task from a different perspective. Similarly, in the simulated or mock interviews, participants applied to positions according to their assigned groups: Group 1A: Mock Department Head Presentation/Vision Group 2B: Mock Airport Interview for a Dean Group 3C: Mock Interview for a Provost/VP for Research Group 4D: Mock Research Center Pitch in front of a panel Group 5A: Mock Department Head Presentation/Vision In order to add specificity to the task, they were asked to choose an institution at which their new position would be housed or with whom their center would collaborate from among the schools that were represented within their group. That is, during the first breakout, their ice-breaking activity was to learn about each other and then collectively select each other’s institutions. The connectivity network was required to be simply connected so that no pair was applying to each other’s schools. In this way, they had to interact with different colleagues in order to learn and teach about their respective institutions. It provided them with a subject matter expert on the customs and practices of the particular school that they were applying to. It also reminded them of the importance of preparation in constructing a vision that is particular to a given institution. One consequence of the simply connected network of target institutions was that some participants from R1 institutions were committed to applying for positions at PUIs and vice versa. Initially, some participants were apprehensive about such a dramatic shift, and even questioned whether such applications would be realistic or successful. Facilitators cited several successful leaders who had done precisely this in order to assuage their fears and encourage them onward. By the end of the workshop, these same participants reported that they had learned so much more because they had to research an institutional culture that was completely different from their own.

41

Breakout Activities and Work Products As detailed above, all participants were assigned to groups within which they solved challenges and tackled case studies leading to group-wide and individual work products. A few breakouts were geared around the development of a vision statement and the group was asked to critique constructively each other’s statements in order to make them stronger. Facilitators actively engaged with the groups in order to challenge their groupthink and to answer questions. Other breakouts included case studies in which participants were asked how to address challenging leadership scenarios from the perspective of their role (as assigned to the group) within the management structure of the institution. Towards developing the work product for the simulated interview, group 4D initially prepared their research center proposal visions entirely around the science that they intended to propose. Upon listening to these great scientific objectives, a facilitator pointed out to them that each of their visions sounded like a large single-investigator grant rather than a center. They needed to convince the panel how they would lead a team and how that team was going to be unique. That is, the vision needed to include a clear value proposition of how the center was needed to solve the grand challenge and how that center would be led to solve it, to train participants and to engage broader communities. That was eye opening for all the members of Group 4D. As a consequence, their center presentations were much better. A few participants have confirmed that this strategy played an important role in their success at raising funds for and leading research centers in the intervening time. One of the case studies involved addressing a professor in their academic unit or research center who was not happy with the academic leader’s (AL’s) administrative direction. The first question was what should the AL discuss with the professor at their next meeting so as to address the situation? After the groups had proposed their response, they were then told that subsequent to the meeting with the faculty member, they received a call from the university’s president. During the call, she told the AL that the professor was still not happy with the AL’s solution, and that the AL must fix it. The participants were then asked what they would do in the next meeting with the professor, and what they would do in their next meeting with the president. This example nicely enabled them to discuss how to manage up and down the organization and how to lead without authority (because the professor clearly was not acting as a direct report). The members of group 3C (those applying for Provost-level positions) immediately decided that their answer was to resign. They argued that they were direct reports to the president and her request indicated a lack of support from their supervisor. This is where the facilitators were key to advancing the workshop. Group 3C’s answer was easy but ineffective generally. It also provided them little practice on their leadership skills. So the facilitators pointed out to them that if they were in the role of a Provost, they would have to address hundreds of minor issues such as this, and manage several major thrusts that they were leading. They could not simply resign because of disagreement over any one of them (unless it was unethical not to resign), if they wanted to advance their institutions. Thus, they had to develop a more nuanced strategy for leading their vision in the face of opposition. 42

Simulated Interviews Towards the end of the workshop, a 2-hour session of the five separate groups was held in parallel. Each group underwent an interview for their target academic position or research center proposal in front of a panel of EALs. Each participant, in turn, presented their vision and answered two different questions from the panelists. During the course of the session, the 10 questions that were asked were spread across the typical questions asked in an interview. Thus each participant was able to experience an interview setting directly as they answered two spontaneous questions, and they were able to experience an entire interview by listening to the entirety of the session. The session served a dual purpose: (1) it gave participants exposure to the on-the-job roles of their target position because that is, after all, what such questions are meant to probe, and (2) it gave them pre-interview training so that the first time they actually interview for a position they will know what to expect. Encouragingly, several participants reported that they had had successful job interviews for AL roles within the 8 months since the workshop. 360-Degree Feedback The 360-degree feedback exercise was conducted in order to provide a personalized leadership framework for each participant, and to serve as a platform for discussing leadership traits that form the framework of typical leadership courses. In the 360-degree process, each participant selects the members of several cohorts who will evaluate their leadership skills. The cohorts included themselves (that is necessarily a cohort of one), their reports, their peers, their managers, and an additional set of their choosing. After those data were collected and processed (anonymously), the participants sat through a session to learn how to interpret it. We worked with Zenger-Folkman, a leader in the field that has worked with the American Chemical Society to construct an 8-hour extraordinary leadership program targeted across ACS volunteers. Working with Zenger-Folkman, we constructed a 4-hour version that left out the parts that would have led to the construction of individual development plans. Our assumption was that the specificity of the remainder of our workshop would provide the basis for a more targeted experience, and would thus fill in the gaps from the material that was removed. Participants overwhelmingly agreed that the 360-degree feedback was useful and that the 4-hour session was more than sufficient in the context of the overall workshop. According to Zenger and Folkman (10), extraordinary leaders tend to display strengths in roughly 16 leadership areas. For example, one may be extraordinary as an innovator, or at communicating powerfully or broadly. The trouble is that one might only be good, but not great, at being empathetic to their team. Indeed, Zenger and Folkman found that extraordinary leaders tend to be extraordinary at only three of the 16 areas while not having any “fatal” flaws. They posited that emerging leaders should look critically at their leadership skills, identify their best two to four and work on making them great. Thus the 360-degree feedback provided a vector for participants to improve their leadership skills. The session 43

discussing all 16 leadership characteristics also provided participants with a broader view of leadership generally.

Facilitated Sessions and EAL Panels A significant portion of the content was delivered through lecture-style sessions generally delivered by multiple facilitators and using active-learning techniques to engage the participants. The titles of these sessions were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Why you should become an academic leader Vision (opportunities and challenges) at the start Leadership: Finding your strengths Conflict resolution for academic leaders Engaging and motivating colleagues & staff Managing outside research: Outreach, diversity & legal concerns Friend raising and stewardship Managing up and managing down Time-management and other challenges for academic leaders Putting it all together – “Why was I here & now what?”

As summarized above, Session III was a 4-hour session (with breaks) that facilitated the interpretation of the 360-feedback. Session VII was primarily led by one facilitator interweaving content and case studies throughout. The remaining sessions were conducted through panels consisting of three EALs as speakers and one EAL as a facilitator. The EAL panels were facilitated across three primary non-overlapping questions pertinent to the corresponding topic. The questions emerged from a request to the participants about what they wanted to know about the given topic. Through a deliberate attempt to encourage the EALs to provide their practical advice to the questions, participants were essentially provided just-in-time information access to realistic problems experiences by EALs and the solutions they employ. Participants and panelists were also able to interject questions throughout the dialogue. This also included additional “spontaneous” active learning exercises for the participants in prelude to their breakout groups. (Spontaneous is in quotes because those activities were, in fact, premeditated).

Results and Discussion We conducted an independent evaluation of the workshop components to assess progress on meeting our course objectives. Before and after the workshop, Marilyne Stains (now a coauthor of this work) submitted an online survey to all the participants. Therein, she asked the participants what they knew about a particular subject and how comfortable they were with that subject. Of the 25 original participants, 23 participated in the pre-survey and 22 participated in the post-survey; 21 answered both surveys. Of these, 79% (19 participants) had not 44

attended leadership training. The others (5 participants) had attended a leadership training course within the previous year.

Figure 2. Indices of workshop participants’ satisfaction. a) Distribution of workshop participants based on the extent to which the workshop met their expectations. b) Distribution of workshop participants based on the extent to which they would recommend the workshop to a colleague.

Overall satisfaction with the workshop, as shown in Figure 2a, far exceeded or exceeded expectations for almost all of the participants. Representative written comments included: “The conference was very much beyond what I expected. The depth, thoughtfulness, and range of the comments and suggestions by the panelists were simply invaluable. The 360 evaluation turned out to be much more worthwhile than I expected.” “The hands-on activities and discussions really challenged us to think about leadership issues in ways that were meaningful to the particular positions we were interested in (chair, dean, center, etc). The EALs were fantastic!” Moreover, all participants would recommend the workshop to a colleague with only a small fraction doing so with reservations (Figure 2b). Reservations included requests for better integration of the 360-degree feedback into the rest of the workshop, and a concern for the heavy emotional toll that appeared to be required to become a leader. In working with the independent evaluator, we identified nine overarching categories for specific measurable outcomes that spanned the concept space covered both by the scaffold of our learning objectives, the particulars of our panel sessions, breakout sessions, simulated interviews, and other activities: (a) knowledge of rewards and opportunities to advance science and the profession through academic leadership; (b) creating, articulating, managing, and adjusting a vision for your organization; (c) knowledge of your leadership skills; (d) building on your strongest leadership skills; (e) managing conflict resolution; (f) engaging and motivating colleagues and staff; (g) managing outreach, diversity and legal concerns; (h) fundraising/development activities; and (i) leading/managing above and below you on the organization chart. 45

Figure 3. Self-reported knowledge of topics related to leadership by workshop participants who responded to both the pre- and post-surveys (N=21). Error bars represent standard errors.

Workshop participants self-reported on the pre- and post-surveys the extent to which they felt knowledgeable about each of these nine topics using a 5-point Likert scale. Figure 3 presents the mean level of knowledge identified by participants who responded to both the pre and post surveys (N=21). The results of paired t-tests demonstrated that there was a statistically significant increase in knowledge for each of the nine items after applying the Bonferroni correction (p=0.006). All effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were large, varying from 1.013 for Engaging and motivating colleagues and staff to 2.489 for Leading/Managing above and below you on the organization chart. Their confidence in their ability to perform leadership related skills, as shown in Figure 4, also increased significantly. Paired t-tests conducted on each of the seven skills presented in Figure 4 were statistically significant (p=.007 after Bonferroni corrections), with large effect size (Cohen’s d) varying from 1.022 for Engaging and motivating colleagues and staff to 2.049 for Leading/Managing above and below you on the organization chart. These results speak to the effectiveness of our intervention. Namely that the use of experienced leaders (that is, the EALs) whose experience is specifically in the academic sector and whose background as professors is similar to that of the participants, can dramatically improve the leadership skills by, and willingness to serve of mid-career faculty in less than three days. This is a much shorter intervention than that of comparable university programs, which typically include weekly sessions across a semester.

46

Figure 4. Workshop participants’ confidence in executing leadership skills corresponding to seven of the nine knowledge topics of Figure 3. The data comes from the participants who responded to both the pre- and post-surveys (N=21). Error bars represent standard errors.

Conclusion The first Academic Leadership Training (ALT) workshop provided participants with a unique leadership experience that can accelerate teacherscholars pursuit of and successful transition into academic leadership positions. We made it specific to the academic setting by providing exposure to experienced academic leaders (EALs) in panels, as facilitators of breakout sessions, and during networking mixers. The ALT workshop was infused with active learning strategies, including frequent use of breakout sessions. Each such session was followed by a period of time in which participants had to provide reports on either their individual or group work products. The success of the workshop led us to seek and secure additional funding to conduct ALT again in early 2017. At the time of this submission, we have already received 32 confirmed registrations to the second ALT workshop to be held on Feb 26th to Feb 28th, 2017 at the American Chemical Society headquarters. What were the keys to success? Diversity of institutions, through the inclusion PUI and R1 faculty, is important because participants were encouraged to think about both types of academic institutions and thereby be deliberate about the challenges and opportunities in integrating education and research. We also believe that the 360-degree feedback provided participants with a critical perspective on their leadership strengths. Our EALs provided practical examples and unique perspectives from experienced academic leaders on each of our learning objectives. The simulated interviews were key and possibly the most novel component. They served to provide an experience of what the given job role would entail while also providing participants with preparation for how an AL interview would be conducted. The networking ties that participants built with each other also provided a key addition, though this was a national network of leadership that is likely only weakly connected to the university network that would hire the participant 47

for a leadership role. This would presumably be complementary to a similar exercise consisting of faculty from a single institution and that would necessarily provide a cross-disciplinary network useful to navigate the administration of that institution. Finally, perhaps the most important lesson from the ALT workshop is that advancing leadership strengths deliberately through mentoring and training by peers with domain expertise can prepare teacher-scholars to take on new academic leadership roles that advance the integration of education and research in the academy.

