1. Learning to teach by teaching neuroscience Patrick A. Forcelli, Ph.D. paf22@georgetown.edu Department of Pharmacology & Physiology Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience Georgetown University

2. Background Effective teaching is relevant for any career path a graduate student might follow. Teaching experience is associated with improved research skills. Despite the benefits of teaching, formal pedagogical training remains rare for graduate students. (Feldon et al. Science 2011;333:1037-1039).

3. Background The Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown does not have a teaching requirement. To create opportunities for graduate student teaching, IPN students launched a course in 2000 called “Diseases and Disorders of the Brain” Offered to undergraduate students at GU enrolled in the cognitive science minor program. >90 graduate students have taught in the last 12 years. 2-4 advanced graduate students serve as course directors each semester

4. Drugs, the brain, and behavior In 2008, the course was reorganized into two, one-semester electives for undergraduates in Biology, Psychology, and Cognitive science, as well as masters and first year Ph.D. students in Pharmacology & Physiology This change was more than a change in name, it was a change in focus. And most importantly, a transition to a “Course within a course”

5. Course within a course The course was re-designed with four goals: 1)To provide a comprehensive course in neuroscience to undergraduate and graduate students 2)To promote the development of scientific literacy in undergraduate and graduate students 3)To create an environment that fosters pedagogical awareness in Ph.D. students early in their teaching careers. 4)To develop strategies for coordinating team-taught courses within semesters and across years.

6. Goal: To create an environment that fosters pedagogical awareness in Ph.D. students early in their teaching careers. 1)Opportunities for formal training in teaching are rare 2)Training for students that serve as T.A.s often focuses on improving the quality of the undergraduates experience, rather than the knowledge and skill of the graduate student Incorporate the use of classroom technology early, rather than requiring later retraining.

7. Benefits for Lecturers: Peer-Mentor Model Who teaches in the course? Graduate students in the IPN and Pharmacology who have completed their qualifying exams Course directors serve as peer mentors for lecturers in the course. First time lecturers are required to send readings and powerpoint slides to the course directors for feedback at least a week in advance for feedback After lecturing, each lecturer receives written feedback from the course directors, as well as lecture evaluations from students within the course

8. Teaching Practicum To become a course director, students must now have taken a one-semester teaching practicum associated with the course during the first two years of their Ph.D. Practicum is offered for credit (1 or 2 credits) Goals Master course material: attend ½ of the lectures per semester Develop lecturing skills: give at least one lecture, select appropriate readings, write exam questions Develop skills at providing feedback: written (1/2 page) analysis of each lecture attended, with an emphasis on teaching strategy Focus on teaching strategies/pedagogy: two essays on topic of their choosing

9. Benefits for Course Directors: learning by doing Organize and coordinate syllabus Develop strategies to ensure consistency in team taught courses over lectures, semesters, and years. Opportunity to refine lecturers over semesters/years Gain experience in providing feedback to students as well as lecturers “Real world” ethical challenges (e.g., plagiarism) All with the backing of a support network, the course steering committee…

10. Benefits for Course Directors: Focus on effective communication Students enrolled in the course are required to present at least once on a primary literature article related to a lecture topic. Students must meet with course directors (and practicum students) at least 1 week prior to presentation to discuss the paper, and go over their presentation Detailed rubric-based grading helps to focus students on the mechanics of effective presentation Simultaneously raises the awareness of the course directors, practicum students and lecturers on strategies for presenting and effectively conveying scientific content

12. Steering Committee Made up of senior faculty from main campus and medical center departments Meets with course directors once per semester Provide written feedback on video recordings of lectures given by course directors, practicum students, and any other student lecturer that wishes to get additional feedback

13. Disadvantages/Difficulties Time investment for faculty, course directors, and lecturers Gaining approval for Biology students to take the course for credit Adapting to redundancies in the curriculum (launch of a neurobiology major for undergraduates) Student-Ph.D. mentor negotiations (is teaching worth your time?)

14. Outcomes/Advantages The vast majority of former course directors have gone on to traditional postdoctoral research positions after graduation (including an NIH PRAT fellow), one a entered a teaching position, one received a Fulbright scholarship, another a AAAS fellowship Several current participants in the course (lecturers, directors, and practicum students) have the desire to enter teaching- intensive positions, policy positions, and outreach positions It doesn't matter if you want a job in industry, government, at a large research university, or a small liberal arts college…...effective teaching can only help!

15. Thanks! Course Directors 2011-12 Sonya Dumanis Anthony Krafnick Teal Conner Sheeva Azma Misha Smirnov Steering Committee G William Rebeck, Ph.D. Karen Gale, Ph.D. Barry Wolfe, Ph.D. Maria Donoghue, Ph.D. David Lightfoot, Ph.D. Darlene Howard, Ph.D. For more information: Ullrich, Krafnick, Dumanis and Forcelli, Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education (JUNE), Spring 2012, 10(2):A105-12 Recent Course Directors Hilary North, Ph.D. Elizabeth West, Ph.D. Lauren Ullrich

16. Student-run, peer reviewed grant program Founded in 2010 Funds research grants for graduate students (up to $5000) 37 participants (reviewers and applicants) in the last two years 9 grants funded for a total of $25,000 Graduate students & postdocs serve as program officers and reviewers of grant applications Provides an additional grant writing opportunity Provides first hand experience for graduate students & postdocs to review grants Provides funds to complete small, independent research projects.