Research in the development of teacher cognition and teaching performance in K–12 classrooms has identified consistent challenges and patterns of behavior that are congruent with the predictions of dual-process models of cognition. However, cognitive models of information processing are not often used to synthesize these results. This article reviews findings from the research on teaching and teacher education through the lens of a dual-process model and emphasizes the role that cognitive load plays in driving teaching performance. Data reflecting the salience of automaticity and its relationship with cognitive overload are highlighted, and implications for teacher preparation and inservice training strategies are discussed. Specific suggestions for teacher training draw on empirical findings from cognitive approaches to training that emphasize the development of automaticity in teaching skills to minimize extraneous cognitive load and maximize effective performance.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate students are often encouraged to maximize their engagement with supervised research and minimize teaching obligations. However, the process of teaching students engaged in inquiry provides practice in the application of important research skills. Using a performance rubric, we compared the quality of methodological skills demonstrated in written research proposals for two groups of early career graduate students (those with both teaching and research responsibilities and those with only research responsibilities) at the beginning and end of an academic year. After statistically controlling for preexisting differences between groups, students who both taught and conducted research demonstrate significantly greater improvement in their abilities to generate testable hypotheses and design valid experiments. These results indicate that teaching experience can contribute substantially to the improvement of essential research skills.
Equitable gender representation is an important aspect of scientific workforce development to secure a sufficient number of individuals and a diversity of perspectives. Biology is the most gender equitable of all scientific fields by the marker of degree attainment, with 52.5% of PhDs awarded to women. However, equitable rates of degree completion do not translate into equitable attainment of faculty or postdoctoral positions, suggesting continued existence of gender inequalities. In a national cohort of 336 first-year PhD students in the biological sciences (i.e., microbiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, and genetics) from 53 research institutions, female participants logged significantly more research hours than males and were significantly more likely than males to attribute their work hours to the demands of their assigned projects over the course of the academic year. Despite this, males were 15% more likely to be listed as authors on published journal articles, indicating inequality in the ratio of time to credit. Given the cumulative advantage that accrues for students who publish early in their graduate careers and the central role that scholarly productivity plays in academic hiring decisions, these findings collectively point to a major potential source of persisting underrepresentation of women on university faculties in these fields.
30 September 2019 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Significance: Conventional wisdom in the laboratory sciences suggests that PhD students develop their research skills as a function of mentorship from their faculty advisors (i.e., principal investigators; PIs). However, no prior research has identified empirically a relationship between specific PI practices and the development of research skills. Here we show that PIs’ laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students’ skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. These findings support the practice of “cascading mentorship” as differentially effective and identify a critical but previously unrecognized role for postdocs in the graduate training process. They also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education.