Acknowledgments We thank Gail Burd, Teri Odom and Vince Rotello for their roles as founding members of the CSC ALT planning committee. We also thank all of the EALs. This work has been primarily supported by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement. We gratefully acknowledge additional support from the American Chemical Society and the American Astronomical Society in support of the first workshop. We also acknowledge the participants and their home institutions for their financial support of the workshop through registration fees. RH acknowledges the support of the Gompf Family Chair in Chemistry at Johns Hopkins, and the National Science Foundation through grant No. CHE 1700749 for broadening participation efforts such as this.

References 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

Higher Education Resource Center (HERS). http://hersnet.org/ (accessed December 25, 2016). Executive Leadership in Academic Technology and Engineering (ELATE). http://drexel.edu/provost/initiatives/elate/ (accessed December 25, 2016). Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM). http://drexel.edu/ medicine/Academics/Womens-Health-and-Leadership/ELAM/ (accessed December 25, 2016). Martin, J. D.; Schultz, Z. D., Searching for Better Approaches: Effective Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in STEM. Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, AZ, 2015. Beuning, P. J.; Besson, D. Z.; Snyder, S. A. Teach Better, Save Time, and Have More Fun: A Guide to Teaching and Mentoring in Science; Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, AZ, 2014. Academic Leadership Training (ALT). http://oxide.jhu.edu/ALT (accessed December 25, 2016). Singer, S. R.; Nielsen, N. R.; Schweingruber, H. A. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC , 2012. Hernandez, R. Academic Leadership 101. Chemical & Engineering News 2016, 94, 47. 48

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

Bradforth, S. E.; Miller, E. R.; Dichtel, W. R.; Leibovich, A. K.; Feig, A. L.; Martin, J. D.; Bjorkman, K. S.; Schultz, Z. D.; Smith, T. L. University Learning: Improve Undergraduate Science Education. Nature 2015, 523, 282–284. J. H. Zenger; J. Folkman, The Extraordinary Leader – Turning Good Managers into Great Leaders; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2002. Hernandez, R.; Watt, S., A Top-Down Approach for Diversity and Inclusion in Chemistry Departments. In Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise, 2014; Vol. 1169, pp 207−224. Herring, C. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2009, 74, 208–224. Dobbin, F.; Kim, S.; Kalev, A. You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2011, 76, 386–411. Guteri, F. Diversity in Science: Why It Is Essential for Excellence. Scientific American, 2014. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-inscience-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/ (accessed February 7, 2016).

49

Chapter 5

Establishing an Interdisciplinary Outreach Program at the Interface of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science Jeffery A. Byers,* Eranthie Weerapana, and Abhishek Chatterjee Department of Chemistry, Boston College, 2609 Beacon Street, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02458, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The unique challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of establishing an interdisciplinary outreach program for high school students as opposed to an outreach program that is dedicated to one discipline is described. Using the Paper to Plastics (P2P) program as an example, this chapter describes multiple challenges that were encountered when establishing an interdisciplinary research program including choosing an appropriate topic, designing a program that interfaces with multiple disciplines, and establishing an active learning environment that is engaging for high school aged students. Techniques used to enhance the student’s experiences, such as involving students in genuine research environments, using undergraduate students to mentor the high school students, and creating an interdisciplinary program that is collaborative rather than topical are described.

Introduction With the increasing need for more employees in many science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields (1, 2), it is important now more than ever to explore different approaches to developing outreach programs designed to encourage participation in these essential fields. This need is especially important for attracting women and under-represented minorities to STEM disciplines, which are populations that remain vastly under-represented at the highest levels in academia and industry (3, 4). © 2017 American Chemical Society

To address low graduation rates for all American students in STEM disciplines, the National Academy of Science (NAS) has recommended that a key aspect of a successful educational program must include crosscutting concepts involving multiple scientific disciplines (5). Coupled with similar ideas that pervade the modern scientific psyche, this recommendation has led to a concerted effort directed towards establishing outreach programs that have an interdisciplinary component, some of which can be found with the following references (6–10). As is the case with multidisciplinary research efforts, establishing an interdisciplinary, outreach program requires involvement from experts with different scientific backgrounds. Along with the organizational challenges that are usually associated with such efforts, establishing a collaborative outreach program has unique problems that interdisciplinary research programs do not face. Such differences were not apparently obvious to us when we set out to establish our own interdisciplinary, outreach program. In this chapter, we recount our experiences with setting up an interdisciplinary outreach program for high school students called the Paper to Plastics (P2P) program as well as a spinoff program called You Evolve a Protein! (YEP!). Using these programs as examples, we will outline how we chose a multidisciplinary topic for the program that met our pedagogical goals, the organizational challenges that we faced, the necessary timeline needed to be thorough yet accommodating to the modern lifestyle of teenagers, our efforts to recruit students, and our efforts devoted to assessing the efficacy of the program. It is our hope that relaying these experiences will help others as they establish their own interdisciplinary outreach programs and will stimulate further conversation about the appropriate demonstration of interdisciplinary efforts and their efficacy in encouraging students to pursue careers in STEM fields.

Overview of the Paper to Plastics (P2P) Program It is not the intent of this book chapter to describe the scientific goals of our program in detail, which we have done elsewhere (11). Instead, we will use our experiences with the P2P program as an entry point to discuss important considerations that we were not fully aware of but became acutely aware of during establishing and implementing our program. Therefore, to provide context for the ensuing discussion, it is appropriate to first describe the program that we created. P2P is an interdisciplinary program that aims to involve students in an environment that mimics a genuine research setting where the goal is to convert unwanted office waste paper to the biodegradable polymer, poly(lactic acid). This process can be accomplished in five steps using a combination of biological and chemical techniques (see Figure 1) (12–16). High school students participate in a four-week program that takes place in the Department of Chemistry at Boston College twice each summer, once in July and once in August. In this time period, small groups (3-4) of high school students work closely with an undergraduate student who serves a dual purpose as a mentor to guide them through the technical aspects of the program and as a role model that can influence students to seriously 52

consider careers in science and technology. In order to maximize participation and minimize space requirements, two sessions of the P2P program are held each month, one that takes place on Mondays and Wednesdays and another that takes place on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thus, each participant in the P2P program attends eight sessions through the course of a month, which is enough time for him or her to complete the program (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Outline of scientific goals of the “Paper to Plastics” program. Inherent to the P2P program is the communication between chemistry and biology. With help from each professor who serve as experts in biochemistry, organic chemistry, and polymer chemistry, students learn firsthand how chemistry and biology interact to form useful materials from waste. Students combine biological techniques, such as enzymatic digestion and fermentation, with chemical techniques, such as distillation, catalysis, and polymerization to convert unwanted office paper into the useful biodegradable polymer poly(lactic acid). Since the ultimate goal of the research activities is to synthesize a biodegradable polymer, the students learn how their scientific interests can be used to address important social problems, which our experience has shown is an important component of the program. Alumni of the P2P program are invited to participate in a spinoff of the program called "You Evolve a Protein!" (YEP!), which occurs in a second summer and is more experimental in its goals. Since participants in YEP! have some exposure to the lab setting obtained in P2P, students who participate in YEP! are more comfortable in the laboratory setting and are therefore better equipped to undertake a project that has less certain outcomes. In this month long project, students use directed evolution to synthesize novel green fluorescent proteins. While this project is not interdisciplinary, it provides an active learning environment that is governed by hypothesis driven decisions that are commonly employed in scientific research. 53

The P2P and YEP! programs provide opportunities for high school aged students to interact with peers that have similar interests, thereby providing an example counter to what is typically valued at this formative age (4). Encouragement from undergraduate and graduate students as well as faculty members further builds confidence. It has been our experience that these programs provide a valuable support network amongst peers that will help foster the budding interests of students as they consider their post secondary education options. Moreover, by working closely with other members of similar ethnicity, gender, and/or socioeconomic backgrounds, it is our belief that students will build a level of camaraderie and self confidence that will serve to inspire students rather than deter them from pursuing careers in STEM fields. Given this advantage, we have targeted the program towards recruiting demographic groups that are under represented in STEM fields.

Figure 2. Statistics obtained from exit surveys of the P2P program. The P2P program recently completed its fifth year of existence, which has made it possible to use anonymous exit surveys as a qualitative measure of its efficacy (Figure 2). The program has had 51 participants, and has historically been comprised predominately of female students (82%). The program has had a limited number of minority students, which is an area that we look to improve in the future. Feedback has been extremely positive with 88% rating it as overall a very good or excellent program. It was clear from the comments that the overwhelming majority 54

of the students said they obtained a better understanding about how research is carried out and how challenging and rewarding science can be. Students were also energized by their experience with the specialized equipment they were exposed to during the program. The overwhelming majority of participants (96%) said they would recommend the program to their peers. The second year of the program (YEP!), which takes a much more experimental stance, is still in its infancy but informal feedback from this experience has also been overall good.

Organizing an Interdisciplinary Outreach Program Based on our experiences with the P2P and YEP! programs, the most important part of establishing an outreach program is deciding what the topic will be and how the program will be organized. Many factors are important: pedagogical efficacy (i.e., effectiveness in achieving the teaching goals), length of the program, timing of the program, time commitment needed from the principle investigator(s) and members of his/her research team, space requirements, recruiting, and long-term implementation strategies. Figure 3 illustrates the workflow that we went through when establishing and carrying out the P2P program. Each of these sections will be discussed in succession.

Figure 3. Workflow for the P2P Program. Choosing Collaborators Identifying collaborators that are suitable for an interdisciplinary project is an important and sometimes surprisingly difficult task. What we found to be more important than having common themed research programs was to find faculty members that shared a common vision for the expected outcomes of the program. Once the vision was established, faculty members could find ways to adapt what 55

their research group is good at doing in the spirit of creating an effective outreach program. Such flexibility makes establishing a productive program easier, but it can make it more challenging to justify to funding agencies that require significant overlap between outreach programs and faculty member’s research programs. While this is certainly a concern that can be difficult to address, we hope that the success of programs such as the P2P program will ease these requirements. When we established our outreach program(s), there were several goals that we wanted to achieve: (1) introduce students to a genuine scientific research environment to promote the advantages of pursuing careers in science, engineering, and technology; (2) demonstrate how scientific problems can be addressed effectively from a multidisciplinary approach; (3) provide a concrete example of how science and technology can be used to address problems with social significance; (4) provide an opportunity for high school students to interact with undergraduate students, graduate students, and professors in order to foster open discourse about pursuing higher education and the value of science degrees and careers in science and technology; and (5) develop leadership and mentoring skills among undergraduate mentors who are considering careers in science, engineering, or technology. It is our belief that the number of faculty members that can be involved in the program is limited only by the number that share the same vision. In such an instance, full and continued commitment to the program is more likely from all faculty members. Nevertheless, to keep the program from loosing specific focus, it is probably best to limit the number of faculty participants to 2-4.

Choosing the Type of Program A key objective for our program was to demonstrate how a multidisciplinary approach is good for solving problems with significant social importance. Central to this objective was how the program was going to be organized. After considering how other multidisciplinary outreach programs were organized (6–10), we came to the conclusion that there are two types (Table 1): 1) programs that share a common theme viewed from multiple, interdisciplinary perspectives but whose scientific goals do not necessarily overlap nor depend on each other (6–8), and 2) programs that are collaborative in a way that requires cooperation from multiple disciplines to achieve the ultimate scientific goal (9, 10). The former type of program is attractive because a common theme can be established that is very broad (e.g. energy) so that multiple projects can be developed using the topic as an umbrella to work under. This type of program provides enormous freedom for the principle investigators because they can choose projects that are closely in line with their own research interests but not dependent on the interests and goals of other principle investigators involved in the program. Organization of these programs is also less constrictive because each principle investigator can work independently of each other. On the other hand, these programs sometimes lack continuity between the different components, and it is sometimes not obvious how the multiple disciplines work with one another to address solving a particular problem associated with the broader theme. 56

A program that is both collaborative and multidisciplinary has some distinct pedagogical advantages compared to the alternative at the cost of some significant organizational freedom. In this type of program, a theme is identified in which the disciplines depend on one another to achieve the scientific goal of the project. The collaborative nature of the project makes it more obvious to the participants of the outreach program how multiple disciplines cooperate with one another to solve a common problem. The program also benefits from better continuity compared to many common themed but non-collaborative programs because the independent goals of the multidisciplinary work are more intertwined. A drawback of this type of program is that there is less freedom for the principle investigators to tailor the program in accord with their independent research interests. Compromise from all members of the team is usually necessary for the creation of a successful program. Moreover, since the interdisciplinary activities are inextricable, the success of the program requires equal involvement from all participants, which can be challenging in a collaborative environment.

