I heard from one of the professors connected with the MHRD that for institutions of higher education, the thought now is to have some faculty involved in research and others focusing on teaching.
I am told this is done in institutions like VIT and SRM.
I think the skill set required to teach undergrads and even some PG students is very different from those required for research. Very often, the two skill-sets are not present in one individual.
People like Glasstone, Atkins and the duo Morrison & Boyd, have written textbooks that transcend generations. They must have been good teachers since they valued good teaching. But as Atkins has said this is paid for by giving up research activities.
The argument that undergrad teaching must be backed by good research may be relevant in some (very few) educational institutions where extraordinary young people join the undergrad courses.
But most undergrads I have come across need to learn the basics of their subject first before serious research can become comprehensible. In their schools, they have been trained in passing a Chemistry exam rather than taught chemistry. It is in colleges that they can learn the fundamentals of the subject, if at all. THIS should be the aim of undergrad teaching.
This emphasis on research in IHE has made college teachers start research projects. The experiments are done with no regard to reproducibility, control, analysis of data etc. The teachers pay for the chemicals, spectra, tests etc, themselves. Hence they cannot afford to repeat experiments to check reproducibility. Even if they are funded, they are not very concerned about such things. They pay some amount (usually Rs 2000-5000) and get their 'research' published in dubious journals.
This unfortunate fallout is enough argument to de-link research from undergrad teaching in colleges.
I am told this is done in institutions like VIT and SRM.
I think the skill set required to teach undergrads and even some PG students is very different from those required for research. Very often, the two skill-sets are not present in one individual.
People like Glasstone, Atkins and the duo Morrison & Boyd, have written textbooks that transcend generations. They must have been good teachers since they valued good teaching. But as Atkins has said this is paid for by giving up research activities.
The argument that undergrad teaching must be backed by good research may be relevant in some (very few) educational institutions where extraordinary young people join the undergrad courses.
But most undergrads I have come across need to learn the basics of their subject first before serious research can become comprehensible. In their schools, they have been trained in passing a Chemistry exam rather than taught chemistry. It is in colleges that they can learn the fundamentals of the subject, if at all. THIS should be the aim of undergrad teaching.
This emphasis on research in IHE has made college teachers start research projects. The experiments are done with no regard to reproducibility, control, analysis of data etc. The teachers pay for the chemicals, spectra, tests etc, themselves. Hence they cannot afford to repeat experiments to check reproducibility. Even if they are funded, they are not very concerned about such things. They pay some amount (usually Rs 2000-5000) and get their 'research' published in dubious journals.
This unfortunate fallout is enough argument to de-link research from undergrad teaching in colleges.
No comments:
Post a Comment