Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: PER vs EdD (SciEd)



On Jan 20, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Edmiston, Mike wrote:

I teach at a small college. One of the things that prospective
students
(and parents) want to know is whether the courses will be taught by
real
"whatever." Will the chemistry courses be taught by "real chemists."
Will the history classes be taught by "real historians." In this
context I think "real" means that the person has done and/or is doing
physics research as opposed to physics education research. Said
another
way, are the courses going to be taught by "practicing physicists"
where
practicing means doing actual physics or having done/published actual
physics (not physics education).

Gee...I had more "real graduate students" than "real physicists". If
I'd known then what I know now about how "real physicists" get out of
teaching responsibilities I never would have attended my undergraduate
alma mater. Then again teaching isn't the priority there anyway.

A large state university obviously would have practicing physicists,
but
a small college might not. A small college is going to have a terrible
time recruiting physics majors if the prospective students and parents
cannot be convinced that the program is run by "real physicists."

I'd be happy if my (as yet nonexistent) children attended a college or
university where grad students don't do the pretend teaching.

It doesn't matter whether it is physics, math, English, history...
recruiting and holding top-notch faculty is difficult for a small
college. But that is what we must to do, because our survival depends
on it. Hence, we are not going to tenure faculty who don't have a
terminal degree in the field they are hired to profess (i.e. model) to
the students.

So the college's reputation for hiring "top-notch" (and I'm wondering
just what the means in this context) faculty supersedes the need to
deliver quality undergraduate instruction?

Having attended a large research university as an undergraduate, I can
tell you in no uncertain terms that the quality of undergraduate
instruction there was, and presumably still is, so poor as to be
borderline useless. I got through in spite of, rather than because of,
the system. Comments from my peers echo that observation then and now.
Practicing physicists (astronomers too) have one thing on their minds
-- getting tenure, and quality teaching isn't how one gets tenure. Even
when they get tenure, it's still all about the research. Teaching
rarely takes on any professional importance until near retirement.
Thank God a small handful of folks, some of whom are on this list, are
working to change that.

It's high time that the attempt to change the absurdity under which
undergraduate science instruction currently operates is recognized as
being every bit as important to science as any laboratory experiment or
astronomical observation. Some of us have no choice but to pursue this
route.

I'm sorry, but my fingers were cramping from holding my tongue all day
today. :-)

Cheers,
Joe Heafner -- Astronomy/Physics Instructor