Table 1. Pros and cons of a common themed versus collaborative interdisciplinary outreach program Program type

Pros

Cons

Common Themed

• Broad topics (eg. energy, health, environment, etc.) can be selected. • Principal investigators can design projects independent of one another • More organizational freedom

• Sometimes lacks con-tinuity between disciplines • Less easy for participants to see how disciplines benefit from one another.

Collaborative

• Better continuity between disciplines • More obvious to participants how one discipline benefits from another.

• Less freedom for individ-ual principal investigators to design projects in line with their research interests • Logistics can be complicated

Overall, we considered that the benefits from a collaborative and multidisciplinary program outweighed its drawbacks. As a result, we decided to pursue a program that would take advantage of our expertise in a cooperative manner. This is not to say that a common themed project would have been unsuccessful or inferior, but we thought a collaborative project would be easier to demonstrate how a project could benefit from multidisciplinary perspectives. Choosing a Topic The most important choice that we had to make during the organization of our outreach project was its topic. A critical factor that we identified as being important was to choose a topic that had significant social significance. This requirement stemmed from research that has shown that educational and career choices made by students is most closely linked to topics that overlap with their personal interests, 57

enthusiasm, and experiences rather than pragmatic factors, such as maximizing earning potential (17–20). This finding parallels our anecdotal experience with high school aged students, who demonstrate an intense desire to make significant contributions to society. Therefore, to better appeal to high school aged students in a way to make STEM careers more appealing, we targeted themes for our program with significant social importance. A second criterion that was used when choosing a topic was our desire to develop an outreach program that closely mimicked a research environment. Studies carried out on undergraduate students have revealed that those who participate in a research experience were much more likely to pursue careers in science and technology that those who did not (21). While to the best of our knowledge, similar studies have not been carried out for high school aged students, we hypothesized that a similar correlation would also exist for students in this age group. We therefore targeted a topic that could incorporate elements of uncertainty that are inherent to research projects so that students will get to experience the benefits of discovery and exploration. With these two guiding principles, coupled with the need to make the program interdisciplinary and inline with our professional expertise, we decided that a program built around biodegradable plastics would be a good topic for our outreach program. Environmental sustainability is an issue that all students are aware of and many have a passion for becoming involved in. In particular, the large amount of plastic waste that has resulted from the emergence of a "disposable" culture provides an attractive problem to target. Not only are students acutely aware of the problem from the large amount of media coverage that it has received (22–24), but most students also appreciate the problem based on their own personal experiences. As a result, the problem is more tangible to students. Interestingly (and unexpectedly), while students are aware of this significant social problem, they are rarely aware of the issues associated with its solution. Recycling programs have been engrained into today’s youth, but the challenges associated with recycling plastic materials is usually not well understood by students. Moreover, since students have always lived with the convenience of a plastic world, many take for granted the special properties that plastics possess and the methods used for their synthesis. These gaps in understanding provided us with tremendous opportunity to develop an educational plan that formed the platform for our outreach program. Biodegradable polymers also provided us with a perfectly suitable topic for a collaborative, multidisciplinary program. Specifically, the biodegradable polymer poly(lactic acid) is derived from lactic acid, which is easily obtained from biological sources through standard biochemical processes. Nevertheless, lactic acid itself is not suitable for polymerization to high molecular weight polymer. It first must be elaborated chemically to a cyclic dimer of lactic acid before it can be polymerized. This necessity provided us the link between biochemistry and organic chemistry that was needed for a multidisciplinary project that was also collaborative.

58

Defining the Nuts and Bolts With these three important elements decided upon, the next challenge that we faced was actually designing how the program would precede, the so-called nuts and bolts of the program. Although it is not the intent of this chapter to describe in detail our decisions regarding exactly how the format of the P2P program was established, we think that relaying some of our experiences with defining the nuts and bolts of the program would be helpful to others seeking to establish their own programs. From this perspective, there were four elements that we found to be critical and linked to one another: the size and duration of the program, the space needed for the program, and the mentoring strategy employed to guide the participants. When thinking about implementing the program, a primary consideration was the size of the program. To maximize the program’s impact, we logically wanted to involve as many students as possible. However, in order to best mimic a research environment, we wanted to recreate an intimate setting involving relatively few participants (3-4 students). Such a setting would also allow the students to participate in all activities and requires the students to work with one another to achieve the scientific goal of the project. Moreover, smaller groups (3-4 students per mentor) would also be easier to supervise. Finally, as is the case with most research driven departments, we faced significant space constraints that limited our ability to implement a large program. For these reasons, we decided that a program involving small groups of people would be best. To minimize time constraints for all involved, we thought the timeframe of the program would be best suited for the summer. In order to involve as many participants in the program, we decided to have two sessions of the program per month, each being held twice weekly (either Mon/Wed or Tu/Thurs). The program was also held for two months (July and August), so that ultimately four different sections of the P2P program existed for the students to choose from. With this organization, we were capable of hosting up to sixteen students per summer with the physical space requirements of one standard size lab bench and one six food hood. Since the two sessions were being run concurrently, we chose to have two different part-time undergraduate supervisors (mentors), but the program could easily be implemented with one full time mentor. An unexpected obstacle that we incurred with this organizational setup was the pre-existing time commitments that are common among modern high school students. A month long program, even those that only meet twice a week, can be problematic for students to commit to due to family vacations, involvement in sports or band programs, or the desire to be involved in other summer activities. This factor can be circumvented with the development of shorter programs or programs that occur more frequently throughout the week. Unfortunately, the former option is not amenable for the timeline required for the P2P program (e.g. culturing the bacteria needed for glucose fermentation takes several days), but the latter is something that we will likely explore in the future. The glue that holds the entire program together is the strategy implemented for supervising the high school students. Several factors are important when deciding how to accomplish this goal. From our perspective, we wanted to 59

design a program that had supervisors that were easily relatable and positive role models for the participants (25). We also wanted to mimic a genuine research environment as closely as possible. Inherent to all such environments are mentor-mentee relationships that are distinct from teacher-student relationships. The mentor-mentee relationship is much more collaborative due to the less authoritative position of a mentor as opposed to a teacher. This difference was abundantly evident when high school student participants interacted directly with the professors that oversaw the outreach program. Even when interactions are kept as casual as possible, the fear that students have for being wrong in front of authority figures usually resulted in poor communication or awkward, forced interactions. We considered using graduate students as mentors for the program, but this organization was not preferable because the summer is a very productive research time for graduate students. Moreover, the age difference between high school students and graduate students would lead to a different kind of relationship than what we intended. Therefore, in order to establish a mentor-mentee relationship that is most similar to the relationship between senior and junior graduate students in research labs, we decided to use undergraduate mentors for our program (our program size required two undergraduate students). Undergraduate students are much closer in age to high school students, which naturally make them more relatable to high school aged students. At the same time, undergraduate students share a recent common experience with the high school students (i.e. attending high school), which makes it is easier to establish a mentor-mentee relationship that promotes better communication and a positive sense of accomplishment. Other programs have shown that this “near peer” mentorship has been very effective to achieve similar goals (26–29). Finally, undergraduate students were easy to recruit because many students seek out opportunities such as mentoring in the P2P program due to its social significance and because they can bolster their resumes for their future career aspirations. Despite these advantages, the decision to use undergraduate students as mentors for our outreach program did not come without some trepidation. We were primarily concerned that these students would be too inexperienced to be effective mentors. To address this concern, we created a "P2P boot camp" that was an intense training course led by graduate students from our research labs. We found that rising junior and senior undergraduate students were experienced enough in general laboratory techniques to quickly learn the slightly more sophisticated experimental techniques required to carry out the P2P program. The burden for training the undergraduate students for the graduate students is minimal because students from each lab share the responsibility, focusing on the component of the project that is most closely related with the expertise of their supervisors. The boot camp can be carried out over the course of one week, which we found simultaneously prepared the undergraduate mentors well to be mentors for the P2P program and gave them some experience with what life would be like if they decided to become graduate students in the future.

60

Figure 4. Flow chart illustrating the hierarchical mentorship and summarizing some responsibilities for the different mentors in the P2P program. As a result of the hierarchical organization of the P2P program, its participants get exposure to a variety of people pursuing scientific endeavors at various stages in their careers (Figure 4). We have found that this snapshot into the lives of aspiring scientists provides the students with a realistic perspective that is difficult to recreate otherwise. To highlight this advantage, we have several events incorporated into the P2P program where all participants (e.g. high school students, undergraduate students, graduate students, and professors) engage in discussions ranging from the motivation that led to considering a career in science to the challenging problem of promoting STEM disciplines to minorities and women. The participants also develop contacts with various participants in the P2P program that they can use later in their development as scientists. Another factor that we found was important when establishing our interdisciplinary program was the necessity to emphasize the interdependence of the multiple disciplines involved. It was important to us that there was roughly equal time spent carrying out activities associated with each discipline so that students did not assign more importance to a particular discipline. While we realize that this scenario does not realistically portray many collaborative efforts, we nonetheless strived to achieve this goal to stress the interdisciplinary nature of the program. Fortunately, we were able to design a program that achieved this goal as shown in Table 1, which outlines the activities and disciplines for each of the eight sessions of the P2P program. While compromise might be needed to achieve this goal, our experience is that it is beneficial to do so because students 61

develop a good sense for the importance of all disciplines to the success of the project. The final factor that we had to consider was how the outreach program was to be funded. Over the years, the P2P program has been funded by a variety of sources including money from startup funds, competitive internal grants, and competitive external grants. It is currently being funded by the NSF and the Research Corporation Cottrell Scholars program. We found that there were several external private funding sources that provided funding for outreach programs (e.g. Dreyfus Special Grant Program, America Honda Foundation, Google RISE, etc.), but we had little success with securing funds from these sources initially. A factor that we found important to achieve more success was to first have an established program with some initial indicators pointing to the success of the program. As a result, early permutations of the program were funded using startup funds and through generous contributions from internal funding mechanisms in place at Boston College. Investigators interested in starting their own programs are encouraged to lobby their institutions for initial support pointing to the potential recruiting advantages that such programs may provide as well as increased likelihood for external funding to support the program in the long term. Initial costs needed to establish the P2P program was approximately $10,000, which was mostly devoted to one-time purchases of equipment. In subsequent years, the cost of the program significantly decreased to approximately $5000 per year with the bulk of those funds being devoted to stipends for the undergraduate mentors. These costs will of course vary depending on the scope of the program, the cost of living, and the mentoring strategies implemented for the program.

Table 2. Summary of experimental modules and their related disciplines in the P2P program Module

Experiment

Disciplinea

1

Paper Pulping and De-inking

G

2

Cellulase Digest

BC

3

Lactic Acid Fermentation

B, BC

4

Lactic Acid Oligomerization

OC, PC

5

Lactide Formation

OC

6

Lactide Polymerization

PC

a The disciplines are general chemistry (G), biology (B), biological chemistry (BC), organic

chemistry (OC), and polymer chemistry (PC).

