As an educator, my responsibilities are to the student/learner, the discipline and the institution. To maximize student learning, I must create a learning environment that enables students of diverse backgrounds to “risk” learning and to push themselves to their limits. This learning environment can be a formal classroom, a laboratory or any configuration for educator-student interaction in which the student is both liberally educated as a critical thinker and specifically trained in some practical ways as a novice scientist. As an educator, I must articulate my responsibilities to the student and to the discipline; I must evaluate cultural challenges facing education, as well as assess student learning and my own teaching effectiveness.
My responsibility to the student/learner requires me to do the following:
My responsibility to the discipline requires me to do the following:
In the traditional model of instruction, most of my teacher-student interaction takes place within the framework of an academic institution. The institution provides the resources for the teaching and learning experiences as well as the rules and regulations to ensure equitable utilization of these resources. I expect my students to appreciate the institutional mission (or goals) and to familiarize themselves with some of the institutional regulations as they affect my teaching and their learning experiences.
These are the basic elements that have driven my teaching performance. Evaluation of any teaching performance, however, is a very complex issue. One indicator of my teaching performance is when students can demonstrate an understanding of the scientific enterprise; (a) when they are familiar with the language discourse in the discipline, (b) when they can begin to ask important questions in science, (c) when they can design scientific ways of addressing their questions. This typically involves challenging the students by way of activities such as examinations (oral, written, objective and essay type) and inquiry-based laboratory exercises. Over the years, I have found problem-based learning approach to ‘teaching’ to be more effective – as judged by many student learning measures that I have implemented in my classrooms. Another measure of my teaching performance was from peer evaluations by faculty colleagues (those who attended most of my lectures) and from the students themselves. I used these assessment strategies to evaluate my teaching effectiveness for continual self-evaluation and improvement.
Institution | Courses Taught | Course Level | Number of Students Per Class |
Community College of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, PA): Allegheny Campus, South Campus & Boyce Campus (August 1984 – April 1988) |
Human Anatomy and Physiology | Undergraduate | 30 |
General Biology | Undergraduate | 45 | |
Zoology | Undergraduate | 17 | |
General Physics I and II | Undergraduate | 15 | |
General Chemistry | Undergraduate | 20 | |
University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA) (August 1982 – April 1987) |
General Biology | Undergraduate | 120 |
Shepherd University (Shepherdstown, WV) (August 1990 – December 1991) |
College Physics I and II | Undergraduate | 23 |
University of Missouri-Columbia (Columbia, MO) (August 1993 – April 1998) |
General Biochemistry | Undergraduate | 140 |
Physical Biochemistry | Graduate | 15 | |
Crystallography | Graduate | 14 | |
Molecular Biology II (team-teaching) | Graduate | 20 | |
State Technical College of Missouri (Linn, MO) (August 2000 – December 2000) |
Technical Writing | Course taught to faculty | 18 |
Northwest Missouri State University (Maryville, MO) (August 2004 – April 2018) |
Introduction to Biochemistry | Undergraduate | 45 |
Colloquium | Undergraduate | 55 | |
Effective Study Methods | Undergraduate | 60 |