Recruiting Participants A component of the program that we undervalued was recruiting students to participate in the program. We underestimated the number of activities that many modern high school students undertake in the summer months. We have also found it difficult to engage local high schools, especially those that we were 62

targeting most (e.g. schools in urban areas). Boston College, like most colleges, has very good databases of contacts at local high schools. We took advantage of these contacts, but found that the vast majority of schools did not respond to our initial email enquiry, even when the email was personalized. A key component that we overlooked was to mention the cost of the program to its participants, which in our case was free. When this fact was included in the subject line of the email, we received much more favorable response from a wider variety of schools (approximately 200% increase in response). As a result, we recommend that the cost of the program to its participants be minimal to none so as to make recruiting easier. While distributing information and flyers to counselors and administrators was an effective way to recruit some students, we found that we could reliably recruit participants in the program by carrying out short presentations at local high schools. As a result, we formed strong ties to a few high schools in the area that we regularly attend to recruit for the P2P program. Because we targeted girls and under represented minorities, we go to all girl’s schools or schools that have many minority students. Every year we also go to at least one school that we had not visited before, and we can say that we have successfully recruited students from all but one of the schools that we have visited. During our short (20-30 minutes) visit to the high school, we make a point to highlight the social significance of the program that we have created as well as the interdisciplinary "research" experience that the students will experience. We also bring hands on demonstrations that serve to educate as well as entertain the students. Importantly, the undergraduate mentors take part in these recruiting trips and are responsible for the execution and explanation of all of the demonstrations that are done during the recruiting trip. By doing this, the beginning of the mentor-mentee relationship between the undergraduates and the high school students is established. Recruiting undergraduate students to serve as mentors was accomplished by distributing flyers across campus and specifically targeting students in advanced chemistry courses by briefly promoting the program during a class period. Our funding situation allowed us to provide a part-time stipend ($2000/student) to two students over the course of the summer. We found that this compensation was enough to support students who were staying on campus to take courses or whose families live locally. We found that recruiting undergraduate students was a relatively easy task because many students seek out opportunities such as these to bolster their resumes for future employment or educational opportunities. Program Execution Of course, the most enjoyable part of any outreach program is its execution. This is where the careful planning and philosophizing gets put into action and where real lessons are learned. As is likely the case with most programs, some things we tried worked well and others did not. In this section, we’d like to relay the things that we thought worked well during the execution of the P2P program and also mention a few unanticipated complications. A goal of the program that was overwhelmingly successful was conveying to the students the usefulness of a multidisciplinary approach to an important 63

problem. This was easily achieved due to the collaborative nature of the program that made it obvious to the students how different parts of the program depended on each other. The students also showed a genuine interest in the project, which we largely attribute to the social importance of replacing slowly degrading and oilderived plastics to bioderived and biodegradable plastics. The multidisciplinary nature of the program also gave the students access to a variety of techniques, which gave them a breadth of experiences to draw from in the future. A somewhat unanticipated benefit of carrying out the program in a bonafide research environment was that it allowed the students to use state of the art equipment, such as NMR instruments. Due to budgetary constraints, high school students rarely get exposed to state of the art equipment in school laboratory courses. Many high schools around the country have limited resources in terms of laboratory equipment. Unfortunately, this fact has taken away the best tool that we have as scientists to recruit students. It has been our experience that students are usually excited to use state of the art equipment, even when using them did not require as much personal involvement as other parts of the program. Students have regularly lauded the novelty associated with using this equipment as a strength of the program. Our strategy to use undergraduate mentors was also a success. The relatability of the undergraduate mentors to the high school students easily compensated for their inexperience. The high school students were more comfortable asking questions of their undergraduate mentors than they were of the graduate students, who served as consultants, and certainly the professors who oversaw the program. The dynamic worked well and it appeared as if we succeeded in establishing the mentor-mentee relationship that we intended. Although these aspects of the program were its strengths, there were some challenges that we had to overcome to make the program more enjoyable for the students. An unanticipated consequence of choosing to pattern our outreach program after a research experience is the large amount of down time that is required for tasks such as bacteria culturing, fermentation, distillation, etc. As a result of these time requirements, there were significant periods of inactivity that was a bit off-putting to some of the participants of the program. In earlier years of the program, we had the undergraduate students carry out short demonstrations or "mini-labs" that were scientific in nature but not necessarily tied into the primary goal of the project. While these activities occupied the participants during the down time, some commented that they seemed random (which they were) and disrupted the continuity of the program (which they did). In response to this feedback, we have slowly been developing smaller projects that are associated with biodegradable polymers or biosynthesis. To do this, we have involved the graduate student consultants, who design new experiments for the undergraduate students to implement. This activity bolsters the P2P program and it provides some concrete involvement and innovation from the graduate students, which they can point to when applying to external funding sources (e.g. NSF) that require such activities. A common request from the participants of the program was more direct involvement with the professors. Because many conferences central to the development of research programs occur in the summer (e.g. Gordon Research 64

Conferences) and because professors often plan overseas travel in the summer to avoid conflicts with teaching, it is often difficult for faculty members to directly participate in summer outreach programs regularly. However, it is our experience that one or two interactions with the students throughout the course of the program is enough involvement from the professors to show the participants of the outreach program that they are actively involved in the program. These interactions can be brief updates obtained as a result of the professor walking through the lab (as they likely do with their graduate students) or more formal lessons/discussions led by the professors (e.g. chirality, biosynthesis, NMR spectroscopy, etc.). Both methods are effective and not terribly time consuming. Short lessons involving hands on demonstrations can often be adapted from course lectures from the professors. These lessons provide additional, relevant activities for students to do during down times and are generally reviewed favorably by the student participants. The above interactions also allow professors to promote careers in science. This is done through lunch meetings with undergraduate students, graduate students, and professors in which topics such as motivation for pursuing careers in science are discussed. Professors also relate their own experiences with their students and colleagues who have pursued various careers in scientific disciplines. While our program has not explicitly done so, area scientists can be invited to participate, which gives the students a different perspective about careers in science. Program Evaluation and Beyond We have primarily used anonymous exit surveys to evaluate the efficacy of the outreach program that we developed (10). Important to designing this survey was that it needed to provide useful and constructive information without being overly lengthy. What was important to us was to create a tool that we could use to evaluate the efficacy of the program but also to identify where the program could be improved. Iteration between program evaluation and redefining the nuts and bolts of the program to fine tune (or completely over hall) aspects of the program was an essential part of the process in order to create a program with long-term success. Not only did constant annual adjustments make the program better, it also prevented the program from stagnating, which is important to do to keep the participants engaged. There was nothing particularly novel about the structure of our exit surveys. They contained both quantifiable questions (e.g. statements that the participants can strongly agree, agree, be uncertain, disagree, or strongly disagree with) and free response questions, which is pretty standard as far as we are aware. We made sure to include questions/statements that mixed "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree" as the answer that would paint the program in a favorable light to ensure that students were not just circling answers without reading the questions. An example of a statement that we would like to see "strongly disagree" circled was "I was bored". From these answers, we were able to semi-quantitatively and qualitatively assess the immediate impact of the program. Some of our findings have already been discussed and appear in Figure 2. 65

Long-term success of programs such as the P2P and YEP! programs are of the utmost importance to understand better what encourages students to make career decisions. Unfortunately, the P2P program is still too young to provide any meaningful information about its long-term effectiveness. However, we have reliable contact information from our former participants that we intend to use in the future to gain information about the importance that the P2P program had in shaping their ideas about science and ultimately deciding what careers to pursue. It is our hope that the program that we developed will be at least a small pebble of encouragement for these students to build upon as they enter college and ultimately the workforce.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have relayed our experiences with planning, executing, and evaluating P2P, a multidisciplinary, collaborative outreach program focused on exposing participants to a genuine research environment. Our intent in writing this chapter was not to imply that we are neither the first nor the best to have organized such a program. Instead, we hope that this chapter will provide those considering organizing a similar program with considerations that would be useful in making key decisions for designing their own program(s). The P2P program is now entering its sixth year of existence, and it has been very rewarding to watch it grow and mature. However, we believe that our program has still a long way to go to develop into something that will meet all the goals that we initially set out to achieve. Important to this ultimate goal is obtaining data regarding the long-term effectiveness of the program. As is the case with the chemical and biological research that is ongoing in all of our labs, the effectiveness of programs such as these cannot stagnate and must include new innovations to keep pace with the aspirations of their intended audience.

References 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2016. Carnevale, A. P.; Smith, N.; Melton, M. STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics; Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce: Washington, DC, 2011. Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Upping the Numbers; Burk, R. J.; Mattis, M. C., Eds.; Eward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.: Northampton, MA, 2007; pp 3−46. Leslie, L. L.; McClure, G. T.; Oaxaca, R. L. Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering: A Life Sequence Analysis. J. High. Ed. 1998, 69, 239–276. Quinn, H. R.; Anderson, W. W.; Atwater, T.; Bell, P.; Corcoran, T. B.; Dirzo, R.; Griffiths, P. A.; Herschbach, D. R.; Katehi, L. P. B.; Mather, J. C.; Moulding, B. D.; Osborne, J.; Pellegrino, J. W.; Pruitt, S. L.; Reiser, B.; Richards-Kortum, R. R.; Secada, W. G.; Smith, D. C. A Framework for 66

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. Chan, Y. M.; Hom, H.; Montclare, J. K. Implementing and Evaluating Mentored Chemistry-Biology Technology Lab Modules to Promote Early Interest in Science. J. Chem. Ed. 2011, 88, 751–754. Ahrenkiel, L.; Worm-Leonhard, M. Offering a Forensic Science Camp to Introduce and Engage High School Students in Interdisciplinary Science Topics. J. Chem. Ed. 2014, 91, 340–344. Kubatova, A.; Pedersen, D. E. Developing and Implementing an Interdisciplinary Air Pollution Workshop To Reach and Engage Rural High School Students in Science. J. Chem. Ed. 2013, 90, 417–422. Anunson, P. N.; Winkler, G. R.; Winkler, J. R.; Parkinson, B. A.; Christus, J. D. S. Involving Students in a Collaborative Project to Help Discover Inexpensive, Stable Materials for Solar Photoelectrolysis. J. Chem. Ed. 2013, 90, 1333–1340. Flynn, N. Science Days: An Interdisciplinary Outreach Program. J. Chem. Ed. 2005, 82, 1483–1485. Tamburini, F.; Kelly, T.; Weerapana, E.; Byers, J. A. Paper to Plastics: An Interdisciplinary Summer Outreach Project in Sustainability. J. Chem. Ed. 2014, 91, 1574–1579. Venditti, R. A. A Simple Flotation De-Inking Experiment for the Recycling of Paper. J. Chem. Ed. 2004, 81, 693. van Setters, J. R.; Sijbers, J. P. J.; Denis, M.; Trampler, J. Build Your Own Second-generation Bioethanol Plant in the Classroom. J. Chem. Ed. 2011, 88, 195–196. Chan-Blanco, Y.; Bonilla-Leiva, A. R.; Valazquez, A. C. Using banana to generate lactic acid through batch process fermentation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 63, 147–152. Yoo, D. K.; Kim, D.; Lee, D. S. Synthesis of Lactide from Oligomeric PLA: Effect of Temperature, Pressure, and Catalyst. Macromol. Res. 2006, 14, 510–516. Biernesser, A. B.; Li, B.; Byers, J. A. Redox-Controlled Polymerization of Lactide Catalyzed by Bis(imino)pyridine Iron Bis(alkoxide) Complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 16553–16560. Ormerod, M. B.; Duckworth, D. Pupil’s Attitude to Science; Humanities Press: Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1975. Renninger, K. A. In Intrinsic Motivation: Controversies and New Directions; Sandsone, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Eds.; Academies Press: San Diego, 2000. Renninger, K. A. In The Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed.; Guthrie, J., Eds.; Macmillan: New York, 2003; p 704. Tai, R. H.; Liu, C. Q.; Maltese, A. V.; Fan, X. Planning Early for Careers in Science. Science 2006, 312, 1143–1144. Bauer, K. W.; Bennett, J. S. Alumni Perceptions Used to Assess Undergraduate Research Experience. J. High. Ed. 2003, 210–230. Moore, C. J. Choking the Oceans with Plastic. The New York Times, August 26, 2014, A23. 67

23. Green, S. When Seabirds Smell Plastic in the Ocean, They Think It’s Time to Eat. The Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/ science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-seabirds-plastic-20161111-story.html (accessed June 2017). 24. Tullo, A. H. The cost of plastic packaging. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94 (41), 32–37. 25. National Research Council. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads; Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011; p 1−286. 26. Wilson, Z. S.; Holmes, L.; Degravelles, K.; Sylvain, M. R.; Batiste, L.; Johnson, M.; McGuire, S. Y.; Pang, S. S.; Warner, I. M. Hierarchical Mentoring: A Transformative Strategy for Improving Diversity and Retention in Undergraduate STEM Disciplines. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 148–156. 27. Tenenbaum, L.; Anderson, M.; Jett, M.; Yourick, D. An Innovative Near-Peer Mentoring Model for Undergraduate and Secondary Students: STEM Focus. Innov. High. Educ. 2014, 39, 375–385. 28. Jett, M.; Anderson, M.; Yourick, D. Use of Near-Peer Mentoring to Involve Minority Junior/High School Students in Science. FASEB J. 2006, 20, A541. 29. Pluth, M. D.; Boettcher, S. W.; Nazin, G. V.; Greenaway, A. L.; Hartle, M. D. Collaboration and Near-Peer Mentoring as a Platform for Sustainable Science Education Outreach. J. Chem. Ed. 2015, 92, 625–630.

68

Chapter 6

From the Research Lab to the Classroom: A Multi-Faceted High School Chemistry Outreach Program Timothy B. Clark,*,1 David G. Emmerson,2,3 and June Honsberger2 1Department

of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, California 92110, United States 2Science Department, La Costa Canyon High School, 1 Maverick Way, Carlsbad, California 92009, United States 3Science Department, Pacific Ridge School, 6269 El Fuerte St., Carlsbad, California 92009, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Outreach initiatives in the STEM fields have received significant attention in recent decades in an effort to improve the pipeline of diverse and talented students preparing for these careers. This chapter describes an outreach initiative that utilizes several different successful approaches in an attempt to provide a multi-faceted program that provides high school students with better insights into career and educational pathways in the STEM fields. The outreach was focused on chemistry, but was placed in the larger context of all STEM fields. Four components to the program were implemented with two different high school teachers over four years. Each high school teacher engaged in two six week summer research experiences with the goal of enhancing that teacher’s ability to incorporate research concepts into their courses. After each summer, three distinct outreach activities were done with the teacher’s chemistry classes. The activities involved a classroom visit in which Dr. Clark and four undergraduate students discussed career and educational options within chemistry and other STEM fields. The second event involved a tour of

© 2017 American Chemical Society

the University of San Diego science building, followed by undergraduate research presentations. The final event was an industrial site tour from a chemistry-related company. The outreach activities were assessed, which demonstrated an increased knowledge and interest in STEM-related careers.

1. Introduction The early preparation of students for productive careers in science and technology has received a great deal of attention in recent decades as the connection between the strength of the economy to innovation has been solidified (1). The United States has a long history of providing federal funding at all academic levels to enhance education and outreach in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (1). These initiatives range from targeting elementary students in outreach to training for postdoctoral research associates (2). There have been numerous studies that connect outreach initiatives to particular outcomes that enhance the pipeline of students prepared for and interested in STEM careers (3). There are many factors that must be considered in choosing a robust outreach plan. The age of the target population is of course critical to determining the type of program that would be effective, but the amount of previous exposure to STEM education is also essential to consider. Many outreach programs, such as STEM days hosted by a college or university, are highly effective at attracting large number of students to an event and exposing them to a large array of activities. These events are challenging to assess and more importantly, they cast a large net and cannot provide targeted experiences due to the diversity of ages and STEM backgrounds of student attendees. On the other extreme are programs that are highly focused on a particular group of students such as STEM summer camps. These programs are typically very effective at increasing student interest in STEM fields, but have limited throughput. These latter programs are often focused on high achieving or underrepresented students. Notably, however, many such programs include an isolated outreach event that is unable to provide students with an integration of their academic coursework with the outreach activity. With an interest in increasing the impact of an outreach program while maintaining a focus of a particular group of students with a defined STEM background, an educational initiative was designed that would have immediate and lasting impacts. In considering this lofty goal, a program was designed with a focus in chemistry around two key features: 1) providing authentic experiences for chemistry educators that would impact their long-term ability to enhance connections between their coursework and chemical research topics; and 2) providing a multi-faceted outreach experience to that chemistry teachers’ students that would use several activities to integrate their educational background with the activities.

70

2. Important Features of the Outreach Program In designing the outreach program, several features were chosen explicitly to address perceived needs to enhance the experience of high school students as they discern appropriate career paths. These details are delineated below. 2-1. High School Teacher Research Experience The central aspect of the outreach plan was focused around summer research experiences for high school chemistry teachers as a unique professional development experience that promotes practical knowledge (4). The rich and rewarding experience of working in a research laboratory was envisioned to provide teachers with a better knowledge of research principles, chemistry content, and examples that they can take back to their classroom (5–9). The particular focus of the research experience in this outreach plan is on catalysis with the goal of providing a foundation to relate the field of chemistry to current, topical societal issues such as polymeric materials and the energy crisis. This program was initiated as a 4-year outreach plan that would include two different high school teachers, each doing two 6-week summer research experiences. During the 6-week summer research experience the high school teacher is given a project in metal-catalyzed organic reactions, works within a group of undergraduate students, and participates in regular group meetings of literature and research presentations. The preparation of high school science teachers typically requires both educational courses and a full complement of science courses to obtain an endorsement in that particular field of science. Balancing this large, diverse course load rarely leaves an opportunity to be involved in an authentic research experience. Integration of research into undergraduate education is central to the student’s ability to obtain a balanced understanding of basic chemistry and applications in research (10, 11). Providing this type of research opportunity for high school teachers allows them to have a deeper understanding of the principles that guide innovation in chemistry. There are numerous direct and indirect benefits of providing a research opportunity for a high school chemistry teacher. The primary beneficiary will be the students that are enrolled in these teachers’ courses throughout the extent of their career. The authentic research experience described above will serve as professional development for these two high school teachers and improve their ability to engage students in the classroom (5–8). The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program through NSF has demonstrated that a partnership between K–12 teachers and higher education institutions that involves intensive professional development results in greater success on math and science assessment exams (8, 12, 13). Furthermore, student performance on these assessment exams continues to improve years after the research experience (8). The teachers chosen for this program were solicited through a list serve of San Diego County high school chemistry teachers. The solicitation stated the time commitment, two summers for 6 weeks each summer, and the stipend, $5000 per summer. The two teachers chosen for the program, David Emmerson 71

and June Honsberger, had not been involved in chemistry research prior to this experience. Therefore, research projects were chosen that would provide the best experience without requiring an excessive number of new techniques. The initial training process focused on a conceptual understanding of the project goals and basic training for the lab. The teachers engaged in departmental safety training and were trained in the Standard Operating Procedures that are commonly used in the research lab. The teacher was then paired up with an experienced undergraduate research student, who performed the techniques with the teacher, working side-by-side until the teacher had developed a sufficient comfort level with the techniques. Mr. Emmerson’s project (Summers of 2013 and 2014) involved amine-directed C–H borylation (14, 15), followed by Suzuki-Miyaura coupling of the resulting products (16). This particular project had been initiated by an undergraduate student and had promising results that suggested that the project would be successful. The experiments required the use of an inert atmosphere glovebox, syringe technique, column chromatography, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, rotary evaporation, and several other techniques required in a synthetic laboratory. These key tools are not typically part of a high school chemistry curriculum, but the conceptual background of each technique is consistent with classroom topics. The techniques could readily be explained to high school students to connect the lecture content to these techniques. Although these techniques are fairly advanced, the nature of the project required repetitive use of the techniques, allowing for increased comfort as the summer progressed. Ultimately, the project resulted in a publication in which Mr. Emmerson was a co-author (17). The second research experience (summers of 2015 and 2016), for Mrs. Honsberger, also involved amine-directed C–H borylation. In this case, Mrs. Honsberger synthesized a series of substituted benzylic amines and used the products in C–H borylation reactions. The synthesized amines are being used for a mechanistic study in which a Hammett plot will be conducted using the substituted amines. This project has similar characteristics to the first project in which complex techniques were required, including the use of an inert atmosphere glovebox, but was repetitive in nature, increasing familiarity and comfort with the techniques. The effectiveness of the research experience depends heavily on providing the teacher with a sense of comfort and confidence in the techniques they use. Therefore, projects that allow for this repetition are believed to be critical. The fact that the research experience spanned two summers is also an important feature as one summer was not believed to be sufficient to provide the desired comfort in the research lab (8). Both teachers demonstrated an increased confidence in the second summer and they were able to turn their focus from learning new techniques to using those techniques to complete their project. It is also important that the research lab is active. All four summer research experiences were done with 9–11 researchers working in Dr. Clark’s research group. The community of scholars is an important aspect of the experience and provides a wealth of different experiences to assist the high school teachers as they learn new techniques and gain a better understanding of their project. 72

2-2. Outreach Activities To complement the research experience for high school teachers a series of outreach activities were designed specifically for the students in the teacher’s classes during the academic year following the summer research experience. The activities took place during the spring semester and were generally spread out over the course of the semester with one activity per month. These outreach activities were chosen to provide successive interactions that provided an in-depth look at education requirements and career options in the sciences. Three specific activities were chosen to meet this goal, listed in chronological order: 1) A visit by Dr. Clark to the high school teacher’s chemistry classes with four undergraduate students to discuss the opportunities for careers in chemistry and related STEM fields and the educational requirements for those careers. 2) Dr. Clark and the four undergraduate students host the high school teacher’s chemistry students at the University of San Diego for a tour of the science building and presentations by the undergraduate students on their research projects. 3) A coordinated visit for the high school teacher’s chemistry students at a local science industrial site. It is important to note that the three activities described above are not unique outreach experiences, but the combination of the activities provides a holistic opportunity for the students to gain insight into careers in the sciences. Each activity has merit on its own, but combined provides a synergistic program to enhance the understanding of students as to the possible career choices in science fields.

Classroom Visit The first outreach activity was a visit to the teacher’s classroom by Dr. Clark and the four undergraduate outreach assistants. Typically, the outreach activities involved two class periods and spanned 45–60 minutes with each class. Dr. Clark started by discussing the different sub-disciplines of chemistry and connecting that discussion to when those topics will appear in the undergraduate curriculum. The focus then moved on to educational paths, providing insights into the time commitment and nature of obtaining a Masters in Science or a Doctor of Philosophy. The distinction between time spent in the classroom and time spent doing research is made in this discussion along with the fact that most graduate students earn a stipend while attending graduate school, rather than incurring increased debt. Finally, Dr. Clark discussed the career options one has at each educational level, including careers that bridge the sciences with other fields, such as patent law and technical sales positions. The second part of this visit involves the undergraduate students each giving a 5-minute talk on their major, research experience, and career goals. Since students were chosen (see section 2-3 for a 73

full description) with the goal of diversifying both research areas (organic vs. biochemistry, for example) and career goals (physician vs. research scientist), the high school students learned about the evolution of those career goals from entering college up to graduation.

University Campus Visit The second event involved a visit of the high school students to the University of San Diego. This visit started with a tour of the science building (Shiley Center for Science and Technology). The tour highlighted both teaching and research spaces. After the tour, the undergraduate assistants each give 15-minute presentations on their undergraduate research projects. The assistants are instructed to present their projects at a level appropriate for students who have only had high school chemistry. Dr. Clark also does practice presentations with the students and makes suggestions to each presenter on how to explain certain topics and remove unnecessary information.

Industrial Site Visit The final outreach activity each year involves a visit to a chemically-related industrial site. For this program, the visits took place with two companies, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), and Illumina, Inc. These companies generously hosted large groups of students at their research and development sites. Both companies began the visit with a presentation on the company and a non-technical description of the science and technology behind their work (typically 45–60 minutes). After the presentation, there was a tour of the facilities which highlighted the role of scientists within the company (60–90 minutes). At BD, students were given the opportunity to have a hands-on experience of one of their diagnostic tools on the market which had been explained in the presentation. Overall, the site visits were a very powerful way to connect what the students were learning in the classroom to an application. Understanding the science behind the technology was a critical component to making this connection. 2-3. Role of Undergraduate Students in Outreach Activities During each set of outreach activities, a group of four undergraduate students from the University of San Diego was chosen to assist Dr. Clark with the program. These students, who were junior and senior chemistry and biochemistry majors, were intentionally chosen with different interests within chemistry and having had extensive research experience at the University of San Diego. For example, one particular year involved students with interest and research experience in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, polymer chemistry, and biochemistry. The students also had distinct career paths in which one student was planning to apply to medical school, one to graduate school in biochemistry, one to law school, and one was planning to seek a job in the chemical industry directly after graduation. This 74

diversity in interests and career paths was a critical component to the outreach as it provided the high school students with a better perspective regarding career paths. The diverse research interests were showcased in the student presentations during the second outreach event, in which each undergraduate gave a 15-minute presentation on their undergraduate research project targeted at a level appropriate for the high school students (see discussion in section 2-2). The career discussions in outreach activity 1 and the research presentations were significantly enhanced by the diversity of scientific and career interests of the students. Equally important to the goals of the outreach program was to have undergraduate students that could connect with the high school students more readily. Many high school students are not prepared to envision themselves in a career. Connecting their course interests with students who are at the next academic stage, and who are themselves considering their next step toward a career provides an important link for the high school students.

3. Assessment The program was assessed by a questionnaire to determine the student perspectives and their knowledge of careers in chemistry and related fields. To achieve this goal, a historical cohort control group (18) was required. Prior to each high school teacher’s first summer research experience (within 2–3 weeks of the end of the academic year for control group and study group), a questionnaire was given to that teacher’s classes that were equivalent to those that would be part of the study the following year. For example, for the outreach program involving Mr. Emmerson, the outreach was targeted at AP chemistry students; with Mrs. Honsberger, first year chemistry students were involved in the program. Additional questions were utilized for the groups that had participated in the outreach program to determine the number of activities they participated in, their favorite program, and suggestions for the program. For the purpose of this analysis, all student responses were included in the assessment, regardless of the number of activities they were able to attend. Select results of the questionnaire are provided below. A plot is provided for each question that indicates the percent of students that provided each answer. The data is separated by teacher, in which the left two bars (striped) represent Mr. Emmerson’s students from AP chemistry and the right two bars represent Mrs. Honsbereger’s first year chemistry students. In each case, the lighter bars (for each pair) are from the control group and the darker bars are the students that were involved in the program.

75

1. How likely are you to pursue a career in a STEM field (Figure 1)?

Figure 1. Plot of responses to likelihood of pursuing a career in a STEM field showing percent of respondents with each answer.

The results of the questionnaire regarding student’s perception of their likelihood of pursuing a career in a STEM field demonstrate an increase in interest in STEM careers. The percent of students who indicated a “Strong Possibility” that they would pursue a career in a STEM field increased from 22.9% to 30.6% for AP chemistry students and 5.4% to 17.0% for first year chemistry students. Equally significant was the decrease in students who “Likely Will Not” pursue a career in a STEM field. The significant difference between students who indicated a “Strong Possibility” of pursuing a STEM career from the AP chemistry students and the first year chemistry students (without the outreach program) is likely the result of student self-selection. AP chemistry students are typically more inclined toward STEM careers and take science courses that are not required for graduation. The first-year chemistry students, on the other hand, are a mixture of students who may be interested in STEM careers and those who are required to take a chemistry course for graduation. This distinction highlights the effectiveness of the outreach program with first-year chemistry students who have had less exposure to careers in the sciences in which the percent of students indicating a “Strong Possibility” of pursuing a STEM career tripled.

76

2. How familiar are you with different types of careers in the field of chemistry (Figure 2)?

Figure 2. Plot of responses to familiarity with careers in chemistry showing percent of respondents with each answer.

The results of the question that probed student familiarity with careers in the field of chemistry demonstrated a significant decrease in students who were only familiar with 2–3 career types and an increase in students who were familiar with more career types. The most significant increase was with students who were familiar with 4–6 career types in chemistry.

77

3. What is the highest degree you are most likely to obtain if you pursue a career in a STEM field (Figure 3) (19)?

Figure 3. Plot of responses to highest degree expected in a STEM field based on percent of respondents with each answer.

The results from the question that probes student’s perceived likelihood of pursuing particular degrees in a STEM field is quite polarized based on the level of chemistry. In the case of the AP chemistry students, there are subtle differences between the control group and the students that were involved in the outreach activities. There was a small increase in the percent of students that expected to obtain an M.S. degree (4.6% increase) and a similar decrease in the percent of students that expected to obtain a Ph.D. in a STEM field (5.3% decrease). This change may have resulted from a realization of the typical time required to obtain a Ph.D. versus an M.S. in a STEM field. Alternatively, a significant shift was observed from first-year chemistry students who expected to obtain a post-graduate degree. The percent of students that expected to obtain a B.A. or B.S. changed from 19.2% to 7.9%. The most significant increase was observed for students expecting to obtain an M.S. degree (from 26.9% to 55.3%), followed by an M.D./Ph.D. degree program (15.4% to 26.3%). This distinct difference between AP chemistry students and first year chemistry students likely is a reflection of exposure and pre-existing interest in STEM fields as discussed above. Increased exposure into careers and educational paths for students that would not have self-selected into a chemistry seems to make a significant difference into their likelihood to pursue an advanced degree in a STEM field.

78

Lessons Learned from the Program Throughout this 4-year program involving two different high school teachers, several aspects of the project were successively changed based on assessment of the program and necessary changes from year to year. The most significant change that was made from the first two years to the second two years was the recognition of when students were most likely to attend the outreach events that required a field trip (events 2 and 3). During the first two years, the outreach events were done on Friday afternoons once students were done with classes. While this approach simplified the paperwork for the field trips, many of the students in the participating classes had significant extracurricular commitments, limiting the number of students that could participate in the outreach activities that were planned. During the second two-year cycle, the field trips were planned to take place in the morning, during classes. Using this model, the percentage of students that participated in the program increased significantly (see Table 1). The increased participation in the program could explain some of the differences between the two sets of data noted in Figure 1 and Figure 3, but does not seem to account for the entire difference.

Table 1. Percentage of Student Participation in Outreach Activities Events Attended

AP Chemistry

First Year Chemistry

1

54.9%

35.7%

2

28.2%

41.0%

3

16.9%

23.2%

4. Perspectives from the High School Teachers in the Program The high school teachers involved in this outreach program came from different backgrounds and had different strengths that they used while teaching chemistry. Therefore, the particular experience of each teacher in the research experience and the outreach activities was unique. Below are reflections from Mr. Emmerson and Mrs. Honsberger on their experience in the program. 4-1. David Emmerson was the first teacher to participate in the outreach program from June 2013 to May 2015. He has a B.S. in biology from Cornell University and an M.S. in Science Education from S.U.N.Y. at Brockport. Mr. Emmerson has been teaching science for 38 years, with 33 years focused on chemistry. The first summer in Dr. Clark’s research lab was very challenging. It took me a while to become familiar with the equipment, polish up my rusty organic chemistry and to get used to fitting in with a group of undergraduate students. After a few weeks my skills had dramatically improved on the rotary evaporator, NMR, column chromatography and other apparati that are more involved than 79

I’d been used to. Once I became comfortable with these techniques, the research experience became quite enjoyable, especially the process of synthesizing compounds as yet unknown. While reading the research notebooks, learning new computer applications and getting the timing down on experiments that needed to run for 16 hours provided a bit of a challenge, the biggest adjustment was the daily commute. The second summer, 2014, was spent continuing the progress from the previous year, but also training a high school student from my class to become part of the research group (20). It was a rewarding experience, being able to work closely with her on a daily basis over a six week period. I rarely get to mentor individual students, and never at such a complex level of scientific work or for such an extended period of time. It was very satisfying to see her develop her lab skills and organic chemistry knowledge. It was during this summer that we moved ahead towards the publication of the paper based partially on the work that the two of us had been doing. We learned together about the research process: 1) how to develop the appropriate questions we sought to answer, 2) how a laboratory functions differently as a research facility rather than in a teaching/learning situation, 3) how to function in a group, collaborating and communicating/presenting our work, 4) how to then prepare the information for publication and later 5) the process of attending a conference to communicate the results. While I was involved in the program, I taught hundreds of students over the two academic years. I was able to feel more in tune with the experience of a university student majoring in chemistry and have many more examples and insights at my disposal when explaining chemistry concepts or laboratory procedures. This program also stimulated me to continue learning and exploring other avenues of instruction. I felt that I was not only a better teacher after this opportunity, but also probably continued to teach longer than I may have without it. While one student in particular was able to go into great depth into chemistry research, the majority of the students were impacted by my connection with the program. Many of my students talked about how impressive it was to them that a college professor and his students would take time out of their day to come to our school to talk to them. They felt like they were on a par with star athletes being recruited by a college coach. It made them feel important and caused them to think differently about the fact that they were taking chemistry as a class. It elevated the significance of chemistry as an experience in their lives. The presentations showed them what the different possibilities were if they did choose to study chemistry or other science fields in college. Those that were able to attend the trip to USD to tour the labs and see presentations by students on the research teams got a more in-depth understanding of the role of undergraduate research in science education. My students all commented on how much enthusiasm was displayed by the presenters. They all saw that there was a passion for involvement in the research. The final piece, visiting an industrial site, put together the big picture for them. They were very excited about seeing the immediate relevance of the concepts they were learning in their science courses. They were especially interested in the ability to use a product provided by the company which they now understood the 80

science behind it and knew that it was a commercial product. I feel this experience gave them meaningful recognition of the value of their coursework, especially in my class.

4-2. June Honsberger was the second teacher to participate in the outreach program from June 2015 to May 2017. She has a B.S. and an M.S. in Geological Sciences from San Diego State University. Mrs. Honsberger has been teaching chemistry and earth science for 17 years in the San Dieguito Union High School District. The program included two summer research experiences in Dr. Clark’s organic chemistry lab. During the experience I was exposed to a variety of chemistry techniques and instruments that broadened my understanding and confidence as a chemist. Since my educational background is in geological sciences, my ability to teach chemistry at a high level has always been somewhat limited. This experience has led to a new level of confidence in my ability to work with my high school students in the laboratory. It also enhanced my understanding of chemistry that has been incorporated into my daily instruction. Prior to the outreach program my high school students were unaware of the variety of chemistry majors and career possibilities available with a chemistry degree because my background was not strong enough to provide this information. The first outreach activity provided an opportunity for high school students to meet and interact with undergraduate chemistry majors. The undergraduate students discussed the paths that led them to major in chemistry, as well as their plans after graduation. The high school students were excited by the visit and it led to many discussions about majoring in science or chemistry both during the visit and for several months after. The experience provided an opportunity to discuss educational and career goals with many students and to help them think through their possible career paths. The next activity was a tour of the chemistry labs at the University of San Diego, followed by undergraduate research presentations. This trip had a significant impact on the high school students; they were intrigued and fascinated by the different types of research conducted by the undergraduates. They were also impressed by the variety of chemistry labs and equipment at the university. The industrial site tour to Illumina, Inc. was the final activity. The tour started with an overview of the companies work followed by a tour of the facilities, which focused on the role of scientists at the company. This third outreach activity seemed to have the greatest impact on the students. They were captivated by the variety of careers available in the STEM fields. In addition to the immediate impact the outreach had on my students, I expect to infuse my new knowledge in educational and career paths in the STEM fields into my teaching in future years. I also hope to be able to identify students that will benefit from being advised and mentored in these possible career paths and to be a resource to them.

81

5. Adaptability of the Program This multi-faceted outreach program will work well for a number of settings, but would require appropriate adjustments to allow implementation for some common settings. A description of adjustments that would be appropriate for these settings is offered below: Proximity of High School Teacher In some cases, high school teachers will not live and work near a university that can provide a summer research experience that would contribute to their professional growth. When this is the case, an opportunity for the high school teacher to live in on-campus housing is recommended. In the program described above, both high school teachers lived approximately 40 miles from the university campus. This distance is approaching the upper limit of what should be deemed acceptable for someone to commute daily when conducting an authentic research experience. For further distances, the program administrator should seek opportunities to provide affordable temporary housing for the high school teachers. Further distances could also create some complications in how the outreach activities are conducted. Most of the activities could still be achieved if the travel time allows for a field trip to occur all in one day (about two hours travel time each way seems to be the maximum). Further distances would require significant modifications to the program. Graduate Programs Some significant changes may be required to optimize this outreach program if the research opportunity will take place at a research intensive university where the majority of the researchers are graduate students. In this situation, the role of undergraduates in the outreach activities is still deemed critical as a way to help high school students see the connections between their career goals and the next potential step in their education. Choosing two undergraduate students and two graduate students, however, may provide a clearer sense of the long-term steps required in the process as well. Additionally, the presence of graduate students in the research lab provides the potential for alternative approaches to the research experience. The high school teacher could be paired up with a graduate student, for example, to allow for more complex techniques to be employed without overwhelming the high school teacher.

6. Summary The combined efforts of high school teacher research experiences with multiple, scaffolded outreach events proved to be a successful way to engage high school students in considering careers in STEM fields. The role of undergraduate outreach assistants was critical to the success of the program, providing important connections to career paths and research topics. The final outreach event, an 82

industrial site visit, was the most popular among students and was highly effective at providing perspective on the diversity of career options in STEM fields.

Acknowledgments This educational initiative was funded by a National Science Foundation early CAREER award (CHE-1259406). The commitment and involvement from the University of San Diego, La Costa Canyon High School, and Pacific Ridge Schools is gratefully acknowledged. Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) and Illumina, Inc. are acknowledged for generously hosting large groups of high school students for outreach events. All of the undergraduate outreach assistants participating in the project are also acknowledged: David Peters, Michelle Powelson, Alexander Jackson, Allison Linehan, Alexa McGee, Barbara Ivos, Kristina Zivkovich, Nathalie Jimenez, Arman Sidiqui, W. Taylor Cottle, Taylor Thane, Claire Tolan, and Praveen Wickremasinghe.

References 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2007. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits; Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., Feber, M. A., Eds.; National Research Council, Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science Education, Center of Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Research Council, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. van Driel, J. H.; Beijaard, D.; Verloop, N. Professional Development and Reform in Science Education: The Role of Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. J. Res. Sci. Teach 2001, 38, 137–158. Westerlund, J. F.; García, D. M.; Koke, J. R.; Taylor, T. A.; Mason, D. S. Summer Scientific Research for Teachers: The Experience and its Effect. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2002, 13, 63–83. Varelas, M.; House, R.; Wenzel, S. Beginning Teachers Immersed into Science: Scientist and Science Teacher Identities. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 492–516. Dresner, M.; Worley, E. Teacher Research Experiences, Partnerships with Scientists, and Teacher Networks Sustaining Factors from Professional Development. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2006, 17, 1–14. Silverstein, S. C.; Dubner, J.; Miller, J.; Glied, S.; Loike, J. D. Teachers’ Participation in Research Programs Improves Their Students’ Achievement in Science. Science 2009, 326, 440–442. 83

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

Garet, M. S.; Porter, A. C.; Desimone, L.; Birman, B. F.; Yoon, K. S. What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2001, 38, 915–945. Kremer, J. F.; Bringle, R. G. The Effects of an Intensive Research Experience on the Career of Talented Undergraduates. J. Res. Dev. Educ. 1990, 24, 191–201. Karukstis, K. K.; Wenzel, T. J. Enhancing Research in the Chemical Sciences at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions. J. Chem. Ed. 2004, 81, 468–469. National Science Foundation Math and Science Partnership Program-Press Release, NSF 07-080, 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/news/ news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109725&org=NSF&from=news (accessed November 2016). National Science Foundation Math and Science Partnership Program–National Impact Report, 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/news/ newsmedia/msp_impact/msp_impact_report4_08.pdf (accessed November 2016). Roering, A. J.; Hale, L. V. A.; Squier, P. A.; Ringgold, M. A.; Wiederspan, E. R.; Clark, T. B. Iridium-Catalyzed, Substrate-Directed C-H Borylation Reactions of Benzylic Amines. Org. Lett. 2012, 14, 3558–3561. Hale, L. V. A.; McGarry, K. A.; Ringgold, M. A.; Clark, T. B. Role of Hemilabile Diamine Ligands in the Amine-Directed C–H Borylation of Arenes. Organometallics 2015, 34, 51–55. Miyaura, N.; Suzuki, A. Palladium-Catalyzed Cross-Coupling Reactions of Organoboron Compounds. Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 2457–2483. Hale, L. V. A.; Emmerson, D. G.; Ling, E. F.; Roering, A. J.; Ringgold, M. A.; Clark, T. B. ortho-Directed C–H Borylation/Suzuki Coupling Sequence in the Formation of Biphenylbenzylic Amines. Org. Chem. Frontiers 2015, 2, 661–664. Walser, T. M. Quasi-Experiments in Schools: The Case for Historical Cohort Control Groups. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 2014, 19, 1–8. Only students that indicated an interest in pursuing a career in a STEM field were asked this question. In the second summer, a high school student from the teacher’s classes was chosen to participate in a six-week summer research experience. This portion of the outreach was not included in the assessment plan and is therefore not discussed above.

84

Chapter 7

Introducing High School Students to Chemical Research through Science Ambassadors Matthew M. Bower,2 Samantha M. Harvey,3 Adam J. Richter,4 and Sara E. Skrabalak*,1 1Department

of Chemistry, Indiana University – Bloomington, 800 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, Indiana 47405, United States 2School of Medicine, University of California – Irvine, 1001 Health Sciences Rd., Irvine, California 92617, United States 3Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States 4Girls Athletic Leadership School, Denver Public Schools Charter School, 750 Galapago St., Denver, Colorado 80204, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Here, a simple outreach program – Science Ambassadors – is described, which involves undergraduate researchers returning to their former high schools to discuss both their experiences as a science student and their undergraduate research. This program introduces cutting-edge science topics into the high school curriculum, and these Science Ambassadors serve as role models that inspire high school students to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as well as to engage in undergraduate research early within their college experience. Additionally, the program enhances the training of undergraduate researchers by putting high value on effective communication and reinforcing scientific concepts.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction Many people exist in an information bubble that excludes credible science or where pseudoscience is prevalent (1). Moreover, there is a compulsory tendency to selectively recruit evidence that validates one’s pre-existing biases, and this predisposition can impair critical thinking about science topics (2). Thus, there is an acute need to enhance the public’s literacy of science and facilitate greater dialog on topics pertaining to science and technology (3). With this need in mind, the Science Ambassador Program described herein was developed when trying to answer the following question: How do I, as a chemistry professor, reach the people in small towns in rural Indiana about current science topics? As it turns out, I interact with very effective messengers everyday: the undergraduate researchers at Indiana University – Bloomington (IU-B). IU-B is the flagship public research university in the Indiana University system, with nearly 50,000 students as of Fall 2015 (4). Over 55% of its students are from in-state and are exactly from the places I hope to reach with information about sustainability, energy science, and nanoscience (4). These are areas of expertise for my research group; however, this Science Ambassador Program can be modified to introduce other areas of scientific inquiry. Moreover, this program should be transferrable to any institution with a large in-state student population, and recommendations are made at the end of this manuscript for national institutions with fewer in-state students. In particular, the Science Ambassadors Program involves IU-B undergraduate researchers returning to their former high schools to discuss both their experiences as a science student and their undergraduate research. Outlined are logistical considerations associated with setting up a Science Ambassadors Program, example materials from actual Science Ambassador visits, and a discussion of impact.

Science Ambassador and High School Selection During each academic year, 1-2 undergraduate students are recruited into a research group to assist graduate students and postdoctoral scholars with their research. When interviewing students for a position in the research group, the Science Ambassador Program is described and the level of interest by the student is gauged. Participation in the Science Ambassador Program is not a requirement for a research position, but the majority of students have responded with enthusiasm to the opportunity. Characteristics of successful Science Ambassadors include students with i) enthusiasm for research, ii) an outgoing personality, and iii) good relationships with a high school science teacher. The ideal time for students to begin their undergraduate research is either in the summer or fall semester, as this timeline gives students nearly a full academic year to engage with their research topic before serving as a Science Ambassador. Preparation for a Science Ambassador visit begins in either December or January, with the undergraduate researcher contacting their former high school science teachers (typically by email or letter) and explaining the program. To date, all teachers contacted about a Science Ambassador visit have responded enthusiastically and have offered return visits for subsequent years as well. 86

The main challenge is to schedule the visit at a time that is convenient for both the teacher and Science Ambassador. We have found early May to work incredibly well with our academic calendars as high schools are still in session throughout the state of Indiana but summer break has started at IU-B. Moreover, many Advanced Placement (AP) exams are being taken by high school students at that time and the teachers have flexibility in their schedule to accommodate a visit. Visits are most appropriate for juniors and seniors that are considering college or college-bound. Beyond that recommendation, we allow the teacher to select the most appropriate classes to visit. The following opportunities have been provided to date: i) the Science Ambassador visited multiple chemistry classes throughout the visit, ii) the Science Ambassador visited only the AP or advanced chemistry sections, or iii) the Science Ambassador visited several science classes (e.g., chemistry and physics) that have been combined to create a larger audience at one time. All have worked well, although activities need to be customized for the audience size. During the spring semester, the Science Ambassador continues their research, but also tests or develops an activity for their visit and gives a practice talk to the research group in preparation for their visit. A sample timeline is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Representative timeline for Science Ambassador recruitment and visit.

Structure of a Science Ambassador Visit The Science Ambassador prepares a presentation to introduce her or himself as well as their research. The “Personal Background” includes information about both the Science Ambassador’s experiences from high school and in college, making sure to include non-science interests in order to connect with a broad base of students (Figure 2). Next, the student discusses how they obtained a research position and general ways in which students can obtain such positions, including Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs). This general approach is taken to provide a template for college-bound students regardless of anticipated majors or institutions (e.g., primarily undergraduate institution versus research-1 institution). After this introduction, the Science Ambassador gives an overview of their research. This presentation is vetted prior to the visit through a practice talk during a research group meeting and revised and practiced as needed. This presentation is structured to provide the “big picture” for their research project, examples of specific skills learned by the student (e.g., electron microscopy, 87

NMR, etc.), their scientific contribution to the project, and potential applications. It is kept brief, approximately 10-15 minutes in length. After the presentation, the student leads the class in either a demonstration or hands-on activity that outlines a central principle from the research. For example, my research group studies the synthesis and applications of metal nanoparticles. Thus, students have observed a traditional galvanic replacement reaction and then assisted with a galvanic replacement reaction using nanoscale templates (5). This activity allowed students to observe the color change associated with the localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) of the metal nanoparticles as a function of titrant volume. This activity connected to the introduction of the Science Ambassador’s presentation where the connection between metal nanoparticles and the color of stained glass was discussed. This activity also connected to the potential applications of nanoparticles where tuning their LSPR is central. We have also used activities that highlight the ability of solar energy to facilitate chemical reactions and achieve environmental remediation during Science Ambassador visits (6). There are many demonstrations and activities already developed which can be easily used in Science Ambassador trips that are compatible with different types of chemical research.

Figure 2. Copy of Science Ambassador Matthew Bower’s “Personal Background” slide for visit’s presentation. (see color insert)

88

The Science Ambassador trip concludes with an exit survey. An example survey is shown in Figure 3 and can be tailored to obtain different information.

Figure 3. Copy of an exit survey for students after a Science Ambassador trip.

Benefits of the Science Ambassador Program The benefits of this program include that: i) these Science Ambassadors are very familiar with the environment that they are being sent to, ii) the cost of this program is low compared to many other high school outreach programs as the Science Ambassadors have their parents’ homes to return to and typically like to visit their homes before beginning summer research, iii) the parents of both the high school students and Science Ambassadors are indirectly targeted (e.g., one can envision discussions at dinner tables about science topics that would never occur otherwise), and iv) this program is attractive and motivating to IU-B students, providing additional training in scientific communication and outreach. This program may also be a valuable recruiting tool as v) college students can serve as role models who inspire high school students to pursue science and education degrees while also vi) feeding the “pipeline” of scientists at the high school level. From our exit surveys of 320 high school students, ~40% of the students are now more inclined to seek out research opportunities (55% for self-declared science or engineering majors) and ~40% stated they were unaware of undergraduate research opportunities until the visit. These results indicate that many students select their undergraduate institutions without consideration of the research opportunities available. This Science Ambassador Program may bring more undergraduates into research earlier in their studies, and early research opportunities have been shown to enhance retention in science, especially of students underrepresented in science (7). The free responses from the exit surveys 89

also give insight into the high school students’ varied perceptions of the Science Ambassador visits, with representative replies in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Direct quotes from students in response to exit survey. (see color insert) Three former undergraduate researchers from the Skrabalak group also provided reflections on their experiences as Science Ambassadors. Their profiles and summaries are provided here, and all perceive benefits from participation even as all have pursued different career paths upon graduation from IU-B. Science Ambassador Matthew M. Bower Matthew Bower was an undergraduate researcher in the Skrabalak group from summer 2011 through summer 2014, graduating from IU-B in spring 2013. His Science Ambassador trip took him to East Noble High School in Kendallville, IN. His current position is MS3 at the University of California, Irvine Medical School. His reflection: 90

“I participated in the Science Ambassador program in the summer of 2012. I presented my research, performed a demonstration, and held a Q&A session about science, research, and college in general. One of the biggest challenges was finding the balance of engaging students without overwhelming them with too many scientific details. This requires seeing the presentation from the audience’s perspective and anticipating points of confusion and potential questions. The demonstration taught me the importance of fastidious preparation. I performed my demonstration hours away from the lab, so I would not be able to troubleshoot very easily. I planned ahead and prepared back up chemical solutions and brought back up equipment. This proved useful as some of my light sensitive solutions had been exposed and degraded on the trip. In the Q&A, the students were curious to learn more about opportunities in science that they were previously unaware of. I left my high school with a better understanding of the potential and enthusiasm waiting to be tapped in similar high schools and the impact that a science role model could have. This program is unique in that it achieves the two-fold goal of exposing high school students to a career in science and exposing the presenter to a career in science education. While the students enjoyed the presentation, I found that I had just as much fun preparing for and giving the presentation. It prompted introspection after which I decided that teaching would be integral to my future career. I am now a medical student and have focused my efforts on education and outreach. I have organized anatomy tutor sessions in the cadaver lab and created supplemental physiology lectures. I also worked to fill curricular gaps in female reproductive health by creating a lecture series that was approved as an official elective course. Finally, I currently lead case discussions and a journal club and am working on an outreach event to expose undergraduate students to medicine. All of these events required tailoring my presentations to the knowledge level of my audience, anticipating questions, and careful preparation. The Science Ambassador program sparked my interest in teaching and laid the groundwork for the skills that I utilize and build upon to this day.” Science Ambassador Samantha M. Harvey Samantha Harvey was an undergraduate researcher in the Skrabalak group from June 2013 to May 2016. Her Science Ambassador trip took her to Penn High School in Mishawaka, IN. She graduated from IU-B in 2016 and is now a graduate student in Ph.D. Chemistry Program at Northwestern University, where she is jointly advised by Dr. Michael Wasielewski and Dr. Richard Schaller. Her reflection: “I was excited to visit my high school for the Science Ambassadors Program. It was in my chemistry classes at Penn High School that I first found my love for chemistry, and by AP Chem, I was determined to 91

study it in college. I never got a chance to hear about scientific research when I was that age, nevertheless consider the possibility of doing it as an undergraduate. Even when I entered college, I thought that I wouldn’t do research until graduate school. I spent two days at my high school visiting 8 classes to give the presentation and I have to imagine that there were some students in very similar shoes. Even more that may have never considered science as a career before the visit. But I didn’t just teach high school students about science, I gained a lot from those visits also. I had learned as an undergraduate researcher how to give presentations about my research to graduate students in my lab, but I had yet to explain it to an audience that didn’t have any background information yet. I also had to look introspectively, to consider what had been the most important aspects of my research and distill it down into a presentation that would excite others. I have always been proud of my public speaking skills, but here was a new challenge, one that required an entirely new strategy. And the students amazed me with their attention and questions. I could tell that some were seeing a new world of opportunities. At the very least everyone was excited by the demonstration. I don’t plan to pursue high school teaching as a career, but I do think that I would enjoy teaching undergraduate classes. Being able to excite a group of people about the area you are passionate about is truly remarkable. I would do it again in a heartbeat and have since tried to continue exciting young people about science. Recently in graduate school I have joined a program called “Science in the Classroom” where graduate students travel to an elementary school in Chicago to show third and fourth graders basic principles of science such as forces like gravity or chemical versus physical changes. The experience has encouraged me to put a spark of curiosity in others.” Science Ambassador Adam J. Richter Adam Richter was an undergraduate researcher in the Skrabalak group from 2010 to 2011. His Science Ambassador trip in 2011 took him to New Palestine High School in New Palestine, IN. He graduated from IU-B in 2012 and after completion of a Master’s Degree in Global Health and Development from the University of London, he is now a Corps Member for Teach for America Colorado. His reflection: “Prior to participating in the Science Ambassadors Program, I had never presented scientific information to a group of high school students in a formal classroom setting. Accordingly, I faced challenges that I had not previously overcome. I needed to both teach students about my topic in a way that was accessible and inspire them to find value, both intrinsically and extrinsically, in the act of scientific research. In preparing to pitch the beauty of scientific research to the group, I too was reenergized by my own research and participating in the broader scientific endeavor. 92

Furthermore, in coming up with an approachable explanation of my microparticle analysis work as well as by answering questions that students had for me about my work, I refined my own understanding of my project and gained fresh perspective. I became confident in my ability to explain my work and its value to anyone ranging from a high school student to a university-level researcher. If I could get a high school kid to understand the value of a new bismuth-tungstate product, who could I not convince? The experience itself of presenting to the students was invigorating, rewarding, and, most importantly, fun. It was refreshing and relieving to see students engaged in my research, asking good questions and, ideally, imagining themselves doing something similar in the future. I never thought of myself as someone who could motivate others, especially high school students, to pursue a career in science, but the Ambassadors Program showed me that I could. Originally, I had planned to use my science training to work in a lab or go directly into medicine. Now, due to the experience I had with the Science Ambassadors Program, my love for science, and my interest in social justice, I am taking time before medical school to teach. I am in my second year, of what will be three total, teaching in inner-city public schools. I am currently a chemistry and biology teacher at an all-girls school in Denver, CO. I consider this position a humble honor. Dayin, day-out, I have the opportunity to encourage women, most of which are of low-income and minority backgrounds, that they can be leaders in science. Someone did that for me when I was a teenager and it is a privilege to be able to return the favor working with a population where this encouragement and confidence has been grossly lacking historically.”

Future Vision The described program is very manageable for an individual research group to sustain, and if recruited early in their undergraduate studies, a Science Ambassador can participate for multiple years. For institutions with few in-state students or for students unable to travel to their former high schools, Science Ambassador visits can be arranged with local or regional schools, but this approach may limit the diversity of schools reached. Regardless of which schools are visited, the number of high school students reached in a given year is typically small as the advanced high school science classes have been the preferred audience in most cases. Yet, other chemistry colleagues at IU-B are now implementing this Science Ambassadors Program in their own research groups, and this type of program should be easily extended to other research fields (e.g., Physics, Computer Science, Biology, Psychology, and Engineering) given its general format. Thus, to increase the impact of this program both in terms of introducing new science topics to the general public and promoting undergraduate research, the described Science Ambassador visit could be incorporated into courses. For example, such a visit could be a part of a course on scientific 93

communication and outreach. An anticipated challenge would be the scheduling of the Science Ambassador visit prior to the end of a semester; however, the training of students would be accelerated in course format and could enable visits earlier in the semester (e.g., during spring break). A Science Ambassador visit could also be incorporated as part of a research capstone (e.g., thesis). In this way, the Science Ambassador model could have the capacity to reach a larger number of high school students, including many from regions that are not widely targeted by outreach programs.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to the following undergraduate researchers in the Skrabalak group: Adam Richter, Aaron Sue, Matthew Bower, Andjela Radmilovic, and Samantha Harvey. Authors MMB, SMH, and AJR contributed equally to this work by providing ambassador reflections. This work has been supported by Indiana University – Bloomington as well as NSF CAREER DMR-0955028, NSF CHE-1306853, NSF DMR-1608711, and NSF CHE-160247. This program is part of a 2012 Cottrell Scholar Award to SES from Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble; Penguin Books: New York, 2011; pp 1−304. Plous, S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1993; pp 1−302. Trefil, J. S. Why Science?; Teachers College Press: New York, 2008; pp 1−224. IU Fact Book. https://www.iu.edu/~uirr/reports/standard/factbook/?path=/ 2011-12/Bloomington/Fast_Facts/Fast_Facts (accessed November 27, 2016). Jenkins, S. V.; Gohman, T. D.; Miller, E. K.; Chen, J. Synthesis of Hollow Gold-Silver Alloyed Nanoparticles: A “Galvanic Replacement” Experiment for Chemistry and Engineering Students. J. Chem. Ed. 2015, 92, 1056–1060. Skrabalak S. E.; Steinmiller, E. M. P. Introducing Global Climate Change and Renewable Energy with Media Sources and a Simple Demonstration. In Sustainability in the Chemistry Curriculum; Middlecamp, C. H.; Jorgensen, A. A., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1087; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2012; pp 203−213. Recruitment and Retention of Women in Academic Chemistry, 2003. Royal Society of Chemistry. http://rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/ Documents/RecruitmentandRetentionofWomen.asp (accessed July 13, 2009).

94

Editors’ Biographies Rory Waterman Rory Waterman, Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Vermont, is an organometallic chemist with interests in synthesis, catalysis, small molecule activation, and energy applications. Prof. Waterman engages in pre- and in-service professional development for teachers through NSF Robert Noyce Scholarship and Math Science Partnership grants and is co-founder of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop. He is a 2009 Cottrell Scholar and has earned fellowships from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (2013) and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2009), and was named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2015.

Andrew Feig Andrew Feig, Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean, Graduate School, at Wayne State University, is a biochemist studying bacterial gene regulation by small non-coding RNAs and Clostridium difficile toxins A & B. Prof. Feig is PI of the NSF-funded WSU-WIDER program to improve the uptake and effective implementation of evidence-based teaching methods across campus and is cofounder of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop. He is a 2002 Cottrell Scholar, recipient of the CLAS Teaching Award (2012), WSU President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching (2013), PCSUM Michigan Professor of the Year (2015) and RNA Society’s Lifetime Service Award (2017).

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Indexes

Author Index Harvey, S., 85 Hernandez, R., 35 Honsberger, J., 69 Iyer, S., 35 Richter, A., 85 Ross, J., 35 Skrabalak, S., 85 Snyder, S., 13 Stains, M., 35 Thompson, L., 1 Waterman, R., ix, 23 Weerapana, E., 51 Wesemann, J., 35

Besson, D., 13 Beuning, P., 13 Bjorkman, K., 35 Bower, M., 85 Byers, J., 51 Chatterjee, A., 51 Clark, T., 69 Donovan, A., 35 Dorhout, P., 35 Emmerson, D., 69 Feig, A., ix, 23, 35 Hammer, P., 35 Hardy, J., 1

99

Subject Index C

M

Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop (CSC NFW) change, elephant in the room, 30 changing professional identity, 31 future for the event, 32 workshop, conceptual framework, 24 workshop data, 27 average RTOP scores, 30f evidence-based instructional practices, average number, 28f implementation of group work, frequency, 28f student-centered and teacher-centered scale, changes, 29f workshop structure, 26 2016 CSC New Faculty Workshop, schedule, 26t

Multi-faceted high school chemistry outreach program, 69 assessment, 75 familiarity with careers in chemistry, plot of responses, 77f highest degree expected in a STEM field, plot of responses, 78f lessons learned from the program, 79 outreach activities, percentage of student participation, 79t pursuing a career in a STEM field, plot of responses, 76f Perspectives from the high school teachers in the program, 79 high school teachers, perspectives chemistry research, 80 Honsberger, June, 81 outreach program, important features high school teacher research experience, 71 outreach activities, 73 outreach activities, role of undergraduate students, 74 program, adaptability graduate programs, 82 high school teacher, proximity, 82 Mutual mentoring in STEM group, procedure and process, 4 groups, value, 5 mentoring across the miles, 9 mentoring 8 days a week, 7 mutual mentoring group, how to start, 9 original groups, organizing, 2 our inspiration, 1 STEM graduate women, 7 graduate student groups, long-term health, 8

I Interdisciplinary outreach program interdisciplinary outreach program, organizing, 55 biodegradable polymers, 58 choosing a topic, 57 choosing collaborators, 55 common themed versus collaborative interdisciplinary outreach program, pros and cons, 57t defining the nuts and bolts, 59 experimental modules and their related disciplines in the P2P program, summary, 62t hierarchical mentorship, flow chart, 61f P2P program, workflow, 55f program, choosing the type, 56 program evaluation and beyond, 65 program execution, 63 recruiting participants, 62 paper to plastics (P2P) program, overview, 52 exit surveys of the P2P program, statistics obtained, 54f scientific goals, outline, 53f

N New faculty, professional development handbook, 13 focus, content, and benefits, 16 assessment, 17 mentoring, 18 outreach, 18 student-faculty relationships, 17 future directions, 20

101

motivation, 15 professional development, foundation faculty professional development workshops, 20 future faculty workshops, 19 student teaching workshops, 19

S Science Ambassadors, introducing high school students to chemical research, 85 future vision, 93 science ambassador and high school selection, 86 Science Ambassador program, benefits, 89 Harvey, Samantha M., Science Ambassador, 91 Richter, Adam J., Science Ambassador, 92 students in response to exit survey, direct quotes, 90f Science Ambassador recruitment and visit, representative timeline, 87f Science Ambassador visit, structure, 87 an exit survey for students, copy, 89f Personal Background slide for visit’s presentation, copy, 88f

T Teacher-scholars, leadership training, 35 background, 37 research-active professors, 38 entry page on the ALT Workshop Web pages, screen shot, 37f results and discussion, 44 executing leadership skills, workshop participants’ confidence, 47f topics related to leadership by workshop, self-reported knowledge, 46f workshop participants’ satisfaction, indices, 45f workshop, logistics, 39 workshop, methods, 40 breakout activities and work products, 42 breakout groups, 41 360-degree feedback, 43 facilitated sessions and EAL panels, 44 simulated interviews, 43

102